Antoine Vaillant - Ten years of hard work - got his pro card!

[The Scott]

Good post. No point. 

Given your moral relativism, it is understandable that you would take that position.

[dr.chimps]

Given your moral relativism, it is understandable that you would take that position.

Still spinning. Make a point/argument, or get off the pot. 

[Dr Dutch]

I guess most of us appreciate your updates about his well being, and hopefully he gets/accepts the mental support he needs.

Go away

[DroppingPlates]

Go away

Go away Bert, no one likes you here

[SF1900]

Given your moral relativism, it is understandable that you would take that position.

Most morals are relative. I see no problem with this at all. All laws were developed via dialogue by examining the evidence. There are hardly any absolute moral values. Even murder, in the appropriate context, is justified.

I am sorry, but I do not look to a 2000 year old book for my morals.  

[The Scott]

Still spinning. Make a point/argument, or get off the pot. 

[The Scott]

Most morals are relative. I see no problem with this at all. All laws were developed via dialogue by examining the evidence. There are hardly any absolute moral values. Even murder, in the appropriate context, is justified.

I am sorry, but I do not look to a 2000 year old book for my morals. 

Don't be childish.  I already know this about you.  Morality is not written in stone, but within the hearts of the people.   

[SF1900]

Don't be childish.  I already know this about you.  Morality is not written in stone, but within the hearts of the people.   

Well, let me rephrase:

I a moral relativist to the extent that each value judgments become objective when there is overwhelming evidence that said action is moral or immoral. However, I do not assign a moral judgment automatically without examining the evidence. Thus, I do, to a GREAT extent, do think there are objective moral values; however, these often become objective when there is enough evidence and consensus that says so.

I don't know if that makes me a moral relativist. Where is Kahn M. Sing when you need him? 

[DroppingPlates]

Don't be childish.  I already know this about you.  Morality is not written in stone, but within the hearts of the people.   

Childish?
SF brings the arguments and asks critical questions. You aren't bringing much to the table, other than your dogmatic morals and lame comments.

[The Scott]

Childish?
SF brings the arguments and asks critical questions. You aren't bringing much to the table, other than your dogmatic morals and lame comments.

*SNICKER*

[The Ugly]

Most morals are relative. I see no problem with this at all. All laws were developed via dialogue by examining the evidence. There are hardly any absolute moral values. Even murder, in the appropriate context, is justified.

I am sorry, but I do not look to a 2000 year old book for my morals.  

Good post.

Slavery and rape, these are absolutely immoral. Right? Can't think of an exception. Thought murder might be too, but no. There are certainly instances where it isn't, or it all just devolves into semantics. Anything else, though?

Cowardice, I'd say, is also another absolute in that it's always wrong. Just not sure where it fits in the debate.

[The Scott]

Well, let me rephrase:

I a moral relativist to the extent that each value judgments become objective when there is overwhelming evidence that said action is moral or immoral. However, I do not assign a moral judgment automatically without examining the evidence. Thus, I do, to a GREAT extent, do think there are objective moral values; however, these often become objective when there is enough evidence and consensus that says so.

I don't know if that makes me a moral relativist. Where is Kahn M. Sing when you need him? 

Unlike us, Kahn is most likely doing something worthy of his time. 

[DroppingPlates]

*SNICKER*

Thank you for proving my point, I expect more than this from an intelligent man like you.

[The Ugly]

Don't be childish.  I already know this about you.  Morality is not written in stone, but within the hearts of the people.   

Moral relativism certainly gets idiotic at times, totally agree. But you're not suggesting everything is black or white, are you?

Lying, for instance. Most often wrong, sure. But absolutely wrong, no exceptions? I'm curious.

[The Scott]

Thank you for proving my point, I expect more than this from an intelligent man like you.

As do I from you.  To me, that which I replied to deserved nothing more than a *SNICKER*.

I am not here to argue.  As for my "dogmatic morals and lame comments", I cannot help you there.  We are who we are and neither of us is going to change.  If this truth makes you think less of me, so be it.

[The Scott]

Moral relativism certainly gets idiotic at times, totally agree. But you're not suggesting everything is black or white, are you?

Lying, for instance. Most often wrong, sure. But absolutely wrong, no exceptions? I'm curious.

The world is not black and white but neither is it all shades of gray (not the film!  ).

I agree.  Are all of my truths the same as yours?  Most likely no, but I would suggest that we have more in common than we do differences and yet the zeitgeist of the world around us is to celebrate the differences rather than revel in and grow more together from the similarities. 

[The Ugly]

The world is not black and white but neither is it all shades of gray (not the film!  ).

I agree.  Are all of my truths the same as yours?  Most likely no, but I would suggest that we have more in common than we do differences and yet the zeitgeist of the world around us is to celebrate the differences rather than revel in and grow more together from the similarities.  

Where would we differ, though? And why? On morality, I mean. Worship stuff aside, where might we disagree on civilized behavior?

[The Scott]

Where would we differ, though? And why? On morality, I mean. Worship stuff aside, where might we disagree on civilized behavior?

I dunno.  We probably don't.  You don't have to have faith to be a civilized person.  Plenty of people fake their faith or do as I sometimes do and shame it.  Faith doesn't make anyone moral just as a lack of faith in any deity does not make someone immoral. 

We are what we do in life. 

