Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2007 April
2005 February
2005 January
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
2004 February
2004 January
2003 December
2003 November
2003 October
2003 September
My Links
My essay: The Immorality of Marriage
The Onion
SelectSmart
Games to test your logic, faith, morality, and philosophical ideas!
Tom Robbins Quotes
Funny Name Analysis
Bushisms
Letters From the Earth by Mark Twain
Why I Am Not A Christian by Bertrand Russell
Life, Liberty, Logic
Wasting My Time
RedTigress's Blog
Jimmytherighteous's Blog
Octo6er's Blog
Nivek's Blog
Magicjoejoe's Blog
Littlemrmahatma's Blog
Kurtmaddox's Blog
Winstonsmith's Blog
Drforbush's Blog
Juniperflux's Blog
Iron Blog Religion!
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
| Moral relativity? Or subjectivity? |
| 06.30.04 (9:21 pm) [edit] |
|
Another post courtesy of [url=http://redtigress.tblog.com]RedTigress'[/url] inspiration, I would simply like to present a different approach to the discussion of moral relativity addressed in her post, which you can read [url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]here[/url]. There is an error in thought regarding absolute or subjective morality. Morals cannot seemingly be absolute unless there is no variance among individual moralities. Accordingly, morals cannot seemingly be subjective (dependent on the individual/society/cultur e) and still have a meaning. Let me explain. If it is argued that morality is absolute, it implies that there is an ultimate Morality, a universal standard by which to distinguish right and wrong. This would only be possible if all systems of morality maintain the same standards and same values. This simply isn't realistic. Cultural values tend to dictate morality, and views of morality vary from culture to culture, as well as among individuals. It is obvious that we do not all maintain the same moral code. Under the flawed thought in place, this would 'prove' that no absolute moral code can exist. Similarly, if we approach morality from a subjectivist view, we contend that moral codes are only subject to the ideals of the individual. This implies (again, under the flawed thought often used) that, in the grand scheme of things, morality can not be judged from the outside- no one can condemn another's moral values. This would mean that morals are ultimately meaningless, or at least unimportant. If one person's views of morality are to be held in equal regard to your own, what does it matter which moral code you follow? Well, the problem with these misconceptions concerning morality is oversimplification. There seems to be an abhorrence of considering a gray area when it comes to morality. This is certainly a debatable subject, but my opinion is that there can be 'absolutes,' but that they may simultaneously only apply to the individual. I have very strong moral standards that I would view as absolutes, but others may not comply to my views. There may also be moral 'absolutes' that vary according to situation. Most would agree that killing is wrong, but that self-defense may require killing in some situations, and that is not immoral. If values are subjective, it does not follow that they are meaningless. In fact, that perhaps gives them more meaning. The individual must determine which values to accept, and discerning morality is what gives it meaning. If there was an absolute moral code by which we all naturally adhered without consideration, would that be meaningful? Now, I do agree with RedTigress in her conclusion that we must all as individuals examine, determine, and express our moral views. We may not all agree on what is to be considered right and wrong, but it is important to know what you personally value, and what you as an individual stand for. |
posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 06.30.04 (6:29 pm)
thoughtful blog, but redtigress has a tendency to do what bush does: namely, twist the meaning of "self-defense" to justify bloody aggressions by IDF to massacre innocent palestinians. that isn't moral. that is illogical orwellian rationalization of criminal activities
posted by: RedTigress (reply)
post date: 06.30.04 (6:32 pm)
Well thank you.
I actually agree with you that everything is no so black and white. There are most definatly gray areas and things do vary by situation. I do think, out of all of the individual ideals out there, that there are most definatly moral issues that trancend accross the board and are consistant in just about all things. For example, I used in my post hijacking airplanes and crashing them into buildings, killing thousands of innocent people. In just about ALL cultures (even in 'true' Islam) that is unacceptable and evil behavior.
I think that what is important is to understand where other people are coming from, but we must hold our own morals and practices near and dear.
Great post.
posted by: DragonBait22 (reply)
post date: 06.30.04 (6:33 pm)
Reply to: newbie
Huh, where'd that come from? Did I miss RedTigress calling for the massacre of innocent palestinians somewhere- particulary on this blog?
posted by: RedTigress (reply)
post date: 06.30.04 (6:41 pm)
Reply to: newbie
All right,whoever you are who is afraid to show their "face."
