PDA

View Full Version : Moral Relativism



TranceNRG
11-19-2005, 04:49 PM
I thought it's a good article to post here and hear some opinions

http://www.lifeway.com/lwc/article_main_page/0,1703,A%253D158437%2526M%253D200169,00.html

run213
11-19-2005, 05:07 PM
I liked that post.

Couldbebigga
11-19-2005, 05:24 PM
I thought it's a good article to post here and hear some opinions

http://www.lifeway.com/lwc/article_main_page/0,1703,A%253D158437%2526M%253D200169,00.html

Yeah, relativism isn't really accepted as "real" nowadays is it? More people subscribe to realism right?

TranceNRG
11-19-2005, 08:47 PM
Yeah, relativism isn't really accepted as "real" nowadays is it? More people subscribe to realism right?

actually you'd be surprised, how many people adhere to relativism today.
People do so, because it takes the responsibility to look for what is "right" away from them.
With relativism, everyone could be right, so at the end everyone ends up happy, which is why many people would prefer to hold a relativistic view of morality.
How often do you hear these days: "as long as it makes you happy it's ok" or "whatever makes you happy" ands etc.

unfortunately, the pursue to be "open-minded" has pushed everyone out of the path to seek for the truth, because everyone ends up thinking, if they're nice and agree with everything everyone says because everything is relative, then they are open-minded.

Pump that iron!
11-19-2005, 09:01 PM
On the issue of what is right or wrong...ultimately I feel that people have a great sense of this and of course there are exceptions, such as with abortion.

However, life is about choices and people make choices that may be morally wrong, even to them, but it is perhaps in their best interest to do so. This doesn't necessarily mean, IMO, that they feel it is right.

JerseyArt
11-19-2005, 09:07 PM
Nothing more dangerous than those who refuse to recognize evil. If you don't acknowledge it, then there is no cause to confront it.

It is a form of political correctness. One of the earliest stories dealing with it is the one about the Emporer having no clothes.

It is time for people to stand up and say "the emporer has no clothes"

xer0xed
11-19-2005, 09:29 PM
Morality: That which is most efficient. Both in terms of means accomplishing ends and within the outcomes resulting from the use of the means themselves.

TranceNRG
11-19-2005, 09:38 PM
On the issue of what is right or wrong...ultimately I feel that people have a great sense of this and of course there are exceptions, such as with abortion.

I disagree MAJORLY :D



However, life is about choices and people make choices that may be morally wrong, even to them, but it is perhaps in their best interest to do so. This doesn't necessarily mean, IMO, that they feel it is right.


are you suggesting people would committ an act that they feel is wrong (might be wrong)?

TranceNRG
11-19-2005, 09:42 PM
It is time for people to stand up and say "the emporer has no clothes"


I agree
It is time for people to stand up, and stop thinking everyone and everything "could" be right

TranceNRG
11-19-2005, 09:45 PM
Morality: That which is most efficient. Both in terms of means accomplishing ends and within the outcomes resulting from the use of the means themselves.


so vague man :)

what IS most efficient?

JerseyArt
11-19-2005, 09:48 PM
I agree
It is time for people to stand up, and stop thinking everyone and everything "could" be right


How about we settle on the idea that we can actually discern right from wrong.

xer0xed
11-19-2005, 09:54 PM
so vague man :)

what IS most efficient?

Depends on your goal and side-goals. Your means must achieve your goal, but must simultaneously have minimal outcome on any other unspecified goals you might have.

Basically, it's Machiavellian except with evaluation of the means themselves as well.

TranceNRG
11-19-2005, 11:46 PM
How about we settle on the idea that we can actually discern right from wrong.

yes
I agree :)

TranceNRG
11-19-2005, 11:48 PM
Depends on your goal and side-goals. Your means must achieve your goal, but must simultaneously have minimal outcome on any other unspecified goals you might have.

Basically, it's Machiavellian except with evaluation of the means themselves as well.

ummm...
that is moral relativism.
the exact thing the article refuted.

because what if your goal is immoral?
Hitler had a goal

Stinker
11-20-2005, 01:00 AM
Yes, moral relativism is wrong.

Chase Brawn
11-20-2005, 09:03 AM
On the issue of what is right or wrong...ultimately I feel that people have a great sense of this and of course there are exceptions, such as with abortion.

However, life is about choices and people make choices that may be morally wrong, even to them, but it is perhaps in their best interest to do so. This doesn't necessarily mean, IMO, that they feel it is right.

You must be huge at 5'3 250...even 5'3 180 is big.

xer0xed
11-20-2005, 09:45 AM
ummm...
that is moral relativism.
the exact thing the article refuted.

because what if your goal is immoral?
Hitler had a goal

Already addressed that. There could be some situations where conditions change the outcome, but those are rare with what I've proposed.

Edit: And no, I don't think Hitler to be morally equivalent to Mother Theresa. Morals aren't completely relative. There is no act that is completely good. Due to the Chaos Effect and unforeseen consequences, acts can only have NET good or bad outcomes, and must be evaluated before they are taken. The efficiency in achieving the goal must be evaluated as well as other consequences that may result from the behavior.

You've probably never heard of my idea before, so you'll probably consider it wrong since it's outside of your perceptual set and you have no means to evaluate it. ~_~