Moral Relativity VS. An Absolute Moral System

[Cramulus]

In the 1700's I can grok that some people didn't see slavery as wrong because their leaders told them Africans weren't intelligent enough to live on their own, or that they were cursed by God or whatever... it doesn't excuse the act of slavery, it just provides reason and context to the act. That's why I disagreed with Cram's view that we have to grok the perception of the other person before we can make a judgement... I think we need to grok the perception of the other person, SO we can understand WHY they did what they did... but I don't think it excuses it.

oh, to clarify: I'm not against judgment. Judge all ye like! I'm just saying that our judgment will be uninformed unless we understand the cultural framework which creates that situation. The most accurate use of language is to say say "X behavior is wrong within our / my value system", as opposed to "X behavior is just plain wrong."   - no matter how wrong we may think it is

[Dimocritus]

But how can you "reprogram" with out superimposing an absolute system?

Just because the game rules are arbitrary, it doesn't mean that they are equal.


That's been said before in this thread.

Hrm, can you rephrase this? I don't think I'm getting it. What does equality among (or lack thereof) moral systems have to do with superimposing a system or not superimposing one? Or, are you saying a "dominant" (morally speaking, not physically or intellectually) system will superimpose itself naturally?

[LMNO]

(discussions about moral relativity tend to go like, "Envision the most evil thing you can. How the fuck is that okay?" -- and then the person defending relativism has to justify it somehow. I'm not gonna play that game!)

Then you're walking away from the argument, because that's a valid question.

That's an easy one.  It's not ok.

Relative Morals mean that the rules come from consensus, even if it's a consensus of one.  Absolute Morals means rules come from Authority.

The quality of the rules are up for debate, but the origin of them is not.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I disagree. Programming is how societies work.

But any individual can resist his/her programming.

I think if the right circumstances appear, resisting or re-imprinting are possible. I don't think its just a simple choice to resist though.

(discussions about moral relativity tend to go like, "Envision the most evil thing you can. How the fuck is that okay?" -- and then the person defending relativism has to justify it somehow. I'm not gonna play that game!)

Then you're walking away from the argument, because that's a valid question.

That's an easy one.  It's not ok.

Relative Morals mean that the rules come from consensus, even if it's a consensus of one.  Absolute Morals means rules come from Authority.

The quality of the rules are up for debate, but the origin of them is not.

BAM on the LMNO Motorcycle.

[Dimocritus]

That much said, female genital mutilation seems pretty fucked up to us.

I agree, but
fixed

I normally go with e-prime... but I can't join you at that exrtreme, Cram. I think genital mutilation is simply the outcome of a broken map. I don't specifically blame individuals for acting in line with their social norms, but I can say that their acceptable norm is badwrong.

I don't want to get stuck arguing that female circumcision is okay, because I really think it isn't.

(discussions about moral relativity tend to go like, "Envision the most evil thing you can. How the fuck is that okay?" -- and then the person defending relativism has to justify it somehow. I'm not gonna play that game!)

But I don't think maps can be 'broken', they only appear that way to the vast majority of us who see that practice as insane. I can't believe in an absolute evil which female circumcision (and presumably other things) would be a subset of. The ideas that fem.circumcision is wrong comes from values present within our culture, and I can't take those things as a whole seriously enough to agree that any part of them are "absolutely true".

No matter how strongly I disagree with something, I won't agree that it is absolutely, universally bad for everybody in every situation for all time.

That's exactly the type of thing I want to combat. I don't want to go as far as to say that I am a moral relativist (because frankly, I'm not sure), it's just that my teacher seems a bit predisposed to more organized and absolute systems of morality (I won't say specifically which, I don't want to attack his faith, I just want to separate his potential biases from the meat of the lectures).

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I think if the right circumstances appear, resisting or re-imprinting are possible. I don't think its just a simple choice to resist though.

Happens all the time.

[LMNO]

But how can you "reprogram" with out superimposing an absolute system?

Just because the game rules are arbitrary, it doesn't mean that they are equal.


