- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Do you believe in moral relativity or absolutism?
Posted on 5/12/18 at 4:03 pm to Masterag
Posted on 5/12/18 at 4:03 pm to Masterag
quote:
E.g. would the act of killing hitler as a child be a net moral good or absolutely immoral act.
That’s not how you frame this debate. You just asked an ethical question related to the importance and order of moral truths - not whether truth is relative to perception.
1
Posted on 5/12/18 at 4:05 pm to Masterag
Ben Carson would NOT abort baby hitler
Posted on 5/12/18 at 4:22 pm to Masterag
This thread is just a fancy Trolley car thought experiment
Posted on 5/12/18 at 4:52 pm to Masterag
As long as there are different belief systems globally, I think that moral relativism is demanded.
Posted on 5/12/18 at 5:43 pm to theunknownknight
quote:
You just asked an ethical question related to the importance and order of moral truths
I framed the question as such so that as many people feel welcome to comment as possible.
Posted on 5/12/18 at 5:46 pm to Masterag
I have a foundation based on moral absolutes. However the house around it can be renovated. There are some things I learn that change my mind, but my relative mindset has been pretty consistent throughout my life.
Posted on 5/12/18 at 5:51 pm to LordSaintly
quote:
Moral absolutism is absolutely absurd. For example, you can't judge people in the 18th century by the standards of today.
But there are moral absolutes. Rape, murder, and theft are moral absolutes for me throughout history. Cultures that don’t strive towards opposing these I look at as evil. No one can rationally look at the Mongols and say what they were doing was good, even for the time. Moral goods strive towards balancing chaos and order, without going too far one way or the other. Balance is the key.
Posted on 5/12/18 at 5:53 pm to Masterag
quote:
E.g. would the act of killing hitler as a child be a net moral good or absolutely immoral act.
I think the problem is that a hell of a lot of people who think they know what is absolutely moral or absolutely immoral are really fricking wrong.
This post was edited on 5/12/18 at 5:55 pm
Posted on 5/12/18 at 5:54 pm to PrivatePublic
quote:
Without WW2 when does America come out of the Great Depression? Does the Cold War turn hot?
You really need to go back further in the past than WWII. Really, we’re living in a world designed by Woodrow Wilson. He’s the one most responsible for the good and evil America has become in policing the world. Wilson is the most overrated President of all time and a complete scumbag, but our position in American exceptionalism was the brainchild of Wilson. One of our worst Presidents, but certainly a visionary one.
Posted on 5/12/18 at 6:01 pm to memphis tiger
quote:
And very religious people have done incredibly immoral things.
In my mind, it makes them even worse and more evil. They think they have an almighty deity proving them right, and every thought that passed through their head is straight from god. They are this deity’s herald, and their thoughts reflect what the deity believes.
I grew up in a small town where the Southern Baptist preacher was the most powerful person in town, ousted many members of the church for their sins, and then is later caught fricking his secretary. There are many awful people who take up ministry only because they want power and moral authority over everyone else.
Posted on 5/12/18 at 6:06 pm to memphis tiger
quote:
Killing Hitler before he rose to power would seemingly stop WWII. Would prevent concentration camps and save 6 million Jews and 10s of millions more lives lost in the war.
Here’s the thing: Hitler fed off of his audience. He told them what they wanted to hear. I think some variation of Hitler was inevitable given WWI. The real guilty secret of Hitler ascending to power is that normal people saw what was going on in Russia and were rightfully terrified. So they pinched their nose and put a wacko into office on the sole idea that he wasn’t a Communist. He may be a wacko, but he’s not going to have us starve.
And a communist Germany would have been terrible, and could escalate things in a different manner.
Posted on 5/12/18 at 6:45 pm to OMLandshark
By that token, eliminate Hitler by having Germany win the war. No chaos at home, and they don't make the mistake of sending Lenin back to Russia.
Uh oh, now revolution breaks out in defeated France or England and the world has an entirely different set of problems.
Socialism had been trying to find a foothold since the 1870s, and everyone expected it to be in one of the European industrial powers. The surprise wasn't that it happened, but that it happened in Russia of all places.
Uh oh, now revolution breaks out in defeated France or England and the world has an entirely different set of problems.
Socialism had been trying to find a foothold since the 1870s, and everyone expected it to be in one of the European industrial powers. The surprise wasn't that it happened, but that it happened in Russia of all places.
Posted on 5/12/18 at 8:58 pm to Kentucker
quote:
No. Philosophy is dead. New information comes from science. You don’t have to believe, just observe.
This is one of the dumbest fricking posts I’ve ever stumbled across on this site. And there are a lot of ignorant motherfrickers around here.
A bit surprising, too, given the source.
Posted on 5/12/18 at 9:09 pm to LordSaintly
quote:
Moral absolutism is absolutely absurd.
Except for doing illegal drugs. Those are immoral.
However doing drugs and alcohol the the govt says is legal is totally moral.
Just do what the man tells you and you will be fine with the big man in the sky.
Posted on 5/13/18 at 1:19 pm to Babble
quote:
So it’s one opinion vs the other.
Obviously. Religion doesn't change that.
quote:
You cant have moral absolutism without a higher power like a christian god.
You can't have it with their god, either.
Posted on 5/13/18 at 1:30 pm to Masterag
The concept of objective, universal morality is patently absurd in the light of history.
Posted on 5/13/18 at 1:40 pm to Roger Klarvin
I agree the proposed moral framework that is both objective and correct in all instances is going to have counter examples that show its flaws in all instances, and therefore no perfect objective moral framework can exist.
However, an interesting conversation is “is there a moral framework that is good enough to make it superior to other moral frameworks”. I always thought Kant’s attempt at an ethical framework felt like it was the most generally acceptable in the most instances because it took into account repercussions of an action as well as the intent behind the action instead of just the repercussions as seen in utilitarianism.
However, an interesting conversation is “is there a moral framework that is good enough to make it superior to other moral frameworks”. I always thought Kant’s attempt at an ethical framework felt like it was the most generally acceptable in the most instances because it took into account repercussions of an action as well as the intent behind the action instead of just the repercussions as seen in utilitarianism.
This post was edited on 5/13/18 at 1:57 pm
Posted on 5/13/18 at 1:46 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
The concept of objective, universal morality is patently absurd in the light of history.
Societies I’ve found that tend to succeed are ones that treat people more humanely. Sure there may be a century or two when you have the Mongols or the Assyrians, but it comes crashing down and everyone celebrates their downfall. Nations that build roads last, while the ones that burn towns live in shite.
Posted on 5/13/18 at 1:51 pm to Ross
It all depends on how one defines "superior" in this instance. If a superior moral system is one which maximizes subjective human happiness and minimizes suffering then yes, some moral systems are superior to others. But to argue that anything is objectively good or evil apart from the isolated sphere of human experience is nonsensical. There is no reason why killing another person is evil apart from how the act is perceived by and effects other people.
I understand many people find that idea horrifying and repulsive, but that doesn't make it any less true.
I understand many people find that idea horrifying and repulsive, but that doesn't make it any less true.
Posted on 5/13/18 at 1:57 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
Societies I’ve found that tend to succeed are ones that treat people more humanely. Sure there may be a century or two when you have the Mongols or the Assyrians, but it comes crashing down and everyone celebrates their downfall. Nations that build roads last, while the ones that burn towns live in shite.
Sure, but even that is relative. What was considered humane in 300 BC is quite different from what we would consider humane in polite society today.
For most of human history, killing a child with profound cognitive deficits in infancy was far more humane than allowing them to live. Today such an act would be considered evil by essentially everyone in our society, largely because of the quality of life we can now give to such people now.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News