Am I a moral relativist, and is being so not good?

[samsara15]

I believe that no one has a 100% correct view of religion, morality, or reality, therefore we all best exercise at least some caution in criticizing the beliefs of others. Does that make me a moral relativist? Is it wrong to be so?

[Jack]

I'd have to be a moral absolutist to say you were wrong, which I'm not.
I agree with you.

[PatrickHenry]

Relativism is a scourge.

While religion can be tolerant and inclusive, to be a relativist means that the rightness or wrongness of an action depends on the circumstances.

This means that in some circumstances it would be right for a relativist to rape a baby...

That the savage killers of September 11th may have a point that needed expressing...

That torture may need to happen because....

I prefer to have an absolute standard, but I choose to tolerate relativists in the hope of persuading them to my world view before they decide that I need to be killed for my absolutism....

[Technosoul]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Relativism is a scourge. While religion can be tolerant and inclusive, to be a relativist means that the rightness or wrongness of an action depends on the circumstances. This means that in some circumstances it would be right for a relativist to rape a baby... That the savage killers of September 11th may have a point that needed expressing... That torture may need to happen because.... I prefer to have an absolute standard, but I choose to tolerate relativists in the hope of persuading them to my world view before they decide that I need to be killed for my absolutism....

The idea is that truth is relative to the moment at hand. That would not also mean that their is a time when raping a baby is right and a time when it is wrong. Unless you could come up with a correct reason why such behavior is right, (not counting freaky minded justifications). If it is wrong every moment then it is still wrong to each moment, the moment at hand, here and now, in the past or future.

Now the sun shines everyday (even if it does so above clouds) and so that truth would be relative to the moment at hand also, unless for some reason the sun stopped shinning.

So some truisms are relative to the moment most of the time, and even all of the time. But still relative to the situation at hand.

where-as other standards are more flexable. and most situations could be monitored by such flexable standards. Stealing food for example, even killing another person, can be right or wrong relative to a given situation.

The Absolute Truth however is not a dogmatic standard, it is a Source of wisdom from which we can know what would be the right action relative to each situation that we encounter, as situations are often flexable in the sense that just one manner of response might not be correct for all circumstances.

[Meliorative]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Relativism is a scourge. While religion can be tolerant and inclusive, to be a relativist means that the rightness or wrongness of an action depends on the circumstances. This means that in some circumstances it would be right for a relativist to rape a baby... That the savage killers of September 11th may have a point that needed expressing... That torture may need to happen because.... I prefer to have an absolute standard, but I choose to tolerate relativists in the hope of persuading them to my world view before they decide that I need to be killed for my absolutism....

I suppose you are opposed to war then, because of the absolute law "do not kill"?

I suppose you do not support a police force or judiciary system because of the absolute law "love your neighbor and enemy"?

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: Meliorative Quote by: PatrickHenry Relativism is a scourge. I suppose you are opposed to war then, because of the absolute law "do not kill"? I suppose you do not support a police force or judiciary system because of the absolute law "love your neighbor and enemy"?

Your suppositions are incorrect and based upon speculation. This type of provocation is not debate. You need to be a bit more polite to senior members...

I am opposed to aggressive war, the crime prosecuted at Nuremburg. Self-defense is a right in keeping with natural law..

I oppose unjust police forces and judiciaries used to repress dissent and freedom. Crimes with real victims must be punished.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: samsara15 I believe that no one has a 100% correct view of religion, morality, or reality, therefore we all best exercise at least some caution in criticizing the beliefs of others. Does that make me a moral relativist? Is it wrong to be so?

I don't say that we shouldn't exercise caution when criticizing other beliefs (means we must know what we are talking about and say it in a respectful manner), or that my belief is 100% accurate, but when truth is involved, the truth is absolute. if God exists, He is who He is, and not who we perceive Him to be. what I believe is taken on faith. I can't prove conclusively that God exists, but an atheist can't prove conclusively that God exists and a Muslim can't prove conclusively that Allah is God, and so on and so forth. if you base your morals on a written and understandable source, then you are not a moral relativist, but unless that moral agenda covers every possible situation, you are not an absolutist either. there are gradations between the two. I would be in between. and what is not covered in the Bible is a Romans 14 issue, which basically says that one must respect another's moral standings and convictions, thus not letting them sin.

