FabSwingers.com forum: Relativism vs. Universalism

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

The topic of morality comes up fairly regularly on the forums. Since joining fab, and particularly since chatting on the forums, I have been giving a bit more thought to the question of Moral Relativism as opposed to Moral Universalism.

So fabbers, I thought it would be interesting to get your opinions on the subject. And to clarify, I'm not asking for normative answers to individual questions, I'm asking if you think morality is relative (culturally or otherwise) or universal (objective)? And how does your answer affect how you see yourself on fab?

-Courtney

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I see morality as relative to individual and cultural frames of reference. I tend to treat moral dilemmas, that I or other people face, as a basis for inquiry rather than coming down on one side or another of the dilemma. Personally I find it useful so I don't get caught on the horns of a dilemma too often.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *inaTitzTV/TS
over a year ago

Titz Towers, North Notts

I'll put the kettle on.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"I'll put the kettle on.

There is no one on this thread to drink the tea....

**plastic bag rolls in the wind**

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *uckoldandWifeCouple
over a year ago

Manchester

Think it should be universal, not sure why it is ok to do something in one culture that isn't ok in another. It seems relative morals are the cause of division and war.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *P2903Couple
over a year ago

Rotherham

Texas Turtle coffee pls!

-P

When I get the chance to reply properly I totally will. And stuff

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"Texas Turtle coffee pls!

-P

When I get the chance to reply properly I totally will. And stuff

Come over again after I get back from the US and I'll let you try any coffee you'd like

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Morality can't be universal.

We go through life as individuals, experiencing it in different ways therefore making decisions as to what is or isn't morally acceptable for each of us based on that.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *risky_MareWoman
over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

I believe there are moral absolutes, but that the principles governing them are more complex than people realise - that the 'spirit of the law' is also critical.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It's an age old question.

Moral relativism sounds good , very PC - but leads to stuff like fgm.

So if given a choice- I would tend towards absolute morality.

Ethics focusing very much on 'values' last few years

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *risky_MareWoman
over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

"Morality can't be universal.

We go through life as individuals, experiencing it in different ways therefore making decisions as to what is or isn't morally acceptable for each of us based on that.

But I would call that conscience - our conscience is our own personal guide, but it can be corrupted - ie the serial killer may truly believe it is 'right' to kill prostitutes, but that don't make it so.

One can be sincere, but sincerely wrong.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman
over a year ago

The Town by The Cross

"Think it should be universal, not sure why it is ok to do something in one culture that isn't ok in another. It seems relative morals are the cause of division and war."

If morality 'should' be universal then whose ideas on sexuality / swinging should we follow ?

Are relative morals the cause of division or is the belief that morals are universal along with the wish to force others to adhere to 'universal' morality ?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"It's an age old question.

Moral relativism sounds good , very PC - but leads to stuff like fgm.

So if given a choice- I would tend towards absolute morality.

Ethics focusing very much on 'values' last few years"

Yes, Aristotelian-type virtue ethics have become more "popular" lately. I omitted them from my initial post because I'm biased in my moral theory. But people can feel free to expressed that theory if they wish.

-Courtney

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *risky_MareWoman
over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

"Morality can't be universal.

We go through life as individuals, experiencing it in different ways therefore making decisions as to what is or isn't morally acceptable for each of us based on that.

One can be sincere, but sincerely wrong.

And both are relevant - both the action, and the heart - the attitude and intent behind it.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman
over a year ago

The Town by The Cross

"It's an age old question.

Moral relativism sounds good , very PC - but leads to stuff like fgm.

So if given a choice- I would tend towards absolute morality.

Ethics focusing very much on 'values' last few years"

Which morals would you say are absolute ?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"The topic of morality comes up fairly regularly on the forums. Since joining fab, and particularly since chatting on the forums, I have been giving a bit more thought to the question of Moral Relativism as opposed to Moral Universalism.

-Courtney

Well, Buddhism kinda teaches moral universalism, there being no I to have a relative standpoint from, yet it also teaches that not everyone has let go of the I, so therefore, you have to understand other people's relative moralisms.

I don't think knowing this really affects how I use fab specifically, but it does help me to navigate the world more effectively

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Morality can't be universal.

We go through life as individuals, experiencing it in different ways therefore making decisions as to what is or isn't morally acceptable for each of us based on that.

One can be sincere, but sincerely wrong.

Humans are totally fallible. Corruptable at any time unfortunately. I don't even believe we're all born with a conscience to be honest, or if we are - it varies to a strong degree, a 'universal moral compass' is pie in the sky. People do what suits them, ultimately.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I'll put the kettle on.

Ooh I'd love a cup of tea, I'd also quite like a cuddle because I'm grumpy today

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Morality can't be universal.

We go through life as individuals, experiencing it in different ways therefore making decisions as to what is or isn't morally acceptable for each of us based on that.

One can be sincere, but sincerely wrong.

And both are relevant - both the action, and the heart - the attitude and intent behind it."

Some people think intent is the single most important thing, and counts more than anything.

Kant in particular. I would go with this

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *risky_MareWoman
over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

"Morality can't be universal.

We go through life as individuals, experiencing it in different ways therefore making decisions as to what is or isn't morally acceptable for each of us based on that.

One can be sincere, but sincerely wrong.

They do, and it does vary wildly according to our experience, but I think the vast majority find a core consensus.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *risky_MareWoman
over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

"Morality can't be universal.

We go through life as individuals, experiencing it in different ways therefore making decisions as to what is or isn't morally acceptable for each of us based on that.

One can be sincere, but sincerely wrong.

And both are relevant - both the action, and the heart - the attitude and intent behind it.

Some people think intent is the single most important thing, and counts more than anything.

Kant in particular. I would go with this "

I'll google. Horses have a lot to say about it too - they can read it.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *o new WinksMan
over a year ago

BSE

Is it morally acceptable to have sex irrelevant of age, as long as the participants are sexually matured (been through puberty)?

