Who should rule test?

[ScreamingEagle]

Actually your nation was founded on the ideas of Montesquieu and Locke and aspects of English common law and a whole heap of other ideas. I don't know if they can be called universal truths. I mean, the doctrine of the separation of powers was thought up by Montesquieu - a very good doctrine but hardly a universal truth.

Now, why are leftists "moral relativists"?

This is a pretty good description why:

Moral Relativism, also known as Situational Ethics, is what has caused the decline of the Liberal Left. It began with the with the idea that "Nothing is always right or always wrong." Ironically, this is an idea that they feel is always right. It is, however, an idea that is easily proved wrong. For example, it's always wrong to oppress people, or to commit genocide.

Moral Relativity has been combined with several other ideas to create what we think of as the modern liberal. Here is the way it went:

In the nineteen-sixties the idea that we should tolerate each others differences (at that time primarily racial differences) was pushed hard in schools and the media. This was, and is, a noble idea. It was referred to as "Racial Tolerance."

Racial Tolerance gradually became simply "Tolerance," and began to include under it's umbrella tolerance for other cultures, nationalities, religions and forms of sexuality. Still a laudable concept. Our Declaration of Independence begins with it, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

The idea of "Tolerance" began to meld with the idea that "Nothing is always right or always wrong" and became "Nothing of ours is better than something of theirs" and then more recently mutated into "Nothing of ours is ever as good as anything of theirs."

This can be seen today in the fact that the Left is only upset by the use of force when it is the U.S. using force. In the fact that, if the U.S. has a vested interest in the use of force, it is unacceptable to the Left, but if there is no benefit to the U.S. at all the use of force is mandatory. Take, for example the difference in the Left's resistance to the use military force in Iraq (How dare you?) and their desire for the use of force in Liberia (How dare you not?). In Iraq we have many vested interests, in Liberia none.

It can also be seen in the drive to multi-nationalism and the desire to subjugate the will of the U.S. to the will of the United Nations. They believe that only other nations could be fair and impartial enough to decide whether the U.S. is threatened enough to require the use of force to protect itself. They believe that only other nations could be fair and impartial enough to try Saddam Hussein for his crimes against the Iraqis. The U.S. is, in their eyes, incapable of the exercise of power or judgment in any way other than bullying self-interest.

It can be seen in the Left's approach to Abortion. Does this sound familiar: "I don't believe in it myself, I think it's horrible, but who am I to tell other people what to think?" They can't see that there is an absolute involved; that Killing is bad, and should only be done to protect yourself and others from people who will not be dissuaded in any other way.

They also believe that the Government is better suited to taking care of us than we are ourselves. In this case the Government is the "other" who's "everything" is better than our own.

Our culture is not as good as Europe's, our leaders are not as smart as the United Nations, our medical system is not as good as Canada's. Our fill-in-the-blank is not as good as their fill-in-the-blank. In an all-out war they believe that the enemy has a greater right to defend themselves than we do. What it comes down to is that they don't believe our culture/country/lives are worth fighting for because they aren't worth a damn. Because nothing of ours is ever as good as anything of theirs.

http://www.everythingiknowiswrong.com/2003/12/the_decline_of_.html

 

[Diuretic]

Why would you care? From what I've seen, you favor 'no government', right?

But I'm not a Nihilist, so I'm interested.

 

[Diuretic]

SE - I really don't see moral relativism as being something to be avoided or condemned. I see it in opposition to moral absolutism though. The piece you've referenced, interesting as it is, is just a polemical attack on those who don't favour moral absolutism. The moral absolutists like to think that the world is black and white. We know it's more complex than that. It's comforting to live in a mental world of definite right and wrong but the real world is much more complex.

