19-year-old rape victim gets 200 lashes

[champu 1]

Noting the absence of an absolute moral standard is not, in itself, a moral standard. Since you seem to enjoy logical/mathematical explanations, compare: If you give me three equations in a linear system that are inconsistent, and I tell you there is no solution, that statement, in itself, is not a solution to the system.

btw, this has nothing to do with Russell's paradox.

The problem you're always going to face in trying to define a moral standard that should apply universally is that morals themselves are as arbitrary as the structure of the society that they are born of. Step back from this western vs middle-eastern debate for a moment and look at... I dunno... lemurs. Do you think lemurs give a shit about murder or theft? No, they don't. You know why? Because their social structures are so completely alien to us, and ours to them, that such a comparison is ridiculous.

To realize how terrified we are of, and thus more likely to try and discount the validity of, a moral rule book derived from a social structure different from the one we have always known in our own lives, we need look no further than any post-apocalyptic movie. Something terrible happens (nuclear war, meteors, zombies, etc.), society as we know it is ruined, and a "new society" is born where the morals we've all gotten used to have been replaced by a set that we find completely appalling as viewers. John Q Protagonist won't stand for this, and we identify with him as he restores our sense of "justice" and other "fundamorals." But as you watch this and react to what you see in a predictable fashion, don't confuse the warm fuzzy feeling of familiarity with the sometimes cold and uninviting feeling of the truth. There was nothing wrong with what was happening, it simply wasn't conducive to the society we've gotten used to, and maybe even depend on.

[BikerBabe 0]

Interesting strawman. However, i won't fall for it. Lemurs and whether they have moral values have absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.

Shall we return to the roots, then? Here are the words of Protagoras, a Sophist who was perhaps the father of the relativist doctrine: "The way things appear to me, in that way they exist for me; and the way things appear to you, in that way they exist for you". This statement is a nice summation of relativism. Just put it in the light of moral truths and we have our relativist argument. "The way morals appear to me, in that way they exist for me; and the way morals appear for you, in that way they exist for you."

Shall I now play Plato? Let me try. Plato says: "If the way things appear to me, in that way they exist for me, and the way things appears to you, in that way they exist for you, then it appears to me that your whole doctrine is false." Poor Protagoras...he cannot say that Plato is wrong, since the basis of his entire philosophy says that whatever Plato believes to be true is right for Plato. So if Plato is correct, then Protagoras is wrong...bye bye relativist doctrine.

How is this supposed to convince me of anything? Especially that relativism is a true and valid belief?

If you wish to present relativism as a TRUE doctrine, then logically you must exclude its opposite (absolutism) as FALSE. However, relativism says that no doctrine can exclude it's opposite (everything is true, and there is no falsehood), so long as someone believes the opposite to be true. So which is it? exclude the opposite, or not?

Relativism wants for itself the very thing (objectivity) it denies exists. It is a self-referential inconsistency.

The thing about moral relativism is this: it's EASY. It allows us to brush aside the tough questions. It allows us to live in our own little worlds and not care about what's going on outside our bubbles.

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[funkcanna 0]

THere is one Universal Truth - "There are no other universal truths"

To know requires proof
To believe requires evidence
To have faith requires neither.
If you stick with that, we'll never be confused again

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

We really need to speed up ethanol production...

Yeah. Use the food crops. How about alternatives? Let's starve more people so we can have our big SUV's.

What I mean is that once we're off the unwashed, hairy Saudi Oil Tit, we will no longer need to kiss their ass to get their oil. They can be just as bad as they want, but we needn't deal w/them...

Actually, taking alternatives aside, if the US ramped up its own domestic exploration and production, we could replace Saudi Arabia completely. Right now, out of the 22M bbls we use per day, about three quarters comes from Canada, Mexico and the US....you read that correctly.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Ok What are the "Universal Standard of Morals"? Are they written down some where?

Back in December 1948, in an effort led by Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted (without dissent) by the UN General Assembly “as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations.”

There are two subsequent core Conventions: International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The two International Covenants, together with the Universal Declaration and the Optional Protocols, comprise the International Bill of Human Rights, which entered into force in 1976. (NB: The US Senate has ratified (see p. 11) all of the conventions & 2 of the optional protocols, thereby making it US law.)

Included in the Declaration’s 30 Articles are rights, such as
-- No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
-- No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
-- Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
-- No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
-- No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
-- Everyone has the right to a nationality. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
-- Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
-- Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

President FD Roosevelt’s 1941 "Four Freedoms" speech is widely credited as laying the groundwork for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. For those who have been to the FDR Memorial in DC, those are the ‘freedoms’ engraved in granite: Freedom of speech and expression, Freedom of (every person to) worship (in his own way), Freedom from want, Freedom from fear.

