General

I've revised my opinion on moral relativism.

I used to be under the impression that morality is objective because we can decide which factors increase or decrease happiness. But Nietzsche would say, morality is a concept invented by humans. The very definition is a bit vague. But moral relativism taken to the extreme comes up with some fun conclusions. Social reform from the likes of Martin Luther King Jr. would literally be immoral at the start and become more moral as he gains support.

While I cannot logically prove that pleasure is good and pains is bad, pretty much everybody prefers pleasure over pain. In the interests of practicality, of running a society and deciding among the courses of action to maximize what people want, happiness and suffering are very important and not completely trivial. Indeed, those who would rather get murdered than to be offered life are the minority for sure, and if they want to run their own society among which everybody loves dying, that's their thing, but it makes no sense to let the minority kill everybody else.

I think moral relativism is purely a philosophical thing. In practicality, it's not a good idea to take the idea to the extreme. What do we do if two moral relativists have a disagreement on what action is moral? You're back to reason and evidence.

[quote=Omegathorion]@Darkwizzie: Alright, I'll be so cute you'll have to move to Japan so you can make this post your waifu.

You should go punch a moral relativist in the face and see if the situation DOESN'T pan out the way I described it would.[/quote]

That's really irrelevant. I'm referring to either sentence.

Yes (100%), it's part of the philosophy.

@Darkwizzie: Alright, I'll be so cute you'll have to move to Japan so you can make this post your waifu.

You should go punch a moral relativist in the face and see if the situation DOESN'T pan out the way I described it would.

No, I think morality is objective.

[quote=Harlequinist]I'm not talking about black and whites with God, he was cool with all the stuff I listed, and most of it is not accepted as morally right in our society. Some of it still is in the world right now so obviously it's not so absolute. Thing is you said God can define things as completely right or wrong, maybe it wasn't you, a poster above me said something along the lines of "I believe there are absolute rights and wrongs according to God", but since we think in our society a lot of the things the Bible (aka God's word) is terrible then how can you (or whoever it was) possible state God can correctly define actions as right or wrong.

There is a right or wrong in every circumstance in YOUR perspective of it. Everything you will ever do will always be in your perspective so you will continue to live your life, and listen to your own moral compass no matter what another person tells you.

If you're religious you can always use it as a guide for your beliefs, and adapt it to form your own beliefs and morals so you don't feel so guilty about following them. Personally I think organised religion is a crook of s--t but I can't exactly prove or disprove it. [/quote]

Sure. I can't be bothered to type any more because I can hardly remember anything about this but yeah, I'm actually very paranoid about everything around me and of course organised religion would be something I have great doubts in (pretty sure you don't even have to be very paranoid to have doubts about this topic). I don't really follow an organised religion, I kinda try to understand the Christian Bible and interpret it really.

[quote=Omegathorion]Okay, I'll go ahead and say that post was silly. Thanks for the permission. I already understood what you were getting at with the face-punch example, but alright.

If you're playing the moral relativism card and saying that morality is subjective, then you also need to accept that justification is subjective too. You can't say you would be justified, you can only say that you would be justified [i]from your own PoV[/i]. You certainly wouldn't be justified from the punchee's PoV, or the PoVs of anyone else watching the scene. After punching some random guy and ending up in court, you can try to give the judge reasons for your actions but they can flat out reject them too, and from your PoV the judge's decision would be totally unjust and unfair, just like from the punchee's PoV your actions were totally unjust and unfair too. The whole point of human society is that we don't agree on what is moral and what is justified, and we clash with each other to force our own definitions onto other people (and defend against other people trying to do the same to us).[/quote]

So actions cannot be considered justifiable or unjustifiable. Moral relativism. Such a situation shouldn't happen because the punchee, jury, everybody, should realize this fundamental truth. If all opinions on morality are equally as valid, then we cannot have any meaningful discussion on morality. I'm saying that's a bummer.

If you're going to be cute like that again towards me, I'm not replying any further after this.

--

Here is a video, less than 3 minutes that sums my position before this entire thread got made:
http://youtu.be/Gs-Q6MRSJ00?t=56s

[quote=Darkwizzie]No, lol.
If we are both moral relativists and that is presumed to be the only option, what do we do as a society when I believe A is greatly moral and you believe B is greatly immoral? Now we're at an impasse. You can try to give me reasons for your opinion but I can flat out reject them and by definition I would be justified in holding my position that A is greatly moral because morality is subjective.

THAT was the point of the example.
Now you can go ahead and say this post is silly but you called something silly before understanding what I was getting at earlier.[/quote]
Okay, I'll go ahead and say that post was silly. Thanks for the permission. I already understood what you were getting at with the face-punch example, but alright.

If you're playing the moral relativism card and saying that morality is subjective, then you also need to accept that justification is subjective too. You can't say you would be justified, you can only say that you would be justified [i]from your own PoV[/i]. You certainly wouldn't be justified from the punchee's PoV, or the PoVs of anyone else watching the scene. After punching some random guy and ending up in court, you can try to give the judge reasons for your actions but they can flat out reject them too, and from your PoV the judge's decision would be totally unjust and unfair, just like from the punchee's PoV your actions were totally unjust and unfair too. The whole point of human society is that we don't agree on what is moral and what is justified, and we clash with each other to force our own definitions onto other people (and defend against other people trying to do the same to us).

[quote=Omegathorion]@Darkwizzie: You know what your face-punching example sounds like? It sounds like nonviolent protests, which have been alive and kicking for a while. And I don't know about you, but I think nonviolent protests aren't just "ideas that won't get us anywhere."[/quote]

No, lol.
If we are both moral relativists and that is presumed to be the only option, what do we do as a society when I believe A is greatly moral and you believe B is greatly immoral? Now we're at an impasse. You can try to give me reasons for your opinion but I can flat out reject them and by definition I would be justified in holding my position that A is greatly moral because morality is subjective.

THAT was the point of the example.
Now you can go ahead and say this post is silly but you called something silly before understanding what I was getting at earlier.

@Darkwizzie: You know what your face-punching example sounds like? It sounds like nonviolent protests, which have been alive and kicking for a while. And I don't know about you, but I think nonviolent protests aren't just "ideas that won't get us anywhere."

[quote=Omegathorion]There's a lot of entertainment out there that doesn't exist to make players/viewers/readers feel happy or better off with their state of life. Dear Esther, Macbeth, 1984, Requiem For A Dream, etc. If happiness is good, then unhappiness is bad, so is it a bad thing that unhappy entertainment exist? I think it's awesome that unhappy entertainment exists.

No matter how you try to define "good," you're gonna meet someone who doesn't agree (like me). And as long as that person doesn't agree, moral relativism exists. I think the question you might be asking isn't "do you believe that moral relativism exists," but maybe it's more like "do you believe that moral relativism should be respected." Your silly face-punching example (seriously, it's just silly) says no to the former and yes to the latter, but disproving the existence of moral relativity would mean finding a definition of "good" that everyone can agree to, which is kind of difficult to do.[/quote]

Because some people do things that are counterproductive to their well being. A drug addict took drugs knowing it's going to be downhill from there.
Sad movies are a form of entertainment. To be preoccupied. Being bored is also a bad state to be in. Being shut out of any stimulus in fact, is considered capital punishment here.

