Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Moral relativism

2012-08-26T06:57:09Z

Kismeki: /* Facts */ new section

No sources were found to support the last point made, so I deleted it. Additionally, moral relativism has been used for far more than just Atheists, Communists, and Nazis (although I do find it humorous that atheists are lumped in there).

Moral relativism is not a philosophy that suggests morals SHOULD very from culture to culture, it is a philosophy that contends that they DO very from culture to culture. These two positions are very different in nature, despite their ostensible similarity. If one contends that morals SHOULD very from culture to culture, that person is not a moral relativist. On the contrary, this person is a moral absolutist. For this individual is making a normative statement – that is how things OUGHT to be. The ought in this case is predicated on a conviction they have regarding the ABSOLUTE TRUTH of their believe in cultural diversity. The moral relativist, on the other hand, is merely making a descriptive point regarding morality – that is morality does not exist. They may even wish morality did exist; but they just do not believe that it does. harmlesstree

== It has been linked... ==

{{cquote|It has been linked to atheism and to Communist and Nazi ideology.}}
Erm... yeeeees? How has it been linked to it? Who linked it? Is the link valid? This is a horrible way to end the article, and I wouldn't even know where to begin to look for sources. Could either Miss Cleo or whoever put these claims into the article help me out here? I'll try to look for material myself, of course, but I guess that those who made the claims would more readily know where to look (and what to look for).
--[[User:DHayes|DHayes]] 18:23, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

How are sexual relations between relatives closely linked to homosexuality? That may not be what is said, but the link goes to homosexuality, implying the connection. Is not heterosexuality just as linked to sexual relations between relatives as homosexuality is? Tell me if I'm wrong. [[User:Rockthecasbah|Rockthecasbah]] 21:41, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Neither Nazis nor slave owners were moral relativists. They both, or at
least most members of both, were moral absolutists; they believed that their morals were right and everyone else's were wrong. [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 22:49, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

What about moral relativism in bible and conservative american behaviour? In the ten commandments it is clearly said "Thou shalt not kill" and yet although killing is marked as evil by the bible itself, many conservatives
are in favor of the death penalty and although I'm not an expert on the subject of bible, I recall there being a line about "eye for an eye". This makes no sense to me, so please,
explain these things for me. If killing is wrong in the first place, why should the punishment be death. I mean, shouldn't then the executioner be killed too? That's some moral relativism for ya.

Moral relativism is not a philosophy that suggests morals SHOULD very from culture to culture, it is a philosophy that contends that they DO very from culture to culture. These two positions are very different in nature, despite their ostensible similarity. If one contends that morals SHOULD very from culture to culture, that person is not a moral relativist. On the contrary, this person is a moral absolutist. For this individual is making a normative statement – that is how things OUGHT to be. The ought in this case is predicated on a conviction they have regarding the ABSOLUTE TRUTH of their believe in cultural diversity. The moral relativist, on the other hand, is merely making a descriptive point regarding morality – that is morality does not exist. They may even wish morality did exist; but they just do not believe that it does.

Well, I'm surprised by the civilicity of the answer, that's for sure. So thanks, you have shown me that conservatives do not always hit below the belt.

== Hitler quote ==

Umm, the quote from Hitler, despicable though it is tends to show Hitler was a believer in moral absolutism, not relativism.--[[User:MCrowe|MCrowe]] 19:32, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

== Facts ==

Hello all,
I am very concerned that this site is misrepresenting what relativism is- a nonconstructivist, metaethical moral theory entirely divorced from liberalism or any politics in general. Please do some research on the topic before reverting back to the original page.

Moral relativism

2012-08-26T06:54:58Z

Kismeki:

Moral relativism is the theory that moral statements cannot have objective truth; rather, they are true under varying societal conditions. Under this theory, ethical principles are not universal and are instead social products. This theory argues that there is no objective moral order or absolute truth. Relativism is a cognitivist metaethical construct that primarily serves to explain from where moral statements derive their truth.

