Who should rule test?

[mattskramer]

Well, if might doesnt decide right, then we're back to 'what standing did the rest of the world have to act against South Africa'?

It really had no standing except with in thinking and imagination of the people. that it was wrong.

"It is abolsutely wrong" - there is no condition where it is not wrong.
"It is not absolutely wrong" - there is a condition where it is not wrong.
If a scenario exists, as you suggst it might, this also necessitates that there is a condition where it might not be wrong.
So, you MUST have a point where you would say 'OK, its not wrong to do this".

No. There might still be an undiscovered or unreasoned instance in which it would not be wrong. Can you say that there is no such thing as a 3-legged elephant having 2 trunks, webbed feet, and colored with purple dots living near the South Pole? Just because one has not been discovered does not mean that one does not exist.

Years ago, during the early days of American colonialism, many people probably came up with reasons why slavery should be allowed to continue or why women should not be allowed to participate in politics. Remember the history of prohibition. People reasoned that people should be allowed to have and consume alcohol. Then they thought that people should not even be allowed to own it. Then people thought that people should once again be allowed to have alcohol. Where is the absolute in that instance?

It is perfectly logical and reasonable to hold tentatively to a belief and not declare it to be a universal absolute.

 

[Diuretic]

I remain convinced there are no absolutes in morality, all morality is relative.

 

[midcan5]

The initial question was, "Are all values relative?" That morphed into morality, are they the same thing. I value my life, my family, my health, my family's health, my family's well being.

But just for debate.

If all moral acts are relative, why do I select one over another. If all moral acts are relative then all actors could possibly decide that suicide was the best option. That would end the argument. Or if we establish life is a key value can we then say moral actions that destroy life are relative. If we apply the laws of physics to morality can two contradictory moral actions occupy the same place in one's moral universe. Can I be pro life and bomb people who are not a threat. If they can't occupy the same place have we finally banished relative? But then you see D's point they often do.

 

[mattskramer]

The initial question was, "Are all values relative?" That morphed into morality, are they the same thing. I value my life, my family, my health, my family's health, my family's well being.

But just for debate.

If all moral acts are relative, why do I select one over another.

It may be due to a combination of things (Genetics, what you were taught, your experiences, your particular way of making judgments and the values you place on variables that – when considered together-that lead you to a particular conclusion). It is personal and each person is different. What might seem right to you might not seem right to someone else.

If all moral acts are relative then all actors could possibly decide that suicide was the best option.

Yes. It is possible that all actors could decide that suicide is the best option. Yet, this would be statistically highly unlikely. As I said, above, each person is different and generally decides things for himself.

That would end the argument.

Of course - because all participants would be dead.

Or if we establish life is a key value can we then say moral actions that destroy life are relative.

I don’t know what you mean by a key value but that might be irrelevant. I’ll explain why within the next sentence or two. You used the word combination “we establish”. If we do not establish key values, do they exist? This is my point about absolutes. I think that absolutes are a human invention and do not exist outside of human imagination.

If we apply the laws of physics to morality can two contradictory moral actions occupy the same place in one's moral universe. Can I be pro life and bomb people who are not a threat.

No. It does not make logical sense if you consider the morals as absolutes. That is one reason why I believe in relativism. One can be relatively pro life but realize that there may be instances when abortion is the lesser of two evils. For example, there may be instances when, without an abortion, a mother might die and/or the newborn would only live a brief painful life due to some disease. Also, just because I can’t think of exceptions to other moral “absolutes” does not mean that such exceptions do not exist or will never be found.

Imagine that there are 3 innocent people. They have a chemical within their bodies that will cure cancer. It can be used to eradicate all cancers from everyone on earth. It can then continue to be used as a vaccine for all future generations. Yet, in order to get this cure, the 3 innocent people must be killed and their body parts be harvested before they reach their 50th birthday. What do you do – kill 3 nice innocent people or allow millions to continue to die of cancer?

By the way, the innocent people do not want to give up their lives. Is it never right to kill innocent people? Some people might think about this and say that it is okay to kill them.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I remain convinced there are no absolutes in morality, all morality is relative.

I think that absolutes are a human invention and do not exist outside of human imagination.

Using absolutist statements to declare moral relativity is rather amusing.

