I'll try and avoid getting too sentimental, but I just had to thank JY for his touching blog, "Helping DragonBait22."
So, let's read what James had to say and I'll even respond directly to his statements.
[i]It gave me a headache, but I gave in to temptation and read Dragonbait22's blog "Moral relativity versus relativity of morality".[/i]
Aww, I'm sorry my blog gave you a headache. Now you know how all the rest of us feel when we read many of your posts.
[i]Dragon insists that she misunderstood what we Christian fanatics were talking about, and so she means to clarify, yet again, something that isn't hard.[/i]
If you'll notice, I said that it was tempting to use the term Christian fanatics to describe the author(s) of the article I read. They clearly were. I wasn't calling anyone else a Christian fanatic. Anyway, I guess it isn't that hard to understand, and maybe I'm just stupid, but there are different ways of interpreting relativism, which you made clear.
[i]While I think her definition of morality will suffice,[/i]
Hmm, I wonder if you'd think my standards of morality would suffice...
[i]she seems to have a real problem with relativity. The word "relativism" means: "a view that ethical truths depend on individuals and the groups holding them."[/i]
Okay, fair enough. I think that this definition leaves open the possibility for interpretation, though. Does that mean that the validity of ethical truths depends on individuals and the groups holding them, or does it mean that morality is unimportant because all moral systems are equal?
[i]Moral relativism is pretty clear now, right?[/i]
Obviously not, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion, again.
[i]Ok back to her blog.[/i]
Are you sure you read my blog?
[i]This is what she says:
Part 1: Moral means right, and Christian fanatics think that I'm saying their notions of what is right are not important. I'm not saying that at all, silly![/i]
To borrow from you, James, ugh. I said that 'moral' only relates to what is right, leaving out what is wrong. It's not the same as morality, which involves distinguishing between right and wrong. I don't think Christian fanatics think I'm saying their notions of what is right are unimportant, do they? What I'm saying is that morality is individualistic in nature. It isn't universal.
[i]Part 2: What I am saying is that moral relativism is about "promoting the acceptance of the validity others' views of right and wrong." Or, "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."[/i]
Yeah, the dictionary's definition of relativity is: "The quality or state of being relative." Now, I don't have the best dictionary, but oh well. It gives the following for the definition of relative: "Considered with respect to others." So that's where I came up with my assertion that the relativity of morality must mean distinguishing between right and wrong, considered with respect to others.
[i]Ugh...
Ok, first of all Christianity believes its moral code is absolute. Christ's moral truth is absolute, and if you choose not to accept it, ok, fine, but it is not as "valid" as mine. Since Christians believe in the absoluteness of their moral foundation, that is the standard to judge the morality of other belief systems. We judge belief systems, not people.[/i]
Well, that's great. I know that Christians believe their moral code is the only valid code, just as they believe their religion is the one true religion. But what about those of us who aren't Christian? Does that mean that we can't have a moral code since, to us, Christ's moral code is no more meaningful than any other human's? No, it just demonstrates my point (which, I'll admit, I didn't articulate very well). We all develop codes of morality, maybe based on others' and often in consideration to our society. We all hold our moral code to be absolute, otherwise there would be no point in implementing morality. But morality is only absolute to the individual. James, being a Catholic, I would assume that my moral code is better than yours. As I'm sure you would assume the opposite. This is because I have very high, absolute standards of morality that are not the same as your absolute standards. To me, the most important things in terms of morality are to never use force, to always avoid dishonesty, and to always consider the implications of your actions in regard to others as well as yourself. These ideas guide my moral framework and are considered in every decision I make (for example, I would never marry because I view it as forcing love, I'll immediately lose respect for anyone who lies, and I'll always consider things from others' perspectives). Your morals guide you similarly, but likely to different conclusions. And that's why morality is not universally absolute, but only absolute to the individual.
[i]Whatever Dragon wants to call it, moral relativism is, indeed, a moral system itself that passes judgment on others through its beliefs (mostly against faithful Christians). [/i]
Exactly, we do judge other moral systems- that is the best way of determining our own moral codes. I'm not sure why it is you say it is mostly against faithful Christians. Maybe because Christians are generally not very likely to accept the possibility that a non-Christian could have morals too.
[i]If you notice, saying that everything is valid is the same thing as saying it is equal. Talk about semantics![/i]
No, saying that everything is valid means that everything is worthy of consideration and comparison.
