 |
| |
|
|
grumbler
|
 |
Virginia, USA
Apr 1999
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I deny that it is moral reasoning of any sort. Simply follow the leader. |
But if they believe in their leader, then following their leader is the "rational" thing to do. You cannot simply define "reasoning' as what you yourself believe and retain credibility. Not every human action is the result of reasoning, for sure, but i can assure you that my catholic family members can explain why they believe as they do using reason as well as faith. I do not follow either their reasoning or their faith, but I acknowledge that both exist.
quote:
Or rather, they knew it would be seen as bad by those judging them, so they changed their tune. |
But they acted to surpress their findings at the very height of their power, so they wer not motivated by what "those judging them" might think - in fact, they thought they would be thanked by future generations for having the guts to tackle the "jewish problem" head on.
You know, there is no evidence whatever that Hitler himself knew of the real "final solution to the Jewish problem" that the Wannsee Conference came up with. "Arbeit Mach Frei" was the sign above the gates at Auschwitz. Whom do you think it was designed to fool?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
Anyway, if moral rules are subject to scepticism, then so are mathematical ones.  |
Why not? Both are artificial human constructs.
The sole grounding of morality to any absolute is the fact that human beings by biological nature are social animals. Hence any human morality, to function, must enforce and maintain social order. This is why certain values, such as prohibitions on murder and theft are universal.
But the list of universal tabboos is short, VERY short. Every other moral value, specially things like "tolerance" or "piety" are utterly relative, including something like "the golden rule".
A simple stroll down human history should more than adequately show this to be true empirically. Moral values have changed drastically, as they must given the changing conditions.
Our modern "Liberal Values" are a creation of our long history of moral philosophy and such, as well as a a reaction to the scientific revolution and the massive growth in population and density, which put brand new pressures on human groups.
BUt the basic truth is this-there is no absolute moral code out there, that would, for example, condemn the Aztecs and their religion of human sacrifice.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
I've heard this all before. It still doesn't show that morality is relative. In fact a lot of things that people will think are moral principles differ only because they aren't in fact principles, but adaptations of principles to the environment. |
And what would yopu point to to say that Marality is absolute?? I have yet to see anything from you on that end.
As for "adaptation of principles to the environment"-interestingly enough, that is pretty much what I said- there are very few principles, all having to do with social stability. To work they must conform to the environment because otherwise the group dies, showing the inadequacy of the values.
quote:
The fact we can make the moral codes of others intelligible to ourselves as moral codes in the vast majority of cases speaks against relativism. |
We are all human. Well, maybe not YOU, given your utter inability to seemingly understand or make intelligible to you a variety of other moral values not your own- maybe I should use you as a prime example of the relativism.
There are different level aggie:
One level is left unspoken, if universally assumed to be true, and therefore ignored. At this basic level, the SOURCE OF morality, is Universal. The codes and rules that are devised by people thought are NOT universal, and their worth is based solely on how well they work to meet the underlying goal.
People debate the rules, and the rules are relative. The source (our humanity) isn't relative. BUt then, no one goes around debating humanity.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
And what would yopu point to to say that Marality is absolute?? I have yet to see anything from you on that end. |
The fact that most people tend to agree in principle. Where there are differences they are down to environmental needs or strange beliefs about the facts.
quote:
As for "adaptation of principles to the environment"-interestingly enough, that is pretty much what I said- there are very few principles, all having to do with social stability. To work they must conform to the environment because otherwise the group dies, showing the inadequacy of the values. |
That's not relativism.
quote:
We are all human. Well, maybe not YOU, given your utter inability to seemingly understand or make intelligible to you a variety of other moral values not your own- maybe I should use you as a prime example of the relativism. |
Maybe you should actually read about this before making such old fashioned claims.
quote:
One level is left unspoken, if universally assumed to be true, and therefore ignored. At this basic level, the SOURCE OF morality, is Universal. The codes and rules that are devised by people thought are NOT universal, and their worth is based solely on how well they work to meet the underlying goal. |
Which isn't relativism.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-04-2005 07:59
|