fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3265 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3265 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10. [nf]

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 075 secrets from Secret Submission Post #467.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 2- not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Moral relativists fuck off.

You've got an indefensible position (either you argue for moral truths, or you collapse into nihilism in which case you don't have a position to argue your critique from).

Is it that hard to understand, that for some people morality is not perceived as absolute, but can still hold value?

Where is that value derived from?

It depends on the relativist, I suppose.

Well, fair enough, I suppose.

I guess my broader argument is that it's hard for me to see any possible source of value that doesn't fall into one of the two categories that ill_omened laid out. Either the value is founded on something with the status of moral truth, or it's going to fall into something indistinguishable from nihilism.

In particular, I would argue that "some people just happen to value some things and it's a matter of preference" is going to be indistinguishable from nihilism if you follow the logic.

I can buy some morals or even most being relative. Some things have to be absolute, though. There has to be some sort of basis, and there are some things that are necessarily wrong even from a pragmatic standpoint. Pragmatism is still morals.

I'm honestly not sure it is possible to be completely morally relative. At least, I've never heard of anyone who is. You would end up with a lot of logical fallacies, and also even the most relativistic person has limits (child rape, murder, things like that) and tends to get offended when things are done to them even if they call them relative when done to others.

Edited 2015-12-12 22:55 (UTC)

You would end up with a lot of logical fallacies, and also even the most relativistic person has limits (child rape, murder, things like that) and tends to get offended when things are done to them even if they call them relative when done to others.

You can accept that something is morally relative and still be angered by having it done to you. That's not a contradictory event; believing that morality is relative means that people will do things to you that perceive as immoral, but you know that the person who did them sees them as morally justifiable.

Moral relativism means you can accept the simultaneous validity of contradicting personal moral philosophies.

You really have no idea what you're talking about...

It's not possible. Moral relativism as normative theory is not even accepted by most academics nowadays, because it's simply ilogical.

You said morality is relative. Is it, though? Is raping kids ever not immoral? Torturing innocent people to death? I mean, I'm 100% comfortable saying those things are never morally permissible, and that naturally, probably the average person would have trouble accepting either of those things, though some societies regularly commit these acts and even condition their people to normalize them. But it isn't relative. It's the very definition of immoral behavior.

And that's understandable that you feel that way about those actions, because there has been research that indicates that some moral feelings/senses are inborn--we don't have to be conditioned to have them, we're biologically wired to have certain responses to such stimuli.

The fact that almost all of us have an innate repulsion/rejection of certain actions, doesn't prove absolute morality however.

See, but to me, it does. "Morality" is certainly a man-made concept, but it describes sensations of biological repulsion from the evolved experiences of humans (and to some extent, other animals as well). I don't believe morality is a thing separate from human experience, or something that has divine origins. However, it does have a definition. Real life, complex issues can absolutely be gray and relative (because they could pit two "moral" goals against one another). But as morality is defined, savage and cruel behavior is precisely what immorality always is. The term is useless if it doesn't have any backbone at all.

If you're going on the fact that some things instinctively make us recoil = immoral though, does our instinctive aversion to snakes and spiders mean those animals are immoral? Or are things like child rape and murder horrible to us because it harms our chances of survival as a group, like poisonous snakes harm our chances of survival as an individual? I don't have a stance on it either way but it's interesting to think about

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2015-12-18 09:12 (UTC) - Expand

Yes.

Is it difficult to understand your feels are a terrible basis for morality, and value. You can't make a coherent argument for having it halfway.

That's funny. Absolute morality is usually the most feels-based morality there is--if it's not your feels, it's "I'm following God's feels!".

Stop trying to bring logic into this discussion. Logic has no place on F!S.

This is not logic.

Normative moral relativism as this person is trying to seel it, is not even a widely accepted concept, ask any philosopher.

(Anonymous) - 2015-12-18 09:05 (UTC) - Expand

Even if we grant you that (and it's been half a decade since I've formally studied philosophy; so I could hardly mount the most compelling defence without refreshing myself).

That still doesn't make an argument for moral relativism, merely nihilism, as I highlighted.

You're assuming there's only absolute morality and relative morality, and that moral relativism is an unquestionable theory... are you even trying?

http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/value/relativism.php

*tips fedora*

Why are you being such an absolute rectum? Spoilers: you don't sound like your ~cool and dark~ icon, you sound like a dork.

IDK why you're even bothering responding to this guy. He's a moron who'se deluded himself into thinking he's a genius, and he's just going to ignore or laugh at anything you say to him.

If this is what apparently passes as an attempt for 'dark and edgy' fandom really is going down the tubes.

And Akane is perfectu, you leave her out of this.

See, I think IO does act like a rectum on here often, but I don't think this thread is a very good example.

+1 Especially those arguing for a normative theory. Sorry, but no, your position is incredibly flawed and almost indefensible.