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: 6
38
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 11:50 AM
link   
I found the OP so totally confusing, and I was spontaneously dismissive, perhaps that is not fair.
I want to try to understand this idea a bit more.
I do not get this particular version of moral relativism, perhaps it is a newer interpretation?
I cannot get anyone who perceives moral relativism saying "nobody (no government) has the right to impose on anyone else their morals." Saying that is imposing a moral upon others. I've never met a moral relativist that was that stupid.
But I'll try to participate, with the questions in the OP, maybe things will get clearer.


originally posted by: onequestion

Where do we draw the line with social constructs and morality?


Why draw any line? What do you mean by that? Morality is construct of the mind, and a society needs a system of morals and ethics particular to it, in order to have a structure.





If something is rude, why is it rude and does that exist objectively or is it an intangible social construct?


If something is considered rude, the people of that society have decided and agreed it is so- and so it is. It is not tangible and is not a physical object. It is a meme, a concept, that is held collectively and has the power of evoking specific emotional reactions in that population.




Is male and female an idea and how much of a roll does biology play and where do we draw the line with reality and delusion?


I see no reason to draw any line. We each have male and female characteristics within us, and we can each feel the need to explore one or the other side. This can be provoked by emotional reasons, or physical (hormonal, genetic...).
But if a particular society wishes to "draw a line" and not recognize gender other than according to the physical genitalia one is born with, then they are free to do so.

I support majority rule, and the freedom for individuals to cross borders and leave, or migrate to collectives which reflect their personal preferences.




Is respect an idea, a social construct or a morally objective idea that universally applies to everyone within the same sphere of understanding?


I think respect is a recognition and acknowledgement of the other and their state of being, whatever that is.
Beyond that I don't understand the question.




Do these issues and other issues like it exist cross culturally or are they issues that only exist within certain cultures?


I think the issue of morality is one all cultures must grapple with because they must determine their particular morality, and it evolves with time.
The morals of transgender people using the bathroom is however only an issue for cultures not very old and not highly evolved intellectually.




How do we begin to define reality and delusion without moral objectivity?



You say, There is no God, there is no objective code of moral. We are responsible for coming up with our codes, individually and collectively. They shall battle each other, as memes do, and the weakest shall die out. If your morals are destructive for your members, your civilisation shall die out. If your morals are destructive to others, you will lose all support and the rest of the world shall turn against you, and you shall die out.




posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Bluesma




Why draw any line? What do you mean by that? Morality is construct of the mind, and a society needs a system of morals and ethics particular to it, in order to have a structure.


I totally understand why that question isn't clear there is wordplay involved.

Ok.. when does a cultural definition of morality cross the boundaries of an objectively immoral action?

Let's try that question out...




I think respect is a recognition and acknowledgement of the other and their state of being, whatever that is.


Is there room for flexibility?




I think the issue of morality is one all cultures must grapple with because they must determine their particular morality, and it evolves with time.


Outside of cultural influences... let's take cannibalism for example. Some cultures still practice cannibalism of their dead..

This is part of their culture..

Is it wrong or is it right??




We are responsible for coming up with our codes, individually and collectively.


I'm not convinced that it's relative. There are things that are unethical regardless of how you see them.



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 12:11 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 12:14 PM
link   

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.


Precisely.

So where do we begin drawing lines that's where I'm taking this?

Side note -

As above so below.

Theory of relativity??

edit on 6/6/2016 by onequestion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 12:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
So where do we begin drawing lines that's where I'm taking this?

If morals are indeed relative then wherever you draw that line will be meaningless to anyone who doesn't agree with you.

In their eyes you are the one being delusional.



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




If morals are indeed relative then wherever you draw that line will be meaningless to anyone who doesn't agree with you.


And I'm disagreeing with relativism.



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 12:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
And I'm disagreeing with relativism.

And you could be wrong.



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 01:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: onequestion
And I'm disagreeing with relativism.

And you could be wrong.


Great argument.



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66




I responded to you because I know that you maintain that words/language have no innate effect. Yet, I see you constantly responding to and being affected by nothing more than words on a screen here at ATS.

You point out other's foibles, even while you are exhibiting them.

I know you're a careful thinker, and I always want to provide an opportunity for you to review these rather contradictory if not hypocritical stances. You fail to apply your own standards to your own behavior.