If you agree that an action cannot be moral or immoral, it's only based upon our interpretations, what do we do if I find punching you to be moral and you disagree? Since morality is by definition up to personal opinion, there is no way fix this impasse. The example is to show that realistically speaking, this idea won't get us anywhere.

[quote=Darkwizzie]So you believe things because you want them to be true?

--
I'm going to ask my friends about their views on moral relativism. To me the essential question is whether happiness and wellbeing can be proven to be "good". That has the premise that morality means what is good or bad. Or rather, what does "good" mean?[/quote]
There's a lot of entertainment out there that doesn't exist to make players/viewers/readers feel happy or better off with their state of life. Dear Esther, Macbeth, 1984, Requiem For A Dream, etc. If happiness is good, then unhappiness is bad, so is it a bad thing that unhappy entertainment exist? I think it's awesome that unhappy entertainment exists.

No matter how you try to define "good," you're gonna meet someone who doesn't agree (like me). And as long as that person doesn't agree, moral relativism exists. I think the question you might be asking isn't "do you believe that moral relativism exists," but maybe it's more like "do you believe that moral relativism should be respected." Your silly face-punching example (seriously, it's just silly) says no to the former and yes to the latter, but disproving the existence of moral relativity would mean finding a definition of "good" that everyone can agree to, which is kind of difficult to do.

The way I see it, every person naturally has a moral compass. Toss this person into their society and their views can be morphed accordingly.
While society obviously dictates what is right or wrong, good or bad, I feel it has to be in line with the template of what humans would perceive as right or wrong anyway... given that the circumstances allow for them to understand. A human would know not to punch another human if they were to live together, because they know it hurts. If a human punched someone else so as to steal food, they would know that being hungry is unpleasant.

[quote=DeprivedChild]Sure, as I said I won't be able to prove with certainty my definition of God and satisfy others. That's fine, I don't want to delve deeper into that myself. Also, I'm going to say again that sure, alleviating suffering doesn't necessarily mean moral good or bad. Unneeded pain etc can't be proven to be morally wrong. If I dropped the divine command theory and continue with how I would normally view the world without religion restricting me, I'd still see it nearly exactly the same, with the exception that I don't think there is a definite right or wrong. I'd still say torture etc is all situational to the times and whilst it may invoke emotion against your current beliefs I don't see anything that proves it is definitely bad.

Going to repeat again as I said the last time and first time, the divine command theory is something I follow that gives me something to follow along with, and it's the divine command theory, not law. Of course it can't be proven. It's just a concept I'd like to believe to be true.[/quote]

So you believe things because you want them to be true?

--
I'm going to ask my friends about their views on moral relativism. To me the essential question is whether happiness and wellbeing can be proven to be "good". That has the premise that morality means what is good or bad. Or rather, what does "good" mean?

If you think it's fine to walk up to someone and punch them in the face, I don't feel comfortable taking moral advice from you.

[quote=Darkwizzie]Grow up.

Well, first you ought to make sure that god of yours actually exist. If you're going to randomly say morality is by definition what god is, that is a claim made without evidence. You cannot continue without first demonstrating this claim has merit. That is something you cannot do. These two sentences basically end your entire argument.

===

I feel that morality is the issue of what is actually right in the end, so that our opinions change because evidence changes but the correct answer is the same the entire time. But if the argument is then that morality cannot ever be proven to have anything to do with wellbeing and to alleviate suffering etc, then it can never be argued that alleviating suffering is good.

Then by what objective standards do we judge that the god of the Bible is immoral and the slavery within is immoral?
This opens a whole can of worms. In fact, a truckload. Because now morality doesn't mean well being, it simply is this random idea of whatever good actually is. And now unneeded pain isn't bad, torture can't be proven to be bad, nothing can be proven to be really bad or good. That throws out 'secular morality' as I know it. In fact, that completely throws away any morality as I know it. Sure, Divine Commandment still just as bogus as before we started but that was known beforehand.[/quote]

Sure, as I said I won't be able to prove with certainty my definition of God and satisfy others. That's fine, I don't want to delve deeper into that myself. Also, I'm going to say again that sure, alleviating suffering doesn't necessarily mean moral good or bad. Unneeded pain etc can't be proven to be morally wrong. If I dropped the divine command theory and continue with how I would normally view the world without religion restricting me, I'd still see it nearly exactly the same, with the exception that I don't think there is a definite right or wrong. I'd still say torture etc is all situational to the times and whilst it may invoke emotion against your current beliefs I don't see anything that proves it is definitely bad.

Going to repeat again as I said the last time and first time, the divine command theory is something I follow that gives me something to follow along with, and it's the divine command theory, not law. Of course it can't be proven. It's just a concept I'd like to believe to be true.

[quote=Omegathorion]Wow, so tough. What a cool guy.[/quote]

Grow up.
[quote=DeprivedChild]Good morning. Urgh, that is such a long post. Sorry, I'm not watching a 30 minutes video about this. Not today.

Yes, you keep repeating it. That's exactly right, he can cause unfathomable suffering and still be good. (Story of Noah's ark, and don't even BEGIN to talk about that, it's just an example that popped into my head) He CAN have complete and utter hatred for all other things and it would be correct. Why? Because the very definition or idea of a God is a perfect, omnipotent and omniscient being. By definition, it would be impossible for him to be wrong, and using thefreedictionary o.o, morality is "the quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct." I don't think I have really twisted the meaning of morality the divine command theory does not really conflict with that. Also remember, it's a theory because it cannot be proven, you just asked for what people followed and I just stated I followed this concept.

Who in the first place was to say discrimination, slavery and sexism was bad or immoral in the first place? That is based on how you think today due to society and your culture. If you lived in different times, you might now even question whether some of the said things are immoral in the first place. Also, in spite of saying I am the one with no back up, you keep typing on about your opinions about matters and morality. Your arguments are based on what would be for the better for society and what you personally think is immorally wrong. Your end example does not actually relate this this at all too, we're discussing about actual morality, not whether you can function and stop a person from torturing another with a belief. Your example about God condemning homosexuality in spite of us not knowing why it is immoral is irrelevant too. Whether we know if an act is immoral or not is not the question but what is actually immoral. Furthermore, what does functionality for a better society have to do with morality?

"If on the other hand, what god commands must be what leads to a better community and life for all, then god's actions are not morality by definition even if they are moral. God is merely a messenger for morality. Then we can try to figure out what factors lead to a flourishing, happy, health society. We know that some actions are more wrong than others because some of them are pretty obvious. Some are much harder to figure out. To believe this is to disagree with moral relativism."

