|
|
Welcome to the Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis. |
GFF is a community of gaming and music enthusiasts. We have a team of dedicated moderators, constant member-organized activities, and plenty of custom features, including our unique journal system. If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ or our GFWiki. You will have to register before you can post. Membership is completely free (and gets rid of the pesky advertisement unit underneath this message).
|
|
Thread Tools |
You're putting forth a VERY dangerous argument here. You're essentially saying that laws aren't based upon an objective standard, but on the whims of the public, which is a) very hard to determine, and b) very easy to influence, either the public itself or the results of any testing. I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body? |
Yes, I am putting forth some dangerous ideas. The question is, dangerous to whom?
I was speaking idiomatically. |
What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now? |
Additionally you are only talking about federal income taxes. People that do not pay their taxes are in the minority. When you fill up your car with gas you're paying a tax. When you get a drivers license you're paying yet more taxes. Face it, we're taxed to death on everything. Most states have a sales tax. So if you buy anything you're being taxed.
Now I never said that "the legitimacy of law is determined by the majority opinion", I said that the legitimacy of the law is established by the society's standard morals of the time. Not everyone shares morals, nor do they stay the same. Which requires law to evolve with the times. The only real alternative to that is that the law loses it's legitimacy, and revolutions become a real threat to the established order. Which is part of the reason why Lincoln freed the slaves, and not Nat Turner. Hmm, I don't know where to take it from here. This could probably go on forever. heh. FELIPE NO |
Seriously, what the hell do you think determines the "society's standard morals of the time?" The majority opinion. What, you don't want my bikini-clad body? |
Now I guess we're going to argue over civil law... or statutory law. Shit, this is never going to end. Jam it back in, in the dark. |
There's nowhere I can't reach. |
and 'round we go. This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it. |
Morality is RELATIVE?
I'm lollin'. DEATHBLOW TO A LEGENDARY THREAD, GO! So, you believe in moral relativism, eh? Well then, let me point you to two arguments, the Shape Relativist argument, and Moore's Argument. First, let's officially define moral relativism: "Tribe "x" believes that, "a" is morally wrong. Tribe "y" believes that, "a" is morally right. Therefore, the morality of "a" is dependant on the beliefs on the tribe." I think we can agree on this as the definition of moral relativism, no? Anyway, one main point of Moral Relativism (or "MR") is that supporters of these theory point to a similar theory, Cultural Relativism (which is the theory that different tribes have different moral beliefs, which is true) as evidence. However, the Shape Relativist argument debunks the argument for "MR": "Tribe "x" believes that, the Earth is roughly spherical. Tribe "y" believes that, the earth is not roughly spherical. Therefore, the sphericity of the Earth is relative to the beliefs of the tribe." The Shape Relativist argument effectively disconnects "MR" from its reasoning. Cultural Relativism is true, yes, but it does not imply "MR." However, that does not deal with the truth of "MR," it just shows that there is no link between Cultural Relativism and "MR." Moore's argument deals with this like so: "If it is true that one and the same action can be both right and wrong at the same time or at different times (the normative definition of "MR"), and assuming that each case of moral judgement is a factually correct dissertion of the person's feelings, then it follows that when two persons appear to disagree, they do not genuinely disagree. But, in point of observed fact, people do genuinely disagree. Therefore, Moral Relativism is false." What this argument says is that if "MR" is true, then there can be NO genuine disagreements because we're dealing with irrevocably private feelings (an example being your opinion on Pepsi or Coke, where one person says "I like Coke," and the other says, "No you don't.") However, we DO have genuine disagreements over publically available procedures. Thus, "MR" cannot be true. I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body? |
2nd, moral relevatism is essentially the difference in beliefs between two or more parties. If it's a yes/no question like Pepsi vs. Coke, one has to be correct. But since there is no way to know which is correct (asside from the ever popular believing oneself to always be right), the issue is relative. 3rd, In your 'Moore's Argument', there is a wild and unsubstantiated jump to guess that since people believe different things, that they wouldn't really argue, and since people obviously argue, they believe different things. That is also, some bullshit that makes no sense. Sure sounds pretty though. They argue because they have differing opinions on what is or is not moral, and they cannot or will not accept the other person's worldview as true. How is this false? I was speaking idiomatically.
"The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote."
|
The Moral Relativist argument and the Shape Relativist argument share the same logical form. Think of it like two blueprints of a house: One is decked out with contemporary deocration and high-tech stuff, while the other is rustic and exudes Southern hospitality. When you look at the blueprints however, you see that they are the same thing. Thus, if you take out the keystone for one house and make it collapse, removing the same keystone will take out the other house. Since the Shape Relativist argument is so obviously absurd and logically defective, thus the logical form is defective. In other words, "MR" is a logically defective argument.
