Can anyone really BE a moral relativist?

[Magical Realist]

"Should" can have different connotations. I didn't say anything about your moral obligations. I suggested what you should have done to make your argument halfway credible.

"Should" posits an objective moral obligation you and others are bound to. If you are claiming morality is relative, then you contradict yourself in claiming I should be doing what you think I should do. Hence proving the op once again--nobody can really BE a moral relativist.

Depending on an external source, without an internalized sense of morality, they are apt to make bad decisions

As Chomsky made clear, a morality that doesn't universalize and externalize itself to others isn't worth 2 cents.

"Those who do not rise to the minimal moral level of applying to themselves the standards they apply to others -- more stringent ones, in fact -- plainly cannot be taken seriously when they speak of appropriateness of response; or of right and wrong, good and evil. In fact, one of the, maybe the most, elementary of moral principles is that of universality, that is, If something's right for me, it's right for you; if it's wrong for you, it's wrong for me. Any moral code that is even worth looking at has that at its core somehow.."

 

[sideshowbob]

"Should" posits an objective moral obligation you and others are bound to.

When somebody says, "You should back up your important files," he isn't talking about morality. It's a "good idea" to back up your important files but not necessarily "good" in any moral sense.

To the point: it would have been a "good idea" for you to mention the Chomsky quote which agrees with you instead of the Wikipedia quote which doesn't.

As Chomsky made clear, a morality that doesn't universalize and externalize itself to others isn't worth 2 cents.

Then answer the question: What is the universallly moral thing to do when the choice is betwen killing two people or three people? Which track do you switch the train to?

It's a simple question. What's your answer? (Feel free to consult with Chomsky.)

 

[Magical Realist]

To the point: it would have been a "good idea" for you to mention the Chomsky quote which agrees with you instead of the Wikipedia quote which doesn't.

So now you're retracting your moral prescription for me to just saying it would have been a good idea. Nice backpeddling. BTW, I did mention the Chomsky quote. Twice in fact. So what are you still bitching about?

Then answer the question: What is the universallly moral thing to do when the choice is betwen killing two people or three people? Which track do you switch the train to? It's a simple question. What's your answer? (Feel free to consult with Chomsky.)

Wow..that's a real stumper. lol! I'd probably kill neither.

 

[Balerion]

That's alot of shoulds for someone who claims morality is just a matter of personal preference. Maybe you should practice what you preach instead of issuing moral fiats for other people to obey.

Do you honestly believe he's issuing moral decrees here? Really? You're a weasel.

Wow..moral relativism certainly makes strange bedfellows. Anarchists, sociopaths and now hypocrites? I'm glad I'm not a member of your alleged "right is whatever I prefer at the moment" club. Sounds like a bunch of a-holes to me.

Better to be an asshole than an intellectually bankrupt coward, I suppose.

It's ironic that the relativists here are the only ones who have any conviction whatsoever in their moral principles, while the absolutist twit in the bunch runs and hides every time he's challenged to defend his morality, or given a moral dilemma to solve. To wit:

Then answer the question: What is the universallly moral thing to do when the choice is betwen killing two people or three people? Which track do you switch the train to? It's a simple question. What's your answer? (Feel free to consult with Chomsky.)

Wow..that's a real stumper. lol! I'd probably kill neither.

That's the verbal equivalent of failing to answer the bell. And that's really the point: absolutism is impossible, because once one is faced with an actual dilemma, they can't even get off the stool.

 

[Magical Realist]

 

[Balerion]

Case in point.

 

[wellwisher]

The confusion continues between morals and ethics. Ethics attempt to tug on the emotional heart strings and are therefore subjective. This makes ethics relative to the level of performance art which is subjective. Morals are based on rules that maximize the group and are subject to objective tests. It is not emotional manipulation but can be compared based on social costs.

An immoral culture has higher social costs. Why does America need so many lawyers; immorality. The added cost of immorality goes into competing ethical decisions, which carve up the pie needed to pay the added cost of immorality.

If teen girls want free abortions there is a social cost to the tax payer. It is not relative since there is a hard number. Immorality, I suppose could be relative since there are different levels of waste and cost depending on the choice of immorality. There is only one optimized but endless ones that are not optimized. Teens engaging in safe sex, would be less immoral than teens engaging in unsafe sex; social costs.

Ethics are relative, since it uses emotions, while some ethics are more costly than others. Since ethics helps to mop up the mess created by immorality, ethics is big business. There is a tendency to reverse engineer ethics. This is where you figure out the immorality needed to maximize profits in the ethics that you sell or promote.

If 47% of the population does not work, this is wasteful in terms of human resources. It is immoral based on the objective scale of lost opportunity costs. Ethically this is a gold mine, since the need to care for the 47% can support endless middlemen who will skim the stream of ethical money that needs to flow from the other 53%.

