Moral Decline

[Archaeopteryx]

How was it relativistic?

I think my main support of the argument is that torture in some conditions produces much needed information for the utilitarian good.

How is not relativistic to claim that torture under some conditions is good, but under others, is wrong? Contrary to the relativist, the absolutist (that you appear to associate with Conservatism) would claim that torture is absolutely and always either right or either wrong. An absolutist cannot claim that the 'immutable truth' of a moral value can be altered by the conditions under which it occurs. A relativist can. By your own reasoning then, you are a relativist and therefore a Liberal.

 

[cantata]

So what's bad in some circumstances can become good in others. Kind of relativistic.

How is not relativistic to claim that torture under some conditions is good, but under others, is wrong? Contrary to the relativist, the absolutist (that you appear to associate with Conservatism) would claim that torture is absolutely and always either right or either wrong. An absolutist cannot claim that the 'immutable truth' of a moral value can be altered by the conditions under which it occurs. A relativist can. By your own reasoning then, you are a relativist and therefore a Liberal.

I think you are both mistaken about what constitutes relativism.

The relativist holds that moral truths vary according to circumstance. In particular, there are a lot of tacit cultural relativists, who think, for example, that even though it’s morally unacceptable in the UK or in America to subject a woman to ten lashes for wearing trousers in public, this is nevertheless acceptable in Sudan because Sudanese culture is different from British or American culture.

It is not relativistic to have moral principles which denote specific circumstances. If your moral principle is “Subject no innocent person to torture” then it is not relativistic to subject a terrorism suspect to torture. If your moral principle is “Kill no innocent person” then it is not relativistic to kill someone who is trying to stab you.

 

[quatona]

I think you are both mistaken about what constitutes relativism.

The relativist holds that moral truths vary according to circumstance. In particular, there are a lot of tacit cultural relativists, who think, for example, that even though it’s morally unacceptable in the UK or in America to subject a woman to ten lashes for wearing trousers in public, this is nevertheless acceptable in Sudan because Sudanese culture is different from British or American culture.

It is not relativistic to have moral principles which denote specific circumstances. If your moral principle is “Subject no innocent person to torture” then it is not relativistic to subject a terrorism suspect to torture. If your moral principle is “Kill no innocent person” then it is not relativistic to kill someone who is trying to stab you.

Hi Cantata, gotta disagree with you here.
Specifying a country the person lives in is specifying a circumstance, isn´t it?
I think the entire relativistic vs. absolute moral distincition is pointless.
Pretty much every moral stance denotes specific circumstances and is therefore relative to a conceivable broader stance.
"Don´t murder" specifies circumstances compared to e.g. "don´t kill".
"Don´t steal" specifies circumstances compared to "don´t take anything without asking".
"Don´t eat pork" is relativistic "don´t eat flesh".
"Don´t have sex with" is relativistic in comparison to "Don´t have sex at all". "Don´t have sex at all" specifies circumstances compared to "don´t touch other humans". "Don´t touch other humans specifies"circumstances compared to "don´t touch other animals".
Etc. etc.

Every moral preceipt is absolute in its own right and within the specified circumstances, but relativistic in comparison to a conceivable broader moral preceipt.

 

[Chazemataz]

The 'moral decline' crowd is mostly whining and screaming because they are in decline themselves.
We're starting to understand eachother more & more, and becoming more open about responsible pleasure, and accepting the belief "as long as it harms none, do as you will".

Strict does not always equal good, and the only reason strictness is looked on upon favorably is because the older generations grew up with more strict parents/societies.

 

[Mling]

Hi Cantata, gotta disagree with you here.
Specifying a country the person lives in is specifying a circumstance, isn´t it?
I think the entire relativistic vs. absolute moral distincition is pointless.
Pretty much every moral stance denotes specific circumstances and is therefore relative to a conceivable broader stance.
"Don´t murder" specifies circumstances compared to e.g. "don´t kill".
"Don´t steal" specifies circumstances compared to "don´t take anything without asking".
"Don´t eat pork" is relativistic "don´t eat flesh".
"Don´t have sex with" is relativistic in comparison to "Don´t have sex at all". "Don´t have sex at all" specifies circumstances compared to "don´t touch other humans". "Don´t touch other humans specifies"circumstances compared to "don´t touch other animals".
Etc. etc.

Every moral preceipt is absolute in its own right and within the specified circumstances, but relativistic in comparison to a conceivable broader moral preceipt.

Exactly. I considered myself an absolutist...right up until the point where I tried to figure out what the absolutes *were.* At which point I realized that action, circumstance and culture are so tangled up with each other that it's impossible to separate.

It's like trying to say F# is always a very pretty note. Well, F# played at the same time as E is a completely different experience than F# played at the same time as F, G and G#.

It's impossible to say "This action is always true in every circumstance" and have it be anything more than an academic exploration, just because you need to pick through every possible combination of action and circumstance in the world to find the, maybe, 3 times that everything comes together perfectly---everything that influences the action is exactly the same, and everything that's superficial circumstance is different.

All in all...it's not right. It's not even wrong. It's just a meaningless idea.