Most ancient and some modern societies think it is. Romans married at 11 or 12 and they were 'civilised'.

Thought I would get a little more on topic...all that Philosophy stuff was making my head hurt

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Going on absolute morals, I will never say I cannot kill, for I eat meat, and therefore I would kill to eat. It does not matter that it is a spider, a cow, or a human in universal morals. However, subjective morals are very much a way of fitting into society, because it differentiates. Neither is right, nor indeed is either wrong, it is because we have to live together, and how our actions affect others in the community that affects what is right and wrong

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Is morality not an invention of the human mind? Organised religions use it as a guiding tool, without the human mind to use morality, doe's it not cease to exist?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

What was the question again?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *uckoldandWifeCouple
over a year ago

Manchester

There have to be some universal morals that we all share as humans, surely.

Don't kill another person?

Don't hurt another person?

Don't rape?

Don't take what isn't yours?

Share with others?

Take care of your children and your parents?

Just some examples of what might be basic. Would anyone say these were not ideals at least?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

And both are relevant - both the action, and the heart - the attitude and intent behind it.

Some people think intent is the single most important thing, and counts more than anything.

Kant in particular. I would go with this

I'll google. Horses have a lot to say about it too - they can read it."

tje book I'm referring to, has a huge title which would only put you off!

But essentially, what he says is :

You can do 'good' things for bad reasons, guess like being cruel to be kind.

Or do 'bad' things for good reasons.

So when evaluating an action, what matters is the intent.

I think your horses know what goes on

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"There have to be some universal morals that we all share as humans, surely.

Don't kill another person?

Don't hurt another person?

Don't rape?

Don't take what isn't yours?

Share with others?

Take care of your children and your parents?

Just some examples of what might be basic. Would anyone say these were not ideals at least?

Just being picky, but surely don't rape comes under both don't hurt and don't take what isn't yours? Reason being, even if it doesn't hurt the body, it hurts the mind, and the other person hasn't given consent, so it's taking their freedom to choose. Just to muddy the waters in a lively debate

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *uckoldandWifeCouple
over a year ago

Manchester

"There have to be some universal morals that we all share as humans, surely.

Don't kill another person?

Don't hurt another person?

Don't rape?

Don't take what isn't yours?

Share with others?

Take care of your children and your parents?

Just some examples of what might be basic. Would anyone say these were not ideals at least?

Yes you are right it does, so does FGM which someone mentioned earlier but in other cultures that's considered looking after your children despite the fact it maims them.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

And both are relevant - both the action, and the heart - the attitude and intent behind it.

Some people think intent is the single most important thing, and counts more than anything.

Kant in particular. I would go with this

I'll google. Horses have a lot to say about it too - they can read it.

tje book I'm referring to, has a huge title which would only put you off!

But essentially, what he says is :

You can do 'good' things for bad reasons, guess like being cruel to be kind.

Or do 'bad' things for good reasons.

So when evaluating an action, what matters is the intent.

I think your horses know what goes on"

Yes, Kant was an intentionalist, as opposed to a consequentialist. However, it is exactly these normative moral theories I was not asking about. The ideas of universalism and relativism can exist interchangeably with deontology/consequentialism/virtue ethics.

I think it makes the question too complex if we analyze normative theories as well.

-Courtney

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

If people are being told what to do and what not to do by others, the potential to break those rules always remains. Unless we see it for ourselves so it comes from within us all, it will be a suppressive battle, no matter how repulsed we are by the actions.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Morals will always be relative to a certain extent as they are the rules we impose based on our own values, beliefs and experiences of the world.

However I agree there are some you would hope are universal.

It links nicely to the nature vs nurture debate for me.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"There have to be some universal morals that we all share as humans, surely.

Don't kill another person?

Don't hurt another person?

Don't rape?

Don't take what isn't yours?

Share with others?

Take care of your children and your parents?

Just some examples of what might be basic. Would anyone say these were not ideals at least?

And being even pickier, as I said before, universal morals don't distinguish between don't kill a person and don't kill a flea, so that moral is subjective to fit in with the community. And don't take what isn't yours universally means that you cannot share without breaking the previous ruling, if it was don't take what isn't yours without permission, then it becomes universal. But this is only if you go by the rigid black and white approach

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"There have to be some universal morals that we all share as humans, surely.

Don't kill another person?

Don't hurt another person?

Don't rape?

Don't take what isn't yours?

Share with others?

Take care of your children and your parents?

Just some examples of what might be basic. Would anyone say these were not ideals at least?

Yes you are right it does, so does FGM which someone mentioned earlier but in other cultures that's considered looking after your children despite the fact it maims them."

I fail to know how anyone can think fgm is in any way beneficial to anyone. But on the flip side, how do I know whether my opinion might be different if I had been raised in that culture

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Ok my mind has now taken a different tack. My moral compass is informed by a continuing inquiry with others into my intentions, thoughts and feelings that inform my behaviour and actions and the effect they have. That means it is an ongoing process of becoming more conscious rather than adhering to a set of moral principles either created by others or me.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *bbandflowCouple
over a year ago

South Devon

Must be Universalism, sex with Relatives is immoral!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *iamondjoeMan
over a year ago

Glastonbury

Bit complicated for a Monday morning?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Bit complicated for a Monday morning?"

This thread woke me up so it's been good for me on a Monday morning

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman
over a year ago

The Town by The Cross

"Is it morally acceptable to have sex irrelevant of age, as long as the participants are sexually matured (been through puberty)?

Most ancient and some modern societies think it is. Romans married at 11 or 12 and they were 'civilised'.

Thought I would get a little more on topic...all that Philosophy stuff was making my head hurt

No it isn't morally acceptable.

The physical maturing of either male or female is not an indication of their emotional or mental maturity.