[Technosoul]

But if you take a belief on faith, then what happens when someone shows you an absolute truth that contradicts what you had faith in?

[Arawn-ap-Hywel]

Quote by: samsara15 I believe that no one has a 100% correct view of religion, morality, or reality, therefore we all best exercise at least some caution in criticizing the beliefs of others. Does that make me a moral relativist? Is it wrong to be so?

As to whether you could be termed a "moral relativist" I do not know.
Your statement for respect and caution can only be lauded as positive

[Technosoul]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Relativism is a scourge. While religion can be tolerant and inclusive, to be a relativist means that the rightness or wrongness of an action depends on the circumstances. This means that in some circumstances it would be right for a relativist to rape a baby... That the savage killers of September 11th may have a point that needed expressing... That torture may need to happen because.... I prefer to have an absolute standard, but I choose to tolerate relativists in the hope of persuading them to my world view before they decide that I need to be killed for my absolutism....

Now I would like to address the "rape of a baby" example used.

Lets say that a 7 year old boy happened to see an xrated movie where adults were having sex, being young and innocent the little kid might think that is okay or an "act of love" and so he "rapes" his baby sister or one next door at a neighbors house. Now if raping a baby is absolutly wrong in each and all cases then the 7 year old boy would be gulity of a crime and would be punished most hard handedly. But a a Relativest might take into concideration other relative circumstances, such as the innocent "not knowing better" mind of the 7 year old, plus the fact he saw that x-rated movie and what he saw was not properly explained to him by an adult concerning when such adult behavior is okay and with whom. Real cases of that happening have been documented (no links).

Do you wish to explain how you would handle such a case using laws that are absolute in all cases about the rape of a minor? Or would you agree that the law should be 'relative' to each case and therefore you would handle that case diffferently?

[Meliorative]

Quote by: PatrickHenry I oppose unjust police forces and judiciaries used to repress dissent and freedom. Crimes with real victims must be punished.

According to which of your absolute laws? "Love your enemies" equates to physically locking your enemy up away from his/her family? "Do unto others" equates to fines and prisons?

[PatrickHenry]

Who's talking about absolute laws? I didn't say anything about statutes. We are talking about right and wrong and the chance that they are relative, ie., shades of gray, or whether they are black and white.

Technosoul your example is puerile...

[Princeps]

There is an absolute truth, but no human will never know it in this stage of existence.

Humans are limited to relativity simply because they are not omniscient. I do believe in an absolute truth, and I believe I understand much of it, but so does everyone who believes thusly, and none of us can prove it absolutely.

Even "facts" are based on one's belief that the empirical world is trustworthy. I find such a belief to be rational, but nonetheless it is a belief of mine.

If there is an absolute truth, God is the only One Who could know it.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Technosoul But if you take a belief on faith, then what happens when someone shows you an absolute truth that contradicts what you had faith in?

if you want to get into evolution here, we are not going there, and it is off-topic. I will throw in this free note, evolution cannot be proven conclusively thorugh the two types of science. you cannot observe what happened billions of years ago, and you cannot get an experiment that creates a single one of the links in the chain from the one before (ex: a multicellular animal from a biofilm of bacteria).

that last part was free and not meant to be answered on this thread. if you have a response, you can PM me

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Technosoul Now I would like to address the "rape of a baby" example used. Lets say that a 7 year old boy happened to see an xrated movie where adults were having sex, being young and innocent the little kid might think that is okay or an "act of love" and so he "rapes" his baby sister or one next door at a neighbors house. Now if raping a baby is absolutly wrong in each and all cases then the 7 year old boy would be gulity of a crime and would be punished most hard handedly. But a a Relativest might take into concideration other relative circumstances, such as the innocent "not knowing better" mind of the 7 year old, plus the fact he saw that x-rated movie and what he saw was not properly explained to him by an adult concerning when such adult behavior is okay and with whom. Real cases of that happening have been documented (no links). Do you wish to explain how you would handle such a case using laws that are absolute in all cases about the rape of a minor? Or would you agree that the law should be 'relative' to each case and therefore you would handle that case diffferently?

for one, he was misguided, for two, children that young are easily suggestible. I am an absolutist, but I would say that it was a problem with his parents not watching him and/or not explaining what he saw that led to the incident. the child was not past the point where he understood what sex was. shoot, if a parent does explain the "birds and the bees" to their children, most wait until midway through puberty, most parents, however, never do. (Cherlin, 2005) my source here also has at least one documented case that was very similar. you have to buy the book, but it is a source.