(and completely blows your arguments)

 

[mattskramer]

Using absolutist statements to declare moral relativity is rather amusing.

(and completely blows your arguments)

Nope. I’m just giving my opinion. I might be wrong. It does not blow my argument.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Nope. I’m just giving my opinion. I might be wrong. It does not blow my argument.

In other words, you have no proof?

 

[mattskramer]

In other words, you have no proof?

Right, but you have no absolute proof to the contrary.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Right, but you have no absolute proof to the contrary.

I find everywhere proof that absolutes exist in this world...
from a baby's smile (absolute good) to a baby's rape (absolute evil).

(I labeled the good and evil examples in case you didn't know for sure)

 

[mattskramer]

I find everywhere proof that absolutes exist in this world...
from a baby's smile (absolute good) to a baby fucker (absolute evil).

(I labeled the good and evil examples in case you didn't know for sure)

You only call them absolute goods because no example has been found in which a typically bad thing would be good or in which a typically good thing would be bad.

Is it always good when a baby smiles. Perhaps the smile is due to a hallucinogen that he has inadvertently taken. Perhaps he liked the pretty red and black mushroom-like cloud that he saw over New York.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

You only call them absolute goods because no example has been found in which a typically bad thing would be good or in which a typically good thing would be bad.

Is it always good when a baby smiles. Perhaps the smile is due to a hallucinogen that he has inadvertently taken. Perhaps he liked the pretty red and black mushroom-like cloud that he saw over New York.

I've described the two ends of the spectrum....absolute good and absolute evil. They exist and you cannot prove otherwise. All you can do is describe the shades of gray in between. I agree that can exist also.

So either you believe in God (absolute good) and the Devil (absolute evil) or you do not. If you do not, you wind up living without direction in a confusing world of gray....not a good place to be in my opinion....as it is a world that becomes meaningless and self-destructive in many ways.

 

[mattskramer]

I've described the two ends of the spectrum....absolute good and absolute evil. They exist and you cannot prove otherwise. All you can do is describe the shades of gray in between. I agree that can exist also.

So either you believe in God (absolute good) and the Devil (absolute evil) or you do not. If you do not, you wind up living without direction in a confusing world of gray....not a good place to be in my opinion....as it is a world that becomes meaningless and self-destructive in many ways.

I can’t prove that ethical absolutes don’t exist as a given (needing no proof or explanation) and you can’t prove that they do not exist. You grossly erroneously characterize those who believe in ethical relativity. There is still direction for us. There is still tentative right and wrong. We are simply not arrogant to “know” that our values will never change. For the time being, or under most circumstances, I think that A is right or that B is right. Yet, with more experiences and with more critical thinking, my views might change. That is practically all that situational and relative ethics means. It is a good place in my opinion. The world and life still has meaning. There is still right and wrong for the most part and it is not self-destructive.

On the other hand, blind faith in a list of absolutes seems to be a dangerous and potentially self-destructive way to live. Hopefully, you will never run into a situation that would cause you to re-evaluate a self-created absolute. “Oh my gosh. I didn’t realize that this might happen. Have I been living a lie? My whole identity and perspective of the world – of the universe – is gone”.

I have just some advice for the wise. While you venture down life’s highway, keep in mind that things change. As I said before, practically speaking, people didn’t imagine that Blacks should be free – much less that they should be allowed to get married to White people. That just was not right. People understood that a woman’s place was in the kitchen or in the bedroom. It certainly was not to be at the voting booth. Look at how far we have progressed. We have a female speaker of the house. We have interracial marriage and children from interracial marriage.

We used to think that it was absolutely wrong to assist someone in killing himself (or we never though about it). Now, I think that most people agree that under very special circumstances, assisted suicide is okay.


I gave a rhetorical question about killing 3 people for a universal cancer cure. Do you think that it should be done? I honestly don’t know but I think that it is something to think about.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I can’t prove that ethical absolutes don’t exist as a given (needing no proof or explanation) and you can’t prove that they do not exist. You grossly erroneously characterize those who believe in ethical relativity. There is still direction for us. There is still tentative right and wrong. We are simply not arrogant to “know” that our values will never change. For the time being, or under most circumstances, I think that A is right or that B is right. Yet, with more experiences and with more critical thinking, my views might change. That is practically all that situational and relative ethics means. It is a good place in my opinion. The world and life still has meaning. There is still right and wrong for the most part and it is not self-destructive.

