| Author |
|
Jeremy Nichols
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 02 May 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 634
|
| Posted: 22 September 2005 at 10:14am | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
But if there is no real Dictator of Absolute Truth, and no way to
determine nor absolutely define it, then why is there a
separation of the two? Given your definition of morality, I would
say that academia still is not flooded in moral relativism, but
ethical relativism. I don't believe there is an absolute truth of
Right and Wrong, Good and Evil, so does that make me a
moral atheist, instead of a moral relativist?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Brian Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 July 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 31172
|
| Posted: 22 September 2005 at 10:15am | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
But if there is no real Dictator of Absolute Truth...
**************
I nominate Tishman.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Eric Kleefeld
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 21 December 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 4422
|
| Posted: 22 September 2005 at 10:17am | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
Darragh, I'm saying true opinions (as opposed to assertions) cannot be
wrong because they're beyond the definitions of true and false.
If someone likes JB's art better when JB inks it, that's their personal
aesthetic. If someone else likes it better when inked by Terry Austin, that's
also a matter of taste.
It only gets problematic when someone asserts that JB's art is inherently,
objectively better when inked by himself or when inked by Terry Austin.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Jeremy Nichols
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 02 May 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 634
|
| Posted: 22 September 2005 at 10:17am | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
There are certain opinions that cannot be wrong. They are
things that are not based in fact whatsover. I think Eric was
speaking of things that are genuinely and SOLELY opinion in
nature.
An example:
"Dude, have you heard that new Whitesnake album? It f'ing
ROCKS, man!"
"Whitesnake sucks, man."
This is a case where neither opinion is wrong. HOWEVER...
neither opinion is right, either. They are both solely opinion,
based on the individuals personal taste.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Todd Hembrough
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 4172
|
| Posted: 22 September 2005 at 10:19am | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
Jeremy,
I see moral relativism (I am using this term as I understand it, and I
am not intentionally using it to describe whether your morals or ethic
are superior or inferior to mine) as the underlying cause of this
current Wikipedia debate, where everyone is entitled to their opinion,
their facts, their interpretation of the facts, and that no one opinion
is more correct than anyother. On wiki, this leads to the
farcical debates over whether libelous statements can stay in a page,
while the 'editors' debate their libelousness.
In the conversations here, I see the same moral relativism underlying
the assertion that there are no facts, all facts are biased, etc.
The bottom line is that somewhere along the path, it became trendy to
assert that no society, government, idea, philosophy, literature, etc
is inherently superior to any other. The natural consequence of
this is that genocidal dictatorships must be lavashed with the same
praise as democracies (if only they lavished praise on democracies!!).
The curious parallel to this is that those people who most closely
adhere to a moral reletivist outlook (for instance calling suicide
bombers freedom fighters) find their way clear to heap criticism and
condemnation on countries which are democracies. Making it seem
as if they are aligning themselves with the nihilistic forces and
against enlightenment.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Darragh Greene
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 March 2005
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1812
|
| Posted: 22 September 2005 at 10:24am | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
Academia is flooded by those who deny the possibilty of morality, and who then proclaim ethical relativisim.
My problem is if you're an ethical relativist, how do you ever take anyone to task over their bad behaviour? In Muslim North Africa it's habitual practice to cut out young girls' clitorises in order that they experience no sexual pleasure when procreating. This is a good thing, by their lights. What do you have to say about it, however, as an ethical relativist?
If you were an honest ethical relativist, you'd say nothing. If you had some sense of shame, you'd say something, but why should anyone listen to you when you lay claim to no moral authority?
That's why morality per se is important; it allows us to make the world a better place for everyone because of its universal nature. Ethical relativism does nothing for anyone.
Of course, having realised the importance of morality for the human condition, one must then begin to rationally sift through the moral systems out there to work towards the best understanding possible by human beings of the overarching moral order, whether the order comes from the human soul itself or from God.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Darragh Greene
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 March 2005
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1812
|
| Posted: 22 September 2005 at 10:29am | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
Eric and Jeremy, we seem to be sliding back to the aesthetics debate we all had here months ago, so on the matter of opinion in relation to aesthetics, I have nothing further to add to what I said back then. It's too early for me to have had any new thoughts on the matter.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Jeremy Nichols
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 02 May 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 634
|
| Posted: 22 September 2005 at 10:29am | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
I can totally see your point, Todd. I would even agree that what
you call moral relativism is the reason for those things. But
that's like blaming Darwin for the Holocaust, which is frequently
done. I think that a non-absolute view of right and wrong is
closer to the truth than not, but I do not think that all manners of
suppositions can be drawn from that. Just as I believe that
survival of the fittest is fairly close to accurate in biology, but we
cannot drawn conclusions at to what exactly the "fittest" is...
Edited by Jeremy Nichols on 22 September 2005 at 10:31am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Brian Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 July 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 31172
|
| Posted: 22 September 2005 at 10:30am | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
Too early?!!???!? It's, what, 4:30 PM over there?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Darragh Greene
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 March 2005
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1812
|
| Posted: 22 September 2005 at 10:34am | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
Ha ha, no, I meant in terms of the number of months since the last debate on aesthetics!
That said, maybe I should get out of bed soon!
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Jeremy Nichols
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 02 May 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 634
|
| Posted: 22 September 2005 at 10:38am | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
How does the relativist take one to task over something,
Darragh? Simple. By imposing their own selfish wants on
others, same as the moral absolutists. That's the same way that
I can say "should" and "ought" when I have just come out, as it
were, as a relativist. Because I have my own personal views on
how things should be, based on my own selfish needs and
wants. From an absolute morality view, I could not say there
was anything wrong with cutting off clitori in young girls in
Africa, or the Holocaust, or anything, because I do not believe
there is any absolute right or wrong. From a personal view,
though, I can condemn that, because it does not fit my personal
interpretations of right and wrong.
Edited to add: And I don't really want to debate too much these
points, either, Darragh... I just didn't think it quite fair of Todd to
condemn all of moral/ethical relativism for the mess that is
Wikipedia.
Edited by Jeremy Nichols on 22 September 2005 at 10:42am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Darragh Greene
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 March 2005
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1812
|
| Posted: 22 September 2005 at 10:44am | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
Yes, but why should (!) I listen to you, Jeremy (as an ethical relativist, of course)? See my post upthread concerning the plethora of opinions in the world on this and that, and your non-entitlement to me having to listen to yours; so what special authority do you claim as an ethical relativist so that I ought to stop and listen to you and maybe change my wicked ways?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Topic Closed)
