<img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

<small>[ February 03, 2005, 08:37 PM: Message edited by: Tiggy ]</small>

My head is spinning a bit, but thank you WAT, FH, Mel, and 2long for that! Actually, a good, respectful debate can NEVER be detrimental. I don't want to jump in necessarily--I'm ebjoying this (seriously--I am learning an awful lot, probably more than my 7 years in Catholic school!)

Just a few honest, questions and observations:

WAT said:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I learned about human interactions about what felt good and what felt bad.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">What is the basis of this, though? Bottom line, if you were told that getting hit "felt good" where would your morals be? In other words, this "can be" a very dangerous statement if you were not "learned" right from wrong, good and bad. But what was the basis of your parents teachings?

nellie said:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I merely commented that a mature person has an internalized moral compass that would be there with or without their religion.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I suppose it goes along with what I asked WAT: where/when is this compass materialized? What is the origin of it? Maturity doesn't happen overnight, so the basis of your "claim" has too many variables to make a general statement. Right?

ol2 said:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Much of what I disagree with has 2 do with the focus on specific chioces of terms and concepts 2 the extent that they sound like recordings.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">"Choices and terms" really is the basis of this whole conversation and of one's "morals"--decisions of actions based on their own personal teachings.

ol2 also said:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I like your hypothetical scenario about Hitler.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I highly disliked this scenario! And ol2, I think you touched upon it--one can not make a moral decision based on events that have already happened. It's just not realistic. That is not relative. On the other hand, it can foretell "somewhat" what has been "learned" and a "prediction" of a person's "next" relative decision could be discerned. (What the hell did I just say? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="images/icons/shocked.gif" /> )

Anyway, I know this thread didn't really start this way, but, wow guys and gal--you've really given "every" ready a lot of food for thought. Thanks! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Cool]" src="images/icons/cool.gif" />

Blessings, prayers, or thoughts--you choose-- <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="images/icons/tongue.gif" />
LINY

No one knew Hitler would murder 6 million Jews so your hypothetical is not only moot, it still doesn't mean murder isn't wrong. Murder is still murder and murdering Hitler would not change that fact.

Pallez Melody, was up with that? How about getting rid of Hitler while he was actually doing the killing of Jews?


We can't deny that morality exists just because we have trouble knowing the answer in a few difficult situations.

If morally was always absolute there would not be a struggle to find the answer. It wuld be black and white! Thanks!

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Stan-ley:


Pallez Melody, was up with that? How about getting rid of Hitler while he was actually doing the killing of Jews?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">But who are you to say it was wrong to kill Jews if morals are not absolute? If morals are not absolute,as you say, then there is no absolute foundation from which to draw such a conclusion. Hitler said killing Jews was AOK, so who are you to say he is wrong if morals are not absolute?


</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">

If morally was always absolute there would not be a struggle to find the answer. It wuld be black and white! Thanks! [/QB]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">You have it backwards, Stan. If morals WEREN'T absolute, then you wouldn't HAVE TO struggle to find the answer because it wouldn't matter. If morals aren't absolute then there is no "correct" answer because it is all relative, hence no struggle. See what I mean?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> I believe someone in this thread has already stated that murdering Adolph Hitler may have been morally correct if we had know that millions of Jews were going to die by his hand. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Stan-ley – That “someone” would have been me. But if you read the entire post you will see that hypothetical situation is NOT morally correct. A choice, yes. Morally correct, no.

WAT, you are engaging in circular reasoning at best and selective association at worst in “going after” me for responding to something that 2Long posted. Here’s a review of the context so you may be able to reevaluate your comments:

Stated by 2Long: Relative?

well, maybe. I guess, in the sense that Shakespeare's statement "There is neither good nor bad, but thinking makes it so" is a statement that good and bad are viewed relative 2 our humanity.

My response to 2Long: With regard to Shakespeare's comment, that is typical "humanistic" reasoning. The "denial" of the existence of "good and bad," "good and evil." That leaves it up to the "eye of the beholder" based upon how they FEEL about how something impacts them. There is no "objective" standard, it's all subjective. Obviously, if there is no God who IS sovereign and who does have the right to determine what is "good" and what is "evil" for everyone, then everyone is left to pick and choose as they see fit. So OUR chosen "morality" has no bearing on "right or wrong" for anyone else. It is, since we band together in societies, SOCIETY alone that determines what is moral or immoral for that given society without regard to humanity in total. And Societal "norms" change. Along with that change comes changing "moral values." What you once thought was "morally right" becomes "outdated, defunct, and you are derided for holding such 'old fashioned' moral viewpoints" because "Society" is so much more enlightened.

