The world as a whole, without cultural boundaries into account, would you say is conservative or liberal?
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.
It definitely does matter who is right. If you happen to be wrong, your ethical world view (in blue) becomes irrelevant.
I don't think you've quite understood the subject matter though, so we can try another approach to the question.
Your proposition: "The practice of certain beliefs should never impinge upon the rights of others." Counter-proposition: "The freedom to practice certain beliefs is also an inalienable right. Where it conflicts with the rights of others, it may take precedence depending on the circumstances."
Here, someone has a fundamental disagreement with your philosophical world view.
Who is correct out of the two? By what standard do we judge one proposition to be more acceptable than the other?
That's what makes one set of values etc, inferior to another - when belief gets precedence over rights.
Maybe if you're a philosopher, you might need a logic argument to explain feeling superior.
I don't think it's that complicated though -those that wish to impose an unsubstantiated belief over the rights of others, are backward.
Careful here. If the right to practice a belief can be rejected based on whether it's substantiated or not, the same standard must apply to everything else within the framework of your world view: All other rights, duties, beliefs (not to mention your world view itself).
You've been avoiding that kind of scrutiny of your world view up until now, so I don't think you're going to pivot on this anytime soon.
Last edited by Hightower72; 06-08-2018 at 06:08 PM..
Reason: rewording
There is a huge difference between traditional and being 'socially conservative'. You can be a Trump-supporting Hindu Nationalist yet support gay rights or other socially liberal policies; the socially liberal middle class Hindu is practically a trope in India.
Maybe if you're a philosopher, you might need a logic argument to explain feeling superior
I think my post above is a bit unfair, so I think we might take this a new direction and just cut to the chase.
The question you were posed is: "How do you prove one moral standard to be superior to another?"
There are only a limited number of non-arbitrary ways to respond to that question.
1. By tradition or convention. eg. "Moral standards are defined sociobiologically by the prevailing views in a population."
2. By science and reason. eg. "Morality is about maximizing objectively measurable well-being among the most individuals."
3. By theology or ontology. eg. "Moral standards are transcendent, mind-independent, objective truths concerning right and wrong."
Option 1 is the default view of psychology and sociology, but is useless when comparing moral standards from different traditions.
Option 2 is the dunce answer, popular among laymen (and Sam Harris) who don't understand ethics.
Option 3 is the default view of rationalism (as quoted). Philosophically sound but irreconcilable with the secular world view.
For those with a secular liberal world view, the question becomes a trilemma. What would you choose?
I think my post above is a bit unfair, so I think we might take this a new direction and just cut to the chase.
The question you were posed is: "How do you prove one moral standard to be superior to another?"
There are only a limited number of non-arbitrary ways to respond to that question.
1. By tradition or convention. eg. "Moral standards are defined sociobiologically by the prevailing views in a population."
2. By science and reason. eg. "Morality is about maximizing objectively measurable well-being among the most individuals."
3. By theology or ontology. eg. "Moral standards are transcendent, mind-independent, objective truths concerning right and wrong."
Option 1 is the default view of psychology and sociology, but is useless when comparing moral standards from different traditions.
Option 2 is the dunce answer, popular among laymen (and Sam Harris) who don't understand ethics.
Option 3 is the default view of rationalism (as quoted). Philosophically sound but irreconcilable with the secular world view.
For those with a secular liberal world view, the question becomes a trilemma. What would you choose?
Seems unnecessarily complicated to me. I just look at specific examples of behavior, and judge it from there.
You're not interested in thinking about or examining where your values come from?
Yes, but it doesn't seem overly relevant when judging specific acts. If a culture endorses that specific act, then I judge the whole culture based on that.
Most of the world is conservative. There's no question about that.
I think it's important to note that conservatism isn't the same everywhere, what it means to be conservative in the USA has a different dynamic from say being conservative in Japan. But all in all, most people lean towards the conservative side within the political/social spectrum of their society.
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.
