Who should rule test?

[midcan5]

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.

The left does not condemn Christian teachings, the left condemns the interference of Christian teachings into the public realm. It is the same as Islamic teachings, we, and by we I mean most people, do not want religion to be the controlling authority or we will return to the Dark Ages. Liberals are not relativists, I think the few who argue that misinterpret the meaning of relative. My life and the responsibility to pursue the goals of my life are not relative. Without those established values I could not even write this. The religious who need to become 'more' relativist, as respect for life styles and individual freedoms is where their absolutism is least desired.

Your last sentence reminds of this quotation.

"We cannot define anything precisely! If we attempt to, we get into that paralysis of thought that comes to philosophers, who sit opposite each other, one saying to the other, 'You don't know what you are talking about!' The second one says 'What do you mean by know? What do you mean by talking? What do you mean by you?', and so on. " Richard Feynman

 

[mattskramer]

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.

Hmmm. I thought that the “10 Commandments” did not give exceptions – particularly about giving false witness. Okay. Are you to love your neighbor even when you learn that your neighbor is about to go on a shooting spree and your only chance to prevent the shooting spree is to kill him. Oh those moral dilemmas – to me they are simply exceptions to those “absolutes”.

Um. I’m a moral relativist. While I disagree with the philosophy of “absolutists” I tolerate them. One can vocally criticize other people’s views and notions, while still tolerating them.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Um. I’m a moral relativist.

Yes. Nothing is inherently right or wrong.

Like...oh... the Holocaust.
I mean, who are we to judge the actions of the Nazis, given that, according to the standards of their society, it was OK to commit genocide.

Right?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

The left does not condemn Christian teachings, the left condemns the interference of Christian teachings into the public realm. It is the same as Islamic teachings, we, and by we I mean most people, do not want religion to be the controlling authority or we will return to the Dark Ages. Liberals are not relativists, I think the few who argue that misinterpret the meaning of relative. My life and the responsibility to pursue the goals of my life are not relative. Without those established values I could not even write this. The religious who need to become 'more' relativist, as respect for life styles and individual freedoms is where their absolutism is least desired.

Your last sentence reminds of this quotation.

"We cannot define anything precisely! If we attempt to, we get into that paralysis of thought that comes to philosophers, who sit opposite each other, one saying to the other, 'You don't know what you are talking about!' The second one says 'What do you mean by know? What do you mean by talking? What do you mean by you?', and so on. " Richard Feynman

In the context of creating law, condemning the interference of Christian teachings into the public realm is the same thing as condemning Christian teachings. If the left can trace any proposed legislation back to Christian teachings, which of course they will, they will attack that legislation on the basis that it is "religious" and pull out their "separation of church and state" card. This in essence is silencing Christians and their beliefs as to how society should be run. It is not preventing the establishment of religion because there is no religion being established -- although that is the leftist argument. However, the end result of this maneuvering is that leftists are in the process of instituting their own set of beliefs into law….all in the name of "secularism".

Yes, liberals are relativists in large part. If you actually think otherwise, please link me to the moral code that they actually follow as a group. There isn't one that I'm aware of. Libs each have their own "personal" set of values….all tailored to what each thinks is best for himself…and which can change at a moment's notice. You can easily look up the moral code of most Christians by just looking up the Ten Commandments.

Leftists hate absolutists (those religious folks you know) because they don't like being held to any standard of behavior. If they had to follow high standards they couldn't feel justified in pushing legislation that allows for pornography, prostitution, abortion on demand, laws defying parental control, hitting on the neighbor's wife, homosexuality, lax punishment for crimes, and so on.

Hmmm. I thought that the “10 Commandments” did not give exceptions – particularly about giving false witness. Okay. Are you to love your neighbor even when you learn that your neighbor is about to go on a shooting spree and your only chance to prevent the shooting spree is to kill him. Oh those moral dilemmas – to me they are simply exceptions to those “absolutes”.

Um. I’m a moral relativist. While I disagree with the philosophy of “absolutists” I tolerate them. One can vocally criticize other people’s views and notions, while still tolerating them.

For unconditional absolutists the 10 Commandments do not give exceptions. It is never morally right to lie. It is never right to murder someone. When a moral dilemma occurs it is believed God will provide a way of escape as God will not tempt one beyond which one is capable of handling. This is because even though Satan is present in this world, the Lord is present as well.

By and large, those who claim to be "relativists" are only people who prefer not to recognize any true moral code. Their morals fluctuate with the wind…and their desires.

And then what makes it really funny is how relativistic lefties turn right around and demand all sorts of absolutist behaviors. For example, one must never put down homosexuals, one must never admire Bush, one must never say a prayer in public settings, one must never torture anyone, and so on and so forth.

 

[midcan5]

Screaming,

You are missing several key points, most liberals are religious, they are church goers and believe in an afterlife. They just don't want fundamentalists controlling their religion nor their lives.

Used in the way you do, everyone is an relativist. Every person has to balance the demands of life and the demands of religion or work or family. If such a thing as an absolutist existed it would be easy to determine what they would do next or do under an assortment of situations that's not possible.

