It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Delusions of the far left and moral relativism....

page: 10
38
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 09:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Bluesma

Yeah.

I can only imagine what it was like during the Witch Burning, Inquisition and other Religiously Based Cleansing Periods in history when saying something like you just did would have meant torture and death at the hands of the Righteous People of God.

At least here they'll probably just call you names and label you a sinner or something.


You just made a false equivalence between being religious and not being relativist. Burning witches is completely off topic and has nothing to do with the thread. And you got four stars for it, too. Typical for this website, I guess. Throw out a few buzz words/topics, mention Christians, and that's all it really takes.

I think it should be pretty obvious now who is being reasonable and who isn't.
edit on 7-6-2016 by Talorc because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 09:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bluesma

originally posted by: Talorc
Anyone who actually believes in moral relativism just hasn't thought hard enough, or isn't able to think hard enough. Relativism is a self-defeating concept.

There's a reason no great philosophers have ever been relativists.


I guess the term "great" is relative. I think Spinoza was great. I think Hume was great.
I know a few other philosophers who think so too.

But also, I think anthropology coming to the same conclusions supports those philosophers well.
Because theory is great... one can come up with all kinds of philosophies and carefully structured concepts
(look at what J.R.R. Tolkien did! He created a very complex and congruent world, complete with fully formed language!)

Yet, the real testing ground is what can be observed and experienced in the physical world. Some wonderful theories don't translate into reality. This one does.


Spinoza was absolutely not a moral relativist.



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Talorc

Because,

"its ok because they think its ok"

is totally insane.



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 10:06 AM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm




It's much easier if you would state your position rather than making guess.


The fact that mores and customs differ in time and place is just that, a fact. But like every other human capacity, the capacity to make moral judgement emerges from a fairly fixed and limited human biology. So yes, moralities differ from place and time, but they are all produced from one kind of biology and from within a fixed genetic instruction. Though there is an entire spectrum of moralities and customs, there is only one spectrum.

While there may not be universal God-given moralities, there also aren't any "anything goes" moralities either. Relativism taken to its extremes is a waste of time. Look at the universal declaration of human rights. Though not universal and absolute (yet), over time they are growing in universal acceptance around the world, and that is just in the last 60 - 70 years. It would be dangerous to disregard those rights without some fairly heavy arguments.

As for morality, the relativist position (to me at least) is a cop-out for the lazy. One doesn't have to take the necessary steps to critically analyze ones own morals or the morals of others. It is a license to engage in hypocrisy and double standards. Morals can be argued and refined over time, and may just perhaps become universal and absolute once machined by years of human reason, like slavery, which through years of argument and disputation, is almost universally despised, and may one day be eradicated.

So I think the moral relativist position is a fail on account that it sets no limits, that it doesn't work towards the refinement of universal values and principles, it allows for double standards, and because it is used trump card of sorts against objectivity, social mores, scientific inquiry, and so on.



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 10:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Bluesma

if someone tortures your little girl because they are a serial killer is that objectively wrong or does it depend on what your culture is?



I do not see any reason to determine it is objectively wrong, to act against it.
I will fight against it, I would vote for laws which seek to stop this from happening, or I would leave a country which has determined they consider this acceptable.

I do not need to claim to be the messenger from God to do this.


edit on 7-6-2016 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 10:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

As for morality, the relativist position (to me at least) is a cop-out for the lazy. One doesn't have to take the necessary steps to critically analyze ones own morals or the morals of others.


But that is exactly what the opponents of relativism do! They want to establish a clear cut sacred lawbook, so that they no longer have to look at the specific contexts, situations and actors in an event. They won't have to think any more, they won't have to feel, they won't have to engage in any way at all. The book said this is acceptable and that isn't (drop the mike, walk away)

This may be fine for a collective to agree upon to facilitate their everyday lives and the framework for their society.

But the insistance on universal static laws of morality seems to only give license for groups to invade, conquer, kill, other groups who do not agree with their morals. It is an excuse and free pass to do as they wish to others because they have the sacred truth and the other doesn't.




Morals can be argued and refined over time, and may just perhaps become universal and absolute once machined by years of human reason, like slavery, which through years of argument and disputation, is almost universally despised, and may one day be eradicated.



Assuming that earth is the only planet with life on it, and all of humanity represents the universe.
edit on 7-6-2016 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 10:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluesma

Delusional



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 10:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Talorc


Spinoza was absolutely not a moral relativist.


I disagree.

It was he who wrote:

As far as good and evil are concerned, they also indicate nothing positive in things, considered in themselves… For one and the same thing can, at the same time, be good, and bad, and also indifferent. For example, music is good for one who is melancholy, bad for one who is mourning, and neither good nor bad to one who is deaf


He claimed that if morals were objective, nothing could have both good and bad qualities this way.