This view was first postulated by twentieth century philosopher Gilbert Harman in his book '''Moral Relativism Defended'''. Harman's central thesis is that "morality arises when a group of people come to a tacit understanding about their relations among each other" and provides the example in terms of moral action that "just as it is wrong to say that a dog is large, period, apart from any comparison class (for example, knowing the size of the average dog), it is wrong to say an action is wrong, period, apart from a similar comparison class such as a society. " Other philosophers have drawn inspiration from Harman's analysis. Most famously, the argument from the Island is a thought experiment that attempts to prove the theory: It imagines an island and a newborn child put on that island. The child is given food and everything it needs to grow up comfortably, but never meets another human, or any other living being, for that matter. The argument says that if that person were to grow up and describe (assume that it learned a language) morality, it would not be able to grasp the concepts of right or wrong. For example, if that person were told that lying is wrong, it would have no way to conceptualize a moral prohibition on lying. The argument concludes that without other people, i.e., a society though which derive standards of moral conduct, morality cannot exist. Put simply, morality cannot exist in a vacuum; normative statements make sense only in relation to other people.

The [[Discovery Institute]] was recently criticized for its poor understanding of the tenets of relativism when it wrote that:

Moral relativism was uncritically adopted by much of the social sciences, and it still under girds much of modern economics, political science, psychology and sociology.

Contrary to the Institute's writings, Moral relativism has no connection to any social sciences- it is entirely divorced from the concept of science. Instead, it is a purely philosophical concept that functions to serve as a theory as to why moral statements are true or false.

Moral relativity is a philosophy that states there is no absolute Right or Wrong, but not that anyone can freely use his own conscience to decide what is moral. Rather, it just says that morality cannot exist without society. Much has been written to debunk this theory and bastardize the concept by attributing it to the core of liberalist beliefs, but moral relativism by its very nature cannot serve to legitimize common liberal causes such as gay rights and abortion. A moral theory such as relativism has no legal nor political agenda. Relativism is among the most misunderstood concepts in modern culture- it is merely an ethical theory, not a political statement.

A final note: Many pages on this website link to this page in a misguided attempt to draw a link between relativism and other things, such as Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity and Gay Rights. The Conservapedia community kindly asks the reader to refer to the paragraph above in order to educate themselves about the true meaning of relativism.

Moral relativism

2012-08-25T17:49:37Z

Kismeki:

Moral relativism

2012-08-25T17:48:42Z

Kismeki:

Moral relativism is the theory that moral statements cannot have objective truth; rather, they are true under varying societal conditions. Under this theory, ethical principles are not universal and are instead social products. This theory argues that there is no objective moral order or absolute truth. Relativism is a cognitivist metaethical construct that primarily serves to explain from where moral statements derive their truth.

This view was first postulated by twentieth century philosopher Gilbert Harman in his book '''Moral Relativism Defended'''. Harman's central thesis is that "morality arises when a group of people come to a tacit understanding about their relations among each other" and provides the example in terms of moral action that "just as it is wrong to say that a dog is large, period, apart from any comparison class (for example, knowing the size of the average dog), it is wrong to say an action is wrong, period, apart from a similar comparison class such as a society. " Other philosophers have drawn inspiration from Harman's analysis. Most famously, the argument from the Island is a thought experiment that attempts to prove the theory: It imagines an island and a newborn child put on that island. The child is given food and everything it needs to grow up comfortably, but never meets another human, or any other living being, for that matter. The argument says that if that person were to grow up and describe (assume that it learned a language) morality, it would not be able to grasp the concepts of right or wrong. For example, if that person were told that lying is wrong, it would have no way to conceptualize a moral prohibition on lying. The argument concludes that without other people, i.e., a society though which derive standards of moral conduct, morality cannot exist. Put simply, morality cannot exist in a vacuum; normative statements make sense only in relation to other people.

