A Thought Experiment (6 Viewers)

[Dinsdale]

to get rid of it, well that looks very unlikely, it has become part of the norm now, and is pretty much acceptable now, that's why they should be treated them like everybody else...personally though, I find it immoral but that is a personal opinion and I'm not one to be judging them

Maybe it's just me but doesn't this contain multiple self-contradictions? Anyone else care to comment?

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Ahmed]

it does have contradictions...but so does life...not everything is black and white and clear cut

but Incest, there is no ifs and buts in that

 

[Dinsdale]

it does have contradictions...but so does life...not everything is black and white and clear cut

but Incest, there is no ifs and buts in that

Right, and who decides what's black-or-white and what is not? Almost getting somewhere now.

 

[Martin]

to get rid of it, well that looks very unlikely, it has become part of the norm now, and is pretty much acceptable now, that's why they should be treated them like everybody else...personally though, I find it immoral but that is a personal opinion and I'm not one to be judging them

1. You suggest something immoral and common should be tolerated because it's common.
2. If it's acceptable now, that means it is considered moral now. Which means you are at odds with "society".
3. Saying "I find it immoral" means you are judging them. This is what judgment is.

 

[Ahmed]

Right, and who decides what's black-or-white and what is not? Almost getting somewhere now.

I know what you're getting at...as for your question, it's the usual suspects...society, parents, religion etc...

but with or without those sources, the majority of modern societies have realised that Incest is not on.

 

[Ahmed]

1. You suggest something immoral and common should be tolerated because it's common.
2. If it's acceptable now, that means it is considered moral now. Which means you are at odds with "society".
3. Saying "I find it immoral" means you are judging them. This is what judgment is.

1 - Tolerated 'cos tolerance is the only real option

2 - Yep, you could say I'm at odds with Western society then

3 - He asked my opinion about it, I gave it him...giving an opinion is pretty much the same as a judgement

 

[Martin]

1 - Tolerated 'cos tolerance is the only real option

Yes, but this doesn't clash at all with what morality is all about. Morality is there to prevent harmful behavior and so if you say something is immoral and then say "let's not do anything about it", then that means either A) you don't care whether people do moral things or B) you don't really think it's immoral or maybe C) the harm is negligible.

For instance I think smoking is immoral. So I say "let's not tolerate it".

 

[rounder]

Yes, but we can't imagine such a scenario happening in reality. That's what gives you the illusion of some moral values (not even all) being something superhuman.



Excellent B-movie plot, but it won't happen in reality. And fully contrived to make non-believers look like immoral oppurtunists. Anyhow I'll play along and assume it could happen. Well, then that would be an immoral sadistic bastard of a king to start off with, right? How do we respond to immoral actions? Normally by trying to stop them. That's why we invented democracy in reality. So, also assuming that we can't undermine this king's power and we have to make a choice given the only 2 possible options, then yes, at some point the hardship the poor family has to endure will overcompensate the hardship caused to the woman by raping her. This example also nullifies one of the main purposes or morality, which is avoiding that individuals do something for personal gain (in reality the personal gain of rape is the derived pleasure) that will in the long run (usually if everybody did it) would significantly harm society and thus every individual too.

Now, why don't you stop giving Planet-of-the-Apes-esque examples and try to make a general statement. I gave you 3 solid reasons why it doesn't make sense to postulate absolute morality. You have ignored them and keep making up examples that don't lead to a general conclusion.

Very well.

I will give you many reasons why it does not make sense to postulate ethical relativism.

1)
While the moral practices of societies may differ, the fundamental moral principles underlying these practices do not. For example, in some societies, killing one's parents after they reached a certain age was common practice, stemming from the belief that people were better off in the afterlife if they entered it while still physically active and vigorous. While such a practice would be condemned in our society, we would agree with these societies on the underlying moral principle, the duty to care for parents. Societies, then, may differ in their application of fundamental moral principles but agree on the principles.

2)
It may be the case that some moral beliefs are culturally relative whereas others are not. Certain practices, such as customs regarding dress and decency, may depend on local custom whereas other practices, such as slavery, torture, or political repression, may be governed by universal moral standards and judged wrong despite the many other differences that exist among cultures. Simply because some practices are relative does not mean that all practices are relative.


3)
If the rightness or wrongness of an action depends on a society's norms, then it follows that one must obey the norms of one's society and to diverge from those norms is to act immorally. This means that if I am a member of a society that believes that racial or sexist practices are morally permissible, then I must accept those practices as morally right. But such a view promotes social conformity and leaves no room for moral reform or improvement in a society. Furthermore, members of the same society may hold different views on practices. In the United States, for example, a variety of moral opinions exists on matters ranging from animal experimentation to abortion. What constitutes right action when social consensus is lacking?

4)
Universal moral standards can exist even if some moral practices and beliefs vary among cultures. In other words, we can acknowledge cultural differences in moral practices and beliefs and still hold that some of these practices and beliefs are morally wrong. The practice of slavery in pre-Civil war U.S. society is wrong despite the beliefs of the society itself. The treatment of the Jews in Nazi society is morally reprehensible regardless of the moral beliefs of Nazi society.

