19-10-2004 22:02									#61
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Drachasor *Of course, it is not always innoffensive to hear, for someone that truly believes moral relativism is true would have to say that the Americans taking over land and killing the Native Americans was just as valid as the the Native American moral outrage over it. Most advocates of moral relativism don't readily understand this corollary.

That is rather the point. Bad things are only bad from the viewpoint of a different moral code. (Except people who believe they are doing wrong when the do so)
Moral relativism is true, it just doesn't describe any morality itself. It's a different way of looking at a question, but it's not an answer.

	19-10-2004 22:04									#62
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Do people ignore the entire body of my post and discuss only the footnote on purpose?

I address the issue of how one can evaluate wether a given ethical code is superior to another.

-Drachasor

	19-10-2004 22:06									#63
	Increase Your PM Length

You don't. They're all equal. That is also the point.

	19-10-2004 22:06									#64
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Yes but anti-relativists seem to take relativism as some kind of threat to the size of their penises, which tends to provoke bad reactions... we all know that relativism is (relatively) true, just some people are lost in a maze of dillusion. Or religious.

	19-10-2004 22:07									#65
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Immortal Wombat Bad things are only bad from the viewpoint of a different moral code.

Absolute nonsense. If you don't believe in bad or good you are just a pleasure seeker. What kind of universal sense does that make, or do you just claim that that also makes no sense, which would be contradicting yourself.

	19-10-2004 22:09									#66
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Snowflake That moral is relative.

But when - like you put it - moral standards are result of a contract, they cannot be seen as relative anymore. They get "institutionalized", and even people who do not agree with a certain standard have to act according to it. The interesting thing is how you (or those who want to make that contract) justify that this contract should have one certain "content", and not any other.

	19-10-2004 22:09									#67
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

You can believe in bad or good all you want, but another person may believe in a different set of bad or good. There is no universal sense Kid.

	19-10-2004 22:09									#68
	Inflate your Upload Space

Kid, your argument rests on the assumption that relativists can have no morality of their own, but merely recognise it to be relative... so valid in their individual context but not universalisable... which is what I've observed in all relativists I know, myself included. Doesn't some how make us abandoned hedonists, with no internal barrier within ourselves to that.

	19-10-2004 22:09									#69
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Snowflake That moral is relative.

I know that, but what is the connection. You haven't made any yet.

	19-10-2004 22:11									#70
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: But it was a bad thing, and it was caused because they had a bad ethical code.

Only to our current moral system. Perhaps in the future, the moral system will say it was just and right to do such a thing and we, today, were in the wrong.

	19-10-2004 22:12									#71
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Snowflake You can believe in bad or good all you want, but another person may believe in a different set of bad or good. There is no universal sense Kid.

Not believing in universal sense, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. You seem to think that morals can be justified in an individuals head, and need not to be justified else where.

	19-10-2004 22:13									#72
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by BeBro But when - like you put it - moral standards are result of a contract, they cannot be seen as relative anymore. They get "institutionalized", and even people who do not agree with a certain standard have to act according to it. The interesting thing is how you (or those who want to make that contract) justify that this contract should have one certain "content", and not any other.

No. The society one lives in defines the current effective moral standard, and the content changes over time, when people's view point changes. For one time killing wild animals are herotic, but later it becomes cruel. We have no right to say that it wasn't herotic for people who lived in the wild age.

Moral is relative, and temporary. It's loosely defined, unlike laws being a more tightly defined and forced contract.

	19-10-2004 22:14									#73
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Kidicious, if you are going to pursue the notion of the possibility of universal truth, if you can't establish what it is, you should at least attempt to induce it's basis.

	19-10-2004 22:14									#74
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Snowflake

	19-10-2004 22:14									#75
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: But it was a bad thing, and it was caused because they had a bad ethical code. Only to our current moral system. Perhaps in the future, the moral system will say it was just and right to do such a thing and we, today, were in the wrong.

I'm not concerned with whether the alternate ethical codes justify it. It was bad period. Only a person who some how benefits from such and atrosity would say otherwise or maybe someone who just doesn't care about the suffering of others.

	19-10-2004 22:15									#76
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Snowflake You can believe in bad or good all you want, but another person may believe in a different set of bad or good. There is no universal sense Kid.

Wrong, as I pointed out there are clear things that are bad.

This isn't some fantasy world of "good" and "evil." "Good" for a thing simply means that which benefits the welfare of a thing. "Bad" means that which hinders the welfare. That's simply what the words mean.

Some things are clearly harmful to people, such as nuking the planet into oblivion (also harmful to almost all life on the planet). These things are bad by definition. Any ethical system that proposed otherwise would have to give various reasons as to why it is so. Saying something like "it is always good to cause harm to everything" is false statement, because harming everything is tautologically bad.

With a little more effort, you can work your way up to concluding that other things are bad.

