Moral realism vs. relativism

  • Thread starter leopard
  • Start date
1
0
Moral realism vs. relativism

Reality is established by truth.
Truth is what establishes right from wrong.
There are two sides of the equation: objective reality and one's subjective perception of reality.

The basic axiom that establishes right from wrong for interaction between individuals, is objectively established:no one has the right to violate another's individual rights and sovereignty. One has the right to act as long as they don't violate another's individual rights and sovereignty.

The basic axiom that establishes right from wrong for one's actions, is subjectively established, by one's subjective perception of reality. Whether something is positive or negative, is in the eye of the beholder, because one person's lust is an other person's disgust.

The only way one can get someone else to do what they want is to provide a positive benefit, so we can get their consent.

We live in two paradigms of "right from wrong" and "might makes right". We are born in the collectivist paradigm of a parent/child relationship where we do not have authority because we can not be held responsible for our actions. This paradigm is right, because nature has given the parent an inherent instinct to take care of their young. Once we become the age of mental maturity, we accept adulthood, where we accept responsible for the authority over our own actions. Once we have achieved adulthood, the parent/child relationship becomes a master/slave relationship, which becomes wrong.

The problem is, we currently live in a collectivist paradigm of "GOD said" where there are adults that want to live in perpetual childhood looking for their parents (external control) and their are those that are sociopathic tyrant criminals that perpetrate the master/slave relationship, creating the fraud of "might makes right", so they can benefit from the collective control.

The Declaration of Independence was the first time individuals tried to establish a society based on adulthood, creating an individualistic paradigm of control, but it has reverted back to a society controlled by an organized crime syndicate of sociopathic tyrant criminals trying to play the role of parent.
 
Last edited:
My Dexter analogy is way too powerful to be ignored or shelved....it quickly proves that you and all sane people value your life, liberty and property otherwise you'd take me up on my offer.....but you won't, nor will anyone ever do it unless they have a genuine deathwish.
Again. Moral relativism has nothing to do with whim. The general serial killer does not subscribe to an ethical system that says it is ok to kill for kicks. The same with those who violate social contracts in regards to property and liberty. The point of an ethical system is to prevent people from giving in to base urges such as murder and theft. The people who do these things generally realize they are "wrong" or in breach of social contract and either do not care or through some cost benefit analysis have decided it is worth the risk of facing the consequences.

It is of course still possible that there are persons who live by an ethical system that says it is ok to murder and steal. Unfortunately for any 'scrupulous' adherants such ethical systems as 'honour among thieves' are generally just a thin veneer over an otherwise lack of ethical structure and are usually only used to trick and take advantage of those who believe in them. Assuming though that such an ethical system exists then I'll point out the other fallacious argument against moral relativism, that moral relativism dictates other ethical systems be accepted.

There is no impetus behind moral realtivism other than to make us perceive the moral dilemma through another's eyes. This does not mean that I can not see the flaws, contradictions, and logical fallacies in another's ethical system. Even going to Russ's "logical extreme of moral relativism" where in I must validate, in a practical sense, all other ethical systems this does not invalidate my own! Obviously, even by this flawed interpretation of moral relativism, my ethics are just as valid as everyone elses and I have just as much right to live by them (and impede those who do not) as everyone else. But again this is not the point. The point is that you or I are not paragons of moral righteousness and we ought not consider others barbarians and heathens simply because they have strange notions of what is "right" and "wrong". And that perhaps occasionally (or when the situation demands) we ought to reevaluate our ethical systems to be sure they still make sense in the current context.

DavidIg said:
Give me an example of a legitimate long-term withdrawal of the individual rights, starting with the right to life, and in this instance, the withdrawal need only last a few seconds to be devastating to the individual.
In most every ethical system there are instances where the "rights" you mention (life, liberty, and property) may be stripped of the individual for the common good. If they may be stripped then they are mutable and, hence, not fundamental. As for 'life' the most commonly accepted reason for stripping this right is in self defense. You may argue that since the one person is defending their own life then this is acceptable but that does not change the fact that the attacker's right to life is being stripped which means it is mutable.
For a less sticky situation consider being able to save the life of one hundred persons at the expense of the life of one. Objectively speaking if you value life then saving one hundred lives at the expense of one is logical and forfeiting one hundred lives for the sake of one is mere romantic idealism. In the end either way the right to life is still stripped. Either the rights of the one or the rights of the hundred have become mutable.
 