Your response back to me regarding this response to 2Long: With regard to Shakespeare's comment, that is typical "humanistic" reasoning. The "denial" of the existance of "good and bad," "good and evil."

See? Once again! You accuse any humanist with the inability to distinguish good and evil - or even its existance! Why? Isn't it obvious to you that your belief system doesn't have a monopoly on knowing right from wrong, good from evil? This brings me right back to the openning post on this thread. I feel like I'm talking to a WS in the fog. Nothing gets through, so why try?


(Side Note: “I feel like I'm talking to a WS in the fog. Nothing gets through, so why try?” Welcome to the club, WAT. I’ve been feeling that way through most of this thread.)


WAT – 2Long made a comment about morals being relative and used Shakespeare’s comments as a way to illustrate what he was trying to say. He concluded his use of Shakespeare’s comment by stating that good and bad are viewed relative 2 our humanity.

It was 2Long, in this instance, whom equated the “inability of humans to distinguish good or bad TO humans BECAUSES it is “relative” to humanity at any given time.

My comment in response was to agree with Shakespeare and to agree with 2Long. Both “humanists” argued the point and I simply agreed with them. So if you want to try to somehow turn this into something else, like FH is being “narrow-minded” or it’s just a “Christian biased (and therefore de facto invalid) point”, you can try, but I don’t think the facts will support such a position. You said: “You accuse any humanist with the inability to distinguish good and evil - or even its existence! Why? Isn't it obvious to you that your belief system doesn't have a monopoly on knowing right from wrong, good from evil?”

WAT, if you will take the time to go back to my earlier posts in the thread you will see clearly that I DO think that everyone, Christian or non-Christian, HAS the inherent knowledge of “good and evil.” That, in my opinion, came about when Adam and Eve ate fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and sin entered the world.

WAT, we are NOT talking about any “prerequisite” or “exclusivity” connected to Christianity here. We are talking about the simple knowledge of “good and evil,” “right and wrong.” MORALS are simply those things that an individual has decided to accept as THEIR “code of behavior.” They can be “good,” “bad,” “flexible” with a given situation or desire, etc. But they are the individual’s choice for their own self.

THE point that I have been making is “on what basis does one make a choice for or against a ‘set of moral standards’?”

You have postulated that YOUR standards are based upon your own personal experience and proposed by your parents. You “evaluated” the situation and the “proposed” morals to see if they were “acceptable” to you and your reasoning. But they in no way necessarily lead to the same conclusion that you made for someone else. That experience was YOURS. Those feelings were YOURS. You chose what seemed “good” to you, and were FREE to do so. So are others “free” to choose similar or dissimilar “morals” regardless of what you might think.

There is NO objective, “outside of ourselves” standard of moral behavior when you reduce it to “what I feel and what I think.” EVERYONE has the those same rights and everyone will come to conclusions as to what is “morally correct” based upon their own experience and/or desires. In short, …. It’s all RELATIVE.

Also, on the issue of the “Golden Rule” and it’s “appearance” at several times in history, let me simply add my position. That “rule” was established at the beginning when God asked Cain about Abel. “Am I my brother’s keeper?” was Cain’s response. God made it clear that the answer is “Yes,” we are our brother’s keeper and sin should not be the “choice” we make. God established the “mark” on Cain to give visual evidence that “God’s choice” (or moral standard in this matter) is that no one is to take it upon themselves to harm Cain, or in like manner (do unto others as you would have it done unto you) they will suffer harm.

WAT, you stated as a basis for your CHOICE, as opposed to my choice on anyone else’s choice; “My moral "code" was learned from my parents and from my life experiences. Right and wrong became abundantly obvious from simple interactions with my baby brother. I have all the authority I need and I choose to obey it. No one says I "must" obey it. Doing so as my own free will, it carries more worth for me than being afraid of NOT obeying it as "ordered" by some "authority." No one makes me do it other than my own conscience. [/b]Pity those[/b] who feel "forced" to obey The Golden Rule - or whatever their code happens to be – under some authority. When he hit me, it hurt. When he lied to my parents about who broke the window (me), I didn't like it. Hence, I learned about human interactions and what felt good and what felt bad. Pretty simple.

I have all the Very sad indeed.”
WAT, there is much contained in this statement you made that bears discussion.