I don't understand, explain further? You're assuming I'm thinking what God commands must lead to a better community and life for all.(Again kinda irrelevant) I'm not saying God is merely a messenger for morality and I don't understand what you're trying to say here. I'm not saying we are trying to figure out what factors lead to a flourishing, happy and healthy* society. We don't know that some actions are more wrong than other actually, no matter how obvious you think they are. I mean, it seemed noble to sacrifice virgin girls back in the day but hey, it seems it is frowned upon in this day and age.

@Harlequinist

I just read your post while typing my reply and I haven't read past the first few posts after mine but wow. Big long post about how everything is relative and then you tell me about the same God that was "cool" with, listing some of the very things you yourself said have no definite right or wrong. You're talking about black and whites with God, ok, but what does that have anything to do with the same God that was cool with murdering babies, slavery, forced sex and whatever else you mentioned? In fact what does telling me this relate to anything to do with my previous comment whatsoever?

I'm going to add onto what I said. Even though society's values change over time, I just believe that there is a right and wrong in every circumstance not based on any factor other, and I'm still somewhat unsure about my beliefs and such but I imagine what a perfect and divine being would do would be correct. And I'm not going to try prove it as fact or whatnot, I already said this but this thread was just collecting basiler's opinions and ideas and I was initially just adding to it, I argue for some of my belief but I still admit that the concept is something that is impossible to prove for fact. And of course I can't explain what a perfect divine being is or how he would view things.

Edit: I'm just going to add yeah, I am muddled in my thinking but I'm still conflicted between whether I should follow religion or my own belief.[/quote]

Well, first you ought to make sure that god of yours actually exist. If you're going to randomly say morality is by definition what god is, that is a claim made without evidence. You cannot continue without first demonstrating this claim has merit. That is something you cannot do. These two sentences basically end your entire argument.

===
[quote=Trieatheist] stuff. [/quote]
I feel that morality is the issue of what is actually right in the end, so that our opinions change because evidence changes but the correct answer is the same the entire time. But if the argument is then that morality cannot ever be proven to have anything to do with wellbeing and to alleviate suffering etc, then it can never be argued that alleviating suffering is good.

Then by what objective standards do we judge that the god of the Bible is immoral and the slavery within is immoral?
This opens a whole can of worms. In fact, a truckload. Because now morality doesn't mean well being, it simply is this random idea of whatever good actually is. And now unneeded pain isn't bad, torture can't be proven to be bad, nothing can be proven to be really bad or good. That throws out 'secular morality' as I know it. In fact, that completely throws away any morality as I know it. Sure, Divine Commandment still just as bogus as before we started but that was known beforehand.

[quote=Darkwizzie]Damn, that is a statement you cannot back up with sufficient evidence. I was still editing my post...

What if I said to you, morality is having the moral characteristics of Randy? Why? Because Randy is morally perfect. Do you see where divine commandment theory gets you?This is how to stop thinking about what is morally right or wrong and just take things on faith. This also lacks any descriptive power on what is actually moral or not. What about it makes it moral? So god has the moral characteristics of himself because perfect morality comes from God.

Does this mean that god is against discrimination or slavery or sexism? No, it just means god is himself. Does this mean God's commands necessarily minimize harm and suffering? No, it just means god is himself. Under your definition, can God spawn unfathomable suffering and still be good by your definition? Yes. Can god have complete and utter hatred for all other beings and still be good by that definition? Yes. Here, god is good only by definition because good has no meaning apart from whatever God says to do. If you are Christian, look at your Bible. if you are a Muslim, look at your Quran. There are countless immoral tibits there as the word of god. That's not even the main point. This kind of belief has no substance or descriptive power. If what god commands us to do is moral then it's meaningless redundancy; what god commands us to do is what god commands us to do. That's not what we mean when we say 'morality'. You're twisting the definition of the word. Apart from punishment and reward we have no idea what is moral or not because we don't know what it means to be like god. The only reason why loving your neighbor is good is because it's what god commanded. Morality then has nothing to do with making the world a better place. If god says to condemn homosexuality, we have no idea why it is immoral, only that it's immoral. So functionally, for a better society, this kind of definition also leads us nowhere.

In the end you have to demonstrate that such a theory is actually correct... You have to first demonstrate that a god exists, and that this god is infinitely moral and that to be moral is to have the moral characteristics of this god. You'll find incredible trouble getting any of that done.

If on the other hand, what god commands must be what leads to a better community and life for all, then god's actions are not morality by definition even if they are moral. God is merely a messenger for morality. Then we can try to figure out what factors lead to a flourishing, happy, health society. We know that some actions are more wrong than others because some of them are pretty obvious. Some are much harder to figure out. To believe this is to disagree with moral relativism.

The end to me it's pretty simple: To argue that torture is good or bad because you are genuinely confused about the answer is to be completely removed from morality itself. We don't need to know all possibilities to know torture is probably wrong. We can be functionally certain about this. We can be certain enough to stop a person from torturing another.

Here is a long video you probably won't watch but I'm putting it out there just in case:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWNW-NXEudk[/quote]

Good morning. Urgh, that is such a long post. Sorry, I'm not watching a 30 minutes video about this. Not today.

Yes, you keep repeating it. That's exactly right, he can cause unfathomable suffering and still be good. (Story of Noah's ark, and don't even BEGIN to talk about that, it's just an example that popped into my head) He CAN have complete and utter hatred for all other things and it would be correct. Why? Because the very definition or idea of a God is a perfect, omnipotent and omniscient being. By definition, it would be impossible for him to be wrong, and using thefreedictionary o.o, morality is "the quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct." I don't think I have really twisted the meaning of morality the divine command theory does not really conflict with that. Also remember, it's a theory because it cannot be proven, you just asked for what people followed and I just stated I followed this concept.

Who in the first place was to say discrimination, slavery and sexism was bad or immoral in the first place? That is based on how you think today due to society and your culture. If you lived in different times, you might now even question whether some of the said things are immoral in the first place. Also, in spite of saying I am the one with no back up, you keep typing on about your opinions about matters and morality. Your arguments are based on what would be for the better for society and what you personally think is immorally wrong. Your end example does not actually relate this this at all too, we're discussing about actual morality, not whether you can function and stop a person from torturing another with a belief. Your example about God condemning homosexuality in spite of us not knowing why it is immoral is irrelevant too. Whether we know if an act is immoral or not is not the question but what is actually immoral. Furthermore, what does functionality for a better society have to do with morality?

"If on the other hand, what god commands must be what leads to a better community and life for all, then god's actions are not morality by definition even if they are moral. God is merely a messenger for morality. Then we can try to figure out what factors lead to a flourishing, happy, health society. We know that some actions are more wrong than others because some of them are pretty obvious. Some are much harder to figure out. To believe this is to disagree with moral relativism."

I don't understand, explain further? You're assuming I'm thinking what God commands must lead to a better community and life for all.(Again kinda irrelevant) I'm not saying God is merely a messenger for morality and I don't understand what you're trying to say here. I'm not saying we are trying to figure out what factors lead to a flourishing, happy and healthy* society. We don't know that some actions are more wrong than other actually, no matter how obvious you think they are. I mean, it seemed noble to sacrifice virgin girls back in the day but hey, it seems it is frowned upon in this day and age.

