Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Norondor]

... ok, everyone, but... moral relativism is a leftist value

[Transportation]

Off the top of the head, a strong belief in the value of military deterrence over disarmament for the preservation of world peace. Well, most of the time. The SALT treaties worked out well enough.
---

Sure I can. After all, I do have personal agency. I have things I like, dislike and want. For example: I dislike rape, and those who rape, and I want people who demonstrate a predisposition towards the act of rape to be removed from my society. Others, many others, feel likewise, and have made rules against the act of rape. That's why, when you come over to America's house, there are big signs at the entrance that tell you "No Rapes Allowed".

So your definition of moral relativism boils down to Might Makes Right? There is nothing intrinsically wrong with rape by this system; you're just bullying people who disagree. You're moral authority extends from violence, not principles.

I mean this is the "Power of the Dark Side" thread, but I doubt that's what you actually believe.

[Bongo Bill]

I do regard myself as generally conservative. I mean, I'm talking about straight-out-of-Edmund-Burke conservative. Most institutions persist because they do some good; except in the case of outright oppression, that good should be identified and preserved while the rest of the institution is reformed gradually. A society is made stronger if it is stable, and if its inhabitants are confident, well-informed, and respectful in regard to it; a free society that wishes to remain free should therefore avoid jeopardizing the sources of these traits. The application of reason in policy-making leads to favorable outcomes, but the human ability to apply reason or to accept decisions made according to reason is finite and usually smaller than anyone realizes; it is best to err on the side of caution, preferring policies that have been well-tested by time, warts and all, over radical reinventions that may only be appropriate for the contemporary culture (if even that much). Peace is better assured by demonstrating the ability and willingness to retaliate with force than by gestures of goodwill, if a choice must be made. While a perfect free market is a theoretical proposition, it is still the fairest and most efficient allocator of resources; the extent of government intervention in an economy should be to ensure its functioning resembles a perfect free market as closely as possible, and eradicate barriers to trade in such ways as maintaining infrastructure, quelling violence, theft, and fraud, and regulating monopolies. A respect for rule of law is a cornerstone of a democratic society; government should enforce the law universally, but a law whose letter differs from its spirit, whose adherence leads to disaster, or which is routinely and casually broken by well-meaning citizens is very probably a bad law. The fewer laws, the better, since the excessive proliferation of laws leads to arbitrary enforcement en masse, an invitation for oppression. Policy should reflect society, not the other way around; however reprehensible the mores of the society may be, it is an abuse of power for government to attempt to change them coercively.

Y'know. Things like that.

[Detonator]

it's easy to understand opposition to it when you think of it as "slaughtered cute baby research"

Are you being sarcastic?  I can't tell.

[Bongo Bill]

it's easy to understand opposition to it when you think of it as "slaughtered cute baby research"

Are you being sarcastic?  I can't tell.

No; opposition to stem cell research mostly comes from people whose understanding of the process is that the stem cells employed must come from fetuses. This is incorrect, as a more bountiful and humane source of more useful stem cells has been identified... but most lay opinions of science are based on misinformation, after all.

[Disposable Ninja]

So your definition of moral relativism boils down to Might Makes Right? There is nothing intrinsically wrong with rape by this system; you're just bullying people who disagree. You're moral authority extends from violence, not principles.

No, my definition of moral relativism is that, ultimately, you can only do what's right by you. Rape is wrong by me because the act robs it's victims of their agency, their rights, their well-being (and other things I'll likely never understand); I empathize with those who have suffered it, and I never want to experience it for myself, nor would I ever want anybody else to. Most other people share my dislike, therefore those that don't and demonstrate an ability to rape are exercised from the rest of us. That's just how society works. My definition of moral relativism is that, ultimately, all anybody can do is what is right by them (EDIT) and that it's important to recognize this.

In my opinion, anything else requires a belief in a higher power: what is right for everybody is right by God. You cannot claim an intrinsic rightness or wrongness in an action unless there is third, enlightened party to make that judgment for you.

[Bongo Bill]

It seems to me that there are other models of morality that fall somewhere between "We just don't know" and "Because God said so." I'm not sufficiently versed in moral philosophy to name other examples than utilitarianism, but I'm certain that's a false dichotomy.

[Kazz]

BACK ON TOPIC A LITTLE

I won't take any feminists seriously until they demand to be included in selective service.

[TA]

It seems to me that there are other models of morality that fall somewhere between "We just don't know" and "Because God said so." I'm not sufficiently versed in moral philosophy to name other examples than utilitarianism, but I'm certain that's a false dichotomy.