I always find it's more instructive to work through an issue rather than wheel out labels and slogans instead of exchanging views and ideas.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

SE - I really don't see moral relativism as being something to be avoided or condemned. I see it in opposition to moral absolutism though. The piece you've referenced, interesting as it is, is just a polemical attack on those who don't favour moral absolutism. The moral absolutists like to think that the world is black and white. We know it's more complex than that. It's comforting to live in a mental world of definite right and wrong but the real world is much more complex.

I always find it's more instructive to work through an issue rather than wheel out labels and slogans instead of exchanging views and ideas.

"Just a polemical attack on those who don't favour moral absolutism"?

Hah, you can't face the truth, so you just blithely dismiss it…

I found it an excellent summary how leftist liberals and their wishy-washy thinking are destroying democracy. There are many in your own country down under who would agree.

 

[Diuretic]

"Just a polemical attack on those who don't favour moral absolutism"?

Hah, you can't face the truth, so you just blithely dismiss it…

I found it an excellent summary how leftist liberals and their wishy-washy thinking are destroying democracy. There are many in your own country down under who would agree.

I can face the truth when I see it, but I don't see it, just a bunch of un-connected statements meandering through your posts masquerading as evidence of claim.

If you're a moral absolutist then put your justification for it. I'm not a moral absolutist, I probably am a moral relativist when compared to absolutists but I'm prepared to defend my stance.

Can you justify moral absolutism?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I can face the truth when I see it, but I don't see it, just a bunch of un-connected statements meandering through your posts masquerading as evidence of claim.

If you're a moral absolutist then put your justification for it. I'm not a moral absolutist, I probably am a moral relativist when compared to absolutists but I'm prepared to defend my stance.

Can you justify moral absolutism?

Do you believe absolute good (or evil) exists or not?

I can say it is absolutely wrong to kill someone (without good reason). Do you disagree with that?

I can say it is absolutely wrong to lie (without good reason). Do you disagree with that?

 

[CorpMediaSux]

Hi not to be a jerk about this, but you actually can't say

I can say it is absolutely wrong to kill someone (without good reason). Do you disagree with that?
I can say it is absolutely wrong to lie (without good reason). Do you disagree with that?

Why? Because your parenthetical statements void out the "absoluteness" of the moral claim you are discussing. Absolutely doesn't mean "really" or "very" or 99% , it means 100% all the time, regardless of circumstance. Asbolute power, for example was a monarchs ability to do whatever he/she wanted to do to their citizens with NO impunity. Absolutely saying it is wrong to kill another human means you have to be both against abortion AND against the death penalty and against killing someone out of self defense. I do find it is interesting that the right confuses their own very personal sense of morality with "absolute" notions of good and bad. Your ideas about what's right and wrong are just as culturally reletavist as anyone's.

 

[Diuretic]

CMS is right. But in the spirit of conversational inquiry I'll answer your questions.

Do you believe absolute good (or evil) exists or not?

No.

I can say it is absolutely wrong to kill someone (without good reason). Do you disagree with that?

This is going to sound like a quibble but you qualified your statement by bringing in the justification of "with good reason". But that's okay because I know what you mean. It would be okay to kill someone in self defence, yes. So it's not absolutely wrong to kill anyone.

I can say it is absolutely wrong to lie (without good reason). Do you disagree with that?

Yes, it would be okay to lie to save a life, so it's not absolutely wrong to lie.
It depends on context.

It would be wrong to lie in court under oath for example.

So telling a lie might be okay in one context but not okay in another. Again it depends on context, so it can't be an absolute.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Fine lets ask it this way....

Murder is a term that means killing someone and does not include the concept they were justified in anyway.

Are you now going to state murder is ever NOT wrong?

And I feel sorry for anyone that can not fathom that evil exists and is real. There are forces in the world that are evil. There are PEOPLE in the world that are Evil.

We all have evil and good in us. But some people are pure evil.

 

[Diuretic]

Fine lets ask it this way....

Murder is a term that means killing someone and does not include the concept they were justified in anyway.

Are you now going to state murder is ever NOT wrong?

It can't be. By it's very definition murder is wrong.

