Does "dictatorship of relativism" exist?

[Imran Siddiqui]

because he receives inspiration from their God. The Pope is not just the head of the church, but the living and divinely inspired interpreter of their religion.

I don't consider it moral reasoning to blindly follow someone who you consider to be the divinely inspired head of your church. You are just blindly following, not deciding for yourself.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
A quick interlude: There has been, in the past, Christian morality. It wasn't reasoning of what was right and wrong, but what God said. Isn't that morality as well?

It's still reasoning, though.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
This is blindingly obvious. Different people and groups find different moral codes acceptable.

It's blindingly obvious that they aren't all right just because they disagree. Simply believing something doesn't make it true.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
No it doesn't. Its a theory about morality, not a system of morals.

And as such, it's a theory that says that a certain set of values - true or false - have to be applied to moral statements.

In the case of relativism, it has got to be at least a trivalent logical system. You just can't evade the problem of awarding a certain truth value to statements.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
All you've demonstrated is a progression of beliefs among humans (and you haven't actually proved that, but it's irrelevent). So what? There's no reason to assume that the beliefs assumed later in life are somehow more "true" - or that ANY of them are true.

So you're really just ammoral. You don't believe in morality. You think people just make claims about morality for the sake of power. That's not really the same as being a moral relativist although I believe that most moral relativist are simply ammoral bull****ers like yourself.

[Kuciwalker]

It's blindingly obvious that they aren't all right just because they disagree.

Eh, they ARE all correct in that their particular morality is acceptable to them. I don't believe they ever say "oh, it's acceptable to everyone" - only a few idiots (such as some utilitarians and libertarians, an odd mix) claim that of their morality.

[grumbler]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
All you've demonstrated is a progression of beliefs among humans (and you haven't actually proved that, but it's irrelevent). So what? There's no reason to assume that the beliefs assumed later in life are somehow more "true" - or that ANY of them are true.

The only measure of moral reasoning is the degree to which it can deal with moral dilemmas. "Truth" is not a concept that has any scientific meaning, it is a matter for philosophers.

However, "better" can be measured from the standpoint of that ability to resolve moral dilemmas, and moral reasoning can be measured by that standard.

Let me give an example that might prove enlightening. At one point in your (and every human's) cognitive development, you did not know that objects were persistant - that is, you did not know that objects existed when you could not see them. This is accepted by every scientist studying human development. Take a baby of a certain age, have them play joyfully with a rattle, and they love it. Put the rattle, riight in front of their eyes, under the edge of a blanket, anbd they will burst into tears, because their rattle does not exist any more.

Later in their cognitive development, do the exact same thing, and the baby will lift the blanket, recover the rattle, and shake it with joy. What has happened? They have "gotten" the idea that the rattle was still in existance, it was just under the blanket. Until this cognitive breakthrough ocurs, they have no idea - none whatsoever - that lifting the blanket would reveal the rattle.

That is why children of a certain age so love to play "peekabboo." Just before that age, the game is meaningless. After that age, it is boring. But just at that cusp where they have figured out that objects exist even when not perceptable, they practicing their new skill.

So it is with moral reasoning. At a certain stage, you cannot acept the idea that someone "gets away with something." later, you consider that they might have had reasons for doing what they did, but still shoud be punished for the sake of deterance. Later yet, you think maybe they didn't consider what they did bad by thier terms. Later still, you consider what they got away with not worth consideration (none of your business) or even counterproductive and self-punishing.

It is all covered by Kohlberg, up to the point he himself reached, which is that not even Kohlberg could fully understand moral reasoning above hos own level.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Eh, they ARE all correct in that their particular morality is acceptable to them.

No one is arguing whether or not their own morality is acceptable to them. We're arguing whether they are moral or not. If they disagree on what is moral they can't all be acting morally.

[grumbler]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I don't consider it moral reasoning to blindly follow someone who you consider to be the divinely inspired head of your church. You are just blindly following, not deciding for yourself.

i never said it was high-level moral reasonig, just that it was moral reasoning.

There are reletively few high-level moral reasoners, because most people would rather deny a moral dilemma exists than confront it and be forced to change their own moral reasoning.

Education is the single highest predictor of moral reasoning, even across cultures, because the more you know, the more you realize that simple moral codes don't solve all the problems.

[Kidlicious]

I'm glad grumbler is putting in the effort for you guys. You guys are a lost cause though.

[grumbler]

Originally posted by Kidicious
No one is arguing whether or not their own morality is acceptable to them. We're arguing whether they are moral or not. If they disagree on what is moral they can't all be acting morally.

Surely they can , if they are truly acting according to moral reasoning and not other reasoning.

Conisder the German conspirators (for there is no other word for them) at the Wannsee Conference. Had they been acting according to their own moral codes, they would not have been so pathelogically concerned that no word of their deliberations get out. Thay knew they were acting "badly' by their own standards. They justified their acts on other than moral grounds, most of them.

Not everyone does as their moral reasoning tells them to. Moral reasoning is not the sole (maybe not even the main, for most people) driver in human behavior.

[grumbler]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I'm glad grumbler is putting in the effort for you guys. You guys are a lost cause though.

I am putting in an effort for people to understand the science (such as it is) of human behavior. I don't have a horse in the race of "the dictatorship of relativism" because, frankly, I am embarassed that someone who is now a "world leader" uses those kinds of terms. I doubt very much that even he believes in what he says.

[Imran Siddiqui]

i never said it was high-level moral reasonig, just that it was moral reasoning.

I deny that it is moral reasoning of any sort. Simply follow the leader.

Thay knew they were acting "badly' by their own standards.

Or rather, they knew it would be seen as bad by those judging them, so they changed their tune.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by grumbler
I am putting in an effort for people to understand the science (such as it is) of human behavior. I don't have a horse in the race of "the dictatorship of relativism" because, frankly, I am embarassed that someone who is now a "world leader" uses those kinds of terms. I doubt very much that even he believes in what he says.

It's a response to the intolerance for alternative ideas within the church I think. It's just a way fo saying he is traditional and that he's not going to entertain any divergence from the traditional views of the church. It's a slap in the face really to anyone in the catholic church who disagrees with him.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by grumbler
Surely they can , if they are truly acting according to moral reasoning and not other reasoning.

Conisder the German conspirators (for there is no other word for them) at the Wannsee Conference. Had they been acting according to their own moral codes, they would not have been so pathelogically concerned that no word of their deliberations get out. Thay knew they were acting "badly' by their own standards. They justified their acts on other than moral grounds, most of them.

Not everyone does as their moral reasoning tells them to. Moral reasoning is not the sole (maybe not even the main, for most people) driver in human behavior.

I don't think I disagree with you. My point was that their reasoning might be faulty or they might just be full of it.