He also claimed that we have the tendency, as humans, to judge good that which we desire, and bad, that which we don't.

This is the natural mechanism the objective moralists are trying to provoke with the questions like those onequestion keeps asking of me.
I think, we might have instilled in us a biological system that can be used to get as close to universal as possible, through simple democratic process and majority rule, so that with time, as Mis pointed out, we come to agree upon certain principles. Like the majority of humans will feel a repulsion to being killed, so we come closer and closer to murder being wrong for all civilisations. But if even that became a law all over the earth (and with no ambiguities possible) we could still not lay claim to universality, unless we get confirmation that there are no other forms of life in the universe with a different morality.

This internal system of attraction and repulsion is not totally reliable. It is prone to bugs, as technology screws up our evolved instincts and reflexes to signs of danger that are no longer so; or we come up with things that are sensually pleasurable but kill us in the long term. The only way we can trust this system is through our groupings and comparing experiences together. -NOT looking up at some inexistent diety and waiting for his decree!



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 11:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: SargonThrall
a reply to: LittleByLittle
This is the point we have been continuously rehashing: YOU think it is an objective moral. Try asking the religious right whether they think homosexuality between consenting adults is objectively moral or not. This makes it subjective.


No it means they are morons who have no clue about how to think without being blinded by their subjectivity. Your subjective view can intercede at the point of objectivity.

I base objective reasoning on the golden rule and it is very precise.

I might not personally approve of something. But when it is objective thinking using logic then personal preference have no right to demand others to follow the same behavior.

I could have been a racist that say Oriental and Indian women are perfect and should not mix with other color pigmentation. But that preference and behavior is not a valid argument when dealing with the objective morality. If a behavior follows the golden rule then I have no right to intervene.

If I believe it is correct to stone a woman or man for adultery then I have a subjective moral view that is disconnected from the objective moral view and my view would be wrong. Since it is breaking the golden rule to do more than the mirror behavior I would be wrong to stone anyone for adultery.

But at the other end of a spectrum to claim that a person should not have eye for an eye judgement is also objective morally wrong. If a person loses her eye sight in an acid attack then no one is allowed to intervene if she want the mirror behavior back at the attacker.

The golden rule is soft on soft behavior but hard on hard behavior. A mirror.
edit on 7-6-2016 by LittleByLittle because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluesma

The rights of the souls with predatory behavior vs the rights of the souls that are or can become victim of that behavior. The only solution that I have found is remove from society until true self control emerges. And I would include what some call "spiritual tools".

Ayahuasca might be one of those tools, meditation, TUS - Transcranial Ultrasound to bliss them and get them out of depression and maybe even cause out of body.

Logic trumps who said it.
edit on 7-6-2016 by LittleByLittle because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Bluesma


But that is exactly what the opponents of relativism do! They want to establish a clear cut sacred lawbook, so that they no longer have to look at the specific contexts, situations and actors in an event. They won't have to think any more, they won't have to feel, they won't have to engage in any way at all. The book said this is acceptable and that isn't (drop the mike, walk away)

This may be fine for a collective to agree upon to facilitate their everyday lives and the framework for their society.

But the insistance on universal static laws of morality seems to only give license for groups to invade, conquer, kill, other groups who do not agree with their morals. It is an excuse and free pass to do as they wish to others because they have the sacred truth and the other doesn't.



As a relativist, how can you say invading, conquering and killing other groups who do not agree is wrong?

Do you believe child torture, murder, incest, rape, slavery etc. are wrong because that's the way you've been taught?

I am opposed to relativism not only because it is itself an absolute and universal dogma, but because it demands the toleration of views that don't stand up to scrutiny. In India, they were burning widows alive with their deceased husbands before the British arrived. It was a moral thing to do in Hinduism. This is wrong for many reasons, not only because a book has the phrase "Thou shalt not kill" in it, or because some absolutist demanded it, but for many other reasons as well.

I wouldn't use relativism as an argument against absolutism—there are other more meaningful ways to dispute absolute claims—because not only might you agree with an absolutist at one point, but because you still retain the right to make moral value judgements.



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 01:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Bluesma

As a relativist, how can you say invading, conquering and killing other groups who do not agree is wrong?


Gosh, it feels weird to be called a relativist. I never really identified as one, but I guess I can be catagorized that way now, because I have defended them.

I consider it wrong. That's all I need. I have the right to simply judge something wrong, by my own judgement, and taking full responsibility for my judgement.




Do you believe child torture, murder, incest, rape, slavery etc. are wrong because that's the way you've been taught?


