Moral Relativism VS. Absolute Right and Wrong

[Bubba's Dad]

Moral Relativism VS. Absolute Right and Wrong

What do you believe in? Moral relativism teaches that there is no right and wrong, good or bad, only our perceptions. All cultures, ideas and moral norms are equal. I have read some of this on the pages of this site, so some of you here do believe in this idea. In close company to moral relativism is the idea that what is good for the many out ways the good for the one, an Idea popularized by both Carl Marx and Spock from Star Trek.

I believe in an absolute right and wrong, good ad bad. I also believe in individual rights. I believe in God, so I must believe in good and bad, right and wrong, and I believe in freedom, so I must believe in individual rights. Some one once said that without God, all things are permissible. I do not believe that all things are permissible, nor do you.

So what do you believe. If there were four people stranded on an island with no food, and three of these people were cannibals and the other not, relativism makes it proper for the three to kill and eat the on. Spock would agree, for would not the needs of the many…to eat and live…out way the needs of the one…to live?

I always did despise both Carl Marx and that pointy eared know it all on the Enterprise.

[keyodie]

I don't believe in a right or wrong that is set in stone. Even among christians, there is going to be some variability when it comes to right and wrong. I think it depends on a person's interpretation of what they should do and what they shouldn't. However, I'm not talking about things like murder and rape. I've mentioned this in another thread, but I think most people in this world base a lot of their interpretations on the golden rule. You wouldn't want to get murdered or raped, therefore it would be wrong to do it to someone else.

I think it depends on the situation and the person's intetions and reasoning. I don't think everything that is considered wrong is wrong in every single case. Every situation is different, every person is different, and therefore it would be impossible to generalize all these possibilities.

However, if there was a situation like you described (four people on an island, cannibalism, etc.) I still wouldn't think that cannibalism is "right" in the situation. I don't think right and wrong is based on what the majority believes, it's not something that can be proven and it's not a science. It's about people's interpretations.

[Bdole aka josh]

first off yes there is such a thing as right and wrong. right and wrong exists outside of human perception, because i believe what is right in wrong is based in ethics. ethics is the study of increases or decreases in human suffering and happiness. this is really the only thing we have to base ideas of what right and wrong mean, excluding ideological dogma. so yes there are moral "truths" to be discovered just like there are biological truths (humans need food) or physical truths (gravity pulls thing towards it). i think that in most cases when people speak of moral absolutism they are however basing their ideas of a ideological dogma. if you are going to say i shouldnt do something because it makes god cry you better have damn good proof that im making god cry or you should stfu and gtfo.

[keyodie]

Yes, but how can you rely on those studies? I'm just curious, because everyone reacts to different situations in different ways. Everyone has a different idea of what's moral and what's not. It's just that most people tend to base a lot of their morals on the golden rule, that's why many things are accepted among the majority of people to be wrong (murder, rape, theft, etc.).

[ladytera]

bdole, good points, but you still need to work on the delivery. Punctuation and capitalization are important, otherwise people tend to dismiss what you have to say. And the little rant at the end weakens, rather than strengthens your argument (and you can go back to visit the Christianity thread if you want my thoughts on why I can make God weep). However, I think you're point prior to that is pretty spot on.

Keyodie - for any society to function, it has to have rules that are recognized as right by all of its people. In the cannibalism example above, you said that it would be wrong for them to eat eachother, but what if you happened to be from one of the old tribes where cannibalism was practiced and not taboo? Worse yet, what if you weren't from a cannibalistic tribe, but your fellow strandees were. You might think to yourself, "I don't want to be eaten, so I won't eat you." At the same time, they're trying to decide who gets the brain. Is either of you wrong? If there is not absolute right or wrong, it would follow that they would probably eat you, and not lose a second's sleep over it, but you would have the comfort of knowing, in whatever form the afterlife might take, that you did not judge right or wrong.

I touched on this in the Gay Marriage thread as well. If there is no right and wrong, only interpretations, how then can you have laws that condemn pedophiles to jail? From their perspective, it's normal for them to want to have sex with young children, and they would be perfectly content if small children wanted to have sex with them, so the golden rule wouldn't apply, so who are you to tell them they are wrong? The same would go for any crime you might name. Are there extenuating circumstances? Yes, sometimes. I believe murder is absolutely wrong, as does most of the world. However, if some one broke into my home and threatened me or my family, you can bet your butt I'd do everything in my power to make sure they were dead on my floor before that happened. I believe homicide bombings of innocent civilians is wrong, but the terrorists who carry these out, often believe that it is not only right but heroic. Again, no golden rule, they believe one thing, you believe another. If there is no right or wrong, who are you to tell them they are wrong?

