moral relativism

[iambiguous]

Moral relativity leads to moral absolutism as things are justified according to context; outside of said context the phenomenon is unjustifiable.

Depends on how you construe moral relativism.

Some might argue that different factions interacting in different contexts out in particular worlds might have a moral narrative/political agenda relative to their own set of assumptions about the "human condition". But given those assumptions they are moral objectivists.

So in nations that embrace democracy and the rule of law they use elections rather than theology, force or philosopher-kings to settle things.

But others like me predicate moral relativism on their own assumptions regarding moral nihilism in a No God world. They are "fractured and fragmented" in regard to conflicting goods. Ever and always drawn and quartered given the following frame of mind:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

It's my assumptions here that most disturb the moral objectivists. Why? Because what if one day they decide it is applicable to them as well.

Their precious Self is no longer able to be connected essentially to the Right Thing To Do...re God or ideology or deontology or nature.

To assume is a natural state of being and as the nature state of being necessitates it as either good or evil, thus moral, as one may be natural or not. The relativity of naturalness being good or evil necessitates good/evil as existing within certain contexts thus existing absolutely because of said contexts. This leads to the question of good/evil thus further necessitating good/evil exists because of perpetual contexts. Because good/evil are contexts and contexts are absolute, in the respect they are universal and continually existing, good/evil is absolute.

From my frame of mind, in discussing moral relativism, this is what I call a "general description intellectual assessment". What particular context involving what particular assessments of good and evil?

And here I like to use abortion in the context. Why? Because it literally revolves around life and death, it is an issue almost everyone is familiar with and it is the "conflicting good" that led to my own abandonment of "objective morality".

So, given the "abortion wars", how would you note the relevance of your points above there? Or, sure, choose another issue that is of particular importance to you.

The self is a context.

The self as you understand it in a discussion of moral relativism or the "self" as "I" understand it. Given a particular context.

Context depending on further context, with results occurring because of said relationships of contexts, is absolute. Morality being subject to circumstance necessitates a constant value for said circumstance (ie x context and y context always result in z context) as the circumstance is justified by its existence.

I have no clear idea of what you mean by this because from my frame of mind [re moral relativism] it is entirely too abstract.

Existence is objective.

Yes, a particular woman does in fact exist and she did in fact have an abortion.

Now, the discussion shifts to our individual reactions to these facts. Is having this abortion in fact moral or in fact immoral?

[henry quirk]

Biggy,

Is having this abortion in fact moral or in fact immoral?

It's as immoral as can be.

My turn...

Jack pays to have his mother dismembered, or, mebbe, just to have her skull and brain crushed: moral or immoral?

-----

I like to use abortion in the context...it is the "conflicting good" that led to my own abandonment of "objective morality".

You mentioned this before. I'm curious: what were the arguments presented by the (un)happy couple? They musta been doozies to stymie you, to force you out of objective morality.

[iambiguous]

Biggy,

Is having this abortion in fact moral or in fact immoral?

It's as immoral as can be.

Other than in merely asserting this to be true, what actual evidence does he provide to demonstrate that it is as immoral as it can be?

On par for example with, say, providing evidence that an actual woman had an actual abortion.

My turn...

Jack pays to have his mother dismembered, or, mebbe, just to have her skull and brain crushed: moral or immoral?

First, of course, we'd have to ask Jack why he did this. From his frame of mind it might have been entirely reasonable. He might be a sociopath who asks why in a No God world it isn't entirely rational that morality revolves around ones own personal wants and needs?

Or, for reasons we are not privy to, he might have utterly despised his mother.

Or maybe his mother was involved in sustaining behaviors against others that were just as ghastly.

Again, what I am curious about is the "transcending font" that you yourself use to "just know" that abortion is inherently/necessarily immoral. God?

I like to use abortion in the context...it is the "conflicting good" that led to my own abandonment of "objective morality".

You mentioned this before. I'm curious: what were the arguments presented by the (un)happy couple? They musta been doozies to stymie you, to force you out of objective morality.

Well, Mary had never intended to become pregnant. It happened as a result of a defective contraceptive. Her life at the time revolved entirely around her not being pregnant and becoming a mother.

John was simply of the opinion that human life begins at conception, and that, accidentally or not, this was a part of him that deserved life over death.

Thus, both of their arguments seemed perfectly reasonable to me given their own set of assumptions.

So, sans God, where is the philosophical/moral/political argument that pins down the most rational and virtuous frame of mind. Or for some the only rational/virtuous argument there can ever be. The universal morality in regard to abortion.

Now, tell us what you believe that is. Then insist that because you believe it, that in and of itself makes it so.

[henry quirk]

Biggy,

actual evidence...that (abortion) is as immoral as it can be?

The only evidence I can offer is what you, for example, know about yourself: that you belong to you, that your life is yours; that it would wrong for another to snuff you without just cause. What applies to you, applies to that person inside Mama.

we'd have to ask Jack why he did this.