And I feel sorry for anyone that can not fathom that evil exists and is real. There are forces in the world that are evil. There are PEOPLE in the world that are Evil.

We all have evil and good in us. But some people are pure evil.

All that is irrelevant, it's what you think. As such it's all subjective.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It can't be. By it's very definition murder is wrong.



All that is irrelevant, it's what you think. As such it's all subjective.

Yet you have insisted nothing is et in stone. Thus murder must not be always wrong.

Lets take some hypotheticals shall we?

A man kills the person that murdered his child but due to some technicality or a hung jury the killer was not yet found guilty. But it is known for a fact the person did the murder. For example the father saw him do it, or he confessed but the confession was thrown out on some technicality.

A man shoots and kills some children in a playground. Then drops his gun and waits for the cops to arrive. One of those kids was yours or a friends, you shoot him and kill him.

A man kills 2 cops, in the chase to capture him he surrenders but cops that witnessed the original killings shot him dead anyway.

Osama Bin Laden walks into a meeting of the families of the victims of 9/11 and is beaten to death.

 

[CorpMediaSux]

Murder is a term that means killing someone and does not include the concept they were justified in anyway.
Are you now going to state murder is ever NOT wrong?

I think everyone can agree that killing someone without justification is murder, but what people do not agree upon is the issue of "justification." A definition is only the sum of its terms and if people don't agree on those terms, then it is an ineffectual murder. In the strictest sense, everyone who is not a sociopath will say that an unjustified killing is wrong, but when you start to get into what counts as "justification" you return to the same debates you are trying to avoid by narrowly defining murder. At some level everyone has a subjective understanding what right and wrong are.

Murder is a term that means killing someone and does not include the concept they were justified in anyway.
Are you now going to state murder is ever NOT wrong?

What does the knowledge of evil get us? I think some things are evil that you do not think are evil and we're just back at the same disagreement, except now we've added the term "evil" in order to give our claims some moral weight. Calling something "evil" doesnt show how righteous you are, it only shows that you REALLY believe what you believe, which makes you no different from anyone.

 

[mattskramer]

Do you believe absolute good (or evil) exists or not?

I can say it is absolutely wrong to kill someone (without good reason). Do you disagree with that?

I can say it is absolutely wrong to lie (without good reason). Do you disagree with that?

I like the qualifiers “without good reason”. That, in itself, removes the notion of an absolute. In addition, there is debate and disagreement about what constitutes good reason: A moment of outrage, a jealous husband finding his wife cheating, a father seeing his son’s murderer a few months after the murderer was declared innocent based on a technicality, vigilantly justice, etc.

 

[jillian]

Yet you have insisted nothing is et in stone. Thus murder must not be always wrong.

Actually, by definition, murder IS always wrong because the legal definition of murder implies a lack of justification.

If someone kills with justification, then it isn't murder. It might be justifiable homicide, but not murder.

Even the words "Thou shalt not kill" from the 10 Commandments are actually misinterpreted, in the original, it actually says "Thou shalt not murder" but has been passed on incorrectly. Even the most rigorous bible scholar would agree that the bible allows for self-defense, defense of others and probably defense of property under certain circumstances.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Actually, by definition, murder IS always wrong because the legal definition of murder implies a lack of justification.

If someone kills with justification, then it isn't murder. It might be justifiable homicide, but not murder.

Even the words "Thou shalt not kill" from the 10 Commandments are actually misinterpreted, in the original, it actually says "Thou shalt not murder" but has been passed on incorrectly. Even the most rigorous bible scholar would agree that the bible allows for self-defense, defense of others and probably defense of property under certain circumstances.

Your all playing semantics. On one hand you want to claim something is not what it is, but then when pointed out your wrong you want to claim " well somethings are"

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Your all playing semantics. On one hand you want to claim something is not what it is, but then when pointed out your wrong you want to claim " well somethings are"

The argument that because it is a law it there fore is set in stone and unimpeachable is an interesting opinion.