The Discovery Institute was recently criticized for its poor understanding of the tenets of relativism when it wrote that:
Moral relativism was uncritically adopted by much of the social sciences, and it still under girds much of modern economics, political science, psychology and sociology. [1]
Contrary to the Institute's writings, Moral relativism has no connection to any social sciences- it is entirely divorced from the concept of science. Instead, it is a purely philosophical concept that functions to serve as a theory as to why moral statements are true or false.

Moral relativity is a philosophy that states there is no absolute Right or Wrong, but not that anyone can freely use his own conscience to decide what is moral. Rather, it just says that morality cannot exist without society. Much has been written to debunk this theory and bastardize the concept by attributing it to the core of liberalist beliefs, but moral relativism by its very nature cannot serve to legitimize common liberal causes such as gay rights and abortion. A moral theory such as relativism has no legal nor political agenda. Relativism is among the most misunderstood concepts in modern culture- it is merely an ethical theory, not a political statement.

A final note: Many pages on this website link to this page in a misguided attempt to draw a link between relativism and other things, such as Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity and Gay Rights. The Conservapedia community kindly asks the reader to refer to the paragraph above in order to educate themselves about the true meaning of relativism.

Moral relativism

2012-08-25T17:47:56Z

Kismeki:

Moral relativism is the theory that moral statements cannot have objective truth; rather, they are true under varying societal conditions. Under this theory, ethical principles are not universal and are instead social products. This theory argues that there is no objective moral order or absolute truth. Relativism is a cognitivist metaethical construct that primarily serves to explain from where moral statements derive their truth.
This view was first postulated by twentieth century philosopher Gilbert Harman in his book Moral Relativism Defended. Harman's central thesis is that "morality arises when a group of people come to a tacit understanding about their relations among each other" and provides the example in terms of moral action that "just as it is wrong to say that a dog is large, period, apart from any comparison class (for example, knowing the size of the average dog), it is wrong to say an action is wrong, period, apart from a similar comparison class such as a society. " Other philosophers have drawn inspiration from Harman's analysis. Most famously, the argument from the Island is a thought experiment that attempts to prove the theory: It imagines an island and a newborn child put on that island. The child is given food and everything it needs to grow up comfortably, but never meets another human, or any other living being, for that matter. The argument says that if that person were to grow up and describe (assume that it learned a language) morality, it would not be able to grasp the concepts of right or wrong. For example, if that person were told that lying is wrong, it would have no way to conceptualize a moral prohibition on lying. The argument concludes that without other people, i.e., a society though which derive standards of moral conduct, morality cannot exist. Put simply, morality cannot exist in a vacuum; normative statements make sense only in relation to other people.
The Discovery Institute was recently criticized for its poor understanding of the tenets of relativism when it wrote that:
Moral relativism was uncritically adopted by much of the social sciences, and it still under girds much of modern economics, political science, psychology and sociology. [1]
Contrary to the Institute's writings, Moral relativism has no connection to any social sciences- it is entirely divorced from the concept of science. Instead, it is a purely philosophical concept that functions to serve as a theory as to why moral statements are true or false.
Moral relativity is a philosophy that states there is no absolute Right or Wrong, but not that anyone can freely use his own conscience to decide what is moral. Rather, it just says that morality cannot exist without society. Much has been written to debunk this theory and bastardize the concept by attributing it to the core of liberalist beliefs, but moral relativism by its very nature cannot serve to legitimize common liberal causes such as gay rights and abortion. A moral theory such as relativism has no legal nor political agenda. Relativism is among the most misunderstood concepts in modern culture- it is merely an ethical theory, not a political statement.
A final note: Many pages on this website link to this page in a misguided attempt to draw a link between relativism and other things, such as Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity and Gay Rights. The Conservapedia community kindly asks the reader to refer to the paragraph above in order to educate themselves about the true meaning of relativism.