Moral Relativism

[gatoraubrey2]

I personally believe that moral relativism is the underlying problem in many of our country's issues. I believe that many of our worst policies and decisions are made by moral relativists, and that their philosophy has become so prevalent as to make intelligent debate almost impossible.

Moral relativism is the theory that "right" and "wrong" as such do not exist. Moral relativists claim that "right" may be defined differently for different people, as a result of cultural or other molding. They do not believe in statements like "rape is wrong" because it may be accepted by some people as "right."

It is impossible to debate intelligently with a moral relativist because they do not perceive logic to be a valid method of arriving at conclusions about morality. Even if confronted with a logical proof, that, say, rape is wrong, the relativist would simply reply that it may be wrong for you, but not necessarily for everyone, themselves included. As a corollary to this theory, it becomes impossible to condemn anyone else's actions, because it is impossible for you to know what may be right for them.

I believe that there is a right and a wrong answer in any situation. There is a correct way and an incorrect way to do everything. Yet, as I look through these forums, I can't help but notice the huge proportion of people who have opinions with no justification, and who seem to believe that they can be right without proving it. What's worse, is that other people accept this standard without question. Why do we allow this? Why not carry on the tradition of "American pragmatism" and subject everything to the test of logic and reality before approving of it? This is what brought our country so far in such a short time, and abandoning now cannot help our prospects for the future.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

[Woodruff]

I personally believe that moral relativism is the underlying problem in many of our country's issues. I believe that many of our worst policies and decisions are made by moral relativists, and that their philosophy has become so prevalent as to make intelligent debate almost impossible.
Moral relativism is the theory that "right" and "wrong" as such do not exist. Moral relativists claim that "right" may be defined differently for different people, as a result of cultural or other molding. They do not believe in statements like "rape is wrong" because it may be accepted by some people as "right."
It is impossible to debate intelligently with a moral relativist because they do not perceive logic to be a valid method of arriving at conclusions about morality. Even if confronted with a logical proof, that, say, rape is wrong, the relativist would simply reply that it may be wrong for you, but not necessarily for everyone, themselves included. As a corollary to this theory, it becomes impossible to condemn anyone else's actions, because it is impossible for you to know what may be right for them.
I believe that there is a right and a wrong answer in any situation. There is a correct way and an incorrect way to do everything. Yet, as I look through these forums, I can't help but notice the huge proportion of people who have opinions with no justification, and who seem to believe that they can be right without proving it. What's worse, is that other people accept this standard without question. Why do we allow this? Why not carry on the tradition of "American pragmatism" and subject everything to the test of logic and reality before approving of it? This is what brought our country so far in such a short time, and abandoning now cannot help our prospects for the future.

I must be one of your moral relativists, because I'm not sure what you're getting at here, to be honest. I very much believe in situational ethics, in which the idea that "this is always right" or "this is always wrong" are reasonably rare. Is that what you consider to be moral relativism?

[Army of GOD]

I personally believe that moral relativism is the underlying problem in many of our country's issues. I believe that many of our worst policies and decisions are made by moral relativists, and that their philosophy has become so prevalent as to make intelligent debate almost impossible.

Moral relativism is the theory that "right" and "wrong" as such do not exist. Moral relativists claim that "right" may be defined differently for different people, as a result of cultural or other molding. They do not believe in statements like "rape is wrong" because it may be accepted by some people as "right."

It is impossible to debate intelligently with a moral relativist because they do not perceive logic to be a valid method of arriving at conclusions about morality. Even if confronted with a logical proof, that, say, rape is wrong, the relativist would simply reply that it may be wrong for you, but not necessarily for everyone, themselves included. As a corollary to this theory, it becomes impossible to condemn anyone else's actions, because it is impossible for you to know what may be right for them.

I believe that there is a right and a wrong answer in any situation. There is a correct way and an incorrect way to do everything. Yet, as I look through these forums, I can't help but notice the huge proportion of people who have opinions with no justification, and who seem to believe that they can be right without proving it. What's worse, is that other people accept this standard without question. Why do we allow this? Why not carry on the tradition of "American pragmatism" and subject everything to the test of logic and reality before approving of it? This is what brought our country so far in such a short time, and abandoning now cannot help our prospects for the future.

