Political Crossfire Forums

[mojo]

Morals are not relative.

I have been thinking of an analogy to express this point of view. It suddenly dawned on me when it was snowing outside.

A great analogy would be that If I walk outside into the cold temperatures and I say to myself It is warm outside. Even if it goes against everything society and reason defines what is cold. But to the relativist they believe that it is warm outside because they have said there is no way it is cold outside.

But the fact still remains that it is cold outside. And if that person were to remain outside naked in that cold they will die. That to me describes how morality is in my life.

[Ek0nomik]

What about all the different cultures in the world? I mean, in this case obviously it wouldn't be relative, because it's a physical nature. If it's f***ing freezing out, it's obviously freezing to anybody because their brain tells their body this. As far as more higher level morals (for lack of a better term) are concerned, with different cultures come different ideas of what is right and wrong.

[jawsome]

politicalmojo wrote: Morals are not relative.

I have been thinking of an analogy to express this point of view. It suddenly dawned on me when it was snowing outside.

A great analogy would be that If I walk outside into the cold temperatures and I say to myself It is warm outside. Even if it goes against everything society and reason defines what is cold. But to the relativist they believe that it is warm outside because they have said there is no way it is cold outside.

But the fact still remains that it is cold outside. And if that person were to remain outside naked in that cold they will die. That to me describes how morality is in my life.

i think this is a poor analogy simply because morals, a philosophical construct, are not clearly defined and bound solely to empirical facts such as an observation in weather.

i see what you're trying to say, but i feel that this analogy does not work, really.

[The Grandmaster]

politicalmojo wrote: Morals are not relative.

I have been thinking of an analogy to express this point of view. It suddenly dawned on me when it was snowing outside.

A great analogy would be that If I walk outside into the cold temperatures and I say to myself It is warm outside. Even if it goes against everything society and reason defines what is cold. But to the relativist they believe that it is warm outside because they have said there is no way it is cold outside.

But the fact still remains that it is cold outside. And if that person were to remain outside naked in that cold they will die. That to me describes how morality is in my life.

Your analogy in this case points out how morals are in fact relative. For example, if a Breen, from Star Trek, went outside when it was snowing, his ass would burn up. Its so hot to him, he wouldn't even be able to survive. The Breen homeworld is a couple hundred degrees below zero. The Breen are analogous to different people on Earth. What's cold to you, might be hot as hell to someone else. Cold is not necessarily universal. Morality could very well follow the same mold.

[mojo]

jawsome wrote: politicalmojo wrote: Morals are not relative.

I have been thinking of an analogy to express this point of view. It suddenly dawned on me when it was snowing outside.

A great analogy would be that If I walk outside into the cold temperatures and I say to myself It is warm outside. Even if it goes against everything society and reason defines what is cold. But to the relativist they believe that it is warm outside because they have said there is no way it is cold outside.

But the fact still remains that it is cold outside. And if that person were to remain outside naked in that cold they will die. That to me describes how morality is in my life.

i think this is a poor analogy simply because morals, a philosophical construct, are not clearly defined and bound solely to empirical facts such as an observation in weather.

i see what you're trying to say, but i feel that this analogy does not work, really.

I am trying to say that morals are in fact more than just a state present within the mind. They are a binding agreement between you and society or your said way of life.

[mojo]

TheGrandmaster1 wrote: politicalmojo wrote: Morals are not relative.

I have been thinking of an analogy to express this point of view. It suddenly dawned on me when it was snowing outside.

A great analogy would be that If I walk outside into the cold temperatures and I say to myself It is warm outside. Even if it goes against everything society and reason defines what is cold. But to the relativist they believe that it is warm outside because they have said there is no way it is cold outside.

But the fact still remains that it is cold outside. And if that person were to remain outside naked in that cold they will die. That to me describes how morality is in my life.

Your analogy in this case points out how morals are in fact relative. For example, if a Breen, from Star Trek, went outside when it was snowing, his ass would burn up. Its so hot to him, he wouldn't even be able to survive. The Breen homeworld is a couple hundred degrees below zero. The Breen are analogous to different people on Earth. What's cold to you, might be hot as hell to someone else. Cold is not necessarily universal. Morality could very well follow the same mold.

:shock:

Star Trek?

[RueTheDay]

politicalmojo wrote: Morals are not relative.

I have been thinking of an analogy to express this point of view. It suddenly dawned on me when it was snowing outside.

A great analogy would be that If I walk outside into the cold temperatures and I say to myself It is warm outside. Even if it goes against everything society and reason defines what is cold. But to the relativist they believe that it is warm outside because they have said there is no way it is cold outside.

But the fact still remains that it is cold outside. And if that person were to remain outside naked in that cold they will die. That to me describes how morality is in my life.

