<p>
[quote]
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?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Congratulations, you finally understand the world. </p>
<p>People do create their own cultures; just look at the history of the world. One can have multiple wives in different parts of the world, here one shouldn't even consider it. Some extremist Muslims think it's cool to kill in the name of their god; here, we shouldn't even consider it. Etc etc.</p>
<p>suavemente : moral lesson #1 = dont judge other people or their religion or criticize it because most likely if a muslim (me) was to read your post, he will be offended. This is number one cause of the society corruption. The spread of rumors, hatred, jealousy, sectionalism all cause it. </p>
<p>Not to fully attack your post suavamente (although i do mean to), but im just trying to make a point.</p>
<p>of the posts so far only piccolojunior is consistent
i don't agree - but he/she is consistent and has reached the logical conclusion of his/her position.<br>
it pretty much boils down to piccolojunior's statements - or not.
can't have it both ways. most posters here are trying to have it both ways.</p>
<p>I think being in this position was fantastic. You 'gave in' and then felt remorse later. It was a direct and personal experience.
This is oh-so-important, not the 'little thing' you dismiss it as to the rest of us. </p>
<p>You experienced a bit of evil, for lack of a better word, because that is really what it was even though people don't talk of 'evil' anymore. You participated, and now are ashamed and committed to not doing that again. You have taken such a huge step.</p>
<p>I know a boy who was about 11 when he went with his friend to a store, and the friend wanted a toy, and urged the boy to shoplift the toy. They both did it. The boy was so shaken by the experience, terrified that they were going to get caught, that it was enough for the rest of his life--he won't be stealing again. (Sure, this was a child's fear of getting caught, there are stages to morality according to what it Kanner? 11 is the age of the fear response. He has probably re-evaluated since then and can give more mature reasons not to steal) Been there, done that, won't repeat it. These are extremely valuable experiences, you were confronted with a situation, you made a decision that you regretted, and you vowed not to ever do it again. A real growth experience for you.</p>
<p>I just scanned the other posts. Oh great, some folks are saying 'everything is relative' and there are no absolutes. You know, really intelligent and sensitive people inherently don't believe that. It's part of their make-up that there are constants in the world.<br>
By the way, who decides when things are relative? You? Your preferences and convenience at that moment? There are occasionally situations when there is truth and goodness on both sides, and those situations are hard to decide. More often, there is an obvious 'good' side which may not be too convenient to choose, so people rationalize doing the wrong thing, which they prefer and which has no negative consequences for them, by saying 'everything is relative".</p>
<p>
[quote]
I just scanned the other posts. Oh great, some folks are saying 'everything is relative' and there are no absolutes. You know, really intelligent and sensitive people inherently don't believe that. It's part of their make-up that there are constants in the world.
By the way, who decides when things are relative? You? Your preferences and convenience at that moment? There are occasionally situations when there is truth and goodness on both sides, and those situations are hard to decide. More often, there is an obvious 'good' side which may not be too convenient to choose, so people rationalize doing the wrong thing, which they prefer and which has no negative consequences for them, by saying 'everything is relative".
<p>"I have vowed to never go against my principles and morals to fit in with other people ever again."</p>
<p>So have I. But honestly and realistically, I doubt that neither you nor I at this moment in our lives can make it come true. More often than not, we could not live up to these vows. Our impulses tend to dictate and despite how much we try to tell ourselves "it's not the right thing to do...I promised myself this and that," we will probably do it again. But I think that farther down the path, you will learn to pause, consider, and then make a choice that wouldn't disappoint yourself. I think it has a lot to do with patience and experience.</p>
<p>What if a smarter person than any of us in this thread come up with the idea of social darwinism, and say that the survival of the fittest is optimal way to make the society run? peopel can say that "oh it's not society that makes truth relative or relative, it's up to individual" but is that true? everyone has been taught by the society, whether it be his parents or teachers or media, since he's born into the world, and the things we learn from the society guides the way we act. for example, look at north korea. most people there live in the state of worshipping kim jong il as a deity and consider all his decision as heavenly. their sense of truth (absolute truth = kim's mind) is totally different from a typical western person.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This "logical deduction" seems to support subjectivism, or a moral theory in which right or wrong is wholly dependent upon the individual. Let me peruse my memory for societies in which subjectivism reigns as the paragon of moral law...oh right, the Stone Age.</p>
<p>Did it ever occur to you people that some moral principles upheld by society's laws are naturally discoverable and should be instinctively obeyed? You guys seem to keep arguing that the individual makes all choices regarding morality, when in reality, pretty much every society in the world has certain laws prohibiting murder, rape, and theft. Could it be possible that there is such a thing as Natural Law, as theorized by Aquinas, in which there is a certain set of discoverable truths and laws that are inherently known in each and every individual? Or maybe it's just a coincidence that murder, rape, and theft are illegal in every developed nation in the world...</p>
<p>The fact that nearly all of you seem to have no concept of logic in forming arguments really troubles me.</p>
<p>piccolojunior, I completely disagree with your affirmation that "smart" behavior > ethical behavior. You should check out the movie "The Emperor's Club," which happens to deal with the issue of ethics in the real world.</p>
<p>Depends...if by ethics you mean supporting universal healthcare because it's the "right thing" whereas opposing it (as a prospective surgeon) because it is the "smart thing" to do....well, I still wouldn't change my stance for that kind of scenario.</p>
<p>You don't think moral propositions can be held to the same standards as the scientific method?</p>
<p>You wouldn't say that XYZ scientific discovery is "relative" just like you would not say XYZ valid moral proposition is "relative". But how can you put up a moral proposition through these rigors? Simple. Whatever the proposition is, that person must be willing to be subjected to the same prescription against their will. So if your prescribe murder and rape for X, others can do the same to you.</p>
<p>In this case (the OP), had the OP said that egg-throwing is fine, then we could peruse that further. The relative fact of this proposition are that the eggee does not know when he will be egged. So the OP should be egged whenever by whomever against the OP's will.</p>
<p>You can read more about this approach in "Universally Preferable Behaviour - A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics" at this link:</p>
<p>
[quote]
evil is the operative word...it does not exist. There are only intelligent choices and less intelligent ones.
