Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Rafajafar · 06-21-2003, 11:43 AM

Here's my perspective on all this (as if it matters).

Moral relativism is VERY valid, but as with almost all ethical systems, it's VERY flawed. Now, I know what rules I live my life by, but I can tell you why I live my life by them.

Kant came up with something called the Categorical Imperative. This says that all things right or wrong are either right or wrong because they can be universally proven right or wrong.

Taking the example of murder. Murder is wrong because if everyone commited murder, eventually there would be no one left to ponder the ethical nature of murder, and therefore the argument defeats itself. Kant's law is easily defeated if one denies the importance of man, though.

Murder is very black and white, though, and makes for a bad example. Torture is much better. According to Kant, anything that brings pain to someone is wrong because if we all did this to everyone, we'd live such a miserable existence that all contemplation of evil would skewed (a flawed slippery slope argument, if you ask me, but whatever). This is where the utilitarians come in. With moral dilemas, they assigned a point system and weighed and measured ethical thought. Also complete crap, because it fails on dead-even issues. An example of this kind of moral dilema is the idea of Joe and the volcano. Joe is a priest of his tribe in Mubunda, and their volcano is getting angry. Joe knows that the only way to quiet the gods is to throw one of his parents into the volcano. He weighs them both out, and Joe finds neither decision to be better than the other, rationally. How does he decide without emotions?

This is where anthropocentrism and moral reletivism comes in. You do what's right for you, because you are a human, and do the best you can. This means there's no common understanding between beings and that people should do what they think is right for them.

Bollocks. A complete over reaction. I label myself a mono-ethical anthropocentrist. I believe that there is only one sin in this world, and everything else is merely an extrapolation of a basic rule that only appears to be complex.

This is evedent in real life. If you look at a T.V., you can't be certain you're seeing the same thing the person next to you is, and you can't be certain they're laughing at the same time you are for the same reason, hell, you can't even be certain they exist outside of you. However, you can be certain that you're reacting to the same things. Even if they don't exist, they must exist to you, and therefore, they must follow the same basic rules and guidelines you do.

What does this mean? It means, there is an essense to man that allows him to know right and wrong. There is an essense to life that allows life to know right and wrong.

What is wrong? I said there is one sin to me, and I call it contradiction. Reason is the only thing that is consitent no matter where you go in the known universe, and we have no reason to think there would be an irrational section to existence. It follows then, that reason must be the rule set that all of nature follows. Or is it...

What if reason, itself, is what nature is made of? Then that would mean that the only rule is..don't fight reason! Contradictions are bad!

How does this apply to man? I feel that the only sin a man can commit is that of hypocricy. It may be ok to murder for love on the one hand, but don't condemn the man next to you for the same crime. If may be ok to torture Arabs, but don't get pissed when they torture Americans. I mean, think about it...if people applied the same moral standards to the entire world as they do themselves, we would have no war, no poverty, no hate.

In other words, I think this argument for moral reletivism is too simplistic, as it ignores one thing: The Golden Rule. And to me, The Golden Rule is the only rule.

06-21-2003, 11:43 AM	#9 (permalink)
Rafajafar Upright Location: Hampton Roads, VA	Here's my perspective on all this (as if it matters). Moral relativism is VERY valid, but as with almost all ethical systems, it's VERY flawed. Now, I know what rules I live my life by, but I can tell you why I live my life by them. Kant came up with something called the Categorical Imperative. This says that all things right or wrong are either right or wrong because they can be universally proven right or wrong. Taking the example of murder. Murder is wrong because if everyone commited murder, eventually there would be no one left to ponder the ethical nature of murder, and therefore the argument defeats itself. Kant's law is easily defeated if one denies the importance of man, though. Murder is very black and white, though, and makes for a bad example. Torture is much better. According to Kant, anything that brings pain to someone is wrong because if we all did this to everyone, we'd live such a miserable existence that all contemplation of evil would skewed (a flawed slippery slope argument, if you ask me, but whatever). This is where the utilitarians come in. With moral dilemas, they assigned a point system and weighed and measured ethical thought. Also complete crap, because it fails on dead-even issues. An example of this kind of moral dilema is the idea of Joe and the volcano. Joe is a priest of his tribe in Mubunda, and their volcano is getting angry. Joe knows that the only way to quiet the gods is to throw one of his parents into the volcano. He weighs them both out, and Joe finds neither decision to be better than the other, rationally. How does he decide without emotions? This is where anthropocentrism and moral reletivism comes in. You do what's right for you, because you are a human, and do the best you can. This means there's no common understanding between beings and that people should do what they think is right for them. Bollocks. A complete over reaction. I label myself a mono-ethical anthropocentrist. I believe that there is only one sin in this world, and everything else is merely an extrapolation of a basic rule that only appears to be complex. This is evedent in real life. If you look at a T.V., you can't be certain you're seeing the same thing the person next to you is, and you can't be certain they're laughing at the same time you are for the same reason, hell, you can't even be certain they exist outside of you. However, you can be certain that you're reacting to the same things. Even if they don't exist, they must exist to you, and therefore, they must follow the same basic rules and guidelines you do. What does this mean? It means, there is an essense to man that allows him to know right and wrong. There is an essense to life that allows life to know right and wrong. What is wrong? I said there is one sin to me, and I call it contradiction. Reason is the only thing that is consitent no matter where you go in the known universe, and we have no reason to think there would be an irrational section to existence. It follows then, that reason must be the rule set that all of nature follows. Or is it... What if reason, itself, is what nature is made of? Then that would mean that the only rule is..don't fight reason! Contradictions are bad! How does this apply to man? I feel that the only sin a man can commit is that of hypocricy. It may be ok to murder for love on the one hand, but don't condemn the man next to you for the same crime. If may be ok to torture Arabs, but don't get pissed when they torture Americans. I mean, think about it...if people applied the same moral standards to the entire world as they do themselves, we would have no war, no poverty, no hate. In other words, I think this argument for moral reletivism is too simplistic, as it ignores one thing: The Golden Rule. And to me, The Golden Rule is the only rule.