On Moral Relativism

@perplexity,

Ill show you a man who cries ''cynic''-me, at myself. I guess that would make me a fool aswell:rolleyes:

@Pythagorean,

Have you suffered enough?

That is where I struggle, why to allow myself to suffer, instead of the easy way.

This is about the Chinese curse, to live an interesting life.

@Pythagorean,

But is it the times that are interesting, or do we make it so, and suffer the consequences. Ive always envied the average Joe in the street, his simple life, of work and play, never concerning himself with anything beyond his immidiate world. One man once said to me,''you go about seeking things to fill your mind, as if you would just die if you didnt''. People like this, I envy.

@Pythagorean,

People do it all the time, they set themselves up as authors of their own misfortune as if to reap a harvest of sympathy by blaming others for reacting as it was only reasonable to know that they would.

@perplexity,

Im not sure I understand you. I didnt say I wished I was like them, as strangly enough I 'enjoy' who I am, or at least that part of me. I consider those types of people to be irritatingly 'simple'. You know, 'simple things satisfy simple people'.

@Justin,

Justin wrote:

As far as practicing philosophy freely, the internet has now bridged a gap between nations that allow us all to interact in forums like this. To join together and discuss philosophy freely in a forum such as this, is not only a wonderful way to unite people in understanding and friendship, but it also signifies another step in evolution towards mutal understanding and kinship.

Justin, I too see such new forms of political and psychological unities arising across international borders. They seem to tend, however, to conform to the Brussells or the U.N. models of globalized mores, including thought crimes and forced conversion to group think.

I am not as optimistic as you are. The terrorists have shown just what the eradication of borders can come to.

I too believe that there is something like a soul in me, (I suspect that you have one also, but not everyone does) and I try to pay attention to the subtle natural things in life, which is why I love philosophy, but my flesh still needs to survive the horrors of the world as they unfold around me.

(Sorry cause I rambled too:) )

-- the Pythagorean

@Pythagorean,

Pythagorean wrote:

Justin, I too see such new forms of political and psychological unities arising across international borders. They seem to tend, however, to conform to the Brussells ...

Is is your desire then, Pythagorean, in all seriousness, to see each of the United States of America as a separate nation, each with a separate currency, a separate language, and passports required to cross the borders?

If this is not what you actively campaign for, then I think it one hell of a cheek, relatively speaking, an astounding hypocrisy to critisise in such a fashion from the side of the pond which was long since a practical federation, with the consequent enjoyment of the considerable benefit thereof.

I happen to be old enough to remember some of what it was like soon after the Second World War, with the differences still in place that were since eroded, and the fear of a third World War yet to anticipate, very glad of the reduced probability of that because of the Europrean Union. Spoiled by long period, War free, this may not seem to matter to an American, but it certainly does to countries devastated in mean time, not to mention the subjugation to "Lend Lease", and the consequent dominion of American commercial banks.

I am also acutely aware of the disadvatage of a pound separate to the Euro, because I trade often with Germans, and because my wife is Finnish, a nation presently enjoying the considerable advantage of the Euro instead of the Finmark.

Do you have any idea of how much the banks make out of it, the separate currencies? There is a basic charge, usually of at least 15 GBP, to move money into and out of the Euro Zone, even to transfer a sum of less than that, so for as far I intend to be concerned it is no pleasure of any sort to be continually obliged to such a circumstance.

This may seem a little off topic, but I think it a good example of just how different a view may be from a different perspective, relatively speaking.

-- RH.

@pilgrimshost,

pilgrimshost wrote:

Im not sure I understand you. I didnt say I wished I was like them, as strangly enough I 'enjoy' who I am, or at least that part of me. I consider those types of people to be irritatingly 'simple'. You know, 'simple things satisfy simple people'.

I know.

To my mind there is something irritatingly simple about a Buddhist monk, content to spend most of his day sat quietly to meditate. I might accuse him, and have done, of esacapism, of ducking out of slings and arrows of outrageous fortunes of the sort that others oblige themselves to suffer to maintain the status quo of the practical social reality.

I am also then acutely aware that I suffer so much more than he does because of what my curiosity leads me to instead, because of the life-style that I chose as the more interesting option.

--- RH.

@perplexity,

I think it is a consequence of life that the things that make us suffer are a ballence to the happeness we gain through our enlightenment, possibly a 'balance' or 'polarity' issue. It thus seems to be our purpose in finding fullfilment. Maybe those who avoid suffering are in effect missing their ment purpose.