As to relativism for myself? I have fairly strong internal ethics that I am very familiar with and have constantly reviewed my entire life for consistency and applicability. I don't submit those for pubic inspection, typically, not even by crowing that I have them or continually attempting to diminish anyone who I don't think is living up to them.

Thanks as always for your answer!


The conclusion that because I am responding to posts, it must therefor mean words on the screen are affecting me, is begging the question. You have merely assumed and reasserted what you have yet to prove, which is all you really can do when attempting to give credence to a superstition.

Interestingly though, note that the very moment when the topic of words having an effect is mentioned, you moved to the passive voice instead of the active one, which is often a surreptitious ploy to avoid responsibility for one’s own actions. Words are not agents. Words do not perform actions. Unless you can prove otherwise?

Your welcome!



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: 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.


The moment one asserts relativism as a universal principle is the very moment they contradict relativism.



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
Great argument.

Thank you.



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

You just contorted several times in an effort to insult me. You are talking about the Jungian archetypes except when I am because... reasons.



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 01:59 PM
link   


Ok.. when does a cultural definition of morality cross the boundaries of an objectively immoral action?


I don't believe in any objective or universal morals, so it doesn't ever - objectively. Though if it does for you, listen to that. Trust it. Follow it.

Is there room for flexibility in my interpretation of respect? (a recognition and acknowledgement of another and the state they're in)

Notice that there is a possibility for mutual respect.....







Outside of cultural influences... let's take cannibalism for example. Some cultures still practice cannibalism of their dead..

This is part of their culture..

Is it wrong or is it right??

It is not something I feel drawn to do. For me it is "not right".

Yet, if I was in an airplane wreck, high in the mountains for days without food, and there were dead humans around me, I would eat them.
But as far as other cultures and their traditions, I do not percieve a universal wrong or right nature to that.


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

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

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



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Bluesma




But as far as other cultures and their traditions, I do not percieve a universal wrong or right nature to that.


We're going to have to agree to disagree.



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So what does it mean then??
Are you saying that morality is subjective but not relative??
It's much easier if you would state your position rather than making guess.



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 02:46 PM
link   
If there is an Agenda to make us "not like" or "Not worship" or "look up to" the Archetype hero type it's not working. One big Fail.

For proof you need look no further than main stream movies. Captain America is by far the biggest Here or Anti Hero who does the right thing even if breaking the law or subverting authority. As does Batman, As does Superman, as does Katniss Everdeen, as does Magneto (Even as villian we all love Magneto), As does Daisy Ridley and Han Solo. All of our favorite Characters are heros that do the right thing even if it means breaking the law and subverting authority.



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

why are they eating thier dead though.... I noticed you said their dead, not their murder victims.

what if it's a sacred religious ceremony in their culture, a way to honor their dead? are you still willing to hold tight to your belief that it's wrong? what about symbolic ritual cannabalism, like the communion service in the christian beliefs?



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

Annnd we are done having a conversation.

If you want to claim I don't know what I'm talking about in regards to archetypes (sorry but I do and have studied the Jungian hero's journey and Joseph Campbell), while you yourself have not clearly established your own definition (except to call it the Hero Archetype) then it's not my fault friend, but your own lack of communication regarding what you mean. That's just insulting.

You can keep your stereotypes too. Yes, men are physically stronger on average. No argument there. The rest of your story about men and women is inaccurate at best. Though in fairness, the truth has recently become more available. We all grew up with those ideas. They just aren't reality, though.

Men were not the only hunters of meat or even of big game in prehistory so that "natural division of labor" stereotype really is bogus by current reasearch. Distorting The Past - review

The Invisible Sex - Uncovering the True Roles of Women in Prehistory

Prehistory was quite egalitarian. Women weren't pigeonholed as you suggest and neither were men.

Good day.

AB



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

Ok ok men and women are exactly the same in every way i totally agree.



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion



I am an alpha male, I am very masculine and I need a feminine woman in order to balance me out. I am stern, hard headed, somewhat obnoxious and even egotistical at times. I find that having an intuitive, emotionally strong, caring woman is amazing blend of character for me


By your own description, you are not an alpha male. Also, the first rule of being an alpha male is to never talk about being an alpha male. It's not something you label yourself. It's something you just are.




top topics



 
38
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join