1) By admission, it was YOUR individual moral code (“My moral Code)
2) You learned it from outside of yourself and decide what was important to you
3) You set yourself up as the “Sole Authority” for your life and your choices, and I am certain that you “grant” the same authority to everyone else, they do not have to accept what YOU think is authoritative for your life and choices.
4) Your own conscience (or I assume the attendant corollary of “lack of conscience” in some others) is the “sole authority” in your life and by association, in each individual’s life.
5) You “pity” others who are “dumb enough” to think that anyone outside of themselves has the “right” to state a standard that is universally correct and that all should “obey” that standard for the “good of humanity.”
6) You seem to think that people (and by association with the previous comments you have made I make the assumption that you include Christians in your term “people”) who submit their own “free will” choices to God out of LOVE for God and a desire to please God in response to the great love that He first bestowed upon us, are somehow being forced against their will to submit to God (even though they don’t want to) under threat of punishment (sounds more like Saddam Hussain’s Iraq, as an example). WAT, you negate “free will” choices from those who accept God’s love as a motivation to be “obedient” to the commands of someone who loves us and wants the best for us.
7) You “elevate” FEELINGS as the “guiding light” of determining “right and wrong” and of what our moral behavior is to be, by personal response to our FEELINGS. WAT, isn’t that EXACTLY what has been said time and time again by Wayward Spouses as a justification for infidelity? “If it feels good, do it!” “If it doesn’t feel good, don’t do it!” Let feelings RULE, because feelings NEVER lie to us! Marital Vows? They are “relative” to how I am FEELING, not an absolute covenant that I commit to “until death do us part,” “for better or for worse, in sickness and in health, for richer or for poorer…”. Forgiveness? What for? “Forgiveness doesn’t FEEL right to me, I have been hurt!!”
8) It is “very sad indeed” to set FEELINGS as the determinant factor in establishing moral standards. To set “personal experience” as the arbiter of how something feels so that we can react as our feelings dictate.

WAT, once again, let me simply state that an understanding of “right and wrong,” “good and evil,” has been with us since the “tasty fruit” of Eden.

That being said, the question remains, on what basis should a “moral code” of conduct be established that is “universal” to all humans and based upon that which all humans, by nature, know to be “good” and that rejects that which is “evil?”

Why should anyone accept such a “universal code” as being applicable to them, when there is no authority that carries “weight” other than one’s personal “feelings?”

If you reject God, then WHO, outside of the self that is enthroned upon the throne of each individual’s life, has the “right” to say what is moral or immoral for anyone other than themselves?

The issue of whether or not someone can lead a “morally good life” is not the same issue as to whether or not anyone can be “saved.” Salvation is a religious question. Leading a “good life” does nothing to “earn” salvation, but may simply be a “preferable” lifestyle and way to interact with other humans.

FH

believe that it is possible 2 be spiri2al without being religious. I also believe that it is possible 2 have faith without being religious. Different strokes for different people who stroke, perhaps.

2Long - Of course you can have “faith” without being religious. Just ask the “flat earthers!” Just ask the atheists who have “faith” that God does not exist. “Faith” is not the exclusive province of religion. “Salvation Faith” IS the province of religion, but that is not what we’ve been discussing.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">One thing I will note here for your perusal. This is an observation I have been making for a number of years now about my own thinking about religion, my religious background in particular, and my interactions with religious and non-religious friends in the 30+ years since I stopped going 2 church. Much of my "reaction" 2 posts of yours reminds me of arguments I used 2 have with Christian friends many years ago. I used 2 enjoy those arguments. Early on, they weren't very rewarding. As time went on, though, each of us was better able 2 listen 2 the other's viewpoints, and we always ended on a mu2ually respectful level.

That's harder 2 do with internet boards, because you don't have the face-2-face oppor2nity 2 monitor each other's expressions and can't quite be certain of one another's tone (or intent). We "hit and run" more often than not, I'm afraid, unless we keep things light (and thus often uninformative). As a result of this, plus the reason I came here in the first place, I've found myself getting on the defensive when perhaps I shouldn't, or going on the offensive when I know better than 2 do so.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">2Long, most astute and most certainly correct. We all suffer from this “attention span deficit disorder” when not in a “live, one-on-one” discussion. It’s too easy to lose focus, get distracted, not “hear” tonal inflections, etc.

I certainly wish you well in your recovery efforts, as I'm sure you do me.

As do I for all who are going through the mess of infidelity and the struggles of recovery!

All in good spirits, I hope.

You bet!

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">From Eckhart Tolle's "The Power of Now"

"When you say Being, are you talking about God? If you are, then why don't you say it?

