moral relativism
Re: moral relativism
Abrahamic triad is one of the most arrogant, authoritarian, totalitarian, dogmas man has ever created.... pretending to be the opposite of what it is.
Re: moral relativism
Maybe so. But we can modify Christianity because the core of it is a changeable icon. Many Christians are not interested in dogmas or even doctrines but simply want to be good in their own ways. Authoritarianism is relative .Quakers and Unitarians typify the converse of authoritarianism
et al.
Re: moral relativism
Ha!Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Apr 09, 2025 7:39 pmMaybe so. But we can modify Christianity because the core of it is a changeable icon. Many Christians are not interested in dogmas or even doctrines but simply want to be good in their own ways. Authoritarianism is relative .Quakers and Unitarians typify the converse of authoritarianism
et al.
So, after using the term to dismiss and insult, she claims authoritarianism is "relative."
Why?
Because her dogmatism is the most authoritarian of them all.....in fact, it is totalitarianism to the core.
Arrogant selfishness pretending to be humble selflessness.
Life hatred, claiming a higher kind of love.
Re: moral relativism
The only opposites I know of is order/chaos.....
Re: moral relativism
*I have more insight into my own weaknesses than you credit me with.Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 09, 2025 9:58 pmHa!Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Apr 09, 2025 7:39 pmMaybe so. But we can modify Christianity because the core of it is a changeable icon. Many Christians are not interested in dogmas or even doctrines but simply want to be good in their own ways. Authoritarianism is relative .Quakers and Unitarians typify the converse of authoritarianism
et al.
So, after using the term to dismiss and insult, she claims authoritarianism is "relative."
Why?
Because her dogmatism is the most authoritarian of them all.....in fact, it is totalitarianism to the core.
Arrogant selfishness pretending to be humble selflessness.
Life hatred, claiming a higher kind of love.
*Your weakness , for everyone has a weakness , is presumptuousness.
Re: moral relativism
I elaborate on the ideas of continuum and opposites, and say the continuing instability of yin and yang , i.e. change , are all we can understand of the inscrutable Way.
Re: moral relativism
Opposites is how a human brain conceptualizes patterns and the absence of patterns.
All is energy.....some is patterned (order), and some is lacking pattern (chaotic).
Organisms, as products of order, can only perceive order... and must order everything.
Dualities are based on how a brain uses binaries to create order.
A simple on/off neural switch....founded on systolic/diastolic cellular cycles.
Re: moral relativism
No, that's just the usual confusion that follows when you confine yourself to a Boolean logic...Pistolero wrote: ↑Thu Apr 10, 2025 12:03 pmOpposites is how a human brain conceptualizes patterns and the absence of patterns.
All is energy.....some is patterned (order), and some is lacking pattern (chaotic).
Organisms, as products of order, can only perceive order... and must order everything.
Dualities are based on how a brain uses binaries to create order.
A simple on/off neural switch....founded on systolic/diastolic cellular cycles.
Re: moral relativism
Duality is part of nature.
Two brain hemispheres....two sexes/genders....
I/Other is essential to life. Simplifications of flux.
Organisms use themselves as a standard to measure existence.
Two brain hemispheres....two sexes/genders....
I/Other is essential to life. Simplifications of flux.
Organisms use themselves as a standard to measure existence.
Re: moral relativism
Morals are relative to a group's objectives. Its ideals.
Not all objectives are attainable. Not all ideals are realistic. They always fail to produce the desired outcome.
What determines their relative success?
Nature. The objective world.
Some ideologies have failure ingrained in their morals, .e.g., Judaism, Islam, Christianity.
Failure cultivates a specific psychology - victims seeking salvation.
Scapegoating.
Failure is blamed on the followers, not the dogma. They've failed to attain the supernatural ideals/objectives because they are imperfect.
Weaponizing of shame/guilt.
Messiah becomes a scapegoat, taking upon itself the follower's imperfections.
In secular forms of this same dogma, i.e., Marxism, the blame is cast upon its followers. Those who failed to apply the dogma correctly, ensuring a state of perpetual revolution, and slaughter.
In postmodernism we see the same ingrained failure being institutionalized.
For them race is a social construct, so social interventions (engineering) will solve this "natural injustice." But it is never solved because race is not a social construct, so failure is inevitable. The blame is, then, placed on the system - systemic racism. So social destruction is inevitable, as the brainwashed desperate flowers refuse to question their own dogma's presumptions, but look for the causes of their predictable failures in something else. They tell themselves that the cause of their failure to create a utopia of equality, must be a wrong understanding and application of their perfect dogma.
Apologetics follow. Endless debates over who understands the dogma, and who can correctly apply it.
Such debates become violent. They never end.
Nobody questions the dogma itself.
The objective is unattainable because it contradicts reality, so perpetual revolution is the outcome - Trotskyism.
Not all objectives are attainable. Not all ideals are realistic. They always fail to produce the desired outcome.
