Pretty Shiny Bits

Wow, so I read the whole discussion, and did some research. First of all, do NOT go to that "moral relativism" site or use it as any source, because the site is really owned by allaboutgod.com, an anti-philosophy/science/anything intelligent group. I understand your point that it has been used in the past as a defense for horrible things, and still is used as a defense for women's mistreatment in fundamentalist Islamic groups. I think that people have a hard time with the idea that maybe no concept we have devised yet is complete and correct. If we had all the answers, then we would have to stop arguing, and that would suck. I definitely lean towards moral relativism, but you bring up an interesting point about its downside. Maybe we shouldn't pick an absolute and stick with it mercilessly. This sounds akin to the "don't pick a political party without a brain" argument. Now, why do you care if someone is good/bad/right/wrong? I guess that's the point I am having trouble getting past. While personally one may say "good/bad person", what does that change? Do you treat the person differently? Associate/not associate with them? Stone them? Making that judgement is something I personally consciously chose to be less interested in, and my relationships with people have been better for it. Calling someone good/bad for their opinions on social issues is especially something that leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Oh, and in case anyone cares, the reason why I am slightly ranked towards the right side economically is that I answered that I would rather charity came from the private vs public sector. We can easily say the government should have no control over my body. Why should they get to chose which charities I support? Citizens will give to every charity at some point, because our country is diverse in interests and backgrounds. I am personally offended that my money goes to some social programs, as I'm sure a conservative would be offended that their tax money supports women's clinics offering abortion counseling. I'm not saying that this is a flawless system. It's just an idea.

I say its a stoning! Everyone grab your Sunday's best stone! *laughs* You bring up some very good points.. specially on the definition of good/bad.. I thought about it a little after discussing with Ty.. and a point brought to me by Trent.. that.. defining good and bad is also a relative term and in the eye of the beholder.. but i like your point about not making the judgement on a person consciously.. and i can see where that would be a benefit in relationships.. Beth So you coming to the stoning of Joe Blow? a bad person.. *grins*

Now, why do you care if someone is good/bad/right/wrong? ... While personally one may say "good/bad person", what does that change? Do you treat the person differently? Associate/not associate with them? ... Calling someone good/bad for their opinions on social issues is especially something that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

The importance of defining an action or a belief to be good or bad is that morality should be the basis of law and social structure. A moral system must exist to determine if ideas presented are to the advantage or detriment of the people they affect. Judging someone's actions to be right or wrong is how the criminal justice system ought to be justified. Social issues are the best determinate of someone's morality because social issues are about how we relate to each other, which is the most important aspect of humanity. I'll have to think about what you said about government directing the funds for charity.

defining good and bad is also a relative term and in the eye of the beholder

To be exceedingly blunt, this is bullshit. Morality cannot be relative and, therefore, judgements based on it cannot be relative. It's wrong for me to murder you and it makes me a bad person. If I were to believe it was the right thing to do, I would be wrong. That's true regardless of who is doing the beholding.

Uhh.. you would be wrong according to the criminal justice system.. which has that as a law.. you could been morally justified in murdering me or breaking the law.. and still be a good person.. Its like the example always give.. if Joe stole bread from the supermarket for his starving family.. and bob stole bread from the supermarket just to steal.. Are they equal? are they both bad people?? Against the crime system.. they both stole.. but morally they arent equal..

Oh.. another point.. Who created laws and the law? People? why ? because they defined something as bad.. take for example gay marriages.. its being denied a right to those who want it because law makers and people in power think its wrong and bad.. but you dont think its wrong or bad? and the right denied them is wrong.. but the people who think that it is wrong do not see it your way..

You are objecting to something I didn't say. I did not claim or imply that the legal system was moral or a basis for morality. What I stated was that the basis for the legal system should be morality. The laws made by the people will often fail to reflect a good moral standard because the people who are making them are often immoral. This is why there's a provision in our form of government for changing laws.

If I were to kill you, I would be morally wrong, regardless of law. Of course, we're looking at a simple case here, a massless rope sort of thing, the real world is much more messy. With respect to gay a marriages; the gays are being denied a right and that is wrong. Period. Anyone who doesn't agree is morally wrong. Period. Morality is not relative. As soon as you let morality become relative, you open the door for oppressing and the removal of rights.

Here's a better site to look to for a definition of Moral Relativism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

Ultimatly there is no "good" or "bad". Only "what I agree with" and "what I don't agree with". If you want to say that what most of the world agrees with is good, thats a desision you'll have to make for yourself.

As I view the world, there are no absolutes of good or bad. Sure there are many things I consider to be better then other things, and I'm usualy at odds with lots of people on these issues. I tend to think drawing your own conclusions to be better then beeing forced in to a view/belief by your elders/society. That doesn't mean I think those people who were coerced into thier beliefs to be bad, but I would like to help them explore thier own feelings/thoughts. I suppose this leads to good vs. bad equating with open mindedness vs. unthinking.

Don't know if this helped anyone or not, but here's hoping.

*Crap, Ty, fix that last entry and put some <p />'s in it

If I kill you because you are about to kill my family am I wrong/bad

If I kill you because you are about to destroy as city block am I wrong/bad

What if it's a city... a state.. a country... the world?

This gay marage issue that everyone is up in arms about is interesting to look at. First was is the marage thing anyway? It means you get to file a single tax return, and have your property inherited by your partner with out a previous written document (will). In this case, then denying that to people would seem wrong. But, what if your moralty says marrage is some kind of blessing that comes from a higher being, and is reserved for "normal" couples. In the second case it is an afront to your god to let "un-normal" couples join in this thing called marrage. So which system is right? Members of both belive their's to be the absolute pinicle of morality. If you ask me I tell you the first group is right as it is more open/free/understanding. But does that make the second group "bad" for thinking otherwise? It makes the wrong in my eyes, but bad? Lots of them are probably good people otherwise. They even think they are good people, as they are following thier moral code. In their eyes, and the eyes of like minded people they are "good". How about a third option? A seperate but equal term of civil union. Does that sound familliar to anyone? Is that the "good" thing to do? It's the comprimise, in theory, gay's arn't "married", but they do get the legal benifits, shouldn't that be the best solution?

What about a harder issue? You pick one, I'm done rambling for now.

(Answers to the above questions are left as an exersize for the reader)

Grr... You can erase the previous post.

I'm sure I'm the only person still following this page, but just in case I'm not. Here's a favorite quote of mine, that apllies at least loosely to this topic.

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
--Albert Einstein

As a note to Ty, if we all felt like using trackbacks, this is the sort of thing I could write in my own blog and trackback to this post :)