All ethical statements are relative ???

[anjali]

All ethical statements are relative.” By examining the justifications for—and implications of—
making this claim, decide whether or not you agree with it.
I think thats a nice topic. I found it in some prescribed titles for an essay in some kinda program.

[Wenty]

You should ask yourself where the origins for any ethical claim come from, thats how they can be relative. Is there any actual basis for good and evil or is it a matter of preference.

It seems likely that the latter is true yet i find it hard to believe, maybe i just don't want to believe it and thats why.

[iloveatomickitten]

In my opinion everthing is ultimately egotistical - self interest defines morality it isn't in anyway objective.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Ethics are defined by human subjectivity, there can only truly be wrong and right in a situation of total social consensus.

[iloveatomickitten]

Which simply is never going to happen

[Misodoctakleidist]

but wouldn't you agree that the greater degree of social consensus which existed the more feasable it would be to define something as ethical?

[monkeydust]

As Iloveatmickitten pointed out, however much we would like it to exist there is no universally objective morality, I also agree that morality is often egotistical, whatever doesn't benefit us (usually as a whole) is generally considered immoral.

I also agree with Misodoctakleidst that a social consensus on what is ethical to an extent can define what is 'right' or 'wrong'. I would argue that 'right' and 'wrong' to a degree are inherent feelings within us simply due to our biological make up. The words 'right' or 'wrong' aren't themselves part of this but merely serve to define the feelings. As things such as murder do not benefit the human race or any group of us we feel it to just be 'wrong'.

[anjali]

Well but all of you just think of the egotistical or utilitarian (either right or wrong) point of view. Just think of the satement "We should not kill other human beings". Whether this is right or wrong we dont know, it depends on the circumstances. For example if the person i will kill is offensing my own life, its a matter of self defense. Another example is if i am a cannibal. So from utilitarianism and egostical points of view its kinda difficult to have a spherical view. What if you see it from the altruists pont of view? Could it then be objective? Or maybe through Materialism??? What about this approach, would the statements became less od more relative?? Do all people in this world share a common "ethical code"? I mean is for example the statement i said before relative or something everybody shares as a common truth? And if everything is realative in ethics as it is in science then how are we able to judge so much other races as we do now!?!?!?

[iloveatomickitten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 08:43 PM
but wouldn't you agree that the greater degree of social consensus which existed the more feasable it would be to define something as ethical?
Defining something ethical? When you say this are you trying to assign an objectiveness to ethics? The social consensus serves to alienate the minority views not in anyway defining (no eternal truth of morality is shown). I say this because there is no single way of achieving a greater moral consensus (I know you're a marxist so excuse the example) Communism would create a different view than a society based on the individual. Societies will not progress towards anything absolute they will progress toward what is the best interest on the state or idividual at that time hence there is no assured out come so not deffinition can be found other that morality is your own best interests or simply adhering to a course concordant with your emotions.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Defining something ethical? When you say this are you trying to assign an objectiveness to ethics? if there was complete consensus then ethical values would be objective similarly the greater degree of consensus the greater degree of objectivity that can be asigned to ethical judgements.


The social consensus serves to alienate the minority views not in anyway defining (no eternal truth of morality is shown).

That semtence is grammatically incorrect, it's completely meaningless.


I say this because there is no single way of achieving a greater moral consensus

What about greater social eqaulity?


Communism would create a different view than a society based on the individual.

What exactly does that mean and what does it prove?


Societies will not progress towards anything absolute they will progress toward what is the best interest on the state or idividual at that time hence there is no assured out come so not deffinition can be found other that morality is your own best interests or simply adhering to a course concordant with your emotions.

This is complete jibberish, you are saying that societies don't progress in any particular way despite the fact that all societies in history have displayed very similar characteristics in the course of the progression and have progressed in the same direction. The state can't controll the progression of society it is merely thrust into power by the nature of the social progression taking place as a result of economic forces. To what "individual" do you refer? What does any of this have to do with morality or ethics?

[Rasta Sapian]

everything is relative.

[Bradyman]

everything is relative.

Well said. Ethics and morality arise from the social aspect of life. Does not the quote, "being determines consciousness" ring a bell? It is the very society that individuals live in that determines how they think, act, and believe.