Laws are not just to protect children physically. Laws are there with the intent of allowing the child to reach an age of consent. An age when they will have a little understanding of what they are being asked and what the consequences might be.

Highly immoral to take advantage of a child who has breasts and periods or who has discovered a hard on and ejaculating.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"Bit complicated for a Monday morning?"

Apologies

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

So much theoretical nonsense, opinions and thoughts, I'm sure it can all be cut through with simplicity. See the truth and it all dissolves.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Bit complicated for a Monday morning?"

It's great!

It's like a Victoria sponge thought cake - the two sponges are a delicious plethora of opinions, the fondant creamy bit in the middle is a metaphorical show of those opinions (some) merging in agreement. The dusty sprinkling atop the cake is the fence sitters

Better ?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman
over a year ago

The Town by The Cross

"There have to be some universal morals that we all share as humans, surely.

Don't kill another person?

Don't hurt another person?

Don't rape?

Don't take what isn't yours?

Share with others?

Take care of your children and your parents?

Just some examples of what might be basic. Would anyone say these were not ideals at least?

These kind of ideals are what come about when communities wish to live in harmony. When they can see that fighting all the time is bloody hard and sharing can mean all get fed and feel safe.

But they are not innate. They are learned.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman
over a year ago

The Town by The Cross

Then comes social control

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman
over a year ago

The Town by The Cross

"So much theoretical nonsense, opinions and thoughts, I'm sure it can all be cut through with simplicity. See the truth and it all dissolves."

'Truth' ....... ffs.

Whose truth ?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman
over a year ago

The Town by The Cross

"Bit complicated for a Monday morning?

Apologies

Interesting response given the thread title

Joe, come back on Tuesday.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *oxesMan
over a year ago

Southend, Essex

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"Bit complicated for a Monday morning?

It's great!

Better ?

I'm hungry now...never had a Victoria sponge cake before

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"There have to be some universal morals that we all share as humans, surely.

Don't kill another person?

Don't hurt another person?

Don't rape?

Don't take what isn't yours?

Share with others?

Take care of your children and your parents?

Just some examples of what might be basic. Would anyone say these were not ideals at least?

These kind of ideals are what come about when communities wish to live in harmony. When they can see that fighting all the time is bloody hard and sharing can mean all get fed and feel safe.

But they are not innate. They are learned. "

I agree, they can also be unlearned, as we have seen over thousands of years of wars and conflicts, unfortunately.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"Bit complicated for a Monday morning?

Apologies

Interesting response given the thread title

Joe, come back on Tuesday. "

Haha. I never said whether I was a relativist or Universalist, though

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Is it morally acceptable to have sex irrelevant of age, as long as the participants are sexually matured (been through puberty)?

Most ancient and some modern societies think it is. Romans married at 11 or 12 and they were 'civilised'.

Thought I would get a little more on topic...all that Philosophy stuff was making my head hurt

No it isn't morally acceptable.

The physical maturing of either male or female is not an indication of their emotional or mental maturity.

Highly immoral to take advantage of a child who has breasts and periods or who has discovered a hard on and ejaculating.

100% agree with granny on this. Universally speaking, yes, you can, but people are different, and as granny rightly says, they don't always know what they're getting into, these laws are in place to protect the vulnerable ones, despite being universal in nature for the area they encompass

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Bit complicated for a Monday morning?

It's great!

Better ?

I'm hungry now...never had a Victoria sponge cake before

Maybe the "fence sitters" can see through the theories and opinions, and how futile they are in the face of truth. Enjoy your cake.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Bit complicated for a Monday morning?

It's great!

Better ?

Everything is better with cake. You've got my tummy rumbling now, and mouth watering

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Bit complicated for a Monday morning?

It's great!

Better ?

I'm hungry now...never had a Victoria sponge cake before

Maybe the "fence sitters" can see through the theories and opinions, and how futile they are in the face of truth. Enjoy your cake.

Please explain what this truth is? People have searched pretty much the entire of human history looking for it, it's nice to know someone finally has an unequivocal truth that everyone can believe in

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *bbandflowCouple
over a year ago

South Devon

"Bit complicated for a Monday morning?

It's great!

Better ?

I'm hungry now...never had a Victoria sponge cake before

Never had a Victoria sponge! I suggest you get a grip and sort yourself out, start watching the GBB, and forget all this metaphysical stuff.

You live in Leeds, not Vienna!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Bit complicated for a Monday morning?

It's great!

Better ?

I'm hungry now...never had a Victoria sponge cake before

Maybe the "fence sitters" can see through the theories and opinions, and how futile they are in the face of truth. Enjoy your cake.

Ah but it isn't about 'seeing through' theories and opinions - there is no right or wrong when it comes to an opinion or theory as they're made on individual/personal experience.

Whatever you may see when trying to tear someone's opinion apart can be teared apart by someone else too.

Thanks, it's lovely, no bitter aftertaste or anything, just full of tasty thoughts

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Bit complicated for a Monday morning?

It's great!

Better ?

I'm hungry now...never had a Victoria sponge cake before

Maybe the "fence sitters" can see through the theories and opinions, and how futile they are in the face of truth. Enjoy your cake.

Please explain what this truth is? People have searched pretty much the entire of human history looking for it, it's nice to know someone finally has an unequivocal truth that everyone can believe in"

You have to see it for yourself, not someone else's explanation, we've had that in the form of organised religions. If you look into something and see it is false, then you have seen truth. It's nothing to do with opinions and theories or the human world of thought. E.g, if I go to the cinema to see a film, then describe the film to you, the next day you go to the cinema to watch the film for yourself. You're experience of that film is completely different to mine and my explanation of it. So go and see the truth, don't accept my or anybody else's explanations.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"Bit complicated for a Monday morning?

It's great!

Better ?