On the other hand, blind faith in a list of absolutes seems to be a dangerous and potentially self-destructive way to live. Hopefully, you will never run into a situation that would cause you to re-evaluate a self-created absolute. “Oh my gosh. I didn’t realize that this might happen. Have I been living a lie? My whole identity and perspective of the world – of the universe – is gone”.

I have just some advice for the wise. While you venture down life’s highway, keep in mind that things change. As I said before, practically speaking, people didn’t imagine that Blacks should be free – much less that they should be allowed to get married to White people. That just was not right. People understood that a woman’s place was in the kitchen or in the bedroom. It certainly was not to be at the voting booth. Look at how far we have progressed. We have a female speaker of the house. We have interracial marriage and children from interracial marriage.

We used to think that it was absolutely wrong to assist someone in killing himself (or we never though about it). Now, I think that most people agree that under very special circumstances, assisted suicide is okay.


I gave a rhetorical question about killing 3 people for a universal cancer cure. Do you think that it should be done? I honestly don’t know but I think that it is something to think about.

No, I don't think it should be done. It is never right to murder…even if it benefits the "greater good". This is not a "blind" absolute as you claim. That kind of relativistic thinking is what will result eventually in Stalinist type gulags and baby body parts markets among other horrors known and unknown.

As you go through life, do you find your morals changing? Today we are seeing relativistic thinking being reflected more and more in our laws and courts in the U.S. and the picture is not pretty.

For those who live in the gray world of relativism, many wind up becoming "Dorian Grays".

 

[mattskramer]

No, I don't think it should be done. It is never right to murder…even if it benefits the "greater good". This is not a "blind" absolute as you claim. That kind of relativistic thinking is what will result eventually in Stalinist type gulags and baby body parts markets among other horrors known and unknown.

As you go through life, do you find your morals changing? Today we are seeing relativistic thinking being reflected more and more in our laws and courts in the U.S. and the picture is not pretty.

For those who live in the gray world of relativism, many wind up becoming "Dorian Grays".

Is assisted suicide a murder? Years ago, wasn’t assisted suicide considered to be an absolute. Consider the 95-year-old man so weak and in pain with a debilitating disease. Consider that his health care hospital bills continue to mount and he is now broke. His family still loves him and wants to do what he wants. He is of sound mind and asks a family member to kill him. Should the family member comply with his “last wish”? I certainly would. I understand the notion of the “slippery slope” and the “domino theory” but people are not dominos. We allow people to smoke cigarettes. We might allow people to smoke marijuana. I doubt that we will ever allow people to take PCP or Heroine. There is a difference between informed consent by someone old, in terminal pain, and wanting to die versus a young teenage boy who is slightly depressed because his girlfriend dumped him. This is where careful thinking comes in. One should not allow blind obedience to alleged absolutes to dictate his actions. We have robots for that.

 

[Diuretic]

Using absolutist statements to declare moral relativity is rather amusing.

(and completely blows your arguments)

I wasn't using an absolutist statement, that was my conclusion you read and as such it was the final part of my thinking on the topic. I've read, I've thought and I've concluded that all morals are relative, there are no moral absolutes. If you disagree with my conclusion then please feel free to challenge it.

My arguments don't appear in my conclusion, they preceded it. But I'm more than happy to explain them.

 

[Diuretic]

I find everywhere proof that absolutes exist in this world...
from a baby's smile (absolute good) to a baby's rape (absolute evil).

(I labeled the good and evil examples in case you didn't know for sure)

That's no proof of absolutes, those are just expressions of your own moral outlook. You like to see a baby smile (who doesn't, we're hard-wired to nurture infants). Raping a baby is wrong because we say it is, the act of intercourse with a baby is a physiological act, we call that act "rape" and we call rape "wrong".

 

[Diuretic]

I've described the two ends of the spectrum....absolute good and absolute evil. They exist and you cannot prove otherwise. All you can do is describe the shades of gray in between. I agree that can exist also.

So either you believe in God (absolute good) and the Devil (absolute evil) or you do not. If you do not, you wind up living without direction in a confusing world of gray....not a good place to be in my opinion....as it is a world that becomes meaningless and self-destructive in many ways.