[hazard]

thats not a bad opening question

the correct answer depends upon how much you value your society

otherwise, there is absolutely no relativity worth mentioning, necessarilly, outside of a community

now within a said community, such a set of moral standards exist. we'll call that moral standrad the ethical basis by which all of that communities members are judged. relatively, then, each member of that cmmunity can only base his or her moral value based upon their pre-defined ethical basis.

those who value their society will find a relative value in morality and ethics. those who don't will not.

whne you introduce the term RELATIVE, you alos must be aware of what is RELATED.

[Wenty]

You can't rule out the possibility that God has given us an innate idea of goodness somewhere in our brains.

I think that without a general conception of good and bad there could be grave consequences.

[iloveatomickitten]

That semtence is grammatically incorrect, it's completely meaningless.

Well sorry I was born.


This is complete jibberish, you are saying that societies don't progress in any particular way despite the fact that all societies in history have displayed very similar characteristics in the course of the progression and have progressed in the same direction. The state can't controll the progression of society it is merely thrust into power by the nature of the social progression taking place as a result of economic forces. To what "individual" do you refer? What does any of this have to do with morality or ethics?

Not all most.

Ok perhaps that post was total crap I'm sorry but your concept of defining something moral just because more people feel that way, is stupid. If morality is the product of self interest then it is defined as that, not what most people think. Anyway if you remove classes and make everyone totally equal (that is economically), then the best interest of the idividual would not be that of the other individuals, it would be - To deny the others their best interests and "oppress" them.

And the state is quite capable of altering the direction a society progresses in. The state becomes almost sacrosanct over time and through this, blind support (of which nationalism is perhaps an example) arises allowing the state to manipulate society for its own preservation.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Ok perhaps that post was total crap I'm sorry but your concept of defining something moral just because more people feel that way, is stupid. If morality is the product of self interest then it is defined as that, not what most people think.

Morality is a concept of 'right' and 'wrong', you obviously can't grasp what im trying to say. If there was complete consensus then it would be possible for something to be 'right' or 'wrong' but since there isn't then it's not. However the greater degree of consensus the more valid a 'moral' value becomes becuase it is representative of more people.


Anyway if you remove classes and make everyone totally equal (that is economically), then the best interest of the idividual would not be that of the other individuals, it would be - To deny the others their best interests and "oppress" them.

And how would one go about "opressing them" considering there is no government to gain power in, no private property or capital to use as leverage and no means of mass indoctrination?


And the state is quite capable of altering the direction a society progresses in.

no it isn't.


The state becomes almost sacrosanct over time and through this, blind support (of which nationalism is perhaps an example) arises allowing the state to manipulate society for its own preservation.

Actualy nationalists tend to be quite anti-government (the governemnt in power not the concept of government).

Nobody blindly supports the state, the state have power becuase the ruling class put them there and they havn't pissed off the rest of society too much.

[iloveatomickitten]

Morality is a concept of 'right' and 'wrong', you obviously can't grasp what im trying to say. If there was complete consensus then it would be possible for something to be 'right' or 'wrong' but since there isn't then it's not. However the greater degree of consensus the more valid a 'moral' value becomes becuase it is representative of more people.


Something is no more valid or universal simply because it is accepted as moral by the majority. The egotistical nature of morality means that you can never make the generalisation, which you promote due to a greater moral consensus. Those who lie outside of this consensus are equally "moral" in their beliefs and actions as those in side the consensus.


And how would one go about "opressing them" considering there is no government to gain power in, no private property or capital to use as leverage and no means of mass indoctrination?


Think of more subtle changes in the actions of people. For example someone steals a clichéd loaf of bread as a result they have therefore violated the communist ideal in a minute manner. This will proliferate as people realise that they can get away with small "injustices" and benifit as a result. Over time people will become more confident and their crimes will grow instrumenting the ensuing collapse of the ideal. I see this akin to the progression of sexual openness in society.


no it isn't.


Explain why not?


Actualy nationalists tend to be quite anti-government (the governemnt in power not the concept of government).

Nobody blindly supports the state, the state have power becuase the ruling class put them there and they havn't pissed off the rest of society too much.