The word God has become empty of meaning through thousands of years of misuse. I use it sometimes, but I do so sparingly. By misuse, I mean that people who have never even glimpsed the realm of the sacred, the infinite vastness behind that word, use it with great conviction, as if they knew what they are talking about. Or they argue against it, as if they knew what it is that they are denying. This misuse gives rise to absurd beliefs, assertions, and egoic delusions, such as "My or our God is the only true God, and your God is false," or Nietzsche's famous statement "God is dead."

The word God has become a closed concept. The moment the word is uttered, a mental image is created, no longer, perhaps, of an old man with a white beard, but still a mental representation of someone or something outside you, and, yes, almost inevitably a male someone or something.

Neither God nor Being nor any other word can define or explain the ineffable reality behind the word, so the only important question is whether the word is a help or a hindrance in enabling you to experience That toward which it points. Does it point beyond itself to that transcendental reality, or does it lend itself too easily to becoming no more than an idea in your head that you believe in, a mental idol?

The word Being explains nothing, but nor does God. Being, however, has the advantage that it is an open concept. It does not reduce the infinite invisible to a finite entity. It is impossible to form a mental image of it. [/I]Nobody can claim exclusive possession of Being. It is your very essence, and it is immediately accessible to you as the feeling of your own presence, the realization I am that is prior to I am this or I am that. So it is only a small step[/I] (in the selfish and self-important mind of man) from the word Being to the experience of Being." </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">From the Scripture is found the biblical "refutation" to Eckhart Tolle's humanistic interpretation: God said to Moses, “I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: “I AM has sent me to you.’” God also said to Moses, “Say to the Israelites, ‘The LORD (The Hebrew word for LORD sounds like and may be derived from the Hebrew for I AM in verse 14), the God of your fathers – the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, - has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, the name by which I am to be remembered from generation to generation.” (Gen.3:14-15 NIV)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but he darkness has not understood it. (John 1:1-5 NIV)

“Open Concepts” is a metaphor for “all things are relative.” It is, again, humanistic reasoning without the acceptance of God and replaces “God’s commands” with “feelings” and “experiential basis” as the determinants of “behavior,” “right and wrong,” and “moral code” that is “acceptable.” Without God, with only Man, who or what WILL be the “authority?” Certainly not “society.” Societies are different and what is acceptable changes with the changing whims of Society. That leaves the individual. HOW will the individual decide, and by what right would he be able to extend “his choices for morals” to others?

This IS a classic “slippery slope” argument. Once we grant “authority” to the individual, it belongs to all individuals irrespective of what each other might think.


FH

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">where/when is this compass materialized? What is the origin of it? Maturity doesn't happen overnight, so the basis of your "claim" has too many variables to make a general statement. Right?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">No, that is incorrect. I did not say "a 21 year old" - I said "a mature person." At what age a person becomes mature is irrelevant to this discussion. What is the origin of a moral compass? - the same as the origin of common sense - partly genetic, partly parental, and partly from all the other experiences that influence us growing up. The implication that without a belief in the "rules" of a higher power, we can not have a moral compass is both ridiculous and offensive. I remember feeling terribly guilty when I took home a wooden bead in kindergarten for a couple of days. At the time, I am not 100% sure if I had ever heard of "god," and my parents definitely never discussed right and wrong in terms of relgious beliefs.

Melody:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">But who are you to say it was wrong to kill Jews if morals are not absolute? If morals are not absolute,as you say, then there is no absolute foundation from which to draw such a conclusion. Hitler said killing Jews was AOK, so who are you to say he is wrong if morals are not absolute?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">It was wrong! It is not right because someone thought otherwise. Once we analyzed the situation we can clearly see it was wrong. This is the beauty of being open-minded. We look at each situation and make a judgment. If someone judges the act as moral then they have a different point of view, but that does not mean they are also correct. However, that is why morality is relative. BTW, I happen to think that murder is wrong 100% of the time, in fact. I would not agree with the murder of Hitler or Osama Bin Laden. I don’t believe in capital punishment---- period! I strongly believe we don’t have the right to take a person’s life and I make no exception. That is MY POINT OF VIEW. However, I would understand if you or someone else thinks that is morally acceptable to assassinate Hitler or Osama. I would understand that perspective and simply accept it as moral relativity.