Most amazing jew boots |
But if we are going to go on the assumption that MR is false (Which is debateable despite what your classes may have told you). What is true, if people of different backgrounds and seemingly different morals do not seem to agree. I mean, if they don't REALLY have different morals, which then are the universal morals that all of us share, just that some of us do not yet grasp? Most amazing jew boots
"The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote."
|
Oh, and believe it or not, Moore is a logician. And what he did with his argument is give the definition of Moral Relativism in both the normative and meta-ethical sense (meta-ethical as in what "good" is: in the case of MR, it's feelings in general), then follow it to its conclusion, i.e. that people cannot genuinely disagree since they are disagreeing over irrevocably private feelings. Moore then notes that genuine disagreements occur since there are procedures/facts/etc. that are universally observable (such as gravity), and thus reality contradicts MR, making it false.
And I never said that they don't have different morals, I'm saying that under Moral Relativism, all moral codes are right (and all arguments period, for that matter), even ones that contradict one another. As such, under MR, there is no point in arguing at all about ANYTHING. MR would say that things such as racism, genocide, etc. are morally correct, because ALL codes are correct. To claim otherwise is to argue something other than MR. In essence, MR isn't even a theory, it's just a diplomatic way of saying "I hate what you do, but I'm too much of a pussy to argue against what you believe in." How ya doing, buddy? |
Well now your point makes more sense. So people do have different morals (The way many define moral relevatism). But I don't believe that implies that each is 'right', only that to those groups they seem right. The entire crux of the moral relevatism argument is that: We of one moral stance do *not* know for absolute certain that our morals are correct, and theirs are wrong.
The reason people argue about issues that are defined as (By those that believe in) morally relative is either to educate themselves about the other side's POV, or to try to convince them that their POV is wrong, and to convince them of that. Jam it back in, in the dark.
"The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote."
|
There's a better definition anyhow. Moral Relativism is the idea that there is no absolute or universal morals. The source of our morals is from social, traditional, and historical values. Manifested in the individual. In other words, there probably isn't a god. If there is a God, he does not dictate our actions with universal standards. As the major religons dictate as such.
This is what these types of debates turn into. You are still talking about relativity in relation to morality. Just the degree which you preceive it to exist. Moore was talking about ethical relativity in relation to morality. Ethics and morals go hand and hand. Hence, Moore's idea are accepted as a whole by most relativists. Just not the Catholic Church.
There's nowhere I can't reach.
Last edited by Watts; Mar 31, 2006 at 08:05 PM.
|
"Tribe 'x' believes that, the moon is made out of cheese. Tribe 'y' believes that, the moon is made out of rock. Therefore, the composition of the moon is relative to the beliefs of the tribe." Or another: "Tribe 'x' believes that, the atmosphere is made out of a mix comprising mainly of nitrogen, oxygen, and other trace amounts of chemicals. Tribe 'y' believes that, the atmosphere is made out of acid that will kill us all the instant we breathe one iota of it. Therefore, the composition of the atmosphere is relative to the beliefs of the tribe."
Congratulations on saying the single STUPIDEST thing in this thread so far.
This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it. |
"In philosophy, moral relativism takes the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect absolute and universal moral truths but instead are relative to social, cultural, historical or personal references, and that there is no single standard by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism What do you think they mean by "Absolute" and "Universal"? The only "absolute" philosophical thing I think that it could possibly refer to is the existence of a God. And "His" universal rules. Which is why I used the Catholic Church and Galileo as an example.
The flaws I see of your shape theory is who is deciding what the group believes, and why are they choosing to believe that. How did they come to that conclusion? Name off all the examples you want, but until you can answer that then your theory is incomplete. Again I ask, doesn't every society think their way is the right way? Wrong. In the sense of what Moore was talking about. Ethics are the standards that govern groups. Morals are your personal perception of right and wrong. Do they sometimes cross and agree with each other? Yes. All the time? No. I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body? |
That one side is right, and another wrong, is pretty much a given. But who *knows* (not believes) which side is right? And thus, why moral relavitism is something that comes up. We don't *know* which side is right, and to assume otherwise reeks of arrogance. Most amazing jew boots
"The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote."
|
It doesn't matter whether it's a moral issue or a scientific issue. A logical form has to be at least true (not necessarily reasonable) for ALL instances of this logical form, or the logical form isn't true, period. You cannot cherry-pick and divide into categories based on what the dressings are, because they are irrelevant to the argument.
I'll respond to you later, Watts. I just got up and have to get ready for work in like... 5 minutes, and I don't have enough time. What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now? |
MR doesn't argue that all sides are right. Only that there is no objective way to determine which one is right. And this is why I asked a few posts back, what the objective moral standard was. Since you don't know it, then how can you know that the 'other side' is wrong? How ya doing, buddy?
"The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote."
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Supreme Court to Look at 2nd Amendment | Ridan Krad | Political Palace | 33 | Dec 19, 2007 11:36 PM |
Tories want new US-Style Bill of Rights | Robo Jesus | Political Palace | 4 | Jul 3, 2006 04:44 AM |
Canadian Supreme Court Decides to Allow Kirpans in School | Locke | Political Palace | 64 | Mar 20, 2006 04:33 PM |