Just because the Nazi's believed their actions were morally justified, that does not deem their actions moral.

 

[rounder]

I'll add one more. Opening people's minds (although that's probably just wishful thinking).

It's sad to me that when you discuss morality with people it's so shocking to them that you could even do such a thing that all you get out of them are these emotional responses that amount to "OMG".

Well, Martin, it's because morality is not a topic that should always be analyzed rationally as I explained. There are many moralistic yet not neccesarily rational conventions that have benefited humanity greatly. If we get rid of intuitive responses to fucking one's mother or sister, then we have really lost ourselves completely. We don't have to come up with a viable explanation to why fucking your sister is wrong, and we don't have to call it closed mindedness if we live by societal norms, there is nothing wrong with that.

You seem to suggest that it is imperative that we explore every single societal norm, abandon old fashioned convventions and base our entire moralistic analysis on rationality alone. I don't think morality should entirely be based on our emotional responses but I also don't think that it should be based on rationality alone. Some actions are morally reprehensible yet do not have rational explanations per se. It's not us that are acting like gutless machines that follow orders. The problem is that you are willing to follow reason and rationality like a relentless robot even at the cost of fundamental values that have held society together.

 

[rounder]

Yes, but this doesn't clash at all with what morality is all about. Morality is there to prevent harmful behavior and so if you say something is immoral and then say "let's not do anything about it", then that means either A) you don't care whether people do moral things or B) you don't really think it's immoral or maybe C) the harm is negligible.

For instance I think smoking is immoral. So I say "let's not tolerate it".

I think homosexuality is wrong. I also think democracy and freedom is right. . If I suggest we must stop homosexuality at all costs that I am going against my moral priniciple that suggests freedom and democracy is right. Thus, if I had to pick between tolerating homosexuality which I find to be wrong and democracy which I find to be right, I will pick the latter. Why? Because I find that maintaining humanistic values such as democracy and freedom outweigh the cost of having to live with homosexuals.

 

[Martin]

Well, Martin, it's because morality is not a topic that should always be analyzed rationally as I explained. There are many moralistic yet not neccesarily rational conventions that have benefited humanity greatly. If we get rid of intuitive responses to fucking one's mother or sister, then we have really lost ourselves completely. We don't have to come up with a viable explanation to why fucking your sister is wrong, and we don't have to call it closed mindedness if we live by societal norms, there is nothing wrong with that.

You seem to suggest that it is imperative that we explore every single societal norm, abandon old fashioned convventions and base our entire moralistic analysis on rationality alone. I don't think morality should entirely be based on our emotional responses but I also don't think that it should be based on rationality alone. Some actions are morally reprehensible yet do not have rational explanations per se. It's not us that are acting like gutless machines that follow orders. The problem is that you are willing to follow reason and rationality like a relentless robot even at the cost of fundamental values that have held society together.

You are speaking from a position of ignorance. "Our emotions tell us that something is wrong, let's not question that." I imagine you glossed over what Tom said in your custom fashion. He was trying to explain that our emotions can be understood, they come from somewhere. There is a reason you feel disgusted at something, it's biologically justified, an evolutionary development.

But to use one of your favorite sentiments: humans are fallible. To trust emotional responses blindly is to have faith that those reactions are always appropriate to the situation in which they occur. This is no more true than that our senses are perfect or that our reasoning is always correct.

 

[rounder]

You are speaking from a position of ignorance. "Our emotions tell us that something is wrong, let's not question that." I imagine you glossed over what Tom said in your custom fashion. He was trying to explain that our emotions can be understood, they come from somewhere. There is a reason you feel disgusted at something, it's biologically justified, an evolutionary development.

But to use one of your favorite sentiments: humans are fallible. To trust emotional responses blindly is to have faith that those reactions are always appropriate to the situation in which they occur. This is no more true than that our senses are perfect or that our reasoning is always correct.

I absolutely agree with that and it was exactly what I was saying. I concured with you that relying only on emotions was foolish but I disagreed with you that we must rely soley on rationality itself. Rational thought is not sufficient to explain all moralistic phenomena. These feeling that do come from socio-biological factors must also be taken into large consideration. And when I say, "Fucking your mother" is a fundamentally wrong thing to do. I am referring to something that is not nessecariily rationally justified yet it would be inconceivable to say it was morally correct because it lacks a rational basis.

 

[Guardian]

A brother and his sister, Kyle and Betty, decided to go on a road trip together. One day while staying in a hotel, they decided to make love to each other, they used birth control pills and condoms just to be safe. They thoroughly enjoyed it and never had any regrets.

After that night, they decided not to tell anyone about what had happened and this little secret of theirs even brought them closer together. Now, here's my question, do you think what Kyle and Betty did was moral? And why or why not?

What the hell has happened to this world! Stfu disgusting! We are human beings and not rabbits for fuck sake. If someone is a fan of cannibalism and think that the fella next to him is tasty, or his own mom/sister is sexy, or that Inter will succeed in the Champ league, then there is something fucking wrong with him.

Even the beer woudn't fix the mothafucka