Moral Relativism: Good, bad...etc?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Why does he assert them then?

I don't. I act by them (by definition).

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ned
Is safety one of those rights?

Yes. Liberty of expression, liberty of religion, etc. are all rights I think people should have. Protection from coercion is another.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why does he assert them then?

Why not? He can assert his personal moral beliefs because he wants to see them realized in society. That doesn't mean he thinks they are inherantly better, they are just better to him. You don't leave your personal morality at the door when you become a moral relativist, you see the interplay which includes them.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Believing that people have rights is an empirical question, not a moral one.

Only in Kuciverse.

Anyway, I will accept that you don't believe that your own beliefs are not anymore true than anyone else's the next time we debate in another thread. Then you can contradict yourself there too.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Why does he assert them then?

Why not? He can assert his personal moral beliefs because he wants to see them realized in society. That doesn't mean he thinks they are inherantly better, they are just better to him. You don't leave your personal morality at the door when you become a moral relativist, you see the interplay which includes them.

That's just a blatant contradiction.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Only in Kuciverse.

Anyway, I will accept that you don't believe that your own beliefs are not anymore true than anyone else's the next time we debate in another thread. Then you can contradict yourself there too.

How would he contradict himself? He can argue on the basis of his personal moral belief, but also realize that it isn't inherantly more true than what his opponent is arguing for. It's simply a personal belief that he wants to see realized because of morals which have come from his society and cultural background. Doesn't mean it is any more right than any other belief coming from another background, but is also doesn't mean that he would rather not see it realized.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
That's just a blatant contradiction.

It is absolutely not. Just because you can deal with complex arguments doesn't mean the rest of us can't.

You can have your own personal moral belief, which you adovocate for, and still believe that it is not inherantly true compared to other moral beliefs. You advocate it because you, personally, think it is better, but your beliefs don't make it intrinsically better. No moral belief is inherantly true because you believe it is better. You've just been conditioned by your environment and relativists realize this. They realize that if you grew up in another environment, your personal moral beliefs would probably be vastly different, thus no inherantly better moral belief... even if you believe your personal moral belief is better.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Yes. Liberty of expression, liberty of religion, etc. are all rights I think people should have. Protection from coercion is another.

Does safety include protection from theft?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
You've just been conditioned by your environment and relativists realize this. They realize that if you grew up in another environment, your personal moral beliefs would probably be vastly different, thus no inherantly better moral belief... even if you believe your personal moral belief is better.

realize/not realize. You just keep contradicting yourself. You're the one who can't handle complex arguments. Contradicion is generally thought of as a rule for debate unless you declare it otherwise.

[loinburger]

Where's the contradiction?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by loinburger
Where's the contradiction?

If you realize that your beliefs aren't true you can't realize that they are. If you don't know that's a different story, but if you know, then you can't not know.

[Immortal Wombat]

double you tee ef?

[Whaleboy]

The question is whether you believe what you are saying, or are you just bull****ting.

Ad hominem. What we believe as a person is irrelevant, as far as the debate is concerned I could quite happily be playing devils advocate, it is incidental that I do actually believe what I'm saying, and where do you see in my argument that firstly there is a contradiction in personal belief, and secondly where do you get the impression that I don't believe what I'm saying?

The same goes for Ramo

Or anyone that disagrees or uses this argument right? . If you want to resort to pathetic ad hominems, you lose the right to be taken seriously.

Whaleboy, correct me if I'm wrong, but the "moral relativist" would seek to determine whether the taking of a possession of one person by another was immoral by first determining the context of the taking.

No, that's more social or cultural relativism... moral relativism denies the attachment of an objective moral condition to the context of that given situation.

Not exactly. I think Whaleboy's use of "context" is misleading and imprecise. What he means by "in a certain context" is "assuming a particular moral system".

I'll tell you what I mean and you won't strawman me and think I'd let you get away with it . Firstly I would ask how context is misleading? If you hold that all propositions are equally valid / equally invalid (latterly more accurately) then is a given situation, to a beholder within that situation with given dimensions, that is context... I refer back to my court example. Now WITHIN a particular moral system, say for example, the 10 commandments, which says killing is wrong... and I go and kill, WITHIN the 10 commandments that act is immoral. Of course, that's a deductive statement and you can't really do a lot with it... it has the revelatory value of 2+2=4. In order to make it apply objectively outside of context you need to induce it in the wider context, which Hume's gap forbids... hence we have a clear context within which to examine a given situation... I often use the analogy of a house of cards. Two triangles supporting one triangle... that is a context where... it also illustrates the fractal nature of what I propose.

My wife came from a country where people could not own the land or the trees. Our first Christmas, she wanted to cut down a tree growing in someone's yard. You would be surprised, but it took me quite a while to explain to her why that was "wrong."

And thus we have context.

Kuciwalker believes in the natual rights code. He is not a moral relativist.

So it seems ... or at least seems to assume rights and an inconsistency with determinism, but I don't that's massively relevant here. When he grows up a little he'll lose his naivity and get an understanding of both human nature and existence, and he'll eat his words... of that I'm sure, he's an intelligent kid after all.

They wouldn't be concurrent. The underlying moral system is exactly the same. If some people happen to adopt the second principles as the first principles, then they've merely corrupted the moral system in which they claim to believe.

You present it almost as a concept up in the air that they freely choose to obey, while ignoring the emotive element that seems to refute your position accordingly.

Rights are things that one can demand from society.

Ummm wtf? Rights are pretty much granted by society in a symbiotic relationship with the individual according to the needs of both where it is both of their mutual benefits. No communist slaves and oppressors crap please.

Believing that people have rights is an empirical question, not a moral one.

Again wtf? Rights, the artificial constructs that they are, are an ethical question, their application is moral... only an argument consistent with objective free will would hold that it is an empirical question. Too many flawed assumptions Kuci, try harder.

Yes. Liberty of expression, liberty of religion, etc. are all rights I think people should have. Protection from coercion is another.

Then where do they come from?

On a different note, Snowflake is solid gold in this thread

[Whaleboy]

If you realize that your beliefs aren't true you can't realize that they are.

Did anything I said about context sink in?

[Kidlicious]

Whaleboy,

Yes, I think everyone who claims this moral code is bull****ting, as I described. It's a code for lawyers and lawyer types only. I don't really think playing devil's advocate is fair unless you proclaim it before you start.