Who should rule test?

[ScreamingEagle]

I would be wrong if I were to claim that no absolutes exist. I already acknowledged that. I'm claiming that morality is relative.

Relative to what?

Point me to anything that has been invented (not discovered) by humans that is in any way an absolute and you'll have me on the mat and I'll cry "uncle".

Since morality is based on absolutes, at the core it is not a human "invention".

Conscience is a result of good socialisation and proper brain function. Sociopaths exist in society, most of them are functional and not criminal but they simply have no conscience for some reason or the other. If a higher power had given us conscience then why would that higher power have failed to give a conscience to a significant minority of the population?

Stealing is only a problem where a society had invented the concept of individual property rights. In societies where there was no concept of individual property rights (eg Australian aboriginal societies) there was (is) no conception of stealing.

Killing the innocent is a qualification. Killing is the physical action of taking the life of another sentient being. As such it's an example of relative morals. Killing an enemy in war is morally acceptable, killing an innocent is not morally acceptable. To know the moral nature of "killing" we have to identify the subject being killed and the context in which the action of killing is taking place.

Morals are made by humans so we can get along with each other. Morals are not the same throughout history and in various locations, they are invented in situ by communities, therefore they are relative, they are not constant across time and space and they are not absolute because they are human inventions and no human invented anything that was an absolute.

Conscience is what you feel when your actions do not match up with your morals.

Moral relativity means one does not have a standard to go by because there is no belief in absolute good or evil. Therefore your conscience is only dependent on what morals you believe in at the moment...or does it? Seems that if morals are only relative, your conscience would only be relative too...and not really even matter much…since it would never really be in serious conflict with your morals since your morals could change momentarily.

So what is it that originally told us that some things "should be" a certain way? That something is wrong with suffering, stealing, starvation, rape, pain, and evil? That love, generosity, compassion, and peace are right? Where did that "inner knowledge" come from? If morals are only relative, there cannot be a right or wrong….so why is it people feel things to be right or wrong in the first place?

 

[midcan5]

Matt wrote.

"Question one: Why not let someone sacrifice himself for millions if he wants to do so?"

But we did not harm him, argument holds.

"Question two: Is it always wrong to harm another? What if it is for his own good? What if you don’t know what is best for him? A scenario to think about with respect to question two:"

But that doesn't make it relative, it only assumes that certain actions have some unknown consequence. Your action was still guilded by your concern for another. Argument still holds.

This is the trouble with debating relativism, it can get absurd. I need to check if any one countered my proposal. Saying you believe something still needs proof.

 

[midcan5]

Diuretic wrote,

"Let me make another claim. Since morality is a human invention it can't be absolute. The only absolutes are those in nature, in the universe, in physics."

Let me offer some counter points. We are a part of nature.

"I would be wrong if I were to claim that no absolutes exist. I already acknowledged that. I'm claiming that morality is relative."

Then in some society it is Ok to harm another human being without reason?

"Point me to anything that has been invented (not discovered) by humans that is in any way an absolute and you'll have me on the mat and I'll cry "uncle".

Not sure I understand the question but vaccines are an absolute good.

"Stealing is only a problem where a society had invented the concept of individual property rights. In societies where there was no concept of individual property rights (eg Australian aboriginal societies) there was (is) no conception of stealing."

The concept of stealing may not exist but I would bet some idea of property does exist. But this is outside my argument.

"Morals are made by humans so we can get along with each other. Morals are not the same throughout history and in various locations, they are invented in situ by communities, therefore they are relative, they are not constant across time and space and they are not absolute because they are human inventions and no human invented anything that was an absolute."

I disagree all morals are man made or only about getting along, I would argue that without nurturing our youth we would have ceased to exist long ago. That concern is an absolute and until 'brave new world' continues to be one. It even exists in higher primates. One could say it is not moral as in your use of moral but it is imperative to existence.

 

[mattskramer]

The Bible says in Romans 1:18-20 that

"What may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."

Because an old book says something does not make it true. I just said that the Bible had contradictions and absurdities. The Bible proves noting. Anything that you would pull from the Bible and claim as a universal absolute is nothing but appealing to an alleged authority (a book) with sentences that might or might not be true.

 

[Diuretic]

Originally Posted by Diuretic
I would be wrong if I were to claim that no absolutes exist. I already acknowledged that. I'm claiming that morality is relative.

Eagle:
Relative to what?

Just relative, in other words, not absolute.

Originally Posted by Diuretic
Point me to anything that has been invented (not discovered) by humans that is in any way an absolute and you'll have me on the mat and I'll cry "uncle".

Since morality is based on absolutes, at the core it is not a human "invention".

Looks like we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point.

