moral relativism

[Eodnhoj7]

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?

1. All things existing relative to a certain context makes context absolute morality as there is an existence for something under one set of contexts while the same existence cannot occur when the context changes. Because "existence" occurs under certain contexts, thus "good" considering "goodness" is a part of existence", and "non-existence" occurs under certain contexts, thus "evil" considering evil is an absence of existence (ie murder or stealing is a negation of the recipients identity), good/evil are contextual.

What is good in one context is bad in another and what is bad in one context is good in another. This relativity of good/evil necessitates good/evil as constants as context is constant.

2. The self is a context and context is absolute, as it is continual, thus the "I" is absolute.

3. The context of the abortion justifies whether or not it is immoral. The context of the preservation of life of the birther, which is null and void as the woman may have a c-section or surgery, justifies it. The context of personal opinion, ie having an abortion because of a whim in preserving convenience (and it is a whim as "convenience" is relative and subject to change), is immoral. In both contexts the justification is derived from continuity of being.

4. However because existence is riddled with contradiction morality cannot be rationalized as the same reasoning which justifies it is contradictory given its subjection to context. In these respects point 3 can be negated under further context. Moral questions cannot be argued through reasoning and are therefore expressions of belief with the belief's actualizations in reality being defined further through the series of effects which result from them. At best morality is the fullest expression of being with various moral conundrums being the differing grades of how being expressed. A relative good and relative evil result from either stance of the question of abortion:

4a. The woman who does not have an abortion sacrifices personal autonomy (evil) for the preservation of the life of the infant (good).
4b. The woman who does have the abortion does not sacrifice personal autonomy (good) for the negation of the actual and potential life of the child (evil).
4c. In both contexts good and evil result thus the question of good/evil, while absolute as good/evil exists continually through context, is irrelevant.

[iambiguous]

1. All things existing relative to a certain context makes context absolute morality as there is an existence for something under one set of contexts while the same existence cannot occur when the context changes. Because "existence" occurs under certain contexts, thus "good" considering "goodness" is a part of existence", and "non-existence" occurs under certain contexts, thus "evil" considering evil is an absence of existence (ie murder or stealing is a negation of the recipients identity), good/evil are contextual.

What is good in one context is bad in another and what is bad in one context is good in another. This relativity of good/evil necessitates good/evil as constants as context is constant.

2. The self is a context and context is absolute, as it is continual, thus the "I" is absolute.

3. The context of the abortion justifies whether or not it is immoral. The context of the preservation of life of the birther, which is null and void as the woman may have a c-section or surgery, justifies it. The context of personal opinion, ie having an abortion because of a whim in preserving convenience (and it is a whim as "convenience" is relative and subject to change), is immoral. In both contexts the justification is derived from continuity of being.

4. However because existence is riddled with contradiction morality cannot be rationalized as the same reasoning which justifies it is contradictory given its subjection to context. In these respects point 3 can be negated under further context. Moral questions cannot be argued through reasoning and are therefore expressions of belief with the belief's actualizations in reality being defined further through the series of effects which result from them. At best morality is the fullest expression of being with various moral conundrums being the differing grades of how being expressed. A relative good and relative evil result from either stance of the question of abortion:

4a. The woman who does not have an abortion sacrifices personal autonomy (evil) for the preservation of the life of the infant (good).
4b. The woman who does have the abortion does not sacrifice personal autonomy (good) for the negation of the actual and potential life of the child (evil).
4c. In both contexts good and evil result thus the question of good/evil, while absolute as good/evil exists continually through context, is irrelevant.

Try this.

Go to a clinic where abortions are done. Find one where there is a protest between those who are in favor of a woman's political right to choose an abortion and those who insist that, on the contrary, it is the fetus's natural right to live.

Then word for word, make your argument above.

Come back here and note their reactions.

Now, if you bump into some like me, they will tell you it is the woman's right to choose and the fetus's right to live. How will he justify that? He won't. Why? Because, he will tell you, he can't. He is "drawn and quartered"...hopelessly ambivalent...in confronting both sides able to make perfectly reasonable arguments merely by starting with perfectly reasonably premises.