I'm hungry now...never had a Victoria sponge cake before

Maybe the "fence sitters" can see through the theories and opinions, and how futile they are in the face of truth. Enjoy your cake.

Please explain what this truth is? People have searched pretty much the entire of human history looking for it, it's nice to know someone finally has an unequivocal truth that everyone can believe in

So relativism, then?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Bit complicated for a Monday morning?

It's great!

Better ?

I'm hungry now...never had a Victoria sponge cake before

Maybe the "fence sitters" can see through the theories and opinions, and how futile they are in the face of truth. Enjoy your cake.

Ah but it isn't about 'seeing through' theories and opinions - there is no right or wrong when it comes to an opinion or theory as they're made on individual/personal experience.

Whatever you may see when trying to tear someone's opinion apart can be teared apart by someone else too.

Thanks, it's lovely, no bitter aftertaste or anything, just full of tasty thoughts

Seeing through opinions and theories is seeing truth, and if it is what is, it cannot be ripped apart.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Bit complicated for a Monday morning?

It's great!

Better ?

I'm hungry now...never had a Victoria sponge cake before

Maybe the "fence sitters" can see through the theories and opinions, and how futile they are in the face of truth. Enjoy your cake.

Please explain what this truth is? People have searched pretty much the entire of human history looking for it, it's nice to know someone finally has an unequivocal truth that everyone can believe in

So relativism, then?

Me explaining the film would be relative to my way, seeing it for yourself is not.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"Bit complicated for a Monday morning?

It's great!

Better ?

I'm hungry now...never had a Victoria sponge cake before

Maybe the "fence sitters" can see through the theories and opinions, and how futile they are in the face of truth. Enjoy your cake.

Please explain what this truth is? People have searched pretty much the entire of human history looking for it, it's nice to know someone finally has an unequivocal truth that everyone can believe in

So relativism, then?

Me explaining the film would be relative to my way, seeing it for yourself is not."

I was joking. But that isn't the point of relativism anyway. The idea that we can bboth have two truths regarding the film would be relativistic, even though our truths would be absolute to each of us. So it does fall perfectly in line with relativist theory.

Keeping aside the obvious fact that opinions regarding the film would not be considered moral thought.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Bit complicated for a Monday morning?

It's great!

Better ?

I'm hungry now...never had a Victoria sponge cake before

Maybe the "fence sitters" can see through the theories and opinions, and how futile they are in the face of truth. Enjoy your cake.

Ah but it isn't about 'seeing through' theories and opinions - there is no right or wrong when it comes to an opinion or theory as they're made on individual/personal experience.

Whatever you may see when trying to tear someone's opinion apart can be teared apart by someone else too.

Thanks, it's lovely, no bitter aftertaste or anything, just full of tasty thoughts

Seeing through opinions and theories is seeing truth, and if it is what is, it cannot be ripped apart."

'It is what is' 'truth'... In your opinion...

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *risky_MareWoman
over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

And both are relevant - both the action, and the heart - the attitude and intent behind it.

Some people think intent is the single most important thing, and counts more than anything.

Kant in particular. I would go with this

I'll google. Horses have a lot to say about it too - they can read it.

tje book I'm referring to, has a huge title which would only put you off!

But essentially, what he says is :

You can do 'good' things for bad reasons, guess like being cruel to be kind.

Or do 'bad' things for good reasons.

So when evaluating an action, what matters is the intent.

I think your horses know what goes on"

Oh I would agree with that - the brief look I had earlier suggests he believes moral 'worth' of an action depends solely on the degree of altruism and I would disagree there.....to some degree haha! Yes, the 'widows mite' is in some sense more valuable a gift, but that does not make the rich mans gift valueless.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Bit complicated for a Monday morning?

It's great!

Better ?

I'm hungry now...never had a Victoria sponge cake before

Maybe the "fence sitters" can see through the theories and opinions, and how futile they are in the face of truth. Enjoy your cake.

Please explain what this truth is? People have searched pretty much the entire of human history looking for it, it's nice to know someone finally has an unequivocal truth that everyone can believe in

So relativism, then?

Me explaining the film would be relative to my way, seeing it for yourself is not.

Keeping aside the obvious fact that opinions regarding the film would not be considered moral thought.

But there can't be two truths, surely, otherwise we are saying there are two films, we can't disagree on the films content.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Bit complicated for a Monday morning?

It's great!

Better ?

I'm hungry now...never had a Victoria sponge cake before

Maybe the "fence sitters" can see through the theories and opinions, and how futile they are in the face of truth. Enjoy your cake.

Ah but it isn't about 'seeing through' theories and opinions - there is no right or wrong when it comes to an opinion or theory as they're made on individual/personal experience.

Whatever you may see when trying to tear someone's opinion apart can be teared apart by someone else too.

Thanks, it's lovely, no bitter aftertaste or anything, just full of tasty thoughts

Seeing through opinions and theories is seeing truth, and if it is what is, it cannot be ripped apart.

'It is what is' 'truth'... In your opinion..."

Truth is not an opinion, see it for yourself, if someone offers it as their opinion, then it isn't truth. That's why it can't be described or explained.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"Bit complicated for a Monday morning?

It's great!

Better ?

I'm hungry now...never had a Victoria sponge cake before

Maybe the "fence sitters" can see through the theories and opinions, and how futile they are in the face of truth. Enjoy your cake.

Please explain what this truth is? People have searched pretty much the entire of human history looking for it, it's nice to know someone finally has an unequivocal truth that everyone can believe in

So relativism, then?

Me explaining the film would be relative to my way, seeing it for yourself is not.

Keeping aside the obvious fact that opinions regarding the film would not be considered moral thought.

But there can't be two truths, surely, otherwise we are saying there are two films, we can't disagree on the films content."

Bit that's the point of my question. Relativism holds that there is indeed more than one MORAL truth. Universalism holds to the contrary- that there is a single moral truth for any given moral question.