@Justin,

I notice that as soon as humans come away from gods laws, we are in for trouble(the christian understanding of god). The more "freedom" we allow ourselves as a so called modern culture "ADVANCES" the more it seems we turn away from gods standards in which he wants us to live. If we lived more by the rules of the bible I dont think the world would have as many problems as it does. (If indeed one see's being gay as a problem) . I am not stating to be gay is wrong I am stating the bible is a good blueprint for us in which to live our lives by. oh and pilgrimshost do not assume I am saying the christian understanding of god is the ultimate truth. As I am just using the bibles viewpoint to argue this case. (if I may).

@perplexity,

perplexity wrote:

Is is your desire then, Pythagorean, in all seriousness, to see each of the United States of America as a separate nation, each with a separate currency, a separate language, and passports required to cross the borders?

If this is not what you actively campaign for, then I think it one hell of a cheek, relatively speaking, an astounding hypocrisy to critisise in such a fashion from the side of the pond which was long since a practical federation, with the consequent enjoyment of the considerable benefit thereof.

I think that there is a link between freedom of thought - which seems to go against the E.U. and U.N. globalization and the thought-crimes mentality - and warfare. Perhaps the most original society must fight for its prize posessions, its art and its architecture, its philosophy, its political system and its wisdom? Perhaps an individual must fight to preserve his identity?

Should I tell lies because the 'group' tells lies. Perhaps the poor are poor because their political system doesn't reward individual intitiative? Without heroic efforts why would you expect any reward? Without seeking how do you expect to find anything?

I know you don't like what I'm saying but in America we are allowed to think it and say it, for now, at least.

@Pythagorean,

In my view, if a man looses his identiy what does he have left-nothing? The shame is that others so willingly forsake their identity because they dont know what who they are in the first place, meanwhile those who do are forgotten and betrayed!

Advancement of thinking and society has always without exception been from free thinkers and those who march to a different beat, these are the true heros, and I honour them. Those with influence dont like these radical upstarts as they threaten their power, wealth and domination over the masses. This is nothing new, its the oldest thing in the book, a product of greed.

@pilgrimshost,

pilgrimshost wrote:

In my view, if a man looses his identiy what does he have left-nothing? The shame is that others so willingly forsake their identity because they dont know what who they are in the first place, meanwhile those who do are forgotten and betrayed!

Advancement of thinking and society has always without exception been from free thinkers and those who march to a different beat, these are the true heros, and I honour them. Those with influence dont like these radical upstarts as they threaten their power, wealth and domination over the masses. This is nothing new, its the oldest thing in the book, a product of greed.

I like the way you place the old burden of 'individuality' in a historical and social context.

True, it has always been difficult to be really a different personality than society expects. But is it important enough -if one does have this individuality- to go to war against the greedy society and create a violent political and social revolution?

--Pythagorean

@Pythagorean,

Pythagorean wrote:

I too believe that there is something like a soul in me, (I suspect that you have one also, but not everyone does) and I try to pay attention to the subtle natural things in life, which is why I love philosophy, but my flesh still needs to survive the horrors of the world as they unfold around me.

(Sorry cause I rambled too:) )

-- the Pythagorean

There is a soul inside of you. This soul is known as spirit and the very fulcrum of who you are. The flesh is of the earth and will return to the earth, where the soul or the spirit was, before the earth ever existed. -> Ramble away. That's why we're here. Smile

cut2thepoint wrote:

I notice that as soon as humans come away from gods laws, we are in for trouble(the christian understanding of god). The more "freedom" we allow ourselves as a so called modern culture "ADVANCES" the more it seems we turn away from gods standards in which he wants us to live. If we lived more by the rules of the bible I dont think the world would have as many problems as it does. (If indeed one see's being gay as a problem) . I am not stating to be gay is wrong I am stating the bible is a good blueprint for us in which to live our lives by. oh and pilgrimshost do not assume I am saying the christian understanding of god is the ultimate truth. As I am just using the bibles viewpoint to argue this case. (if I may).

I agree with you here. The Bible is great historical documentation, poetry, and stories. Jesus however, had a message and provides that blueprint, (I believe). Jesus gave us an example of how we should live and if we did what Jesus did, there would be no wars.

