For all you moral relitivists

scottlittlefield17 · Post by **scottlittlefield17** » Fri Jan 22, 2010 2:38 pm

In the Nuremberg Nazi war crime trials the defense attorneys argued that the German defendants were only doing what their culture taught them. They were taught it and believed and they were only doing what their culture deemed morally correct. The only way the Allied lawyers could get a conviction was to cite the fact that there is a certain moral code that all men must go by. And if that code is broken they must be punished. So isn't it true that there are some moral absolutes? And if not, do you disagree with the guilty rulings the allied judges handed down?

Compassionist · Post by **Compassionist** » Fri Jan 22, 2010 10:29 pm

The thing is, if one has enough power, one can get away with anything. If you have enough power, you can make anything legal e.g. slavery used to be legal. For example, the Chinese got away with invading and taking over Tibet and the Europeans got away with colonisation and slavery. Much as I dislike the phrase 'Might is right' this is exactly what happens in practice. People kill and eat other animals and plants, other animals eat other animals and plants. Life is a ruthlessly meritocratic rat race for survival, reproduction and supremacy. There is nothing fair about who lives how and who dies how. The able enough survive and reproduce in comfort and luxury while the unable die out. Such is life.

There is a verse in the Bible which I think is sensible for living in a community. Philippians 2:4 (New International Version) "Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others." Unfortunately, life is full of conflict of interest and people (and other organisms) tend to act selfishly when faced with a conflict of interest. While this is understandable, it is also the root of all sorts of suffering. It is extremely difficult to balance all competing interests in a world this complex. It is quicker and easier to be selfish, hence, that is what happens most of the time.

Although there are instances of self-sacrifice, the self-sacrificers are always punished by reality: "No good deed goes unpunished." For example, I have donated and volunteered and have consequently deprived myself and my family of money. In a world like this, the selfish prosper and the selfless perish. The solution is to be neither selfish, nor selfless but to look after oneself and others. It is easier said than done.

scottlittlefield17 · Post by **scottlittlefield17** » Fri Jan 22, 2010 11:54 pm

This is on a larger scale, the same as the application of laws on an individual living in a society. Not because morals are absolute necessarily, but because we collectively impose rules on members of society for the smooth running of society.

Similarly, Germany was held to the standards of international law held collectively by the community of nations of which it was a participating member.

Why, why do we feel the need to impose rules on members of society. Why are your morals so good that everybody must adopt them? Why do we need to meddle in other people business?

What laws pertaining to morality do gangs is NYC have in common with elites in Paris? And which of these laws is also shared by every culture?

Murder is probably the biggest ones. Sure you can murder anybody you want to in gang in NYC as long as its not a fellow member but if you kill the big boss you better be sure you are going to get it. The elite in Paris may be a little more conservative in the application but it is the same general principle

JBlack · Post by **JBlack** » Sat Jan 23, 2010 2:25 am

scottlittlefield17 wrote:
What laws pertaining to morality do gangs is NYC have in common with elites in Paris? And which of these laws is also shared by every culture?
Murder is probably the biggest ones. Sure you can murder anybody you want to in gang in NYC as long as its not a fellow member but if you kill the big boss you better be sure you are going to get it. The elite in Paris may be a little more conservative in the application but it is the same general principle

If gang members were to kill members of their own gang, that'd be disasterous to the survival of the gang. So not murdering your own is a rule adopted by gangs for self-preservation of the gang, and not for any real moral reason. In fact, often times, if a gangster kills his boss, then he is now the new boss.

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Sat Jan 23, 2010 11:24 am

scottlittlefield17 wrote: Why, why do we feel the need to impose rules on members of society. Why are your morals so good that everybody must adopt them? Why do we need to meddle in other people business?

Humans are a social species. Our selective advantage is in being able to work together as a society. For that rules that enhance the effective running of society are required.

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:42 pm

McCulloch wrote:
scottlittlefield17 wrote: Why, why do we feel the need to impose rules on members of society. Why are your morals so good that everybody must adopt them? Why do we need to meddle in other people business?

Humans are a social species. Our selective advantage is in being able to work together as a society. For that rules that enhance the effective running of society are required.

And they need to be flexible and change with the growth and development of the society. If morality were absolute then they would still be sacrificing children to Yahweh.
Morality is grounded in our social relationships and learned.

scottlittlefield17 · Post by **scottlittlefield17** » Sat Jan 23, 2010 5:28 pm

Humans are a social species. Our selective advantage is in being able to work together as a society. For that rules that enhance the effective running of society are requir

Alright, but why YOUR morals, why not Hitlers? Why do you need to impose rules on those who do not accept your version of proper morality? This sounds eerily like your arguments against Christianity.

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Sat Jan 23, 2010 8:00 pm

scottlittlefield17 wrote:
Humans are a social species. Our selective advantage is in being able to work together as a society. For that rules that enhance the effective running of society are requir
Alright, but why YOUR morals, why not Hitlers? Why do you need to impose rules on those who do not accept your version of proper morality? This sounds eerily like your arguments against Christianity.

What arguments are you referring to?
What is his argument against Christianity and how are they the same?
It isn't his morality it is ours and yours too. It is morality because it is shared. Long before we worked together as a society we worked together as families and small groups where reciprocal altruism is understood. You do onto others as you would have them do unto you. Maybe that is why the rule is found in so many cultures even predating Jesus and his version. I was reading where a chimp was getting beat up by other chimps and his friend didn't help despite his pleas so he went after his friend. We evolved with a sense of justice or fairness along with out sense of others being related. A two year old is the most aggressive person on earth and they learn to get along and to see the world through the eyes of others.
As we get larger and more complex social relationships we expand who we are related to and human rights are an extension of ourselves.
We don't just accept others or their morality until we know and understand them.
Then we start making our rules so we can get along and relate.
There is no need for an absolute morality as we are still growing and changing and it might hinder our learning while there are ways of treating each other that we need to share when we share in social behaviour.

scottlittlefield17 · Post by **scottlittlefield17** » Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:55 pm

If culture decides our morality then why are we messing with other peoples culture? And doesn't it fly in the face of "the survival of the fittest" to involve ourselves in others business?

Goat · Post by **Goat** » Sat Jan 23, 2010 11:25 pm

scottlittlefield17 wrote:If culture decides our morality then why are we messing with other peoples culture? And doesn't it fly in the face of "the survival of the fittest" to involve ourselves in others business?

It is because we have a huge sense of hubris. Our culture reinforced itself by imposing itself on other cultures. It's part of game theory...look it up.

We have a set of morality that was trained into us, and therefore we think we have the best morality. That might be true,but that is what is trained into us.

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Sun Jan 24, 2010 12:01 am

scottlittlefield17 wrote:If culture decides our morality then why are we messing with other peoples culture? And doesn't it fly in the face of "the survival of the fittest" to involve ourselves in others business?

Who is "we"?
How does it fly in the face of "the survival of the fittest"?
I can't but see "the survival of the fittest" in this context as some straw man.
It isn't just culture, it is also language and experiences.
Cultures that get along, trade and support each other will most likely have an advantage over others that don't. Morality is all about getting along.
How does it fly in the face?

Debating Christianity and Religion

For all you moral relitivists

Is there moral absolutes

For all you moral relitivists