What determines their relative success?
Nature. The objective world.
Some ideologies have failure ingrained in their morals, .e.g., Judaism, Islam, Christianity.
Failure cultivates a specific psychology - victims seeking salvation.
Scapegoating.
Failure is blamed on the followers, not the dogma. They've failed to attain the supernatural ideals/objectives because they are imperfect.
Weaponizing of shame/guilt.
Messiah becomes a scapegoat, taking upon itself the follower's imperfections.
In secular forms of this same dogma, i.e., Marxism, the blame is cast upon its followers. Those who failed to apply the dogma correctly, ensuring a state of perpetual revolution, and slaughter.
In postmodernism we see the same ingrained failure being institutionalized.
For them race is a social construct, so social interventions (engineering) will solve this "natural injustice." But it is never solved because race is not a social construct, so failure is inevitable. The blame is, then, placed on the system - systemic racism. So social destruction is inevitable, as the brainwashed desperate flowers refuse to question their own dogma's presumptions, but look for the causes of their predictable failures in something else. They tell themselves that the cause of their failure to create a utopia of equality, must be a wrong understanding and application of their perfect dogma.
Apologetics follow. Endless debates over who understands the dogma, and who can correctly apply it.
Such debates become violent. They never end.
Nobody questions the dogma itself.
The objective is unattainable because it contradicts reality, so perpetual revolution is the outcome - Trotskyism.
-
iambiguous
- Posts: 11317
- Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm
Re: moral relativism
Moral Objectivism
by Michael Huemer
On the other hand "in reality" [for the objectivists], nothing really has to be demonstrated at all. They merely have to insist their own moral philosophy reflects a truly deontological assessment of human interactions. And it then becomes true because they believe that it is.
Or, perhaps, there is a technical distinction to be made here between objective morality and absolute -- universal -- morality? And though some may not be interested in exploring this existentially, it's the only direction that those of my ilk are willing to go.
by Michael Huemer
Arguing about it, however, is not the same as actually demonstrating how and why your argument reflects that which [essentially, objectively] all rational/virtuous men and women are obligated to embrace themselves.Some people argue about whether morality or anything else can be 'absolute.' "Absolute" might mean "certain", it might mean "exceptionless", it might mean "objective", it might mean "universal" in some sense, or it might mean something else. I don't know what it means in the context "There is an absolute morality;" therefore, I will not use the term. I am not interested here in whether morality is 'absolute' in any of the other senses than "objective".
On the other hand "in reality" [for the objectivists], nothing really has to be demonstrated at all. They merely have to insist their own moral philosophy reflects a truly deontological assessment of human interactions. And it then becomes true because they believe that it is.
Or, perhaps, there is a technical distinction to be made here between objective morality and absolute -- universal -- morality? And though some may not be interested in exploring this existentially, it's the only direction that those of my ilk are willing to go.
Okay, but the truly hardcore objectivists among us are basically arguing just that. It then comes down to this part: or else.I am not concerned with whether there are some exceptionless rules for judging moral issues - whether there is an algorithm for computing morality. My own opinion happens to be that there is not, but that has nothing to do with the present issue.
I am also not arguing that there is a universal morality in the sense of a moral code that everybody either does or would accept.
I am not arguing that we can know moral truths with absolute precision or certainty.
Re: moral relativism
It's true that social morality is relative to social reality Social reality is justified by the prevailing culture of belief.
Should we therefore forgive our forebears who burned witches to death; or who persecuted unmarried mothers?
No, because it's not within our power to forgive someone who does not seek forgiveness.
Should we understand that cultures of belief change and adapt to increased knowledge?
Yes . However understanding, although it's necessary, is not sufficient. Besides understanding history and anthropology we should also utilise those to progress towards better cultures than have gone before.
What is the criterion for better culture of belief?
The holy triad of good, beauty, truth is the best we know and can know.
If you have the patience to follow me thus far, you should ask next "How can we recognise these eternal virtues in everyday life?"
Beauty and truth are two words for the same ideal, and together they constitute good. We have ways and means to learn beauty and truth: arts and science, peer reviewed and informed by sympathy and empathy.
Should we therefore forgive our forebears who burned witches to death; or who persecuted unmarried mothers?
No, because it's not within our power to forgive someone who does not seek forgiveness.
Should we understand that cultures of belief change and adapt to increased knowledge?
Yes . However understanding, although it's necessary, is not sufficient. Besides understanding history and anthropology we should also utilise those to progress towards better cultures than have gone before.
What is the criterion for better culture of belief?
The holy triad of good, beauty, truth is the best we know and can know.
If you have the patience to follow me thus far, you should ask next "How can we recognise these eternal virtues in everyday life?"
Beauty and truth are two words for the same ideal, and together they constitute good. We have ways and means to learn beauty and truth: arts and science, peer reviewed and informed by sympathy and empathy.