I'm sorry but no.

First, LOGICALLY PROVE that rape is wrong, like you allude towards in your rant.

Secondly, "right" and "wrong" are very subjective. You take rape, which is a very extreme example. Let's take a less extreme one...cheating on a test...I remember back in 10h grade we did this survey thing where we put situations down on a scale going from "totally right" to "totally wrong" (ok, those two were paraphrased, but those are the two extremes anyway). Cheating on a test was one of those examples. While I put it about 1/3 of the way on the wrong side, the MAJORITY of the class put it on the "right" side. While I still think I was right, I did see their point. You, however, probably think what you think is right and wrong is totally absolute.

Thirdly, no one in the world has to justify anything to you. In fact, you're lucky if they do. I know I don't always justify my opinion, because it's just like, my opinion, man. I know there are people who would agree and disagree with it, and honestly I see little point in defending it sometimes (SOMETIMES).

You remind me of that proof that God exists website. I'm sorry, but I don't think moral absolutism exists.

I'd LOVE to be proven wrong though.

[Army of GOD]

Also, you really hit a nerve with me, because your post actually somewhat angered me. You speak of intelligence but you literally show none in your post.

I hope you're not a troll, because you are successful atm.

[gatoraubrey2]

I must be one of your moral relativists, because I'm not sure what you're getting at here, to be honest. I very much believe in situational ethics, in which the idea that "this is always right" or "this is always wrong" are reasonably rare. Is that what you consider to be moral relativism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

I'll also add that link to the OP. The intro is enough to put it a bit more clearly than I can.

It's a very complex issue, but what I'm really getting at is:
1. Truth is universal, and not up for debate (i.e., rape is wrong)
2. Every question has a "true" answer, even if we are not able to find what it is. This is the quest of philosophy: to determine unequivocally the truths of the universe.
3. Debate is a wonderful way to uncover truth, often by uncovering flaws in the logic of what one may have believed to be true. Therefore, a case should be constructed logically, and then subjected to the scrutiny of others to determine whether the logic is sound.
4. Once a claim has been proven logically false, it should be discarded. So long as a claim cannot be logically proved false, it is reasonable to assume it to be true.
5. It is entirely correct to judge and condemn based upon a tested theory (see: Natural Law).

I'm just fed up with people who want things to be a certain way, and can't see the bald facts in front of them showing that things are not that way. Especially in the realm of politics. It is wrong to make decisions which affect the lives of others when you have no proof that your decisions are justified, and especially when proof exists to the contrary. Though these folks would probably not define themselves as moral relativists, it's the only option for them given their lack of respect for logic.

[Woodruff]

Secondly, "right" and "wrong" are very subjective. You take rape, which is a very extreme example. Let's take a less extreme one...cheating on a test...I remember back in 10h grade we did this survey thing where we put situations down on a scale going from "totally right" to "totally wrong" (ok, those two were paraphrased, but those are the two extremes anyway). Cheating on a test was one of those examples. While I put it about 1/3 of the way on the wrong side, the MAJORITY of the class put it on the "right" side. While I still think I was right, I did see their point. You, however, probably think what you think is right and wrong is totally absolute.

Interesting...I'm very curious what justification could be used for stating that it is "right" to cheat on a high school test. Care to take a shot at that one?

Thirdly, no one in the world has to justify anything to you. In fact, you're lucky if they do. I know I don't always justify my opinion, because it's just like, my opinion, man. I know there are people who would agree and disagree with it, and honestly I see little point in defending it sometimes (SOMETIMES).

Ok, sure...but if you want people to take your statements seriously, then that justification is necessary. And if you don't want people to take your statements seriously, then why make them (on serious subjects, of course)? Otherwise, you wind up being someone that just gets roundly ignored as a waste of space.

