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: 11
38
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 06:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Talorc
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.


Well if you weren't so hyper sensitive you'll notice I never mentioned Christians. I just said Periods Religious Cleansing which includes various Religious Groups besides Christians. But it certainly is interesting that "Christians" are the first group to come to mind for you as well.

What happened happened. Neither of us can change it either. You're making the choice to get offended by it. Yet I doubt you've ever burned someone alive for being a witch or killed anyone during a Religious Cleansing of Sinners from the Earth either. So why get offended about something that doesn't involve you in the first place??




posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 06:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: IkNOwSTuff
Being honest up until very recently (last few months) i believed all this talk about social constructs and a concerted agenda to mess with peoples moral/ethical leanings was just paranoid nonsense, im now convinced there is some worldwide agenda in play that, for want of a better term, is trying to turn the world into snowflakes.

"The world" as in the US!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No snowflakes here in UK....OK no snowflakes here in the West of Scotland.

This means no worldwide agenda just a thread full of paranoid US citizens.



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

At least you addressed the topic rather than getting all emotionally aggressive toward me about it. Which is why I keep saying that, aside from our differences in opinion on some things, I do enjoy talking to you most of the time. But I think I see the problem.

When I say Morality is Subjective and not Objective I'm not taking a position of "Anything Goes" Relativism like you are describing. This is a confusing topic also so we need to clear up some terms of the words we use when possible and be very clear in what we are talking about.

I'm taking the side of Subjective Morality because it is the only verifiable and logical choice versus an Objective Morality based on the fact that the only thing that any of us can truly say is real is our own subjective experience. "I am" is something I know for sure. Anything beyond that is debatable to various degrees but I know I am conscious and aware at the very minimum. My understanding of Morality then is based upon and limited to my own subjective perspective. Whether it's something I've read or experienced or whatever which I base my morality on it's always from my own perspective only. Therefore when it comes to judging the rightness and wrongness of my moral code it is me who is that authority over those judgements. The same applies to everyone else as well.

Objective Morality on the other hand supposes, typically, an all knowing Higher Authority that has the ability to know what each of us can't know and therefore know the absolute truth of all things. Based on that ability to know the absolute truth of all things that higher authority is said to know Truly what is Right and Wrong making it's morality universally true and absolute. That is all fine and makes sense as to how an Objective Moral Law could exist and where it would come from. But the problem of course is that such a Higher Authority, or God in most cases, must first exist and make that Moral Code known.

So as you can see, one of those two possibilities we know is valid. The Subjective Experience. The other one might be correct too, but that depends upon what someone believes. Even within those who Believe in a God, their Morals don't always match up either making it even more doubtful that it is in fact the correct choice here.

Does that makes sense? There is more I need to explain about what I mean by Subjective Morality but this is getting way too long at this point. So I'll stop here before I go any further.



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 07:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard
...
I think you may be deluded in thinking there is a massive conspiracy to make you more feminized. Some far left types are probably into that, for sure. But seriously. It's the VALUES that have been attached to the masculine principle that are under attack.
...


I actually made a thread today about that very point. (btw the title of that thread should read:
"Xenoestrogens: Foreign Endocrine Disruptors Detrimental Effects on Health..."

Was too tired since it took hours to compile all that info. Anyway.

Xenoestrogens: Foreign Estrogen Disruptors Detrimental Effects on Health and Human Reproduction.

In the above thread there are several research papers proving that we are being inundated with xenoestrogens, and world governments have been informed about the detriment to our health, including feminization. Yet, what the governments of the world are doing is not to try to mitigate or stop the effects made by xenoestrogens, in fact as we have been seeing the State/government are reinforcing the detrimental side effects being caused by xenoestrogens which are feminizing men, and inducing infertility in both men and women among a myriad of other health problems brought by xenoestrogens. "Gender neutralism", the imposition of the State for religious institutions to change the meaning of a religious ritual, marriage, which has existed for thousands of years. The Obama administration mandates to force all to accept men in women's restrooms and locker rooms, when this will increase the danger that women will be exposed to. The forcing of our military personnel to wear high heels "to promote feminist campaign". I mean what happened to choice? The government/state department has no right to impose such a thing on soldiers.
or any other form of feminisation on people.