I would suggest you check out Bernard Wiiliams, Jeremy Waldron, or Dworkin's, "Is Democracy Possible Here?"

a liberal brings in religion
http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=1267

http://www.complete-review.com/reviews/legal/dworkinr.htm

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Screaming,

You are missing several key points, most liberals are religious, they are church goers and believe in an afterlife. They just don't want fundamentalists controlling their religion nor their lives.

Used in the way you do, everyone is an relativist. Every person has to balance the demands of life and the demands of religion or work or family. If such a thing as an absolutist existed it would be easy to determine what they would do next or do under an assortment of situations that's not possible.

I would suggest you check out Bernard Wiiliams, Jeremy Waldron, or Dworkin's, "Is Democracy Possible Here?"

a liberal brings in religion
http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=1267

http://www.complete-review.com/reviews/legal/dworkinr.htm

I'm sorry but a person who follows the teachings of the Bible is NOT considered a moral relativist. The fact that many fall short does not mean they are relativists. It means they are sinners, as we all are, since none are perfect.

Exactly which religion is it that liberals belong to that condones abortion, adultery, lying, stealing, cussing, undermining parents, homosexuality, prostitution, pornography, etc., etc.? These are the very things that liberals push and excuse.

I know you guys hate the word "fundamentalist" but you've been trained by your secular masters to automatically reject anything that is fundamentally right and moral. Fundamentally, there is right and wrong behavior. I think it is fundamentally right to reject that list of bad behaviors that I just listed ….and I believe almost every major religion on this planet will agree…however, the secular leftists do not agree. I think that pretty much tells you that many leftist beliefs are not moral in nature.

For a democracy to survive, it must be based upon fundamentally sound moral values, otherwise anarchy and nihilism will prevail.

 

[Diuretic]

Yes. Nothing is inherently right or wrong.

Like...oh... the Holocaust.
I mean, who are we to judge the actions of the Nazis, given that, according to the standards of their society, it was OK to commit genocide.

Right?

But doesn't that actually make the point? The actions of the Holocaust/Shoah were - in sum - seen differently depending on perspective. To the Nazis it was a "final solution", so they didn't see it as wrong. For non-Nazis (I'm trying to keep this straightforward) it was wrong. If it was inherently wrong then the Nazis would have been repulsed by it. It was wrong because the victors in WWII said it was wrong. If the Nazis had won WWII it would have been seen as just another policy.

Now before the inevitable ad homs start let me explain that I believe that any genocide is wrong. But that's my belief. It's obviously a subjective belief I hold. If I had been a Nazi in Germany I may well have said it was a government policy that had to be carried out.

 

[midcan5]

Diuretic,

I have to disagree with you on this one. If the Nazi felt that way, the argument would have been different, the entire mindset and reasons for the activity would have had to change. Eichmann did not argue he was doing what was right, he argued he was following orders. And most of this was kept secret and only discussed by the inner circle, once in motion, the willing followed orders for all the reasons people follow orders in a group. My father in law tells us about going into Mulhausen and how until then no believed even as word of it grew stronger. They knew they were doing wrong, no where is that contradicted in anything I have seen.

 

[M14 Shooter]

But doesn't that actually make the point? The actions of the Holocaust/Shoah were - in sum - seen differently depending on perspective. To the Nazis it was a "final solution", so they didn't see it as wrong. For non-Nazis (I'm trying to keep this straightforward) it was wrong. If it was inherently wrong then the Nazis would have been repulsed by it. It was wrong because the victors in WWII said it was wrong. If the Nazis had won WWII it would have been seen as just another policy.

Now before the inevitable ad homs start let me explain that I believe that any genocide is wrong. But that's my belief. It's obviously a subjective belief I hold. If I had been a Nazi in Germany I may well have said it was a government policy that had to be carried out.

It amnazes me that intelligent -- especially if you ask them -- people refuse to even take pause to consider the line of thought necessary to reach the conclusion that it is impossible to say, in absolute term, that the Holocaust was wrong.

 

[Diuretic]

It amnazes me that intelligent -- especially if you ask them -- people refuse to even take pause to consider the line of thought necessary to reach the conclusion that it is impossible to say, in absolute term, that the Holocaust was wrong.

The point I was making was that the policy (and it's necessary to make the point that the name of the policy for us is Holocaust or Shoah) was made in accordance with state interests. Remember we're discussing the ideas of absolute and relative morals. There has been an assertion the the "final solution" was of itself morally wrong. I'm trying to make the point that it's not, of itself, morally wrong, instead we are looking at it from our own moral perspective. I consider it was abhorrent. I am applying my own moral outlook to it. The German government back then considered it a necessary policy, they were applying their own moral perspective. From that I would argue that - in keeping with the thread discussion - that there are no moral absolutes, that everything is relative.

 

[AllieBaba]

I'm sorry but a person who follows the teachings of the Bible is NOT considered a moral relativist. The fact that many fall short does not mean they are relativists. It means they are sinners, as we all are, since none are perfect.