@Harlequinist

I just read your post while typing my reply and I haven't read past the first few posts after mine but wow. Big long post about how everything is relative and then you tell me about the same God that was "cool" with, listing some of the very things you yourself said have no definite right or wrong. You're talking about black and whites with God, ok, but what does that have anything to do with the same God that was cool with murdering babies, slavery, forced sex and whatever else you mentioned? In fact what does telling me this relate to anything to do with my previous comment whatsoever?

I'm going to add onto what I said. Even though society's values change over time, I just believe that there is a right and wrong in every circumstance not based on any factor other, and I'm still somewhat unsure about my beliefs and such but I imagine what a perfect and divine being would do would be correct. And I'm not going to try prove it as fact or whatnot, I already said this but this thread was just collecting basiler's opinions and ideas and I was initially just adding to it, I argue for some of my belief but I still admit that the concept is something that is impossible to prove for fact. And of course I can't explain what a perfect divine being is or how he would view things.

Edit: I'm just going to add yeah, I am muddled in my thinking but I'm still conflicted between whether I should follow religion or my own belief.

[quote=Darkwizzie]My favorite response to a moral relativist is to punch their face. The person then recoils and asks why I did such a thing. Well, because nothing can be known as moral or immoral and all actions are neither objectively moral nor immoral, punching you in the face is OK. Here, I'll punch you again.[/quote]
Wow, so tough. What a cool guy.

moral relativity does exist but it's based more on culture or at least groups, rather than individuals
the context of an individual's acts are always going to be measured by others against their experience with everyone else, or laws/mores created by groups

I think I'm somewhere in-between.

On one hand I do believe in moral relativism, I don't think there's any moral marker dictating which actions are better or 'more good' than other actions. But I also believe that with a scientific/psychological/sociological approach we can form objective moral values [b]within a given society[/b], said moral values would not necessarily be unchanging and definitely would not encompass past/future moral standards. But in a society it's definitely possible to form an objective moral code based on common sense and reason.

EDIT: Sam Harris does a great job in showing how we can scientifically form objective morality.

@Darkwizzie I would disagree with you that slavery has always been morally wrong. I think if we lived back when blacks were enslaved we wouldn't have found anything morally wrong about it. Perspectives only started changing when our view of people started changing, until that happened I don't see how it was immoral. For example the way we treat animals, the environment, and for arguments let's expand that to artificial intelligence might right now seem very normal and not immoral to people. But as our ideas about these things change, future morals will change along with it, when we have walking cyborgs around and computers that can compute on a human level our entire moral perspective towards technology will have to adapt to the changing world. But it won't be until these things develop that what we're doing now will be seen as immoral, but future generations may look back on us in disgust at how we treated the planet, animals, robots, etc. Just like how we look back at slave-owners and our first instinct is disgust, but I'm sure they were very friendly people who thought that what they were doing was right.

EDIT: Another example is how our morals towards the environment changed in relation to our understanding of climate change. It wasn't [b]until[/b] our understanding of human-impact on the environment that our moral values changed, but said moral values didn't exist before, in fact they could not exist before.

[quote=Harlequinist]Okay, you keep skipping over my main argument like it doesn't apply. This society. Our society. The westernised one in the year 2013. If you dismiss this then I might as well talk from a perspective of a 3rd century Scot.
You can eat a person while they're still alive, and why wouldn't a violation of a corpse be considered immoral? If I had sex with a corpse that's an immoral violation (in our society - this goes without saying now).

Yeah, there's will never be an absolute 'right' answer. Some people want to be tortured, therefore you cannot say with absolute certainty that 'torture is bad'. It is relative to the individual.

You don't understand how something we perceive to be wrong can be considered 'right' in another persons eyes, and that's fine. You don't have to, it would just give you a headache, like trying to think of a new colour. It's a different perspective that goes against your entire thought processes you were taught your entire life. You can't prove anything to a person who has already made up their minds about honour killings. If they believe their family's honour is worth more than their child's life then only they can change their minds. They can be influenced for or against it, but it's just to the individual to come to a decision. We find honour killing immoral as a society which is why our laws protect us against them, they find honour killings to be a-okay so their laws allow them to do them.

It's not the term morality that is useless, it's the self-obsessed notion that there's only one way of thinking that is correct. If we got a random off the streets of Asia and got him to write down everything immoral and ban them I'd be pretty annoyed because I could bet money there'd be many things on there that aren't against my moral code. Again, moral relativism.

You need to understand what morals is, you can't use a measurable thing like the shape of the Earth and compare it to morality. They believe it to be flat, so it really was flat to them. It is spherical to us, but it will always be flat to the people who died before the new information was discovered. If we changed the English language so 'flat' is now defined as 'a circular form' then we can again say the Earth is flat. The Earth became round when we decided it was round. Our morals became different when we decided to make them different. We don't like the idea of slavery anymore? Cool, it's gone for us. Still around in other countries, but for us it's now immoral.

Morality DOES change with time. You cannot measure morality the same way you can see the shape of the Earth. There's no magical talking tree that tells you what is good and bad. Morality means right and wrongness, you can't change the definition of the word to suit your argument for it being 'well being' vs 'less well being' because they're different terms.
If you think killing is wrong, and you stick with it, you might not be happy when a person kills your kid because you didn't want to kill them first. I, however, would kill them before they killed my imaginary child. My moral compass is telling me murder is bad, but I know that is easily changed by circumstances and situations and if I found myself in that situation I wouldn't feel it was immoral to murder.

Just the fact that I'm telling you this, that I can change my mind because it's not an absolute, immediately and automatically renders morality as relative, because if it wasn't relative it would be absolute. And if it was absolute I would feel murder to be always an immoral act.[/quote]

You can eat a person while still alive which is immoral. But that doesn't render cannibalism immoral, just cannibalism while the person is alive immoral. I never talked about absolute certainty. We can be functionally certain that most people do not what torture, so we seek to prevent it. It is true that morality has many instances where a single sweeping statement will not cover it, but that doesn't mean there isn't a correct answer, just that the answer varies depending on the situation. Torturing a person that doesn't want it is immoral. Torture on somebody that wants it might or might not be moral, that requires further investigation. But the latter part has no effect on the former part. The fact that torturing somebody who wants to be tortured might or might not be moral doesn't change the fact that torturing somebody who doesn't want to be tortured is immoral. It's a seperate case.

When I say that we can be functionally certain that torture is bad, let's assume there is a hidden assumption that the person doesn't want torture.

I think the core issue is simply one of definition.
Morality is about what is good and what is bad, as far as I know, you are right.

We know that happiness is preferable to sadness. How do I prove that happiness is what is right? We know that honor itself is a good thing, but honor killings are thought of as bad things because it causes bloodshed and pain. How do we objectively weigh the need for honor against not wanting pain? Or maybe we can try to say, we want honor because we want happiness, therefore it's simply weighing how much happiness I get versus the amount you'd lose, which is greater.