Not now, no. Before we can dicker about mitigators we, you and me, need to determine if there is indeed a minimal standard of right and wrong applicable to all.

Mary had never intended to become pregnant.

So, she snuffed her kid becuz he, in her, was inconvenient.

John was simply of the opinion that human life begins at conception

And, understanding that he recognized that person in Mary wasn't his or hers to snuff.

And you find their positions equivalent?

The universal morality in regard to abortion.

A person belongs to himself. His life is his. It's wrong to take it without just cause.

[Walker]

A person belongs to himself. His life is his. It's wrong to take it without just cause.

In theory, if he could, the little fetus person may disagree with mamma’s notions of how just her cause actually is.

However, he could only base that judgment on reasoning, memory, and knowledge of causation, none of which the little fella has yet acquired, due to the limitations imposed by his womb-confinement.

In actuality, the little fetus person knows nothing of relationships, thus his trust is total and complete. What mamma says is fine for him.

Mamma's just cause, is his just cause. Not yet corrupted by experience, his instinctive trust and loyalty is total, and complete.

[henry quirk]

What are you sayin' here, Walker? I read your bit over and over and I can't capture the point.

[henry quirk]

You bugged out again, biggy?

[iambiguous]

Biggy,

actual evidence...that (abortion) is as immoral as it can be?

The only evidence I can offer is what you, for example, know about yourself: that you belong to you, that your life is yours; that it would wrong for another to snuff you without just cause. What applies to you, applies to that person inside Mama.

we'd have to ask Jack why he did this.

Not now, no. Before we can dicker about mitigators we, you and me, need to determine if there is indeed a minimal standard of right and wrong applicable to all.

Mary had never intended to become pregnant.

So, she snuffed her kid becuz he, in her, was inconvenient.

John was simply of the opinion that human life begins at conception

And, understanding that he recognized that person in Mary wasn't his or hers to snuff.

And you find their positions equivalent?

The universal morality in regard to abortion.

A person belongs to himself. His life is his. It's wrong to take it without just cause.

Not sure when a cause is just? Ask henry. I suspect there isn't a cause on Earth that he can't pin down as either just or unjust.

His "proof"? Well, whatever he happens to believe in his head.

After all, since he belongs to himself how could anything that he thinks, feels, says or does not belong to whatever he says it does in turn.

Again, however, my main interest with objectivists of his "by the book" ilk is what particular font they have anchored their dogmatic, authoritarian Self to.

Is it a God, the God, my God? Or something else?



I'm just surprised to find "arguments" like this at a forum that revolves around Philosophy Now magazine. Sure, over at ILP, this sort of "thinking" is par for the course. I just never expected it here.

You know, if I do say so myself.

[Walker]

What are you sayin' here, Walker? I read your bit over and over and I can't capture the point.

Yikes. That could easily inflate into a lot of murky-more words.


How about if you think it's appropriate or interesting enough, how about one answer for each specific question, until it’s clear. If not, no problemo.

One question at a time.

[henry quirk]

standard diversionary hooey

Do you, iambiguous, belong to you?

Is your body yours? Is your mind yours? Is your life yours?

Yes or no.

[henry quirk]

What are you sayin' here, Walker? I read your bit over and over and I can't capture the point.

Yikes. That could easily inflate into a lot of murky-more words.


How about if you think it's appropriate or interesting enough, how about one answer for each specific question, until it’s clear. If not, no problemo.

One question at a time.

What questions?

-----

Edit: Oh, you want me to ask questions...pass.

Counter proposal: just explain what you posted.

-----

Another edit: ignore the first edit.

[henry quirk]

For honest, sane, folks...

You belong to yourself.

Yes or no.

[Walker]

What questions?

Not my questions. I understand what I wrote. You said you don’t understand. Thus any questions to clarify, shall be yours, if they are to be.

In this situation, I’m the answer man for your questions, since I wrote the murky posting.


Revised edition:

How about, if you think it's appropriate or interesting enough, you ask one question at a time to clarify the posting that is unclear to you, and clear to me. In turn, I will answer each question, one at a time. The reason for one at a time, is because subsequent questions, by you, should pivot off the unknown answer I have yet to supply.

If these terms are not acceptable, no problemo. Any interest is all yours, or not, since I understood what I wrote.

My method is the condition, because answers are more valuable than questions, to those who actually want answers.

Given that even this must be explained, is justification enough my conditions, for me. And since I'm supplying the answer, I have the say.

[henry quirk]

Careful, guy: you're startin' to read like Biggy.

Anywho...

What you seem to say is: becuz Junior is a'floatin' in his womb-ignorance and is incapable of havin' a say, whatever Mama sez goes.

Yes? No?

[Walker]

You see henry, since I understand what I wrote then doing it according to my conditions, which by any other name is the Socratic Method, doesn't waste my life force on Meh, well, at least doesn't waste as much as it otherwise would.