Your Opinions on Moral/Cultural Relativity

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JAG

Tuff, I don't think the line I have mentioned in this thread is completely to the 'liberal' extreme. Yes it was espoused by lefty figures, especially Sartre, but what it does also state is complete responsibility for your actions. If you kill someone and you know it is against the law, you have to face up to the responsibility of your decision if caught. If you decide to smoke cigarettes, you have to take the responsibility with your choice, no use saying 'I only smoke because my friends do' - no it is YOU which made the choice to smoke, your friends could not have forced you, you actively choose to smoke. It is your responsibility.

That - to me at least - is not out of bounds of many, many conservative view points.

---

i cannot buy the responsibility bit as a foundation for any sort of morality

yes i am "responsible" for my actions, i agree- but what does responsibility actually mean? i am responsible for my life, but not in the same way someone puts childrens lives in your responsibility. the responsibility when watching children denotes some positive outcome - if you succeed in your responsibilities, the children are either better or the same
if you fail - something bad has happened

without a judgement figure - existentialism really relies on the alternative definition of the term responsible: Being a source or cause; rather than the one that seems to guide what sartre believed (from my understanding at least). he seems to match it up with responsibility in the way of a babysitter with pre-established guidelines - when i believe that that is a logical leap.

if i smoke ciggarettes - i am responsible for that decision because i caused it, not because i am answerable to any other authority. it has nothing to do with any morality or responsibility for all men - that makes no reeal sense - there is no judgement standard

can anyone explain what i am getting at here any better?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

we are simply free to choose and we cannot get away from that fact

---

this is not a new idea - free choice is an archaic concept that is in the old testament and new one (and is much older than that) - it is the concept that has always fuelled the fight about pre-destination in the christian church and many others.

no one, here anyway, is denying that this is most likely true

Quote:

---

You cannot play that card unfortunately. What we do is what we choose, what we choose is what we believe, simple as that. We are not what we could / should / would / wanted but didn't / thought in our heart of hearts, etc, we should have done. We simply are what we act upon.

To go around life stating that you are not what you do but what you think you should have done, is absurd. Not only are you judged on what you do, but you define yourself by your actions, none of which involve your 'real' wants. It is rubbish.

Therefore to say those who supported slavery in the South 'truly' didn't because they 'truly' didn't support it in their heads and hearts, is wrong.

---

I think plenty of people think one thing and do another. Just because you are judged on your actions doesnt mean you believe what you did was right.

Its seems to my you are assuming everyone does what they think is right. Im saying that some cultures allow "wrong" things because they benefit from them.

Im not claiming the southerners didnt truly support slavery, im just saying most didnt try to justify it as the right thing to do - some did, but i dont think most.

Ive read some things by Lee and Jackson and they saw slavery as a neccessary evil that would eventually die out - in essense, they put the welfare of their culture, the white southern culture, above the culture of the blacks.

So going all the way back to Navs argument - Just because a culture allows something by law doesnt mean that culture has accepted it as a just or good thing.

Quote:

---

Moral relativity is a useful tool to understand the context of the actions of someone particularly in history.

It means we can understand why someone did something.

I don't see it as giving them the right to do what they did, it just gives us a better understanding.

---

That's the main way that I see it. While an action is not always right, it is helpful to understand why that action happened. By today's standard, looting cities after an army conquers it is of course unaceptable (or should be, at least). But it was common practice back in the day, and it is helpful to understand that these people who say ordered sacks of cities weren't insane monsters (neccasarily), and were quite normal for their time.

And I certiantly think that people can still act good (not harm each other, no stealing etc.) without the idea of a supreme diety(s).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

That's the main way that I see it. While an action is not always right, it is helpful to understand why that action happened. By today's standard, looting cities after an army conquers it is of course unaceptable (or should be, at least). But it was common practice back in the day, and it is helpful to understand that these people who say ordered sacks of cities weren't insane monsters (neccasarily), and were quite normal for their time.

And I certiantly think that people can still act good (not harm each other, no stealing etc.) without the idea of a supreme diety(s).