That's a terrible analogy. People from Antarctica or Siberia would likely not consider a 32 degree day with light snow to be "cold". What does perception of temperature have to do with moral relativism anyway?

[Ek0nomik]

Oh stop breakin' balls over the analogy.

[Prog]

politicalmojo wrote: I am trying to say that morals are in fact more than just a state present within the mind. They are a binding agreement between you and society or your said way of life.

And how does this not apply to a moral relativist? They live and morally function quite well within societies.

[Zoot]

Quote: Morals are not relative.

I have been thinking of an analogy to express this point of view. It suddenly dawned on me when it was snowing outside.

A great analogy would be that If I walk outside into the cold temperatures and I say to myself It is warm outside. Even if it goes against everything society and reason defines what is cold. But to the relativist they believe that it is warm outside because they have said there is no way it is cold outside.

But the fact still remains that it is cold outside. And if that person were to remain outside naked in that cold they will die. That to me describes how morality is in my life.

If a polar bear remained outside naked in that cold, they won't die. If your definition of "cold" is, as it seems, "a temperature lower than your ability to survive naked", then what's cold for you is not cold for the polar bear. If the polar bear spent too much time in your living room, he might die from it being so hot. Etc.

Morality is subjective by definition. Things are only good in terms of some criteria, and the criteria themselves can't be called "good" without referring to some other criteria.

[The Grandmaster]

politicalmojo wrote: TheGrandmaster1 wrote: politicalmojo wrote: Morals are not relative.

I have been thinking of an analogy to express this point of view. It suddenly dawned on me when it was snowing outside.

A great analogy would be that If I walk outside into the cold temperatures and I say to myself It is warm outside. Even if it goes against everything society and reason defines what is cold. But to the relativist they believe that it is warm outside because they have said there is no way it is cold outside.

But the fact still remains that it is cold outside. And if that person were to remain outside naked in that cold they will die. That to me describes how morality is in my life.

Your analogy in this case points out how morals are in fact relative. For example, if a Breen, from Star Trek, went outside when it was snowing, his ass would burn up. Its so hot to him, he wouldn't even be able to survive. The Breen homeworld is a couple hundred degrees below zero. The Breen are analogous to different people on Earth. What's cold to you, might be hot as hell to someone else. Cold is not necessarily universal. Morality could very well follow the same mold.

:shock:

Star Trek?

Hell yeah Star Trek. The origin of the scenario is irrelevant. The illustration of the point is what's important.

Ek0nomik wrote: Oh stop breakin' balls over the analogy.

Hey, if it fails, it fails.

[Sailor Moon]

It is being called a poor analogy, but I dont think it was worded quite right.

See, there are moral principles that must be well known, in analogy to survival. Like, it is suicidal to wear skivvies and go take a nap during a snowstorm. Thats survival. The moral analogy is this: If you put your helpless child out in skivvies to sleep in a snow bank, and just say "Its warm out".. you are sentencing your helpless kid to death.

Morality is not just about survival. There is a sense of thriving involved, too. Without morality, we simply wouldnt thrive, or have any hope for the future. A person stuck knee deep in quicksand has hope, or moral knowledge, that the next group of tourists are on their way and will save him.

Morality is not questionable. It exists not because we create it, but because we are created with it.

[The Grandmaster]

Sailor Moon wrote:
Morality is not questionable. It exists not because we create it, but because we are created with it.

Ahh, though we are in a similar discussion in another forum, it is mostly Gilbert who will be responsible for towing the line in that particular occasion, for it was his claim we are examining. Now we will have our chance to see your take on the position.

You say it is not questionable. Why not.

If morality is absolute, and not subjective, then from where is this morality defined, and why are we obligated to follow this moral code?

[SCC]

TheGrandmaster1 wrote: Sailor Moon wrote:
Morality is not questionable. It exists not because we create it, but because we are created with it.

Ahh, though we are in a similar discussion in another forum, it is mostly Gilbert who will be responsible for towing the line in that particular occasion, for it was his claim we are examining. Now we will have our chance to see your take on the position.

You say it is not questionable. Why not.

If morality is absolute, and not subjective, then from where is this morality defined, and why are we obligated to follow this moral code?

Huh? Who's Gilbert? Unless you believe the world is an anarchy of individual perceptions, you should believe that there is on some level, a funtional harmony that exists in nature. I agree with Sailor Moon.

It really doesn't matter what form the "absolutism" from which morality is derived, materializes in, if at all. All you have to do is analyze the inherent problems with moral relativity, and you'll understand why it's a lofty theory.

What moral relativists attempt to say is that if someone performs euthanasia, say, it's act itself is insignificant(taking the life of another person) unless it's viewed against the the social context of the act (in this instance, the moral background).