Which is to try to illustrate the role that America had in fostering the first global (“Universal” sounds solipsistic to me) assertion of human rights. FDR laid the groundwork for President Reagan’s invocation John Winthrop’s vision of a creating an example to be that "shining city on a hill."

In March 1989, President Reagan called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "For people of good will around the world, that document is more than just words: It's a global testament of humanity, a standard by which any humble person on Earth can stand in judgment of any government on Earth."

---- ---- ---- ----

Throughout this discussion – which has been very good – it’s been somewhat surprising to me that no one had yet mentioned this document and the subsequent efforts. Suggests to me that I may need to recalibrate my thinking.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[beowulf 1]

100 years from now if people are still around they would come up with a different list of "Universal" morals or human rights. I would hardly call that "Universal".

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

> The brutal rape and then injustice to a girl is caused by Global Warming.

I can't believe you SUPPORT the rape of this woman! Your position, sir, makes no sense whatsoever.

(See, this is fun!)

it really is, isn't it?

much better than entry level college philosophizing about the nature of absolutes

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

100 years from now if people are still around they would come up with a different list of "Universal" morals or human rights. I would hardly call that "Universal".

Well, it does answer affirmatively your question if a codified standard has been written done.

There are only 8 states that are not signatories to the 2 main conventions. They have been ratified by 161 of the nations (governments) on the planet. Exceptions are small island states (e.g., Vanutu, Comoros, Niue, Kiribati, Tuvalu), a minority of the predominantly Islamic countries (i.e., Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Oman, UAE, Malaysia, Indonesia), along with Cuba, Myanmar (nee Burma), & Singapore.

Is it debated? Yes. Are there pragmatic limitations? Yes.

How do you assess the "100 year" from now assertion, as the enumerated rights are carrying forth from documents 800 years old (Magna Carta), 219 years old (US Constitution), and 218 years old (French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen)?

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[beowulf 1]

Because everyone looks at things differently. If you were to take 5 groups of people and put each group in a seperate room and told them to each come up with a universal standard of morals you would most likely have 5 diferent sets of standards. They would be similar because the come from the same time period. If you could the 5 different groups of people from 5 totally different cultures and time periods I think you would end up with 5 much more different standards.

[Butters 0]

If all morals are relative than one can not use their morals to justify their actions to others. If one can not use their morals to justify their actions to others than they must use logic and reasoning because logic and reasoning are absolute. Thus, universal standards can be defined using logic and reasoning.

PS: If you have been reading you may have noticed that I have been stating universal standards and not universal morals ...

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Because everyone looks at things differently. If you were to take 5 groups of people and put each group in a seperate room and told them to each come up with a universal standard of morals you would most likely have 5 diferent sets of standards. They would be similar because the come from the same time period. If you could the 5 different groups of people from 5 totally different cultures and time periods I think you would end up with 5 much more different standards.

Now put those 5 people in a room *together,* could they via concensus generate standards?

(The answer is yes -- as was pragmatically demonstrated in 1948).

We can go back to Plato & his theory of forms for intellectualizing on the "Universal," which I am completely willing to admit is fun. Stepping beyond philosophy, it is a pragmatic possibility to establish a *minimum* set of standards. Proof: see my two earlier posts.

Now I will concur with you that the implementation and execution of such a minimum global list of standards is much more complicated.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[beowulf 1]

It's really diffucult to try and reply to everyone. Some peoples morals are out of whack and use anything to justify their actions.

Quote

Thus, universal standards can be defined using logic and reasoning.

But you are using your logic and your reasoning. These differ from person to person.

[Butters 0]

Quote

But you are using your logic and your reasoning. These differ from person to person.

Logic is not relative. Reasoning ... maybe I shouldn't have used reasoning?

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[beowulf 1]

Anybody can come up with a list of standards. That doesn't make them universal.

[beowulf 1]

Quote

Quote

But you are using your logic and your reasoning. These differ from person to person.

Logic is not relative. Reasoning ... maybe I shouldn't have used reasoning?

I most definately think logic is relative. I do a lot of programming and have had to go through others programming and seen their logic and disagreed with the it being the best way to approach the problem. My logic differed from their logic.

[Darius11 12]

Quote

murder is always morally wrong

Even when someone is trying to kill you?


I find it amazing that some of you think you are the moral judge and can tell other cultures how to live their lives. Unfortunately I see that a lot in the USA as most have not traveled and if they have never long enough to immersed them selves in another culture. So you assume that what you view as wrong should be viewed wrong by the whole universe. (makes me laugh just saying it can’t stop thinking of ET).

