<p>morals are relative?
LOL!!!
so, let's open the prison doors . . . .
Hitler was not really that bad.
Good and bad are only names given by society to this or that - emerson
try to live that out.
try that in a court of law.
you call it rape, but i call it . . . .
you call it stealing, but i call it . . . .
you call it cheating, but i call it . . . .
morality and relativity are oxymorons.</p>
<p>Nogueira, is it true that, as you say, "there's no absolute truth."</p>
<p>Hifi</p>
<p>When it comes to philosophy, morals, or faith, there really isn't an absolute truth. There really isn't a right and wrong, it's not based on facts. There is only a right and wrong compared to something else that is judged by others. That's why they are relative. </p>
<p>Just wondering, how do describe morals, if they're not relative?</p>
<p>"The truth is that there is no absolute truth" lol bit of an oxymoron too lol. </p>
<p>I'm not fighting/arguing with you, i just like to hear other points of view :D</p>
<p>re: post #14 "my parents and grandparents had way better morals . . . ."
there's a funny thing about morals - they don't change.
be certain that your predecessors faced the same issues in another guise.</p>
<p>well, if there's no absolute truth in philosophy, morals, and faith
try to live that out
-watch out, there's a car coming
-that may be true for you but not for me
splat</p>
<p>I don't exactly follow your line of reasoning.</p>
<p>How does a car coming fall into one of those categories?</p>
<p>Doesn't that fall into something like physics, which can be proven through reason, math, and logic?</p>
<p>trying to show that relativism ultimately fails when one attempts to live it out.
should'nt a philosophy, set of morals, or a faith be something that can be practised, someting to live by?</p>
<p>"there is only a right and wrong compared to something else that is judged by others"</p>
<p>MLK Jr did not accept the wrong that was judged right by others.
indeed, he stood for an absolute truth.</p>
<p>hifi, i support what ur saying about absolute truth. </p>
<p>in reality, we are all humans - our number one similarity.
All humans have certain instincts and feelings, although they may be different, they are connected by a certain chain of webs. For example, all humans will recognize that brutally killing someone is wrong while helping someone get up after they have fallen is not wrong. However, then there comes the part when someone refutes and says that it is not wrong in certain cases.</p>
<p>The same goes for morals. There are morals that each one of us knows is right and wrong. Then we start thinking all sorts of ways and change our opinions based on many natural factors. </p>
<p>This is how i think our society is changing. We are started with sets of morals and ethics and they evolved with time as people discovered their own instincts such as jealousy, hatred, etc.</p>
<p>/hifi
i never said that there's no absolute truth. this is what the SOCIETY is telling us. the society meaning the media and mainstream beliefs. and yes morals do change over time. at the time of grandparents, they were in the era of what we call Modernism, in which people believe that evolution is the right way, that society will take care of us, and that peopel are inherently goood but the society is tainting us with evil doings. they mostly believe in relative of truth, but doesn't discount absolute truth.
in post-modernism, in which we live now, people are inherently evil and there's no absolute truth. this is why there are so many history revisionist, saying that everything, including history, is relative, and should be judge on individual's moral judgement. Did alexander the great defeat the persian empire? historical revisionist may say no. post modernists say that passion is all that matters.</p>
<p>just to clarify, i believe in absolute truth, but as i had been believing in relative truth for 17 years and have attended both secular and christian schools, i'm open to ideas.</p>
<p>please do not feed the hifi troll...he/she/it is plain ignant.</p>
<p>be a real counterculturalist, a real individual in school and life
do the right thing
you know it's not right to steal, abuse, destroy, lie, cheat, kill, . . .
morals for all times for all people.
even those raised like a ferrel cat know what is absolutely right and wrong - else, why should he/she cry foul when someone does them wrong.</p>
<p>society everywhere is conspiracy against every one of its members - emerson</p>
<p>BUT we are society; societies problems are merely the symptoms of the collective problems of its individual members.
examine yourself and listen to your conscience</p>
<p>It's a dog-eat-dog world. Your ideas are nice in a bubble, but step outside and see what real life is like, k thx bye</p>
<p>(using intelligence to ascertain decisions >>>> using morals)</p>
<p>LOL yeah... I remember I felt like a bad*** when I went out at like 12 midnight to throw berries at cars... around 6th or 7th I don't recall</p>
<p>what hifi is saying in a nutshell is: People are evil, even thought they know right and wrong, and Society's problems are created by the problems of everyone one else no matter how big or small. So, even though you can't control everything, do your part...</p>
<p>Which I do agree with, people(in general) are scum. Smart and dumb alike...</p>
<p>evil is the operative word...it does not exist. There are only intelligent choices and less intelligent ones.</p>
<p>"morals are all relative."</p>
<p>Well, if morals are all relative, and apparently that is what we say, who are we to judge if...</p>
<p>abortion is right or wrong
stem cell research is right or wrong
liberals/conservatives are right or wrong
etc etc</p>
<p>The same people who say morals are all relative are also people who say "abortion is wrong" or "stem cell research is okay."</p>
<p>We are all hypocrites if we say morals are all relative, because we all speak as if we know right or wrong. If morals are all relative to the culture in question, what's stopping us from creating our own culture, therefore declaring that what we say is right/wrong?</p>
<p>~so maybe i just read a paper about this in philosophy class...its summer, this is the most contemplating i've done in the last 3 weeks</p>
<p>Isnt the consequence of relative morals that there IS no absolute right or wrong? I could be going senile though.</p>
<p>one's gotta admit though, the society's become more and more violent over the years... just check the movies showin in cinemas or tvs. the movies that are rated PG 13 would have been rated 18+ or even banned a few decades ago.
it's technically impossible to PROVE that there is or isn't absolute truth. and so it's up to individual's faith and beliefs to decide on the issue himself.</p>
<p>LOL...I didn't know that my point would be taken/argued sooo strongly. :D</p>
<p>Ok, guys, the thing is that each PERSON chooses what is right or wrong. Society shouldn't dictate your life. YOU should choose. If you choose what is accepted in society, that is fine. But only if you choose, NOT blindly accepting something ONLY because it is the norm or accepted. </p>
<p>If any of you have read Anthem by Ayn Rand, you see what happens when people blindly accept everything. </p>
<p>I tend to lean towards being an objectivist (not full blown though), so that is where I base some of my thinking.</p>
<p>Fa la la lena
Dude, the people who say abortion is wrong or stem cell research is okay would probably be on opposites sides of each debate (again, probably). So is that all people covered? So does that mean you believe that abortion is ok but stem cell research is wrong?</p>
<pre><code>Who are we to judge? We are no one, but our individual self, yet it is our duty to judge when it is necessary. Think about it. If nobody ever judged, there would never be a reason to not do something wrong. Who would punish you? (Not talking about God in this post at the moment)
</code></pre>
<p>There is absolutely nothing stopping you from creating your own culture, except yourself. The problem is that it isn't realistic. But that doesn't mean you couldn't do it. But then again, there is a difference between could and should :D</p>
<p>Hifi
I agree with you on most points. But my idea is that morals should be one's OWN beliefs based on reasons and one's own judgement. Morals shouldn't be a person's judgement ONLY because that is the common judgement.</p>