That is why it is important to distinguish between moral truths and ontological truths.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Bit complicated for a Monday morning?

It's great!

Better ?

I'm hungry now...never had a Victoria sponge cake before

Maybe the "fence sitters" can see through the theories and opinions, and how futile they are in the face of truth. Enjoy your cake.

Please explain what this truth is? People have searched pretty much the entire of human history looking for it, it's nice to know someone finally has an unequivocal truth that everyone can believe in

So relativism, then?

Me explaining the film would be relative to my way, seeing it for yourself is not.

Keeping aside the obvious fact that opinions regarding the film would not be considered moral thought.

But there can't be two truths, surely, otherwise we are saying there are two films, we can't disagree on the films content.

That is why it is important to distinguish between moral truths and ontological truths. "

But you are dividing truth into categories, it needs to be seen as a whole, otherwise it is brought down to the level of the human mind.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *risky_MareWoman
over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

"There have to be some universal morals that we all share as humans, surely.

Don't kill another person?

Don't hurt another person?

Don't rape?

Don't take what isn't yours?

Share with others?

Take care of your children and your parents?

Just some examples of what might be basic. Would anyone say these were not ideals at least?

These kind of ideals are what come about when communities wish to live in harmony. When they can see that fighting all the time is bloody hard and sharing can mean all get fed and feel safe.

But they are not innate. They are learned. "

I disagree.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *risky_MareWoman
over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

"Ok my mind has now taken a different tack. My moral compass is informed by a continuing inquiry with others into my intentions, thoughts and feelings that inform my behaviour and actions and the effect they have. That means it is an ongoing process of becoming more conscious rather than adhering to a set of moral principles either created by others or me."

Yes, greater self-awareness can lead to a different broader consciousness.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"Bit complicated for a Monday morning?

It's great!

Better ?

I'm hungry now...never had a Victoria sponge cake before

Maybe the "fence sitters" can see through the theories and opinions, and how futile they are in the face of truth. Enjoy your cake.

Please explain what this truth is? People have searched pretty much the entire of human history looking for it, it's nice to know someone finally has an unequivocal truth that everyone can believe in

So relativism, then?

Me explaining the film would be relative to my way, seeing it for yourself is not.

Keeping aside the obvious fact that opinions regarding the film would not be considered moral thought.

But there can't be two truths, surely, otherwise we are saying there are two films, we can't disagree on the films content.

That is why it is important to distinguish between moral truths and ontological truths.

But you are dividing truth into categories, it needs to be seen as a whole, otherwise it is brought down to the level of the human mind."

Again, that's the point. A Universalist would argue, as you currently are, that moral truth operate the same way as ontological truths...that they are a priori, as Kant would put it. However, a moral relativist would say that moral truths are different from ontological truths because they don't exist a priori- that is to say, they only exist in so far as the human condition and experience allow them to exist.

So, pick a side

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *obbytupperMan
over a year ago

Menston near Ilkley

I found 'The Desederata' in the 1960's. As a guide to how to navigate life it has few rivals.

Non religious, just a very wise advice.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *bbandflowCouple
over a year ago

South Devon

Could Relativism be used to justify Genocide?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Bit complicated for a Monday morning?

It's great!

Better ?

I'm hungry now...never had a Victoria sponge cake before

Maybe the "fence sitters" can see through the theories and opinions, and how futile they are in the face of truth. Enjoy your cake.

Please explain what this truth is? People have searched pretty much the entire of human history looking for it, it's nice to know someone finally has an unequivocal truth that everyone can believe in

So relativism, then?

Me explaining the film would be relative to my way, seeing it for yourself is not.

Keeping aside the obvious fact that opinions regarding the film would not be considered moral thought.

But there can't be two truths, surely, otherwise we are saying there are two films, we can't disagree on the films content.

That is why it is important to distinguish between moral truths and ontological truths.

But you are dividing truth into categories, it needs to be seen as a whole, otherwise it is brought down to the level of the human mind.

So, pick a side

Surely truth doesn't have sides, see this is people arguing over what is, rather than both seeing what is so they can no longer disagree, they complicate everything and tie themselves in knots, so much so that the importants things are lost within opinions and theological argument, we need to drop all that and observe what is, otherwise go around in circles like we have for thousands of years.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"Could Relativism be used to justify Genocide?"

It has been.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *bbandflowCouple
over a year ago

South Devon

"Could Relativism be used to justify Genocide?

It has been. "

Indeed it has, and is regarded as the 'crime of crimes' in international law. So where does that leave those who accept moral relativism

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *usterMan
over a year ago

worthing

The whole thing about philosophy and morality is that they are human inventions...most likely from a ??? (can't think of a suitable noun) who didn't indulge in enough sex. It does fill in the time from birth to death.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"Could Relativism be used to justify Genocide?

It has been.

Indeed it has, and is regarded as the 'crime of crimes' in international law. So where does that leave those who accept moral relativism "

Very true. But universalism has been used to defend genocide as well (with American Indians and various genocides in Africa) - the idea that because there is a universal moral truth (mine), and you're a savage because you don't believe in my morals, you need to die. In fact, most religious wars are defended on the basis of universal morality.

So, seems relativism and universalism fall victim to that problem.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Could Relativism be used to justify Genocide?

It has been.

Indeed it has, and is regarded as the 'crime of crimes' in international law. So where does that leave those who accept moral relativism

So, seems relativism and universalism fall victim to that problem. "

Which basically equates to people using basic knowledge to convince others their actions are justified, essentially sodomising the principles they claim to be upholding

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Bit complicated for a Monday morning?

It's great!

Better ?

I'm hungry now...never had a Victoria sponge cake before

Maybe the "fence sitters" can see through the theories and opinions, and how futile they are in the face of truth. Enjoy your cake.