</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">You have it backwards, Stan. If morals WEREN'T absolute, then you wouldn't HAVE TO struggle to find the answer because it wouldn't matter. If morals aren't absolute then there is no "correct" answer because it is all relative, hence no struggle. See what I mean? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">

ML, it is not wise to take one posture and to assume it will fit all possible permutations. There are always exceptions to the rule. Look at our law books---------- Legislators have been written laws for hundreds of years to cover every possible situation and yet the Supreme Court is flooded with cases where the application of these laws is not acceptable and new judgments or opinions are needed. Every situation is different and it is practically impossible to write down in a piece a paper a set of rules that will cover everything.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">What is the origin of a moral compass? - the same as the origin of common sense - partly genetic, partly parental, and partly from all the other experiences that influence us growing up. The implication that without a belief in the "rules" of a higher power...</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">**YOU** implied the "higher power"!!!! I made ABSOLUTELY NO implication! FH has, but I simply asked you that question. Gotchya! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="images/icons/tongue.gif" />

In regards to the first part, you proved my point--juat way too many variables to make that general statement.

Now, I'm just gonna sit back, read, think, and enjoy! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">It was wrong! It is not right because someone thought otherwise. Once we analyzed the situation we can clearly see it was wrong.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">But you cannot say that it was wrong if morals are not absolute, Stan. By what standard would it be wrong if there are NO moral absolutes? It is just your word against Hitler's. It would all be relative and based on personal taste. If you say that morals are relative, then you have no standard from which to say murder is wrong unless you are agreeing that murder is wrong.

Our laws *ARE* absolute by definition. Murder is against the law, stealing is against the law. What is not clear and absolute are situations and this is where I think you are having a disconnect. See, it is not the MORAL that is relative, but the situation. The moral stays static, what is sometimes unclear is how it fits to the situation.

But that does not mean that morals are "relative." If morals were not absolute, then there would never be an issue of trying to decipher right from wrong because it wouldn't matter.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Stan-ley:
<strong>BTW, I happen to think that murder is wrong 100% of the time, in fact. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Stanley, if you believe that murder is ALWAYS WRONG, then you do not believe that morals are relative. You are simply misdefining moral relativism.

It is NOT the moral that is relative, it is the SITUATION. BIG DIFFERENCE. Your beliefs do not qualify as moral relativism. A moral relativist believes that there are NO absolute standards and that murder is ok sometimes and not ok other times.


Stanley, you are not a moral relativist. Give it up!

Stan, here is the definition of moral relativism:

Moral Relativism - What's It All About?
Moral relativism is the view that ethical standards, morality, and positions of right or wrong are culturally based and therefore subject to a person's individual choice. We can all decide what is right for ourselves. You decide what's right for you, and I'll decide what's right for me. Moral relativism says, "It's true for me, if I believe it."

http://www.moral-relativism.com/

See, according the def of moral relativism, Hitler was justified in killing 6 million Jews because "it was right for him." There is no absolute standard of right and wrong, only personal opinion matters. Your word against his and both are equally valid. Is Hitler's opinion just as valid as yours?

Melody:

Thanks for the definition of moral relativism; it is valid even if it comes from a religious site.

Sure, I tend to not favor moral relativism. But, that does not mean I am blind to it. To be 100% in agreement with that philosophy implies that one has no belief in God (I am RCA and go to mass every Sunday).

The problem absolutists have with moral relativity is that it implies the absence of God. It removes the source of what is morally correct. Absolutists most have a point of reference whereas moral relativists do without it. The problem with the point of reference is that we can never know what it is or where it is. It would be like me proving to you that God exists. As much as I believe in God I cannot prove to you that God is up there in the heavens.

Here is a quote by a philosopher who dealt with this issue.



</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">
Moral philosophers have often claimed that the variety of moral systems around the world in itself proves nothing about the status of moral judgments. In other words, variety implies nothing about objectivity, truth, relativity, and so forth. Westermarck published Moral Relativity in 1932. In 1937 W. T. Stace published The Concept of Morals, which contained an extensive treatment of what State called "ethical relativity." Stace was a professional philosopher who, while sympathetic to some aspects of relativism, criticized other aspects at length.

In Stace's view, both the ethical "relativist" and the ethical "absolutist" can easily acknowledge that ethics varies greatly form culture to culture. Thus, the variation itself does not give strong support to either of their positions.


...this variability of moral ideas is admitted by both parties to the dispute, and is capable of ready explanation upon the hypothesis of either party. The relativist says that the facts are to be explained by the non-existence of any absolute moral standard. The absolutist says that they are to be explained by human ignorance of what the absolute moral standard is.

....Thus the facts can be explained equally plausibly on either hypothesis. There is nothing in the facts themselves which compels us to prefer the relativistic hypothesis to that of the absolutist.