The inherent problem with this concept if applied politically, not just sociologically as we have to accept any form of behaviour as acceptable as long as it conforms to the cultural expectations of the society in which it manifests itself. In defining the manifold of morality in relative terms, morality becomes a concept much too abstruse for us to comprehend and basically presents a basis for morality that's much too easily manipulated.

btw we're obligated because we're creatures of conscience. Also, your thing about star trek is whack. :-|

[Prog]

Sailor Moon wrote: Like, it is suicidal to wear skivvies and go take a nap during a snowstorm.


How tacky! Anyone knows long johns are the prefered undergarment of winter-nap-time choice!

err........Sorry........a momentary lapse of reason.... :koo:

[Prog]

Sailor Moon wrote:


Morality is not questionable. It exists not because we create it, but because we are created with it.

Ahem.....[serious] All you are stating is that humans have the capacity for empathy and compassion. This includes atheists as well as followers of religion. [/serious]

[rainidame]

Zoot wrote:

If a polar bear remained outside naked in that cold, they won't die. If your definition of "cold" is, as it seems, "a temperature lower than your ability to survive naked", then what's cold for you is not cold for the polar bear. If the polar bear spent too much time in your living room, he might die from it being so hot. Etc.

Morality is subjective by definition. Things are only good in terms of some criteria, and the criteria themselves can't be called "good" without referring to some other criteria.

Morality is subjective. A much better word than realative.

[Zoot]

It might do some good to define "morality", which means, to define "good" and "bad".

Now, can anyone define "good" and "bad", without using synonyms, that amounts to anything other than "preferable" and "unpreferable"?

[The Grandmaster]

SCC wrote: TheGrandmaster1 wrote: Sailor Moon wrote:
Morality is not questionable. It exists not because we create it, but because we are created with it.

Ahh, though we are in a similar discussion in another forum, it is mostly Gilbert who will be responsible for towing the line in that particular occasion, for it was his claim we are examining. Now we will have our chance to see your take on the position.

You say it is not questionable. Why not.

If morality is absolute, and not subjective, then from where is this morality defined, and why are we obligated to follow this moral code?

Huh? Who's Gilbert?

Gilbert is a warrior from another thread that I often battle with. He is a powerful arguer, and is good to train my skills against.

SCC wrote: Unless you believe the world is an anarchy of individual perceptions, you should believe that there is on some level, a funtional harmony that exists in nature. I agree with Sailor Moon.

Congratulations.

SCC wrote: It really doesn't matter what form the "absolutism" from which morality is derived, materializes in, if at all. All you have to do is analyze the inherent problems with moral relativity, and you'll understand why it's a lofty theory.

I think it does matter where this morality is derived from. If I am obligated to act in a certain way, why am I not justified in asking why I have this obligation, and to whom this obligation is owed?

SCC wrote: What moral relativists attempt to say is that if someone performs euthanasia, say, it's act itself is insignificant(taking the life of another person) unless it's viewed against the the social context of the act (in this instance, the moral background).

The inherent problem with this concept if applied politically, not just sociologically as we have to accept any form of behaviour as acceptable as long as it conforms to the cultural expectations of the society in which it manifests itself. In defining the manifold of morality in relative terms, morality becomes a concept much too abstruse for us to comprehend and basically presents a basis for morality that's much too easily manipulated.

There remains a problem for the moral absolutist as well. First, they need to demonstrate, and no one has to me yet, that morality is objective, from where this morality comes from, and why we are obligated to follow it.

Those that believe moral value is independently “out there” seem to face an insurmountable difficulty – that of explaining how we come by moral knowledge.

SCC wrote:
btw we're obligated because we're creatures of conscience.

This conclusion does not follow from given premises.

SCC wrote: Also, your thing about star trek is whack. :-|

Fascinating. Why?

[Toasty]

Zoot wrote: It might do some good to define "morality", which means, to define "good" and "bad".

Now, can anyone define "good" and "bad", without using synonyms, that amounts to anything other than "preferable" and "unpreferable"?


When talking about morality, the good and bad sides of it. I understand that we are talking about morals. Weather, and morals don't seem to go hand-in-hand with me, and the analogy was horrible. Ball breaking- I know.

To me, going outside, not dressed for the weather, isn't a question of morality. It's a question of senility. Would you go outside on purpose, shoeless, in shorts, and no T-shirt? In any instance where that is the case, (unless you have absolutely no other clothes to put on, which is a different topic), I don't think that gives you 'bad morals". No, I believe that classifies you as; 1) mentally retarted, 2) an idiot.

Sure, even a complete imbecile could distinguish the difference between hot and cold, and if he had the means to put more clothes on, intelligence would tell him to add more layers of clothing.

Now, if he went outside, in cold weather, with nothing on but shorts.., and shot a woman for her purse. That to me, is a question of morals. Is it ok to go and rob/murder someone for her purse.