Not really, no.  Ultimately, any valuation of "right" and "wrong" devolves to an arbitrary cosmic "good" and "evil", which derives inevitably from a superhuman source with absolute knowledge of the consequences of events.

I much prefer to think of things in terms of fair or unfair, deriving from the concept that no person is inherently superior or more deserving than another.  One person's right to someone else's property is overpowered by that person's right to their own property, and such.  An ethical judgment of action, rather than a moral one.

BACK ON TOPIC A LITTLE

I won't take any feminists seriously until they demand to be included in selective service.

And stop claiming that heterosexual sex cannot exist in a non-rape form.  Or recognize that the label "feminist" is a description of belief, and not gender - and so don't flip out over men who call themselves feminists.  Really, extremists like this loon do a lot more harm than good, and I really think are the majority of the reason it's difficult to get feminism, as a movement, taken seriously.

[LaserBeing]

stop claiming that heterosexual sex can exist in a non-rape form

hear hear

[Bongo Bill]

It seems to me that there are other models of morality that fall somewhere between "We just don't know" and "Because God said so." I'm not sufficiently versed in moral philosophy to name other examples than utilitarianism, but I'm certain that's a false dichotomy.

Not really, no.  Ultimately, any valuation of "right" and "wrong" devolves to an arbitrary cosmic "good" and "evil", which derives inevitably from a superhuman source with absolute knowledge of the consequences of events.

I disagree. One can ascribe the capacity for moral judgment, for example, to the best available expectation of consequences. Universal moral principles require a universal source, but the absence of such a source does not reduce morality to the arbitrary feelings of every individual. It is possible for one person to reason more soundly than another; it is possible for certain methodologies to produce more accurate predictions than others. Since the absence of perfect knowledge of the future does not render all predictions equally likely, neither does it render all moral judgments equally valid.

[Kazz]

stop claiming that heterosexual sex can exist in a non-rape form

hear hear

I keep trying to get LD to stop consenting, but she's just too much of a dadgum feminist.

[Royal☭]

I'm so confused about the rape comment.

[Bongo Bill]

Amongst the extreme leftern end of the feminist movement, the notion "all heterosexual sex is rape" seems to have been circulating.

[Royal☭]

Yes, I'm aware of that concept, just not in this context.  Are TA and Lee-Ham seriously claiming that doctrine?

[TA]

No, that was a typo.  Meant to say "cannot".

Amongst the extreme leftern end of the feminist movement, the notion "all heterosexual sex is rape" seems to have been circulating.

The reasoning basically goes like this.  Sex is rape if it isn't consensual, right?  Thus, sex without consent is rape, right?  And consent is meaningless if it isn't freely given - no coercion or force - right?  That is to say, if you pressuring a woman into consenting into sex, that's not freely given consent, and so is rape, right?  And in the oppressive patriarchy in which we live, women are under a constant and pervasive pressure to have sex with men, right?  So a woman can never really consent to heterosexual sex without being pressured by every aspect the society that surrounds her, so it's impossible to freely consent to heterosexual sex, right?  So thus all heterosexual sex is rape.

This is on its face retarded, and you can see where the logic goes completely off the rails, but you still hear it a lot.

[Transportation]

Most other people share my dislike, therefore those that don't and demonstrate an ability to rape are exercised from the rest of us. That's just how society works. My definition of moral relativism is that, ultimately, all anybody can do is what is right by them (EDIT) and that it's important to recognize this.

You are holding the belief that A: all forms of morality are equal and B: you dislike certain morals because they contradict yours (i.e. rape). B contradicts A.

Moral relativism is not consistent with moral enforcement. Why do you stop a raping? Because you think it's wrong? Well the rapist doesn't. Why can you force him? Because you think he's wrong? Congratulations, you just admitted that your morals are superior.

On Topic: There was that whole ABM thread, I'll toss that in.

[Kashan]

On topic.
I guess I have a number of premises held widely by the right, but which often result in different conclusions than commonly reached by the right. I believe in god, I believe religion is mostly good, I don't believe in casual sex, I think Abortion is usually wrong, I believe marriage is somewhat sacred, etc.

[Disposable Ninja]

Why do you stop a raping?

Because it would not be right by me if I did not stop it.

[Thad]

BACK ON TOPIC A LITTLE

I won't take any feminists seriously until they demand to be included in selective service.

Yes, because simply opposing the draft for BOTH sexes is impossible.