Weslinder put it better than I could have. 3000 years ago it was morally acceptable to kill people for silly laws written by the levites (provided you buy into the notion that these were "executions") - even with the commandment telling you not to. Yet, the commandment does not say "thou shalt not kill*" *unless we say you should So the absolutist notion that this is universal - even within the bible itself - is false. Not that this makes every part of weslinder's or your own point of view wrong. Rather, the argument that the bible provides and universal and abolutist truth becomes subject to interpretation, and requires a certain amount of "relativism" to explain something as simple as killing another person. You say: "it's not murder, it's the law" I say: "it is murder, no one believes those are real laws" Weslinder says: "That was a long time ago" It's relative.
I'm not sure I'm making my point clear, and I know that I'm not getting your point. My point is this: Philosophical moral relativism says that nothing is universally right or universally wrong. So, if I believe that one thing is universally right or universally wrong, philosophically, I am not a moral relativist. That doesn't mean that I think that every moral is absolute. It just means that I believe some morals are absolute.
Interesting article on moral relativism and the bible: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-morrel.htm A small excerpt:
I'm not taking a stand regarding the morals of 2000-3000 years ago, but the society you are addressing is in large part the basis for our own society here in the United States, and elsewhere. You know, Western Culture. Did you happen to catch the HBO series Rome? The Romans borrowed so much from the Greeks and had a far different society regarding mores (and much else) than we do. That series is arguably the most realistic portrayal of Roman society, and by inference, the Greeks, ever seen on the small screen... or any screen. Many of their slaves were Greek. Pretty ironic. D&D. Those Ancient Societies could be pretty Wild and Crazy! Of Course, from Our Perspective.
Clearly, we aren't as "progressed" as you seem to think we are, or you wouldn't, in my opinion, have made that statement, which was incredibly sexist, one that would have had to made by a man, unless it was Ann Coulter, who doesn't count. D&D. Women Should Be On Top!
In the context of that tribe I mentioned, it is not sexist with respect to the guys. It might be sexist to that girl involved. But then they probably don't have the concept of sexism. Sexist is a fairly recent term, don't you think?
Anyways, I create this thread and I never thought it would get the attention it has. I thought it would just fade away to the bottom of the page. I am continuously questioning my opinions and beliefs. Constantly searching for unique and opposing viewpoints and refining what I believe in. I have been giving some thought to moral relativism lately after learning exactly what it was. I had made arguments in school based on moral relativism, either because I believed in the argument or simply to play devil's advocate, before I had even know what moral relativism actually meant. Some interesting arguments I usually hear that have to do with moral relativism, I won't state my stance on these, but here are the examples: 1) Murder. Immoral? What about exceptions usually made for war, executions, self-defense, and the like? 2) One I often hear from feminists regards female circumcision. Some of the cultures that practice this act believe it is entirely moral though. If a female doesn't receive a circumcision, she often feels ashamed, shunned, ugly, and even as if she had done something immoral. One hypocrisy I typically hear from feminists defending this stance is that many believe male circumcision is an acceptable practice and I've even heard some go so far as to say they prefer being with a circumsized male over non-circumsized. 3) Rape. If you believe in evolution, what of the practice by cavemen of clubbing a female to have sex with them? Would that be considered "moral" in their primitive society? 4) Stealing. I have heard arguments where someone had to steal food because they were absolutely famished, or stealing medicine because they were sure to die without it. I haven't heard a lot of arguments on this subject. 5) Child-Abuse. Giving bratty kids a whooping with a belt was previously considered acceptable, but now it can land you in jail or have social services take your children. 6) I also find a lot of moral relativism in religion. According to fanatical muslims, they are just following the moral codes of their religion. There has been a lot of religious hypocrisy throughout history as well.
Being "sexist" isn't recent. The word doesn't matter. It merely describes an attitude held by far too many men, for far too long. D&D. Equal Rights. Do You Have Them? Share!!
The point is sexism is only considered immoral recently in developed countries. That's what moral relativism means.
Another interesting thing about Moral Relativism is that criminal organizations also have morals within itself. Think about it, if the gangsters kill each others or the money they robbed isn't divided properly, can this criminal organization thrives for long?
Hmmm. So a woman against genital multilation must be a feminist? Wow. Cavemen clubbing cavewomen to have sex with them... is this "moral?" Boy, that requires some thought. I'm glad I'm not a woman or a Muslim. No worries. Snap!! Forgot! My wife and I chose not to have our son circumcised. What are we going to DO?? Is it too late for him? Must we move to Europe, where he won't "stand out amongst the crowd" of a couple of hundred million uncircumcised guys? I know I won't be able to sleep tonight, worrying about it. D&D. Circumnavigate!
I don't think you understand philosophical relativism. It is not that nothing is unversal it is that morality as a whole is not universal. Only a very small percentage would say that everything is completely meaningless. As rhad was saying, even the Bible can be considered relativist...just on the more conservative side (by that I only mean closer to the "absolutist side"). I see morality similar to Kinsey's graph of sexuality. You put "absolutist" on one side, assign it the value of zero...then put "relativist" on the other and assign it a value of ten. Now put lines at one and nine and that is where everyone falls. No person is 100% absolutist just as no person is 100% relativist. Perhaps if you are you are mentally unstable.
Like I said, those aren't my personal opinions on the subjects, just arguments I have heard. Many of the genital mutilation arguments I heard were during a human sexuality course I was taking, and yes, they were arguments made by self-proclaimed feminists. No need to be so sarcastic.
Here's what you posted: "I am continuously questioning my opinions and beliefs. Constantly searching for unique and opposing viewpoints and refining what I believe in. I have been giving some thought to moral relativism lately after learning exactly what it was. I had made arguments in school based on moral relativism, either because I believed in the argument or simply to play devil's advocate, before I had even know what moral relativism actually meant. Some interesting arguments I usually hear that have to do with moral relativism, I won't state my stance on these, but here are the examples:" You didn't make a flat statement that "those aren't my personal opinions on the subjects, just arguments I have heard," although that may have been your intention. I'll attempt to restrain my "sarcasm," but I've witnessed decades of discrimination against women, including in the workplace, but certainly not limited to that, and I really don't have much patience for it. If I misunderstood you, I am morose, devastated, and I am sorry. D&D. Women are People. No Kidding!
"Some interesting arguments I usually hear that have to do with moral relativism, I won't state my stance on these, but here are the examples:" That's the quote where I tried to convey that those numbered topics weren't my personal opinions, just arguments I have heard. I thought I was being clear, but now I can see that my language could've been more explicit. Should've said somthing more along the lines of "HERE ARE some...". No harm, no foul. I love me some women and have strong thoughts on equal rights, but that is another topic for another day.
Yes, and that absolutism is more of conveniance than religious fervor, a la the article posted by franchise3. But I was trying to avoid such an inflammatory statement, since I have a tendency to rail on religion.