Those who fight morality and efficiency don't want to lose their skim money.

 

[Balerion]

The confusion continues between morals and ethics.

Only on your end, apparently.

Ethics attempt to tug on the emotional heart strings and are therefore subjective. This makes ethics relative to the level of performance art which is subjective. Morals are based on rules that maximize the group and are subject to objective tests. It is not emotional manipulation but can be compared based on social costs.

Actually, ethics is simply a set of moral principles. It's a group of morals.

An immoral culture has higher social costs. Why does America need so many lawyers; immorality. The added cost of immorality goes into competing ethical decisions, which carve up the pie needed to pay the added cost of immorality.

First you invented a false definition of ethics, and now you're confusing ethics with law.

If teen girls want free abortions there is a social cost to the tax payer. It is not relative since there is a hard number. Immorality, I suppose could be relative since there are different levels of waste and cost depending on the choice of immorality. There is only one optimized but endless ones that are not optimized. Teens engaging in safe sex, would be less immoral than teens engaging in unsafe sex; social costs.

Only if you consider social costs (whatever that's supposed to mean) as a moral issue. I don't.

Ethics are relative, since it uses emotions, while some ethics are more costly than others. Since ethics helps to mop up the mess created by immorality, ethics is big business. There is a tendency to reverse engineer ethics. This is where you figure out the immorality needed to maximize profits in the ethics that you sell or promote.

Absolutely incoherent. Are you sleep-posting?

If 47% of the population does not work, this is wasteful in terms of human resources. It is immoral based on the objective scale of lost opportunity costs.

Only if you view "lost opportunity costs" as a moral issue. I don't even know what the fuck it is, so I can't say if I agree...though I suspect it's nothing I would put in a moral context.

Ethically this is a gold mine, since the need to care for the 47% can support endless middlemen who will skim the stream of ethical money that needs to flow from the other 53%

What is "ethical money?" Even in the context of your absurd definition of "ethics," it makes no sense at all.

Those who fight morality and efficiency don't want to lose their skim money.

Again, incoherence.

 

[sideshowbob]

So now you're retracting your moral prescription for me to just saying it would have been a good idea.

I didn't give you any moral prescription. I gave you debating advice.

BTW, I did mention the Chomsky quote. Twice in fact. So what are you still bitching about?

You mentioned the Chomsky quote long after you mentioned the Wikipedia quote, which doesn't agree with the Chomsky quote. My advice to you was to mention the quote that agrees with you first.

I'd probably kill neither.

Congratulations. You've just exercised relative morality. You've decided that it's "good" to do nothing and let one group die and it's "bad" to actively choose one group over the other. By your definition of universal morality, you've just decreed that for all mankind in all possible situations it's better to let three people die than to make an effort to save two.

 

[Magical Realist]

Congratulations. You've just exercised relative morality. You've decided that it's "good" to do nothing and let one group die and it's "bad" to actively choose one group over the other. By your definition of universal morality, you've just decreed that for all mankind in all possible situations it's better to let three people die than to make an effort to save two.

Ooo..I must be a closet relativist now! NOT..Your little contrived scenario hinges on forcing someone to kill someone no matter what. By removing freewill you therefore remove moral culpability. Hence my action or not action in this scenario has no moral value whatsoever because it is not a free action.

 

[Balerion]

Ooo..I must be a closet relativist now! NOT

What are you, twelve?

Maybe relativism has a more solid basis in myself that I have admitted.

Confused troll is confused.

Your little contrived scenario hinges on forcing someone to kill someone no matter what. By removing freewill you therefore remove moral culpability. Hence my action or not action in this scenario has no moral value whatsoever because it is not a free action.

Cop out. What a joke.

 

[sideshowbob]

Hence my action or not action in this scenario has no moral value whatsoever because it is not a free action.

Morality is not about "free will". It's about reality.

In real-world situations, you don't always have a universally good and a universally bad alternative to use your "free will" on. You only have the choices you have.

You can't use, "I was only following orders," as an excuse for immoral action (or inaction) and you can't use, "There was no "good" option," either. Sometimes the lesser of two evils is the moral choice.

 

[IncogNegro]

So... What happens to the mind a long time after going through traumatic experiences called life?

Just maybe we learn to live. I have to say the easiest and hardest part is allowing someone to know how well their regrets have made them aware of their actions. Aware of their thoughts and trivialities...

The best of any scenario is how far we can see into all angles. In our physical bodies and adverse personalities it can be difficult to think too far ahead.

That's what a real man with drive and power has. Only after being domesticated does he learn morals. To which there are none. There is only one morale. Take that from a man and you create something worse than a child. You recreate your monster in someone else.

I learned that from death race...