Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
Exactly. Truth and moral values are relative to the persons or groups holding them. I think truth and values are universal. You believe that truth and values are relative to the person or group holding them.
That is the $64,000 question, isn't it. I believe that, like Jefferson, that the creator has already decided when killing is wrong or right. We just need to figure out what that is. I think we have been given a road map to deciding when it is or is not OK. I think our instincts tell us when something is right or wrong. We are hard wired with a conscious that guides us in these situations. Our pursuit of justice is trying to align our legal system with the universal moral code that is hard wired in our brain. As human being we just know that Seti, female circumscission and slavery are wrong, we just need to insure that our legal system reflects our moral instincts.
The common good can get you into trouble. However, this is a discussion that will turn on what is just. But when "what is just" is determined, I believe justice is the same for all men and women and that it is not "relative to the persons or groups holding them".
|
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.
In the first place, I think it's inconsistent to argue that a universal moral code is instinctual and that it comes from God. 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.
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. If right and wfrong were isntincutal, then we would see a common acceptance of your universal moral code from the beginning. 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. I think we would agree that the opposite situation has in fact occurred.
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?
If we use military pressure to force those societies that practice savery to cease, are we enslaving them? If we invade Iraq to "bring democracy" to the oppressed Iraqis, is our forced conversion not undemocratic?
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.
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.