But then we can ask, why is well being right? Because we want it and it feels good. But what is what feels good, right? Maybe it's down to what we want. So I do concede partway, that this needs more thought. But I still feel practically it is useless when two people are at a disagreement over what is right. It cannot resolve anything. And this kind of ideology taken to its full extent does indeed give me license to kill you or do whatever I want with you because as far as I'm concerned, my view of morality is, whatever I want is right with complete disregard to your suffering. Therefore, I am justified in doing whatever I want to you. You may argue that infringes in your rights, your views on morality.

But that only goes back to the torture case: If you want torture, you get it. If you don't want it, don't give it to them. In that case, morality is back to what you want or don't want. You can't objectively prove to me why killing you is bad. You can only respond with relative to your system of morality, killing you is bad. But I disagree. So now we're at an impasse. What do we do? If we can jump over this dilemma, I think that shows it is not all relative.

Check out what Wikipedia says, tell me what you think:
"These critics argue specifically that the moral relativists reduce the extent of their input in normative moral discussions to either rejecting the very having of the discussion, or else deeming both disagreeing parties to be correct. For instance, the moral relativist can only appeal to personal preference to object to the practice of murder or torture by individuals for hedonistic pleasure.[17] This accusation that relativists reject widely held terms of discourse is similar to arguments used against other "discussion-stoppers" like some forms of solipsism or the rejection of induction."

Now I"m really off, LOL.

[quote=Harlequinist]Well cannibalism in this society would be considered immoral, unless you're cool with letting someone eat your flesh. It's different in PNG.

Some would consider torture as strength building, pushing their limits, feeling alive. Again, depends on the person, situation, environment, society.

There's nothing [i]wrong[/i] with your interpretation, per se, it's just you need to understand that your interpretation only affects you. Your morality = a happy, healthy life for you. It might even limit the happiness in another person's life if they're following the same guidelines for morality that you do. And if they don't, then morality is indeed subjective, as your first question asked.[/quote]

This society? It's a subject rarely even discussed. My friends don't seem to have an issue with the concept itself.
Eating a person might be argued as a violation of a corpse. If that argument is valid, that doesn't render cannibalism as immoral, just cannibalism without prior consent. Sex isn't considered immoral, but forced sex without consent is.

I noted that torture is often not preferable to not being tortured. That obviously excludes times when people want to be tortured, that's something else entirely. The fact that people have different opinions doesn't mean there is a right answer. We can be relatively certain that most people don't want to get tortured. This is why we have laws against it.

But in the end I think what you're getting at is that morality doesn't have to be about making everybody happy or elevating the human condition. That, a person can say, morality is technically about what is right or wrong, and right might actually be killing people randomly. But I don't understand how that can be right in any way. Or maybe we can say something like, what if it's an honor killing? How do you prove that a person's life is worth more than the need for your feelings of being honorable?

Even if that is true, that morality is really such a stupid and useless term, that means we need a new term for my original idea of what morality is, because this current method of finding out what morality is is not making any headway towards a higher state of wellbeing for everybody.

I mean, I want to apply this to science, I'm only partially certain the analogy is useful but I'll give it a shot anyways:
What if I told you, we used to believe the earth was flat but now it's a globe? This means the earth was flat when we believed it. Different standards, different beliefs, different ideas. This also means the earth became round the minute we all decided it was round.

I mean, moral relativism arguments boggle my mind as much as that example above me. The planet didn't literally become a globe when you believe it was a globe. It was a globe the whole time, you were just wrong about it being flat. And the answer to what is moral may be difficult to answer, but that doesn't mean a correct answer doesn't exist... For either definitions... Either because there is an action which most people can agree to be moral, or that there is an action that can most increase well being. I'm convinced such an action exists, it's just fiendishly difficult to find.

I don't think morality changes with time, but rather our ideas of what is moral changes with time with better evidence, just like science. What is actually moral didn't change. What is moral is tentative. We don't know everything about science or morality but that doesn't mean any random guess is just as good as another.

You said you can't measure right and wrongness-and I already mentioned, measure what leads to more well being vs less well being. What would make others and myself happier? Would you like to be tortured? No? Then with only that info, I can say tentatively that torturing you does not maximize happiness and is therefore not moral.

In this society, getting free money is considered a good thing. But what if a person REALLY HATES getting free money and derives great suffering from this? Then it is immoral to give this person money regardless of what society tends to think. I think morality is more specific than just an entire society.

I'm off to bed, I'll be back in like... many hours.

[quote=Harlequinist]That's ridiculous, you only think torture and killing is bad morally because of the SOCIETY you grew up in. Your morals regarding this is completely dependent on your culture, upbringing etc.
You will probably also say: eating people/cannibalism is blatantly wrong. Well, very close to me is Papua New Guinea, home of a group of natives who believe that when they eat the flesh of each other they absorb their being and identities. This is a normal thing for them, killing and eating each other is not wrong or immoral.
If someone was holding my child captive and the only way I could get the information from them would be through torture then you can bet your arse I'd torture them. I wouldn't feel I was doing the wrong thing either, because there are no absolute wrongs and right. There are NO absolutes, ever. Even saying there are no absolutes as an absolute thing isn't absolute. The meaning of absolute isn't absolute. Do you get what I mean? I'm agnostic, so I've thought about the concept of absolutes a lot.

Forced sex is bad in our society, but animals forcefully mate with their females, do we consider them immoral? No. Morality is a human concept we invented to shame those with different viewpoints and to keep ourselves inline, conforming with the majority to ensure a successful society. If we had half a society wanting to think one way, and the other another way, we wouldn't function efficiently, nor would we be able to write any laws.

Torture is not always bad. Killing is not always bad. Forced sex is not always bad. Enslavement is not always bad. If there's ever a time you can think that what's 'bad' might be acceptable, or you can see how someone might think it is say in another culture or species, then there is no way at all you can say there's absolute rights or wrongs.

I also love the guy above me talking about how there's good and bad absolutes by God. Yeah, the same God that was cool with murdering babies, slavery, forced sex, pillaging, marrying your (forcer of sex [can't believe we can't write that word]), sacrificing your children, cutting off foreskin etc. etc. Different times, different society, different morals.[/quote]

Cannibalism as far as I know isn't immoral. I've actually written a debate outline for that stance.

Torture is wrong for no reason because it inflicts unnecessary, extreme suffering to a person for no good reason. I know I would not like to be tortured. I think you can find that most people throughout history would rather not get tortured, even from way back then.
I never said torture is ALWAYS bad and killing is ALWAYS bad. These are obvious absolutes that will stab me in the back. I'm saying, we can draw the conclusion that normally, torture is bad.

Again: What is wrong with my interpretation that morality is about easing suffering and promoting a happy, productive, healthy, life? If you have no problems with that outlook, then we can say that some actions cause more harm than it does good.