Please explain what this truth is? People have searched pretty much the entire of human history looking for it, it's nice to know someone finally has an unequivocal truth that everyone can believe in

So relativism, then?

Me explaining the film would be relative to my way, seeing it for yourself is not.

Keeping aside the obvious fact that opinions regarding the film would not be considered moral thought.

But there can't be two truths, surely, otherwise we are saying there are two films, we can't disagree on the films content."

I disagree, there are an infinite number of truths, for instance you hear a woman shout, you look around, you see a man with a bag in his hand, it's a very feminine bag,and he's running. One assumes he's taken the bag in most instances, what if he were to be the owner of the bag and late for a meeting, and the woman's shout was unrelated? Completely different truths, but both subject to different relative standings

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *bbandflowCouple
over a year ago

South Devon

"Could Relativism be used to justify Genocide?

It has been.

Indeed it has, and is regarded as the 'crime of crimes' in international law. So where does that leave those who accept moral relativism

So, seems relativism and universalism fall victim to that problem. "

I agree there is a blurring, but it seems to me there is evidence that the genocides you mention use universal morality as justification, but in fact are practising moral relativism.

The Nazis tried to cover up their crimes, which tends to indicate they knew it would be regarded as abhorrent.

Similarly so for the genocide of American Indians.

Why cover up that something they regarded as an universal moral truth?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman
over a year ago

The Town by The Cross

"I found 'The Desederata' in the 1960's. As a guide to how to navigate life it has few rivals.

Non religious, just a very wise advice.

Eh ?

Be at peace with God no matter what you perceive HIM to be ? I don't think soooooooooo Robert.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman
over a year ago

The Town by The Cross

Also .... fuck the dull and ignorant.

I am a loud and vexatious person.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Could Relativism be used to justify Genocide?

It has been.

Indeed it has, and is regarded as the 'crime of crimes' in international law. So where does that leave those who accept moral relativism

So, seems relativism and universalism fall victim to that problem.

I agree there is a blurring, but it seems to me there is evidence that the genocides you mention use universal morality as justification, but in fact are practising moral relativism.

The Nazis tried to cover up their crimes, which tends to indicate they knew it would be regarded as abhorrent.

Similarly so for the genocide of American Indians.

Why cover up that something they regarded as an universal moral truth?

Probably because, even though they use the "justification" they know it's a lie to help them carry on their lives without the guilt. Just a thought

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Bit complicated for a Monday morning?

It's great!

Better ?

I'm hungry now...never had a Victoria sponge cake before

Maybe the "fence sitters" can see through the theories and opinions, and how futile they are in the face of truth. Enjoy your cake.

Please explain what this truth is? People have searched pretty much the entire of human history looking for it, it's nice to know someone finally has an unequivocal truth that everyone can believe in

So relativism, then?

Me explaining the film would be relative to my way, seeing it for yourself is not.

Keeping aside the obvious fact that opinions regarding the film would not be considered moral thought.

But there can't be two truths, surely, otherwise we are saying there are two films, we can't disagree on the films content.

Plus, the human mind is fallible, how often have you discussed a movie with someone, and a scene is mentioned that the other person does not recognise? It's more common to find alterations between how characters are perceived, but I've had conversations where entire scenes have slipped in or out from movies and I've had to rewatch. So yes, a film may remain the same, but two different people might not be watching the same movie

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *bbandflowCouple
over a year ago

South Devon

"Could Relativism be used to justify Genocide?

It has been.

Indeed it has, and is regarded as the 'crime of crimes' in international law. So where does that leave those who accept moral relativism

So, seems relativism and universalism fall victim to that problem.

I agree there is a blurring, but it seems to me there is evidence that the genocides you mention use universal morality as justification, but in fact are practising moral relativism.

The Nazis tried to cover up their crimes, which tends to indicate they knew it would be regarded as abhorrent.

Similarly so for the genocide of American Indians.

Why cover up that something they regarded as an universal moral truth?

Probably because, even though they use the "justification" they know it's a lie to help them carry on their lives without the guilt. Just a thought"

And surely that is taking moral relativism to it's logical end

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

You can debate the truth of anything till the cows come home. There is fact and then there is the perception of said fact. Once you get to motivation of why said fact was done or not done there are a million perspectives available.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"You can debate the truth of anything till the cows come home. There is fact and then there is the perception of said fact. Once you get to motivation of why said fact was done or not done there are a million perspectives available.

So, universalism? Otherwise I would direct you to my comment earlier regarding the distinction between moral truths and ontological ones.

It is one thing to say "that cow is brown" (ontological fact). It is something very different to say "it is morally wrong to have sex out of marriage" (moral value judgement).

-Courtney

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

So, universalism? Otherwise I would direct you to my comment earlier regarding the distinction between moral truths and ontological ones.

It is one thing to say "that cow is brown" (ontological fact). It is something very different to say "it is morally wrong to have sex out of marriage" (moral value judgement).

-Courtney"

But brown is a word used for describing perception, which brings it back to a relativity debate. I only mention this because colour blind people might not see brown as we see it. In my opinion, the genetic makeup is the universal, because that is the list of markers that makes the cow be, exactly what it is

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Could Relativism be used to justify Genocide?

It has been.

Indeed it has, and is regarded as the 'crime of crimes' in international law. So where does that leave those who accept moral relativism

So, seems relativism and universalism fall victim to that problem.

I agree there is a blurring, but it seems to me there is evidence that the genocides you mention use universal morality as justification, but in fact are practising moral relativism.

The Nazis tried to cover up their crimes, which tends to indicate they knew it would be regarded as abhorrent.

Similarly so for the genocide of American Indians.

Why cover up that something they regarded as an universal moral truth?

