BF2S Forums Which set of moral beliefs do you most agree with?

Pug wrote:

What's the difference between relativity and nihilism?

Seem kind of the same to me.

They are the same, except nihilism says that because the world is like that you should go off yourself.

Umm...  ok.  I prefer moral relativity.

Granted, I still have a set of morals that adapt to whatever the situation is.

Pug wrote:

Ahh, Mitch the absolutist.

nah i voted relative.

Borderline absolutist, relative.

Turquoise wrote:

Umm...  ok.  I prefer moral relativity.

Granted, I still have a set of morals that adapt to whatever the situation is.

Pretty much sum me too...There is situation where someting that would be bad can be used....like killing someone.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You can't be both relative and absolute. They are mutually exclusive.

Not really. I think most morals are relative and culturally-based, while there are a few absolutes (don't kill anyone, don't steal their shit).

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You can't be both relative and absolute. They are mutually exclusive.

Sure you can, when talking about something like theory and philosophy.  There is no direct right or wrong meaning - words and phrases are just place holders for thoughts, especially regarding moral absolutism and moral relativity.  This isn't math where there are specific outcomes that are truths - philosphy is ever changing.  I can be relatively absolute, or absolutely absolute, or relatively absolutely relative.

Words have meaning. You can't stick them together in any combination and claim they do not contradict.

chittydog wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You can't be both relative and absolute. They are mutually exclusive.

Not really. I think most morals are relative and culturally-based, while there are a few absolutes (don't kill anyone, don't steal their shit).

How can you justify absolute morals when you concede that morality is relative to cultures or situations?

You have to define those terms first. If I say they don't have any meaning, they don't unless you prove otherwise. Burden of proof is on you bub.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You have to define those terms first. If I say they don't have any meaning, they don't unless you prove otherwise. Burden of proof is on you bub.

But you said they do have meaning.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

How can you justify absolute morals when you concede that morality is relative to cultures or situations?

Did you even read what he wrote?

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You have to define those terms first. If I say they don't have any meaning, they don't unless you prove otherwise. Burden of proof is on you bub.

But you said they do have meaning.

Words have meaning - your combination of words have none.

Aww don't make me work

"moral absolutism" - nothing is absolute.  You can claim to have some sort of set in stone rightandwrong-ometer, but no matter what you are basing your pseudo-concrete absolutism on experience, patterns; relativity.

"Moral Relativity" - you have a certain moral compass - your preexisting notions of what is right and wrong (your preconceived moral absolutism of what is right and wrong before each instance of judging something as right or wrong) that gives you perspective.

I am trying to demonstrate the futility of ascribing a position to yourself regarding something that is almost innately out of your control; just having fun with an idea, interesting philosophical nonsense.

oh for fuck sake, I don't know whether to blame myself or you but because your poll choices didn't follow the same pattern as the description in the post I ended up voting the wrong one

screw this, and you all

Anyway there are certain universal values which I think can't really be argued about, I'd say it depends on how far you could argue your set of moral beliefs and that Western liberal moral beliefs are by far the easiest to defend, surely.