Morals are Not Relative

[Bornagain15]

For those who claim that all morals are relative, please rationalize the following things:

1. Child inappropriate contentography
2. Murder (for no reason); murdering a defenseless person like a child
3. Rape (for no reason)
4. Stealing from the poor
5. Adultery

 

[DaRkWoLf]

I agree.

But why is rape "without reason." When is rape ever rationalizeable, yet alone right?

 

[David Gould]

For those who claim that all morals are relative, please rationalize the following things:

1. Child inappropriate contentography
2. Murder (for no reason); murdering a defenseless person like a child
3. Rape (for no reason)

There is no such thing as murder or rape for no reason. If it happens, it happens for a reason.

4. Stealing from the poor
5. Adultery

I am unsure what you mean by 'rationalise' in this context. I think you would like a defence of each of these behaviours. The problem is, any defence of such behaviours would likely rely on premises that you would not accept. However, I will give it a go. This will likely lead us into discussing other aspects of the whole morality problem.

Axiom: Anything that gives pleasure is good.

1.) Child inappropriate contentography gives pleasure to some people.
2.) Therefore, it is good.

1.) Murder gives pleasure to some people.
2.) Therefore, it is good.

I think you can see the pattern here.

 

[Blackguard_]

1. Child inappropriate contentography
2. Murder (for no reason); murdering a defenseless person like a child
3. Rape (for no reason)
4. Stealing from the poor
5. Adultery

What if God decided that all the above were Ok with him and he erased a few commandments and laws? As the All-mighty Creator, he is allowed to do that right? Morality is relative to God's will.

Axiom: Anything that gives pleasure is good.

Utilitarianism is actually not relativistic, as it claims the generation of happiness to be an objective standard of goodness right? The action that generates the most hapiness is objectively the best, although the specific action is relative to cirmustances.

 

[David Gould]

Utilitarianism is actually not relativistic, as it claims the generation of happiness to be an objective standard of goodness right?

The position I put is not utilitarianism. Utilitarians would not suggest that murder, child inappropriate contentography or rape were good.

The position is simply that what any person considers 'good' at any moment in time will depend on what they accept as their basic 'goodness axiom' at that particular time.

 

[Blackguard_]

The position I put is not utilitarianism. Utilitarians would not suggest that murder, child inappropriate contentography or rape were good.

It would if the pleasure of the criminal outweighed the pain to the victim.

The position is simply that what any person considers 'good' at any moment in time will depend on what they accept as their basic 'goodness axiom' at that particular time.

so plaesure is good in and of itself regardless of what caused it and disregards any pain generated to get it? So pleasure is objectivly good in this view? Or is this Individual Relativism where whatever one thinks is right is right?

Anyways, the OP is rather odd since relativism automatically says that the actions listed could be considered good somewhere.

 

[David Gould]

It would if the pleasure of the criminal outwayed the pain to the victim.

No version of utilitarianism that I have ever seen allows this position to eventuate. In other words, while in theory that should be possible, utilitarianism seems - to me, at any rate - hedged around with a heck of a lot of qualifiers so that people following it can set that conclusion aside.

so plaesure is good in and of itself regardless of what caused it and disregards any pain generated to get it? So pleasure is objectivly good in this view? Or is this Individual Relativism where whatever one thinks is right is right?

This is extreme non-consequential individual relativism, a label I just made up to apply to it.

I do not hold the views I am discussing here. I am just putting the position that it is perfectly possible to hold and defend the view that rape is good, which is what I thought the OP was after.

 

[Blackguard_]

No version of utilitarianism that I have ever seen allows this position to eventuate.

That's odd. I'd think they would grant if the sitution happened it would be good, while pointing out that this event is not likely to happen.

In other words, while in theory that should be possible, utilitarianism seems - to me, at any rate - hedged around with a heck of a lot of qualifiers so that people following it can set that conclusion aside.

yeah, like Mill's "quality of pleaure" argument,, "rule Utilitariam" etc. Rule Utilitariams probably states rape is wrong for Kantian "Categorical imperative"-like reasons right?

This is extreme non-consequential individual relativism, a label I just made up to apply to it.

Ok.

I do not hold the views I am discussing here. I am just putting the position that it is perfectly possible to hold and defend the view that rape is good, which is what I thought the OP was after.

I know. And I think the OP was looking for a justification of rape etc. from relativism, as if no one would have the guts to admit rape might be considered good in some system of morality. For example a culture might think its good to rape the enemy's women.

 

[morningstar2651]

Not all morals are relative, but some are.

 

[In A Perfect World]

Nice way to rebut moral relativism - with a giant Appeal to Emotions.