-Drachasor

	19-10-2004 22:16									#77
	Got spare money?

quote: I'm not concerned with whether the alternate ethical codes justify it. It was bad period. Only a person who some how benefits from such and atrosity would say otherwise or maybe someone who just doesn't care about the suffering of others.

And yet you offer no proof (if you ever can) as to why your morality is correct.

	19-10-2004 22:16									#78
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: How can anyone believing in moral relativism know whether moral relativism is good or bad?

Moral absolutism doesn't make any sense logically, therefore moral relativism wins by default. Not a moral judgement, just logic.

quote: Therefore, all absolute moral statements are dogmatic.

Exactly.

quote: I would rather have any moral code as opposed to none at all.

I have a moral code. Its my moral code. I don't predend that I can reify it as some absolute that transcends humanity. But I can say that its a hell of a lot better than most moral codes since it makes me happy and its logically consistent (at least mostly).

	19-10-2004 22:17									#79
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by BeBro Relativism has its merits to refute intolerant, dogmatic positions. But it fails (which was even admitted in this thread) completely when it comes to the justification of moral standards or norms, because then you have to go through a decision-making process where you have to find reasons for specific positions. But then you cannot think all possible positions are equally valid.

Well said. Relativism becomes dangerous when it induces people to give up the search of reasons; relativism requires a continuous effort of thinking.

	19-10-2004 22:17									#80
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Whaleboy Kidicious, if you are going to pursue the notion of the possibility of universal truth, if you can't establish what it is, you should at least attempt to induce it's basis.

There is no reason for me to do either of those things.

	19-10-2004 22:17									#81
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Snowflake No. The society one lives in defines the current effective moral standard, and the content changes over time, when people's view point changes. For one time killing wild animals are herotic, but later it becomes cruel. We have no right to say that it wasn't herotic for people who lived in the wild age. Moral is relative, and temporary. It's loosely defined, unlike laws being a more tightly defined and forced contract.

Just because the de facto moral system might change as time passes does not mean that all moral systems are equally valid.

The same arguement would state that all theories of science are equally valid.

Our understanding of what is right and wrong grows over time, just as our knowledge of the physical world grows.

-Drachasor

	19-10-2004 22:18									#82
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by DAVOUT Well said. Relativism becomes dangerous when it induces people to give up the search of reasons; relativism requires a continuous effort of thinking.

Bingo! Excellent point.

	19-10-2004 22:19									#83
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Just because the de facto moral system might change as time passes does not mean that all moral systems are equally valid. The same arguement would state that all theories of science are equally valid. Our understanding of what is right and wrong grows over time, just as our knowledge of the physical world grows.

Why do you think we are more right today? It seems like you WANT to believe that we are progressing in morality. Unlike science, morality is not testable. You cannot measure morality with an electron microscope. It is a subjective art.

	19-10-2004 22:20									#84
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: I would rather have any moral code as opposed to none at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._J._Ayer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Leslie_Stevenson

	19-10-2004 22:20									#85
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Relativism becomes dangerous

Logical fallacy. The "dangers" that ideas pose have absolutely nothing to do with their validity.

	19-10-2004 22:20									#86
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Relativism becomes dangerous

Logical fallacy. The "dangers" that ideas pose have absolutely nothing to do with their validity.

	19-10-2004 22:20									#87
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Relativism becomes dangerous

Logical fallacy. The "dangers" that ideas pose have absolutely nothing to do with their validity.

	19-10-2004 22:21									#88
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Snowflake No. The society one lives in defines the current effective moral standard, and the content changes over time, when people's view point changes. For one time killing wild animals are herotic, but later it becomes cruel. We have no right to say that it wasn't herotic for people who lived in the wild age.

My point was how - as you said - "people's view point change" to a certain moral aspect. The change itself requires to think an older point of view was wrong. But to say that you believe now that something done 100, 50, or 25 years ago was wrong is nonsense when you - at the same time - think that every moral position is equally valid. Then why should people's views change?

	19-10-2004 22:21									#89
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: I'm not concerned with whether the alternate ethical codes justify it. It was bad period. Only a person who some how benefits from such and atrosity would say otherwise or maybe someone who just doesn't care about the suffering of others. And yet you offer no proof (if you ever can) as to why your morality is correct.

I'm not arguing that my ethical code is correct. I've already admited that it isn't always. That doesn't mean in anyway that disregarding people for your own gain is moral. It certainly is not, regardless of the fact that others will find some absurd justification for it.

	19-10-2004 22:22									#90
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: I'm not concerned with whether the alternate ethical codes justify it. It was bad period. Only a person who some how benefits from such and atrosity would say otherwise or maybe someone who just doesn't care about the suffering of others. And yet you offer no proof (if you ever can) as to why your morality is correct.

Clearly from a standpoint of an ethical system for humans it was bad, for they unnecessarily killed (harmed) to humans. They did the antithesis of good to humans.

Now you would have to provide a reason why it is somehow acceptable for one set of humans to claim their good was more important than another set.

-Drachasor