Moral Realitivism

Today, a particularly insidious obstacle to the task of education is the massive presence in our society and culture of that relativism which, recognizing nothing as definitive, leaves as the ultimate criterion only the self with its desires. And under the semblance of freedom it becomes a prison for each one, for it separates people from one another, locking each person into his or her own ego.

morals are just a way to control someone?
yea we already knew that

Knights of the Templar! The Warrior Monks of Christ!

Morals can be determinned scientifically, if you are intelligent enough.

For instance if you are below a certain level of intelligence you will lack the foresight to see that certain traditions are necessary in the long run. People below this level of intelligence are called liberals.

>>4

define intellegence.

I see no morals in natural phenomena

>>4

People below this only see things in black and white and group people into large generalizing groups

Like yourself.

>>5
Dont fall for the troll

DAFEIN ANTALIJANS

Nature has no morals

>>4
Morals are not a part of logic because they are subjective, therefore that is impossible

>>10
Does this mean killing a baby isn't always immoral?

Response: "NO CUZ DAT BABY MIHGT GRO UP TO B HITLAR LOLZ!11"

>>11
.....
You obviously don't understand moral relativism.
Moral relativism are them basic idea that morals are agreed on, and are different for everyone and every group, therfore are just a concept.
Killing a baby, according to moral relativism, is neither moral or immoral. Its just someone thought it was okay, he figured to himself that its okay to kill a baby for a variance of reasons.
troll harder 

>>11

You stupid fuck, just because morals are not absolute doesn't mean we shouldn't have them

>>5
The person's ability to calculate complex logical problems within a period of time. Through a person's life they are given the facts needed to come to the conclusion that certain traditions are necessary, some understand why and some do not. Some make a conscious effort not to think about it, but eventually as they get older they decide to think and cease being liberals.

>>7
Wrong, I never divided anything into 2 over simplified abstract categories. I merely stated that liberals are people who do not have the intelligence to understand certain things.

>>10
Some morals are objectively formed from self-evident philosophical principles. They are logical. >>11 has given an example that contradicts what you have said. If you are of low intelligence (or experience, but this is unlikely if you are over 18 which you should be to browse 4chan) you will question the morals which encourage you not to intentionally murder babies. The law of nature is no law whatsoever, you do whatever feels right at the time. However apon achieving sentience and a certain level of intelligence one questions the possibility of the existence of sentience in others. This recognition of sentience in others contradicts actions which may harm others giving some impetus not to commit them. This is the golden rule found in even the most isolated of cultures, of course it isn't always followed but it is a factor. A moral formed objectively and logically which has an effect on people's decisions beyond animal instincts.

This recognition of sentience in others contradicts actions which may harm others giving some impetus not to commit them.
Why?

>>14
the only golden rule is the one with the most gold rules.
The other rule is bullshit, people are treated like shit,lied to, and exploited and still live their lives like the government and the industry are on their side. The people who think logical see this and then exploit the stupid.

>>16
You're merely trying to rationalize your various immoralities through nihilistic justifications.

>>1

Thats why I'm a Nationalist.

>>15
Why do we value gaining pleasure/avoiding pain?

I find it disturbing that some people go through life never asking these questions. Liberals perecute christians and call them stupid for believing in god and having a religion, yet christians are more likely to ask these questions that are inconvenient to hedonism than they are.

Also liberals always go on about helping the poor, yet their philosophy is one of absolute selfishness and ignorance of the importance of the soul, spirit or sentience or whatever you call yourself and others as beings. I guess this explains why liberals enjoy claiming that they or their supporters are all oppressed victims, or much more so than they really are if they happen to be victims. To them the label "victim" is just a way of getting people to give them free stuff, they don't care if they are shifting attention away from people who are actually victims.

Liberals only help the poor in the amount which is convenient to them.

>>20
>>21

Eh, it's very easy to pass the blame among "libs" or "conservatives". But the truth lies in objective blame divided equally among those that deny the truth.