I put forward the U.S.A. as an example of how I feel the State can controll the society. The nationalistic patriotism that engulfs the U.S. (or at least from my knowledge appears to) can be used in this way - the state causes confusion between government and country allowing actions contary to the goverment to be deemed up patriotic (war is perhaps a key method in the creation of this confusion). Thus the state controlls society. In a comnunsit society the communist ideal would supplement patriotism, I am quite sure you will deny the use of communism in this way because you see it as morally right and therefore you treat it as a Chirstian may treat his/her God.

Anyway this has strayed far off topic.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Something is no more valid or universal simply because it is accepted as moral by the majority. The egotistical nature of morality means that you can never make the generalisation, which you promote due to a greater moral consensus. Those who lie outside of this consensus are equally "moral" in their beliefs and actions as those in side the consensus.

if something is accepted as moral by 99% of the population and immoral by 1% then certainly it's more valid to say that it's moral.


Think of more subtle changes in the actions of people. For example someone steals a clichéd loaf of bread as a result they have therefore violated the communist ideal in a minute manner. This will proliferate as people realise that they can get away with small "injustices" and benifit as a result. Over time people will become more confident and their crimes will grow instrumenting the ensuing collapse of the ideal. I see this akin to the progression of sexual openness in society.

Why would someone steal a loaf of bread?


Explain why not?
You made a positive assertion, it's up to you to explain it


I put forward the U.S.A. as an example of how I feel the State can controll the society. The nationalistic patriotism that engulfs the U.S. (or at least from my knowledge appears to) can be used in this way - the state causes confusion between government and country allowing actions contary to the goverment to be deemed up patriotic (war is perhaps a key method in the creation of this confusion). Thus the state controlls society. In a comnunsit society the communist ideal would supplement patriotism, I am quite sure you will deny the use of communism in this way because you see it as morally right and therefore you treat it as a Chirstian may treat his/her God.

You are saying that the stae uses patriotism not that it controls it, the state is nationalistic because society makes it an advantage to be so, american society is not nationalistic becuase the state wants it to be. The republican party have to be nationalistic to get into power becuase society demands it. I think you've just demonstrated my point.

[iloveatomickitten]

if something is accepted as moral by 99% of the population and immoral by 1% then certainly it's more valid to say that it's moral.

No.



Why would someone steal a loaf of bread?



It irrelvant take it as a metaphor if you want.


You made a positive assertion, it's up to you to explain it

I have just tried.



You are saying that the stae uses patriotism not that it controls it, the state is nationalistic because society makes it an advantage to be so, american society is not nationalistic becuase the state wants it to be. The republican party have to be nationalistic to get into power becuase society demands it. I think you've just demonstrated my point.

They never meant to insinuate that the state controls patriotism though I did mean that they use it to control. And I fail to see how this demonstrates your point.

This is pointless I'll take this up with you elsewhere.
.

[Misodoctakleidist]

This is pointless I'll take this up with you elsewhere.

Good idea, make a thread about your theory that "communism will decay into capitalism"

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Actually a thread on a philosophical dissection of the problems of Marxism would be quite interesting.

[mia wallace]

Originally posted by Rasta [email protected] 22 2004, 12:55 AM
everything is relative.
i totally agree.
btw, do you guys believe in absolute truth? :huh: i surely don't...

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Originally posted by mia wallace+Jan 22 2004, 11:10 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (mia wallace @ Jan 22 2004, 11:10 PM)
Rasta [email protected] 22 2004, 12:55 AM
everything is relative.
i totally agree.
btw, do you guys believe in absolute truth? :huh: i surely don&#39;t... [/b]
Why don&#39;t you, explain?

[mia wallace]

well i believe that each man has a different view on situation or some issue or anything else then others. it doesen&#39;t has to be totally different view, but still there wouldn&#39;t absolute truth... agree? :ph34r:

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

So human subjectivity dismisses the possibility of overall objectivity?

[mia wallace]

yes, something like that. especially in some situations like love or jaleousy for example. you think that isn&#39;t so?

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

I believe in subjective universality along Kantian lines which is essentially a mixture of the objective and the subjective.

Or in a way the general common sense subjective created a kind of objectivity.