Remind me about your belief this is so with say

Illegal alien laws?

Drug possession and use laws?

The 2nd Amendment?

Abortion laws? Especially when they are changed to be less inclusive.

And a slew of laws you may personally dislike.

 

[AllieBaba]

As I have had pointed out to me when I made the presumption about the commandment referring to murder and not killing........it's a theory.

I believe it's a correct theory, but there you have it.

 

[midcan5]

Mattskramer, you did well, I would disagree that we are better than any homeless person but that must be the remnants of Catholicism, hard wired, as Doug would say, somewhere in the inter-connectivity of brain cells. I sometimes feel like Helen from Galatea 2.2. lol

Quote from Screaming reply, "Moral Relativism, also known as Situational Ethics, is what has caused the decline of the Liberal Left. It began with the with the idea that "Nothing is always right or always wrong." Ironically, this is an idea that they feel is always right. It is, however, an idea that is easily proved wrong. For example, it's always wrong to oppress people, or to commit genocide."

I think the Right has done the greatest job of propaganda known to contemporary peoplekind. I haven't been able to find a single bad thing liberals are not responsible for in the right wing pantheon of Bullshit.

But as a leading liberal philosopher Ronald Dworkin says in, "Is Democracy Possible Here?" two values I agree with: principle of intrinsic value: each human life holds a special kind of objective value, and second, the principle of personal responsibility: each person has a responsibility for realizing that value in their life.

Interesting how that one question about values generated so much discussion.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Hi not to be a jerk about this, but you actually can't say


Why? Because your parenthetical statements void out the "absoluteness" of the moral claim you are discussing. Absolutely doesn't mean "really" or "very" or 99% , it means 100% all the time, regardless of circumstance. Asbolute power, for example was a monarchs ability to do whatever he/she wanted to do to their citizens with NO impunity. Absolutely saying it is wrong to kill another human means you have to be both against abortion AND against the death penalty and against killing someone out of self defense. I do find it is interesting that the right confuses their own very personal sense of morality with "absolute" notions of good and bad. Your ideas about what's right and wrong are just as culturally reletavist as anyone's.

Not so fast. An absolutist can experience what we call a "moral dilemma" and still follow the absolute laws of God. For example one is not supposed to lie but one is also supposed to love thy neighbors. If for example, a Nazi demands the whereabouts of your Jewish neighbors, do you lie and save them or tell the Nazi where they are and have them killed? You choose to lie because you choose love and mercy for the innocent instead of truth for the guilty.

I find it interesting how the left condemns Christian teachings because they are "absolutist" in nature (as if that is a bad thing) and thus think they are so much more "advanced" with their moral relativism. No society has ever survived moral relativism.

If relativists were "tolerant" like they claim to be, they would tolerate absolutists, but they don't. Just take a look at all those wonderfully "tolerant" secular relativists attacking Christians today.

And logically, relativism asserts an absolute morality…that of relativism. Therefore moral relativists are essentially absolutist at the core.

 

[Diuretic]

Not so fast. An absolutist can experience what we call a "moral dilemma" and still follow the absolute laws of God. For example one is not supposed to lie but one is also supposed to love thy neighbors. If for example, a Nazi demands the whereabouts of your Jewish neighbors, do you lie and save them or tell the Nazi where they are and have them killed? You choose to lie because you choose love and mercy for the innocent instead of truth for the guilty.

I find it interesting how the left condemns Christian teachings because they are "absolutist" in nature (as if that is a bad thing) and thus think they are so much more "advanced" with their moral relativism. No society has ever survived moral relativism.

If relativists were "tolerant" like they claim to be, they would tolerate absolutists, but they don't. Just take a look at all those wonderfully "tolerant" secular relativists attacking Christians today.

And logically, relativism asserts an absolute morality…that of relativism. Therefore moral relativists are essentially absolutist at the core.

Is it me or did none of that make sense?