Yes, there is and has been a campaign to promote and even force the feminisation of men in society at large. A campaign that also aims at destroying any conservative values by the State forcing these "changes".


edit on 7-6-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 09:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
"its ok because they think its ok"


No one in this thread has said this - in fact the opposite has been repeated. We think it's bad, they think it's acceptable, and we understand that their viewpoint is different due to circumstance. Doesn't mean we like it.
But I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall.



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 09:43 PM
link   
Relativism?

Wait till it happens to you.

I see the OP states their location as "Orange County". I take that as California. Now Chicago is one of the last bastions of Liberalism, but the suburbs are a different matter.

And any Californian to them = a gay, a hippy, a drug addict, a weirdo. And for you Southerners - even worse.

Yes we'd take you in Chicago, we're open minded here, but in the burbs you'd be run right out. They certainly cannot have any possum hunting or grandma humping. That's how they see you. These are the true conservatives and they do not like you one bit. They laugh at you. They see you as an exploitable rube.

They don't like ANYONE who is not a clone of them. That's why I got the hell out of there, and my friend here too from an even swankier area of MI.

Try being more open minded. You really need to be - because y'all are some of the first people they'd like to be rid of.

In these parts a Californian is lower than a Mexican or Black. Lower than Jews even. And a Southerner? You are # to these people. They laugh at you and consider you grist for their war mills.

I've never been able to grasp why Southerners aren't Democrats. Can't you see these Conservatives (of all types, including Libertarians and Tea Partiers) - they don't give a # about you, why not join with the people who do?

I don't get it.

Well maybe I do. They distract you with vilifying others and you don't notice they're doing the same to you. Don't believe me? Tell me then - where are your farms? Your shops? These people have helped you - how?



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 01:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

An objectivist response is to question where that toleration begins and ends.


I do not see it as having to begin at any point.

I might have slightly different ideas on how I would fight something- like not in saying you can't do that because God, or "because the universe deems it so" and bombing the people...

I would use dialogue, communication, rational and critical thought, logic first. I would awaken the people within the community or society to to the fact that they have the power to change the moral practices of their own community or society... because morals are not static universal objects. They are how we choose, individually and collectively, our experiences.

I would expose the rational reasoning as to why the practice is undesirable for them in the long run, individually and collectively. I would hope to spread that message as far as possible.


As long as humans walk around with the idea that they have no power and no responsibility, they will not question what they are conditioned with and they will not bother to think. I think we can and should play a conscious hand in our evolutionary ethics.





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.


I don't even see how you come to that conclusion. You see no logical reasoning to decide you think what Hitler did was unacceptable? No logical reasoning to offer to another in explaining to them why what Hitler did was unacceptable?

Perhaps I am too utilitarian myself, but it seems to me that the glaring clear examples of what we recognize as immoral behaviors usually can be seen by their (short or long term) consequences, to the interdependent relationship between individual and collective.


There is this strange but terribly common way of thought I run into often that goes something like this-
I am just a human and nothing I decide or do has any value unless I am obligated or commanded to do it by some force higher than myself.

-which gives forth the reasoning-

therefore, I cannot act or make judgements unless I am convinced they come from this higher source.

I say No, that is false.
edit on 8-6-2016 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 01:05 AM
link   
Crap like THIS is bulls##t...
clashdaily.com... &utm_keyword=major3&utm_content=19814049&utm_source=Email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=subscriber_id:19814049&utm_campaign=WATCH:%20Kanye%E2%80%99s%20 THUGS%20Destroy%20Neighborhood%20%E2%80%A6%20This%20Is%20TOTALLY%20Disgusting



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 04:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
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?

Things get murky when you attribute absolute principles to relative statements as you have just done. Either you need to be extraordinarily precise (which actually leads to subjectivity or relativism) or rephrase your question so that it can be examined objectively.

The example you gave is actually a "relative" statement: "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?"