[henry quirk]

John,

When you trundle off to the clinic for your presentation & interviews, ask this...

*Is the loss of nine months equivalent to the loss of an entire life?

*Should a life be rubbed out solely becuz that life is a temporary inconvenience?

*If someone consents to sex, aren't they also consenting to the potential, natural, consequence of having sex?

[DPMartin]

1. All things existing relative to a certain context makes context absolute morality as there is an existence for something under one set of contexts while the same existence cannot occur when the context changes. Because "existence" occurs under certain contexts, thus "good" considering "goodness" is a part of existence", and "non-existence" occurs under certain contexts, thus "evil" considering evil is an absence of existence (ie murder or stealing is a negation of the recipients identity), good/evil are contextual.

What is good in one context is bad in another and what is bad in one context is good in another. This relativity of good/evil necessitates good/evil as constants as context is constant.

2. The self is a context and context is absolute, as it is continual, thus the "I" is absolute.

3. The context of the abortion justifies whether or not it is immoral. The context of the preservation of life of the birther, which is null and void as the woman may have a c-section or surgery, justifies it. The context of personal opinion, ie having an abortion because of a whim in preserving convenience (and it is a whim as "convenience" is relative and subject to change), is immoral. In both contexts the justification is derived from continuity of being.

4. However because existence is riddled with contradiction morality cannot be rationalized as the same reasoning which justifies it is contradictory given its subjection to context. In these respects point 3 can be negated under further context. Moral questions cannot be argued through reasoning and are therefore expressions of belief with the belief's actualizations in reality being defined further through the series of effects which result from them. At best morality is the fullest expression of being with various moral conundrums being the differing grades of how being expressed. A relative good and relative evil result from either stance of the question of abortion:

4a. The woman who does not have an abortion sacrifices personal autonomy (evil) for the preservation of the life of the infant (good).
4b. The woman who does have the abortion does not sacrifice personal autonomy (good) for the negation of the actual and potential life of the child (evil).
4c. In both contexts good and evil result thus the question of good/evil, while absolute as good/evil exists continually through context, is irrelevant.

Try this.

Go to a clinic where abortions are done. Find one where there is a protest between those who are in favor of a woman's political right to choose an abortion and those who insist that, on the contrary, it is the fetus's natural right to live.

Then word for word, make your argument above.

Come back here and note their reactions.

Now, if you bump into some like me, they will tell you it is the woman's right to choose and the fetus's right to live. How will he justify that? He won't. Why? Because, he will tell you, he can't. He is "drawn and quartered"...hopelessly ambivalent...in confronting both sides able to make perfectly reasonable arguments merely by starting with perfectly reasonably premises.

one could argue a woman's right to choose was before the act that caused the pregnancy, and one could ague that once you choose to get on the roller coaster you can't get off until the ride is over.

[henry quirk]

one could argue a woman's right to choose was before the act that caused the pregnancy, and one could ague that once you choose to get on the roller coaster you can't get off until the ride is over.

Yep.

[iambiguous]

Science and Morality
Science doesn’t give us a script for what to value or believe in, but it helps us write that script
Jim Kozubek at Scientific American

Dennett argues that faith is important in an everyday sense, such as most people have faith in democracy even as "we are often conflicted, eager to point to flaws that ought to be repaired, while just as eager to reassure people that the flaws are not that bad, that democracy can police itself, so their faith in it is not misplaced.”

In other words, as some here might remind us, anything is better than Donald Trump.

Short of an actual God able to provide us with an objective morality linked Divinely to immortality and salvation, democracy [anchored to political economy] may well be the best of all possible worlds when it comes to morality and conflicting goods. As with science, people are permitted to disagree and at least attempt to demonstrate that their frame of mind is the most reasonable.

