Re: The principle of open debate and hearing both sides


"Lance" <lachenicht@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1138910650.947682.233580@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

What is a moral absolutist?

For me, a moral absolutist is someone who has clear-cut views about right
and wrong, who thinks morality is to be discovered rather than created, who
leaves little scope for differences of opinion, who treats matters of right
and wrong as though they are matters of fact, etc. See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutism



I reject moral relativism. I suppose Raskanikov in Dostoyevsky was the
ultimate moral relativist, setting quite standards for himself and for
others.

Where I live morals are often claimed to be relative to culture. So for
example young men may say they have the right to molest or rape or
enslave young women because that was traditionally done in their
culture. Or followers of particular politicians may say he has the
right to receive gifts in return for favours because gifts have
traditionally been given to leaders in their culture. I think these
positions are mistaken (for quite Kantian reasons) and I think the evil
that emanates from them is visible to all.

To maintain that people are entitled to do whatever they want or that people
should thoughtlessly follow tradition, are not moral claims so much as
reasons (or rationalisations) for not entering into moral debate.


Do I think God handed down standards for human conduct that are
immutable? No - but I do believe that honest and empathic discussion
can lead to consensus about the right thing to do in most cases.

I don't disagree. However, I notice that you have now introduced a need for
the virtues of honesty and empathy, and that you refer to "consensus about
the right thing to do" rather than to 'the right thing to do'.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Humanism in 2006
    ... > morality, without morals being REALism. ... tolerance in the culture. ... share a common value with mine. ... subjectivism implies is that my premises cannot be wrong. ...
    (talk.philosophy.humanism)
  • Re: Humanism in 2006
    ... You can't give a rational progress without an objective morality, without morals being REALism. ... One can examine tolerance as a value to see if it yields positive results. ... If more tolerant cultures yield better results than less tolerant cultures, then the rational thing to do is increase tolerance in the culture. ... A bridge can be created to compare the one to the other if both agree on a common and transcendent notion of what the good is. ...
    (talk.philosophy.humanism)
  • Re: Humanism in 2006
    ... without that objectivism the word "progress" becomes meaningless. ... With morality, however, all you ... Now I will give you that a culture can set a goal of getting everyone in the ... We both believe morals exist. ...
    (talk.philosophy.humanism)
  • Re: THE atheist question and (no) answer series..
    ... innate morality or an evolutionary desire to ... One set of parents goes out drinking every night and leaves the kids at ... In some ways agreeing with you also confirms my notion that morals are ... Israeli kibbutz culture is like this, or was in its original form. ...
    (uk.philosophy.atheism)
  • Re: Racists In This Group
    ... I would love to tell stories of Flora Homma to this group, ... murder and mayhem are very common and accepted. ... There exists "local culture" notions on this. ... Your morals and laws abruptly end at ...
    (alt.usage.english)