A question for the opponents of moral relativism...

[Martin]

Its a simple question really. I know a lot of poeple here hate moral relativism and blame it for many of the problems in society. My question is: "What alternative is there? Who should dictate our morals and why should they be the ones to do it?"

 

[oLLie]

Moral relativism, in a nutshell please?

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
Its a simple question really. I know a lot of poeple here hate moral relativism and blame it for many of the problems in society. My question is: "What alternative is there? Who should dictate our morals and why should they be the ones to do it?"

As opposed to what? Moral absolutism? The idea that morality is set in stone and handed down from up above? The problem with that is that it forces society into one narrow path, and puts it into conflict with societies with different values.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: oLLie
Moral relativism, in a nutshell please?

In short, that your morals are relative. That there is no absolute right or wrong, that what's right and wrong depends on how you look at a situation. For example, vegetarians claim that killing animals and eating meat is immoral. Others, like me, see no problems with eating meat.

 

[vi edit]

I believe in moral relativism - to an extent. But I believe that there are certain things that simply are unacceptable, regardless of culture/beliefs/values. Those would be rape, murder of innocents, and the abuse of women and children. I don't care who you are, or where you live, those things just aren't right. These core beliefs are commonly called taboos. Taboos are common beliefs that are adhered to by a vast majority of the worlds population.

Outside of those, and things get a little more blury.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
Its a simple question really. I know a lot of poeple here hate moral relativism and blame it for many of the problems in society. My question is: "What alternative is there? Who should dictate our morals and why should they be the ones to do it?"

As opposed to what? Moral absolutism? The idea that morality is set in stone and handed down from up above? The problem with that is that it forces society into one narrow path, and puts it into conflict with societies with different values.

Now don't get me wrong, I am not a fan of absolute morality. But I see so many poeple (both here and in the real world) talk of moral relativism as if its bad and should not be taught, so I would like to hear what their alternative is.

 

[BD2003]

A lot of people cant seem to see the difference between absolute morals, and relative morals that everyone can agree on.

Just because everyone agree that its not a good idea to kill your own people, doesnt mean its absolute.

Morals are absolutely relative. They are totally culturally based. I question the intelligence of anyone who can't see that simple fact.

 

[glenn1]

That's because many folks confuse the proper definition of moral relativism, and conflate the definition of moral relativism with that of moral nihilism. I'll give you an example.

A moral absolutist says killing another is always wrong, in every circumstance.

A moral relativist says killing another is wrong without extenuating circumstances, i.e. in self-defense.

A moral nihilist says that you only think killing someone is wrong because your culture tells you so, we have no right to judge other cultures which practice killing for human sacrifice, sport, etc.

Fill in the blank with whatever action you're trying to make a moral judgment on, and you have the idea.

 

[ATLien247]

Originally posted by: vi_edit
I believe in moral relativism - to an extent. But I believe that there are certain things that simply are unacceptable, regardless of culture/beliefs/values. Those would be rape, murder of innocents, and the abuse of women and children. I don't care who you are, or where you live, those things just aren't right. These core beliefs are commonly called taboos. Taboos are common beliefs that are adhered to by a vast majority of the worlds population.

Outside of those, and things get a little more blury.

So, although you're admittedly against abuse of women and children, you have no problem with abuse of men?

 

[vi edit]

So, although you're admittedly against abuse of women and children, you have no problem with abuse of men?

Here's where things get blury, and of course there are always exceptions, but typically, a woman or a child has a snowballs chance in hell of defending themselves against an adult male. I'm not going to say that it's ok for a man to abuse another man, but at least the matchup is much more even.

 

[oLLie]

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak

Originally posted by: oLLie
Moral relativism, in a nutshell please?

In short, that your morals are relative. That there is no absolute right or wrong, that what's right and wrong depends on how you look at a situation. For example, vegetarians claim that killing animals and eating meat is immoral. Others, like me, see no problems with eating meat.

Actually I was hoping you'd type that up and cram it inside a walnut or something and then mail it to me.

P.S. no peanuts because they're legumes (thanks Seinfeld).