Swiss Mercenary on 1/12/2007 at 06:33
You are to keep your opinion to yourself and don't bitch when we use you as a doormat, because according to your relativism, our actions are perfectly moral and justified, simply by the virtue of us being able to define our morality as we see fit, free of criticism from you.
I suggest you practice what you preach, and stop posting.
Yakoob on 1/12/2007 at 06:44
Way to misunderstand. I am saying there is no such thing as universal morality; not that I can't criticize you.
It's also a different case; in US vs Sudan, each one's laws are defined by their people as that's the country they choose to create and live in. Your opinion isn't exactly a country.
The_Raven on 1/12/2007 at 07:09
Yes it is.
Swiss Mercenary on 1/12/2007 at 08:07
Quote Posted by Yakoob
Way to misunderstand. I am saying there is no such thing as universal morality; not that I can't criticize you.
If there is no such thing as a universal morality, my idea of morality is as correct as yours.
My idea of morality may also include denying you the right to criticise me. Or far worse.
Now, if you respect my different morality, what are you going to do about it?
Quote:
It's also a different case; in US vs Sudan, each one's laws are defined by their people as that's the country they choose to create and live in. Your opinion isn't exactly a country.
If you want arbitrary distinctions, your arbitrary distinction of "Country" is your worst offense yet. Why must it be on a country vs country level? Why can't it be state vs state?
Shouldn't a state or province be able to choose it's own morality, and how to apply it?
If a state is able to, why not a city?
Hell, why not a district? Or a block? If me and my buddies can reach a consensus that The Right Moral Way is _____, who are you to say we are wrong?
And who are you to complain when we collectively decide to go and take all your stuff. After beating you to death.
If you hold a position of moral relativism, you're just a sheep. And hell, you can argue with the wolves on the virtues of vegetarianism all you want. Before they get hungry.
Vivian on 1/12/2007 at 09:06
I believe moral relativism is probably the only realistic way to look at such things, however undesirable that may be. It seems like there should be a universal standard of law like... i dunno, 'cause no unneccessary pain/death'? But then there will always be exceptions, and there will always be fucking great big arguments about what constitutes an exception based on whatever different backgrounds informed peoples mentalities and bah. If we were all compulsory telepaths this communication-breakdown shit wouldn't happen.
Jason Moyer on 1/12/2007 at 10:36
Quote Posted by Stitch
Also, I certainly don't look at Muslims as "idiotic fuckwits," as this barbaric case is far from representative of the religion as a whole.
Not all Muslims are total fuckwits, but all of the ones that follow sects that believe in the 6th pillar of Islam are. Which is a pretty substantial number.
Pyrian on 1/12/2007 at 10:56
Moral relativism is an empty, bankrupt concept with no roots in reality.
Morality is not in the slightest bit relative. It is best understood as a evolutionary trait of a society. Moral (and ethical - the division is hardly precise in practice) codes allow societies to function - without some sort of structure, co-operation collapses, society collapses, and you merely have competing individuals. There are very few species that do not cooperate with themselves and other species to some degree.
Morality is very nearly universal. Lying, cheating, stealing, murder, even respect - the cultural distinctions are almost entirely on the fringes, the details, the beliefs about what is real, not the basic underpinnings. And these universal underpinnings are absolutely necessary, which is why all used moral codes which have survived for any reasonable length of time share a great deal in common.
The very idea of moral relativism is frankly absurd on the face of it. There is no way the world could exist in its current state if there was ANY accuracy in the claim.
People hate to pass judgment on others' moral codes precisely because it is usually considered immoral to do so! A moral code is always stronger if it is considered above question, so it usually is presented that way - "These commandments come straight from God," "We hold these truths to be self-evident". As an empiricist, I refuse to consider anything to be above question - and that alone means I could never accept moral relativism, since moral relativism holds that we shouldn't question others' morality, and calls THAT above question. Fuck that, it's just dumb.
Now, I'm all for understanding other cultures, which I think again places me at odds with the moral relativists who seem content to just say, "well, they see things differently." Just because they see things differently doesn't mean I can't find out why they see things differently, and even pass judgment on how reasonable those differences are.
So, I know, for example, that the sin of idolatry was, from the very beginning, a big damn deal in Islam. Like many things in Islam (and Christianity) it's roots are pretty deep, the whole golden calf thing and such. In hindsight, it seems pretty easy to classify calling idolatry a sin as Judaic competitiveness; a bald-faced attempt to snuff out older practices. Even taken at face value, though, you have to question the extreme reaction to the teddy bear example - nobody's worshipping the fucking teddy bear. This is a clear case of extremism - i.e., taking a concept and running with it far beyond where it was ever intended to go.
Islam famously bans "idols", and this has long been extended to any depictions of divinity (and in many cases of just about anything at all - Mosques are traditionally decorated in abstract patterns). I think it would be difficult for anybody paying attention to the cartoon crisis a while back to be all that surprised about this case. It's perfectly in character for elements of a muslim population to take exception to a "representation" of their founding prophet.
And you know what? This teddy bear thing is still entirely fucking ridiculous, and no amount of "cultural sensitivity" will ever change that. It is truly, absolutely, fundamentally ridiculous. There is no reasonable justification for it, and the actual reasons behind it are fundamentally unreasonable even if you accept the Koran as the literal transcription of the word of Allah.
Papy on 1/12/2007 at 14:02
Quote Posted by SD
What does that have to do with anything? Shouldn't human rights be universal?
"Human rights" makes no sense outside the structure of a specific society. The Sudanese society is of course not an isolated society, but we don't live in a world with only one society either. So even if the concept of human rights may be arguably universal, specific rights are not.
Quote Posted by AR Master
Moral relativism can't save the fact that these people are caught in the fucking stoneage and will continue to be treated as such until they get their shit together and stop trying to execute rape victims
Meanwhile, I just read an article about a "Texas science director who was forced to resign because she had given the appearance of criticizing the teaching of intelligent design". I don't think the US is that far from stone age either.
Quote Posted by Pyrian
Morality is not in the slightest bit relative.
Remember the Heinz dilemma most of us learned about when we were in high school? Of course morality is relative. The concepts of "good" and "bad" are necessary for the survival of most of the complex species, and so mostly universal, but how an individual associate an action with one of those concepts is strictly relative to the individual. I can't think of a single universal moral value. Whether "lying, cheating, stealing, murder, even respect" is good or bad, is really a judgment made by an individual following his own morality system. Depending on the circumstances, lying, cheating, stealing and murder may be viewed from an individual point of view as a morally good thing.
Swiss Mercenary on 1/12/2007 at 15:58
Quote Posted by Vivian
But then there will always be exceptions, and there will always be fucking great big arguments about what constitutes an exception based on whatever different backgrounds informed peoples mentalities and bah.
Moral relativism is terrible at handling exceptions - it essentially gives Hannibal Lector a ticket to an all-you-can-eat baby buffet.
Approaches that take inspiration from act utilitarianism, which weighs the consequences of each action and exception to the rules, on the other hand, are better suited for it.
Quote:
I can't think of a single universal moral value.
Murder. The
wrongful killing of another.
Ho ho ho.
Even the crackpot muslims or the Mayans who were practicing human sacrifice will agree with me on that one.
Fingernail on 1/12/2007 at 16:10
ahayhay but they won't agree what is and isn't wrongful!
which must be your point? so wait a second, where does that leave us?
