BF2S Forums Morality vs. Relativism vs. Naturalism...

Turquoise wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Good point...  I suppose that means that relativism is most accurate when stating that morals are relative to the situation, as opposed to being relative to culture.

Well, why not just come out and say the extreme, everything is relative. It's not really all that debatable, it's just a simple truth.

I disagree. I do not see certain actions as being relative in a moral sense.  I do not think that, for example, the Shari'a Law that suggests people who convert out of Islam should be killed is any way relatively moral.  There are certain institutions (like Shari'a Law) that support extremist behavior and are not moral in these respects.  In other words, I don't see how you can say every action or code is moral in a relative sense.

I believe relativism is true in a limited sense, not in a complete sense.

But followers of Shari'a Law will find it moral. Therefore, the morality of the action is relative to the observer. Given any example, I can provide a counter-point proving the example is relative.

jonsimon wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

Well, why not just come out and say the extreme, everything is relative. It's not really all that debatable, it's just a simple truth.

I disagree. I do not see certain actions as being relative in a moral sense.  I do not think that, for example, the Shari'a Law that suggests people who convert out of Islam should be killed is any way relatively moral.  There are certain institutions (like Shari'a Law) that support extremist behavior and are not moral in these respects.  In other words, I don't see how you can say every action or code is moral in a relative sense.

I believe relativism is true in a limited sense, not in a complete sense.

But followers of Shari'a Law will find it moral. Therefore, the morality of the action is relative to the observer. Given any example, I can provide a counter-point proving the example is relative.

But I can counter by stating that they only see it as moral because of indoctrination.  Indoctrination or conditioning is not a natural occurrence.  I'm arguing that, without indoctrination or conditioning, most people would naturally regard killing someone for a difference of opinion as being wrong.

So, by extension, I am suggesting that that particular part of Shari'a Law is unnatural in a negative way, which leads to "immoral" behavior as defined by the natural response I mentioned above.

the realities of the world aren't so clearly defined, as we all know.

perhaps a more interesting question we should be asking, is which one would result in the best world?

given my generally pessimistic view of human nature, i posit that moralism would result in the most peaceful world, assuming that people adhered to it perfectly.

Turquoise wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I disagree. I do not see certain actions as being relative in a moral sense.  I do not think that, for example, the Shari'a Law that suggests people who convert out of Islam should be killed is any way relatively moral.  There are certain institutions (like Shari'a Law) that support extremist behavior and are not moral in these respects.  In other words, I don't see how you can say every action or code is moral in a relative sense.

I believe relativism is true in a limited sense, not in a complete sense.

But followers of Shari'a Law will find it moral. Therefore, the morality of the action is relative to the observer. Given any example, I can provide a counter-point proving the example is relative.

But I can counter by stating that they only see it as moral because of indoctrination.  Indoctrination or conditioning is not a natural occurrence.  I'm arguing that, without indoctrination or conditioning, most people would naturally regard killing someone for a difference of opinion as being wrong.

So, by extension, I am suggesting that that particular part of Shari'a Law is unnatural in a negative way, which leads to "immoral" behavior as defined by the natural response I mentioned above.

So morality is relative to indoctrination. Morals need not be natural, after all, murder, rape, and theft are all natural, though not moral by many standards.

jonsimon wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

But followers of Shari'a Law will find it moral. Therefore, the morality of the action is relative to the observer. Given any example, I can provide a counter-point proving the example is relative.

But I can counter by stating that they only see it as moral because of indoctrination.  Indoctrination or conditioning is not a natural occurrence.  I'm arguing that, without indoctrination or conditioning, most people would naturally regard killing someone for a difference of opinion as being wrong.

So, by extension, I am suggesting that that particular part of Shari'a Law is unnatural in a negative way, which leads to "immoral" behavior as defined by the natural response I mentioned above.

So morality is relative to indoctrination. Morals need not be natural, after all, murder, rape, and theft are all natural, though not moral by many standards.

Spin this back to the beginning of time.

If morality is dictated by society, then a society must exist to create it.  Therefore naturalism prevails at the beginning of time.

An just after society forms, the codes of conduct determined and morality is defined.

Then once established, relativism begins to push the standards of morality to different directions.  Naturalism creates the need to change the moral codes for certain situations, and then relativism allows people to pursue an activity for a specific purpose (like justifiable homicide).  If enough people in the society begin to exhibit the same behaviour when stressed by the same circumstance, then it becomes part of the morality of the society.

As far as murder, rape & theft are natural and therefore not moral - I'll just cite the Aztec culture as an example of these activities being indoctrinated as moral tenents of that society.  So its still possible.

The whole thing is blurred...ain't it great?

• Humans invent moral code dependent on culture. They also invent AM/FM radios.
• Humans are inextricable from the natural world. Thusly, human culture and invention is a part of the natural world.
• Morals and AM/FM radios are natural occurrences, along with everything else human.

Pug wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

But I can counter by stating that they only see it as moral because of indoctrination.  Indoctrination or conditioning is not a natural occurrence.  I'm arguing that, without indoctrination or conditioning, most people would naturally regard killing someone for a difference of opinion as being wrong.

So, by extension, I am suggesting that that particular part of Shari'a Law is unnatural in a negative way, which leads to "immoral" behavior as defined by the natural response I mentioned above.

So morality is relative to indoctrination. Morals need not be natural, after all, murder, rape, and theft are all natural, though not moral by many standards.

Spin this back to the beginning of time.

If morality is dictated by society, then a society must exist to create it.  Therefore naturalism prevails at the beginning of time.

An just after society forms, the codes of conduct determined and morality is defined.

Then once established, relativism begins to push the standards of morality to different directions.  Naturalism creates the need to change the moral codes for certain situations, and then relativism allows people to pursue an activity for a specific purpose (like justifiable homicide).  If enough people in the society begin to exhibit the same behaviour when stressed by the same circumstance, then it becomes part of the morality of the society.

As far as murder, rape & theft are natural and therefore not moral - I'll just cite the Aztec culture as an example of these activities being indoctrinated as moral tenents of that society.  So its still possible.

The whole thing is blurred...ain't it great?

I'll have to agree.  This is a good summary of the progression of events.

jonsimon wrote:

SpanktorTheGreat wrote:

Krappyappy wrote:

then please do. so far your point is only empty assertion without any support.

If you have two contradicting statements then there are only two possible true answers. 1: the two statements are both false, or 2: one of the statements is true. It's one or the other or it's none at all. It can't be both and. If you argue against this you just end up proving my point.

But the statement "Morals are relative," is not contradictory to itself, and need not be paired with another statement. Thus, the statement does not fit the hypotheses of the law of non-contradiction and therefore the conclusion may not follow.

Can we toss relative truth into the pail with moral relativity?