Basically: Your entire premise is off. Do Liberals really persecute Christians for believing in god or having religion or do they persecute them because they don't truly follow their beliefs? Or do they persecute them because Christians persecute "libs" by forcing their beliefs on them?

Could it be that Christians are hypocrites? With all their talk of loving their fellow man and helping the weak, they sure going about it in a fucked up way, don't you think? Or are you so bubbled into your own little world that you can't see that both sides have their pros and cons? Christians are currently claiming that they're victims of an ultra liberal society, but is that really the case?

The truth doesn't lie on one side now matter how hypocritical you think one side or the other is. When you understand that, maybe you'll stop being the persecutor of liberals and take up more of a objective stance and one that is less bogged down by MORAL RELATIVISM.

>>23
I'm not blaming anyone. It's not their fault. From when my brain first developped to a certain point in my life I was unaware of the fact that some morals can be proven from self-evident principles. Liberals either have not reached this point because they can't be botherred to think, they are incapable of doing so due to low intelligence or they have reached this point and are just lying about it in order to help manipulate stupid people.

Also I never said christians were perfect, I just said liberals were imperfect and pointed out some of their flaws. Apparently you think it is blasphemous and have suddenly become extremely apologetic in favour of liberals.

"The truth doesn't lie on one side now matter how hypocritical you think one side or the other is."

Isn't that a moral relativist stance?

>>23
Also I realise my argument isn't 100% perfect and you will undoubtedly nit pick at it anal retentively. Just to clarify, do you agree that some morals are universal?

>>24

Pointing this out with Liberals only indicates to me your low level of intelligence. You never said christians were perfect, but you imply that somehow they are better than simple-minded liberals when it is apparent that they prescribe to the same kind of stupidity and manipulations.

My stance is that there is a difference between "universal morals" and "moral relativity". I'm not sure if I believe in either. Morals can be universal, but they can also still be relative. Not adhering to "universal morals" doesn't automatically make one immoral. And the fact is, when you look at both sides objectively there's no way you can say both sides have absolutely adhered to their own moralities. If neither side is absolute or perfect, then both sides have their flaws and both sides are clearly damaging society.

I'm not nit-picking at your argument. True: It's far from 100% anything, let alone perfect. But nor am I sitting here saying that I have all the answers. But for anyone to sit here blaming and "anal retentively" nit picking either side is a little crazy, to me, sorry.

Finding flaws in the morality of one side while ignoring the flaws in your own (because clearly you've picked a side) is the definition of relative morals. You can fault me for pointing that out. Don't get haughty with me with you've decided to "join a team" - as it were.

>>26

*You can't fault me for pointing that out. Don't get haughty with me because you've decided to "join a team" - as it were.

>>26
Haha wtf. My very point was "that they prescribe to the same kind of stupidity and manipulations.". You are a good troll, but I'm too smart for you.

>>26
"Morals can be universal, but they can also still be relative."
old news is olllddd

see >>14

you are a very good troll for bringing up old news and passing it off as new

>>26
Also I never picked sides, I clearly stated that belief in god is questionable.

>>24

Or we all just catagorize many people under a broad term and then go on and on how they're "retarded" because they have different ideals. It is clear you are unamerican. Oh, the irony runs thick.

also, Underage b& for acting like your 12.

>>31
But you must be an idiot if you've been alive for 18 years and still believe all morals are relative or at least have never questionned it. At least as stupid as people who never question god's existence.

>>32

You clearly don't understand why >>31 and I take exception to your "beliefs". You sound like a fucking child. Sorry, you just DO.

why are liberals/conservatives in my discussion of moral relativism?
please take this discussion back to the topic of moral relativism rather than "lol, liberals suck" "lol, conservatives suck"

Liberals perecute christians
They do?

>Morals can be universal, but they can also still be relative.