Originally Posted by Diuretic
Conscience is a result of good socialisation and proper brain function.
Sociopaths exist in society, most of them are functional and not criminal but they simply have no conscience for some reason or the other.

If a higher power had given us conscience then why would that higher power have failed to give a conscience to a significant minority of the population?

Stealing is only a problem where a society had invented the concept of individual property rights. In societies where there was no concept of individual property rights (eg Australian aboriginal societies) there was (is) no conception of stealing.

Killing the innocent is a qualification. Killing is the physical action of taking the life of another sentient being. As such it's an example of relative morals. Killing an enemy in war is morally acceptable, killing an innocent is not morally acceptable. To know the moral nature of "killing" we have to identify the subject being killed and the context in which the action of killing is taking place.

Morals are made by humans so we can get along with each other. Morals are not the same throughout history and in various locations, they are invented in situ by communities, therefore they are relative, they are not constant across time and space and they are not absolute because they are human inventions and no human invented anything that was an absolute.

Eagle:
Conscience is what you feel when your actions do not match up with your morals.


Have you seen a kid in the “terrible twos” stage of development? Do you think that child has a conscience or a sense of morality?


Eagle:
Moral relativity means one does not have a standard to go by because there is no belief in absolute good or evil. Therefore your conscience is only dependent on what morals you believe in at the moment...or does it? Seems that if morals are only relative, your conscience would only be relative too...and not really even matter much…since it would never really be in serious conflict with your morals since your morals could change momentarily.


If morality is created by humans so that we can all get along, then in a specific time and place they exist and they provide guidance for us. As long as we're not sociopathic and we have been brought up properly by our parents then if we transgress the moral code we will feel guilt.

So what is it that originally told us that some things "should be" a certain way? That something is wrong with suffering, stealing, starvation, rape, pain, and evil? That love, generosity, compassion, and peace are right? Where did that "inner knowledge" come from? If morals are only relative, there cannot be a right or wrong….so why is it people feel things to be right or wrong in the first place?

Humans are simple creatures, we like pleasure, we don't like pain. We prefer comfort to discomfort. We tend to approve those things that give us pleasure and we tend to disapprove or avoid things that give us pain. Humans are able to learn from interaction with their environment. We've learned about the world from experience and we pass on our learning to our peers and to our children.
Of course there can be a right and wrong without a need for moral absolutes. It used to be wrong to eat meat on Fridays if you were a Catholic, now it's okay I understand. Right and wrong are human inventions, being human inventions they're not absolutes. The things we don't like – pain – are called “wrong” because we want to see less of them. The things we like we call “right” because we want more of them

 

[Diuretic]

Diuretic:

"Let me make another claim. Since morality is a human invention it can't be absolute. The only absolutes are those in nature, in the universe, in physics."

midcan5:
Let me offer some counter points. We are a part of nature.
Which is why we respond to absolutes such as gravity. And it's also a reason we developed the concept of morality because "nature red in tooth and claw" is a cruel and terrible place and we needed to cooperate to survive.

Diuretic:
"I would be wrong if I were to claim that no absolutes exist. I already acknowledged that. I'm claiming that morality is relative."

midcan5
Then in some society it is Ok to harm another human being without reason?

I would think not. We do harm each other with regularity but usually it's a rational act. If someone harms another without reason then they're probably going to be locked up in a mental institution.

Diuretic:
"Point me to anything that has been invented (not discovered) by humans that is in any way an absolute and you'll have me on the mat and I'll cry "uncle".

midcan5
Not sure I understand the question but vaccines are an absolute good.

Are you sure? Properly used they're good for us but again it depends on the context. When Jenner began to experiment with cowpox vaccination I would think that many people thought he was wrong to inject people with one disease to prevent another, smallpox, which was much worse. Yes, the use of vaccines is good, vaccines of themselves are neither good nor bad, they just are.

Diuretic:
"Stealing is only a problem where a society had invented the concept of individual property rights. In societies where there was no concept of individual property rights (eg Australian aboriginal societies) there was (is) no conception of stealing."

midcan5
The concept of stealing may not exist but I would bet some idea of property does exist. But this is outside my argument.

Yes it's drifting a bit isn't it? There was/is an idea of property in aboriginal society in Australia, it was/is collective and not personal, that was my point. Stealing as a concept isn't an absolute because it doesn't exist everywhere in space and time.

Diuretic:
"Morals are made by humans so we can get along with each other. Morals are not the same throughout history and in various locations, they are invented in situ by communities, therefore they are relative, they are not constant across time and space and they are not absolute because they are human inventions and no human invented anything that was an absolute."

midcan5
I disagree all morals are man made or only about getting along, I would argue that without nurturing our youth we would have ceased to exist long ago. That concern is an absolute and until 'brave new world' continues to be one. It even exists in higher primates. One could say it is not moral as in your use of moral but it is imperative to existence.