Most of the things on the list are there because they maintain the structure in society and assure people that their emotions and physical bodies don't get damaged.

Why is stealing from the poor any different than stealing from the rich? Depends how much money you take. You take money based on percentages, it's even, you take money from a fixed limit, you hurt the poor more. You take money through a system of brackets, and you've hurt the rich more. 50/50 chance for each and a lose lose situation.

 

[Spherical Time]

For those who claim that all morals are relative, please rationalize the following things:

Sure, I'll give it a try.

1. Child inappropriate contentography

Child inappropriate contentography that does not not depict actual children (such as with over-age models and through the use of computer technology) is not necessarily immoral because the interest in prohibiting child inappropriate contentography is damage to the child.

2. Murder (for no reason); murdering a defenseless person like a child

Murder (for no reason) is accidental death. It is the intention of the person that is prosecuted, and even if there is a direct cause of death, the lack of intent or planning is mitigating.

3. Rape (for no reason)

As David Gould mentioned, is there such a thing as rape without reason? Even a generalized sense of dominance seems reason enough to me to suggest that this can't be rationalized because it doesn't exist.

4. Stealing from the poor

You mean aside from Capitalism? Theft by those that are even poorer, as the asets of the rich are innaccessable to those without the basic tools and knowledge that can be gained through the applied use of wealth.

5. Adultery

Allows a dysfunctional relationship to function by excluding fundamental parts of a relationship through outsourcing. If you have access to The Onion premium, search "relationship oursourcing."

Not that I necessarily believe in all of the above. I don't believe that morality is objective, but I do believe it's intersubjective, mainly through the use of society.

 

[Hungry Hungry Hippo]

So, if I rape a poor guy's wife, then murder him and steal all his child inappropriate content, will I be like the #1 bad guy>

 

[Seeking...]

For those who claim that all morals are relative, please rationalize the following things:

1. Child inappropriate contentography
2. Murder (for no reason); murdering a defenseless person like a child
3. Rape (for no reason)
4. Stealing from the poor
5. Adultery

Morals are relative. Everything you have listed here has been allowable by some society or another.

1. Child inappropriate contentography is akin to the sexual abuse of children and frankly it used to be treated much the way rape was - a property crime. It was only prosecuted if the victim didn't belong to you. This doesn't mean it was a good thing - but that societies didn't really see it as a crime per se... And considering that it is sadly a highly profitable tourism business in some parts of the world - that would suggest that there are those who aren't really concerned even now...
2. As someone stated - murder always has a reason, even if the reason is just that the perpetrator is delusional.
3. Again the rapist always thinks he has a reason and for much of history - they have been able to get away with it. Until this last century a woman had to have a spotless character, entirely above reproach and have the perpetrator far below her in social status to hope to get him found guilty. 100 years ago, rape was the woman's fault, not the man's.
4. Stealing from the poor? Legal redevelopment programs in the U.S. in recent decades have used emminent domain laws to force poor people out of ghettos only to rebuild the areas into places the former residents could never afford - perfectly legal and societally acceptable to take these peoples homes for pennies on what the land is worth...
5. Adultery has been considered a largely male perogative throughout most of history. The periods of time and locations where it was actually prosecuted as a crime (outside of the Middle East anyway) are quite limited, but the social conventions to aid it are longstanding (prostitutes, courtesans, & etc.)

 

[truthmonger89]

For those who claim that all morals are relative, please rationalize the following things:

1. Child inappropriate contentography
2. Murder (for no reason); murdering a defenseless person like a child
3. Rape (for no reason)
4. Stealing from the poor
5. Adultery

Actually, all of these things are relative. They are relative to one thing: human life. Your list is clearly abhorrent, and any rational person can see that such activities are obviously wrong. However, the reason these things are wrong is not because some invisible imaginary deity in the sky says they are wrong, it is because they harm human life. Any rational person can understand that harming human life is bad, and it is insulting to human intelligence to imply that we need some higher intelligence to explain that to us.

It's easy to understand why we have rules against such things, and the vast majority of humans would agree that we should obey the rules because it makes the world more livable and enjoyable if we don't go around robbing, raping and killing our fellow humans. If God suddenly changed the rules and made the above list of atrocities morally right, would you go out and start doing them? No way. There's a good reason why these things are bad, and if theists say that God gave us these rules for a reason, then God is obeying a higher authority, he is obeying reason. Couldn't we just obey reason on our own? Why do we need religion to tell us what's already obvious?

 

[Maynard Keenan]

2. Murder (for no reason); murdering a defenseless person like a child

Well God did murder innocent children (the last plague) so unless God can be immoral.....
He also commanded the destruction of Jericho and the killing of every man woman and child. He can't command you to be immoral.