You have moral relativism all wrong, especially the, um, kinda dumb example of Jeffrey Dahmer. It doesn't matter if what you think of Jeffrey Dahmer is that he's moral or immoral. What he did was ILLEGAL. That's what LAWS are for. Morality CAN BE a very subjective thing. For instance, gays and abortion. Conservatives TELL EVERYONE it's "immoral" to be gay or have an abortion.
I think liberals are more interested in interpreting law (ok...bring on the flames) and not judging others by using some unwritten "moral code" conservatives love.
By the same token, how do you feel about liberals who define morality by accusing George Bush of being immoral for going to war and, essentially, "murdering" thousands of Iraqis? Are liberals not justified in that "morally relative" opinion???
Morals ARE very relative. What YOU think is moral may not sit well with me...and vice versa.
Wow, Mike M. Wow. I was going to write similar, but you were just so absolutely abrasive and rude (and off topic) that I think I am going to have to rethink everything I believe. And the moral code many conservatives abide by is written down. Jews, Christians, and Muslims all believe in a version of the Ten Commandments. To clue you in, that is a WRITTEN code.
Also, Ryan was specifically speaking of moral relativism in regards to issues that have broad impact on society as a whole and that which is crmininal. He never mentioned homosexuality, abortion, nor war. You jumped to those conclusions due to an inability to actually comprehend what he wrote. If I judged you solely on the basis of your comments, I'd assume you are okay with child rape and serial murder because you wrote nothing substantive to prove that moral relativists do not approve that sort of behavior.
I do believe moral relativism exists. However, as you said, most rational people- even those we often would term "moral relativists-" would agree that there is behavior that is absolutely wrong, such as, but not limited to, pedophilia and murder. Those are things that are detrimental to society and cannot and must not be tolerated. The most notable collective of true moral relativists would be the ACLU, which represents NAMBLA, a group that actively promotes and engages in activities which are not only illegal but immoral.
I do not believe that those holding more liberal views on some issues, such as homosexuality and abortion, are necessarily moral relativists. However, as I stated before, there are some things which are absolutely right and absolutely wrong, and most morality codes, regardless of the form, are generally in agreement as to what those are.
Jess...do your eyebrows arch when you get angry?
I wasn't angry. Would like to know the same about you because your anger is just seething through.
You were the one making an argument upon which one draws the conclusion that although child rape is illegal, it isn't necessarily immoral. And for someone who was sexually assaulted at a young age, I'm remarkably calm about your words.
Jess,
Yes, I think child rape is immoral. But it DOESN'T matter what I think. It's already illegal. The law supercedes my need to hold an opinion on the matter.
Answer this question: Are liberals allowed to hold the belief that the war in Iraq is "immoral?" Or is that just moral relativism rearing its ugly head?
Just because I believe that objective morality exists does not mean that it is not open to interpretation. And while law stems from this objective morality, this does not mean that all morals should be legislated.
Take the issue of abortion for example. I think one can find an objective moral standard that says that killing people is bad. Once that has been reached, liberals deny that unborn children are people, in order to justify the practice. If they aren't people, then it is not wrong to kill them. I believe this was at least part of the reasoning in Roe v. Wade.
Oh, so opinions do not matter if US or state law has ruled on the matter? Wow. Thanks for clearing that up.
That question is not apropos to the discussion, but you can have whatever opinion you want, however wrong it may be, and that includes thinking you should stand up for the rights of terrorists or the rights of child rapists.
How did I become "Anonymous?"
Just so you know, stating that legality supercedes morality is offensive to anyone who is a victim of a crime. Not that you care, because it's all relative to you anyway.
Well, they are like a-holes, Anonymous.
And, the only opinions that matter are mine! hehe And those held at (shameless plug) downwithabsolutes.com!
Mike, congrats on going from a semi-thought out argument to complete delerium in only 4 comments. I think that is a non-Jason Delaware-blogosphere record.
That is an "iffy" area Ryan, perhaps one that is "relative." Most Christians would agree with your argument. However, Judaism does not assign life as beginning at conception (not sure they assign any time as the beginning of life).
Was my "hehe" not pronounced enough, Ryan?? 
I did, but I still think rather than admit your argument was destroyed, you avoided it by turning to jest.
Right, then they are fine with abortion because they don't consider the unborn children. That would be a logical, reasoned case for dissent at least, even if I consider it wrong.
I think one can find an objective moral standard that says that killing people is bad.
No, killing people is a gray area morally and legally. Don't think so? Think again. There are lots and lots of perfectly legal ways to kill people. Some of them are justified and supported 1000% by people who claim the highest moral authority.
Do you want to live in a world where it is forbidden to cause the death of another person for any reason whatsoever?
If not, then welcome to the gray area of interpretation, doubt, and moral relativism.
No, I don't think my argument was destroyed at all. Morals are relative. End of argument. That's my opinion. Worthless, I think.