If whether an action is moral literally changes when the time changes, then morality is not about suffering or happiness, it is just a poll on people's opinions. From every source I have read, morality is attempting to find out what is actually right or wrong, not a poll statistic on what people feel is right or wrong. Then if I take you to a place where murder is accepted and I murder you, you honestly cannot find any objection with my actions. Of course, such a community is hard to come by because it is not conducive to thriving society that cares about well being.

[quote=DeprivedChild]Sigh, I told myself to go to bed nearly 4 hours ago.

I am absolute ___ at explaining myself anyways but what I kinda meant was how I personally feel like there isn't a definite right and wrong but there is supposed to actually be a right or wrong which is according to God. Also, putting aside how I might feel about it, yes, you're absolutely right by saying if the radical muslims' beliefs are wrong and they are acting against what would be the correct belief, they are wrong just for that.[/quote]

Damn, that is a statement you cannot back up with sufficient evidence. I was still editing my post...

What if I said to you, morality is having the moral characteristics of Randy? Why? Because Randy is morally perfect. Do you see where divine commandment theory gets you?This is how to stop thinking about what is morally right or wrong and just take things on faith. This also lacks any descriptive power on what is actually moral or not. What about it makes it moral? So god has the moral characteristics of himself because perfect morality comes from God.

Does this mean that god is against discrimination or slavery or sexism? No, it just means god is himself. Does this mean God's commands necessarily minimize harm and suffering? No, it just means god is himself. Under your definition, can God spawn unfathomable suffering and still be good by your definition? Yes. Can god have complete and utter hatred for all other beings and still be good by that definition? Yes. Here, god is good only by definition because good has no meaning apart from whatever God says to do. If you are Christian, look at your Bible. if you are a Muslim, look at your Quran. There are countless immoral tibits there as the word of god. That's not even the main point. This kind of belief has no substance or descriptive power. If what god commands us to do is moral then it's meaningless redundancy; what god commands us to do is what god commands us to do. That's not what we mean when we say 'morality'. You're twisting the definition of the word. Apart from punishment and reward we have no idea what is moral or not because we don't know what it means to be like god. The only reason why loving your neighbor is good is because it's what god commanded. Morality then has nothing to do with making the world a better place. If god says to condemn homosexuality, we have no idea why it is immoral, only that it's immoral. So functionally, for a better society, this kind of definition also leads us nowhere.

In the end you have to demonstrate that such a theory is actually correct... You have to first demonstrate that a god exists, and that this god is infinitely moral and that to be moral is to have the moral characteristics of this god. You'll find incredible trouble getting any of that done.

If on the other hand, what god commands must be what leads to a better community and life for all, then god's actions are not morality by definition even if they are moral. God is merely a messenger for morality. Then we can try to figure out what factors lead to a flourishing, happy, health society. We know that some actions are more wrong than others because some of them are pretty obvious. Some are much harder to figure out. To believe this is to disagree with moral relativism.

The end to me it's pretty simple: To argue that torture is good or bad because you are genuinely confused about the answer is to be completely removed from morality itself. We don't need to know all possibilities to know torture is probably wrong. We can be functionally certain about this. We can be certain enough to stop a person from torturing another.

Here is a long video you probably won't watch but I'm putting it out there just in case:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWNW-NXEudk

IDK with questions like these because on one head I could be considered a moral relativist in theory, but when applied to real life extreme situations I don't take that stance.

[quote=Darkwizzie]How the hell did you come to the conclusion that this thread is about me? I barely used any big words at all. If any words in there are considered big by your standards (except maybe moral relativism, that in itself seems confusing, but that's the subject of the thread), then you just have a small vocabulary.

Second point, I don't understand. Explain again please.

Third: I still have no idea what you're talking about.

@DeprivedChild: (Put the @ behind my name so that I can be alerted to waste extra time on this site)

I know what divine command theory is. Basically, whatever god says is good is good. Then morality is simply a synonym for what god says is moral. Then by that token, the Islamist blowing themselves up are wrong only because they are praying to the wrong god. I also don't understand how this is compatible with moral relativism. If there is no real right or wrong, no objectively correct answer, then how can you say what god commands must be good? You just established there isn't an absolute answer.[/quote]

Sigh, I told myself to go to bed nearly 4 hours ago.

I am absolute ___ at explaining myself anyways but what I kinda meant was how I personally feel like there isn't a definite right and wrong but there is supposed to actually be a right or wrong which is according to God. Also, putting aside how I might feel about it, yes, you're absolutely right by saying if the radical muslims' beliefs are wrong and they are acting against what would be the correct belief, they are wrong just for that.

[quote=TheWolf]I'll take the middle ground between moral relativism and moral realism. Without being bounded by either radical sides. We can see both points of view and find solutions that are deemed appropriate to solve real life solutions rather than arguing who is right or wrong because neither is completely right or wrong.[/quote]
I think in a perfect world, the absolute correct option might exist, but whether that is the case is not really important because the world isn't perfect. I'm not arguing for an extreme position. To me it's a basic understanding that torture is bad, killing people is typically bad. Some things are obvious, some are not so obvious and warrents discussion. But randomly calling everything relative, so that whether torture is bad is really only subjected to opinion, I think that is baloney.

We don't need to be absolutely certain that torture is bad to stop somebody from torturing another if we see it happen. We can be functionally certain.

[quote=Satellite]Moral is a manmade concept to a large extent, although many other animals do also have "moral". Human race still has an awfully humancetric and self-important worldview, especially many religious people. To give an example, when it comes to "murder", humans tend to be real moral hypocrites. Killing an insect for no real reason is practiced and considered okay by many, because they're small and ugly in the eyes of many humans, in other words humans cannot sympathize with bugs to the same extent as with a dog for example. Many people are also against killing seals, because they're more cute than pigs and turkeys. Killing a horse or dog is evil because "they're our friends". And of course, killing any "animal" is always less evil than killing another human. [b]Simply put, humans automatically rank animals based on very poor and dumb reasons often without even realizing it.[/b]

In the nature (even brutal) murder for food is necessary for survival. It happens every day. Some reptiles swallow their preys alive and as a whole, causing the prey to painfully suffocates to death. Some animals play with the prey, in other words, torture the other animal before eating it. It's called survival of the fittest.

As an atheist I don't believe in absolute, universal moral because I don't believe there is an universal all-knowing person to define what is right and what is wrong. So do I think murdering people is okay? Of course not, if a moral guide like Bible or such is the only thing keeping you away from murdering everyone around you, there's something fundamentally wrong with you. I don't kill because I'm an empathic being, I don't want to kill someone or cause suffering for another being.

But absolute morality? I don't think I want an absolute morality. I want a morality that is thought out, reasoned, argued, discussed, and based upon human compassion and emotional intelligence.

I could write more about this but this post is already complicated and long enough. Anyway, that's my thoughts about morality when it comes to murder and causing pain to others.[/quote]
You cannot directly compare the life of a bug to that of a human though. The bug is capable of less achievements, less range of experiences/emotions than a human being.

Yes, some rankings don't make sense.
If we consider morality as the minimization of pain and the promotion of pleasure, if we were omniscient for the sake of argument, then it is possible for absolute morality to actually exist, at least in some situations. Of course, we are not omniscient so we cannot reach anything like this, this is only a hypothetical.