[Woodruff]

I must be one of your moral relativists, because I'm not sure what you're getting at here, to be honest. I very much believe in situational ethics, in which the idea that "this is always right" or "this is always wrong" are reasonably rare. Is that what you consider to be moral relativism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism
I'll also add that link to the OP. The intro is enough to put it a bit more clearly than I can.
It's a very complex issue, but what I'm really getting at is:
1. Truth is universal, and not up for debate (i.e., rape is wrong)
2. Every question has a "true" answer, even if we are not able to find what it is. This is the quest of philosophy: to determine unequivocally the truths of the universe.
3. Debate is a wonderful way to uncover truth, often by uncovering flaws in the logic of what one may have believed to be true. Therefore, a case should be constructed logically, and then subjected to the scrutiny of others to determine whether the logic is sound.
4. Once a claim has been proven logically false, it should be discarded. So long as a claim cannot be logically proved false, it is reasonable to assume it to be true.
5. It is entirely correct to judge and condemn based upon a tested theory (see: Natural Law).
I'm just fed up with people who want things to be a certain way, and can't see the bald facts in front of them showing that things are not that way. Especially in the realm of politics. It is wrong to make decisions which affect the lives of others when you have no proof that your decisions are justified, and especially when proof exists to the contrary. Though these folks would probably not define themselves as moral relativists, it's the only option for them given their lack of respect for logic.

1) You didn't answer my question.
2) Two different people can easily look at the same situation and see it differently and yet still perfectly logically, based on their distinctly personal experiences.

[Army of GOD]

Secondly, "right" and "wrong" are very subjective. You take rape, which is a very extreme example. Let's take a less extreme one...cheating on a test...I remember back in 10h grade we did this survey thing where we put situations down on a scale going from "totally right" to "totally wrong" (ok, those two were paraphrased, but those are the two extremes anyway). Cheating on a test was one of those examples. While I put it about 1/3 of the way on the wrong side, the MAJORITY of the class put it on the "right" side. While I still think I was right, I did see their point. You, however, probably think what you think is right and wrong is totally absolute.

Interesting...I'm very curious what justification could be used for stating that it is "right" to cheat on a high school test. Care to take a shot at that one?

Ok, well, this one time in 8th grade French, our teacher mentioned some Spanish words to relate to what we were talking about or something like that. He didn't even write them in the board, or tell us to throw them in our notes...he just mentioned them. The next day, he quizzes us on them. I had no idea how to even spell them. In fact, not a single kid in my class passed the quiz. If people who were in my class told me that if the they had the opportunity to cheat somehow, they would've, because they thought what he did was utterly unfair and that they didn't think it'd be immoral to do so.

Thirdly, no one in the world has to justify anything to you. In fact, you're lucky if they do. I know I don't always justify my opinion, because it's just like, my opinion, man. I know there are people who would agree and disagree with it, and honestly I see little point in defending it sometimes (SOMETIMES).

Ok, sure...but if you want people to take your statements seriously, then that justification is necessary. And if you don't want people to take your statements seriously, then why make them (on serious subjects, of course)? Otherwise, you wind up being someone that just gets roundly ignored as a waste of space.

Well, you know me well enough to know that I'm a pretty un-serious person. I do however post in threads like these, and try to justify my opinion as well as I can.

I've seen to much stubborn so far in my life that I've lost faith in arguing. You know as well as I do that people will believe in whatever the f*ck they believe in no matter what. But that's just me...other people are different.

[gatoraubrey2]

1) You didn't answer my question.
2) Two different people can easily look at the same situation and see it differently and yet still perfectly logically, based on their distinctly personal experiences.

Sorry...trying. Kept getting interrupted by some flaming guy...

I think that in that given situation, there is a right answer. It may not be perceivable to the two people in the situation, but it does exist, nonetheless. Many times, especially in ethical situations, the right answer is extremely complex, which is why often it seems to us that there is no concrete right answer.

So no, I wouldn't call one of those people a moral relativist just because he had a different initial outlook on the situation. And, even if no absolute answer were ever discovered, I would not hold it against him. I would, however, call him a moral relativist if he simply said "This is the answer that I choose to accept, so it's right because I chose to accept it." If he proposed an answer that was later proven wrong, I would expect him to renounce his prior answer and continue searching for the correct one.

