Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
Surely. However, this doesn't remove the frustration associated with relativism. For example, I think I will have a problem with Saudi Arabia for quite a while.
|
That's fair.
I like what Sam Harris has been saying recently about a more empirical take on morality. When one can quantify well-being and suffering, one can begin to find a way to develop a less relativistic view of morality without it becoming a nonsensical holy decree. If I can demonstrate the Saudi's morality about women creates demonstrable suffering and prevents demonstrable well-being based on definitions we've both agreed on, we can perhaps find a way to create an alternative path to an agreed upon morality.
---------- Post added at 12:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:45 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
if you believe in the god character, then what's at issue wouldn't really be moral relativism so much as the sovereign changing the rules. so god cannot be immoral. amoral because infinite more like.
|
That's the point. If God (capitalized because I'm referring specifically to the Judeo-Christian God) can change what's moral and immoral l in a given moment, then morality is simply whatever god thinks it is at a given time. If that's the case, morality has nothing to do with beneficial behavioral conduct and is just following a set of edicts. The question becomes more important when one factors in the fact that 1/3 of the earth's population is Christian.