The main thing I'm arguing for is to me, blatantly obvious: Torture is bad. Killing is generally bad. Forced sex is bad. Etc. We can be sure enough of this to stop people that try to torture or enslave or kill others.
[quote=Harlequinist]It's not about fairness and minimizing pain, it's about satisfying a single person's ego-centric narcissism and laziness. Slavery was okay because one: they didn't consider black people on the same level as white people in any way, two: slaves maximized productivity for minimal costs. They considered slavery fair, I mean the slaves had a roof over their heads, learnt English, were fed and dressed - more than fair to them. Some of the slaves might've enjoyed it if they had kind masters, better than the streets. Morals change depending on the situation and society at any given time. Your example is based on a measurable, physical mass, human treatment and perceptions of right and wrong aren't always so black and white.

Ask any God-loving Christian if they think it's okay to be killing the Muslims in the Middle-East and you'll find a lot of people will say it's okay, that Islam teaches bad values, that Islamic groups are murdering other religious groups (which is true) and that makes it all right to continue violence towards them. Ask them if they think it's okay for Muslims to kill Christians in the U.S.A. for the same reasons and you'll get red-faced crazies probably start reciting the pledge of alligence (I think that's what you guys call it).

Anyway, I grow tired of this topic so I'm going to go back to trolling..[/quote]
The idea of owning another person, that you are allowed to do whatever, in itself gives you rights others do not have for no good reason. Also don't forget, slaves are slaves for a reason. They are not there to be treated nicely. Physical abuse absolutely expected.

I'll take the middle ground between moral relativism and moral realism. Without being bounded by either radical sides. We can see both points of view and find solutions that are deemed appropriate to solve real life solutions rather than arguing who is right or wrong because neither is completely right or wrong.

[quote=kuvonn]This thread is more about you than it is about the question, isn't it..?

Wow, really gay point. Here's why:
First, your apparent and "riveting" morality change wouldn't inspire quandary; being punched in the face would.

Second, your statement suggests that moral relativists, and sociopaths by proxy, act without precedent. On the contrary, sociopaths are typically known to be cold and calculating; one wouldn't just punch a guy in the face by volition, unless he were stupid or autistic. In this instance, you seem to be either or both.

Third, it's counterproductive to open a thread by posing the obvious argument. Surely a sophisticate such as yourself understood that Basilmarket's narrow-minded userbase would be inclined toward moral realism. Given that, why open a thread with the same argument? I guess your appetite for autofelli just got the better of you.[/quote]

How the hell did you come to the conclusion that this thread is about me? I barely used any big words at all. If any words in there are considered big by your standards (except maybe moral relativism, that in itself seems confusing, but that's the subject of the thread), then you just have a small vocabulary.

Second point, I don't understand. Explain again please.

Third: I still have no idea what you're talking about.

DeprivedChild:

I know what divine command theory is. Basically, whatever god says is good is good. Then morality is simply a synonym for what god says is moral. Then by that token, the Islamist blowing themselves up are wrong only because they are praying to the wrong god.

What if I said to you, morality is having the moral characteristics of Randy? Why? Because Randy is morally perfect. This is how to stop thinking about what is morally right or wrong and just take things on faith. This also lacks any descriptive power on what is actually moral or not. What about it makes it moral? So god has the moral characteristics of himself because perfect morality comes from God.

Does this mean that god is against discrimination or slavery or sexism? No, it just means god is himself. Does this mean God's commands necessarily minimize harm and suffering? No, it just means god is himself. Under your definition, can God spawn unfathomable suffering and still be good by your definition? Yes. Can god have complete and utter hatred for all other beings and still be good by that definition? Yes. Here, god is good only by definition because good has no meaning apart from whatever God says to do. If you are Christian, look at your Bible. if you are a Muslim, look at your Quran. There are countless immoral tibits there as the word of god. That's not even the main point.

In the end you have to demonstrate that such a theory is actually correct... You have to first demonstrate that a god exists, and that this god is infinitely moral and that to be moral is to have the moral characteristics of this god. You'll find incredible trouble getting any of that done.

[quote=kuvonn]This thread is more about you than it is about the question, isn't it..?

Wow, really gay point. Here's why:
First, your apparent and "riveting" morality change wouldn't inspire quandary; being punched in the face would.

Second, your statement suggests that moral relativists, and sociopaths by proxy, act without precedent. On the contrary, sociopaths are typically known to be cold and calculating; one wouldn't just punch a guy in the face by volition, unless he were stupid or autistic. In this instance, you seem to be either or both.

Third, it's counterproductive to open a thread by posing the obvious argument. Surely a sophisticate such as yourself understood that Basilmarket's narrow-minded userbase would be inclined toward moral realism. Given that, why open a thread with the same argument? I guess your appetite for autofelli just got the better of you.[/quote]

Wow, such a hostile response. A lot of it came off as ad hominem. I can agree with your main points though, such as OP's response to moral relativists which might just be a slightly awkward expression of his emotion against moral relativists. It was an appeal to our emotions against why moral relativism would be a bad idea.

OT: I apologize in advance if I sound awkward or don't make sense of what I say, but I'm not thinking clearly this late at night and I don't know how to explain what I think, if it is even logical at all. I agree with the divine command theory, but through people's eyes we naturally follow the moral relativist stance. Basically, there is an actual right and wrong according to God, but we don't know for sure and our own morals are formed from our feelings and society. If that makes sense... o.o

[quote=Darkwizzie]LOOK AT ME WITH MY SOPHISTICATED VOCABULARY I KNOW WHAT MORAL RELATIVISM IS XD[/quote]

This thread is more about you than it is about the question, isn't it..?

[quote=Darkwizzie]My favorite response to a moral relativist is to punch their face. The person then recoils and asks why I did such a thing. Well, because nothing can be known as moral or immoral and all actions are neither objectively moral nor immoral, punching you in the face is OK. Here, I'll punch you again.[/quote]

Wow, really gay point. Here's why:
First, your apparent and "riveting" morality change wouldn't inspire quandary; being punched in the face would.

Second, your statement suggests that moral relativists, and sociopaths by proxy, act without precedent. On the contrary, sociopaths are typically known to be cold and calculating; one wouldn't just punch a guy in the face by volition, unless he were stupid or autistic. In this instance, you seem to be either or both.

Third, it's counterproductive to open a thread by posing the obvious argument. Surely a sophisticate such as yourself understood that Basilmarket's narrow-minded userbase would be inclined toward moral realism. Given that, why open a thread with the same argument? I guess your appetite for autofelli just got the better of you.