I agree wholeheartedly with Anonymous 11:05 am. Those who seek to put morals into some pre-determined and defined "box," as it were, are merely kidding themselves. Morals are all about gray areas. What you find acceptable I may not. That's why we have laws.
I think not acknowledging the moral basis upond which those laws are derived is treading dangerous territory.
I think not acknowledging the moral basis upond which those laws are derived is treading dangerous territory.
People who make laws - especially about morally explosive issues like death - ALWAYS acknowledge the moral basis for the law as they conceive it, and they are fully convinced they are morally correct. That goes for Texas executions... Sharia law... the Iraq war resolution... Roe. v. Wade... Shall I go on?
How would moral relativism absolve Jeffery Dahmer? I thought the whole idea was that evryone should be able to do whatever they want, so long as whatever that is doesn't harm somebody else? Correct me if I'm wrong about that, it's been a long time since Professor Haslett's Ethics class at UD. NAMBLA is a better example, I think, since they argue that men having "loving relations" with young boys is not harmful to them, while our society holds that children are not emotionally equipped to deal with sex. Thus the community standard is codified as law defining sex with a minor as statutory rape.
Mike- So, there is no room for debate about anything because of people's entitlement to their opinion? Therefore, there cannot be disagreement because one's opinion is the final word? Interesting. Why do you blog, then? Why do you bother to comment then, if you believe opinion- specifically yours- closes debate. And why do I think "Anonymous 11:05" and "Anonymous 1:07" are actually you? Anyway...
You still have not created a good, coherent argument that there is not concrete right and wrong. To state that all morality is relative leaves room for accepting activities such as pedophilia, murder, and rape, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find a person, other than those who commit such offenses, who would say those are anything but absolutely wrong. They weren't made illegal arbitrarily but because they are wrong. Likewise, I think there are things which are viewed as absolutely right, but oddly, I can't think of one offhand. That is one problem with how we discuss morality. We discuss it entirely on negative terms- as what is wrong and what we are not to do.
Jess,
That's quite an accusation re: me being anonymous 11:05 and 1:07. I'm sure Ryan can clear that up by looking at the IP addresses of my comments and those of the anonymous commenter.
I've been home all day and I don't even know how to use proxy IPs. It's even more interesting for you to think that only I could have such an opinion, seeing as how you think I'm the only one who's set forth that belief on this thread. Trust me: there are plenty more like me.
If you read my blog, you know anonymity is something I AVOID on a daily basis. There is no need for me to duck under any covers. What you see is what you get, my friend.
I think the debate has been poorly framed here. Seems to me moral relativism rears its ugly head mostly when crossing cultural boundaries. That is, under Islam, women are subserviant to men and in western secular countries, they are not. A moral relativist would say that their cultural norms are what they believe and who am I to tell them differently? Whereas a moral absolutist would say that women are human beings and should be on equal footing with men in matters of law.
It was just odd that they popped up when they did. Interesting that you would get so angry..."Do your eyebrows arch when you're angry?"
Also, nice that you're now skirting the issue. And also nice that you apparently have no job or anything else to occupy your job, unlike some of us who get up at 5:30 and trudge through the day, getting home near 7. I wouldn't brag about being home all day. It's not something to be proud of.
Yes, there are plenty more like you, which is scary because of the implications of such beliefs. If morality is relative, that leaves a lot of which are commonly held as immoral open to interpretation, leaving the door open for the acceptance of things that society absolutely cannot tolerate, such as pedophilia, rape, murder, assault, robbery, etc., etc.
I'm scared of moral relativists like you because what is more important to you is that what happened to me as a young girl is illegal, but you don't believe it necessarily immoral. Or, if you do hold it to be such, you do not believe that society as a whole should hold it to be immoral, and therefore, the person who assualted me was merely acting on the basis of his moral understanding, and society doesn't necessarily have a justifiable role in acting against this sort of behavior. The basis for what is codified in law then becomes purely arbitrary. Crimes of the nature I mentioned above were not made illegal because someone simply decided to make them such. They were because they go against human decency and morality, and no just and civil society can function without a solid moral structure behind its legal code. In some western countries, the abandoning of a belief in any sort of absolute morality has resulted in the lowering of the age of consent to as low as 12 years of age, which has, in essence, legalized child rape (and anyone who has been 12 and believes they could have reasonably consented to sex at that age needs help immediately).
Jess,
I'm 23 years old. I worked full-time at an insurance company for six years. Read about it on my site, category "Great Termination." I have a Bachelor's Degree and am now working on my Master's. Presume all you want about my daily concerns, but just know that my work and school schedule is comfortable enough to afford me the flexibility of hanging on a computer all day.
I did the 5:30 in the morning gig. It was called "summer before senior year" working at the insurance company.
You're scared of moral relativists? Well, morals are relative to you conservatives when they involve the bombing of a sovereign nation.
"Summer before senior year"= "Summer before HIGH-SCHOOL senior year"
Yup, I did it all my friend!