The underlined words are what make your example relative. Remove them and you are left with the objective question: if somebody tortures, is that objectively wrong or does it depend on your culture? The answer to that question is that it would depend on your culture.



edit on 8/6/2016 by Dark Ghost because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 04:44 AM
link   
The "All morals are relative statement is an absolute statement, therefore moral relativism is false" suffers from the same problem, and is a deceptive argument.

Most "moral relativists" do not make the argument that "all morals are relative". They assert, rather, that the human conceptions of morality (notice how that already makes morality relative) is more likely based on non-objective factors such as the cultural or societal values of any given region.

It is a logical and reasonable position to maintain.

edit on 8/6/2016 by Dark Ghost because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 09:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluesma




I don't even see how you come to that conclusion. You see no logical reasoning to decide you think what Hitler did was unacceptable? No logical reasoning to offer to another in explaining to them why what Hitler did was unacceptable?


I don't see how you could misunderstand it.

I see plenty of rational reasons to find what Hitler did was unacceptable. But using logic or the scientific method is objectivist, and presupposes universal values.

Utilitarianism is also not a relativist position. The greatest good for the greater number is a universal principle. It appears you are less and less of a relativist than I first expected.



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 12:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Bluesma


I see plenty of rational reasons to find what Hitler did was unacceptable. But using logic or the scientific method is objectivist, and presupposes universal values.

Utilitarianism is also not a relativist position. The greatest good for the greater number is a universal principle. It appears you are less and less of a relativist than I first expected.


I don't see what you mean. But then, it is evening, and friends stopped by and I had the obligatory aperitif, so my mind is dull right now.

This is how I see things-

Morals (good and bad) can only be determined according to intent.
Therefore we can label something good or bad in relation to what a person, or a collective intend, according to whether or not it furthers them in that intent.

There seems to be a common assumption that all organisms, and all collectives, intend to survive and be healthy and strong.
I am not at all convinced of that. I have experienced and seen that sometimes self destruction is the intent. Whether it be conscious or not. That changes even the the most base notions of good and evil. For example if someone wishes to end their life, and they are in a country where it is risking your life to pull a gun on a store keeper, or a policeman, than it is possible that it is the right thing for them to do, and for the storekeeper or policeman, it is the right thing for them to kill that person. Everyone has retain integrity with their intent.

Perhaps there is some sort of objective universal law existing on a plane beyond us, but I do not see any evidence confirming that. It's like being atheist- if one day new evidence arises that there is a pre-existing moral law, that was encoded in us before we began to evolve as humans, and that exists for all other life forms in the universe, I will change my mind. But so far, all I see is the same biological disposition judging itself.



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 02:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
The "All morals are relative statement is an absolute statement, therefore moral relativism is false" suffers from the same problem, and is a deceptive argument.

Most "moral relativists" do not make the argument that "all morals are relative". They assert, rather, that the human conceptions of morality (notice how that already makes morality relative) is more likely based on non-objective factors such as the cultural or societal values of any given region.

It is a logical and reasonable position to maintain.


But also, morals are value judgements, which are fundamentally different from factual judgements.

One can state that an object "is an apple", and that will remain true no matter what the speakers position, cultural background, or context.

But to say "apples are better than oranges" is a completely different thing...



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 07:39 PM
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. 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.


Now that I've explained a bit about why I take the Subjective Morality side lets now address another issue pertaining to what you've written above and how you're concept of Relative Morality differs from what is meant when I say Subjective Morality.

The way you use Relative Morality above I would consider to be more akin to Moral Nihilism or being AMoral. Subjective Morality is anything but lazy. It gives no excuse to not disregard or configure a good solid set of morals. In fact, just the opposite. Because knowing they are subjective and that you are personally responsible for them as the authority behind them puts each person in the position of making sure they've done their very best in constructing them. It is each person after all that will either live their life according to them or not and suffer the conflicts of doing so.

