1 edit
Originally posted by avalanchethecatEverybody's moral standard is based on empathy, whether you like it or not.
You really are a broken record aren't you? It is not necessary to know that something is 'absolutely' wrong in order to consider it wrong, as indeed you know, because you don't know that any morals are absolute, you just choose to believe that they are. This doesn't make them so.
Everybody's moral standard is based on empathy, whether you like it ...[text shortened]... ience. It is not so simple as you would like to believe. When you grow up you will realise this.
So you are saying that even a tribe of cannibals' moral standards are based on empathy? You haven't thought this through dude.
Do you approve of slavery? It's acceptable according to your scripture. Does that make it right? Of course it doesn't.
Give me one verse in the Bible that says slavery is good, then we can talk.
Sometimes people will disagree over the nature of an act or acts, one party arguing that it is morally acceptable, the other the converse. Both positions may be equally valid.
If there are no moral absolutes, then both positions are always equally valid. When wouldn't they be? You would have to concede that a view that torturing babies for fun is morally acceptable is equally valid to the view that it isn't. And that Nazi Germany's morals are as equally valid as yours. When you grow up you will realise this.
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk'As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.' Leviticus 25:44-46
Do you approve of slavery? It's acceptable according to your scripture. Does that make it right? Of course it doesn't.
Give me one verse in the Bible that says slavery is good, then we can talk.
'Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ,' Ephesians 6:5
Ready to talk?
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkYes it does state that certain things are clearly wrong however there is also leeway for the exercise of conscience, is there not? so we have some absolutes which we call laws and some areas that require discernment which we call principles. Principles are usually much more far reaching than laws because they are applicable in a much broader range of circumstances and sometime superseded each other or reinforce each other. For example 'you must commit adultery', is a law, its absolute, there is nothing to interpret. 'you must love your neighbour as yourself', is a principle because it can be applied in a much broader spectrum of application, for example it would rule out smoking cigarettes because we know that its harmful to oneself and also to ones neighbour through secondary smoke, it would also rule out adultery because this is potentially harmful to ones neighbour possibly resulting in the break up of family and emotional distress.
But the Bible clearly states that certain things are wrong, are you saying that every 'sin' stated in the Bible is debatable and none are always wrong?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI agree completely. My question is if God did not exist and did not provide us with moral absolutes and a conscience, why would one societies morals be any more or less valid that another societies.
Yes it does state that certain things are clearly wrong however there is also leeway for the exercise of conscience, is there not? so we have some absolutes which we call laws and some areas that require discernment which we call principles. Principles are usually much more far reaching than laws because they are applicable in a much broader range o ...[text shortened]... y harmful to ones neighbour possibly resulting in the break up of family and emotional distress.
1 edit
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkYou make a very valid point. Here is an interesting article and perhaps its food for thought.
I agree completely. My question is if God did not exist and did not provide us with moral absolutes and a conscience, why would one societies morals be any more or less valid that another societies.
Criticisms of Moral Relativism
Some Moral Absolutists criticize Moral Relativism on the grounds that it may lead to immorality, because it abandons an absolute standard of right and wrong. Moral Relativists counter that the inflexibility of Moral Absolutism is just as likely to lead to immoral acts (e.g. the absolute beliefs of medieval Christianity which led to what we now consider atrocities).
Others argue that anyone who claims that no moral absolutes exist undermines their ability to justify their own existence, being unable to argue against the discontinuation of their own lives at the hands of another individual who adheres to a different set of values. However, the Moral Relativist claims just as much moral justification to defend himself as the attacker does to attack.
Similarly, it has been argued that Moral Relativists cannot justify intervening in other cultures' practices, since that would be to impose their own morality, and thereby they may be culpably unwilling to resist evil in some cases.
It is difficult for a Moral Relativist to explain what happens when a society has a collective change of heart (e.g. the rejection of slavery as a morally permissable policy), or when an individual undergoes a personal moral improvement or admits that an attitude they used to hold was wrong. For them, there is no external standard to judge against so, while their attitudes change, they cannot really be said to improve or decline. Thus, there is a circularity in the process of judging one's values according to one's values.
There are also difficulties in putting a boundary on a "society" or "culture", especially as what people feel to be their social or cultural groupings may well not align with legal and national groupings, and a person holding "minority" moral views within their society or culture may consider their "culture" more aligned with that minority (e.g. religious communities, homosexual cultures) than with the larger state or national society which determines what is lawfully acceptable. Therefore, it is argued, Moral Relativism is meaningless since one could probably find a society that condones whatever one wishes to do (and similiarly an individual could adopt different principles at different times), and ultimately any belief is equally as valid as any other.
Some commentators have argued that Moral Relativism is not a positive ethical theory at all, because it is not normative (indicative of how things ought to be), and because it effectively reduces to mere societal law or custom, or to mere personal taste and preference.
Moral Relativism inevitably conflicts with the tenets of absolute morality as taught by almost all world religions. Some Catholics and Buddhists, for example, have attribute the perceived post-war decadence and permissiveness of Europe to the displacement of absolute values by Moral Relativism.
A rather flippant criticism is often levelled at Moral Relativism, that it is logically impossible, because, by saying "all things are relative", one is stating an absolute and therefore a logical contradiction.
http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_moral_relativism.html
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeThat there is nothing inherently wrong with slavery? There are many forms of slavery. An empty stomach is one form.
'As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit ...[text shortened]... fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ,' Ephesians 6:5
Ready to talk?
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkWhich tribe of cannibals would you like to consider? Certainly there are records attesting that in some Polynesian societies, cannibalism was avidly pursued by warriors simply because they liked the taste of human meat, but in fact further study generally reveals that other factors should be considered. The warriors would often accrue great admiration from their tribes from killing and eating enemies and providing sustenance. Refusal to eat human meat when provided often led at least to castigation, and often to violence towards or even death of the refusee. Aspects of this kind of behaviour have also been noted in incidences of cannibalism obliged due to famine or starvation. More often than not, cannibalism has ritual overtones. Your glib assertions regarding some hypothetical tribe seem again, rather childish and ill-considered. Clearly, some people have considered cannibalism to be morally right, and in their societies, this may have been a perfectly valid point of view. Many - I suspect most - would also consider it morally right in our own society, under extreme conditions.
[b]Everybody's moral standard is based on empathy, whether you like it or not.
So you are saying that even a tribe of cannibals' moral standards are based on empathy? You haven't thought this through dude.
Do you approve of slavery? It's acceptable according to your scripture. Does that make it right? Of course it doesn't.
Give me o ...[text shortened]... hat Nazi Germany's morals are as equally valid as yours. When you grow up you will realise this.[/b]
Tacit approval of slavery is evident in various places in the bible. If you are unaware of this, perhaps you should read it.
I'm so bored of your baby-torturing argument. In our society, no right-thinking person in any circumstances I can imagine would condone such acts, but it does not follow from this that there are moral absolutes.
How old are you?
Originally posted by apathistIf there are no moral absolutes, there are exceptions for torturing a baby. And for rape. Even the holocaust. You dear Sir are not in denial. Kudos for your honesty.
There are exceptions to every rule. Push comes to shove, I would eat your flesh. lol, I hope you would eat me too.