No proof here, just assertions of personal belief, highly subjective, not objective in the least, no proof.

 

[Diuretic]

Is assisted suicide a murder? Years ago, wasn’t assisted suicide considered to be an absolute. Consider the 95-year-old man so weak and in pain with a debilitating disease. Consider that his health care hospital bills continue to mount and he is now broke. His family still loves him and wants to do what he wants. He is of sound mind and asks a family member to kill him. Should the family member comply with his “last wish”? I certainly would. I understand the notion of the “slippery slope” and the “domino theory” but people are not dominos. We allow people to smoke cigarettes. We might allow people to smoke marijuana. I doubt that we will ever allow people to take PCP or Heroine. There is a difference between informed consent by someone old, in terminal pain, and wanting to die versus a young teenage boy who is slightly depressed because his girlfriend dumped him. This is where careful thinking comes in. One should not allow blind obedience to alleged absolutes to dictate his actions. We have robots for that.

Moral absolutists are actually moral dictators. They don't think through the issues, they merely tick off their values from a predetermined list, usually from some sort of ideological source.

There are no more absolutes, moral absolutists like to think there are but they can never prove their argument.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Is assisted suicide a murder? Years ago, wasn’t assisted suicide considered to be an absolute. Consider the 95-year-old man so weak and in pain with a debilitating disease. Consider that his health care hospital bills continue to mount and he is now broke. His family still loves him and wants to do what he wants. He is of sound mind and asks a family member to kill him. Should the family member comply with his “last wish”? I certainly would. I understand the notion of the “slippery slope” and the “domino theory” but people are not dominos. We allow people to smoke cigarettes. We might allow people to smoke marijuana. I doubt that we will ever allow people to take PCP or Heroine. There is a difference between informed consent by someone old, in terminal pain, and wanting to die versus a young teenage boy who is slightly depressed because his girlfriend dumped him. This is where careful thinking comes in. One should not allow blind obedience to alleged absolutes to dictate his actions. We have robots for that.

Euthansia is a complicated topic but the majority of Americans still believe aggresive euthansia is wrong because we believe human life is good. Jack Kevorkian had his doctor's license pulled in 1991 in Michigan. In fact, Dr. Death was just let out of prison in June of this year due to failing health where he has been doing time for second degree murder since 1999.

And what exactly makes you think that the slippery slope or domino effect will NOT happen? Perhaps that is why only 3 places in the world legally allow assisted suicide: Oregon, Belgium, and the Netherlands.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I wasn't using an absolutist statement, that was my conclusion you read and as such it was the final part of my thinking on the topic. I've read, I've thought and I've concluded that all morals are relative, there are no moral absolutes. If you disagree with my conclusion then please feel free to challenge it.

My arguments don't appear in my conclusion, they preceded it. But I'm more than happy to explain them.

Don't you understand that by saying, even as a conclusion of your thinking, that "all morals are relative, there are no moral absolutes" you are making an absolutist statement? You are claiming that there are no moral absolutes… which is an absolute in itself.

That's no proof of absolutes, those are just expressions of your own moral outlook. You like to see a baby smile (who doesn't, we're hard-wired to nurture infants). Raping a baby is wrong because we say it is, the act of intercourse with a baby is a physiological act, we call that act "rape" and we call rape "wrong".

You cannot prove that absolutes do not exist. Why do you think it is wrong to rape a baby? I'm sure there is more to it than just "because we say it is"… don't you think?

No proof here, just assertions of personal belief, highly subjective, not objective in the least, no proof.

You cannot provide proof to the otherwise.

Moral absolutists are actually moral dictators. They don't think through the issues, they merely tick off their values from a predetermined list, usually from some sort of ideological source.

No, moral absolutists are not moral dictators…they are just people who wish to have their beliefs reflected in good laws. Moral relativists like to see lax laws. However, when you look at the results of lax laws it appears society breaks down and many problems and much suffering is created.

There are no more absolutes, moral absolutists like to think there are but they can never prove their argument.

And once again you spit out another one of your absolutist statements…methinks you like to have it both ways…pls prove that absolutes do not exist...if you can do so without making an absolutist statement...