Death by stoning?!
- Thread starter Leslie
- Start date
Jeslek
Banned
OK hm, getting my philosophy book out 
Cultural Relativism (absolute truths) is the view that: An action is right for a person to do if and only if (and because) the majority of that person's society approves of that action or it conforms to their moral code. So, if the majority of a society approves of an action, then it's right (Approval is sufficient for it being right). And, an action is right only if the majority approves of it. (Approval is necessary for it being right).
The Argument from Moral Reform
1. If Cultural Relativism is true, then whatever the majority approves is right.
2. If whatever the majority approves is right, then all moral reformers are mistaken (because moral reformers are always in the minority, at least at the start).
3. But, not all moral reformers are mistaken (e.g., Fredrick Douglass, Susan B. Anthony, etc.).
4. Therefore, it's not the case that whatever the majority approves is right.
5. Therefore, CR is false.
The argument from Moral Infallibility
1. If CR is true, then a culture cannot go wrong if it sticks to its own standards and never changes them.
2. But a a culture can go wrong if it sticks to its own standards and never changes them.
3. Therefore, CR is false.
The Arguments from Overlapping "Cultures"
Suppose Jane is an Catholic woman who is an American and a Democrat. She is part of at least 4 "societies": American "society," Catholic "society," Democrat "society," and women's "society."
Is it morally permissible for Jane to have an abortion? Cultural Relativism says she should look to her society's standards. How can she does this?
1. If Cultural Relativism is true, then it's both right and wrong for Jane to have an abortion.
2. It isn't both right and wrong for Jane to have an abortion.
3. Therefore, CR is false.
The argument from "moral travel"
Abortion is not condemned in Japan (or let's suppose it is). Molly lives in Ireland, where abortion is widely condemned. Molly wants to have an abortion, but doesn't want to do anything wrong. So she takes a trip to Japan.
1. If Cultural Relativism is true, then the fact that Molly travels to Japan will make her abortion morally permissible.
2. It's not the case that Molly's traveling to Japan will make her abortion morally permissible.
3. So CR is false.
The "flip flop" argument
Suppose Monday, 51% of the population favors the death penalty. Tuesday only 49% do. Wednesday 52% do. What has happened, according to CR?
1. If CR is true, then the morality of an action can change day by day (even minute by minute!).
2. It's not the case that the morality of an action can change day by day (even minute by minute!).
3. So CR is false.
The argument from moral methodology
1. If CR is true, then the way to figure out whether an action is right or wrong is to take an opinion pole.
2. It's not the case that the way to figure out whether an action is right or wrong is to take an opinion pole.
3. So CR is false.
The argument from good reasons
1. If CR is true, then cultures don't have to have any good reasons for their moral views.
2. But cultures do have to have any good reasons for their moral views.
3. Therefore, CR is false.
The argument from obviously wrong actions turn out right
1. If CR is true, then clearly wrong actions could be right.
2. But clearly wrong actions could not be right.
3. Therefore, CR is false.
Now, Hitler was elected by a majority vote. The majority favored genocide. Therefore it is right. I'm sorry, but I don't adhere to that.
Cultural Relativism (absolute truths) is the view that: An action is right for a person to do if and only if (and because) the majority of that person's society approves of that action or it conforms to their moral code. So, if the majority of a society approves of an action, then it's right (Approval is sufficient for it being right). And, an action is right only if the majority approves of it. (Approval is necessary for it being right).
The Argument from Moral Reform
1. If Cultural Relativism is true, then whatever the majority approves is right.
2. If whatever the majority approves is right, then all moral reformers are mistaken (because moral reformers are always in the minority, at least at the start).
3. But, not all moral reformers are mistaken (e.g., Fredrick Douglass, Susan B. Anthony, etc.).
4. Therefore, it's not the case that whatever the majority approves is right.
5. Therefore, CR is false.
The argument from Moral Infallibility
1. If CR is true, then a culture cannot go wrong if it sticks to its own standards and never changes them.
2. But a a culture can go wrong if it sticks to its own standards and never changes them.
3. Therefore, CR is false.
The Arguments from Overlapping "Cultures"
Suppose Jane is an Catholic woman who is an American and a Democrat. She is part of at least 4 "societies": American "society," Catholic "society," Democrat "society," and women's "society."
Is it morally permissible for Jane to have an abortion? Cultural Relativism says she should look to her society's standards. How can she does this?
