Bullshit.

We judge, every minute of our lives. We judge the food we eat, the air we breath, the house we live in, the friends we make. We prefer some to some others and act accordingly.

We do believe in some principles, whether we admit it or not.

Most of us believe that murder, rape, exploitation is ‘wrong’. Some of us are willing to risk personal injury in order to prevent it. Some of us, like Mother Theresa, make a life-long commitment to their beliefs, devote their entire lives to it. We all admire them.

We are not all equal, as far as our ethical convictions and behaviour is concerned. Hitler was not as good as Gandhi. We judged him and felt he deserved to die.

My neighbour who beats his wife and kids is not as good as I who love and cherish mine.

The danger in relativism is in its permissiveness.

I reject the argument that “we must live ethically, because ethical behaviour is in our best self interest”. John Ralston Saul agrees with me in his newest: “On Equilibrium”. We must believe in something, even if it is not in our personal self interest. We must uphold some values, not because we benefit from our stand, but because those values are RIGHT.

Interestingly, there is a remarkable consensus, among both ethical systems, and peoples in the world, about what is 'right' and what is 'wrong'. Most cultures agree that murder, assault, theft, rape, exploitation are bad things ('wrong') and love, help, cooperation are good ('right') things. At least within the culture.

These are the universal core values between cultures. Of course there are a lot of differences as well, but if only we managed to hold up the universal ones, this world would be a lot happier than it has ever been.

If we don’t recognize any other value than self interest (short term or long term) then we run the risk of not doing what we KNOW to be right, because “what’s in it for me?”

Today’s stock brokers would heartily agree.

[ November 21, 2002: Message edited by: Zatamon ]

quote:

---

Most cultures agree that killing, hurting, stealing, raping, exploiting are bad things ('wrong') and loving, helping, cooperating are good ('right') things. At least within the culture.

---

I consider myself to be a very moral person, but a lot of the things I do can be construed (and might be condemned...) as immoral or bad. I also see all around me all kinds of immorality (as far as I deem it) and I wonder--is anyone actually right?

I think I pretty much agree with you, zatamon.

We must do all those things.

However, at some point, we must make decisions and we must act. Otherwise we are no good to anyone, ourselves included.

At that point we must ‘judge’ and according to our best judgment, make decisions. And then we have to live with the consequences of our judgment, our decisions and our actions.

So do everyone else around us.

This is life, whether we like it or not.

After I have done all those things, in the final analysis, I have to go by *my* judgment, as opposed to *someone else’s* judgment.

It is moral cowardice to surrender my own judgment, and bow to whatever ‘authority’ I want to hide behind.

And, while I must always be ready to change my judgment and to admit being wrong, it is also moral cowardice not to stand by my beliefs openly and honestly, as long as I am convinced that I am right.

[ November 21, 2002: Message edited by: Zatamon ]

I reject absolutism. I don't believe in absolutes.

However, that doesn't at all prevent me from recognizing that there are things which
"for all practical intents and purposes" are right or wrong, or should be treated as such.

Good people have always been pretty much the same. Not only that, but everyone, of every culture, era and political climate, everywhere on Earth, has recognized a good person by the same criteria. Bad people are equally identifiable, ragardless of time and place.

So, what's the common denominator? A good person treats others with respect and generosity; a bad person treats others with contempt and cruelty.
Nobody over the age of three has any problem with this... unless they've been educated to distrust their instincts.
That's my problem with relativism. You're trained to second-guess and doubt yourself; to discount the simple, basic verities of your own - and all your ancestors' - experience. It cuts you loose from the collective consciousness; sets you adrift. It makes you a moral zero. You don't ever feel right about it, and you can't explain - in relativist terms - why. So you're always a little bit heart-sick.
Get in touch with the roots and you'll be fine.

[ November 22, 2002: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

quote:

---

I don't believe in absolutes.

---

Are you hard set on that, or is there wiggle room?

quote:

---

It is moral cowardice to surrender my own judgment, and bow to whatever ‘authority’ I want to hide behind.

And, while I must always be ready to change my judgment and to admit being wrong, it is also moral cowardice not to stand by my beliefs openly and honestly, as long as I am convinced that I am right.

---

...but what if you’re an idiot, what if you are a hard-core christian right-wing anti-abortion, self righteous zealot who doesn’t know when to shut up.

Being convinced that you are right is no reason to stand up and blather on about how right you are. A lot of people thought they were right, doesn’t mean that they are.

As far as relativism goes, what is a universal wrong? murder? nope, they sanction murder in NA and even give out pretty medals when you do it while wearing a special uniform. There is no universal wrong. The only thing that is truly universal is love and greed.

Morality is taught and specific to culture and time, which means there are no absolutes.

[ November 22, 2002: Message edited by: angela N ]

quote:

---

angela N: A lot of people thought they were right, doesn’t mean that they are.

---

quote:

---

As far as relativism goes, what is a universal wrong? murder? nope, they sanction murder in NA and even give out pretty medals when you do it while wearing a special uniform

---

quote:

---

There is no universal wrong. The only thing that is truly universal is love and greed.

---

As far as everything being relative, I agree with nonesuch three posts up: "if one acts as if everything was relative, then one is a moral zero".

[ November 22, 2002: Message edited by: Zatamon ]

quote:

---

It is moral cowardice to surrender my own judgment, and bow to whatever ‘authority’ I want to hide behind.

---

This reminds me of the famous Mao Tse-tung quote (it's in his little red book, but I can't remember the original provenance):

quote:

---

Zatamon: Just because they give you a medal, it does not mean you did something right. But I suspect you know this.