I think that I have some built in repulsions to these acts- that evolved system I spoke of, which is geared towards increasing my chances of survival, and that of my DNA. It has some good info for me, and it also sometimes malfunctions.
What I've been taught influences this system- evolution is still happening now.
For example, many generations of a collective being taught that female breasts are primarily sex organs will make that system react with repulsion to the view of breast feeding - confusing it with incest. (as we all are seeing happening now)





I am opposed to relativism not only because it is itself an absolute and universal dogma

I don't think it is. This is the same argument that theists use towards atheists. I lack a belief in some grand universal law of morals existing on some non-physical plane, that cannot be determined in any empirical way.
Yet, I am a person of morals that I stand firm on. The only concrete difference between me and the objectivists is that I do not lay claim to any higher superior power or knowledge that others are obligated to submit to because I said so.
I might say someone is obligated to either comply with their nations laws, or leave it and go to one which is closer to their views, but not because God said so, not because I speak for the universe. It is just acknowledging reality.

I think the objectivist stance is used to tolerate and even propagate acts I feel are morally objectionable. Obviously your hindu example is one of them - those people were into objective morality!
Now we've got objective morality actually trying to stop people who love each from marrying because of their gender, and even more silly crap. This is the fruit of moral objectivism, and telling children- "what is being done here is beyond question. It is universal law." So they don't question it. Ever. And when asked "how do you know this is universal objective law?" they answer, "Just BECAUSE! It IS! Anyone who doesn't see that is delusional!"

though, my criticism of objectivism on that note is not why I don't believe in it. It is just because I have found no logic or evidence for it.




I wouldn't use relativism as an argument against absolutism—there are other more meaningful ways to dispute absolute claims—because not only might you agree with an absolutist at one point, but because you still retain the right to make moral value judgements.


I totally retain the right to make moral judgements of my own.
edit on 7-6-2016 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Swills

Lol! ATS is the worst message board I've ever encountered. At least it's amusing.



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Bluesma


Gosh, it feels weird to be called a relativist. I never really identified as one, but I guess I can be catagorized that way now, because I have defended them.


I apologize for that. I don't like confining people to labels and regret doing so. It was more a general question towards relativism. Frankly, I don't think anyone is an actual relativist nor can they be a relativist in practice. As I mentioned earlier, I think it is an excuse to avoid first principles.


I consider it wrong. That's all I need. I have the right to simply judge something wrong, by my own judgement, and taking full responsibility for my judgement.


Do you just feel that something is wrong? Or have you endeavored to devise reasons and principles upon which to judge even your judgements?


I don't think it is. This is the same argument that theists use towards atheists. I lack a belief in some grand universal law of morals existing on some non-physical plane, that cannot be determined in any empirical way.

Yet, I am a person of morals that I stand firm on. The only concrete difference between me and the objectivists is that I do not lay claim to any higher superior power or knowledge that others are obligated to submit to because I said so.

I might say someone is obligated to either comply with their nations laws, or leave it and go to one which is closer to their views, but not because God said so, not because I speak for the universe. It is just acknowledging reality.


Moral objectivists don't necessarily require submission to books, Gods and otherworldly powers, nor do they only make demands with no reason. It's really only the argument that some actions are right and some are wrong, and that these values are universally valid, independent of custom and culture. One doesn't require a god or religion for this. For instance secularists such as John Locke thought of natural rights as derrived from natural law, or for Kant, a categorical imperitive. I refuse a relativistic approach because I believe morality has biological origin, instead of a cultural one, and that we are biologically predisposed to make certain moral judgements. The seeming variety of ethics are merely variations on this universal biological predisposition.



I think the objectivist stance is used to tolerate and even propagate acts I feel are morally objectionable. Obviously your hindu example is one of them - those people were into objective morality!
Now we've got objective morality actually trying to stop people who love each from marrying because of their gender, and even more silly crap. This is the fruit of moral objectivism, and telling children- "what is being done here is beyond question. It is universal law." So they don't question it. Ever. And when asked "how do you know this is universal objective law?" they answer, "Just BECAUSE! It IS! Anyone who doesn't see that is delusional!"

though, my criticism of objectivism on that note is not why I don't believe in it. It is just because I have found no logic or evidence for it.


Hinduism was relativistic. "Truth is One, though the sages tell it variously." (Rig Veda). In turn, it could be argued that it was precisely the lack of objective principles that led to the pracice of Sati, since nothing opposed it. Rather, Moral Relativism is the toleration of despicable acts.

I'm not aware of many moral objectivists exclaiming that certain morals are universally valid just because. There might be some less than intelligent advocates of the position, but at least in philosophy, many of the arguments would be difficult for the relativist, if she had ever considered them.



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

Your arrow has hit the bullseye. It's plainly evident democrats have been sabotagingthe country so they can remain in power via a voter base. Hence welfare, immigrants are welcome, divorce is great, men are bad, alternative lifestyle is great, Christianity is bad, patriotism is terrorism.....etc...etc... Makes me sick. Wish every state would adopt a law saying counties decide what laws and regulations should apply, instead of nimrod trends from fake bought and paid for people who don't live in your area telling you how to live and how to feel.