[The Ugly]

I dunno.  We probably don't.  You don't have to have faith to be a civilized person.  Plenty of people fake their faith or do as I sometimes do and shame it.  Faith doesn't make anyone moral just as a lack of faith in any deity does not make someone immoral. 

We are what we do in life. 

Goes without saying, which is why I brushed it aside.

So we're both sorta 'relativist,' then. Just like pretty much everyone else ever.    

[The Scott]

Goes without saying, which is why I brushed it aside.

So we're both sorta 'relativist,' then. Just like pretty much everyone else ever.    

Yup.

[DroppingPlates]

Yup.

Time for some positivity, my friend!

[SF1900]

Unlike us, Kahn is most likely doing something worthy of his time.  

I know a little about him, so I'd say he is definitely doing something more productive.  

The thing that I struggled with is trying to understand if I look at morals from an absolute or relative perspective. For example, I do not think that child molestation is okay in any context--no matter the context, child molestation is wrong. So, does that put me in line with moral absolutism? On the other hand, I am a moral relativist when it comes to MOST other things, e.g., killing another human being in self-defense. I have PMed Kahn for help

I am going to provide you with a good example from a book I have been reading about politics and morals ("The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion"). First off, we base most of our moral judgments on intuition, i.e., we have an initial reaction to a moral dilemma, then later on try to find evidence to back up our moral position (this has  been demonstrated). Anyway, the author of the book discusses an experiment he conducted. He provided people with different scenarios and asked them to make a moral decision about it. When they made a moral decision, the researcher then challenged them on their decision. One of the moral dilemmas was that a brother and sister, who are both over the age of 18, had a one-night stand. The guy used a condom. It was 100% consensual. No one found out about it. It never happened again. And it didn't ruin their family or their relationship. Thus, there were no negative consequences related to the one night stand. Was this morally wrong? Every participant pretty much had the same response, "Ugh, that is gross and so wrong." But when challenged by the researcher WHY it was wrong, most participants did not have an adequate response--some said, "well, what if she got pregnant?" The researcher said, "The guy used a condom, and she didnt get pregnant." They then said, "Well, maybe it ruined their family or relationship." The researcher said, "nope, it didn't. It never happened again and no one was harmed." The participants kept scrambling for answers and could not really justify why it was morally wrong. They all said, "It just felt (intuition) wrong." If we equate morality with well-being (which Sam Harrison does), and if the brother and sisters well-being was not sacrificed or harmed (physically, emotionally, psychologically or spiritually), then why would it be an immoral act? Is it something I would do if I had a sister? 100% not. However, that doesn't mean it's morally wrong either. I don't know. Anyway, I think it represents a good scenario of how most actions cannot automatically be deemed immoral or moral (absolutism).

[DroppingPlates]

'The righteous mind' ? I thought for a second that was written by James Allen, but I confused it with the part 'The righteous man' from his 'All these things added', which is very well written.

[SF1900]

'The righteous mind' ? I thought for a second that was written by James Allen, but I confused it with the part 'The righteous man' from his 'All these things added', which is very well written.

By Jonathan Haidt

[Kahn.N.Singh]

I know a little about him, so I'd say he is definitely doing something more productive.  

The thing that I struggled with is trying to understand if I look at morals from an absolute or relative perspective. For example, I do not think that child molestation is okay in any context--no matter the context, child molestation is wrong. So, does that put me in line with moral absolutism? On the other hand, I am a moral relativist when it comes to MOST other things, e.g., killing another human being in self-defense. I have PMed Kahn for help

I am going to provide you with a good example from a book I have been reading about politics and morals ("The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion"). First off, we base most of our moral judgments on intuition, i.e., we have an initial reaction to a moral dilemma, then later on try to find evidence to back up our moral position (this has  been demonstrated). Anyway, the author of the book discusses an experiment he conducted. He provided people with different scenarios and asked them to make a moral decision about it. When they made a moral decision, the researcher then challenged them on their decision. One of the moral dilemmas was that a brother and sister, who are both over the age of 18, had a one-night stand. The guy used a condom. It was 100% consensual. No one found out about it. It never happened again. And it didn't ruin their family or their relationship. Thus, there were no negative consequences related to the one night stand. Was this morally wrong? Every participant pretty much had the same response, "Ugh, that is gross and so wrong." But when challenged by the researcher WHY it was wrong, most participants did not have an adequate response--some said, "well, what if she got pregnant?" The researcher said, "The guy used a condom, and she didnt get pregnant." They then said, "Well, maybe it ruined their family or relationship." The researcher said, "nope, it didn't. It never happened again and no one was harmed." The participants kept scrambling for answers and could not really justify why it was morally wrong. They all said, "It just felt (intuition) wrong." If we equate morality with well-being (which Sam Harrison does), and if the brother and sisters well-being was not sacrificed or harmed (physically, emotionally, psychologically or spiritually), then why would it be an immoral act? Is it something I would do if I had a sister? 100% not. However, that doesn't mean it's morally wrong either. I don't know. Anyway, I think it represents a good scenario of how most actions cannot automatically be deemed immoral or moral (absolutism).

  Hi, friend (yeah, busy).

Can't stick around for more than a few minutes, but perhaps it would be helpful to first provide an account of what we mean by 'morality'? Is it synonymous with such things as ethics and self-interest? BTW, just took a quick look at the Haidt    (does he define the term?).