The concern for our young is an instinct, it's not a question of morality. Whether or not we allow our young to live is a question of morality (and in certain circumstances - I'm thinking of nomadic people - it's a survival issue) and that's determined by us.

 

[midcan5]

Diuretic, Matt,

I'm playing devil's advocate here but I not sure anything has ruled out our duty not to harm another human or prove such a thing is relative? I need to read again.

Can one, for instance, imagine a situation in which one treated people well or in some unharmful way and then moved to another nation/culture and didn't because, well, you know it's all relative?

 

[AllieBaba]

People who lived with cannibals when they were still cannibals.

 

[Diuretic]

Diuretic, Matt,

I'm playing devil's advocate here but I not sure anything has ruled out our duty not to harm another human or prove such a thing is relative? I need to read again.

Can one, for instance, imagine a situation in which one treated people well or in some unharmful way and then moved to another nation/culture and didn't because, well, you know it's all relative?

Good question to which I would respond that I think there may be a difference between a universal good and an absolute. The idea of duty not to harm probably arose from looking after "ours" rather than humanity in general. And that could have arisen from a very utilitarian view that in our little tribes rushing around the savannah trying not to get eaten we needed as many functioning hands as we could gather. So taking out a useful pair of hands would have threatened the viability of the tribe.

How "good" and "bad" manifests itself depends on the context. In an advanced industrial society in the 21st century we would generally agree that killing a disabled baby is a bad thing. But if we were in a nomadic tribe in a savannah thousands of years ago we might think it was good to kill the baby as it would be a hindrance and hence a threat to our group survival.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Eagle:
Relative to what?
Just relative, in other words, not absolute.

Since morality is based on absolutes, at the core it is not a human "invention".

Looks like we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point.


Eagle:
Conscience is what you feel when your actions do not match up with your morals.


Have you seen a kid in the “terrible twos” stage of development? Do you think that child has a conscience or a sense of morality?

Eagle:
Moral relativity means one does not have a standard to go by because there is no belief in absolute good or evil. Therefore your conscience is only dependent on what morals you believe in at the moment...or does it? Seems that if morals are only relative, your conscience would only be relative too...and not really even matter much…since it would never really be in serious conflict with your morals since your morals could change momentarily.


If morality is created by humans so that we can all get along, then in a specific time and place they exist and they provide guidance for us. As long as we're not sociopathic and we have been brought up properly by our parents then if we transgress the moral code we will feel guilt.

Humans are simple creatures, we like pleasure, we don't like pain. We prefer comfort to discomfort. We tend to approve those things that give us pleasure and we tend to disapprove or avoid things that give us pain. Humans are able to learn from interaction with their environment. We've learned about the world from experience and we pass on our learning to our peers and to our children.
Of course there can be a right and wrong without a need for moral absolutes. It used to be wrong to eat meat on Fridays if you were a Catholic, now it's okay I understand. Right and wrong are human inventions, being human inventions they're not absolutes. The things we don't like – pain – are called “wrong” because we want to see less of them. The things we like we call “right” because we want more of them

Now you're trying to have it both ways. Moral relativism does not mean you can have a set standard of moral rules because you can change your rules at the drop of a hat depending on the situation. A set standard implies an absolute.

You describe man as one would describe animals that develop social patterns. However, I've yet to see an animal with a conscience.

Morality is more than just a social construct. Throughout history and many different societies there are common threads that are repeated over and over. These are the basic moral absolutes that are found everywhere and through time. These are the moral absolutes and standards that form our human rights.

Moral relativists believe in tolerance. Tolerance does not work because one must tolerate everything - the bad as well as the good. They have no set standards. Once moral relativists stop tolerating, they become like absolutists with standards.

 

[midcan5]

People who lived with cannibals when they were still cannibals.

First, that assumes someone could do that who was raised in another culture, and second, it assumes there is harm. If a dead relative or a dead enemy that is not harm in the way we define harm. Below lists two instances of cannibalism, but C is filled with myth and make believe, so it is doubtful it is a good example for debate. Also even if possible for people to do, it is completely unacceptable in modern culture.

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/exploration/news/news_cannibalism_nsv.htm

"The Wari' are unusual because they practiced two distinct forms of cannibalism in warfare and funerals," Conklin says. "However, the two practices were very different and had very different meanings. Eating enemies was an intentional expression of anger and disdain for the enemy. But at funerals, when they consumed members of their own group who died naturally, it was done out of affection and respect for the dead person and as a way to help survivors cope with their grief."