The fact that you admit that Morals can be changed and refined over time is example of how morality is in fact Subjective. The idea that eventually we would refine them to be Universally Absolute is a noble goal for sure but I'd say a bit optimistic. Again, because for something like Universal Truth in such a vast Universe/Reality as we have it would require knowing and understanding the perspective of every conscious creature to evaluate the outcomes of all moral choices made in order to judge them correctly. We are very far from a conscious awareness such as that or even anything close to it. But we can most certainly refine them for the better but also must keep in mind that "Better" is going to be relative in it's meaning as it pertains to us.

Which brings us to the question of "why bother then". Or put another way, "If any morals we come up with are only backed by each individuals authority and no authority is greater than any other then they are meaningless so why have any??"

Because it is viewed like this is why I say it's Amoral or Moral Nihilism when thought of like that. Because the obvious answer isn't "Why Bother?" Clearly constructing Morals, even if they are only personal meaningful to me, they result in outcomes of how I live that produce Rewards, Suffering, Challenges, Success, Joy, Sadness, etc. They are part of what give my experience of living meaning. It also controls the feedback loop between me and nature itself in ways that I find productive if I want to be productive or even the opposite if I choose that. Just the fact that I would refine them and change them for whatever reason proves they have meaning. Even if that meaning is for me and me only.

The idea that Morality Must be Meaningful to everyone equally the same or not meaningful at all to me seems ridiculous in face. My experience of life doesn't require the experience of others to be meaningful. It would be lonely if it was just my own experience all the time obviously but it isn't required. I would still have to experience my own reality just the same and would still find meaning in it. So to think that without others being in agreement or having to follow the same rules as my own there is no point in my own morals makes no sense to me.

Damn these posts get long....Sorry about that...



posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 01:11 AM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

That is exactly how I see it. I think that's why I was havign trouble understanding some others' descriptions of moral relativism - because they sounded more like nihilism, which I don't relate to at all.

But now that we've all explored what we think and feel about moral relativism,

What about this connection with oppression of masculinity conspiracy?

I have no problem believing that those in power want to keep us subdued. Especially now when the internet made information available so widely and that is making the power of the individual become more widely conscious.
But I personally do not think there is a focused attempt at repressing the hero archetype.
I think they try to stimulate it so that boys will join the military and go where they are sent, kill where they are told to kill, and die where they are sent to die. But it is a hero's death.

I suspect though, that we are lulled into dullness in various other ways, and our drives of aggression, for example, are largely directed through video games to keep us from being a threat to the current framework of power.



posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 01:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluesma

I don't know about the suppression of masculinity exactly. However, there is to some degree a change in what it means to be a man now than what it used to be. But that is all very subjective to who you're speaking to also. But I think it's less about making men less of a man and maybe making women more present on the world stage. Balancing the power dynamic between Men and Women is going to seen differently from where you're looking at it. Is it that men are being represented less or is it simply recognition of Women more making it seem that way???

As far as destroying the Hero archetypes I don't think that's possible even. Archetypes aren't that easy to remove even if you wanted to do it. They are on a deep level within our consciousness at very primal levels. It's debatable which of us is in control of our mind most likely anyway. According to Jung much more is happening at subconscious levels than the conscious ones we control anyway. So even the idea that we're going to control anything from our level might be wishful thinking on our part.

They are getting more complex though which may be making people confused I guess. But even the example given, the Batman vs. Superman idea. That's not a new idea. That happened in the comics too. Batman had a file on all his super friends which just made sense if you're batman. He's just a guy hanging around beings with super powers beyond imagination. It's the smart thing to do and fits his character exactly.

But things are more complex as we advance. Bad guys aren't believable anymore with long dialogs about how they're going to blow up the world. Nobody is going to buy a story line with goofy bad guys running around being obviously evil and nobody is going to enjoy Hero's without some depth anymore. But the added complexity isn't going to change what a Hero Nature is.

If you look at any story ever told they almost all break down to the same ideas. Man and Woman falling in Love despite something keeping them apart. The nature of Good vs. Evil. The concepts of Universal Truth and Wisdom. That never really changes. Especially the concept of "Love". "Love" in all variety of ways has been told repeatedly throughout history and representing every possible form of itself you can think of. It still continuing on today as well.




top topics



 
38
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join