Moral Relativism: Good, bad...etc?

[Whaleboy]

And it doesn't require determinism (a stochastic universe just replaces "will" with "will probably") OR no free will (which is wholly consistent with determinism, as you well know, having read Hume ).

This is true, but I only use determinism in part to refute objective (as opposed to conscious existential) free will and its incumbent altruism.

[Kuciwalker]

Altruism still exists with determinism. It's the label for actions whose self-interested value is entirely due to perceptions of benefit to others.

[Whaleboy]

Tho Kuci... I find your argument somewhat phenomenological and Freudian.... that's not a refutation since I agree with elements of it, just not a good way to present it... however, to differ would be to examine and deconstruct human nature here, which I think is irrelevant since we are dealing with it's products... so as long as we accept that we have emotional reactions -> morality, then I don't think we need to red-herring this argument.

[Whaleboy]

Altruism still exists with determinism. It's the label for actions whose self-interested value is entirely due to perceptions of benefit to others.

Only if you assume objective free will on some level which is inconsistent... determinism holds that actions, all actions, are done as a product of environment, stimulii both direct, indirect and chaotic so altruism is a free consideration of others as an end in itself is irrelevant. Free will only comes to play with existential consciousness, but since it's just gone 3am, I'm too tired to talk about Husserl and it's not relevant here so let's get back on track. Nite all!

[Ramo]

Who cares about formalizations of concepts?

You seem to, since you've been arguing me about it.

You had the spiel about how words are irrelevent, while the concepts are relevant. I'm saying that the sentences are the formalizations, the abstractions of the concepts.

It could be supported, were there a way to provide evidence from experience.

Morals are entirely based on emotion. There's no logical foundation to it, you either feel something is immoral viscerally or you don't. And a basis is derived from that.

It's not a matter of support or not, it's a matter of definition.

It isn't a definition, because the two terms have already been defined.

No, they haven't.

Yes they are. Right, wrong, are what you are "supposed" to do. The actions you "should" take.

You defined it into something else that is undefined. What one should do is an a priori undefined set of actions.

It takes an assumption - not a definition - to say that one should not kill people. This is because I can say "it is wrong to kill people" and "it is wrong not to kill people" with the same understanding of the concept wrong.

The definition is the defintion of the moral basis. You can call it an "assumption" if you want, I don't care for arguing semantics.

[Kidlicious]

Well, it looks like a threesome now.

[Kidlicious]

Are any of you actually moral relativists, or not for that matter, or does that matter at all?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm sure all three of them share some moral relativity to some degree.

[Kidlicious]

I thought Kuci said he wasn't arguing in favor of one or the other, but it doesn't appear so. He's the only one who appears to argue one way or the other.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Whaleboy, I'd say, is. Ramo has some tinges of it. He doesn't seem like a total moral absolutist to me. Kuci seems to be a moral relativist.

[Kidlicious]

wierd

[Ramo]

I'm arguing for generic relativism (the idea that no assertion is absolutely true - including that one). The idea is that one needs at least one axiom (the definition of logical validity - noncontradiction) to prove any assertion. Kuci is making an argument that this axiom doesn't need to be established, though he's never shown why.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ramo
I'm arguing for generic relativism (the idea that no assertion is absolutely true - including that one).

Don't you think an assertion can be absolutely true in certain situations?

The idea is that one needs at least one axiom (the definition of logical validity - noncontradiction) to prove any assertion. Kuci is making an argument that this axiom doesn't need to be established, though he's never shown why.

That doesn't suprize me, having been around the block several times with him. When he started talking about his wierd ideas about self-interest I knew what was up.

[Kidlicious]

There's one valuable thing that I learned in my college philosophy course. No matter how good you think your argument is, some one can always philisophically show that it's wrong. Of course, someone will come along and do the same thing to that argument, and so on, and so on ..... Philosophy isn't really good for getting to the bottom of things, but it can be fun I guess.

[Snowflake]

Actually, if Moral Relativism means all alternative moral systems are equally valid it must accept that the moral system that only accept absolute morals are valid. And since the moral absolutism also thinks that their moral system is valid, this only leads to ... Well you know where I'm heading.