Here the thing. What you view as wrong is simply not viewed as wrong by everyone in the “universe” that’s the whole point. There are cultures much older then yours that are just as sure as you are that their way is right. Who are you too make that judgment?

Do blame a culture that has been doing things the same way for 2000 years if they laugh you off the planet when you state that your moral code is right and theirs is not?


As for your examples it is never just murder, rape, etc. there is always different satiation’s it is not just cut and dry.

The best solution is to not judge others and be so sure of your self to ASSUME that your way is right. It is best to live your life and allow others to live theirs the way they choose.


When you go to Rome do as the Romans and if you don’t want to then don’t go to Rome. It is that simple.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[Butters 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

But you are using your logic and your reasoning. These differ from person to person.

Logic is not relative. Reasoning ... maybe I shouldn't have used reasoning?

I most definately think logic is relative. I do a lot of programming and have had to go through others programming and seen their logic and disagreed with the it being the best way to approach the problem. My logic differed from their logic.

Are you stating that your logic is better than their logic?

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[Darius11 12]

There are countless examples of different cultures that view and do things way differently. Obviously to them they are not doing anything wrong most assume that they are doing what they should and following in their ancestors footsteps. That alone puts a huge hole in any set of universal laws.

Frankly for anyone to stand up and assume that they are capable of setting the standard for the universe would be extremely arrogant and laughable.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[beowulf 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

But you are using your logic and your reasoning. These differ from person to person.

Logic is not relative. Reasoning ... maybe I shouldn't have used reasoning?

I most definately think logic is relative. I do a lot of programming and have had to go through others programming and seen their logic and disagreed with the it being the best way to approach the problem. My logic differed from their logic.

Are you stating that your logic is better than their logic?

No, I just said mine was different then theirs. My personal opinion is that mine is better, but that person might still think theirs is better then mine. Which is better is a matter of opinion. The point is logic is relative. There are many ways of doing the same thing in programming.

[beowulf 1]

Quote

There are countless examples of different cultures that view and do things way differently. Obviously to them they are not doing anything wrong most assume that they are doing what they should and following in their ancestors footsteps. That alone puts a huge hole in any set of universal laws.

Frankly for anyone to stand up and assume that they are capable of setting the standard for the universe would be extremely arrogant and laughable.

yeah I agree with you.

[Butters 0]

Quote

Here the thing. What you view as wrong is simply not viewed as wrong by everyone in the “universe” that’s the whole point. There are cultures much older then yours that are just as sure as you are that their way is right. Who are you too make that judgment?

If everything is relative than we can make those judgments relative to ourselves. (The same way you can and are making judgments about us relative to yourself.)

Quote

The best solution is to not judge others and be so sure of your self to ASSUME that your way is right. It is best to live your life and allow others to live theirs the way they choose.

If everything is relative than your best solution does not have to be our best solution and your best solution will only be better than our best solution relative to you.

Quote

When you go to Rome do as the Romans and if you don’t want to then don’t go to Rome. It is that simple.

No, it is not that simple. Borders, countries, cultures were created by men, have been changed by men, and will be destroyed by men because the world has to sustain exponentially increasing populations with limited resources.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

Here the thing. What you view as wrong is simply not viewed as wrong by everyone in the “universe” that’s the whole point. There are cultures much older then yours that are just as sure as you are that their way is right. Who are you too make that judgment?

Do blame a culture that has been doing things the same way for 2000 years if they laugh you off the planet when you state that your moral code is right and theirs is not?

Here's the thing, when people are free to choose if they want to remain bound by the customs of those cultures, fair enough. When adherence is forced on all citizens, then not fair enough. Freedom is a universal concept.

Quote

When you go to Rome do as the Romans and if you don’t want to then don’t go to Rome. It is that simple.

What happens when you're born in Rome and don't want to act like a Roman? Guess it just sucks to be that guy, right

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[warpedskydiver 0]

You would know, so why ask Darius?

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

You would know, so why ask Darius?

Maybe I want to know Darius' opinion.

Maybe it was just a rhetorical question.

Maybe I'm interested in actually discussing things (y'know, the give and take of opinions that some of us here engage in) instead of simply telling everyone I disagree with to STFU.

There are just so many reasons!

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Darius11 12]

Quote

What happens when you're born in Rome and don't want to act like a Roman? Guess it just sucks to be that guy, right

The same thing that happens here when people brake the law because they do not believe in the law. They get arrested and are punished.

Weed, Prostitution, Gay marriage the list can go on and on for the things many believe should be legal but are not.
You can’t have total anarchy, and the laws of the land are set on that lands morals, values, and sense of right or wrong.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain