Moral relativity versus relativity of morality

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 Bookmark this site!

Moral relativity versus relativity of morality 02.07.04 (9:38 pm)   [edit] After reading an article (which, by the way, elicited many reactions of shock and appall (no, not shock and awe)) http://www.onearthasinheaven.... suggested to me by jimdoney, I believe I now realize the discrepency in the discussion of moral relativity. It lies in the definition, in semantics. Moral means what is right, and that is why those opposed to moral relativity view it is an absurd philosophy. I now understand this reasoning and acknowledge how wrong I have been in using the term. To say that what is moral, or right, isn't important because everyone has differing views is wrong and ridiculous and self-contradictory and anything else familiar in the arguments against moral relativism. It would be silly to assert that morality isn't important. While I don't think that that is the actual intention of moral relativity, my misunderstanding lies in the fact that I never considered moral relativity to be about claiming equality in the ideas of what is right, but in promoting acceptance of the validity others' views of right [i]and[/i] wrong. Moral relativity would mean, according to those opposed to it (I'm finding it increasingly difficult to refrain from using the term "Christian fanatics," given the nature of the article), that the view of what is right (and only what is right) doesn't matter because we all hold differing views. The relativity of morality, however, is quite different, and this is what I think is actually meant by the notion, though I could be wrong. Morality is distinguishing between right and wrong. Relativity, as noted previously, is consideration with respect to others. Therefore, the relativity of morality is considering what is right and wrong with respect to the notions of right and wrong of other individuals and cultures. It doesn't promote equality of moral standards, just acceptance of the fact that there can be no absolute, universal standards by which to judge morality. Comparison of ideas is paramount to cultivating a rational moral code. If morals were universally absolute, it would be illogical, and unneccessary, to compare values or to accept that others' beliefs may be just as valid as your own. But there are differing moral codes among individuals and among cultures. Morality is individual in nature because we all hold different values and have different interests, leading to different priorities in our moral codes. While I may disagree with another person or another culture's moral system, it does not invalidate their standards, nor does it invalidate my own by my admission of their validity. Unless you can prove to me that there is an absolute moral code, I'll continue to accept others' views in contrast to my own.   posted by: FalconTch (reply) post date: 02.07.04 (6:51 pm) I am what you would call an amateur theologian and philosopher. This guy however is a professional. Read these pages and give me a holler on AIM at FalconTch or email at Eagleswings75@hotmail.com http://www.carm.org/relativism.htm posted by: Gonzosc1 (reply) post date: 02.07.04 (7:11 pm) Well put and to the point. I agree with you and will go one step further; I think you have left out one relative point. that point is "time"! time is relative to all things bound to this world. went adding "time" to relativity of morality it very much proves that there is "no" absolute moral code. moral code as it is, is as individual as a finger print. add "time" and we see morals change indefinitely from the beginning of human interaction with each other. just my 2 cents posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 02.07.04 (7:34 pm) Reply to: Gonzosc1 Very good point, thank you. :) posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply) post date: 02.07.04 (7:59 pm) Yea, I remembering getting into an argument once where I claimed morals were absolute, and my friend claimed they were relative, and it took about 15 minutes to realize that we actually both agreed, we just used different terms. posted by: jimdoney (reply) post date: 02.07.04 (9:14 pm) It was not the greatest of articles I could have found. It was however the best I had a link to on my desktop as I left to go to dinner. While I understand your desire to use the term "Christian Fanatics" I am pleased that you saw enough true information in the article to see past this easy target. posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 02.07.04 (9:48 pm) Reply to: jimdoney Lol, I understand and I don't think you're a Christian fanatic or anything (though I suppose you could be, I don't really know). There were good parts to the article, but there were also too many clear biases and generalizations that were just distracting. Anyway, I hope this cleared up my views. posted by: jimdoney (reply) post date: 02.08.04 (9:40 am) Reply to: Gonzosc1 Time is not relative to anyting. Time is the one absolute that is concretly set. There is no escaping it, there is no changing, and time never deviates from its set course. You can however I guess supoort your argument there by turning it around, because with time being absolute everything thus becomes relative to it, and thus there is no other absolute when all is pushed forward and changed through time. I would still thinks it wrong but it would be better supported. posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 02.08.04 (3:18 pm) Reply to: jimdoney Yes, time is absolute (although absolute in relation to what could be a valid question, I'd rather not think that much though), which means that anything is relative to time. I think, in essence, morality is absolute- but only for the individual. The individual's morality is relative (meaning, it has to be considered in relation to and with respect) to all other individuals. Your Name: Your Comment:

"Tragically, a nation that was created by intellectuals and visionaries has now been completely taken over by venal corporate gangsters, delusional Christian fruitcakes and hopelessly shallow Texas shit-kickers." -Tom Robbins