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.
No, you're still not grasping it. Torture is hurting someone 'as a punishment or to obtain information'. Note the context in quotes.
Really, what is there about that that you cannot understand?
I didn't, and I've thus far left it up to insinuation and implication by which it can be recognized. And why would I do that? I do that because in my experience, what average supporters mean by moral relativism is actually unconscious subscription to Normative Moral Relativism in which they value diversity and tolerance above all else.Sure, I jumped in the middle of your discussion but where did you qualify that it must be recognized as such under the umbrella of Normative Moral Relativism and just not only by anyone?
This rhetorical type come back tells me we're on difference conceptual grids, and we're partially talking past each other.I thought it was, why should I care if you think it's ok?
And I didn't think you were implying that you were Person A in your example, but I do care what Person A thinks since there is the potential that what they think will then be applied to what they decide to do.I'm not person A in my example. I don't care if person A think it's ok.
I'm not sure.
I knew you were, but I just wanted to point out something shorter term about the unsteadiness of the North Star. (My favorite Cepheid. Doesn't everyone have one?)True, but I was thinking of the longer term 26,000 (?) year cycle related to precession of the Earth's poles that alter which star is the pole star, while at times there is no bright star close to that position at all.
The addition was welcome. I had quite forgotten about its variability. Sadly the small town I have lived outside for almost half a century used to be three miles away. Now it is barely over two, creeping round the hill and the light pollution has destroyed much of the pleasure of looking at the night sky. (My calculations suggest that if I live to 117 I shall be in town.)I knew you were, but I just wanted to point out something shorter term about the unsteadiness of the North Star. (My favorite Cepheid. Doesn't everyone have one?)
A complete idea or statement contains the act and the context. That's why it's complete.What part of a complete idea or statement don't you understand?
I can't even see it where I am...@2PhiloVoid wishes us to follow the Northern Star; a nice analogy untilt one recalls that the Northen Star changes over time.
No wonder you are so morally lost...I can't even see it where I am...
Why would you think that?So, should I take this response of yours to mean that you do think there's a context in which torturing and murdering for fun is ok?
A complete idea or statement contains the act and the context. That's why it's complete.
'He killed someone' is not a complete statement. Rather obviously I would have thought. You cannot therefore determine the morality of the act.
'He killed someone innocent in an illegal and premeditated act' is a complete statement. It contains both the act and the context. We can therefore determine the morality of the act relative to the context.
'He killed someone to protect his and his families lives' is a complete statement. It contains both the act and the context. We can therefore determine the morality of the act relative to the context.
Some of you weirdly think that because we have a single word for each of those acts then the act becomes a matter of absolute morality. Go figure.
Why would you think that?
'Bradskii, do you think that inflicting pain for fun is morally acceptable?'
'No, I don't.'
That's pretty obvious, isn't it?
'Bradskii, do you think that inflicting pain for fun is a matter of relative or absolute morality?'
'It's relative to the context (inflicting pain for fun) so the act is relative to that context.'
Some people seem to think that because I have pointed out that it is relative then there must be a world in which I think It's OK.
No. And no again. Inflicting pain relative to that context will always be wrong as far as I am concerned.
I'll go beta crucis (which my useless spell check insisted was Roberta Crisis).I knew you were, but I just wanted to point out something shorter term about the unsteadiness of the North Star. (My favorite Cepheid. Doesn't everyone have one?)
Your point was that a single word which describes an act under certain circumstances can be classed as absolute morality. Whereas it is plainly obvious that the term contains the context on which we base our opinion on the morality of the act.You've completely missed my point. I guess there's nothing left to chat about anymore. You have your education and set of informative books on ethics by which you've defined your moral perspective of the world, and I have mine.
And that's that. An impasse.
I don't remember expressing any point about a "single word describing an act under certain circumstances can be classed as absolute morality."Your point was that a single word which describes an act under certain circumstances can be classed as absolute morality. Whereas it is plainly obvious that the term contains the context on which we base our opinion on the morality of the act.
You might need to take into consideration that what often passes for 'moral relativism' in many people's minds isn't something I hold as significant, due to my own educational and source influences. So, what you might think is significant, I won't see that it is, and I won't tell you why that is the case because I don't want to have to write out a 3,000 word essay to get the point across.This is so bleedin' obvious that I'm astounded at why I have to keep pointing it out. I have been expecting a response along the lines of 'Yes, I understand that and agree with it but...' followed by an explanation of why moralty must be objective despite that.
