Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I guess I am missing what the Cultrual Moral Relativism is.
I'm just bringing together both Cultural Relativism and Moral Relativism to mean that: "the good" is whatever set of publicly dominant morals are deemed as being best in a specific culture in this moment of time. Needless to say, this set can differ from culture to culture and time to time.
Well, that's just the thing. The morals "you want," however honestly they may be come by, might not necessarily be the best nor the most accurate [assuming a social reality] in propagating either the human species or in arbitrating social affairs in your respective society. They'll just be the morals [or Ethics] that you happen to prefer at the moment...
It doesn't matter what the current culture thinks is good because cultures don't think individual people think.
The current culture you exist in per moral relativism. Seeing as according to the framework of relativism you get your morality from your society & culture (through evolution). Which means that other societies who commit moral atrocities according to your culture have no reason as to why they're wrong, they're only different because they share the exact same reason why their morals are right as you do.
Thank you for posting a quote that sums up the arbitrariness of moral relativity. I agree with them that without a universal/objective morality that their morals are entirely based upon desire and are entirely individualistic. It's not a point at all and instead hammers home the fact that if somebody wanted to do the things that Penn mentioned, seeing as it's based upon desire (like his desires not to do them) they wouldn't be wrong for doing so. It's completely self refuting.
But if nothing ultimately matters and will be forgotten in time the future is just as meaningless as the past, why then would it matter at all if I did a wrong thing (according to the current culture)?
Exactly! But don't expect a second-hander to accept this.
What is being argued here is that under moral relativity what is good is determined by the desires of an individual, therefore a rapist would see rape as a good outcome. The idea that dysfunction = a specific thing is also matter of interpretation. The Romans who created the longest lasting empire for example waged warfare continuously. Something that would be seen as obscene today. If your morality is based upon practicality and what works, then a society who's economic basis is built upon slavery (The Romans) would view slavery as good. If that's the case it's impossible to disagree with them because the basis for what you determine to be good, is that which has a good outcome. Which given the aforementioned example, under your worldview it would have you calling slavery a good thing. In order to call the Romans wrong for building their empire on the backs of slaves you would need a reason as to why slavery is wrong both for them and us. In which case in order to do so you would assume a moral standard (something not relative).
It's not weirdness, under a naturalistic framework society come about through beings who evolved. If society is comprised of beings who evolved, then the morals of that society came about through evolution as the individuals in your worldview who determine what morals are acceptable in the society have the origin or cause of their morality due to evolution.
Yes it is like asking that. If it's going to be as if you don't exist 150 years from now, then you don't matter now. That which is transient has no inherent value, the only way transient things find value is if they produce or impact something that continues to exist. If the basis for what matters is the gratification of sensory pleasures or inward desires like posted above, then you need to have a reason as to why those things matter rather than just assuming that they do.
In order to have meaning within a being, the being needs to exist so the cessation of the being = cessation of meaning (or it mattering). I also experience the past and reverberations that flow from it. So under your logic that which is in the past also matters because it affects the present momentary experience. You know what that means? If the past affects the present, then the actions of my present matter because they affect the future.
If I eat some food one day and then lose all of my memory I'm going to have to go to the bathroom the next day regardless of if I remember what occurred. So no I'm not a head trauma away from losing it. Consequences flow forth from present actions, you believe this otherwise you wouldn't view a sense of transformation like you documented above. Transformation can't happen without a cause.
Yeah that's what I'm arguing, permanent things matter. See "That which is transient has no inherent value, the only way transient things find value is if they produce or impact something that continues to exist"
