Act II of "Waiting for Guffman".
Moral absolutes
by Aztec 163 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Reborn2002
Act II of "Waiting for Guffman".
I conducted a search on google to determine what Six is talking about.
Is it this film? If so, to whom are you referring as stupid or lacking talent? Just curious.
-
plmkrzy
me but it is only wishful thinking on his part. I have no idea what raw bur has climbed up his ars but it would be nice if he would pull it out.
I am not the least bit insecure about my IQ or ability but why that should bother six is beyond my problem solving ability and I scored very high on all my tests.
But then I would have said the bible is historically inaccurate instead of "oh that’s dumb" snort snort.
-
expatbrit
What does that mean? Rape and murder are acts that meet certain criteria. How are they not acts?
OK here's where I ramble incoherently....lol
How do we process moral judgements? I would say that it goes something like this:
- We identify the act.
- Then we find out the criteria of the specific occurence of that act.
- Then we use those criteria in order to make a moral judgement on the specific occurence of that act.
- Finally, we indicate the judgement we have made by applying a label.
Here's example 1: suppose I came to you and said "I'm going to give you an act and I want you to tell me if it is morally right or wrong."
You say "OK go ahead".
I say "Alright, the act is two people having sex. Is that morally right or wrong?
You say "I don't know!"
At this stage all we have is the act: two people having sex. So, what you do is find out the criteria, usually by questions.
You might well ask me "what were the ages of the participants?"
I say "one was 36, and the other was 11."
Now you have not only the act (two people having sex), but criteria too (their ages).
Using the criteria, you can make a moral judgement, that the specific occurence of this act is morally wrong.
Finally, to signify that, you apply a negative label: child abuse.
Example 2: Suppose that, as above, the act is two people having sex.
However, this time you ask questions and the criteria turn out to be that the two people are 36 and 34, married, and celebrating their 10th wedding anniversary.
This time the criteria enables you to make the moral judgement that the specific occurence of this act is morally right, and to signify this you apply a suitable label e.g. making love.
So, above are two examples of the same act (two people having sex), but the first is morally wrong and the second morally right.
Looking at the answers that were given:
1) An adult having sex with a toddler. This is not just an act, but an act with added criteria. The act is sex, the criteria is that one is adult, one is a toddler. It's the criteria of this specific occurence of sex that enable us to judge it as morally wrong.
2) Sexual intercourse with a child. Again, this is an act with criteria. The act is sexual intercourse. The criteria is that one of the participants is a child.
3) Unwanted sexual contact. Same again. The act is sexual contact. The criteria is that it is unwanted.
This is why I say that there is no act that can be said to be absolutely right or wrong. You cannot make a judgement on a specific occurence of an act, until you know the criteria of that specific instance. It's the criteria that enable the judgement.
And that is what moral relativism means to me: using the individual criteria of a specific occurence of an act to make a moral judgement on the specific occurence of that act.
To use moral absolutism in the above examples, you would have to say that all occurences of the act (two people having sex) are wrong. Obviously not a maintainable position.
This is also why, if Big Tex says "rape is always wrong", he's not making a statement of moral absolutism. What he's really saying is that "when a specific occurence of sexual intercourse occurs where one of the participants is not willing, this is wrong."
I can therefore reply to Big Tex "I couldn't agree with you more!" and still not be a moral absolutist.
Expatbrit
-
Big Tex
I recognize that by its very definition morality is very subjective. I also doubt we can come to a final conclusion ("probable though not proved") due to the very subjectivity of the concept. But just to create a framework for discussion, I think "principles of right and wrong in behavior", (such as ethical behavior) most closely fits this thread.
Interesting expat. I think I understand where you're coming from. I said the above on page 5 and I'm hearing you say basically the same thing, that morality is subjective depending on the criteria.
If that's what you're saying, then yes I can go along with that. I think ultimately we all might be splitting hairs down to the most finite point possible. Personally I would define rape itself as an act, but I understand your reasoning.
What I'm coming to the conclusion is that it is the very subjectivity, and the elusiveness of that subjectivity, that seems to be what morality, or lack of it, is about. Even the concept of a moral absolute seems to dependent on what terms and criteria we are working under. By your definition, an act itself cannot be immoral. Although just as an aside, how would cowardice fit as an "act"? I've mentioned before that I cannot think of a society in history whereby cowardice was thought in an approving way.