Probably because, even though they use the "justification" they know it's a lie to help them carry on their lives without the guilt. Just a thought

And surely that is taking moral relativism to it's logical end "

Possibly, but I disagree, surely it's a societal level of the five stages of grief, and the society as a majority has only really entered denial

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Could Relativism be used to justify Genocide?

It has been.

Indeed it has, and is regarded as the 'crime of crimes' in international law. So where does that leave those who accept moral relativism

So, seems relativism and universalism fall victim to that problem.

I agree there is a blurring, but it seems to me there is evidence that the genocides you mention use universal morality as justification, but in fact are practising moral relativism.

The Nazis tried to cover up their crimes, which tends to indicate they knew it would be regarded as abhorrent.

Similarly so for the genocide of American Indians.

Why cover up that something they regarded as an universal moral truth?

Probably because, even though they use the "justification" they know it's a lie to help them carry on their lives without the guilt. Just a thought

And surely that is taking moral relativism to it's logical end

Possibly, but I disagree, surely it's a societal level of the five stages of grief, and the society as a majority has only really entered denial"

Or, at least, I bloody hope that there's more progression to be made as a society

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

So, universalism? Otherwise I would direct you to my comment earlier regarding the distinction between moral truths and ontological ones.

It is one thing to say "that cow is brown" (ontological fact). It is something very different to say "it is morally wrong to have sex out of marriage" (moral value judgement).

-Courtney"

No definitely relative as said earlier for me.

Truth for me is word I don't like in debate there is often no such thing just perception and differing perspective. perspective. Therefore absolute will never exist even where we believe it should x

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *obbytupperMan
over a year ago

Menston near Ilkley

"Also .... fuck the dull and ignorant.

I am a loud and vexatious person."

Nah Granny it's a front you put on!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *bbandflowCouple
over a year ago

South Devon

"Could Relativism be used to justify Genocide?

It has been.

Indeed it has, and is regarded as the 'crime of crimes' in international law. So where does that leave those who accept moral relativism

So, seems relativism and universalism fall victim to that problem.

I agree there is a blurring, but it seems to me there is evidence that the genocides you mention use universal morality as justification, but in fact are practising moral relativism.

The Nazis tried to cover up their crimes, which tends to indicate they knew it would be regarded as abhorrent.

Similarly so for the genocide of American Indians.

Why cover up that something they regarded as an universal moral truth?

Probably because, even though they use the "justification" they know it's a lie to help them carry on their lives without the guilt. Just a thought

And surely that is taking moral relativism to it's logical end

Possibly, but I disagree, surely it's a societal level of the five stages of grief, and the society as a majority has only really entered denial"

Sorry, but can't see how one theoretical model on grief can be extrapolated to the pathology of genocide.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

For me morality can only be relative (ie subjective) because I don't understand where the objective moral authority would come from to convince everyone of its universality. Of course there are actions that I think should be considered universally immoral (butter on bacon sandwiches for instance) but that's just me innit

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *bbandflowCouple
over a year ago

South Devon

"For me morality can only be relative (ie subjective) because I don't understand where the objective moral authority would come from to convince everyone of its universality. Of course there are actions that I think should be considered universally immoral (butter on bacon sandwiches for instance) but that's just me innit

No, butter on bacon sandwiches is self evidently a universal must. Hot bacon fat melting the slightly salted butter.

Anyone not obeying should serve custodial sentences.

On a less serious note you say morality can 'only' be relative, as I have posted above can genocide be justified as moral relativism.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Could Relativism be used to justify Genocide?

It has been.

Indeed it has, and is regarded as the 'crime of crimes' in international law. So where does that leave those who accept moral relativism

So, seems relativism and universalism fall victim to that problem.

I agree there is a blurring, but it seems to me there is evidence that the genocides you mention use universal morality as justification, but in fact are practising moral relativism.

The Nazis tried to cover up their crimes, which tends to indicate they knew it would be regarded as abhorrent.

Similarly so for the genocide of American Indians.

Why cover up that something they regarded as an universal moral truth?

Probably because, even though they use the "justification" they know it's a lie to help them carry on their lives without the guilt. Just a thought

And surely that is taking moral relativism to it's logical end

Possibly, but I disagree, surely it's a societal level of the five stages of grief, and the society as a majority has only really entered denial

Sorry, but can't see how one theoretical model on grief can be extrapolated to the pathology of genocide. "

Well, society is essentially a group of people, therefore, if people within a society feel grief towards a group of people within another society, then surely the society is essentially in grief. It's just my way of rationalising out the creases, therefore quite probably inaccurate because my knowledge on social psychology is limited

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

No butter

OMG who are you?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *bbandflowCouple
over a year ago

South Devon

"Could Relativism be used to justify Genocide?

It has been.

Indeed it has, and is regarded as the 'crime of crimes' in international law. So where does that leave those who accept moral relativism

So, seems relativism and universalism fall victim to that problem.

I agree there is a blurring, but it seems to me there is evidence that the genocides you mention use universal morality as justification, but in fact are practising moral relativism.

The Nazis tried to cover up their crimes, which tends to indicate they knew it would be regarded as abhorrent.

Similarly so for the genocide of American Indians.

Why cover up that something they regarded as an universal moral truth?

Probably because, even though they use the "justification" they know it's a lie to help them carry on their lives without the guilt. Just a thought

And surely that is taking moral relativism to it's logical end

Possibly, but I disagree, surely it's a societal level of the five stages of grief, and the society as a majority has only really entered denial

Sorry, but can't see how one theoretical model on grief can be extrapolated to the pathology of genocide.

Don't want to be pedantic, but what do you mean by 'one group feeling grief for another society' as related to Genocide...

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

No, butter on bacon sandwiches is self evidently a universal must. Hot bacon fat melting the slightly salted butter.

Anyone not obeying should serve custodial sentences.

On a less serious note you say morality can 'only' be relative, as I have posted above can genocide be justified as moral relativism."