The point is also true about science, “since the belief in the integrity of scientific procedures is almost as important as the actual integrity.” In fact, we engage in a sort of "belief maintenance” insofar that “this idea that there are myths we live by, myths that must not be disturbed at any cost, is always in conflict with our ideal of truth-seeking” and even as we commit to ideas in public or just in our hearts, "a strange dynamic process is brought into being, in which the original commitment gets buried” in layers of internal dialog and counterargument.

In other words, the actual historical interaction of science and the rest of us in a particular community given what we think is true about it and what in fact is true from the perspective an all-knowing entity. Here, "science doesn’t give us a script for what to value or believe in, but it helps us write that script." On the other hand, in a community owned and operated by the crony capitalists that script favors some considerably more than others. After all, consider the myth that "the press" -- the media industrial complex -- strives for objectivity in reporting the news of the day.

But how many think about the "integrity of science" from that frame of mind? Then on to the recursive "layers of internal dialog and counterargument".

"Personal rules are a recursive mechanism; they continually take their own pulse, and if they feel it falter, that very fact will cause further faltering," the psychiatrist George Ainslie wrote in the Breakdown of Will. If science can challenge beliefs, dignity is more primal—it is the right to hold beliefs, make use of science, and exercise belief maintenance.

Dignity. Tell me that doesn't often revolve around God or ideology or one or another set of philosophical assumptions.

Myths?

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=175121

[popeye1945]

Moral relativism spells scattered, human mentally scattered due mainly to opposing myths.

[Eodnhoj7]

1. All things existing relative to a certain context makes context absolute morality as there is an existence for something under one set of contexts while the same existence cannot occur when the context changes. Because "existence" occurs under certain contexts, thus "good" considering "goodness" is a part of existence", and "non-existence" occurs under certain contexts, thus "evil" considering evil is an absence of existence (ie murder or stealing is a negation of the recipients identity), good/evil are contextual.

What is good in one context is bad in another and what is bad in one context is good in another. This relativity of good/evil necessitates good/evil as constants as context is constant.

2. The self is a context and context is absolute, as it is continual, thus the "I" is absolute.

3. The context of the abortion justifies whether or not it is immoral. The context of the preservation of life of the birther, which is null and void as the woman may have a c-section or surgery, justifies it. The context of personal opinion, ie having an abortion because of a whim in preserving convenience (and it is a whim as "convenience" is relative and subject to change), is immoral. In both contexts the justification is derived from continuity of being.

4. However because existence is riddled with contradiction morality cannot be rationalized as the same reasoning which justifies it is contradictory given its subjection to context. In these respects point 3 can be negated under further context. Moral questions cannot be argued through reasoning and are therefore expressions of belief with the belief's actualizations in reality being defined further through the series of effects which result from them. At best morality is the fullest expression of being with various moral conundrums being the differing grades of how being expressed. A relative good and relative evil result from either stance of the question of abortion:

4a. The woman who does not have an abortion sacrifices personal autonomy (evil) for the preservation of the life of the infant (good).
4b. The woman who does have the abortion does not sacrifice personal autonomy (good) for the negation of the actual and potential life of the child (evil).
4c. In both contexts good and evil result thus the question of good/evil, while absolute as good/evil exists continually through context, is irrelevant.

Try this.

Go to a clinic where abortions are done. Find one where there is a protest between those who are in favor of a woman's political right to choose an abortion and those who insist that, on the contrary, it is the fetus's natural right to live.

Then word for word, make your argument above.

Come back here and note their reactions.

Now, if you bump into some like me, they will tell you it is the woman's right to choose and the fetus's right to live. How will he justify that? He won't. Why? Because, he will tell you, he can't. He is "drawn and quartered"...hopelessly ambivalent...in confronting both sides able to make perfectly reasonable arguments merely by starting with perfectly reasonably premises.

The reality of the contradiction between both sides is proof contradiction is a reality given both sides exist. You are assuming there is one right party which if that where the case reality would have negated one of them or they would never have existed. Being wrong, thus immoral (as morality is the fulfillment of being in time and space) is ceasing to exist or never having existed in the first place. Contradiction is reality.

