Why Have the GOP and Conservatives

[Kuciwalker]

But does moral relativism allow for hypocrisy?

What do you mean, "allow"? It just says there is nothing objectively immoral about it.

If morality is relative, then it depends on the changing whims of those making judgements, i.e., no principle need apply.

What do you mean, it "depends" on that? According to one moral code, hypocrisy is immoral; according to another, it is immoral. It just isn't objectively either.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ramo
Just heard of another hazing that occurs everyday at college campuses:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2027&e=5&u=/chitribts/giboymistreatedtogetdadtotalk

Absolutely disgusting.

If true, this is positively evil... holy ****, that's disturbing. Winning hearts and minds indeed...

[Boris Godunov]

re Hazings:

Hmm, let's take one big difference between hazings and this abuse: those who are hazed voluntarily subject themselves to it, in some form or another. That's besides the other major differences going here, but that needed to be pointed out.

[Berzerker]

What do you mean, "allow"? It just says there is nothing objectively immoral about it.

By "allow" I mean consistent with. If morality is relative, then I'm allowed to condemn one crime while dismissing another based soley on my personal POV, not on any objective standard. For example, if objective morality says murder is immoral then I cannot condemn or dismiss murder when it suits my agenda. I must be consistent...

What do you mean, it "depends" on that?

Moral relativism depends on what I think without regard to any standard or principle that applies to us all, it depends only on what I think and hypocrisy cannot indict my POV because morality is relative - I decide when murder is immoral. Objective morality would require me to condemn every murder, not just the murders I oppose.

According to one moral code, hypocrisy is immoral; according to another, it is immoral. It just isn't objectively either.

Huh? Both codes there say hypocrisy is immoral. Moral relativism would say that while hypocrisy is immoral to John Doe's morality, it need not be immoral to Jane Doe's morality and that is a valid position for both John and Jane because morality is relative.

[Ramo]

But does moral relativism allow for hypocrisy? If morality is relative, then it depends on the changing whims of those making judgements, i.e., no principle need apply.
Whatever standard I apply to you need not apply to me because morality is relative, not objective. Objectivity requires that the standard I apply to you also apply to me...

No. Moral subjectivity implies that no set of morals are absolutely valid.

Whether one's morality is inconsistent or not is an entirely seperate issue. One can be a racist who thinks that it's ok to do these things to Iraqis and also believe that his morality is the objective morality.

[Ramo]

Moral relativism is the simple concept that I can say, I believe that an action is immoral, and I can not say that an action is somehow intrinsically immoral.

Completely different concept from whether my morality is consistent.

[Berzerker]

No. Moral subjectivity implies that no set of morals are absolutely valid.

Whether one's morality is inconsistent or not is an entirely seperate issue.

Why does moral relativism preclude hypocrisy/inconsistency if no set of morals are valid?

One can be a racist who thinks that it's ok to do these things to Iraqis and also believe that this morality is the objective morality.

Why would that be objective? That would be relative morality... Morality relative to the racist's POV... The consistency required by objective morality would have the racist subjected to the same treatment he advocates for others and he would have to see that treatment as moral too...

[Ramo]

Why does moral relativism preclude hypocrisy/inconsistency if no set of morals are valid?

I said absolutely valid. And I didn't say that it precludes inconsistency. Just as objective morality doesn't preclude inconsistency.

Why would that be objective?

I'm not sure what you're asking. I don't think it's objective; again, I think there is no objective morality. Why he believes that it's objective is irrelevant to the point.

That would be relative morality... Morality relative to the racist's POV... The consistency required by objective morality would have the racist subjected to the same treatment he advocates for others and he would have to see that treatment as moral too...

Consistency has nothing to do whether you believe morality is objective or subjective.

Again, entirely seperate issues.

[Berzerker]

Moral relativism is the simple concept that I can say, I believe that an action is immoral, and I can not say that an action is somehow intrinsically immoral.

Completely different concept from whether my morality is consistent.

Then moral relativism cannot preclude hypocrisy since hypocrisy is not intrinsically immoral according to moral relativism. You can believe action A is immoral when committed by people you oppose and moral when committed by people you support...

[Ramo]

Hypocrisy isn't intrinsically immoral according to objective morality either. It may be immoral to your morality, which you believe to be objective, just as it may be immoral to my morality, which I believe to be subjective.

And again, objective morality is the idea that there is some morality is absolutely valid. Nothing prevents that from being a racist morality.

[Ramo]

I'd bet that Hannity, O'Reilly, and Limbaugh would insist that their respective moralities are absolutely valid.

[Berzerker]

I said absolutely valid. And I didn't say that it precludes inconsistency. Just as objective morality doesn't preclude inconsistency.

There's a difference between valid and absolutely valid? That's the point, if moral relativism does not preclude inconsistency then it allows for hypocrisy which is by it's nature, inconsistent. And objective morality does preclude inconsistency; as you said, it is based on the notion of "intrinsic" morality. That means there is a morality that depends on something more than my personal and changing whims.

I'm not sure what you're asking. I don't think it's objective; again, I think there is no objective morality. Why he believes that it's objective is irrelevant to the point.

That was your assertion, that the racist believed his inconsistency was morally objective.

Consistency has nothing to do whether you believe morality is objective or subjective.

Again, entirely seperate issues.

But related for those who believe in moral relativism. If there is no set of valid morals, then moral relativism allows for hypocrisy. Let's say culture A practices slavery and culture B abhors it, the latter cannot morally condemn the former because morality is relative. If you say I'm wrong then you're also saying the same morality applies to both cultures, i.e., morality is not relative and consistency ir required.

[Ramo]

There's a difference between valid and absolutely valid?

An absolutely valid assertion is true without any prior assumptions.

And objective morality does preclude inconsistency; as you said, it is based on the notion of "intrinsic" morality. That means there is a morality that depends on something more than my personal and changing whims.

Nothing prevents an intrinsic morality from being inconsistent.

That was your assertion, that the racist believed his inconsistency was morally objective.

What are you getting at?

But related for those who believe in moral relativism. If there is no set of valid morals, then moral relativism allows for hypocrisy. Let's say culture A practices slavery and culture B abhors it, the latter cannot morally condemn the former because morality is relative. If you say I'm wrong then you're also saying the same morality applies to both cultures, i.e., morality is not relative and consistency ir required.

No. If I say that someone who practices slavery is immoral, that says absolutely nothing about what he believes. We're all individuals.

I can judge whether certain social interactions are good or not with my morality. That's all it's good for. There's nothing cosmic about it.

[Berzerker]

Hypocrisy isn't intrinsically immoral according to objective morality either. It may be immoral to your morality, which you believe to be objective, just as it may be immoral to my morality, which I believe to be subjective.

But hypocrisy is immoral because objective morality requires consistency, that's what distinguishes objective morality from relative morality. As you said, moral relativism denies an "intrinsic" morality while moral objectivism embraces it. If morality is intrinsic, it depends on a standard that applies to us all, not on personal whim.

And again, objective morality is the idea that there is some morality is absolutely valid. Nothing prevents that from being a racist morality.

Only if the racist believes it is moral for another race to murder him based on his skin color, that is the first of 2 requirements - consistency - with logic being the second.
And we know racists don't believe that...

I'd bet that Hannity, O'Reilly, and Limbaugh would insist that their respective moralities are absolutely valid.

Do you believe your morality is invalid? Their ignorance of morality is not an indictment of moral objectivism...

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Berzerker


I wasn't alive?

That's no excuse -- you should have asked to have been born early enough so that you could have been alive then.