I'm sorry I'm not doing a very good job of answering your question. This is harder to articulate than I had first imagined.

[Army of GOD]

1) You didn't answer my question.
2) Two different people can easily look at the same situation and see it differently and yet still perfectly logically, based on their distinctly personal experiences.

Sorry...trying. Kept getting interrupted by some flaming guy...

I hope that's me. You can continue to ignore my asking of a logical proof saying "rape is wrong".

I think that in that given situation, there is a right answer. It may not be perceivable to the two people in the situation, but it does exist, nonetheless. Many times, especially in ethical situations, the right answer is extremely complex, which is why often it seems to us that there is no concrete right answer.

So no, I wouldn't call one of those people a moral relativist just because he had a different initial outlook on the situation. And, even if no absolute answer were ever discovered, I would not hold it against him. I would, however, call him a moral relativist if he simply said "This is the answer that I choose to accept, so it's right because I chose to accept it." If he proposed an answer that was later proven wrong, I would expect him to renounce his prior answer and continue searching for the correct one.

Has any opinion ever been proven to be incorrect? Ever?

[gatoraubrey2]

First, LOGICALLY PROVE that rape is wrong, like you allude towards in your rant.

It is morally wrong to directly cause physical harm to another person, unless in the form of self defense or mutual hostility.

I defy you to find a situation where this doesn't hold true.

You remind me of that proof that God exists website. I'm sorry, but I don't think moral absolutism exists.

I'd LOVE to be proven wrong though.

Really? I want to see your face when a gang breaks into your house, steals your possessions, kills your family, and cripples you, and then a judge tells you that he can't find them guilty, because where they were raised, it's not wrong to do any of those things.

[gatoraubrey2]

You can continue to ignore my asking of a logical proof saying "rape is wrong".

Right above. I only type so fast.

Has any opinion ever been proven to be incorrect? Ever?

Yes, you moron. Does anyone still believe that the Earth is flat? Or that taking a bath makes you get sick? Or that the moon is made of cheese?

[InkL0sed]

I personally believe that moral relativism is the underlying problem in many of our country's issues. I believe that many of our worst policies and decisions are made by moral relativists, and that their philosophy has become so prevalent as to make intelligent debate almost impossible.

Moral relativism is the theory that "right" and "wrong" as such do not exist. Moral relativists claim that "right" may be defined differently for different people, as a result of cultural or other molding. They do not believe in statements like "rape is wrong" because it may be accepted by some people as "right."

This is all basically correct so far.

It is impossible to debate intelligently with a moral relativist because they do not perceive logic to be a valid method of arriving at conclusions about morality. Even if confronted with a logical proof, that, say, rape is wrong, the relativist would simply reply that it may be wrong for you, but not necessarily for everyone, themselves included. As a corollary to this theory, it becomes impossible to condemn anyone else's actions, because it is impossible for you to know what may be right for them.

This is not necessarily true. There is a broad array of both moral absolutism and moral relativism. One might make a moral relativistic argument that is logical, but based on premises you disagree with. Any ethical argument can be so. I don't think moral relativism is very popular with philosophers nowadays, and I agree. It leads to questions like "is murder sometimes right?"

I believe that there is a right and a wrong answer in any situation. There is a correct way and an incorrect way to do everything. Yet, as I look through these forums, I can't help but notice the huge proportion of people who have opinions with no justification, and who seem to believe that they can be right without proving it. What's worse, is that other people accept this standard without question. Why do we allow this? Why not carry on the tradition of "American pragmatism" and subject everything to the test of logic and reality before approving of it? This is what brought our country so far in such a short time, and abandoning now cannot help our prospects for the future.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

Well, now you've gone and made quite a leap. For one thing, moral absolutists don't even agree on how one should arrive at the conclusion of whether something is right or wrong. The two main modern philosophies are utilitarianism and deontology, with wildly different ideas. In utilitarianism, actions that do the greatest good for the greatest number of people are ethical. This has classic problems that are probably pretty obvious: what about the minority? Should you kill an innocent person if it means saving many more? Deontology is rather complicated, but involves whether an action is "universalizable". Anyways, my first point is that there is very little agreement among philosophers as to how to decide whether an action is morally right or wrong. Most moral questions are extremely complicated. However, that is because they do not deal with mundane issues. I hope you didn't mean that absolutely every action has moral consequence, cause than you're really off the wall.