Moral is a manmade concept to a large extent, although many other animals do also have "moral". Human race still has an awfully humancetric and self-important worldview, especially many religious people. To give an example, when it comes to "murder", humans tend to be real moral hypocrites. Killing an insect for no real reason is practiced and considered okay by many, because they're small and ugly in the eyes of many humans, in other words humans cannot sympathize with bugs to the same extent as with a dog for example. Many people are also against killing seals, because they're more cute than pigs and turkeys. Killing a horse or dog is evil because "they're our friends". And of course, killing any "animal" is always less evil than killing another human. [b]Simply put, humans automatically rank animals based on very poor and dumb reasons often without even realizing it.[/b]

In the nature (even brutal) murder for food is necessary for survival. It happens every day. Some reptiles swallow their preys alive and as a whole, causing the prey to painfully suffocates to death. Some animals play with the prey, in other words, torture the other animal before eating it. It's called survival of the fittest.

As an atheist I don't believe in absolute, universal moral because I don't believe there is an universal all-knowing person to define what is right and what is wrong. So do I think murdering people is okay? Of course not, if a moral guide like Bible or such is the only thing keeping you away from murdering everyone around you, there's something fundamentally wrong with you. I don't kill because I'm an empathic being, I don't want to kill someone or cause suffering for another being.

But absolute morality? I don't think I want an absolute morality. I want a morality that is thought out, reasoned, argued, discussed, and based upon human compassion and emotional intelligence.

I could write more about this but this post is already complicated and long enough. Anyway, that's my thoughts about morality when it comes to murder and causing pain to others.

[quote=Harlequinist]If this was a violent society were punching people was the norm, then the act wouldn't be immoral obviously.

And no, back in the times of slavery those who owned slaves didn't find it to be immoral at all. Now, since we have equality for everyone and treat everyone equally regardless of skin colour we realise owning people is wrong, but back then it wasn't. Even in the Bible they were cool with people being slaves; if God's all good with it then why wouldn't others be. It wasn't immoral back then. We changed our views because we came to think of people from different lands as humans, just like the rest of us, and we stopped acting superior to them. Since we view others as humans deserving of equal rights no matter what we've come to think of slavery as immoral. Who knows, maybe in a few hundred years we'll be owning alien slaves and the process will start all over again.

Yeah, extremely devout theists are usually the most hypocritical. [/quote]
Lol, alien slaves. I imagine those purple octopi from Kerning City for some reason.

Anyways: I feel it makes more sense if we consider opinions on morality a judgement based upon multiple complicated factors. But like I said, if you strip it all down, it's about fairness and maximizing happiness, minimizing pain. Is slavery fair? Do slaves enjoy it? I'm not sure if you think those two questions have answers that change from time to time. I just can't wrap my head around that idea, that something is literally right or wrong because people think differently. To me it's like saying, the earth used to be flat before we thought it was more like a globe because we all agreed earth was flat. No, earth was a glove the entire time, we just made wrong judgements.

[quote=LowWillpower]Irony of this thread.

Your favourite response is pretty much an example of moral relativism.

For no reason other than to prove a point you suddenly justify causing direct pain so someone else who did not pose any threat to you. Most people would see that as immoral (besides maybe a moral relativist, who would either find it funny, or fight you because you punched them in the face).[/quote]

No, the actual irony is far more hilarious:
That line is SARCASM to demonstrate why I feel it's not valid. Which you thought was a lapse in logic and thought was ironic.
See the irony?

Irony of this thread.

Your favourite response is pretty much an example of moral relativism.

For no reason other than to prove a point you suddenly justify causing direct pain so someone else who did not pose any threat to you. Most people would see that as immoral (besides maybe a moral relativist, who would either find it funny, or fight you because you punched them in the face).

Uhm.. I don't know if there is an 'unvote' option, lol.

@Darkwizzie oh.. crap, yea i misread. sry

now how do i move my vote to the no group

[quote=Doorslam]i believe that everything has their lines where if something goes over, ppl can consider it as going far, so i guess i am?[/quote]

That's probably a no. A moral relativist would say, there is no line because everything is just as good as anything else. Whether killing you, sleeping with you, beating you up, torturing you, giving you a million dollars, making you smart, making you dumber is moral or immoral is only based upon opinion, nobody can really say and there must be no right answer.

i believe that everything has their lines where if something goes over, ppl can consider it as going far, so i guess i am?

[quote=Harlequinist]Yes I am. Moral is based upon what society deems acceptable as a whole, but you can judge people's moral level individually with your own opinions and influences. This is why religions BS about atheists and agnostics being evil and immoral is so stupid.

If you punched me in the face that would morally be wrong, because the majority of society would agree that punching a person without good enough reason (i.e defence) is wrong and even punishable.[/quote]

The first question that pops into my head is: If I were to punch you in the face... in a violent society, do you think that literally makes the act moral? Because if morality is purely dependent on the opinions of others in a place at a specific time, then slavery is moral if we are in the founding days of the United States. The actual moral nature of slavery literally changes because people feel differently about it.

I think most people would intuitively think that's not the case. I feel slavery is immoral and has been immoral the whole time people were practicing it. If morality is only about what others feel as a society, then why do societies change opinions on what is moral or not? If slavery is moral because we all believed it was 200 years ago, then why did we change our opinions? There must be some other factor in play here, which I argued earlier.

About religion:
I find it somewhat ironic that some theists are also moral relativists. To them morality has no absolute, there is no right answer, yet often times theists argue that their god is infinitely wise, moral, just, merciful, and moral. And then theists rely on the word of god to tell them what is or isn't moral. It would seem those two ideas are contradictory.

I'd say I am, but not in the context of violence, more so human sexuality and exposure of the human body. But of course I know all morals are opinion including those concerning violence.

@Darkwizzie: I honestly don't really care for the subject that much. All I think is that all morals are based on opinions. I don't agree with all morals in this world, because I don't agree with everyone's opinion. That's pretty much all I can say about it.

[quote=Skyenets]I do feel morals are based upon opinions. Actually, they really are if you think about it. But I agree with the opinions they're based on, if that makes sense.[/quote]

Well, many things are based upon opinions. Whether there is a god, whether torture is good or bad, whether earth is flat. The question is whether it is based solely on opinion and nothing more.

If I consider morality deals in large part with happiness and suffering, I can lay down the fundamental idea that happiness is generally preferable to suffering, life is typically preferable to death. If you grant me that, then it becomes an endeavor to maximize happiness and minimize suffering. Although happiness and sadness is hard to measure, there are actions that can be agreed upon to cause relatively more happiness compared to some other crazy suggestion. We can figure out that some actions cause relatively more happiness than the other. The fact that I might not be able to figure out the single action that will lead to the highest possible happiness for most people doesn't mean that option doesn't exist, only that it's super hard to find it.

But I think if we're going to take the extremist view that torture is as immoral as it is moral, that everything is as moral as it's immoral, that everything is equal, then good luck living your life figuring out what to do. This kind of mindset won't contribute to society.

I do feel morals are based upon opinions. Actually, they really are if you think about it. But I agree with the opinions they're based on, if that makes sense.

I already have my own opinion, I've discussed it with overs, but if anybody is interested in my position or to put their 2cents here, I would figure copy and pasting my stance on Basil isn't too bad of an idea.

I don't think this is the right site to ask.