That's been said before in this thread.

Hrm, can you rephrase this? I don't think I'm getting it. What does equality among (or lack thereof) moral systems have to do with superimposing a system or not superimposing one? Or, are you saying a "dominant" (morally speaking, not physically or intellectually) system will superimpose itself naturally?

Your quoted post indicated that RM could only be supplanted with AM.

You can easily replace one Relative Morality system with another.  It doesn't have to be Absolute in order to do so.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Curious:  Why use "grok" when the regular English word "understand" works quite nicely, and doesn't make you look like a fan of a hideous old bigot, or a pseudo-intellectual?

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I think if the right circumstances appear, resisting or re-imprinting are possible. I don't think its just a simple choice to resist though.

Happens all the time.

Yes, to some individuals it does. When the right circumstances occur, or if their programming wasn't strong, or if their social system isn't a major chunk of their life... or if they don't have a very strong reliance on a specific social tribe.

Simply put, if from birth onward you are taught X is true, and you aren't exposed to people that believe X is false, or to ideas which run counter to X being true (like "Cutting a woman's genitals is a horrific barbarian act, you retard!") then I certianly don't expect someone to magcially have special knowledge that they are wrong.

It doesn't make them right, it just means there are reasons why they may not realize that they are wrong.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Yes, to some individuals it does.

Then no individuals have an excuse, barring the brain damaged, and people from the American Southeast.  But I repeat myself.

[Dimocritus]

But how can you "reprogram" with out superimposing an absolute system?

Just because the game rules are arbitrary, it doesn't mean that they are equal.


That's been said before in this thread.

Hrm, can you rephrase this? I don't think I'm getting it. What does equality among (or lack thereof) moral systems have to do with superimposing a system or not superimposing one? Or, are you saying a "dominant" (morally speaking, not physically or intellectually) system will superimpose itself naturally?

Your quoted post indicated that RM could only be supplanted with AM.

You can easily replace one Relative Morality system with another.  It doesn't have to be Absolute in order to do so.

Ok, I understand. How can we relate this to the "RM vs. AM" argument? Outside of the pro RM argument based on tolerance (which is that AM systems are not tolerant of anything that differs form their set belief system,which leads to things like the Spanish inquisition, which is somewhat stifled by the pro AM argument that superimposing tolerance paradoxically goes against the basis of RM. Tolerance as a rule just won't work in a system where you cannot make concrete "rules").  

[Dimocritus]

Also, I dig the word "Grok."

[LMNO]

But how can you "reprogram" with out superimposing an absolute system?

Just because the game rules are arbitrary, it doesn't mean that they are equal.


That's been said before in this thread.

Hrm, can you rephrase this? I don't think I'm getting it. What does equality among (or lack thereof) moral systems have to do with superimposing a system or not superimposing one? Or, are you saying a "dominant" (morally speaking, not physically or intellectually) system will superimpose itself naturally?

Your quoted post indicated that RM could only be supplanted with AM.

You can easily replace one Relative Morality system with another.  It doesn't have to be Absolute in order to do so.

Ok, I understand. How can we relate this to the "RM vs. AM" argument? Outside of the pro RM argument based on tolerance (which is that AM systems are not tolerant of anything that differs form their set belief system,which leads to things like the Spanish inquisition, which is somewhat stifled by the pro AM argument that superimposing tolerance paradoxically goes against the basis of RM. Tolerance as a rule just won't work in a system where you cannot make concrete "rules"). 

But that's not true.  Of course you make "rules" in RM.


You just don't have the Appeal to Authority fallcy to fall back on like you do with AM.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Yes, to some individuals it does.

Then no individuals have an excuse, barring the brain damaged, and people from the American Southeast.  But I repeat myself.

Which is not at all a response to what I said... but its OK I expect nothing less from TGRR

[LMNO]

Also, you're making it sound like you have a choice in the matter.


AM implies that the game rules are permanent and unchanging, delivered by some Authority.

RM implies that they are not.


A quick survey of world cultures reveals that AM cannot possibly be true.