1. If Cultural Relativism is true, then it's both right and wrong for Jane to have an abortion.
2. It isn't both right and wrong for Jane to have an abortion.
3. Therefore, CR is false.
The argument from "moral travel"
Abortion is not condemned in Japan (or let's suppose it is). Molly lives in Ireland, where abortion is widely condemned. Molly wants to have an abortion, but doesn't want to do anything wrong. So she takes a trip to Japan.
1. If Cultural Relativism is true, then the fact that Molly travels to Japan will make her abortion morally permissible.
2. It's not the case that Molly's traveling to Japan will make her abortion morally permissible.
3. So CR is false.
The "flip flop" argument
Suppose Monday, 51% of the population favors the death penalty. Tuesday only 49% do. Wednesday 52% do. What has happened, according to CR?
1. If CR is true, then the morality of an action can change day by day (even minute by minute!).
2. It's not the case that the morality of an action can change day by day (even minute by minute!).
3. So CR is false.
The argument from moral methodology
1. If CR is true, then the way to figure out whether an action is right or wrong is to take an opinion pole.
2. It's not the case that the way to figure out whether an action is right or wrong is to take an opinion pole.
3. So CR is false.
The argument from good reasons
1. If CR is true, then cultures don't have to have any good reasons for their moral views.
2. But cultures do have to have any good reasons for their moral views.
3. Therefore, CR is false.
The argument from obviously wrong actions turn out right
1. If CR is true, then clearly wrong actions could be right.
2. But clearly wrong actions could not be right.
3. Therefore, CR is false.
Now, Hitler was elected by a majority vote. The majority favored genocide. Therefore it is right. I'm sorry, but I don't adhere to that.
Jeslek
Banned
Luis G said:
I never said it is wrong to stone somebody. I said I wouldn't do it myself though. You need to read what I write before replying.
I have taken the ethics course at Waterloo. We discussed absolute truths for 3 hours. The professor didn't take a stand on the issue, and welcomed discussion. Only three people out of thirty-five agreed with me though.
Scanty
New Member
LastLegionary said:
No, LL.
I will not make a case against absolute truths. Because I don't - and neither did I say - that absolute truths did or did not exist. I would not take either side of the argument.
I would simply say... I don't know.
I wouldn't state that they did or did not exist, at all.
That quote.
When the student says:
“That statement is not absolutely true because there exists an absolute truth which is an exception to it.”
Some of the many questions that could've followed may have been:
'How do you know that?'
'Does one truth have to exist?'
'What does 'truth' even mean?'
'Maybe there are multiple truths?'
'Maybe there are infinite truths?'
Maybe truths are continually fluctuating at an infinite and incomprehensible speed and there is never one fixed truth...
My point is that you can't expect to have definite answers. If you are striving to be open-minded, it seems a step backward to fix on any one 'belief' or way of thinking.
Just be open to anything.
ris
New Member
i respect the babylonians right to their choice of lifestyle and belief system.
if i say it cannot be wrong, then i identify an absolute truth to them.
i see no reason to pass judgement on them as right or wrong, we are a different civilisation with different values and belief systems. by modern standards it is wrong. i prefer to understand why they did it, what was the motivation and to what purpose.
that removes the action from mere ideology and gives it relevance and due understanding.
if i say it cannot be wrong, then i identify an absolute truth to them.
i see no reason to pass judgement on them as right or wrong, we are a different civilisation with different values and belief systems. by modern standards it is wrong. i prefer to understand why they did it, what was the motivation and to what purpose.
that removes the action from mere ideology and gives it relevance and due understanding.
Jeslek
Banned
I'm very open minded. I'm mindful of other people and how they do things. But I will not be so open minded that my brains fall out, or open minded to compromise my own moral code. You simply haven't made up your mind. Give it some time, or read some books.
BTW I hope I haven't offended anyone in this thread yet. I'm trying to be as tactful as possible.
BTW I hope I haven't offended anyone in this thread yet. I'm trying to be as tactful as possible.
Scanty
New Member
LastLegionary said:
No, that's not true. I do not take your view of absolute truths and yet that still sickens me. Because I am influenced by the culture I was born into and therefore my instant reaction to the thought of someone killing their child is one of disgust.
But just because I feel disgust, it doesn't mean that I think one way of life is right and another is wrong.
But then...I don't believe in 'right' and 'wrong' ...
