That, to me, looks like a prime example of moral relativism. Toppling a dictator is morally equivalent to toppling a democratically elected government.
No one. It’s meant to be something so basic and obvious that even you would agree with it. It’s difficult to find common ground with someone who doesn’t even agree that there is such a thing as “country”.
The same logic that makes me not care about the moral details of an intruder in my home makes me not care about the moral details of a terrorist in Iraq who is killing our troops.
You understand and agree with the first but not the second. This is because you care about your family but not your country.
He must be a moral relativist. :rolleyes:
Look, laddie, “moral relativism” has a meaning beyond “a morality based argument whose conclusion Debaser disagrees with.”
A wise man once said, “Simply saying ‘no it isn’t’ isn’t an argument; it’s just contradiction.”
Until you learn more about critical analysis and rational thought, I think you should avoid big words like “moral relativism.”
acsenray, that was your fifth post to this thread. It’s also the first one that is longer than two sentances. All five do nothing to contribute and are simply attacks against me.
I don’t see any reason to respond to you.
Ah, more attacks on relativism. It does take longer than one thinks.
Yes, It’s quite unfortunate that I’ve contributed absolutely nothing other than an attempt to critically examine your definition of “moral relativism” and the logical soundness the argument that lead you to your conclusions. Frankly, everything else you’ve blathered on about is pointless until we clear up this fundamental error in your premise.
Ah, well, so much for fighting ignorance.
No. moral relativism would be to say that a democratic system is equal to a dictatorship. Saying not to invade other countries has nothing to do with the value systems of those countries, it has to do with respecting human life and not causing unnecesary suffering.
I hold a position fairly close to Debaser’s as far as values go, and perhaps I might express these views more clearly. I have myself, family, friends, and several other groups whom I value progressively less, down to total strangers in a different part of the world who wish harm upon me or those whom I value highly but make no effort to inflict it, who are a little above worthless in my system.
It is not justifiable for me to apply coercive force to any of the above. I might feel antipathy toward those at the bottom of that list, but it would be morally wrong to act against them.
---------------------------------CUTOFF POINT---------------------------------------------
Below the cutoff point are those who are in the process of attempting to inflict harm upon me or those whom I value highly, and those who have done so in the past. Any force I apply to them (within reason, based on the urgency of the threat or gravity of the previously inflicted harm) would be responsive and thus acceptable.
I think that Debaser would agree so far in principle , if not necessarily in terminology. Where we would differ is how Iraq should be classified above.
Iraq goes just above the cutoff point for me - that particular region of the world holds no fuzzy feelings for me, and vice versa. But I don’t (and didn’t) perceive Iraq as a threat. There was no legitimate justification for us to invade in my view.
And so the war presents a dilemma. On one hand, I value American troops to a far greater extent than the Iraqi insurgents (or any Iraqis, for that matter.) On the other, the insurgents have the moral high ground, as they are the ones acting in response and mostly within reason at that. I don’t feel as strongly about it as I would if the situation were reversed, but they are pretty much in the right and we should get the hell out of there.
So now you DO want to go back to Iraq? Fine. Firts of all, the word “terrorist” in your post is meaningless well poisoning. It’s a preemptive attempt to demonize those who are defending their country by slapping a dehunaizing title on them and pretending that anyone who disagrees with your assessment is supporting evil.
Yopu seem to agree that if anyone invades the US, you have a right to fight back, correct?
And if you fight back are you then a “terrorist” as well or is a terrorist only someone who defends against invasion by you.
Please explain the difference between the US defending itself and Iraqis defending themselves. What makes the former ok but not the latter?
jsgoddess:
“Moral relativism allows for a judgment of the actor. Moral absolutism only allows for a judgment of the action.”
I don’t believe this is correct.
A moral code can be quite complex and seemingly inconsistent due to specific situations. (i.e. killing in self defense is ok, etc.)
The “relativism” comes into play only when debating whether there is a single correct universal moral code vs there are many moral codes, none of which is right or wrong.
Debaser, let’s try it this way:
The Swedes invade and occupy the US, and justify their action on the grounds that the US presented a gathering threat to Sweden. Debaser hides out in the hills and wages guerilla war on the Swedes. Are Debaser’s actions moral or immoral?
The Army of Swedish Occupation in the US hand picks a new US government. This government has no authority over the ASO, and has the support of (for the sake of argument) 50% of Americans. The new government starts recruiting and training troops for the purpose of rooting out and killing Debaser and others like him who do not support the foreign-appointed government. Debaser sets about killing troops of the new government, and even tries to assasinate some of its officials. Are Debaser’s actions moral or immoral?
I don’t think this is addressing what I said, but I may be wrong.
Right. A universal moral code says an action is either right or wrong and it doesn’t matter who you are.
Relativism says that who you are (where you grew up, what your culture is, what your sex is, what your religion is, what your age is) makes a difference to the definition of what is right or wrong.
The “action” I speak of can be very specific. A moral absolute would be to say:
“It is moral to kill in self-defense.”
Another moral absolute would be to say:
“It is immoral to kill in self-defense.”
The moral relativist says:
“It depends. Some people might consider it moral because of X, while others consider it immoral because of Y.”
Most of us are absolutists about some things and relativists about others. Even self-defense has its loopholes for most of us. For example, is it moral to kill in self-defense if the people you’re defending yourself against are the police?
E-Sabbath:
“Moral relativism is a more flexible means of thought, supple like the bamboo, and quick to react. But it can be paralyzed”
I don’t think moral relativism causes paralysis in decision making.
I don’t think there is a universal moral code, but the only weight I give during my decision making process is to my own moral code, not someone else’s.
Agreed, with one minor additional point:
I think you can be a relativist like myself, and have portions of the moral code that appear absolute.
For example, I may think (on one level) that it is never OK to kill a human (seemingly absolute notion), while at the same time realizing that this is merely my own rule and it has no basis in some universal code.
Ah you see, there is your problem. Empathy is not the appropriate emotion for those Iraqis who kill US troops. If you look you’ll see no-one has argued that it is.
Nobody pleas for empathy towards those Iraqis. You should direct your emotional energies to the just response. Which is adulation.
Your troops are vermin, sub-criminals, the enemies of honor. Some of whom mouth that word which is properly the entire property of the brave Iraqis defending their homes against a crawling carpet of malignancy. The US Army by name.
Adulation. Try for that, when you think of Iraqi resistance. Each time you hear word of US troops killed or maimed, raise your glass in toast. Go door to door in your street with the good news. Organise parades, banners and ribbons. Do you prefer news of American troops, blasted, sliced or shot? Arrange your slogans accordingly.
These are merely suggestions. Feel free to use your imagination. It’s a big war.
Once you move to the correct stance you’ll find life much easier.
I am happily a moral relativist, perhaps more accurately, a motive deconstructionist 
. I see things as either Hate (murder, anger, greed, wont) or Love (life, nurturing, happiness, generosity) rooted. My judgement is reserved for Love or Hate and not the situation or person. My imperative is the destruction of or lessening of hate and the propogation of love. Love and hate seem black and white but sometimes under human conditions blend together in the melange of life leavng many gray areas. One must often try to extricate the causations and motivations of people or situatons by deconstructing the situation. I have come to the conclusion that the Iraq war is so hate filled in every motivation (eminating from the current administration and leadership) that it requires drastic measures and must not grow stronger from my support. I cannot support my country in this endeavor in any platitude or action that might reinforce its hate and injustice perpetrated.