Ok. You've made your point about my apparent 'simplicity of mind' more than once. I'd appreciate it if you'd stop coming at me that way. I know you're a smart guy, but I've read and studied too many ....... ***cough*** ....... Marvel Comics as a part of my education in my lifetime to allow myself to be repetitively steam-rolled.But all I've had are people who are completely nonplussed by it. And I don't think they include you. I think you know exactly what I mean. It's been explained in blazingly simple terms a number of times. I just don't think you have a response other that to claim that morality is objective because...? The only reason I've seen you give is...Jesus. Implying it's a top down divine set of rules.
Look, this is a Christian forum. If that's what you believe then simply say so. Don't dance around it and excuse yourself from any discussion because hey, we're not going to agree.
Post 364I don't remember expressing any point about a "single word describing an act under certain circumstances can be classed as absolute morality."
I'm having a difficult time thinking of a context in which torturing and murder for fun are in fact "ok"?
It was defined very early in the piece. Any Google search will doYou might need to take into consideration that what often passes for 'moral relativism'...
If you think some acts are absolutely wrong, for whatever reason, and we're talking of acts that aren't determined by the context, then go for it. All You've done so far is offer variations of 'Oh no it isn't'. Put forward a case for an absolute morality.What is it you want me to provide in account of my own ethical viewpoint?
I haven't used ANY term yet in. ............. isolation .................Post 364
That obviously suggests that torturing someone can't ever be right so it must be absolute. And I am heartily sick of pointing this out, but the term 'torturing' means 'to cause pain to someone to extract information or as a punishment'. Excuse me shouting, but this doesn't seem to be getting through: THE TERM YOU ARE USING DESCRIBES THE ACT AND INCLUDES THE CONTEXT.
Nope. You're still reading into what I've said and telling me that what you think I've implied is what I actually meant to imply. Unfortunately, like General Ross, you're still not grasping my point and in your misunderstanding you've become non-plussed, forging ahead double time.It was defined very early in the piece. Any Google search will do
If you think some acts are absolutely wrong, for whatever reason, and we're talking of acts that aren't determined by the context, then go for it. All You've done so far is offer variations of 'Oh no it isn't'. Put forward a case for an absolute morality.
And hey, if it's divine, then just say so.
You did. Torture and murder. You implied I thought that, because it's a relative matter (killing in the context as described), then there could be a morally acceptable murder.I haven't used ANY term yet in. ............. isolation .................
Then nail something to the mast for heaven's sake...Nope. You're still reading into what I've said and telling me that what you think I've implied...
I wouldn't put non-cognitivists in the same category as moral relativists, would you? If not, then there are more than 2 alternatives.I didn't, and I've thus far left it up to insinuation and implication by which it can be recognized. And why would I do that? I do that because in my experience, what average supporters mean by moral relativism is actually unconscious subscription to Normative Moral Relativism in which they value diversity and tolerance above all else.
I see all moral statments as descriptions of the one making them (perhaps you could call them that persons wishes, prescriptions?), not reality.I'm just trying to nudge us away and beyond mere descriptive categories and into prescriptive ones since that's where morality and ethics bare their teeth.
Perhaps, we are.This rhetorical type come back tells me we're on difference conceptual grids, and we're partially talking past each other.
I was going to agree with you. To the point at which I quoted the above and started to type. Then I noticed the 'not reality'. I agree with everything before that. But if my moral statements (or yours) are descriptions of the personal morality and that we could describe them as prescriptive as it relates to the individual ('Don't do that because I think it's wrong) then whence the 'not reality'?I see all moral statments as descriptions of the one making them (perhaps you could call them that persons wishes, prescriptions?), not reality.
I guess it is a bit ambiguous. No, I mean't some sort of reality outside of the person. Dare I say, not objective reality? You can just disregard the reality part, because I do think it says something about my moral stance in reality. I just don't think it one can draw any claims on universality from it. I haven't discussed these questions since pre-2008, so I'm somewhat rusty in my vocabulary.I was going to agree with you. To the point at which I quoted the above and started to type. Then I noticed the 'not reality'. I agree with everything before that. But if my moral statements (or yours) are descriptions of the personal morality and that we could describe them as prescriptive as it relates to the individual ('Don't do that because I think it's wrong) then whence the 'not reality'?
Are you suggesting that there's a moral reality outside of our personal beliefs?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?