---

sure they can - i never said that they couldnt
i just think that there is no inherent reason not to

and if there is something to be gained by not obeying what is percieved as "good", and/or one can get away with it - then so be it - nothing wrong with that

Mmm. You're saying without the fear of an after life, people wouldn't worry about doing wrong?
Well, most non believers (agnostics, aethists, whatever) I know (including myself), have pretty much the same idea about not harming each other as a religous person. However, the question must be raised, how much of it is due to my parent's raising me with "Christian values" (for lack of a better word).
Chances are, if me or JAG, or others like us have children, we'd also raise them to not harm others.
It is an interesting question, however. I'd like to think with laws, and people raising their children with love that even aethists wouldn't diverge into a dog eat dog world. Indeed, I don't see any difference between an aethist raising their kids to hate and a relgious person raising their kids to hate, or vice versa.

Wow, this thread is getting obvious. :embarassed:

Umm you don't need to be raised as a Christian or even from a Christian country to be able to have compassion for another's pain wether it be physical or psychological. Compassion is a human trait. Period.

If you receave love and caring when you are growing up then chances are that you are gonna have compassion for others when they are in distress. You don't need religion of any sort to give you that insight. It comes with being a social species. And that's that. :book:

Recogniiiize, bitch. ~D

Quote:

---

if i smoke ciggarettes - i am responsible for that decision because i caused it, not because i am answerable to any other authority. it has nothing to do with any morality or responsibility for all men - that makes no reeal sense - there is no judgement standard

---

To understand how Sartre makes the logical leap from having responsibility and choosing for yourself and this being the same and equivalent to having responsibility and choosing for all - meaning everyone on the planet - is a bit complex and would not only require a bit of time and space but my brain to be working, which at 3 am it isn't. ~;) Tomorrow or in a PM I will try and describe this part of his philosophy to you if you want, it is interesting and on the most part I completely agree with him. :book:

PJ, if someone chooses something, NO MATTER what they say, they actively choose to do the action. It does not matter what reasoning they used or what they think they really 'feel', at the end of the day they choose to do a specific action when they could quite easily have done something else. Someone choosing to smoke cigarettes, but feeling they don't really want to smoke cigarettes and are being 'forced' into it by their peers, is deceiving themselves. They could quite easily choose not to smoke cigarettes, but to try and make their choice easier on themselves, for whatever reason, people will try and deceive themselves with a whole host of reasons. Including coming out with statements like, 'but I really didn't want to smoke! My friends MADE me!' Rubbish.

As Sartre stated, yield or die, is still a choice. A nasty choice between giving in or being killed, granted, but it is still a choice. It is self deception to think 'I really wanted to not give in, but he had a gun!' If you yielded you choose to yield when faced with the circumstances, simple as that. You cannot claim things which you have not acted upon, simple as that.

Once you realise this, it is quite empowering, give it a go.

BP - why do you think everyone has compassion? I really do not think so, there is no universal trait everyone has which is not due to DNA. Emotions and traits - such as cowardice or honour - are all created ourselves by our choices. There is nothing such as compassion which people have just for being human, that form of human nature I will argue about forever, it is rubbish.

hmmm

that is not what i intended in my arguement
this applys to anyone who believes in an superlative right and wrong

anyone who believes in a plan at all believes that they have a codified judgement sheet based on something either written or passed down

not necessarily the fear of judgement, but the adherence to what is "true" is the cause for many to do good

if that is the way it SHOULD be - then that is what i SHALL do - not for fear of punishment but for propriety's sake because of true belief

this goes for anyone who BELIEVES in truth - christian, muslim, blah blah blah

not me - but what i am saying is that if it is up to the individual to decide what is right and wrong - even in collective groups - it isnt really right or wrong - only accepted

and it will be different for every other group and may infringe on individual liberties or worse - kind of like religion

all i am saying is that it is more difficult than the cut and dry easy answer that many of us proscribe in out infinite wisdom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JAG