From W. T. Stace, The Concept of Morals, p. 14-15.

More recent philosophers writing about ethical relativism have generally agreed that the fact that there are different moral systems in different cultures does not by itself imply anything of philosophical value.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Stace, W(alter) T(erence)
Encyclopædia Britannica Article


W. T. Stace
born Nov. 17, 1886, London, Eng.
died Aug. 2, 1967, Laguna Beach, Calif., U.S.


English-born philosopher who sought to reconcile naturalism with religious experience. His utilitarian theories, though empiricist in nature, acknowledged the necessity of incorporating mystical and spiritual interpretations.

Educated at Bath College and Fettes College, Edinburgh, and at Trinity College, Dublin

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Stan-ley:
[QB]

Sure, I tend to not favor moral relativism. But, that does not mean I am blind to it. To be 100% in agreement with that philosophy implies that one has no belief in God (I am RCA and go to mass every Sunday).

The problem absolutists have with moral relativity is that it implies the absence of God. It removes the source of what is morally correct. Absolutists most have a point of reference whereas moral relativists do without it. The problem with the point of reference is that we can never know what it is or where it is. It would be like me proving to you that God exists. As much as I believe in God I cannot prove to you that God is up there in the heavens.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">The problem that "absolutists" have [and yes you are one] with moral relativism is that it is mush for mushminds. It is idiocy. It is an irrational worldview that falls apart under even minor logical examination. Just ask any moral relativist if it ok to murder them? I bet they change to an absolutist real quick. They don't even believe in it themselves.

Nor do I believe that one has to believe in God to know right from wrong. I believe there is such a thing as the Moral Law that is written on the heart of man. [ala conscience] I do believe that the Moral Law comes from God, but I don't think that one has to believe in God to know it. But that is another debate for another day.

Melody:

I am neither bleeding heart nor a right wing person. I am mostly in the middle with a libertarian twist.

You say you do not need God to be an absolutist and that you rely in your heart or that perhaps somewhere in there you can find the right answer. Since you call me an absolutist I can probably say you have elements of moral relativism if you believe in what your heart says.

BTW, it is of interest to know that many Marxists are absolutists when it comes to their brand of morality. Quite the opposite of the “everything goes” philosophy of the bleeding hearts. In any event I am scared of absolutists even if you think I am one of them.

Stanley, the people you should be scared of are moral relativists. The absolutists are people like you and I who believe that murder is wrong no matter what. We are bound to a never changing moral system that is higher than ourselves. We could never rationalize murder.

A moral relativist does not hold such a belief; he can justify murder - or anything else - if it suits him because all moral are relative. An example of a moral relativist would be Stalin or Hitler, who believed that murder was justified if it benefited them. They were both able to rationalize their murders because the concept that all murder is wrong was not absolute to them. That is who you should be scared of; the folks who have no set moral standard.

P.S. The Marxist philosophy epitomized moral relativism. They held to NO moral standard other than "whatever benefits me." All morals were subject to personal suitability and nothing more. They made up their own rules as they went along and forsook all moral absolutes such as lying, murder, stealing, etc. I don't know how you can possibly see all the murders in their path and claim they were moral absolutists; they were anything BUT!

"Moral relativism is the view that ethical standards, morality, and positions of right or wrong are culturally based and therefore subject to a person's individual choice. We can all decide what is right for ourselves. You decide what's right for you, and I'll decide what's right for me. Moral relativism says, "It's true for me, if I believe it."

I am beginning to wonder, Stan..if you are confusing moral absolutist..with dogmatic.

Any chance?

Noodle

<small>[ February 03, 2005, 12:26 PM: Message edited by: noodle ]</small>

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by noodle:
<strong> I am beginning to wonder, Stan..if you are comfusing moral absolutist..with dogmatic.

Any chance?

Noodle </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I think he believes that absolutist = legalistic and that if you are NOT legalistic then you believe in moral relativism. However, legalism has nothing to do with moral absolutism - that is not the definition of moral absolutism at all.

In fact, I would argue that legalism is sinful. I hate to use a biblical example here [because one doesn't need the Bible to make a case for moral absolutism, only a working mind] but it is the only one I can think of off the top of my head. But Jesus RAILED at the Pharisees for being legalistic when the Pharisees asked Jesus if it weren't sinful to rescue a pig on the Sabbath. The moral of the story is that we are supposed to adhere to the SPIRIT of the LAW rather than the letter of the law. That viewpoint is NOT mutually exclusive with moral absolutism.