The reality of the debate between both sides is reality as contradiction. This contradiction allows for contrast with this contrast further allowing good and evil to exist, however relative they are. Contradiction is the question of "good/evil?"

[Eodnhoj7]

John,

When you trundle off to the clinic for your presentation & interviews, ask this...

*Is the loss of nine months equivalent to the loss of an entire life?

*Should a life be rubbed out solely becuz that life is a temporary inconvenience?

*If someone consents to sex, aren't they also consenting to the potential, natural, consequence of having sex?

1. Seperating "9 months" from the x amount of time the mother is alive is to draw a distinction of identity between "the 9 months" and the mother; it is to say there is a separate life.

2. One moment defines a life time; the promulgation of one life is the rubbing out of another.

3. You are assuming all abortions are the result of consensual sex.


In short I am arguing both sides are right and wrong because of context. We cannot speaking of morality as anything other than that which exists. All existence has some degree of morality to it.

[Eodnhoj7]

Moral relativism spells scattered, human mentally scattered due mainly to opposing myths.

The opposition of myths is reality.

[Eodnhoj7]

1. All things existing relative to a certain context makes context absolute morality as there is an existence for something under one set of contexts while the same existence cannot occur when the context changes. Because "existence" occurs under certain contexts, thus "good" considering "goodness" is a part of existence", and "non-existence" occurs under certain contexts, thus "evil" considering evil is an absence of existence (ie murder or stealing is a negation of the recipients identity), good/evil are contextual.

What is good in one context is bad in another and what is bad in one context is good in another. This relativity of good/evil necessitates good/evil as constants as context is constant.

2. The self is a context and context is absolute, as it is continual, thus the "I" is absolute.

3. The context of the abortion justifies whether or not it is immoral. The context of the preservation of life of the birther, which is null and void as the woman may have a c-section or surgery, justifies it. The context of personal opinion, ie having an abortion because of a whim in preserving convenience (and it is a whim as "convenience" is relative and subject to change), is immoral. In both contexts the justification is derived from continuity of being.

4. However because existence is riddled with contradiction morality cannot be rationalized as the same reasoning which justifies it is contradictory given its subjection to context. In these respects point 3 can be negated under further context. Moral questions cannot be argued through reasoning and are therefore expressions of belief with the belief's actualizations in reality being defined further through the series of effects which result from them. At best morality is the fullest expression of being with various moral conundrums being the differing grades of how being expressed. A relative good and relative evil result from either stance of the question of abortion:

4a. The woman who does not have an abortion sacrifices personal autonomy (evil) for the preservation of the life of the infant (good).
4b. The woman who does have the abortion does not sacrifice personal autonomy (good) for the negation of the actual and potential life of the child (evil).
4c. In both contexts good and evil result thus the question of good/evil, while absolute as good/evil exists continually through context, is irrelevant.

Try this.

Go to a clinic where abortions are done. Find one where there is a protest between those who are in favor of a woman's political right to choose an abortion and those who insist that, on the contrary, it is the fetus's natural right to live.

Then word for word, make your argument above.

Come back here and note their reactions.

Now, if you bump into some like me, they will tell you it is the woman's right to choose and the fetus's right to live. How will he justify that? He won't. Why? Because, he will tell you, he can't. He is "drawn and quartered"...hopelessly ambivalent...in confronting both sides able to make perfectly reasonable arguments merely by starting with perfectly reasonably premises.

one could argue a woman's right to choose was before the act that caused the pregnancy, and one could ague that once you choose to get on the roller coaster you can't get off until the ride is over.

And if morality is subject to reasoning then anything can be argued as anything can be justified due to reasoning's requirement of contrasts which further require contradiction.

[henry quirk]

You are assuming all abortions are the result of consensual sex.

Nope. I, like you, know a great many abortions (not all) are done becuz the ladies involved, after consensual sex, are lookin' to short cut their way out of consequences they were well aware were possible.

These questions...

*Is the loss of nine months equivalent to the loss of an entire life?

*Should a life be rubbed out solely becuz that life is a temporary inconvenience?

