this is my point...i didn't get enough sleep last night so i can't say it succinctly...thanks for doing so for me!
I can't remember what thread it was, but I was called a "moral relativist" when I suggested that right and wrong are subjective based on perspective. Look, do I think what he did was wrong? Sure, for me it was. For society, it is as well. Obviously, for him, it wasn't. That is moral relativism. We cannot say what is right for someone else because we cannot think for them. We can hold them accountable afterward if our society imposes rules that he violated, but we can't do his thinking for him. It is a physical impossibility. Personally, I think killing people for personal, financial or political reasons is wrong. Yet, there are plenty who would justify killing people as an act of war. That is also moral relativism. When one human kills another human as an act of war, no matter how justified the cause may seem, it is a personal choice to do that killing. No one can compel anyone to do, think or feel anything. It all comes down to a personal choice. Back to the subject of me...I realize this wasn't about me (I shouldn't be speaking for ANYONE ), but who was it about? If it wasn't directed at those of us labelled "moral relativists" like myself, who exactly was it directed at?
While I grant that many people do use the term in a dismissive way, I think it is a very good and accurate term. 'Moral Relativist' succintly describes the essence of the philosophy: that morality is relative to the observer. I think you do yourself and the word a disservice by assuming it is an insult whenever you hear it. Jeff, you don't make a good advocate for the position, however. Thinking that there is some morality set in stone by a diety eliminates you, I think. I think what Max is getting at ultimately, though, is that while their are many who repeat moral relativism's chorus, there are precious few people who will still cling to it when faced with the extremes of that approach. This, in turn, is an implied demerit to that mode of thought, because even its proponents will deny it in time of crisis. Or, at least, the supporters will be forced into making qualifying statements that rectify the condemnation of bestiality with the condemnation of condemnation. I think it's true that it will leave the moral relativist scrambling, though I don't think it indicates much about the validity of the philosophy. Moral relativists are people too and, as such, are subject to relative moralities. It may be in the end that there isn't anything wrong with bestiality, but it'll probably depend on what that 'end' turns out to be. If you're wondering, I can't be a representative either. I think there is a morality which is relative -- but relative to the species, not the individual.
Why do moral absolutists always lump homosexuality with bestiality (and pedophelia)? I'm not saying that's what you are doing here Max, but using this particular phrase as your thread title gives an implied relationship between the two. Until animals evolve to the point where they can give consent I will believe this is "wrong" but I'll reserve my outrage for human-on-human crime.
rezdawg "AI is a product of his environment, its not his fault he threw his women out naked and started flashing his gun" comes to mind, as well as all the Palestinian suicide bomber "what would you do if you lived in a refugee camp and your parents were killed" apologists.
i have no idea what you mean...i did not mean at all to imply that moral relativism and homosexuality are in any way related. i certainly didn't intend an implication of a relationship there in any way...actually, the seinfeld quote was just what immediately popped into my mind when i read this story...i use that phrase to describe a whole host of things that have nothing to do with homosexuality. i hate to use the "i have gay friends" card...but i'm going to....i have friends who are gay...i do not even begin to put them in the same category of people who would do what this jackhole (my fave new word) did. not even close....any relationship between the two is a big time accident!
i cannot think for someone..you're absolutely right...but that doesn't mean that we as a society can't qualify his behaviors as right and wrong...we don't have to get in head in order to do that. i don't look for someone's permission to discern right and wrong. i don't know that it was specifically about anyone!! i certainly didn't mean it against you...i didn't even think about you responding to this post, quite frankly. though i probably should have given your opinions on the nature of animals. what juan says is exactly what i mean...he clearly says it better than i am saying it today. ultimately, it seems to be a flawed way of viewing the world, because ultimately it's just wrong. we can try to qualify it..but it doesn't make it any less wrong.
Max, it's because the thread title is an allusion to Seinfeld's homosexuality episode. So, when the thread is about bestiality and moral relativism, it suggests a relationship.
hey you smarty pants . .. QUESTION: Is it worse for him to have sex with the dog. . . Kill it. . . or to eat it? which is most cruel . . most wrong? Rocket River
Juan -- The term "moral relativist" is rarely used by someone to describe themselves. It is almost always used by "absolutists" to refer to others who don't share their black and white sensibilities. Therefore, it often comes across as a derrogatory term. There seems to be a bizarre and utterly mistaken assumption that moral relativism = no ethical values. That's patently false. I spend more time considering morality than most people I know -- I'm an ethical vegetarian, I give money to every homeless person I see, I've found homes for more than 50 abandoned animals in the past five years, I read spiritual literature from all religions and I donate to numerous causes that I believe in. I get a little tired of people wagging accusatory fingers at me because I don't conform to their brand of "morality." (This is not necessarily directed at anyone in this thread). All moral relativism means that we don't accept blanket, one-size-fits-all morality. Take for example, manditory drug sentencing. That is an example of absolutist rationale -- anyone caught with a certain amount of mar1juana gets a certain number of years in prison. Period. But what if there were mitigating circumstances? What if they had cancer and used it for medical purposes? What if it was their first offense? A "relativist" would look at all the information before making any type of judgement. It simply involves being open to all possibilities. Would it be simpler to see the world in terms of black vs. white, good vs. evil, us vs. them? Possibly. I know a lot of people do. But I don't believe the world can be painted with that broad of a stroke.
Well, maybe, he was talking to me. Was you talking to him? Because you was obviously talking to one of us. So what is it? Who?! Who was you talking to?!
here's a question i'm not supposing i have the answer to.... if 99% of the world thinks something is wrong...and 1% thinks it's acceptable...is it wrong??? or is it right because the 1% say so...or can you just not say??? i'm betting if you polled the entire country and made them answer the question "is this right or wrong?" without accepting a "maybe" answer...you'd push about 97% or so saying it's wrong. just a guess...fuzzy math, i'm sure...but you get my point.
What is right is not always popular and what is popular is not always right. In my opinion, ethics are determined by society while morals are determined by each individual.
Max -- I'm afraid I don't get your point. Again, you appear to be laboring under the false assumption that moral relativism = no morals. Relativists only believe that the ethics of a society are set forth by that society and are reflective of only that society. Therefore, if 99% of society believes sex with dogs is inappropriate behavior then, clearly, it will be treated as innapropriate behavior and the person will be punished in accordance with society's laws.