I don't disagree that a lot of the things people try to legislate or control people with through religion is more subjective than an actual matter of right and wrong. But I also firmly believe that there is an absolute right and wrong as well, one that is not dependent on interpretation, or personal preference. How to define the difference between the absolutes, and the subjective rules is a little trickier.

[keyodie]

;D Haha. Ohhh man. I'm sorry, I have difficulty expressing myself.

Sept 21, 2008 2:51:55 GMT -5 ladytera said:

Keyodie - for any society to function, it has to have rules that are recognized as right by all of its people.

I agree completely. There would be anarchy everywhere if there were no rules. I don't think rules shouldn't exist. I think that a universal right and wrong does not exist. I believe that six billion different right and wrongs exist in this world.

However, there are some things that the majority will agree on, and those things are usually theft, murder, rape, etc. Rules are based on that, the golden rule, and also the need to prevent as many conflicts as possible to keep the people safe.

Sept 21, 2008 2:51:55 GMT -5 ladytera said:

In the cannibalism example above, you said that it would be wrong for them to eat eachother, but what if you happened to be from one of the old tribes where cannibalism was practiced and not taboo? Worse yet, what if you weren't from a cannibalistic tribe, but your fellow strandees were. You might think to yourself, "I don't want to be eaten, so I won't eat you." At the same time, they're trying to decide who gets the brain. Is either of you wrong? If there is not absolute right or wrong, it would follow that they would probably eat you, and not lose a second's sleep over it, but you would have the comfort of knowing, in whatever form the afterlife might take, that you did not judge right or wrong.

If I was in the situation you described, no, I would not eat someone else. I was brought up among civilized people in a civilized society, and killing and eating one of the cannibals would leave me feeling extremely guilty and I would not be able to do it. This is assuming, of course, that I haven't lost my mind yet on the island.

They would probably eat me, that is true. Unfortunately, if I am stranded on an island, there is no way to enforce the laws that I am accustomed to. If we differ that much in a sense of right and wrong, there will be conflicts and disagreements. Taking these two things into consideration, I would conclude that this is a very unfortunate situation. And unfortunately, in unfortunate situations, unfortunate things happen (ie me being eaten).

I'm not sure what you're getting at in the last sentence. They would think that what they're doing is right because of the way they were taught as children or whatever other factor there may be. I, on the other hand, think that what they're doing is wrong because it is killing another human being. I would not lie there while my body is being eaten and take comfort in knowing that I didn't judge right or wrong. I would be lying there hating their guts. This doesn't go against the idea that there is no universal right and wrong, because that is just my opinion and not theirs.

Sept 21, 2008 2:51:55 GMT -5 ladytera said:

I touched on this in the Gay Marriage thread as well. If there is no right and wrong, only interpretations, how then can you have laws that condemn pedophiles to jail? From their perspective, it's normal for them to want to have sex with young children, and they would be perfectly content if small children wanted to have sex with them, so the golden rule wouldn't apply, so who are you to tell them they are wrong? The same would go for any crime you might name. Are there extenuating circumstances? Yes, sometimes. I believe murder is absolutely wrong, as does most of the world. However, if some one broke into my home and threatened me or my family, you can bet your butt I'd do everything in my power to make sure they were dead on my floor before that happened. I believe homicide bombings of innocent civilians is wrong, but the terrorists who carry these out, often believe that it is not only right but heroic. Again, no golden rule, they believe one thing, you believe another. If there is no right or wrong, who are you to tell them they are wrong?

You can tell them that they're wrong because that is your opinion. They can say they're right because that is their opinion. What is wrong to you is bombing innocent civilians, what is right to them is making necessary sacrifices for their god.

There must be rules and punishments for society to function, as you said. I do not think that my idea of what right and wrong is should be used to govern people. Of course not. That would be absolutely disastrous. I think I already covered what I wanted to cover here earlier in my post, though.

Sept 21, 2008 2:51:55 GMT -5 ladytera said:

I don't disagree that a lot of the things people try to legislate or control people with through religion is more subjective than an actual matter of right and wrong. But I also firmly believe that there is an absolute right and wrong as well, one that is not dependent on interpretation, or personal preference. How to define the difference between the absolutes, and the subjective rules is a little trickier.

Well I guess we'll just have to differ in opinions there.