Moral Absolutism VS Moral Relativism - Page 4 - OG Myth-Weavers

Notices


Worldly Talk

Civil discussion and debate on real world events and issues.


Moral Absolutism VS Moral Relativism

 
View Poll Results
Are you a Moral Absolutist or a Moral Relativist?
Absolutist 3 16.67%
Relativist 6 33.33%
Obligatory 'pie'/'cake' option 9 50.00%


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Profit View Post
Perhaps.

Or perhaps is not a matter of if I love my mom, but rather I am tapping into love to love my mom.


Yes, I'm suggesting that it is possible for love to be an energy field. Anything involving Jedi can't be all bad.
So are you making a serious argument or are you making mysterious references to energy fields and such?

Quote:
Originally Posted by N-Dog View Post
I never said anything about might making right. I told you where our sense of right comes from. I said there are consequences for disobeying that right, and some of them involve punishments, while others do not (at least not in a physical sense). But the consequences come after the "right"-- they do not provide justification for it. They might be rational reasons to obey it, though.
No, you said that you can call something "right" by showing someone the consequences of failing to follow the "right" behavior. Might makes right, in other words.

To the relative moralists. Is there any situation in which non-consensual sex is "right"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by VampireBunBun View Post
To the relative moralists. Is there any situation in which non-consensual sex is "right"?
To the one that is the victim of such it is unlikely that such an act will ever seem right to them.

However, to society, yes. As an example let us put forth a society in which the number of men decrease dramatically, let's say 1 of 1000 men suddenly vanish. Male children also suddenly become less likely. Hypothetical situation, but something that is feasable, if not possible. In this situation if a man were unwilling to procreate, it would be 'right' for society to force him to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amnistar View Post
To the one that is the victim of such it is unlikely that such an act will ever seem right to them.

However, to society, yes. As an example let us put forth a society in which the number of men decrease dramatically, let's say 1 of 1000 men suddenly vanish. Male children also suddenly become less likely. Hypothetical situation, but something that is feasable, if not possible. In this situation if a man were unwilling to procreate, it would be 'right' for society to force him to.
No need to go that far, in most societies that it was slavery is morally right, it was probably morally right to have non-consensual sex with your slave.
And for that matter, while the slave might not feel good about it, they may still feel that it was morally right for the master to rape them.

Other examples also include non-consensual sex with your wife as close as 40 years ago (and there are probably some societies where it is still morally right).

Quote:
Maybe I'm missing something, and maybe I didn't see the post on this issue: but if we assume there is no absolute truth, then one can't say "There is absolute morals" or "there is not absolute morals," because either statement would be an absolute truth statement.

...which would make the Pie/Cake choice the only logical option.
Sorry I delayed in the response but...I don't think this is true. If you believe there isn't an absolute truth, that doesn't turn that belief into an absolute truth. It's sort of like saying that a lack of belief in god is a religion. I simply do not accept the idea that there is an absolute truth. Similiarly, Moral Relativism is simply the opposite of Moral absolutism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VampireBunBun View Post
To the relative moralists. Is there any situation in which non-consensual sex is "right"?
This is where these discussions always end up and always fall down.

I'd really like to see a MR vs MA argument one day that got past the peculiar sadistic voyeurism that causes this particular discussion to repeat itself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amnistar View Post
Sorry I delayed in the response but...I don't think this is true. If you believe there isn't an absolute truth, that doesn't turn that belief into an absolute truth. It's sort of like saying that a lack of belief in god is a religion. I simply do not accept the idea that there is an absolute truth. Similiarly, Moral Relativism is simply the opposite of Moral absolutism.
The statement, "There are no absolutes," is itself an absolute. The most you can say is, "There might not be absolutes." You can't actually deny the possibility of their existence without stating an absolute, making the whole statement self-defeating.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Illniyar View Post
No need to go that far, in most societies that it was slavery is morally right, it was probably morally right to have non-consensual sex with your slave.
And for that matter, while the slave might not feel good about it, they may still feel that it was morally right for the master to rape them.

Other examples also include non-consensual sex with your wife as close as 40 years ago (and there are probably some societies where it is still morally right).
So, you are saying that it was perfectly okay for slave masters to have non-consensual sex with their slaves? You'd be fine with that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by VampireBunBun View Post
The statement, "There are no absolutes," is itself an absolute. The most you can say is, "There might not be absolutes." You can't actually deny the possibility of their existence without stating an absolute, making the whole statement self-defeating.
That's a logical assumption and really depends on you definition of Absolute truth and of truth, and while that assumption is true from a logical perspective it doesn't really mean that in reality absolutes actually exist.
Using
Basically it boils down to a common method to prove something logically- "Let's assume there are no absolute truths, since that statement is in itself an absolute truth, we have a contradiction and so absolute truth must exist
logic to prove the existence of absolute truth is flawed due to the fact that logic is inherently based on the assumption that absolute truth exists (and defines several absolute truths itself).

But it doesn't really matter, since even if we take that statement by the letter, it doesn't point to the fact that any other absolute truth exist except the absolute truth "there exists an absolute truth", let alone the existence of absolute morals.


Quote:
So, you are saying that it was perfectly okay for slave masters to have non-consensual sex with their slaves? You'd be fine with that?
Yes that is what I'm saying, on the assumption that we are referring to a society where slavery was in itself morally okay, for example ancient Egypt or other biblical realms.
Would I be fine with that? it depends on the situation, I think that as a master in those societies, I would probably be quite fine with that, as a slave I don't know and can't answer that since my social upbringing is too different from what we perceive those societies to be.
But that's not really relevant, whether or not I'll be fine with it has no bearing on if it's morally right or wrong, I could be fine with stealing from babies, that doesn't mean it's morally right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Illniyar View Post
But that's not really relevant, whether or not I'll be fine with it has no bearing on if it's morally right or wrong, I could be fine with stealing from babies, that doesn't mean it's morally right.
This is true. It doesn't matter what moral views Illniyar holds to, because his values could certainly be 'wrong' if there are indeed moral absolutes.




 

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Last Database Backup 2024-03-28 04:19:55pm local time
Myth-Weavers Status