Moral Relativity VS. An Absolute Moral System

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

As an aside, I'm pretty sure utilitarianism was invented only so first year philosophy students would have a theory so full of holes they could shoot it apart with ease.

It just sounds so terribly Victorian...or borne of that era.

100% troof, JS Mill was at his prime in London during the mid and late 1800's. Jenne gets 100 Internets for correctly placing the system!

[Cain]

As an aside, I'm pretty sure utilitarianism was invented only so first year philosophy students would have a theory so full of holes they could shoot it apart with ease.

It just sounds so terribly Victorian...or borne of that era.

Well, it was.  John Stuart Mill was an MP during the Victorian era, in fact.  As well as Rector of my University, which it seems pretty much everyone has been at one point.

Also, Nietzsche lol:

There are truths that are recognized best by mediocre minds because they are most congenial to them; there are truths that have charm and seductive powers only for mediocre spirits: we come up against this perhaps disagreeable proposition just now, since the spirit of respectable but mediocre Englishmen—I name Darwin, John Stuart Mill, and Herbert Spencer—is beginning to predominate in the middle regions of European taste. Indeed, who would doubt that it is useful that such spirits should rule at times? It would be a mistake to suppose that the spirits of a high type that soar on their own paths would be particularly skillful at determining and collecting many small and common facts and then drawing conclusions from them: on the contrary, being exceptions, they are from the start at a disadvantage when it comes to the "rule." Finally, they have more to do that merely to gain knowledge—namely, to be something new, to signify something new, to represent new values. Perhaps the chasm between know and can is greater, also uncannier, than people suppose: those who can do things in the grand style, the creative, may possibly have to be lacking in knowledge—while, on the other hand, for scientific discoveries of the type of Darwin's a certain narrowness, aridity, and industrious diligence, something English in short, may not be a bad disposition.

[Jenne]

WOOHOO!

...and here I thought I'd missed something by not reading all this stuff except for soundbite potential back in the 90's...

[Jenne]

The whole "higher" and "lower" value on pleasures of different degrees just smacked of Kellogg and his ilk.  The US assholes had their own ring going over stateside, y'see.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

The whole "higher" and "lower" value on pleasures of different degrees just smacked of Kellogg and his ilk.  The US assholes had their own ring going over stateside, y'see.

But, his Grape Nuts will HEAL YOU!

[Cain]

The whole "higher" and "lower" value on pleasures of different degrees just smacked of Kellogg and his ilk.  The US assholes had their own ring going over stateside, y'see.

"Better to be a Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied."

How do you make that determination?  Is this anything more than Victorian snobbishness and fear of the culture of the lowly, teeming masses?  Another two broadsides to be delivered by undergrads against utilitarianism.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I'm pretty sure everyone's happier when I'm drunk.

You sound like me. 

My husband calls it "The Good Jennifer"...

Next time drink whiskey, and show him The BAD Jennifer.

[Jenne]

I'm pretty sure everyone's happier when I'm drunk.

You sound like me. 

My husband calls it "The Good Jennifer"...

Next time drink whiskey, and show him The BAD Jennifer.

Aw, he sleeps next to that one  most every night.    Whiskey makes me good.  As does tequila, wine, beer...

[Jenne]

The whole "higher" and "lower" value on pleasures of different degrees just smacked of Kellogg and his ilk.  The US assholes had their own ring going over stateside, y'see.

"Better to be a Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied."

How do you make that determination?  Is this anything more than Victorian snobbishness and fear of the culture of the lowly, teeming masses?  Another two broadsides to be delivered by undergrads against utilitarianism.

  Exactly.  It was this smugness that came from the well-heeled that made the suppositions that they were "above" the baser instincts of lust, hunger and what-all they thought the "lowly  masses" and "great unwashed" would feel in any given day.

Meanwhile, the hijinks they got up to personally smacked of rank hypocrisy.

...and so goes the righteous.

[Jenne]

The whole "higher" and "lower" value on pleasures of different degrees just smacked of Kellogg and his ilk.  The US assholes had their own ring going over stateside, y'see.

But, his Grape Nuts will HEAL YOU!

Wellville was a great movie--if a bit boring at times.

[Cain]

Well John Stuart Mill also backed the Opium Wars.  Exactly how fighting the Chinese military for the right to get Chinese peasants addicted to smack fits into utilitiarianism or his ideas on liberalism I am not exactly sure about, but that is why JSM was an MP, philosopher and economist, and I serve drinks to doddering old fools.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Better to be a biped, satisfied than either of them.

A pig may walk on the meadow
A pig may swim in the sea
A pig may do whatever it likes
But no pig walks on me.

[Dimocritus]

Is it fair to say that a workable moral system will unify people?

Assuming that a good moral system would unify (accent on assuming) people, and an RM system has no chance of unification, then it would lead one to beleive that a system must be in place. The one system that has been discussed here (utilitarianism) has been invalidated by an abundance of generalized terms, as opposed to specifics definitions of terms, so I still have some questions?

Is there a strong case for moral relativity (the more I think about it, the more it sounds like a means for the amoral to justify their actions)?

And, if not, what system has the ability to stand?

[I_Kicked_Kennedy]

Is it fair to say that a workable moral system will unify people?

Assuming that a good moral system would unify (accent on assuming) people,

I stopped reading here.

As it is, my intellectual system rejects arguments that it considers to be utterly moronic. You may think this designation was arbitrarily designated, but you're just going to have to trust me when I tell you otherwise. Through years of research into what would be most beneficial to my cognitive development as a whole, I have discovered that peurile and poorly constructed theses such as yours must be eliminated.

I'm sorry. The thorough unification of my rational construct relies only upon my discretion.

Run along now, child. Adults are conversing.

Better to be a biped, satisfied than either of them.

A pig may walk on the meadow
A pig may swim in the sea
A pig may do whatever it likes
But no pig walks on me.

"4 legs good! Two legs baaaaad!"

[LMNO]

I'm pretty sure everyone's happier when I'm LOCKED IN A Trunk.

Fixed.

Nonsense.  My actions may seem evil, but that is because I work in mysterious ways.  For example, if Kim Kardashian was also in the trunk, would you then consider it an undesirable thing?  She's not, though.  I think I left some large rats in there.  Again, mysterious ways.

Do the rats have round, firm asses?

Better to be a biped, satisfied than either of them.

A pig may walk on the meadow
A pig may swim in the sea
A pig may do whatever it likes
But no pig walks on me.

What about Kim Kardashian?