What is this serious question doing in here? This forum is a mud-flinging poo-fest between people with unalterable stances. Thought provoking threads need not apply. I'll assume that this thread will be locked or basso will come in and tell franchise3 that he is a traitorous terrorist-lover for not focusing on the glorious success that is the Bush administration.
I don't believe in moral relativism, but because of religious reasons. I don't have a philosophical basis for thinking that the values taught in the Bible are better than other values. But because of my faith, I believe that those values are better.
I totally agree with the idea of "moral relativism." All morality is judged based on the context of the situation as there are very few "universal truths." For example, at one time (and in certain places today), it was forbidden for women to show as much as an ankle. The people of those times (and in those places) thought that it was morally wrong. However, that was not a universal truth, just an ethical standard of the time.
Moral is just a mean for people to living together such that a community can perpetuate. Since the world is constantly changing, moral should also change with time. Therefore moral should not be absolute.
Lot's of things seem "relative" but somethings seem absolute: Murder (while the definition may be relative -- taking the life of an innocent person not in self defense) Rape Child Abuse and in terms of moral wrongs (not nescesarily legal wrongs) gluttony greed pride
I'm not sure I understand your point. The values of Christianity as a religion have definitely changed over time. But the premise behind moral relativism is that there is no universal truth on which morals are based. And since I believe the Bible to be the Word of God, I believe that there are universal truths on which morals are based. I believe that the Ten Commandments, the Greatest Rule, and the Golden Rule are universal laws that everyone should follow. (Again, I don't have a philosophical basis for them. It's just that my relationship with Jesus Christ requires that I believe that.) The fact that other morals change doesn't these universal truths.
the Mayans used to do human sacrifice (and not everyone was a willing victim) the Greeks used to encourage relationships between young boys and middle aged men. in some countries, even today, rape is still used to "court" a woman. There was a court case a while back where some immigrant had kidnapped and raped a woman in America because he was in love with her and it was his people's custom to rape someone if you wanted to marry them.
There are still rare circumstances that you can justify these actions within a group. For example, in a tribe that is low in food and can't think of anything else, they might just kill the weaklings for food. Another example, in a tribe when the female members don't want to have sex at all, to perpetuate, the guys would have to rape. You might still think they are wrong when you think in the context of a bigger group (e.g. the humanity) but to perpetuate their group, they might have to do those things.
i'm sure the victim of the rape appreciates your view. I think moral relativism is fine as long as it's just how you view things and doesn't affect anyone else nor infringe upon their morals.
The truth is the reason why you find every group in this world has some sort of moral is because their groups can exist up to this point of time. If your group can't procreate, then your group is finished and there is no moral to be spoken of.
The team will do it whether the girl like it or not because the team wants to perpetuate. Of course, they can also choose not to do it but that would mean certain demise if they don't have alternatives.
Wow - this might be real debate! I do believe in moral relativism. Just like everything else, concepts of right and wrong change with time. This is not the same as saying there is no such thing as a "right" and "wrong" - rather it implies that circumstance must play a part in any evaluation or judgement. EDIT: This is a great "blog" on moral relativism I read some time ago. Took me a while to find it, but I think it worthy of quoting
Interesting. So how do you rectify exceptions to your aforementioned rules within the very same bible? How do you evaluate conditions not explicitly mentioned within the bible?
Because society condones something doesn't make it morally right. There have been many morally corropt societies. I believe there are basic truth's (and alot of relative truth's also) Greeks encourage relationships between young boys and middle aged men -- but that was a morally corrupt society. It was wrong Because a fanatical leader decided it was o.k. to sacrifice virgn's does not make it morally correct. Because the Afghani culture under the Taliban believed it was o.k. to torture and kill people who thought differently then them did not make their actions moral simply because their society accepted it.
My approach to that is that the Bible lays the basic framework for everythign in your life, if something isn't mentioned and you're not sure if it's wrong or right, you always err on the side of what you think is right. The Bible won't tell you if it's ok teach sex ed to 3rd graders is the right thing, but based on the Bible's multiple warnings about control over your sexual desires, as well as its emphasis on children's innonence, I would not want 3rd graders to have sex ed. Is it necessarily mentioned in the Bible? no, but the framework is there for you to make a good decision.
