Who is to decide morality?

[Ori]

How can one really say what is truly right and wrong?

 

[Sunstone]

Isn't morality a social construct?

 

[Sunstone]

To clarify: I think that if morality is a social construct, then it more or less follows that morality will be established by most or all of the means used to resolve political issues, such as propaganda, proselytizing, peer pressure, appeals to authority, and so forth.

 

[Ori]

Yes, but can you say one thing is wrong, when I say it's right?

 

[Sunstone]

I think that might depend on what you're saying is right or wrong. It seems to me that some morality is more established in reason than other morality.

 

[Khale]

Yes, but can you say one thing is wrong, when I say it's right?

Yes, I can. Just because you think it is right doesn't make it any less wrong for me. There is no absolute morality, nor will there ever be.

 

[Ori]

Thats exactly what I mean.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The only person who decides what is moral or immoral is the individual. Not society, even though many sociologist will claim this.

 

[niceguy]

The only person who decides what is moral or immoral is the individual. Not society, even though many sociologist will claim this.

I was going to say something like this but you beet me to it.

 

[Scuba Pete]

So you guys believe that Hitler was right.

 

[Pah]

So you guys believe that Hitler was right.

By the standards of his society, yeah

 

[Fat Old Sun]

All right, enough of this crap. To avoid any further confusion, I will decide what is right and wrong.

Anyone who violates the rules will be obligated to give me 10% of their gross income for one year, and one night with their wife, girlfriend, or daughter if of legal age, should I deem it necessary to compensate for the offense commited.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So you guys believe that Hitler was right.

I don't think it was right for Hitler to perform mass genocide on the Jews, but it was right in his eyes, and the eyes of his followers.

 

[michel]

There are no such things as right or wrong, according to buddhism....I think....

 

[michel]

It depends entirely on your 'frame of reference'; morality, IMO, is tied to Culture; Culture is the learning, by experience, over a long time of what is adaptive, and what is maladaptive.

So basically, right and wrong are defined by moral values - which are based on Culture.

 

[Scuba Pete]

So Luke Wolf,

You really don't see Hitler as an evil person? To me he was the personification of evil.

 

[Scott1]

By the standards of his society, yeah

I'm not a huge fan of moral relativism, so forgive my disgust with this statement....

Without an acknowledgement of concrete acts that are always wrong (evil/morally wrong) humanity will continue to perform this "dance" of opinions and options, where nothing is right or wrong.

Happy dancing
Scott

 

[michel]

I don't think it was right for Hitler to perform mass genocide on the Jews, but it was right in his eyes, and the eyes of his followers.

A soldier who follows an order when he knows the order to be immoral, becomes guilty of immorality himself. Hitler was a sick psychotic - and except for a very few, most went along with his Ideas; he had, apparently, such a hypnotic effect on the crowds - that they got 'swept up' with what he told them.

I am not excusing Hitler - I believe he was one of the most evil men who have lived - but I believe his followers were just as guilty as he.

 

[Pah]

I'm not a huge fan of moral relativism, so forgive my disgust with this statement....

Without an acknowledgement of concrete acts that are always wrong (evil/morally wrong) humanity will continue to perform this "dance" of opinions and options, where nothing is right or wrong.

Happy dancing
Scott

I'm not a fan of moral relativism either - I kinda like provisional morality as introduced by Michael Shermer where the degree of anything is measured by the mathmatical system of Fuzzy Logic. This is where, if you are measuring evil it would be on a scale of 0.0 to 1.0. Since I believe, as Shermer does, that there is absolutely no absolutes, the extreme ends of the scale would never be reached. It puts an onus on finding and understanding that small fraction of good in evil. That can be a lot of work and I understand why it would not even be attempted.

Pure evil is a myth, as Shemer says, for that eliminates free will.

And he says "Ethical theorists distinguish between descriptive ethical relativism which pass no jugdment on whether any of the numerous relaive ethical theories are valid or not; and normative ethical relativism, which claims that each ethical theory, while relative to in value compared to others, is absolutely valid for the culture in which it is practised." So, when speaking of relative morality, it is important to understand which is which.

I've also been thinking, prompted by your post, what would be "always wrong". I've been over some of the "biggies" in that area and I can find exceptons to all of them

I'm not dancing because I hear no music..

 

[Scuba Pete]

I agree Pah...

There are limits to everthing... even to evil.

Unfortunately, I can see no system of values that would contend that Hitler's death camps were anything but evil in nature. That the Nazis did their best to cover them up only clarifies their guilt in my eyes.

That is until you meet up with "moral relativism". I find it so corrupt that it vindicates even Hitler. Enough said.