The philosophy of ethics is far from simple, as you seem to think, and it seems to me you should read more than just some wikipedia articles. I've only taken one introductory college course, and we barely scratched the surface of what various philosophers have claimed throughout history.

[gatoraubrey2]

Well, now you've gone and made quite a leap. For one thing, moral absolutists don't even agree on how one should arrive at the conclusion of whether something is right or wrong. The two main modern philosophies are utilitarianism and deontology, with wildly different ideas. In utilitarianism, actions that do the greatest good for the greatest number of people are ethical. This has classic problems that are probably pretty obvious: what about the minority? Should you kill an innocent person if it means saving many more? Deontology is rather complicated, but involves whether an action is "universalizable". Anyways, my first point is that there is very little agreement among philosophers as to how to decide whether an action is morally right or wrong. Most moral questions are extremely complicated. However, that is because they do not deal with mundane issues. I hope you didn't mean that absolutely every action has moral consequence, cause than you're really off the wall.

The philosophy of ethics is far from simple, as you seem to think, and it seems to me you should read more than just some wikipedia articles. I've only taken one introductory college course, and we barely scratched the surface of what various philosophers have claimed throughout history.

I know it's far from simple, which is why I'm having trouble answering Woodruff's query. I referenced the Wiki article because it's simple, and I don't think anyone cares enough to read a philosophy textbook to post in this thread.

And yes, I think most interactions at least do have moral consequences, but there's no way with our minds to comprehend most of them, especially as they can expand through multiple people over a period of time.

But we're not just looking at moral questions, either. In fact, I was thinking a lot about factual questions as I was writing the OP. Like, "is it legal to..." or "am I allowed to..." Relativists often write these questions off as irrelevant, because in their eyes, what's legal or allowed may vary depending upon the person or situation. However, I believe these to be universal for the proper group (legal for citizens of a certain place, allowed per rules of a place/organization, etc). Those are also elements, in my mind, or deciding whether an action is morally right, since you're starting off in the hole by breaking a law or rule.

[Army of GOD]

Has any opinion ever been proven to be incorrect? Ever?

Yes, you moron. Does anyone still believe that the Earth is flat? Or that taking a bath makes you get sick? Or that the moon is made of cheese?

Are those opinions? You moron?

EDIT: Was it morally right for you to call me a moron?

Double ninja edit: Agh, I know we're just going to get in a fit about definitions here, like always. To me, the definition of an opinion means that it cannot be disproved. If it is disprovable, it is not an opinion.

[gatoraubrey2]

Has any opinion ever been proven to be incorrect? Ever?

Yes, you moron. Does anyone still believe that the Earth is flat? Or that taking a bath makes you get sick? Or that the moon is made of cheese?

Are those opinions? You moron?

EDIT: Was it morally right for you to call me a moron?

Yes, they are opinions. They certainly aren't facts. But you've raise another point, which is that morality has a set standard of right and wrong just like mathematics or physics. Moral right can be proven.

And if you choose to be a moron, you're going to be called one. Go bother someone else.

[Haggis_McMutton]

First, LOGICALLY PROVE that rape is wrong, like you allude towards in your rant.

It is morally wrong to directly cause physical harm to another person, unless in the form of self defense or mutual hostility.

I defy you to find a situation where this doesn't hold true.

Why is it morally wrong to cause physical harm to a person?

You've claimed a very difficult thing, that you can logically prove that rape is wrong. If you could indeed do that I'm guessing you'd make a large chunk of philosophy obsolete.(remember you need to start from axioms: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom in your proof)

Is throwing a rock in the lake morally wrong? If not why is throwing a rock in a slightly differently organized pile of matter(aka a human) morally wrong?

What is inherently wrong in chunks of matter interacting in any way with other chunks of matter? Do you think the universe cares?