I loled

My old girlfriend from college used to fart when ever she felt like it. Even if we were in public, she'd just let one rip and not give a damn. She was kind of a tomboy, but only in her actions.

Anyway, this one time when we were having sex she farted so loud that she pooped on the bed sheets. She was so embarrassed and ending up crying... but the reason why she cried wasn't because she pooped on the sheets, it was because I couldn't stop laughing at her. In fact, I laughed to the point where I started to fart like a machine gun. I couldn't stop myself.

So, in the end, she broke up with me because she felt I wasn't "mature" enough to handle her "mature" farts.

>>26

Lol@Morals being universal and relative at the same time, thats just terrible thinking

>>1

I'm not sure I understand the question. Morals are obviously relative, that's in the very word moral (derived from mores - customs). Even regardless of the definition morals are de facto relative since different things are, and always have been, considered moral in different places. There's no room for debate, unless you are saying that morals <i>shouldn't</i> be relative. That's a valid argument, but it's also like saying that people shouldn't kill each other.

>Anyway, this one time when we were having sex she farted so loud that she pooped on the bed sheets.

I loled hard. How does farting loud cause shitting?

>>40
Sometimes the pressure is so great it brings along some shit with it.

>>33
Well if >>32 isn't actually going to tell me what exactly he thinks my beliefs are (he put words in my mouth, remember?) and tell me what his problem is with them, why exactly should I change my mind?

>>34
There are no conservatives here. Liberals believe in moral relativism because they are idiots as has been proven since it takes little thought to realise that some morals can be determinned logically from self-evident principles.

>>35
They say they are stupid for believing in god, yet they are also stupid for thinking all morals are relative.

>>36
Some morals are relative and some are universal. The golden rule is universal whilst the "having sex before marriage" moral is relative. For instance before modern medicine and 1st world economies when poverty was rife and women usually died during childbirth, being a single mother could be a death sentence and strict laws and social systems were enforced to make sure men looked after the women they impregnate. Nowadays this isn't much of an issue.

>>37
Why is toilet humour funny?

>>39
Even though >>26 might be a troll or a liberal apologetic, in his defense I think that was just a misunderstanding and he meant that there are both relative and universal morals. Generally how utilitarian a relative moral is depends on how it can be defined logically from universal morals. However sometimes situations are too complicated to define all actions rationally from universal morals and they must be defined empirically. This is where grey areas appear due to differring statistics.

>>42
Because laughter echoes so well in the lavatory.

the only point of morals and moral tradition is to contain the people who don't dare or cannot think for themselves

so i guess its quite necessary for humanity

They say they are stupid for believing in god, yet they are also stupid for thinking all morals are relative.
I suppose it depends which "liberals" you're talking about. There are idiots on both sides, although bible-thumpers certainly are hard to resist poking fun at.

Besides, calling someone stupid isn't persecution. If it is, the whole human race is currently being persecuted.

>>45
your mom is frequently and thoroughly penetrated by my cock

>>42

Do you honestly think that the golden rule is universal? I don't know anyone who believes in it.

>>47
The golden rule is pretty good. Its only exception is if someone's a masochist.

>>48

I'm not saying it's not good, only that it's not universal.

>>47
Whether something is relative or universal doesn't depend on how many people know about it. The laws of physics apply everywhere all the time, just because we didn't know what they were 300 years ago it doesn't mean they were not applying.

The golden rule's effectiveness depends on the effort, information and intelligence on the part of the person utilising it. The golden rule's validity is not dependant on this.

Note this distinction.

>>50

You are right. There are however no laws in morals. If the golden rule was in fact a law, comparable to that of gravity, there would not be people who treat others in contradiction to how they want to be treated themselves. These people obviously exist. As a kid I once stole a candy bar. I do not want people to steal from me. I have now disproven the golden rule being a law that applies everywhere all the time.