I wasn't very clear there - I didn't mean 'only' to imply it was trivial or couldn't be used as an excuse for perpetrating evil (there's another slippery word). I meant that I believe relative morality is the only kind that exists - every 'universal' code of morals (religious, secular, whatever)is subjective based on the part of the world, culture or era it grew from &, therefore, relativistic (is that a word?) even if the people espousing it consider it universal. Not sure that I've done any better in trying to explain myself here

I'm not even going to broach the bacon sarnie question with such a radical butter fundamentalist as yourself - that's how wars start

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

No butter

OMG who are you?

I am someone who is working to make the world a better place for our children ma'am, one bacon sandwich at a time.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

No butter

OMG who are you?

I am someone who is working to make the world a better place for our children ma'am, one bacon sandwich at a time. "

But no butter? Come over and I will show you the error of your ways

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

No butter

OMG who are you?

I am someone who is working to make the world a better place for our children ma'am, one bacon sandwich at a time.

But no butter? Come over and I will show you the error of your ways

Only if you promise not to make me a bacon sandwich

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Morality must be relative unless you are going to claim that it is an objective force which exists in some tangible form. You would really need a god to exist for the latter to be true as it would suggest that either morality is like some energy force we tune into, some aspect of consciousness which we download from some single source i.e. God, or an innate wiring in the brain that leads towards certain universal moral truths... which suggests a designer.

So morality in all its intricacies is relative to culture, era, and basic philosophical outlook.

However, it also has a tent pole which supports it... and that is a basic knowledge of goodness which is universal. I don't believe in evil. But I do believe that most people know basically where they are in relation to the magnetic north of ultimate goodness. Although obviously some people don't have that sense... but I would suggest that's their deficiancy, as serial killers and the like, rather than anything else. This goodness is objective and real... and hence universal.

That's my 2p... thanks for asking OP its been fun thinking about it

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

No butter

OMG who are you?

I am someone who is working to make the world a better place for our children ma'am, one bacon sandwich at a time.

But no butter? Come over and I will show you the error of your ways

Only if you promise not to make me a bacon sandwich

Haha I won't make you one but I may eat a buttered one on front of you

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

Thanks for everyone's opinions!! I really enjoyed reading what everyone had to say on this topic. Regardless of my own beliefs.

I like how honest and intelligent you all are

-Courtney

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Could Relativism be used to justify Genocide?

It has been.

Indeed it has, and is regarded as the 'crime of crimes' in international law. So where does that leave those who accept moral relativism

So, seems relativism and universalism fall victim to that problem.

I agree there is a blurring, but it seems to me there is evidence that the genocides you mention use universal morality as justification, but in fact are practising moral relativism.

The Nazis tried to cover up their crimes, which tends to indicate they knew it would be regarded as abhorrent.

Similarly so for the genocide of American Indians.

Why cover up that something they regarded as an universal moral truth?

Probably because, even though they use the "justification" they know it's a lie to help them carry on their lives without the guilt. Just a thought

And surely that is taking moral relativism to it's logical end

Possibly, but I disagree, surely it's a societal level of the five stages of grief, and the society as a majority has only really entered denial

Sorry, but can't see how one theoretical model on grief can be extrapolated to the pathology of genocide.

Don't want to be pedantic, but what do you mean by 'one group feeling grief for another society' as related to Genocide..."

A large quantity of people die during genocides. Grief therefore is inevitable for the majority

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Thanks for everyone's opinions!! I really enjoyed reading what everyone had to say on this topic. Regardless of my own beliefs.

I like how honest and intelligent you all are

-Courtney"

And thank you for posing questions to exercise the ol' grey matter and stir up some interesting ideas

Speaking for myself, I like you for similar reasons

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Morality can't be universal.

We go through life as individuals, experiencing it in different ways therefore making decisions as to what is or isn't morally acceptable for each of us based on that.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"There have to be some universal morals that we all share as humans, surely.

Don't kill another person?

Don't hurt another person?

Don't rape?

Don't take what isn't yours?

Share with others?

Take care of your children and your parents?

Just some examples of what might be basic. Would anyone say these were not ideals at least?

Lots of humans don't share those morals.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *arry247Couple
over a year ago

Wakefield

-Courtney

Morality is neither relative nor universal as it is both relative and universal.

Both points of view are valid but both are flawed

BTW Desiderata was written in 1927 by an American, Max Ehrmann would be a good philosophy for swingers to follow

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I guess we are only as moral as the most moral person we know. This is the anchor.

In a society of rapists... rape seems moral. However, the moment someone enters that society who "knows" it is immoral, and makes that known, then it casts a whole new light on it and everyone suddenly senses how wrong it is, even if they carry on doing it. They become ashamed of it.

The question is... is there a moral person who embodies the utmost of goodness, who everyone can come to know, and who exists in perpetuity? If so, then this person would be an objective anchor for all forms of morality

If not then morality is like a virus which only exists within the human... and we would be wise to protect and nurture it

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I guess we are only as moral as the most moral person we know. This is the anchor.

If not then morality is like a virus which only exists within the human... and we would be wise to protect and nurture it

One assumes the Dalai Lama is currently the most moral person in our society at the moment, however, that is one among many opinions

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *phroditeWoman
over a year ago

(She/ her) in Sensualityland

Morality is no more than a code of conduct adopted by a group/ society of people - it may align itself or be derived from religion or philosophy or simply the need for survival.

It cannot be an absolute as that would imply a "one size fits all", a rigid existence irrespective of environmental changes and therefore it would serv no purpose other than to restrict people's lives.

Hope it makes sense (did in my head just now!)

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *oxesMan
over a year ago

Southend, Essex

Can i thank the op for creating a thread that is thought and stirs a mature debate.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"Can i thank the op for creating a thread that is thought and stirs a mature debate. "

Thanks back to you for contributing!!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

Post new Message to Thread