Cherlin, A; Public and Private Families: An Introduction, 2005, John Hopkins University

[Technosoul]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Who's talking about absolute laws? I didn't say anything about statutes. We are talking about right and wrong and the chance that they are relative, ie., shades of gray, or whether they are black and white. Technosoul your example is puerile...

Why is my example purerile? (whatever that means - hate looking for words in dictionary).

It clearly shows how one circumstance might be different then another. No matter if you use nonflexable standards of the laws, or nonflexable standards of morality. Truth - aka -correct understanding - should be "relative" to the situation at hand. One standard of morality or law cannot apply to every situation, every time.

Using black, white, gray, or colors, as an anology to discribe right and wrong might be a poor anology, so I did not use that particular anology, as you might have assumed.

Please discribe why the "theory of relativity" is not a scientific fact and why it would not apply to human perception of behaviorism. Or, forget the homework and come back with something else.

[Technosoul]

PS - you noted that my example is pruerile - so I ask "relative to what"?

[PatrickHenry]

Puerile= http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/puerile
I think it is an unlikely circumstance, but in any case it is still wrong for anyone, of any age, to rape a baby. There may be mitigating circumstances under which we may try to understand WHY...but the rape is still violent and wrong...

[Technosoul]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Puerile= http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/puerile I think it is an unlikely circumstance, but in any case it is still wrong for anyone, of any age, to rape a baby. There may be mitigating circumstances under which we may try to understand WHY...but the rape is still violent and wrong...

Well, your logic wins this time. Clearly the "act" of rape is wrong, even if the person was not wrong due to his not knowing or not comprehending the reality of his actions. It is wrong to suffer pain and injury in a accident even if no one was really at fault. The car cannot be found guilty of a violation of morality but most would agree that the injury was a sad and tragic event. And I guess it is wrong that such events would take place. It is a matter of a learning experience. Children often learn what is wrong or right but can make misstakes during that learning process, as can adults when it comes to more refined aspects of those realities and perceptions. Cars should be totally safe so no one is ever injured, but we are still learning how to make such a machine, and apparently learning takes time. We learn that we must keep xrated movies out of the reach of children, that is now common knowledge but some people are still learning that knowledge and it has not really sunk in to their brain mass as of yet. But you are correct, nothing relative about pain, injury, or suffering, or actions causing same. Pain and injury is bad, feeling happy and healthy is good. We can have degrees of pain, hurt just a little or a lot, but that is still wrong relative to feeling 100 percent painless.

Good is relative to bad, we know what is bad because we know what is good, and visa versa, so the "relative" concept is also correct. We know pleasure relative to the reverse which is pain, and so forth. The fact that we can experience both ends of the extreme would make each end a constant truth, because we can discern the relative differnences between them.

Somewhat of a paradox? So rape is always wrong relative to not being raped. Make sense?

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Puerile= http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/puerile I think it is an unlikely circumstance, but in any case it is still wrong for anyone, of any age, to rape a baby. There may be mitigating circumstances under which we may try to understand WHY...but the rape is still violent and wrong...

the kid didn't have a clue what he was doing. Human growth and development 101 is that what kids see is what kids eventually act out. kid saw a violent rape on tv, figured that it must be the normal thing for people to do because he has no other schema for sexual acts, and then he acts on the schema that has been created.

Behaviourism: human behaviour is seen as being shaped by environmental forces and is a collection of learned responses to external stimuli. The key learning process is known as ‘conditioning’.

the child learned that rape was the norm by seeing rape on a video and not having it explained to him. the unconditioned stimuli is seeing a woman nude on television, unconditioned response is picked up from the man raping her, conditioned stimuli is seeing his sister naked, conditioned response is his raping her.