---

Interesting that you should say that, I wonder if the recipients of those medals feel the same way? I’m betting they don’t, nor would their families, and I would venture to guess that very few of us would say anything to the contrary to a man who fought in the second world war or in Vietnam, .... would you? No, I’m willing to bet that lot’s of us placed our little poppies and bowed our heads on November 11th and didn’t give a second thought to the fact that we were praising and giving thanks to murderers.

How does your morality radar function on November 11th I wonder?

.

quote:

---

\If greed is truly universal, is it a universal right or a universal wrong?

\As far as everything being relative, I agree with nonesuch three posts up: "if one acts as if everything was relative, then one is a moral zero".

---

That’s a very black and white way of looking at it, if greed is universal, it is neither right nor wrong, it just is.

Things are not relative within our culture, within one's culture it is quite clear what is right and what is wrong and what is up for debate, once you take that tidy little package of what you call morals and hold it up like a beacon by which all others are to be judged, you are no better than the zealots that ran about during the crusades demanding conformity.

Do you and I agree on what is “moral” ... probably, if we live in the same country with a similar socio-economic background + education, there is a good chance that we will agree, but outside of that there is a huge divergence, why would you assume that you are right? Why would you assume that people who make allowances for other perspectives are “moral zero’s”. I would think they are morally superior, or at the very least have an open enough mind to allow for the possibility that there might be room for more than one possibility.

[ November 22, 2002: Message edited by: angela N ]

quote:

---

...but what if you’re an idiot, what if you are a hard-core christian right-wing anti-abortion, self righteous zealot who doesn’t know when to shut up.

---

Idoitry and ignorance are not monopolized by any particular ideology - including moral-relavitism or absolutism.

I say let the idiots cry from the heavens. Let the bigots sing in the streets.

To misquote Yeats:
"The worst lack all conviction, while the best are full of passionate intensity."

Angela:

quote:

---

Being convinced that you are right is no reason to stand up and blather on about how right you are.

---

No, you are right. Being convinced that you are right is a reason to stand up and actually *do* something about it, not just talk whimsically over cocktails.

And I think you misuse the noun 'murderer.'

I think there are lots of differences within our 'culture' about morals. If not, why don't you just vote for the CA, since they share your morals.

It is not about making allowances for others' opinions. That is a 'moral choice' you are making, in of itself. You are imposing your morals (a paradoxically relativistic world view) on other, and judging them by your own standards. Someone who disagrees with your degree of 'allowing for differences' is doing precisely the same thing as yourself, just towards a different end.

[ November 22, 2002: Message edited by: wei-chi ]

1./ Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. gave out medals too.

2./ Look up the definition of ‘murder’ and see if applies to wars.

3./ I (and others) was talking about cross section (core, common denominator) of many little packages.

4./ Anyone who denies the concept of human ‘rights’ and ‘wrongs’ denies the existence of morality, is amoral by definition, which makes him a moral zero.

5./ If nothing is sacred then everything is up for grabs, all you need is a clever lawyer or politician.

quote:

---

I think if you made the effort to read the posts a little more carefully, you would not misunderstand so many things.

---

I don’t see how that is relevant, the issue is in some contexts picking up a gun a shooting someone in the fucking head is OK and in some cases it’s not OK, in other words, it’s RELATIVE.

2./ Look up the definition of ‘murder’ and see if applies to wars.
OK, so we have different words we use for killing people in different situations. Again, it has nothing to do with whether the action is right or wrong it has to do with the context.

Anyone who denies the concept of human ‘rights’ and ‘wrongs’ denies the existence of morality, is amoral by definition, which makes him a moral zero.

Human right and wrong is a only a right and wrong within a time and space it does not transcend beyond that. What was right 1000 years ago is not right now, and what is right today will be wrong in another thousand, it’s relative. (That doesn’t mean it’s not meaningful)

If nothing is sacred then everything is up for grabs, all you need is a clever lawyer or politician.

I don’t like the word sacred, what is sacred to one is not sacred to another, it is a meaningless term in this context.

I think if you made the effort to read the posts a little more carefully, you would not misunderstand so many things.

quote:

---

The disease is a side-effect of political correctness: we are not supposed to judge each other. We are not supposed to be ‘judgmental’. Everything is relative, everything is valid as long as it is a personal opinion. I am just as good as you are, by definition.

---

[ November 22, 2002: Message edited by: WingNut ]

2./ words have actual meanings. Murder means killing for private gain. Killing in war is supposed to be for public gain. Huge difference

4./ murder was a ‘wrong’ in all recorded human history.

5./ sacred means we believe in it.

And while I'm on the topic: I will not put up with intolerance.

Seriously, it's important both to stand by what you believe is right, and to be willing to accept the possibility that you might be wrong. I don't see that one excludes the other.

It's tempting to see the world simply, and the two best ways to accomplish this are to either eliminate greys or to deny that anything but greys exist. Taken to extremes, absolutism gives you clear answers quickly by ignoring peripheral factors or subtleties, and relativism renders all answers equivalent.

Absolutism does not mean that one person knows all the answers. It means social, cultural and historical consensus. It means a shared belief we find self evident to such a degree that we are willing to die for it if necessary. Humanity has had such consensus, now and then, here and there, over our history. These were the heroic, idealist eras, when people believed in some things beyond self interest and were willing to die for these beliefs, if necessary.

What I am very angry about is the sad fact that this shared belief is being eroded and destroyed by the educational system, the media and the whole 'spoiled rotten', narcissistic, self-centered western culture. This atomizing and 'amoralizing' effect is a direct consequence of the capitalist system that requires us to be mindless consumers, accepting the total lack of inviolate human values as a given absolute.

[ November 24, 2002: Message edited by: Zatamon ]