Exactly which religion is it that liberals belong to that condones abortion, adultery, lying, stealing, cussing, undermining parents, homosexuality, prostitution, pornography, etc., etc.? These are the very things that liberals push and excuse.

I know you guys hate the word "fundamentalist" but you've been trained by your secular masters to automatically reject anything that is fundamentally right and moral. Fundamentally, there is right and wrong behavior. I think it is fundamentally right to reject that list of bad behaviors that I just listed ….and I believe almost every major religion on this planet will agree…however, the secular leftists do not agree. I think that pretty much tells you that many leftist beliefs are not moral in nature.

For a democracy to survive, it must be based upon fundamentally sound moral values, otherwise anarchy and nihilism will prevail.

And let's not forget..they also condon sex with children, as anyone who has ever seen their "birth control for kids" programs knows.

 

[Shogun]

blah blah blah BLAH blah BLAH BLAH blah blah...

 

[M14 Shooter]

Remember we're discussing the ideas of absolute and relative morals. There has been an assertion the the "final solution" was of itself morally wrong.

Yes. To you. It's your belief. It's obviously a subjective belief you hold.
Thats not anywhere near the same as saying that it is -absolutely- wrong.

As I said -- that you cannot describe genocide as an -absolutely- immoral action amazes me.

 

[Shogun]

Was Manifest Destiny absolutely immoral?

 

[mattskramer]

Leftists hate absolutists (those religious folks you know) because they don't like being held to any standard of behavior. If they had to follow high standards they couldn't feel justified in pushing legislation that allows for pornography, prostitution, abortion on demand, laws defying parental control, hitting on the neighbor's wife, homosexuality, lax punishment for crimes, and so on.

I disagree. Leftists and rightists have standard. Leftists merely disagree with many of the standards that the rightists like to set (particularly when some of those rightists don’t live up to their own standards).

For unconditional absolutists the 10 Commandments do not give exceptions. It is never morally right to lie. It is never right to murder someone. When a moral dilemma occurs it is believed God will provide a way of escape as God will not tempt one beyond which one is capable of handling. This is because even though Satan is present in this world, the Lord is present as well.

I agree and it is quite a shame. It seems like the perfect environment for those who do not want to think for themselves. How do they handle moral dilemmas?

By and large, those who claim to be "relativists" are only people who prefer not to recognize any true moral code. Their morals fluctuate with the wind…and their desires.

Yes. They recognize that under certain circumstances, often for the good of the many, it may be okay to tell lies or to steal. With respect to my scenario about the sick wife, would a conservative absolutist steal or let his wife die?

And then what makes it really funny is how relativistic lefties turn right around and demand all sorts of absolutist behaviors. For example, one must never put down homosexuals, one must never admire Bush, one must never say a prayer in public settings, one must never torture anyone, and so on and so forth.

Are you referring to leftists or relativists? The terms are not synonymous. I disagree with your generalizations or characterizations of the leftists. They do think that it is okay to criticize homosexuals and admire Bush (at least for some things that he does. I don’t know of anyone wanting to make it illegal to pray (silently) in public.

 

[midcan5]

Diuretic's relativism is what philosophers commonly call relativism from a distance. If it were truly relativism it would claim that what the Nazi's did was Ok. It does not, instead it says Nazi's, in whatever bizarre world you imagine they lived in, can act that way. Would D allow anyone to kill him and his family for any reason, since everything is relative, any reason would also be relative. I don't think anyone wants that world.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Diuretic's relativism is what philosophers commonly call relativism from a distance. If it were truly relativism it would claim that what the Nazi's did was Ok. It does not, instead it says Nazi's, in whatever bizarre world you imagine they lived in, can act that way. Would D allow anyone to kill him and his family for any reason, since everything is relative, any reason would also be relative. I don't think anyone wants that world.

Regardless, it is relativism, which makes it impossible to declare, in absolute terms, that genocide is wrong.

 

[mattskramer]

Regardless, it is relativism, which makes it impossible to declare, in absolute terms, that genocide is wrong.

I can’t explain why genocide is wrong. I simply think that it is wrong. Okay. It is your turn now. As an absolutist, explain how you conclude that genocide is wrong?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I can’t explain why genocide is wrong. I simply think that it is wrong. Okay. It is your turn now. As an absolutist, explain how you conclude that genocide is wrong?

Murder is wrong, the systematic murder of a group simply because they exist is wrong. The systematic murder of a group because you do not like some feature of the group is wrong. The systematic murder of a group because you do not like their religion is wrong. Shall I go on?

 

[mattskramer]

Murder is wrong, the systematic murder of a group simply because they exist is wrong. The systematic murder of a group because you do not like some feature of the group is wrong. The systematic murder of a group because you do not like their religion is wrong. Shall I go on?

Okay. I agree with you. I think that genocide is wrong because (in general) murder is wrong. Yet, just because we say that something is wrong does not prove that it is a universal absolute. Please continue. As an absolutist, explain how you conclude that murder is wrong. By the way, were the Salem Witch Trials and the Spanish Inquisition wrong?