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Natas0114
a reply to: onequestion

Your arrow has hit the bullseye. It's plainly evident democrats have been sabotagingthe country so they can remain in power via a voter base. Hence welfare, immigrants are welcome, divorce is great, men are bad, alternative lifestyle is great, Christianity is bad, patriotism is terrorism.....etc...etc... Makes me sick. Wish every state would adopt a law saying counties decide what laws and regulations should apply, instead of nimrod trends from fake bought and paid for people who don't live in your area telling you how to live and how to feel.


And you missed the entire target. Of course Democrats are trying to remain in power, but...and here's why you missed. So Are Republicans and they are sabotaging the country every bit as much as democrats. THIS is the whole problem. The left can't see that the left has problems and the right can't see that the right has problems. You can't live your life with blinders on, until you understand that both sides are the problem you will be a slave to the media propaganda.



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

Funny you bring up the gay issue as if it's a technique to suppress the hero archetype. You expect heroes to dislike gays and trans? In fact, the hero archetype is really a mixture of feminine and masculine archetypes. The outward appearance is strength, it is masculine, but underlying it all is the feminine compassion for others, which occurs in varying degrees for various heroes. Superman and Spiderman experience compassion, the Punisher does not. The villian archetype is often the negative side of the masculine and feminine, often totally lacking compassion and physically weak, or slimy in technique somehow. Some villians represent masculine strength with absolutely no sense of compassion.

I would argue that Jesus is one of the ultimate mixtures of masculine and feminine archetypes.



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

I think this video is very relevant to the topic.

edit on 7-6-2016 by Konduit because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 03:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Do you just feel that something is wrong? Or have you endeavored to devise reasons and principles upon which to judge even your judgements?




Not only have I put much effort into analyzing moral questions, but I continue to do so at all times. It is never "done" in other words. I am constantly trying to collect as much information as possible, analyze it, compare, contrast, consider as many angles as I can, to come up with my judgements. They may not be perfect- they may be subject to change if new information suddenly becomes available. I am constantly going back to question and take another look at past judgements as well- not feel guilty (I know I am striving to do my best) but in order to further my knowledge and experiences I can use in that ongoing process.

I do not feel comfortable with the idea that anyone can decide they know all moral judgements before the particular events or choices are before them. It is a very comforting idea, surely, having it just "done".

I remember the exact moment this dawned on me that there was no way to know this, because there was no universal wrong and right. I had been getting closer to it as I ran into cultural shock over and over in France.
I was backing out of my driveway, and it just hit me. I jammed on the brakes and sat there wide eyed like I'd had a stroke. It was like realizing you have been on a tightrope thinking you had a security belt on and a net, then found out there wasn't!

It was terrifying. It meant I'd actually have to be totally present, in the moment, receptive, aware, engaged, to be able to make my judgements in each moment! I can't just know beforehand what is right and wrong and ignore the details of each individual case or event.
I got used to it with time.




I believe morality has biological origin, instead of a cultural one, and that we are biologically predisposed to make certain moral judgements. The seeming variety of ethics are merely variations on this universal biological predisposition.

Then we have some thought in common there, except as I explained, I think that basic biological disposition which is geared towards directing us towards survival, health and happiness, is susceptible to being thwarted or making mistakes because of cultural ideas or traumatizing experiences. This biological system is not pre-programmed before man evolved- I think it is evolving and continuing to evolve and adapt. So that what is good and bad changes according to environment.



Moral Relativism is the toleration of despicable acts.

It always seemed to me that hinduism has some very clear drawn principles on virtue and morals. Perhaps I have not delved into it enough. But this is where I originally asked when I found the OP, and no one ever answered me - Where does this idea come from that being relativist means you tolerate acts you find despicable???
(along with the silly assertion in the video of the Op, in which the "relativist" says no one, no government, has the right to impress their morals on anyone." )




I'm not aware of many moral objectivists exclaiming that certain morals are universally valid just because. There might be some less than intelligent advocates of the position, but at least in philosophy, many of the arguments would be difficult for the relativist, if she had ever considered them.


There are many in this thread. They've no logical reasoning to offer than "anyone that doesn't agree is simply crazy" or the response to my arguments which are simply "you are delusional". Period.



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Bluesma




But this is where I originally asked when I found the OP, and no one ever answered me - Where does this idea come from that being relativist means you tolerate acts you find despicable???


One of the tenets of moral relativism is that it fosters tolerance, for instance in John Stuart Mill. An objectivist response is to question where that toleration begins and ends. If we have no universal or objective principles, no right and wrong, there can be no way to say what Hitler or someone like that did was right and wrong, and we can only ever tolerate it.



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join