[Woodruff]

Secondly, "right" and "wrong" are very subjective. You take rape, which is a very extreme example. Let's take a less extreme one...cheating on a test...I remember back in 10h grade we did this survey thing where we put situations down on a scale going from "totally right" to "totally wrong" (ok, those two were paraphrased, but those are the two extremes anyway). Cheating on a test was one of those examples. While I put it about 1/3 of the way on the wrong side, the MAJORITY of the class put it on the "right" side. While I still think I was right, I did see their point. You, however, probably think what you think is right and wrong is totally absolute.

Interesting...I'm very curious what justification could be used for stating that it is "right" to cheat on a high school test. Care to take a shot at that one?

Ok, well, this one time in 8th grade French, our teacher mentioned some Spanish words to relate to what we were talking about or something like that. He didn't even write them in the board, or tell us to throw them in our notes...he just mentioned them. The next day, he quizzes us on them. I had no idea how to even spell them. In fact, not a single kid in my class passed the quiz. If people who were in my class told me that if the they had the opportunity to cheat somehow, they would've, because they thought what he did was utterly unfair and that they didn't think it'd be immoral to do so.

Ok, but that doesn't justify the very general "cheat on a test", it only justifies one very specific instance.

Thirdly, no one in the world has to justify anything to you. In fact, you're lucky if they do. I know I don't always justify my opinion, because it's just like, my opinion, man. I know there are people who would agree and disagree with it, and honestly I see little point in defending it sometimes (SOMETIMES).

Ok, sure...but if you want people to take your statements seriously, then that justification is necessary. And if you don't want people to take your statements seriously, then why make them (on serious subjects, of course)? Otherwise, you wind up being someone that just gets roundly ignored as a waste of space.

Well, you know me well enough to know that I'm a pretty un-serious person. I do however post in threads like these, and try to justify my opinion as well as I can.
I've seen to much stubborn so far in my life that I've lost faith in arguing. You know as well as I do that people will believe in whatever the f*ck they believe in no matter what. But that's just me...other people are different.

If I believed that, I wouldn't bother with these fora...so obviously, I disagree.

[Army of GOD]

And if you choose to be a moron, you're going to be called one. Go bother someone else.

Ok, I'm being 100% serious here, but do you honestly think it is morally "right" to say this?

I am not trying to bother you. At all. I am trying to have a legitimate debate with you. You continue to act like you're so high and mighty though. Don't worry, interwebz bully, you can has my lunch money.

[Woodruff]

First, LOGICALLY PROVE that rape is wrong, like you allude towards in your rant.

It is morally wrong to directly cause physical harm to another person, unless in the form of self defense or mutual hostility.
I defy you to find a situation where this doesn't hold true.

What if that person enjoys and requests the physical harm being done to theirself?

[Army of GOD]

Secondly, "right" and "wrong" are very subjective. You take rape, which is a very extreme example. Let's take a less extreme one...cheating on a test...I remember back in 10h grade we did this survey thing where we put situations down on a scale going from "totally right" to "totally wrong" (ok, those two were paraphrased, but those are the two extremes anyway). Cheating on a test was one of those examples. While I put it about 1/3 of the way on the wrong side, the MAJORITY of the class put it on the "right" side. While I still think I was right, I did see their point. You, however, probably think what you think is right and wrong is totally absolute.

Interesting...I'm very curious what justification could be used for stating that it is "right" to cheat on a high school test. Care to take a shot at that one?

Ok, well, this one time in 8th grade French, our teacher mentioned some Spanish words to relate to what we were talking about or something like that. He didn't even write them in the board, or tell us to throw them in our notes...he just mentioned them. The next day, he quizzes us on them. I had no idea how to even spell them. In fact, not a single kid in my class passed the quiz. If people who were in my class told me that if the they had the opportunity to cheat somehow, they would've, because they thought what he did was utterly unfair and that they didn't think it'd be immoral to do so.

Ok, but that doesn't justify the very general "cheat on a test", it only justifies one very specific instance.

But isn't one example enough to show that OP was wrong?

I do think that cheating on tests IS, in general, wrong, so it's hard for me to express their opinion. But isn't a single instance enough to prove that moral absolutism doesn't exist?