[/quote]
Many would beg to differ, and after seeing how cruel humanity can be. You start to believe that evil does indeed exist.
I do ... and don't agree with you...
For example (and I don't mean to offend anyone... ahead of time) I was watching this Documentary called 'Nanking' (It is really sad, I would recommend it but...maybe it hit me harder cause I am Chinese). It is about how the Japanese killed from 200,000- 300,000 Chinese in a couple of months in the most horrid ways.
I tried to look at what the Japanese did through there own eyes. I was appalled at myself for grasping the logic behind it. There was one segment where the rest of the Chinese army had lost and began to dissolve. The Soldiers took off their uniforms and retreated into the Safety zone (created by westerners to prevent Japanese massacre, which happened anyways). The Japanese found out. So they go around arresting any man that has a callus on his hand. They kill them with bayonets, some of them die instantly some of them not so. They had taken the whole day to complete this task and were not done at 4.
But anyways... the logic behind this is that why should we allow what should be POWs go? they are not civilians and they are breaking the law of war (which the Japanese did regardless... but anyways) they would be stupid to let these men roam free... So they killed them... instead of wasting resources to keep them alive, and wasting amo to kill them in such a slow way...
This is an intelligent decision, I am ashamed to say... it was logical and it worked. but does this make them 'not evil'? According to your logic (and I know this sounds like an attack but its not) it is not evil...or even bad... then what is it? Smart? maybe so... but who ever said 'Evil' or 'the human standard of wrong doing' couldn't be executed intelligently is wrong.
I see what you are saying and while it is partially true... I disagree with the statement to a certain degree.</p>
<p>I have little knowledge of that particular war and its circumstances. But let me ask a few questions and give a verdict on each:</p>
<ol>
<li>Who was the aggressor in the war? An aggressor always will kill civilians while the defenders always will only kill soldiers. For an example of this, see the American revolution where Americans were defenders and the British were aggressors.</li>
</ol>
<p>The only just war is a war of defense since that is the only war where innocent people are not killed.</p>
<ol>
<li>Assuming the Japanese are defenders, proportionality of response would to some extent allow these Japanese men to fight against these Chinese. However, these people are clearly unarmed so a response is not merited, yet they pose a threat if let go.</li>
</ol>
<p>Once again, let's assume food and other resources are limited (as implied). The only way to ensure the safety of the presumably just Japanese soldiers while not unjustly killing people would be to keep the POWs but not feed them. That's not to say the Japanese SHOULD not feed them, but that they could not feed them and still be moral. In all likelihood, some work and voluntary exchange would occur between a few POWs and Japanese so some would obtain food.</p>
<p>But in any case, how often does this really happen? You people oughta focus more on the reality of violence in your day-to-day lives rather than lifeboat situations.</p>
<p>Then you are subject to contradicting yourself since you will impose something upon another at some point in your life while not accepting the same treatment for yourself.</p>
<p>So tell me, if you don't believe logic and evidence can be used for proving moral theories, how can you turn around and claim it for the physical sciences?</p>
<p>
[quote]
So tell me, if you don't believe logic and evidence can be used for proving moral theories, how can you turn around and claim it for the physical sciences?
<p>Well then, you are a hypocrite. When people debate, they hold truth to be a preferable outcome. We are debating, but you do not hold truth as a preferable outcome.</p>
<p>If you deny the logic of one thing and hold another claim (without logic) to be true, then you must also accept any and all illogical assertions. This includes contradictory statements like "dogs are plants" and "dogs are fungi".</p>
<p>Go to post #52 and click the link. Download the book and go to page 125 for the shortened logical proof.</p>
<p>Are you saying I'm insulting piccolojunior? The very definition of a debate is to hold truth to be a preferable outcome. Since piccolojunior himself said that he does not hold truth to be a preferable outcome for moral theories (but for scientific theories), he is logically inconsistent and thus a hypocrite. That is not an insult but merely the definition.</p>
<p>And the fact that you are taking a jab at me without caring whatsoever about the blatant inconsistency of piccolojunior's position makes me wonder about you. Do you defend liars (e.g. your parents) against those professing the truth (e.g. outside critics)?</p>