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,843
17
But what is the basis of this natural number?
What the heck is a basis?

Anyways, it's real simple: if some class of ideas or objects (or whatever) satisfies all of Peano's axioms under some interpretation of the word "zero" and "successor", then we call that class (a model of) the natural numbers.

If Peano's axioms are not satisfied, then we do not call that class (a model of) the natural numbers.
 
13
0
The general serial killer does not subscribe to an ethical system that says it is ok to kill for kicks.

As for 'life' the most commonly accepted reason for stripping this right is in self defense. .
I'm asking you a direct question.....can I come over and rob and murder you?.....if not, why not?
I'm not asking whether or not serial killing is right or wrong.

Criminals rights are always secondary to an innocent persons rights aka the right to life, liberty and property, as such, should anyone attempt to assault you, you're free to defend yourself, and if during that defence your attacker is killed, then tough luck for him and his violation of the basic individual rights.

Rights should be built around innocent and decent people.....criminals take their chances and are at the mercy of individual justice or societies justice system.

Tell me StatutoryApe, how do you determine right from wrong?
 
13
0
What the heck is a basis?

.
The concept of "one" is based upon a reference to any physical object..........but your interpretation begins as a high level concept ignoring its underpinnings.

You suggest numbers are this or that without explaining the basis of all numbers.
 
13
0
, but it has reverted back to a society controlled by an organized crime syndicate of sociopathic tyrant criminals trying to play the role of parent.
Good points JJ....cause both the US and Australian gov's have stolen our tax dollars to wage war against a helpless and harmless nation{from our POV}, ie, Iraq, and these sicko's also want to take on Iran.
 
9
0
Moral realism vs. relativism

Reality is established by truth.
Truth is what establishes right from wrong.
There are two sides of the equation: objective reality and one's subjective perception of reality.

The basic axiom that establishes right from wrong for interaction between individuals, is objectively established:no one has the right to violate another's individual rights and sovereignty. One has the right to act as long as they don't violate another's individual rights and sovereignty.

The basic axiom that establishes right from wrong for one's actions, is subjectively established, by one's subjective perception of reality. Whether something is positive or negative, is in the eye of the beholder, because one person's lust is an other person's disgust.

The only way one can get someone else to do what they want is to provide a positive benefit, so we can get their consent.

We live in two paradigms of "right from wrong" and "might makes right". We are born in the collectivist paradigm of a parent/child relationship where we do not have authority because we can not be held responsible for our actions. This paradigm is right, because nature has given the parent an inherent instinct to take care of their young. Once we become the age of mental maturity, we accept adulthood, where we accept responsible for the authority over our own actions. Once we have achieved adulthood, the parent/child relationship becomes a master/slave relationship, which becomes wrong.

The problem is, we currently live in a collectivist paradigm of "GOD said" where there are adults that want to live in perpetual childhood looking for their parents (external control) and their are those that are sociopathic tyrant criminals that perpetrate the master/slave relationship, creating the fraud of "might makes right", so they can benefit from the collective control.

The Declaration of Independence was the first time individuals tried to establish a society based on adulthood, creating an individualistic paradigm of control, but it has reverted back to a society controlled by an organized crime syndicate of sociopathic tyrant criminals trying to play the role of parent.
Okay I quoted the whole thing because you really, really need to use small, simple words. At least more of them. I have NEVER EVER seen a higher concentration of the word "paradigm," for example. Which suggests to me either 1. you didn't write this, or 2. you're trying to seem like an authority on the subject by using big words. My advice: show your authority by making your writing clear and easy to understand.

And for the part I've put in bold:

Seriously, 'sociopathic tyrant criminals?" playing role of parent and child? Seriously? And an organized crime syndicate controlling us at that. :rolleyes:

And don't give the tired line about since Republicans are closely associated with fundamentalist Christians that all Americans follow God unquestionably.
 
Last edited:
13
0
Seriously, 'sociopathic tyrant criminals?" .
What do you describe the approx murder of 1 000 000 Iraq's?
 
Math Is Hard
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
4,491
28
You guys can hash this out in the politics forum.
 

Related Threads for: Moral realism vs. relativism

  • Last Post
Replies
17
Views
5K
Replies
87
Views
14K
Replies
50
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
9K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
6K
Replies
31
Views
29K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
29
Views
4K
Top