Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
rel·a·tiv·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rl-t-vzm)
n. Philosophy
A theory, especially in ethics or aesthetics, that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them.
|
Exactly. Truth and moral values are relative to the persons or groups holding them. I think truth and values are universal. You believe that truth and values are relative to the person or group holding them.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by taxwonk
ab·so·lut·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bs-ltzm)
n.
A political theory holding that all power should be vested in one ruler or other authority.
A form of government in which all power is vested in a single ruler or other authority.
An absolute doctrine, principle, or standard.
I think your definitionis the last one.
Quote:
I am not a moral relativist. I believe morals are universal. By absolute I mean they apply to everyone. Just like our law apply to everyone. There are no exceptions for race color or creed. In other words a universal moral code. The word universal is better than absolute.
Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
Okay, I can accept your position that you can believe in an absolute moral code and still believe killing is okay under some circumstances and not in others. Who gets to decide when it is okay to kill and when it isn't? What basis is to be used in deciding?
|
That is the $64,000 question, isn't it. I believe that, like Jefferson, that the creator has already decided when killing is wrong or right. We just need to figure out what that is. I think we have been given a road map to deciding when it is or is not OK. I think our instincts tell us when something is right or wrong. We are hard wired with a conscious that guides us in these situations. Our pursuit of justice is trying to align our legal system with the universal moral code that is hard wired in our brain. As human being we just know that Seti, female circumscission and slavery are wrong, we just need to insure that our legal system reflects our moral instincts.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by taxwonk In the first place, I don't know that life begins at conception.
|
I never said you did. These pro-life people think it does, and that is what leads them to their often violent opposition to abortion. I do not believe life begins at coneption.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by taxwonk I don't know that it doesn't, but I haven't been persuaded that it does. But, assuming for the moment the zygote is a life form, then why is it by definition innocent? What if carrying it to term will kill the mother? What if the burden of caring for the child is beyond the mother's economic, emotional, and other resources?
|
I don't think any of these things you have said bear a relation to whether or not it is innocent. To me an innocent person is someone who has not committed a crime. Or intentionally violated the universal moral code. A zygote, just like an infant is innocent. Spanky (that is me) is not innocent.
If carrying the Zygote to term will kill the mother, that does not mean the zygot is not innocent, but this may be a circumstance when killing an innocent life is necessary. I don't think that if the burden of carrying the innocent life to term is beyond the resources of the mother is an excuse for terminating an innocent life (althought I don't know what that really means. Does that mean she only has enough money for food to keep herself alive if she does not carry the child). However, if you mean that the mother may not have the resources to care for the child once it is born, that is not an excuse for killing an innocent life. You can't use this excuse for killing the child after it is born so why should you be able to use it to kill the child before it is born.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by taxwonk You're being inconsistent here. First you claim that it is never acceptable to kill an innocent person. Then you claim that sometimes it is. This is relativism.
|
I have never claimed that it is never acceptable to kill an innocent person.
[Quote}If you want to get into a discussion about right and wrong OK. But if you are a moral relativist this discussion is fruitless. We both have to agree that there is such a thing as right and wrong. And that right and wrong apply universally. If you are a moral relativist then we have to acknowledge that rights and wrongs can change from culture to culture and time to time. Right now by initiated this discussion you are assuming there is a universal moral code and we should debate what it includes.
|
Quote:
|
Originally posted by taxwonk I think this is absolutely wrong.
|
You just pointed out that the definition of relative is "moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them.". So any discussion of morality depends on the group of people we are discussing. Killing widows may be wrong for one group of people but OK for another. So a shelling of innocent people in an Iraq village has to take in account what the local values and morals are. We need to see what is historically OK in Iraq and not impose our "western" or American values on the situation.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by taxwonk But what about the innocents? On what basis are we to decide that it is okay to sacrifice their lives? I guess it's a question of which is relatively the greater good for the community at large?
|
The common good can get you into trouble. However, this is a discussion that will turn on what is just. But when "what is just" is determined, I believe justice is the same for all men and women and that it is not "relative to the persons or groups holding them".
