Morality Is Relative

[Electric Skeptic]

Okay...since in your opinion there isn't any rt. or wrong, then why are there laws defining rt. and wrong apart from preventing chaos?

There aren't laws definining right and wrong. There are laws definining what is allowed in our society, for precisely the reason you state - to prevent chaos (or, to put it another way, to allow our society to function).

Laws don't define right and wrong. Is adultery wrong? It's not illegal. How about pornography? Telling a lie? They're not illegal, either.

 

[Lilly of the Valley]

Okay, but just going by what feels rt. or wrong when there really isn't that just doesn't work. If there is no rt. or wrong then how do you 'feel' if something is rt. or wrong...like the first human...how did they feel rt. and wrong?

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Okay, but just going by what feels rt. or wrong when there really isn't that just doesn't work.

But it does work. That's how we all function.

If there is no rt. or wrong then how do you 'feel' if something is rt. or wrong...like the first human...how did they feel rt. and wrong?

Who knows if they did? What we feel regarding morality is a result of our environment and our genetics, like anything else. You tend to have similar moral views to your parents, influenced by your environment.

 

[Lilly of the Valley]

How does genetics determine feelings toward morality?

 

[Electric Skeptic]

How does genetics determine feelings toward morality?

The same way they determine a great many other things - by dictating how your brain is built.

 

[quatona]

Okay, but just going by what feels rt. or wrong when there really isn't that just doesn't work. If there is no rt. or wrong then how do you 'feel' if something is rt. or wrong...like the first human...how did they feel rt. and wrong?

Desires, needs.
It does work, quite apparently. It works the same way you may find soft pop good music and someone else finds baroque concertos good music, without there being an objective absolute standard for "good music".
What you seem to be trying to show here all the time is that without an objective right/wrong there is no objective right/wrong.
This is undisputed. You may regret this, but this is no compelling reason for concluding that it must exist.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

The same way they determine a great many other things - by dictating how your brain is built.

interaction with the world has much more influence.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

all of these issues have come up because a society founded on God's principles turned itself into a Godless society.

 

[Exhausted]

All anyone ever needs is SBE.

(Survival-Based Ehics)

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

SBE eats the young and the helpless, so in that type of society there would'nt be a need for hospitals and nursing homes.

 

[Exhausted]

SBE eats the young and the helpless, so in that type of society there would'nt be a need for hospitals and nursing homes.

Not really. Try some facts next time, okay?

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

many people live on that standard today, dont need a factsheet for that

 

[Exhausted]

many people live on that standard today, dont need a factsheet for that

Whatever shock drivel you posted was not SBE. This would be SBE.

Err... and a bunch of other stuff. Tis a good read.

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

So, morality is relative to society??? Ever think that society is relative to morality?

 

[quatona]

So, morality is relative to society??? Ever think that society is relative to morality?

Yes, they are mutually and interdependently relative, among some other things that both of them are mutually relative to.

 

[MikeMcK]

That's why Christians don't sell and own slaves anymore. That's why Christians don't stone homosexuals to death anymore, etc. The Bible condones those things, however.
[/quote]

First of all, when you view Biblical slavery through the lens of our experience here in North America from the 17-19th century, you're comparing two different things.

Typically, there were three types of slavery: cultural slavery, which the Bible does not condone, but simply acknowledges did exist, slavery as a means of God's judgement on a people, and the most common kind of Biblical slavery, which was much closer to what we know as indenture.

If you're going to try to paint the Bible in a bad light by saying that it condones slavery, then you need to be honest and also acknowledge that the Bible lays out very strict groundrules for those who own slaves, including harsh penalties for those who mistreat slaves, as well as an order to release slaves and cancel debts after a given period of time.

Second, how can you say that Christians don't stone homosexuals anymore, when the Bible never says that Christians stoned homosexuals?

That's a bit like asking, "so, do you still beat your wife?"

 

[elman]

Yes, they are mutually and interdependently relative, among some other things that both of them are mutually relative to.

Just not true. Killing the Jews was immoral and it matters not what Hitler and the killers thought about it.

 

[KarateCowboy]

That's why Christians don't sell and own slaves anymore. That's why Christians don't stone homosexuals to death anymore, etc. The Bible condones those things, however.

If a biblical "ideal morality" was observed in the Church, what would it look like? No one can decide! No one can decide because it is relative to the person during the time they read it. The "ideal" or "perfect" biblical morality doesn't exist. On the contrary, biblical "morality" is often savage, cruel, and abusive: (Joshua 6:21, 8:24-26, 10:28-29, 10:32-33, 10:35, 10:37, 10:38, 10:40, 11:8, 11:11, 11:12, 11:14, 11:21)

Morality was, is, and WILL ALWAYS be relative to the individual or group. Change is contant. More: http://realityspoken.com/evil

Are you absolutely sure about this?

 

[KarateCowboy]

Morality is relative.

That is why I'm going to slowly cook my cat in boiling water. In China, it is a delight to torture cats for their flesh-I shall do the same.

I interpret the Chinese view of relative morality as my view. I have been thinking of the Watu-Watu view of morality(i.e. cannibalism), so I may eat my brother.

This is my interpretation of morality.

Oh yah. And where I am from it is considered a virtue to kill relativists. But you can't condemn me, because morality is relative, at least in your belief. I don't believe it's relative, but that doesn't matter.

 

[Brimshack]

Are you really from a place where it is okay to kill relativists? A counterfactual isn't much of a bsis for critique. To sya nothing of the fact that you haven't established that simple community consensus is the basis of relevant moral judgements in relativism. But of course you didn't even notice which side of the debate Jan was on..

Odd how relativism always seems to elicit so many flippant comments. It's as if the real point is to show that some ideas aren't worth thinking about. Fair enough, one needn't spend time on such things if he doesn't want to. But absolutism certainly isn't well served by sloppy thinking. And those who can't be bothered to address an idea on its own terms shouldn't have any illusions about shedding any light on the nature of truth or morality.