Take note of the following statement.

"Morality, ethics, and law are relative."




Isn't this an absolute statement?

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Take note of the following statement. "Morality, ethics, and law are relative." Isn't this an absolute statement?

The statement, in the english language context, is absolute...

Perhaps the contents of the idea are much less absolute, unless you can somehow brilliantly orchestrate a map of all the moralities and ethics and laws of the world through moving time and map them relative to one another.

How does one even relate morality, a non-object, without moving into abstraction (abstraction itself being the core of most things that exist in this universe)? Seems like they may be many, many things, relative included.

You didn't give much to go on there though, you'll have to elucidate a bit.

Is truth relative or absolute? Is murder ALWAYS wrong?

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Is truth relative or absolute? Is murder ALWAYS wrong?

hahaha

Better question time to answer better questions. Here we go.

Is relativity and absolution quantifiable units to define the REAL reality?

Is murder an act, an energy, or both? Divide it, then answer your own question on those terms. Act and idea. Go.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby hahaha Better question time to answer better questions. Here we go. Is relativity and absolution quantifiable units to define the REAL reality? Is murder an act, an energy, or both? Divide it, then answer your own question on those terms. Act and idea. Go.

Yes they are because you can measure both matter and energy and the effects each have on each other. So murder is both an act and the squelching of another's energy because the victim had life. So, is murder wrong in all societies at all times?

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Yes they are because you can measure both matter and energy and the effects each have on each other. So murder is both an act and the squelching of another's energy because the victim had life. So, is murder wrong in all societies at all times?

By definition "murder" is wrong.

You don't "murder" when your armies kill foreign civilians, right? You don't "murder" when your government electrocutes or poisons a killer, right?

Carr kills his gay lover in the 50s, claims he was assaulted and straight in court, gets off. Not murder. Relative indeed, and something else as well. Hmm.

Relativity is only the icing on the cake on this sociopathic messmurder.

PS: I contend you can not measure anything accurately.

Hmm interesting. Getting back to the original question.



Can morality be absolutely relative?

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Hmm interesting. Getting back to the original question. Can morality be absolutely relative?

Arg. I'm going to bed.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Take note of the following statement. "Morality, ethics, and law are relative." Isn't this an absolute statement?

Morality and ethics are merely opinions. Opinions have no truth value at all... they can neither be true absolutely nor true relative to anything. To the extent that a moral proposition is an inference, it can be ill-founded if the individual drawing the inference relies upon mistaken facts or invalid logic. For example, someone who believes that abortion is wrong and that people who do not want to have children should simply abstain from intercourse on the grounds that life is inherently valuable clearly has an ill-founded opinion, as even that very brief inference contains both an error of fact and an error of logic.

It is probably worth noting that it is entirely possible for two people to hold the same moral opinion and that it is for one of them ill-founded and for the other not. The question of whether an opinion is ill-founded is a question of the grounds on which it rests, and that is a matter necessarily relative to the individual. It should also be noted that this is different from an evaluation of a moral opinion's merit, for which I believe there is a reasonably objective standard, and further that an ill-founded opinion may be incidentally meritorious while a well-founded opinion may not be.

Law is a somewhat different case... the common law, for example, is by its very nature relative in that it applies only within some specific jurisdiction. In theory there may be a fact of the matter for the particular court hearing the case, but oft-inconsistent interpretations of the law muddy the waters a bit.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton "Morality, ethics, and law are relative." Isn't this an absolute statement?

I'd say it's an objective statement. An absolute statement would imply that "morality, ethics, and law must always be relative".

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Morality and ethics are merely opinions. Opinions have no truth value at all... they can neither be true absolutely nor true relative to anything.

I disagree. The truth value of a moral claim lies in the objective consequences of the actions it gives rise to. If the acting out of a moral belief can be objectively demonstrated to cause suffering, for instance, then we have to reject its claim to being a "moral" belief in the first place. Consequentially, beliefs and actions cannot in themselves be moral or immoral, but must rather be judged entirely by the consequences they arrive upon other human beings.

quote:

To the extent that a moral proposition is an inference, it can be ill-founded if the individual drawing the inference relies upon mistaken facts or invalid logic.

I don't think morality lends itself so easily to the demands of logic though. The parts of the brain that process logic and those that process moral judgements are largely separate, the latter being governed largely by the emotional centers of the brain (lymbic system, amygdala etc.). In fact, those who suffer damage to their amygdala in childhood often display amoral behaviour for the simple reason that they cannot properly read the emotional states of other human beings. So the capacity for empathy, I would argue, is a necessary prerequisite for moral behaviour, while the capacity for logic is not.

That is not to say that actions and moral decisions cannot (or should not) be informed by reason: in fact I would argue that they should. But any moral action guided by reason must also begin with a moral norm that cannot be arrived at via logic alone. That is to say, logic is only useful in moral decisions if we start with a simple moral norm such as "suffering is bad" which informs the logical process from the beginning. Blind logic, however, will not get us very far, as every rational investigation into the nature of morality throughout the history of philosophy has shown us.

You might find this interesting reading Krypt.

Objectivist Values

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade I disagree. The truth value of a moral claim lies in the objective consequences of the actions it gives rise to. If the acting out of a moral belief can be objectively demonstrated to cause suffering, for instance, then we have to reject its claim to being a "moral" belief in the first place. Consequentially, beliefs and actions cannot in themselves be moral or immoral, but must rather be judged entirely by the consequences they arrive upon other human beings.

I think our disagreement may to some degree be one of language as opposed to substance. I certainly agree that if we assume some particular goal(s) or valuation(s) we can create a framework with respect to which we might evaluate the truth of moral assertions. The issue is that I find that the nature of this framework necessarily reduces to a matter of opinion.

When you say "logic is only useful in moral decisions if we start with a simple moral norm such as 'suffering is bad' which informs the logical process from the beginning," you are saying exactly what I mean. At some foundational level, we must simply assume some moral proposition (in this case, that suffering is bad.) I do not find there to be any objective basis upon which to judge what, if any, such foundational moral propositions ought to be assumed. If the underlying assumptions cannot be said to be a matter of fact, then what follows from them cannot either. We can, however, still evaluate the validity of the reasoning by which that which follows is reached (if any.)

quote:

I don't think morality lends itself so easily to the demands of logic though. The parts of the brain that process logic and those that process moral judgements are largely separate, the latter being governed largely by the emotional centers of the brain (lymbic system, amygdala etc.). In fact, those who suffer damage to their amygdala in childhood often display amoral behaviour for the simple reason that they cannot properly read the emotional states of other human beings. So the capacity for empathy, I would argue, is a necessary prerequisite for moral behaviour, while the capacity for logic is not. That is not to say that actions and moral decisions cannot (or should not) be informed by reason: in fact I would argue that they should. But any moral action guided by reason must also begin with a moral norm that cannot be arrived at via logic alone. That is to say, logic is only useful in moral decisions if we start with a simple moral norm such as "suffering is bad" which informs the logical process from the beginning. Blind logic, however, will not get us very far, as every rational investigation into the nature of morality throughout the history of philosophy has shown us.

Again, I agree with much of what you say. Moral thinking definitely appears to have its origins in the brain's emotional centers. That is precisely what I would expect of an opinion, however. An individual's favorites, likes, dislikes, et cetera are all likely to be consequences of emotional states...