Or are we going to play the exceptions game? Where there are an infinite amount of situations in which the morality of a situation changes and there are an infinite amount of "rights" and "wrongs".

Thirdly, no one in the world has to justify anything to you. In fact, you're lucky if they do. I know I don't always justify my opinion, because it's just like, my opinion, man. I know there are people who would agree and disagree with it, and honestly I see little point in defending it sometimes (SOMETIMES).

Ok, sure...but if you want people to take your statements seriously, then that justification is necessary. And if you don't want people to take your statements seriously, then why make them (on serious subjects, of course)? Otherwise, you wind up being someone that just gets roundly ignored as a waste of space.

Well, you know me well enough to know that I'm a pretty un-serious person. I do however post in threads like these, and try to justify my opinion as well as I can.
I've seen to much stubborn so far in my life that I've lost faith in arguing. You know as well as I do that people will believe in whatever the f*ck they believe in no matter what. But that's just me...other people are different.

If I believed that, I wouldn't bother with these fora...so obviously, I disagree.

Well, I wonder how many people have actually changed their opinions on here (legitimately curious).

But, we both know that you do have a larger interest in arguing than me (or debating...the connotation isn't supposed to be negative) and that you're better at it, so I can see why you come back.

I don't really join in debates often, because I know I won't be able to even make a dent. My writing skills suck, and I have a hard time expressing myself. But there are other things that bring me to these fora other than just debating.

But, then again, we are two completely different people.

I mean, I fucking HATE Star Trek.

[Blinkadyblink]

Merriam-Webster defines "moral" as "conforming to a standard of right behavior; sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment"

I assume that you will agree that different people follow different standards of right behavior, so the question is, what criteria could you use to decide whether one standard is better than another?

It is morally wrong to directly cause physical harm to another person, unless in the form of self defense or mutual hostility.

I defy you to find a situation where this doesn't hold true.

And this is circular logic. If you want to prove that rape is morally wrong you can't start out with the statement that rape (along with all other acts of violence) are morally wrong.

[Army of GOD]

It is morally wrong to directly cause physical harm to another person, unless in the form of self defense or mutual hostility.

I defy you to find a situation where this doesn't hold true.

They are going to set off a bomb which is in a room filled with people and you (the one who is causing physical harm) are not in this room and will not be affected by the bomb in any way.

You remind me of that proof that God exists website. I'm sorry, but I don't think moral absolutism exists.

I'd LOVE to be proven wrong though.

Really? I want to see your face when a gang breaks into your house, steals your possessions, kills your family, and cripples you, and then a judge tells you that he can't find them guilty, because where they were raised, it's not wrong to do any of those things.

What the Hell are you talking about?

EDIT: And you want to point out other people's logical fallacies (in another thread, I can dig it up if you like)? Talk about hypocritical.

[Haggis_McMutton]

Well, I wonder how many people have actually changed their opinions on here (legitimately curious).

Once we were talking in the GH forum about whether teleportation done by deconstructing you atom by atom, reading the information, sending the information to another place and then reconstructing you from said information meant that you are dead or not.
And i totally changed my opinion after hearing Visaonis and Ditocoafs arguments(at least i think it was them). Those guys should get a fucking medal, changing someones opinion over the internet about anything is way harder than winning 500 risk games or whatever.

But, we both know that you do have a larger interest in arguing than me (or debating...the connotation isn't supposed to be negative) and that you're better at it, so I can see why you come back.

I don't really join in debates often, because I know I won't be able to even make a dent. My writing skills suck, and I have a hard time expressing myself. But there are other things that bring me to these fora other than just debating.

I don't really enjoy debating per se. I enjoy trying to come to a better understanding, or at least confirming that my current understanding is pretty good, and debate is one way to do that.

I mean, I fucking HATE Star Trek.

I'm sorry, now you die ...

[Baron Von PWN]

What is Moral is quite clearly highly dependent on societal norms. Some places consider the height of immorality to engage in homosexuality others are completely fine with it. Some think it perfectly moral to execute criminals other think death penalty is immoral.
claiming a single universal absolute seems somewhat ridiculous.