Moral Relativism

POSTED BY: reaverman
UPDATED: Monday, May 8, 2006 01:43
VIEWED: 6596
PAGE 2 of 5

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

RAZZA

Monday, May 1, 2006 5:35 PM

Good topic! Thanks for starting it Reaverman!

Signym, I have a slight problem with your post overall in that it seems to focus a great deal on social structure and what "society thinks is right". I have always seen morality as an individual phenomenon. Granted, our morals are highly effected by our social surroundings, but societal codes are more often reflected in legal systems, which are IMHO distinctly separate from morality. You stated,

Quote:
"..When "right" and "wrong" become a matter of state and religious enforcement, you can almost always bet that it's the average person's ox that's getting gored and the power structure that benefits."

I think that enforcement would imply a legal structure rather than a moral one. Do you see the two concepts of Legality and Morality as inseparably linked or do you make room for their divergence from one another?

-----------------
"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon."

---Napoleon Bonaparte

JMB9039

Monday, May 1, 2006 5:38 PM

Too many things to discuss - this is quite a broad topic.

To address a few things:
I'm not sure if the "do unto others" thing holds all that well as a social construction. While I agree that we are social creates (with socially constructed identities), I find this argument problematic when juxtaposing it to social darwinism or libertarianism. Further, recognizing our social make-up - we have a rather individualistic society. We rarely follow a "do unto others" approach and instead we see people look for ways to better themselves at the expense of others.

Moral relativism, as I think it is being used here, would dictated that our morals change as our society develops. That being said, I think the first thing we'd have to decide is what is "good" or "bad" and then how do we come to some determination as to how they came to be. We need a common ground to begin the discussion. Sorry, i"m not trying to cause kinks in the thread, but it seems a difficult topic to explore without narrowing it down and coming to agreement on our factors.

--JMB9039

SIGNYM

Monday, May 1, 2006 5:42 PM

Razza- Good points! Reality calls- later, dude!

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

REAVERMAN

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 12:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I don't see any reasons to keep religion out of it. I think maybe reaverman was just trying to avoid the "God said it, I believe it, that settles it" arguments as they aren't very interesting.

Yeah, that's the gist of what I was trying to say, but it was three in the morning so I wasn't very coherent. Sorry folks

!

You're welcome on my boat. God ain't.

REAVERMAN

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 12:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
I've always considered that morals developed as a pro-survival learned behavior, just like knapping flint, language, etc. Take care of the kids, you got someone to work later. Don't steal, and you both cut down on strife within the tribe, and everybody doesn't have to spend valuable surviving time just guarding their stuff.

Also pretty much what I was trying to say.

You're welcome on my boat. God ain't.

REAVERMAN

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 12:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

As far as I can tell, religion is just another tool in the "social control" toolbox, along with armed law-enforcers and economic rewards and punishments. And god? He, she, or they are the ultimate enforcers 'cause they can get you even AFTER you're dead.

Exactly. What better way to control folks than fear of eternal retribution?

You're welcome on my boat. God ain't.

RAZZA

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 12:50 AM

Reaverman,

You said,

Quote:
"Exactly. What better way to control folks than fear of eternal retribution?"

As I mentioned to Signym in an earlier post, I think again that we are drifting into the conflict between Laws enacted by people (in this case church canon designed to "control folks") and Morals practiced by individuals. Granted, some people may look to church canon to form their Morality, but in the end their own moral beliefs are personal ones. Religious doctrine which may be accepted by large social groups, I think, takes on the role of laws and legal systems. I believe this separates it from Morality and makes it a question of Legality. These two notions are separate in my mind, though I recognize that many might disagree with that view.

-----------------
"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon."

---Napoleon Bonaparte

SERGEANTX

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 1:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Razza:
...Religious doctrine which may be accepted by large social groups, I think, takes on the role of laws and legal systems. I believe this separates it from Morality and makes it a question of Legality.

Hmmm. Doesn't this invite a conflict between the laws of government and those of religion? In the U.S. it seems we've attempted to sidestep this conflict by keeping religion out of government and pushing it more into the personal morals realm. This is how I've always seen it, but your characterization certainly does a better job of explaining why so many are willing to base legislation on religious values. This clearly is the way of things in the middle east where theocracy is widely accepted.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

REAVERMAN

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 2:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Razza:
Reaverman,

You said,
Quote:
"Exactly. What better way to control folks than fear of eternal retribution?"

As I mentioned to Signym in an earlier post, I think again that we are drifting into the conflict between Laws enacted by people (in this case church canon designed to "control folks") and Morals practiced by individuals. Granted, some people may look to church canon to form their Morality, but in the end their own moral beliefs are personal ones. Religious doctrine which may be accepted by large social groups, I think, takes on the role of laws and legal systems. I believe this separates it from Morality and makes it a question of Legality. These two notions are separate in my mind, though I recognize that many might disagree with that view.

-----------------
"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon."

---Napoleon Bonaparte

I believe that modern religion was one of the first control mechanisms invented by man (right after the whole 'we'll whack your head off if you don't do as we say' thing). In the ancient world, most governments were theocracies, at least in name. Rome was ruled by the Emperor who was "divine" (though the Romans seemed more apt to simply pay lip service to the Emperor than actually believe that he was holy). The Aztecs were also ruled by "god-kings" who were supposedly the living representatives of the gods. The same was true of the Egyptians, Chinese, Japanese, and Medieval Europeans.

In more recent times, religious morality and secular legality have been seperated, but for most of recorded history, religion has run rampant as the final judge of ones actions. What does the world have to show for it? Inquisition, Crusades, Jihad, massacre, war, genocide, etc, etc...

But I digress. We are drifting a bit from the main point of this thread.

You're welcome on my boat. God ain't.

RIVER6213

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 2:25 AM

I think certain aspects of right and wrong are hardwired into us, or at least some of us. Case in point.

My view of right and wrong didn’t come from my parents or society...it came from my own instinct. I knew from a very early age that without being told that it was wrong to steal, I also knew without being told that you don't go around hurting other people. I didn’t engage in any of this activity because I didn’t want it to happen to me. I suppose it was my way of self-preservation.

If attacked, I defend. If left alone to go about my business, I ignore what’s around me. I never go on the offensive unless there is no other choice, and that choice is for self protection. This is/was hardwired into me before other people and societies, world-view was pressed into my soul, and I suspect that other people have experienced the same.

Then there are those other people. The ones that can snatch candy away from a child and laugh as the child is screaming. The ones that can murder and then get a good night sleep. The ones that can rape and then go home and show tenderness towards their families, or the white-collar guy or gal that can lose the life investments of 10,000 senior citizens, who will now have to eat dog food and pay their rent instead of purchasing medications for the aliments that they have. These people don't seem to have that hardwiring. They are into life for themselves...they are the perfect survivors. If nuclear war happened, these people would survive. I would not, could not because I seemed to have the empathy, a conscious that rule my life.

Religion, laws by a government, and world views taught by parents and teachers are what enhances the hardwiring that we are all born with. And this allows the human animal to negotiate life. Those without the hardwiring, and the absence of what I have mentioned above, are nothing more than clever, opportunistic, animals constantly searching for the angle, the weakness of you and myself. They are dangerous to the collective, and to themselves.

I hope the none of you see me in the same light as Piratenews. Though I am crazy...and yes I AM CRAZY. I am attempting to reach out to humans. Anyway. This is a good thread.

River

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE