Sensei_Dez
White Belt
no, I wouldn't say I am either
Necessary Evils: Poll and essay thread
- Thread starter shesulsa
- Start date
If we universalize the underlying principle of moral relativism, that there are no universal morals and that morality itself is simply an artificial construct, all psychopathic behavior is morally justified. This is why I think all psychopaths might very well be the perfect moral relativists.
We make moral decisions everyday in our lives. For example, do I take that coffee or do I pay for it? Those are the products of moral reasoning. Moral relativism, as I'm beginning to understand more clearly, is simply a political term. Real moral relativists are psychopaths...which is why our leaders keep trying to convince us that this exists! Lol!
The last comment was tongue in cheek, but it leads to another idea that i'd like to interject. What if a society had convinced itself that their incorrect moral reasoning was correct? Perhaps that headhunter in Borneo beleives that his victims are human and are just animals, therefore he is justified in taking their head?
This would be an example of an entire group of people who beleived in something rooted in a false premise. Therefore, the fact that the society beleives the above is good is not a proof of moral relativism. It simply is the product of faulty reasoning.
The same could be said of the Nazis...and any other society that justifies something atrocious.
Far from it. I won't go into here. Come to Hawaii and we'll have a coffee someday...
Essentially, because of my life, I became interested in philosophy. Our species is in dire need of philosophy...before we destroy each other and the world we live in. Optimistically thinking, perhaps history books will record our time as a pre-logical phase of development. When humans realized that we could extinct ourselves, we reasoned better ways to live together.
We make moral decisions everyday in our lives. For example, do I take that coffee or do I pay for it? Those are the products of moral reasoning. Moral relativism, as I'm beginning to understand more clearly, is simply a political term. Real moral relativists are psychopaths...which is why our leaders keep trying to convince us that this exists! Lol!
The last comment was tongue in cheek, but it leads to another idea that i'd like to interject. What if a society had convinced itself that their incorrect moral reasoning was correct? Perhaps that headhunter in Borneo beleives that his victims are human and are just animals, therefore he is justified in taking their head?
This would be an example of an entire group of people who beleived in something rooted in a false premise. Therefore, the fact that the society beleives the above is good is not a proof of moral relativism. It simply is the product of faulty reasoning.
The same could be said of the Nazis...and any other society that justifies something atrocious.
Far from it. I won't go into here. Come to Hawaii and we'll have a coffee someday...
Essentially, because of my life, I became interested in philosophy. Our species is in dire need of philosophy...before we destroy each other and the world we live in. Optimistically thinking, perhaps history books will record our time as a pre-logical phase of development. When humans realized that we could extinct ourselves, we reasoned better ways to live together.
I see your point, Bill. We are forced into terrible decisions all of the time because of other people's terrible moral decisions. I don't know if that makes us immoral. I hope not...because I'm guilty too.
That said, it's truly terrifying, more terrifying then "moral relativism", to universalize real moral principles. We have a lot of work to do...and god damn psychopaths can push the button at any minute.
To quote Clint Eastwood in the movie "Unforgiven," "We all got it coming, kid."
The trick is to realize we're all scum and move past it.
"Lifeboat scenarios" where immorality occurs exist. Some people get rich off of it.
This is the foundation of our corporatist economy...lol!
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 9,929
- Reaction score
- 1,451
Real psycopaths-and psycopathic behavior-are amoral-nothing is "relative" to anything, save their own desires and motivations. WHile they may care how someone views them, and act accordingly, they really don't care about how someone else feels at all.
On the other hand, we might just go ahead and taste a couple of those grapes we're going to buy, or have a sip or two of that coffee before we've paid for it. We might take one or two grapes for a taste, decide the grapes aren't sweet enough, and not buy any. If the cashier gives us too much change, we might not return the extra. If the pump at the gas station is broken, and dispensing three gallons at the cost of one, we might just help ourselves to a full tank at a third of the price. If someone is in the act of raping our little girl, we might just kill them. If someone raped our little girl yesterday, we might just hunt them down and kill them. If our family is starving-or even just hungry-we might just shoot a deer out of season, or on someone else's land, or steal a loaf of bread, or rob a bank.
If we felt like it, we might just kill someone, cut out their liver and fry it up.
Indeed, they are. :lfao:
No, it's not. Going back to the headhunters in Borneo, for them, the height of "moral behavior" and "moral reasoning," and what exemplifies all that's right and just in the world, is to hunt down their enemies, cut off their heads and keep them. For my ancestors, the "right thing" to do was row their canoes across the Long Island Sound to what would become Connecticut, kill some Pequot warriors, kill their children, kidnap their women, take all their **** and burn their houses down......moral relativism is simply recognizing that such behavior constituted what was "moral" within the societal construct. Doesn't make it "moral" for you, me, or our current society.Just recognizes that it was moral for the people doing it.
Or anthropologists, or Jesuits, or Maori tribesmen.....
But it does exist.
You can't call "a society's moral reasoning" "incorrect-such terms don't apply. "Moral reasoning" is contextual, and takes place within the framework of that society's moral construct-that we judge such behavior to be immoral from the outside looking in is immaterial, and, in some cases, to be expected: in the face of monstrosities like Germany in WWII, the reaction of the rest of the world was to be expected, to some degree, but so was the confomity or complicit behavior of the majority of German society. They adapted to a new moral paradigm, or hid their disgust out of self-preservation, much as a psycopath might conceal his true nature behind charm and the appearance of "normalcy."
Yes, it was morally right for European colonists in North America to own slaves, steal land from the Indians and kill them all. WHat made it morally right? They believed it to be so. They could quote scripture that supported both viewpoints, or political ideologies like "Manifest Destiny." Our country is the perfect demonstration of the truth of "moral relativism." What was right then is no longer right, but it truly was at the time-it was a societal construct.
All of what you describe above is the product of false premises. When we rest our moral reasoning upon them, we make bad moral decisions. It's not moral relativism, it's poor reasoning. Entire cultures can be terrible at this. Philosophy helps.
Example People X aren't human (A) and are responsible for all of the bad things (B), therefore we need to exterminate People X (C). If premise A and B are false, then the moral conclusion would also be false. It's not rocket science and there is no need to invoke moral relativism. C is wrong and anyone who believes in C as a conclusion of A and B are wrong.
Using this reasoning, we would be perfectly justified in pointing out this error in other people's moral reasoning.
Example People X aren't human (A) and are responsible for all of the bad things (B), therefore we need to exterminate People X (C). If premise A and B are false, then the moral conclusion would also be false. It's not rocket science and there is no need to invoke moral relativism. C is wrong and anyone who believes in C as a conclusion of A and B are wrong.
Using this reasoning, we would be perfectly justified in pointing out this error in other people's moral reasoning.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 9,929
- Reaction score
- 1,451
It's your societal construct that says that they are false premises. By all "reason" available to those making those decisions, they rested on firm moral reasoning.
It's only "poor reasoning" when viewed from outside the societal construct-that's called judgement. From inside the societal constuct, it was good moral reasoning.
It's moral relatavism to recognize this, and to recognize that there is no such thing as a "bad moral decision",outside of a social constuct.
Applying "logic" and "reason" to the motivations for human behavior can only get you so far: (A)people X kill us 90% of the time we show up, so (B)we should kill them first.
If premise (A) is true, (B) logically folllows. Sound reasoning, but not necessarily "moral," unless adapted as the norm by the societal construct. Thus it was that we had U.S. cavalry returning from the Sand Creek Massacre, parading through Denver with souvenir body parts to the cheers of crowds that lined the streets. It disgusts us-and "rightly so,"-but it was a grand time that no one present doubted the morality of....
I beg to differ. Are we saying that the Nazi's believed anything TRUE about the Jews? Are we really saying that "nits make lice" rested on the best moral reasoning available? I seem to remember a writer or two who thought this was ********.
We should probably start thinking of morality as a form of technology. If ancient people mistreated each other because of poorly reasoned morality, this is akin to them treated headaches with drills through the skull. It's bad technology and misguided. The basic idea of moral relativism would have us equate skull drilling with modern medicine.
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 9,929
- Reaction score
- 1,451
Is being "moral" more about being "true," or abotu being right, as in "righteous? Regardless of the "truth" of what they believed about the Jews, it was "true" and "real" for them, and so they morally justified their actions.
Do you doubt for a minute that they couldn't eloquently express the "morality" of what they were doing? Not that they could convince you of their morality, as much as that they could explain their justifications.If you can see that they would have been able to do this, that's moral relativism-your seeing it, regardless of how you feel about it, or how "immoral" it actually was (to you.)
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 9,929
- Reaction score
- 1,451
Trephination was used successfully in ancient times to relieve intercranial pressure-still is today.
You insist on trying to paint society with a black and white brush, when everything is shades of gray. Here's a modern bit of moral relativism for you then ... To a large part of society, circumcision is a normal thing that is done to male babies without a second thought. To my grandmother's people, genital mutilation is a horrible and evil thing. So, are you circumcised? I am. The hospital didn't even ask my parents if they wanted it done, they just did it. My grandmother was horrified, but it didn't seem to bother my parents at all.
I think you missed the point. How common is trepanning now? Or replace trepanning with leaching or insert another barbaric medieval practice. The larger point is that morality could be viewed like technology and we could objectively measure benefits in how people treat each other with improvements in it.
Last edited:
Basing our morality on things that can be objectively defined as truth would prevent so many atrocities, I can't even begin to count. Imagine if we could all agree that every Homo Saipan was human and had unalienable rights?
I don't buy the argument that moral justification for society is merely a form of localized group think. We can apply logic to morality and live better.
Yes, imagine that. Convince the local mugger, the rapist, the bank robber. Convince the CEO and the union official. Convince the politician. Convince everyone.
Personally, I don't see it happening. Ever.
But we live in societies that attempt, albeit in a flawed way, to protect those ideals to the largest extent possible. How? By force.
When you convince everyone in prison that they should not rape, murder, rob, or otherwise infringe on the inalienable rights of others, then we can fire the police and dismantle the governments and the military forces.
Until then...
Until then society gets to wrestle with a snake that turns around and bites it.
We're very early on in the jouney toward better human relations. An early step is realizing that our society is based on an Appeal to Force. Congratulations.
The next step is realizing an Appeals to Force is irrational. The next is realizing that we can't reason with the irrational. And the next is realzing that the individual can start Appealing to Force less in their private lives.
That's how the world gets better.
Won't ever happen.
Idealised interactions between people can and do occur but it is always at the level of the individual or the small group. As you aggregate more and more people into the 'community' then more and more you need a way of enforcing good and societally useful behaviour. Anarchism becomes true anarchy without such controls.
It is the same way with communism; it works wonderfully in a small collective of balanced talents and resources which can be freely exchanged within the group. Get beyond a handful of people and you end up with the dire 'One Big Tractor Factory' syndrome.
Both philosophies are founded on the idea of the basic good that resides in Man. But not all Men are good and even the smallest leavening of deceit or selfishness spoils the whole.
It is the same way with communism; it works wonderfully in a small collective of balanced talents and resources which can be freely exchanged within the group. Get beyond a handful of people and you end up with the dire 'One Big Tractor Factory' syndrome.
Both philosophies are founded on the idea of the basic good that resides in Man. But not all Men are good and even the smallest leavening of deceit or selfishness spoils the whole.
Pessimist.