[i]If everything is valid, everything is acceptable. In terms of moral belief systems, one isn't any more absolute than the other, then. Because none of them are true (absolute) they have to be equal in that respect. Therefore moral relativists can cleverly step outside of these belief systems and say they are all equal in their failure to know truth (we can't know it).[/i]
You couldn't have possibly missed my point any more. All moral systems are absolute, but there is no one code of morality that is universally absolute; that is, there is no moral code accepted by all. This is why we compare moral systems.
[i]Not surprisingly, folks with a lot of time on their hands-- westerners, mainly-- have made this belief system the staple of thought among "intellectuals".
Yet the only reason they're able to make that claim in the first place is because they are raised (in the west) in a Judeo-Christian civilization.
When Dragon says "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.", she fails to recognize something:
Where is it written that human beings have to accept the beliefs of others? Why is that necessary?[/i]
You don't have to accept my beliefs, but you should be able to acknowledge them and consider them, in comparison to your own. That's all I'm saying.
[i]Christians believe that their views on right and wrong are absolute, and that moral relativism, which is regarding all moral systems as valid, hence, equal, is quite unnecessary and illogical.[/i]
Again, that's great if you're a Christian. But you seem very negligent of the fact that we are not all Christians, and you obviously aren't going to accept the possibility that maybe Christianity isn't right. That's okay, those are your beliefs. But your discussion leaves out all non-Christians. Not all moral systems are equal, but they all deserve to be acknowledged, that's how they're valid.
[i]Dragon is delusional if she believes that the morality of forced clitorectomies for 7 year old girls, stoning a woman if she's not a virgin, sacrificing humans, or flying a plane into a skyscraper in order to reach heaven are "acceptable", "valid", or "equal" to every other moral system.[/i]
Yeah, I would be delusional if I thought all that was moral. But those actions all violate my code of morality, so I see them as immoral. My moral system isn't universal, though, so others may have differing opinions. Those opinions should be considered, and then we can determine which moral code is best.
[i]That's a cop-out argument. Yet moral relativists are the very first to judge us Christian fanatics using their own ideology. The only moral system that isn't equally valid to all other moral systems, apparently, is moral relativism itself. It's better![/i]
Right. You lost me somewhere. Anyway, to state it as simply as I can (remember, I'm not claiming to be an expert or a genius or even that smart, and I'm not an English major- I could make mistakes), morality is absolute for the individual, but not universal.
posted by: SamAdams (reply)
post date: 02.09.04 (6:58 pm)
Of course, Jesus Christ (who some forget was the inspiration behind Christianity) preached tolerance, forgiveness, redemption (forgiveness of sins), charity and caring for others-- THINGS THAT JAMESYERIAN and the other hypocritical neo-con arm-chair chicken-hawks & hypocrites DON'T COMPREHEND ... and certainly DON'T PRACTICE...
posted by: Nivek (reply)
post date: 02.10.04 (8:44 am)
"To me, the most important things in terms of morality are to never use force, to always avoid dishonesty, and to always consider the implications of your actions in regard to others as well as yourself." Right On!!
posted by: Gonzosc1 (reply)
post date: 02.10.04 (5:11 pm)
This rocks!!!!!!
yes sam hit it on the head. I think JY needs to read his bible some more. In many faith systems it is stated to look outwards for answers. ex,, the bible tells us that god will be worshiped under many names, another ex,, the dala lama tells us the when the creator returns his name will be love... if these two moral systems can co-exsist than any of them can. no systems is without flaw and to think that each of our own systems is without flaw and self induced insanity!!!!!!!
I love it when people get their buttons pushed. I don't even know what JY was trying to say, except what came across is that he disagreed with you and didn't like it very much. Now what I know for sure is that everybody decides on what they want their morals to be. A person can choose to follow a set of rules by someone else or make judgements on their own, like on the ever so popular issue premarital sex which is a sin to some and oh so liberating to others. Of course morals can change for an individual also. Say for instance that I was a teenager again. My morals tell me that I have the right and obligation to disobey my parents. It is a duty to fight them on everything I can. I also see them telling me what to do as a teenager as akin to slavery and highly immoral. Fastforward to when I am a parent of a teenager. Do I have the same moral set? Absolutely not. I feel and know it is my moral obligation to tell my child what to do, so they grow up right learning the right things. It is a complete 180 from my previous beliefs. Of course if I were a Christian I would have been wrong as a child in not honoring my parents, and I wouldn't have been able to make that decision on my own. But not only as a Christian, it is also common in many cultures. It just happens to be what I chose to do with my life.
Reply to: magicjoejoe
Thank you, that's a good point too- morality is absolute to the individual, but only in relation to time. Morality is not only relative to others, but to time as well.
"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