*If someone consents to sex, aren't they also consenting to the potential, natural, consequence of having sex?

...are for those ladies.

[iambiguous]

one could argue a woman's right to choose was before the act that caused the pregnancy, and one could ague that once you choose to get on the roller coaster you can't get off until the ride is over.

Yep.

Right, and if the woman was raped and impregnated? That shouldn't make any difference to the hardcore anti-abortionists. After all, it's not embryo's or the fetus's fault that she was raped.

And if she chose not to be pregnant but the contraceptive device was defective?

And if she chose to be pregnant but then circumstances in her life changed making the pregnancy something that would cause considerable harm to her?

Or it is determined that giving birth might result in her own life being endangered? Or cause great harm to her emotionally and psychologically?

Or she believes that she is aborting only a "clump of cells" and not an actual human being?

Those roller coaster rides?

Nope. As long as she doesn't think exactly like you two think about abortion she is acting irrationally and immorally.

As for Gloria Steinem's prediction that "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament"?

Ridiculous right?



Just out of curiosity, if a woman you knew and cared about had an abortion, and it was illegal to have abortions in this jurisdiction, would you turn her into the law? Should she be charged with first degree premeditated murder? If convicted of that in a court of law and sentenced to prison, should she be given the death penalty?

And then of course the thrust of my own argument about morality. That each of us as individuals acquire our point of view about right and wrong, good and evil more as a result of the life we lived, the experiences we had, rather than being able to think it all through philosophically and coming up with the most rational and virtuous frame of mind.

Either of you care to go there?

[henry quirk]

if the woman was raped and impregnated?

In such a circumstance the child, innocent as he himself is, truly has no claim on her. She consented to nuthin'. Askin' or demandin' she carry the child is a clear violation of her, a violation laid atop a violation. It's too much and it's not right.

if she chose not to be pregnant but the contraceptive device was defective?

She got busy knowin' pregnancy was a possibility, even with birth control (she used *birth control, accordin' to Biggy, which failed), and when Nature bit her in the keister -- again, sumthin' she was aware could happen -- she was unwillin' to accept the consequence and inconvenience of nine months.

if she chose to be pregnant but then circumstances in her life changed making the pregnancy something that would cause considerable harm to her?

Cite an example.

it is determined that giving birth might result in her own life being endangered?

No one ought be compelled to die for another.

cause great harm to her emotionally and psychologically?

Cite an example.

she believes that she is aborting only a "clump of cells" and not an actual human being?

https://www.l4l.org/library/mythfact.html

if a woman you knew and cared about had an abortion, and it was illegal to have abortions in this jurisdiction, would you turn her into the law?

I don't voluntarily have truck with The State or agents of The State, so: no.

the death penalty

The State ought not kill people.

Either of you care to go there?

I already have. This...

each of us as individuals acquire our point of view about right and wrong, good and evil more as a result of the life we lived, the experiences we had, rather than being able to think it all through philosophically and coming up with the most rational and virtuous frame of mind.

...is for crap. You deny a man can change his mind. I did. You did. We -- you & me -- prove your Datsun is for crap.

[DPMartin]

one could argue a woman's right to choose was before the act that caused the pregnancy, and one could ague that once you choose to get on the roller coaster you can't get off until the ride is over.

And if morality is subject to reasoning then anything can be argued as anything can be justified due to reasoning's requirement of contrasts which further require contradiction.

if there is no agreement to verify what is or isn't justified in that agreement, then all is fair game. the constitution of the US is an agreement between the gov and its people, a covenant if you will. one is justified to speak freely within the territories under the US gov's power because the US constitution justifies it. or gun ownership, or anything stated in that agreement (for example). hence the president's sworn duty to protect it, its the heart of the peaceful coexistence of those who agree to it.

agreements are the morals or rules or laws agreed to by those included to be in agreements. the document is the verification of what is and is not justified. therefore morals are relative to those in the agreement. for example Russians in Russia are not bound to the US constitution. they are bound to whatever is agreed to between the its gov and people.