To understand how Sartre makes the logical leap from having responsibility and choosing for yourself and this being the same and equivalent to having responsibility and choosing for all - meaning everyone on the planet - is a bit complex and would not only require a bit of time and space but my brain to be working, which at 3 am it isn't. ~;) Tomorrow or in a PM I will try and describe this part of his philosophy to you if you want, it is interesting and on the most part I completely agree with him. :book:

---

i would appreciate that - as far as i am concerned it is a leap
but i am probably missing something - let me know - i love it when ideologies seem tight

doesnt make them right - but it adds to future understandings

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JAG

BP - why do you think everyone has compassion? I really do not think so, there is no universal trait everyone has which is not due to DNA. Emotions and traits - such as cowardice or honour - are all created ourselves by our choices. There is nothing such as compassion which people have just for being human, that form of human nature I will argue about forever, it is rubbish.

---

Why do I think everyone has compassion? I don't. I never stated everyone has compassion. I said it was a human trait, but there's always the odd exceptions in any species.

Being human you must have humanity. That is emotional as well as intellectual. Those are the building blocks of sanity. Granted they are not found in your DNA nor in your insticts, they are developed just by being around healthy relationships with other human beings. Parent's love, parent's caring as I preveously stated. You are giving the choice thing way too much credit JAG, not everything is made by choice. You don't have the choice of the environment and the types of people you grow up with, and it DOES have an affect on you, I don't care who you are.

Human nature is NOT rubbish, that is the worst statement you have ever made. Human nature is what makes us humans, otherwise we would be no different from complicated machines with no emotions and no compassion, just... choices?
That doesn't sound very inspirational, but if I understood what you said correctly that is what you are suggesting. Forgive me if I'm wrong though.

BP :book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

Forgive me if I'm wrong though.

BP :book:

---

no one can really tell you that

Quote:

---

not me - but what i am saying is that if it is up to the individual to decide what is right and wrong - even in collective groups - it isnt really right or wrong - only accepted

---

You are right to a certain degree - that right and wrong in groups is not really right and wrong merely what is accepted and in the case of countries, the law. It highlighted that when the law changes, our thoughts on what is right and wrong suddenly changes, even though before it could have been totally different. Although I accept our views do not always change when laws change, but it does in the most part / occasions.

However - I won't explain it because that is getting into too much Sartre which my brain won't handle at this point in time - when an individual chooses an action and deems it right or wrong - at that point the action is right or wrong.

And at some point in the near future I will message you and try and explain myself properly, I promise.

BP -

Quote:

---

Oh and compassion IS universal so we still got that.

---

That is where I thought you implied it is there in everyone, as in universal. And indeed you saying that it is a 'human trait' also is giving credit to the argument that compassion is there in us and it is a form of human nature. Sure some might not have compassion, but really they should.

I fundamentally disagree with that, a trait such as compassion is nothing but individuals choice to actively be compassionate, consistently. The fact that many people choose this way, doesn't make the situation universal or a human trait, it merely means lots of individuals are compassionate.

Sure the environment you are brought up in makes a difference to some of your choices - especially the society and parenting you receive - but that does not mean that people are broken from their condemnation to be free. They can still choose the opposite, they can still go against their environment and upbringing, they still have a free choice, albeit a slightly slanted one. The fact many people choose the same way in a society is due to this slanting. The relative strength of the conditioning is related to the strength of societies feelings for that action. For instance monogamy is thought of highly in the western society and actually legislated in favour of, thus our choice is slanted to support this, but we can still choose the opposite - and some do. However other issues, like wearing clothes which are not too revealing, are influenced by society but not to the extent of an issue such as monogamy. Thus more people choose the opposite.

The fact society influences the choice does not mean that the choice is not free and that there is suddenly a human nature - no it simply means that we can be swayed in our choices more than Sartre admitted.

Also I am not saying everything is caused by your choices, obviously there are things out of your control such as the environment you are brought up in and your DNA, but this does not mean there is a human nature and that everyone has specific traits. Far from it.

Human nature is rubbish. There is no such thing as a common emotional or characteristic trait which is common to everyone. The only human nature that there is comes from DNA - and I am sure this is not the form of human nature you refer to.

I don't think it's a human trait. Some animals show compassion. Some also show cruelty, or lust.