Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
Perhaps this definition is more closely aligned with what I mean by relativism:
Relativism
n : (philosophy) the philosophical doctrine that all criteria of judgment are relative to the individuals and situations involved
The source is Dictionary.com
I can't accept your philosophy.
|
I accept your definition, and now you are changing it. Are you admitting that if the prior definition of moral relativism is correct then you are not a moral relativist? In all seriousness this definition is pretty similar. If all criteria of judgement are relative to the individuals and situations involved, then the judgement of right and wrong can change depending on the people involved in the situation. In other words, right or wrong can change from society to society and culture to culture because the people doing the judging are changing. If in Pakistan, femal circumsicission is occuring, it might be OK because from the perspective of the people doing the judging (the religiosu leaders in Pakistan) that is OK.
Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk In the first place, I think it's inconsistent to argue that a universal moral code is instinctual and that it comes from God.
|
If God wrote the code then why couldn't he hard wire it into all of us. He gave us a conscience. What is so inconsistent about that?
Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk But setting that aside, if man's sense of right and wrong is instinctual, then it would not need to be learned, which has been a cornerstone of your argument all along.
|
It does not need to be learned. I have never said it had to be learned, let alone said "having to learn it" is the cornerstone of my argument. People seem to be born with a consicence.
Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk Finally, man has consistently moved away from instinctual to learned behaviors. This is widely asserted to be what separates us from the other animals, our ability to learn and reason.
|
I agree with that.
Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk If right and wfrong were isntincutal, then we would see a common acceptance of your universal moral code from the beginning..
|
Here you lose me. I think man has always had a conscience. It is this consicience that has guided us towards the universal code. But the our conscience has always been competing with other instincts (like the survival instinct). I think over time man has been able to understand the difference between the two and separate the two.
Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk If anything, history would demonstrate a pattern of moving from behaviors that are more moral in the past to more decadent in the present, as our society moved from more primitive to more developed, or at least a consistent, higher morality from the beginning forward. ..
|
Again this is wrong, because it assumes that our conscience is our only instinct. As a wise man said it is much easier to have a conscience when you are not starving (worried about every day survival). As society advances we can focus more on our conscience and less on our survival instincts and our primal fears.
Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk I think we would agree that the opposite situation has in fact occurred...
|
Over time people in all societies seem to agree with what is right and wrong. Look at the universal declaration of human rights signed by almost every country on the planet. If there were no universal moral code our ideas of Justice would not converge.
Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk While I agree that we have a general moral code that is more respectful of human rights and of human life than many other societies, we are faced with a paradox. How can we force our superior moral code on others without violating the very rights that we profess to be enforcing?
|
People do not have a right to be unjust. Societies do not have right to act immorally. There is nothing wrong with enforcing justice. When you spread justice you are not violating anyone's rights.
Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk If we use military pressure to force those societies that practice savery to cease, are we enslaving them?
|
No we are not enslaving them. Did we enslave the Germans or the Japanese? We are spreading Justice and that is a good thing.
Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk If we invade Iraq to "bring democracy" to the oppressed Iraqis, is our forced conversion not undemocratic?
|
I don't have any problem with using undemocratic methods to bring democracy to a country. I think this is in line with the universal moral code. Why would using undemocratic methods to bring a democracy be a problem?
We used unprecedented violence and undemocratic methods to bring democracy to Germany. But now Germany has a stable Democracy and is much more in alignment with the code. I think most of what happened there did not violate the code in any way.
Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk You cannot claim that all people everywhere have the same rights and are subject to the sme moral code and then break that code to force them to adopt it. That is why I am a relativist.
?
|
You don't need to break the moral code to have them adopt it. I don't know why you think that. In the moral code I believe in, there is a time in place for violence, killing and coercion. Sometimes all three of these things are a moral imperative. You are assuming that if there is a moral code that it has to be some pacifistic code that eschews all violence etc. I don't think the universal moral code is even close to the pacifistic one that someone like Ghandi envisions.
Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk I agree that the regime in Iraq was evil and had to come down. I just don't accept that that was the true motiviation for our going in. I'm also very sceptical that Iraq was as great a catalyst in fomenting Islamist terrorism as it has become in the wake of our invasion.
Right cause, wrong reason.
|
That is fair. I disagree but is fair.