"You're scared of moral relativists? Well, morals are relative to you conservatives when they involve the bombing of a sovereign nation."
What? We are most precise and capable military target bombers of any country on earth.
Like it or not, the US is the hegemon. Benevolent, which is good for the rest of the world. We make the rules, and be glad we make them as we do. The world when Europe was in charge was a scary place.
Yeah,
Our hegemony is real valuable when most of it's placed in the reserves of China.
Ummm, yeah, I work for a government consulting firm. I'm 26. You said you were at home all day. Slagging off from work. Must be nice.
Stop calling me your "friend." You support a line of belief that excuses rape and murder. You're a friend of no one.
Ooops, I misread.
So, you're a true liberal, the eternal student.
Must be nice.
Oh, and you support the sovreignty of nations which operate rape rooms? Nice. Maybe you should move there. I'm sure you'd enjoy it.
I guess having a rational argument with you is out of the question. Again, you have misinterpreted my opinion (yeah, I REALLY make "excuses for rape and murder") and have presumed to know more about my personal life than you ever logically could.
If you just want to stop now, I'll join you in a cease-fire.
I made rational arguments. You didn't respond to those. You only responded to the above, so I wouldn't get all holier-than-thou if I were you. Here is just one thing I've written:
"Yes, there are plenty more like you, which is scary because of the implications of such beliefs. If morality is relative, that leaves a lot of which are commonly held as immoral open to interpretation, leaving the door open for the acceptance of things that society absolutely cannot tolerate, such as pedophilia, rape, murder, assault, robbery, etc., etc.
I'm scared of moral relativists like you because what is more important to you is that what happened to me as a young girl is illegal, but you don't believe it necessarily immoral. Or, if you do hold it to be such, you do not believe that society as a whole should hold it to be immoral, and therefore, the person who assualted me was merely acting on the basis of his moral understanding, and society doesn't necessarily have a justifiable role in acting against this sort of behavior. The basis for what is codified in law then becomes purely arbitrary. Crimes of the nature I mentioned above were not made illegal because someone simply decided to make them such. They were because they go against human decency and morality, and no just and civil society can function without a solid moral structure behind its legal code. In some western countries, the abandoning of a belief in any sort of absolute morality has resulted in the lowering of the age of consent to as low as 12 years of age, which has, in essence, legalized child rape (and anyone who has been 12 and believes they could have reasonably consented to sex at that age needs help immediately)."
Oh, and here's another:
"To state that all morality is relative leaves room for accepting activities such as pedophilia, murder, and rape, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find a person, other than those who commit such offenses, who would say those are anything but absolutely wrong. They weren't made illegal arbitrarily but because they are wrong. Likewise, I think there are things which are viewed as absolutely right, but oddly, I can't think of one offhand. That is one problem with how we discuss morality. We discuss it entirely on negative terms- as what is wrong and what we are not to do."
Oh, and another:
"And the moral code many conservatives abide by is written down. Jews, Christians, and Muslims all believe in a version of the Ten Commandments. To clue you in, that is a WRITTEN code.
Also, Ryan was specifically speaking of moral relativism in regards to issues that have broad impact on society as a whole and that which is crmininal. He never mentioned homosexuality, abortion, nor war. You jumped to those conclusions due to an inability to actually comprehend what he wrote. If I judged you solely on the basis of your comments, I'd assume you are okay with child rape and serial murder because you wrote nothing substantive to prove that moral r
Urgh! I got cut off.
To continue:
And the moral code many conservatives abide by is written down. Jews, Christians, and Muslims all believe in a version of the Ten Commandments. To clue you in, that is a WRITTEN code.
Also, Ryan was specifically speaking of moral relativism in regards to issues that have broad impact on society as a whole and that which is crmininal. He never mentioned homosexuality, abortion, nor war. You jumped to those conclusions due to an inability to actually comprehend what he wrote. If I judged you solely on the basis of your comments, I'd assume you are okay with child rape and serial murder because you wrote nothing substantive to prove that moral relativists do not approve that sort of behavior.
I do believe moral relativism exists. However, as you said, most rational people- even those we often would term "moral relativists-" would agree that there is behavior that is absolutely wrong, such as, but not limited to, pedophilia and murder. Those are things that are detrimental to society and cannot and must not be tolerated. The most notable collective of true moral relativists would be the ACLU, which represents NAMBLA, a group that actively promotes and engages in activities which are not only illegal but immoral.
I do not believe that those holding more liberal views on some issues, such as homosexuality and abortion, are necessarily moral relativists. However, as I stated before, there are some things which are absolutely right and absolutely wrong, and most morality codes, regardless of the form, are generally in agreement as to what those are."
So, I've made MANY rational arguments. Just because you haven't read them, doesn't mean I didn't write them.
As for presumptions about people's personal lives, you implied my job is the equivalent of some high school summer job. What do we call that? Ah, yes, the pot calling the kettle black.
Commenting by HaloScan
