Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There, I think I found all of them. Now it's your turn.
Well, you left out the 6 points I brought up several pages ago, but it seems like a good faith effort so:
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
I agree with everything you said, but wanted to respond to the bolded.
You are correct virtually every religion, moral code and legal code shares those tenets. However, are those things themselves morality or simply basic common "rules" that govern societal interaction in more complex societies? Are they morality, or are they laws? It is widely believed that religious "moral codes" were basically canonization of basic legal concepts to help more complex societies function. Where I can prove the relativity is thus...
Can you not think of a case for each of those "tenets", killing, stealing, lying, doing unto others where the "right" or more "moral" choice is to violate those rules? I can.
A man is raping and strangling your child and you have a gun in your hand. Is it right to kill him?
Your child is starving and no one will help you. Is it right to steal a loaf of bread to feed them?
A man is holding you at gunpoint and demands to know where your children are. Is it right to lie to protect your children?
A person constantly bullies you with mocking, shoving and occasionally worse. You continue to turn the other cheek, but the abuse only grows worse. Is it right to stand up for yourself and forcibly respond?
See, it's all relative. Every "wrong" can be situationally justified to be a "right".
Quote:
Originally Posted by eastwesteastagain
I agree with your post, as well. I think at a certain point we will be splitting hairs between the definition of morality and the definition of codified laws for the well-being of society, but I take your point. Part of the reason there are details tacked on to the end of the sentiment of not killing another in law is exactly because there are going to be exceptions where it is justified, as you noted. I suppose one could argue that is relativist as opposed to absolutist, although not relativist in the way that moral relativism is being portrayed by some of the posters on this thread (I.e., a self-serving, self-determined moral and behavioral free-for-all).
For ease of reference, I quoted both posts. While if one were to stand on one's head and squint, perhaps one could say I was agreeing with a free-for-all moral relativism (which isn't what I think NJGOAT was arguing, but for argument's sake), I was not. Sorry if it wasn't clear. If you read past my first line to the entire post, what I was agreeing with was the idea of moral codes being based on societies functioning and that there are many instances of gray if the premise is for example "killing is always wrong." I did specifically note that one could argue that is relativist as opposed to absolutist and specifically what I did not mean by relativist. To be clearer, I take neither an extreme absolutist "right comes from God" nor an extreme relativist "it is for me as it is for me" position with respect to morality.
To answer your question, I cannot think of a circumstance under which rape of anyone can be situationally justified to be right, nor can I think of a circumstance under which murdering a child could be situationally justified to be right. I am not sure what that buys you, though, as I never claimed to hold a position of moral relativism.
Last edited by eastwesteastagain; 10-19-2012 at 01:12 PM..
I've little time for this today, but I'm very curious - what situation would justify raping and strangling a child, making it right?
Thanks in advance.
I, personally, me, cannot justify such an act based on my own morals and values. However, a Tutsi militia fighter could very well justify raping and strangling a Hutu child for the simple fact that they were a Hutu and all Hutu are "evil". To other Tutsi militia fighters this act would be seen as morally correct and acceptable, even celebrated, hence making it "right" to Tutsi militia fighters.
Yes, but at least we can make a degree of progress. We can talk about what is good, and how we can know what is good, and the means of arriving at the good. We can talk about human nature, the purpose of human existence, and the human obligation to pursue the good. At some point there may be an impasse, but at least you'll know what the other side really believes and why.
The problem in this forum is that most posters don't know themselves what they really believe. They know what they like and what they want, and thunder against anyone who challenges their sacred likes and wants, but that's where it seems to end.
The problem is you don't want to talk about it, you want to ban everything you don't like.
Surprised you are willing to admit this about yourself:
The problem in this forum is that most posters don't know themselves what they really believe. They know what they like and what they want, and thunder against anyone who challenges their sacred likes and wants, but that's where it seems to end.
I, personally, me, cannot justify such an act based on my own morals and values. However, a Tutsi militia fighter could very well justify raping and strangling a Hutu child for the simple fact that they were a Hutu and all Hutu are "evil". To other Tutsi militia fighters this act would be seen as morally correct and acceptable, even celebrated, hence making it "right" to Tutsi militia fighters.
I have lost track. Do you not believe in an objective morality? Does the fact the the Tutsi sees it so MAKE it so?
Well, you left out the 6 points I brought up several pages ago, but it seems like a good faith effort so:
For ease of reference, I quoted both posts. While if one were to stand on one's head and squint, perhaps one could say I was agreeing with a free-for-all moral relativism, I was not. Sorry if it wasn't clear. If you read past my first line to the entire post, what I was agreeing with was the idea of moral codes being based on societies functioning and that there are many instances of gray if the premise is for example "killing is always wrong." I did specifically note that one could argue that is relativist as opposed to absolutist. To be clearer, I take neither an extreme absolutist "right comes from God" nor an extreme relativist "it is for me as it is for me" position with respect to morality.
To answer your question, I cannot think of a circumstance under which rape of anyone can be situationally justified to be right, nor can I think of a circumstance under which murdering a child could be situationally justified to be right. I am not sure what that buys you, though, as I never claimed to hold a position of moral relativism.
Thank you, EWAG.
You could have just said that, despite your words, you really don't agree with NJGoat that "Every 'wrong' can be situationally justified to be a 'right'".
By the way, many societies function quite well where the rape of girls is legitimized. As for murder, it was the central legitimate act of ancient civilizations - from the cruel arenas of Rome to the sacrificial altars of Mesoamerica. So I don't think "the idea of moral codes being based on societies functioning" does anything to prevent the moral evils you presumably condemn.
I chose the example to illustrate that not everyone who thinks he turned out fine actually turned out fine. I was not suggesting that any of the posters here have a drug problem.
Wow you are on a roll today regarding self recognition.
Killing is not intrinisically wrong. Sometimes killing is morally obligatory. Murder, on the other hand, is always and everywhere wrong. Killing the rapist/murderer in this case may be obligatory.
I guess it IS okay to kill your children if they listen to that EVIL rock music.
To answer your question, I cannot think of a circumstance under which rape of anyone can be situationally justified to be right, nor can I think of a circumstance under which murdering a child could be situationally justified to be right.
Is there some reason why you said "I cannot think of a circumstance ..." rather than "there are no circumstances whatsoever ..."?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