But really it seems to come down to the definition of terms, doesn't it? Are moral absolutes about an individual act with no criteria, about the concept of help, harm or hinder, or is it about behavior? As I see it now, that seems to be the positions that various folks have taken in this thread.
-
siegswife
This is why I say that there is no act that can be said to be absolutely right or wrong
I'm wondering why moral absolutes are only being discussed in the context of moral wrongs. I realize that Aztec's original question deals with the wrong side of the issue, but moral absolutes would also encompass what is morally right.
Isn't it always morally right to feed a starving person? Is it ever morally wrong?
How about if you are walking down the street and see someone lying there bleeding. Isn't it alway morally right to help them? Is helping an injured person ever morally wrong?
I understand that when qualifiers are added to the equation then something can't be called absolute. In the same vein, if we are only looking at morals from the perspective of what is morally wrong that also prevents a conclusion about absolutes to be reached.
I can't think of a situation where an act of kindness is ever morally wrong. Can you?
-
Amazing
I don't need religion or a god to tell me right from wrong. While I agree that life has a lot of gray areas ... where definitions and solid lines get blurred in many respects ... I suppose as they should ... I stand by the notion that certain things are absolute if we face reality and let its lessons mature us ... with that said I still believe in two things:
1. Values
2. Justice
These two things are the basis of all our laws ... and I ultimately don't care if a drunk driver has some different definition about what is really drunk, or some murderer feels his acts are in the gray area, or a bank robber sees no absolutes, or idiotic religious radicals flying planes into buildings is for some great cause to serve Allah, or a pedophile thinks his sexual needs exceed the rights of his child victims ... what matters to me is this:
1. Having enough values to know that what these criminal do is wrong
2. The integrity and backbone to bring such people to justice.
They can cry and bitch and moan all they want in prison for the next 500 years ... it matters not to me about what they think is moral ... what matters is that they are in a place and condition where they can't hurt anyone anymore.
Facing hard reality helps us to find certain moral absolutes very fast ... sort of like the saying: "There are no atheists in foxholes" it helps us realize that certain things in life test our metal and show whether we have a moral spine ... intestinal fortitude ... character ... that we stand for something ...
Suddenly, when hard reality smacks us in the face ... such as watching my sister get raped repeatedly by a pedophile, then all the philosophy books in the world turn to useless dust ... all the softening of moral values seems like an exercise in pointlessness ... and all the flowery words to try and place everything into gray areas seem like weak-kneed weasel wording to avoid the pain of accountability.
What matteres is that the SOBs who disturb the rest of society are brought to accountability ... and face the consequences for their actions. Philosophy is fun in talk sessions and group discussion dynamics ... and I guess that up to certain points, being non-judgmental is good because it recognizes that there is a wide variety of opinions and ways of doing things ... as long as such gray areas stay in areas that don't cause harm ... but that is as far as it goes for me.
Once "harm" is caused by an act, regardless of any philosophical notions, then the act becomes morally absolutely wrong! ... And victims have an absolute moral right to seek justice and/or forgive.
Good post Aztec ... it looks like a lot of good and varying responses ... thanks for bringing this topic up. - Jim W.
-
Aztec
Amazing,
Once "harm" is caused by an act, regardless of any philosophical notions, then the act becomes morally absolutely wrong! ... And victims have an absolute moral right to seek justice and/or forgive
This is a point I got into with AlanF. He claimed that anything that caused harm was immoral. The problem I see with this is that how do you define harm. Sometimes the only way to correct someone (a child for example) is to punish them or temporarily "harm" them. I guess the point I was trying to make with this thread is that everything is a matter of perspectives.
Expatbrit, thanks for your wonderful input! I've enjoyed reading your posts on this topic. I've gotten about a quarter of the way into Leviathan and I'm enjoying it when it's not giving me headaches. I'll let you know what I think of it when I finish it.
~Aztec
-
plmkrzy
The problem I see with this is that how do you define harm.
OUCH!
-
peacefulpete
As I have tried to illustrate "harm" may inflicted with no malice and may be the appropriate action in a given situation. This is where ethics come in, the determining of when and to what degree harm may be appropriate. This is the domain of legislators and jurists. "Harm" is easy to define as causing distress or pain.
When did you discuss this with Alan? I would enjoy reading the thread.