By the golden rule I assume we all mean something similar to Kant's categorical imperative. I argue that this is relative to a desired outcome (possibly a society of equals), an thus a textbook example of morals being relative. For example: if I want to have more than everyone else it is not always in my interest to act as if my action could be made a universal law.

>>52
You missed the point. Let's say there is another planet with humans like earth orbitting another planet of similiar development. The people there have a completely different culture, except for those elements of culture needed to reac hthe same level of development as us. This culture has the same mathematics, except maybe they use hexadecimal system instead of a decimal system, regardless they have still discoverred pi and the golden ratio. Perhaps they don't think the golden ratio is particularly important apart from it's use in the fibonacci sequence, but they know of it nonetheless. This is because such things are universal laws and apply everywhere.

Extend this to philosophy, for the second time whether something is universal or not does not mean how many people know about it, we are looking at whether it is rationally determinned from self-evident principles or whether it is empirically drawn. As was explained in >>14, the golden rule is rationally determinng from self-evident.

Do you understand? Also it's obvious you know fuck all about Kant's categorical imperative. You are liberal. Yes?

>>53
orbitting another star*

What if there is a culture of huge brained aliens who telepathically know what comes after death and know it is a happy joyous place of fun and love and bunnies. Thus, these aliens view killing others as a good thing, because it is sending them to this place.

>>55
It still fits, it is just a difference of information.

Wow, this is amazing! An intelligent discussion on 4Chan! I'm shocked, really

>>57

4chan is smart people who act dumbb

>>58
Well, if they're really smart, why do you think they're wasting their time going on a forum and talking about having sex with sheep, or posting the N-word 500 times? If they were actually smart people, don't you think they'd have something more productive to do with their time, like studying or crap like that?

>>57
>>58
There was a time when 4chan was full of reasonably normal people who just enjoyed absurd humor and wanted to let loose in anonymity every now and then.

Unfortunately, now it's mostly a bunch of circle-jerking college nimrods working on Marketing degrees and swilling beer who think they're being cool and edgy by hanging out in /b/ and posting grotesque images and other people's clever wit.

Of course, what do I know? I'm a 78 year old man and music was a lot better when I was a kid too.

>>53

First of all I am not American so I don't belong to either of your "clans" or whatever you mean by liberal. Keep that shit out of here.

Your case for philosophy being universal is flawed. As I have already stated: in order for you to argue that a moral system is superior you need a point of reference: in achieving what goal is it superior? By defining this goal you also admit that your morals are relative to it. If I don't share your goal I won't agree to your morals.

Besides, I have already disproven your claim that the golden rule is universal. People steal, rape and murder every day. It is obvious that the golden rule does not apply to them. The laws of physics apply even if you don't know about them, true. I am still bound by gravity even I don't know what it is. However, If the same were true for the golden rule it would not be _possible_ for me to act in contradiction to it. But quite obviously it is. In my actions I am limited by the laws of physics. I am not limited by your morals.

Again: the golden rule is not an example of universal morals. If it were everyone would have to abide by it. Do _you_ understand?

The definitions of liberal vs. conservative have been so bent under the weight of political sniping and ego stroking in America that few people care what it actually means, they are merely buzzwords to be broadly labeled to those who follow a different thought process.

Stating that liberals are unintelligent is inherently inept, because one is drawing the wrong conclusion from the data provided. You may be correct, but for the least correct reasons. Liberals are people who deny the status quo, thereby fostering ideas that may or may not work, and often act upon them. Many are younger and unwilling to accept that the world is not inherently fair and fail to realize that the status quo is in place for a reason, and experience in this area will moderate them. Others are older and maybe guilty or stubborn about their place in life and try to affect a change to allow others to get by as they have done, or attempt to force the world to think as they do to impart, in their minds, some sort of parity. None of this is 100%, maybe some of them do it because liberal stances tend to be more populist, who knows?

Morals cannot be defined like a formula or equation, even if their impacts can. Moral relativism should be, as all things, taken in moderation: Taken too far, one can justify anything, anytime, for any reason and without it, interpersonal conflicts would flare over the smallest difference of opinion and foster crippling intolerance.