AD-HOMINEM attack!
So let's examine what you just said, shall we?
It's so rediculous it's almost hilarious. . . almost.
"twist the meaning of "self-defense" to justify bloody aggressions by IDF to massacre innocent palestinians."
Ok, so then. #1 cite your source where I have taken a "bloody aggression" and rationalized it as ok. #2 cite your source of a bloody aggression by the IDF. #3 Please tell me how and why you believe that the Palestinians in question were innocent. Are you the judge and jurry?
Speaking of illogical, you don't seem to think before you type. Orell is spinning in his grave right now because of you.
And you shouldn't make excuses for terrorist aggressions against civilian men, women and children. You truly make me ill. It is so conveinient that you point fingers and make stupid remarks that have nothing to do with the issue.
I realise you are trying to bait me. No one could be that stupid, could they?
Self-Defense: When someone is trying to kill you, protect yourself.
That is my definition of self-defense. You have a problem with it? Go join hamas, they're looking for a new leader. That is, in less you're already a card-carrying member.
posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply)
post date: 06.30.04 (7:28 pm)
Morality has to be taken in context. Its the difference between a commandment-based Teleological morality and a context-based Deontological morality. And then there are the whackos who believe in no morality. Ha, let's see someone make a coherent reply to THAT!
posted by: jbfs (reply)
post date: 07.01.04 (4:04 am)
Reply to: RedTigress
I'm confused... either you're saying that what you're about to say is ad hominem and shouldn't be read... or you're saying that the "newbie's" post was ad hominem and then proceeding to use ad hominem arguments yourself... either way, your post doesn't do much to defend your view...
posted by: CheckItOut (reply)
post date: 07.01.04 (8:15 am)
Reply to: RedTigress
Many of the attacks carried out by the IDF against innocent Palestinians are NOT self-defense. They are wanton acts of aggressive murder. You are so biased as to not be credible.
posted by: littlemrmahatma (reply)
post date: 07.01.04 (10:32 am)
We have individual morality which obviously differs person-to-person and then we have group morality whether the group is religious, governmental, societal - which compete and aspire to be the reference for individuals. And it never quite cleanly works out, does it?
posted by: LarryConley (reply)
post date: 07.01.04 (5:20 pm)
Reply to: CheckItOut
All of the 'attacks' by the IDF have been against specific targets for specific reasons. Now civilians have been killed in the process of these attacks and it is regretable. However unlike the Palistians civilians are not the desired target.
posted by: juniperflux (reply)
post date: 07.03.04 (10:19 pm)
I believe strongly in individual morality, but take great issue with imposed morality. Laws based on an individual's moral code do nothing but serve as sharpening stones for those whose views differ. As America celebrates its Independence Day, I think it's important to keep in mind precisely what our nation sought independence from... and why we are still, in so many instances, still fighting the same battles.
Sorry to agree with you again. :)
posted by: revdradam (reply)
post date: 07.06.04 (8:12 am)
Reply to: juniperflux
I agree, what is freedom other than the ability to disagree and act upon your disagreement?
Don't agree with DragonBait too much- or she won't leave comments on your blog :-P
posted by: juniperflux (reply)
post date: 07.06.04 (9:26 am)
Reply to: revdradam
Well, if she'd stop being right for awhile... :)
posted by: RedTigress (reply)
post date: 07.06.04 (1:10 pm)
Reply to: CheckItOut
Want to see biased? Look in the mirror.
posted by: RedTigress (reply)
post date: 07.06.04 (1:12 pm)
Reply to: jbfs
I was saying that newbie's ad-hominem attack was uncalled for.
And I guess defense is in the eye of the defender. Mr. Newbie made a personal attack against me, I defended it with logic and looked at the issue.
I'm sure you'd have done such a much better job. :)
posted by: jbfs (reply)
post date: 07.06.04 (3:04 pm)
Reply to: RedTigress
"And I guess defense is in the eye of the defender. Mr. Newbie made a personal attack against me, I defended it with logic and looked at the issue."
Let's see here. I guess the following were based on logic and the issues?
"you don't seem to think before you type"
"Orell [sic] is spinning in his grave right now because of you"
"It is so convenient that you [...] make stupid remarks"
"No one could be that stupid, could they?"
"Go join hamas [...] in less [sic] you're already a card-carrying member."