Back to Moral Relativism... Jean-Paul Sartre once said, "Everything has been figured out, except how to live.". It's very difficult to answer the basic Moral Relativism because on a general basis, mankind is of worldy matters. If we don't know why, how, what, and all those other questions that have been studied throughout the centuries, then yes, moral relativism is something that mankind has embraced and practices. What's funny is that Moral Relativism change frequently as people grow. So what was moral in one country 2000 years ago has changed to whats moral today.

The differences in Culture and the differences in morals are the ones we've created. Until we know what and who we are, there will be different moral positions.

In the evolution of personal self and the awakening of the consciousness inside of us, it's realized that there is a moral foundation that is only one source. There is one source that created the Muslims and it's the same source that created the Gays. Neither of which have realized that we are all connected by one creator and one energy. As our primary focus is on the sensations of the world and the sensations of the body and the addictions to power and such, we will never realize moral truth... We'll just keep on keeping on and doing what our ancestors did.

@Pythagorean,

No, Im not an expert on this subject but I would say that the success of the individual will always provail some how against the powers that hold sway. People have forght for their individualality, and identity since the begining, its a worthy course, it hasnt got to be bloody or even a war. Christianity provailed most successfully at the begining on pure peace of the word of the gospel, and faith in Christ they were not afraid of death. Others have waged war and terrorism, which may get a result but always just turns into 'animal farm'.

Other great minds have been opposed by the state, later to be honoured and endorsed, even if its post-hominously.

@Pythagorean,

Ignore please.

@Pythagorean,

Pythagorean wrote:

Are all cultures equal.

For example:

If it is legal and laudable to sentence a homosexual to death in Islam, does that make it o.k? If a gay travels from the U.K. (where being 'queer' is applauded) to an Islamic country or culture and has gay sex in that country should he be put to death?

Any thoughts or ideas on this one?

-- Pythagorean

Purely answering your last question, yes, he should, if he chooses to go to another country and break their law then he has knowingly broken a law and should be answerable to the crime!

I would say to the larger question that when we start to judge cultures, to consider ourselves above them morally or ethically because their culture practices something that our culture sees as wrong, that is when wars are started and besides, they may consider parts of our culture equally wrong, so does that then give them the right to dictate their laws to us?

@Pythagorean,

Pythagorean wrote:

Are all cultures equal.

For example:

If it is legal and laudable to sentence a homosexual to death in Islam, does that make it o.k? If a gay travels from the U.K. (where being 'queer' is applauded) to an Islamic country or culture and has gay sex in that country should he be put to death?

Any thoughts or ideas on this one?

-- Pythagorean

"Legal" - according to Islamic law, yes; according to moral law? Absolutely not; "laudable"? According to what? Islamic law? That Islam sees the action as laudable is debatable from the Christian persepctive. Why would a homosexual go to a country that had such a policy in place? I would say that one should not expect the local law to accept behaviors from foriegners that locals aren't supposed to engage in.

@Pythagorean,

Hi all,

I just thought this would make interesting reading,a short piece.
http://www.argusleader.com:80/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070509/COLUMNISTS0209/705090302/1119/COLUMNISTS

@Pythagorean,

Pythagorean asks: 'If it is legal and laudable to sentence a homosexual to death in Islam, does that make it o.k? If a gay travels from the U.K. (where being 'queer' is applauded) to an Islamic country or culture and has gay sex in that country should he be put to death?

Any thoughts or ideas on this one? '

I think this depends on what the individual/society's viewpoint as to what metaphysical entity of a homosexual is. If the belief is that a homosexual is something to be erradicated, is a moral evil, then that individual/society would likely answer the question as 'yes'. Additionaly, the homosexual 'should' be put to death as a matter of civil law, as it exists as illegal.
My personal answer to 'should' this person be put to death as a moral question is 'no', because homosexuality in itself as an action or entity does not warrent being put to death. Here, the moral discriminator differs. My system or morality differs from that of Islam. I assume theirs is based on religious doctrine. My own is based on determining a particular individual/action as threatening the existence of others.
Self-defense in essence.

I don't see how a morality system can exist without some authority base determining 'right and wrong'.This is where it becomes relative and forever to be argued if this starting point differs significantly. The soundness, or validity of a given morality/authority base is the subject of another question.
............................Logos

...........................I would add that one 'should' respect local laws when visiting foreign lands and restrain themselves, since the restraint results in maintaining one's life.

Philosophy Forum

On Moral Relativism

Quick Links

My Account

able2know