>>60
people whining about 4chan is the cancer that is killing 4chan

nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger

morals? relatives? who would have thought?

>>61
I was going to reply to you until I read this.

"People steal, rape and murder every day. It is obvious that the golden rule does not apply to them."

Strawman etc.. Why don't you go back and re-read my argument instead of trolling.

>>62
No one is doing the liberal vs conservative thing here. People are only criticising liberals because they tend to be moral relativists, possibly as some sort of reaction to conservative christians. So you see when I criticise liberals I am in fact also crticising the liberal vs conservative debaucle in the US.

>>66

That is not a strawman. You are claiming a universal fact, to disprove it all I need is a single exception. That's basic logic. As far as I'm concerned you're the one trolling.

You seem convinced that I am a "liberal", let me do some guessing of my own. Judging from your posts I would say that you are a religious moralist, possibly muslim but probably some sort of christian. You aren't as much a scholar as you are a traditionalist, relying chiefly on what you were taught as you grew up. With atheism and nihilism on the rise worldwide you know that you are part of a dying breed and feel frustrated that you can't do anything to help your cause. You scour the internets for messageboards on which to post your desperate pleas for the attention of the masses. You tell yourself that this is to convert people, to defend what’s right, but in fact it's little more than a way of staying sane – you need to prove to yourself that you are not wrong. You know that a thread dealing openly with religion would immediately draw heavy flak, so you venture into a realm you aren't too familiar with - that of logic and reason, hoping to engage the infidels in their own back yard. With thinly veiled religious fervor you go to battle, imagining yourself being the last bastion of everything right and decent in a giant cultural war against hordes of godless marxists, liberals and mexicans. But deep down you know that you are going to lose, that you will be overwhelmed by sheer numbers and that your kind is doomed to obscurity and extinction. You take solace in the knowledge that your heroic last stand will appease the higher powers and that after your death you will have life eternal in the next world (you won't).

As for the discussion itself, it is obvious that you would sooner resort to pejorative language and personal attacks than listen to reason. Should I choose to withdraw in the face of such childishness you would no doubt take the opportunity to declare victory. Thus, my only option is to stoop to your level and resort to those same tactics. And that, you should know, is not at all below me.

>>67
This is what I meant when I said liberals were idiots. It seems you cannot understand the point of people's arguments so you just assume they meant something else and rant on about christians/rednecks. Strawman.

No. I never meant that the golden rule is universal because it is a law of physics. I said it is universal because it can be determinned rationally from self-evident principles like physics. If you cannot distinguish between the two you're an idiot or a troll. A failed troll at that since you've written far more than me.

>>67
lol pwn'd

>>68

If I cannot understand the point of your argument it is because it's obscured by your clumsy and inept writing. And since you even now seem to propagate that I am a "liberal" I take it that my previous post struck close to home.

Your claim that the golden rule is self-evident is bold at best and ridiculous at worst. It is obviously self-evident to you, just as my morals are self-evident to me. Howeever, the arrogance you display in claiming that your morals are somehow superior to everyone elses is stunning.

The principles from which you derive the golden rule, although you haven't shared them with me, could very well be self-evident. But I don't see how you could argue that the way you interpret them is, especially since you aren't by any stretch in majority. It seems that you are trying to patent "rational" and apply it exclusively to your way of reasoning. As I have already stated, whether a code of reciprocity is rational or not depends on what your goal is. If I desperately want to be the richest guy in town it simply isn't rational to be nice to other people when lying and scheming would benefit me a lot more.

The argument that the golden rule can be observed independently in different cultures is poor. Slavery, for example, can also be observed indepently all over the globe and 2000 years from now som other weird custom will be popular.

As for me writing more than you, I actually enjoy writing.

>>69
lol FAILd

>>70
You also enjoy wasting your time lol.