Such is the way with the moral relativist...no benchmarks, no standards, just whatever feels right at the moment to them. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, etc. would have been proud...they also subscribed to the same relative sense of morality, or lack thereof.
40 comments
"Hitler , Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao"
One of these things is not like the other things
[/CookieMonster]
You left out Washington, Jefferson, Churchill, FDR, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, etc. Or doesn't it count if you use an army to justify killing?
@Goomy pls
One of these things is not like the other things"
Nitpicking... they were all totalitarian dictators whether left or right wing. I can see why they can fit together in this context perfectly logically.
(posted by whatever, not Broton of Loch Ness... I share this computer with three other guys and have to keep changing the user ID in the box...)
The "moral relativist" (a glib term if ever there was one) certainly has benchmarks, in every person who's actions and attitudes are conducive to the well being of others, indiviudually and collectively. Is this not an ideal standard?
Do some fucking reading, moron. "Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao" were not in fact moral relativists; they had their own, albeit insane set of morals.
FYI, a "moral relativist" is not someone whose morals you happen to disagree with; rather, it is the view that truth, reality and morality are perceived differently from diverse points of view, and that no single point of view is the complete truth. In fact, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao's moral perspective were the very opposite of that view.
Everyone is a moral relativist. Think about it, even Christians can't agree on whether it's immoral to drink alcohol or not. It depends on each Christian you ask.
As far as morality is concerned, I personally go by whether or not a person's action harms themselves or anyone else. But even then there are grey areas. For example, is it moral to steal food in order to feed your starving family? You're harming one to help another. You have to weigh the good and the bad in every instance.
I dunno...on the one hand, the Hitler and Mao comparisons were unnecessary.
But on the other hand, I've actually met quite a few fellow liberals who seem to subscribe to the term that if they cause pain to others, you don't get to tell them so because "it's all relative, my opinion is as good as your opinion, even if I punished an innocent!"
rocketman is nuts, obviously, but the moral relativists he's describing really do exist, even if he's just using the term to score a point.
Sometimes the idea that "there is no truth" can be used to shut down other points of view, by calling them fanatics.
Indeed, that is what conservatives do to us liberals now.
None of those guys were moral relativists. Hitler was an extreme patriot and Stalin and Mao believed in the communist ideals. In fact, moral absolutists are just as likely as moral relativists to justify bad behavior. The Taliban and the medieval Catholic Church justified it in the name of God. Bottom line, if someone wants to do something they'll find a way to justify it regardless of ideology or lack thereof.
Addendum: Also, the Foundation for Critical Thinking posits that relativism is actually just as bad as absolutism, because it makes thinking unnecessary, and also makes it unnecessary to reflect on unethical actions and apologize.
Scylla and Charybdis, as it were.
Morality from the bible? From the OT? You must mean the "Alice's Restaurant" morality?
"And I walked in and sat down and they gave me a piece of paper, said, "Kid, see the phsychiatrist, room 604."
And I went up there, I said, "Shrink, I want to kill. I mean, I wanna, I wanna kill. kill. I wanna, I wanna see, I wanna see blood and gore and guts and veins in my teeth. Eat dead burnt bodies. I mean kill, kill, KILL, KILL." And I started jumpin up and down yelling, "KILL, KILL," and he started jumpin up and down with me and we was both jumping up and down yelling, "KILL, KILL." And the sargent came over, pinned a medal on me, sent me down the hall, said, "You're our boy.""
http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm
@Broton of Loch Ness
But one was ideologically very different. The salient point is not their dictatorial policies but rather the flavor of their politics.
@crealms82
Twisting the faith to suit their goals is basically what Chri-stain fundies do nowadays.
There is no, let me repeat NO moral position more relative than the one that says that once you have pledged allegiance to Jesus you can do whatever you want and still go to Heaven.
Or, as your lot likes to put it, "we are saved by faith, not by works."
Yeah, like the Christian Tsars of Russia, the popes of the crusades, and "Saint" Paul who proclaimed lying OK as long as he was lying for Jesus.
P.S. Hitler was a Christian.
@whatever: "Moral relativist" is not a glib term, it describes a real group of philosophies, which are quite different from what you're describing, which sounds like some variety of humanism or utilitarianism.
Descriptive moral relativism is the position that there is no objective basis for morality. This position can be either ontological ("there is no objective moral truth" -- a position that is either nihilistic or merely pointless, IMO) or merely epistemological ("there might be an objective moral truth, but we have no way of knowing whether we're right about it" -- which varies in its implications, depending on what other positions one holds).
Prescriptive (or normative) moral relativism holds that because there is no objective basis for morality, it is wrong to criticize someone else's moral outlook. This is a real position (I'm involved in an argument with an otherwise intelligent individual who holds it on another site), but is silly: my moral outlook says that I should criticize others' moral outlooks when I disagree with them, and so to say that that is wrong is itself criticizing someone else's moral outlook, which is hypocritical.
such is the way with moral absolutists. they have benchmarks, they have standards, but those benchmarks and standards are full of fucking shit. but it's fine, for the most part they just do whatever feels right at the moment to them.
Such is the way with the moral relativist...no benchmarks, no standards, just whatever feels right at the moment to them.
Like, say... the kind of being who declares something to be immoral at one point in time, then turns around and declares it to be completely moral at a later date...?
Like your God?
Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, etc. would have been proud...they also subscribed to the same relative sense of morality, or lack thereof.
Wow... equating your god to those people... I bet he's real proud of you.
Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, etc.
My understanding is that they were all rather tough on benchmarks and standards. Just because they didn't share yours doesn't mean they did not have them.
Such is the way with the moral absolutists... their standards and benchmarks are the right ones, and those standards always just align with whatever feels right at the moment to them. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, etc. would have been proud...they also subscribed to the same absolute sense of morality, or lack thereof.
@Groomy Pls, who said, "Twisting the faith to suit their goals is basically what Chri-stain fundies do nowadays. "
It's what *all* Christians do nowadays. If you pretend Christianity had nothing but fundie messages in it then you're falsifying history but you are ALSO FALSIFYING HISTORY if you pretend it had nothing but happy nice message too. It's a self-contradictory mess of opposing moral imperatives. The people who try to falsify history by pretending every bad thing the fundies do is outside the teachings of the religion are enablers that unwittingly help them by perpetuating the myth that humans don't have the right to pass negative judgement on the religion.
Anonymous
Addendum: Also, the Foundation for Critical Thinking posits that relativism is actually just as bad as absolutism
Morals are not static.
Moral is simply any given population groups consensus on a given topic. It may change over time, like slavery, interracial marriage, racism, gay marriage, marijuana etc.
Moral is constantly changing depending on which country and what time you are looking at.
Of course, it's the moral absolutist who feels the need to be an immoral jerk and who bases his immorality on the ultimate evil being, Bible God of ancient sands, who we need to be wary of the most.
So we should all become moral little Christians like you then?
Relativism cares about effect. The people you mention were idealists 100%. They didn't care who got hurt; they cared about their ideology. Relativists care about what happens to people as a result of what is done. If you don't care about that, your morals are pure egotism. Relativism is the real morality.
I too can rant about relativism. Usually in the context of reality denial propaganda: "everything goes, every idea has equal value, we can never know anything." But if you really want to chat about ethics, the ones who claim to derive it from an absolute authority usually justify their most inhumane ideas and urges on it too. That's not objective morality.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