Jeslek
Banned
ris said:
Hm, so by respecting the Babylonian's right of their lifestyle you think it is right for them (though not for us since we are in a different culture) to murder babies by the hundreds?
Study history, or you will be doomed to repeat it. I study history and pass judgment (where judgment is my opinion). I study how and why people did things, and what the results were. The results of the Babylonian Empire was a mighty fall.
The motive, btw, was simple. The more babies they murdered, the more favor they get with their god.
LastLegionary said:
ok, just re-read.
Correction to my previous statement, your ways are right and islamic is evil, backwards and they are all bunch of extremists, and their extremism is wrong.
now, i will not go and dig the threads where you said all that.
Although you're an extremist as well 'cause you want them all dead. does that make you better than them?
Scanty
New Member
LastLegionary said:I'm very open minded. I'm mindful of other people and how they do things. But I will not be so open minded that my brains fall out, or open minded to compromise my own moral code. You simply haven't made up your mind. Give it some time, or read some books.
BTW I hope I haven't offended anyone in this thread yet. I'm trying to be as tactful as possible.
Well, you have just offended me, LL. Try not to be condescending when you post, if you can.
Making up my mind, to me, would be to close the gate on a road of endless possibility.
Making up my mind is the last thing I would ever want to do as long as I live.
Jeslek
Banned
Scanty said:LastLegionary said:
No, that's not true. I do not take your view of absolute truths and yet that still sickens me. Because I am influenced by the culture I was born into and therefore my instant reaction to the thought of someone killing their child is one of disgust.
But just because I feel disgust, it doesn't mean that I think one way of life is right and another is wrong.
But then...I don't believe in 'right' and 'wrong' ... lol
If no one believed in right and wrong then there would be no judicial system. You have to make a stand for what you stand.
Another example. Lets assume there are no absolute truths. It is well known that the EU doesn't approve of the executions done in the United States. If we are a different culture, why are they passing judgment on us?
Another example. Why are people so concerned about Milosovich? He did what right in his own culture. We shouldn't judge him because there are no wrongs and no rights. How can he then even BE judged in the first place?
Gee I gotta take a break from this. Be back later...
Jeslek
Banned
Luis G said:
I never said I want them all dead. I said *up to a point I agree with Justintime.* I never said extremism is wrong either. And I sure am not an extremist. I simply believe in absolute truths. I believe that an action taken is right or wrong. If it is neither or both, how can you have a judicial system? How can you have a world court for that batter?
I'm sorry Scanty for offending you. I really didn't mean it.
ris
New Member
history is a constant stream of revision and re-understanding. finds and theories are constantly re-studied and the ideas considered and often changed.
adhering absolute truths to a history that is by its nature shifting leaves it on unsteady ground. therefore, not absolute.
i agree, learn from history lest we make the same mistakes. my own way of doing this to understand how things occured, so as to avoid it.
adhering absolute truths to a history that is by its nature shifting leaves it on unsteady ground. therefore, not absolute.
i agree, learn from history lest we make the same mistakes. my own way of doing this to understand how things occured, so as to avoid it.
Scanty
New Member
LastLegionary said:
Because that's what humans do, that's what I'm saying!
They're doing what everyone does and what you are doing right now! Passing judgement!
Okay, look...here...
EVERYTHING I HAVE JUST SAID IN THIS ENTIRE THREAD COULD BE COMPLETE AND UTTER BULLSHIT, FOR ALL I KNOW.
That is called not assuming you are the be all and end all. Not assuming you are definitely right, without a doubt.
But I don't think you would be prepared to say that, and neither would most people.
ris
New Member
if i accept my truth or my cultures truth to be absolute then i deny the possibility or even the concept of understanding that there might be another point of view.
the opinion, or 'truth' if you will, can exist without it being absolute. otherwise i am entrenched in dogma and ideology.
the opinion, or 'truth' if you will, can exist without it being absolute. otherwise i am entrenched in dogma and ideology.
Scanty
New Member
Okay, thank you for apologising, LL.
In regards to the justice system, I do want to make something clear. Of course, we should protect ourselves and society, and for that we need to lock away people who may be a danger.
We don't have a choice in that, though do we? Right and wrong put aside.
In regards to the justice system, I do want to make something clear. Of course, we should protect ourselves and society, and for that we need to lock away people who may be a danger.
We don't have a choice in that, though do we? Right and wrong put aside.