Nothing ad hominem about those statements at all, is there? It's great and all that you know the name of a logical fallacy or two, but pointing out that others are using logical fallacies does not make your argument any more (or less) valid, and it only serves to discredit you when you yell out that someone is using a fallacious argument and then proceed to use the exact same fallacy in rebuttal. Just something to think about. I have not read to what it is that you two are referring, so I know nothing of whose argument is more valid.
posted by: mblog (reply)
post date: 07.07.04 (10:39 am)
Reply to: jbfs
Those points of yours are valid, but you left out the crux of her argument; she simply did not do what she was accused of.
Furthermore, the statements by Newbie were blatantly false. The IDF does not target innocent Palestinians. They go after known terrorists.
There is no question that innocent people get killed in the process, as happens in any war. I personally think that's too high a price and they are not taking enough steps to prevent that kind of damage. But saying that the IDF targeted innocent Palestinians or that Bush waged a war against innocent Iraqis is just political propaganda. Even if I don't agree with Bush's war, it's not fair to say that the innocent Iraqis were targets.
An ad hominem attack is not always irrelevant. I can call newbie a coward, and you can call it an ad hominem attack. But the truth is that newbie won't give a name, and is hiding behind that as an excuse not to have to support his/her own arguments. I think that's relevant. Newbie is doing the electronic equivalent of hiding behind a corner and throwing rocks.
Furthermore, your own comment was full of ad hominem attacks. You need to differentiate between hurried typing and bad logic. Your insistence on pointing out errors in her post were not, as usage dictates, to show that it was not a transcription error on your part. It was meant as an ad hominem attack and you know it. Your repeated use of "sic" (which should be in parentheses, by the way, and not square brackets) does not show problems with her reasoning. It is blatantly clear to readers what she said in her original post, rendering that unnecessary.
posted by: mblog (reply)
post date: 07.07.04 (10:46 am)
There are some things for which morality is just about universal, if not completely universal. There are other aspects of morality that are cultural. In the latter cases, it makes less sense to say that those things are inherently bad. If they were, then the prohibition would be universal. Instead, we can say that they are bad according to a certain culture.
One of the problems with morality is not necessarily the supposed absoluteness, but the ambiguity in the related dogma. Many of the groups that claim adherence to absolute rules will in fact recognize degrees of differentiation. Indeed, they will often say that "that's what t really means." But when the dogma is so open to interpretation, an authoritative interpretation is needed.
posted by: jbfs (reply)
post date: 07.07.04 (2:23 pm)
Reply to: mblog
Speculate some more, please.
1) as I said, I was not entering into the argument itself. I have no knowledge of the argument. I was simply addressing her use of fallacies in a post where she pointed out the fallacies in someone else's argument.
2) That newbie is not presenting his name does not IN AND OF ITSELF make his arguments any less valid. The validity of an argument is based on the argument itself, not on who said it.
3) My use of sic was purely to point out misspellings and had nothing to do with my arguments themselves. And, by the way, there are some people (http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/usage/sic , http://webster.commnet.edu/grammar/grammarlogs4/grammarlogs534.htm , http://academic.bowdoin.edu/WritingGuides/writing/presenting/html/integrate.shtml , http://www.bridgewater.edu/WritingCenter/Workshops/quotingtips.htm ) who would disagree with you on what punctuation to wrap sic in.
4) The two places that I used sic were in her saying that Orwell was spinning in his grave because of newbie (personal attack; has nothing to do with the argument at hand) and her implying that he was a member of hamas (what does that have to do with the argument?). I think it should be obvious to the reader that the examples themselves, with or without my pedantic use of sic, were examples of ad hominem attacks.
Now, if you'd like to go back and actually try to find something wrong with what I said, then feel free, but in the meantime, please don't discredit yourself with these pointless and erroneous attacks on my comments.
posted by: DragonBait22 (reply)
post date: 07.07.04 (4:32 pm)
Reply to: juniperflux
"Well, if she'd stop being right for awhile... :) "
Hmm, maybe you should challenge me on something. ;)
posted by: juniperflux (reply)
post date: 07.07.04 (4:50 pm)
Reply to: DragonBait22
Wait! Are you asking ME to be your muse????? Hmmmm????? I thought RT had rights to that highly coveted position? :)
posted by: DragonBait22 (reply)
post date: 07.07.04 (5:23 pm)
Reply to: juniperflux
Well, RT's out of town. ;)
And there's always room for multiple muses!
