Moral Relativism or Moral absolutism

[Poison]

Moral relativism
Moral relativism is the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint (for instance, that of a culture or a historical period) and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others.

Moral absolutism
Moral absolutism is an ethical view that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong, regardless of other circumstances such as their consequences or the intentions behind them.

To keep it clean
State your reason:
then an example:
same with counter arguments

@Aborted your usually amazing at these kinds of things

[Ferris Bueller]

I'm going to lean towards relativsm on this one because I believe that absolutism doesn't work well in most things.

[Empire]

Both.

There are certain ethical violations that no matter what the time are still wrong. Now pragmatically you can say this or that was the right thing to do in certain scenarios, but morally there are some things like: Slavery, murder, and rape (and other hard-moral topics) that are timeless and without culture influence.

Arguing that something is morally because a society accepted it now or in the past is irvrelevant to morality and what ethics stands for.

However the minor moral issues, are more cultural based.

[Aborted]

To create a new term entirely, Relative Moral Absolutism. Certain actions are generally timelessly regarded as immoral, regardless of minority beliefs, though they are just as equally correct. One may make the argument that there is only one true point of morality, though I'd tend to disagree. Morality is an incredibly complex issue, as no one belief or viewpoint is correct, and is based solely on personal opinion. For example, Islam today still considers honor killings entirely moral, while most of us in the developed world see them as entirely unjustified and wholly barbaric. The argument lies in which viewpoint is based on morality, and which one isn't, which is completely impossible to determine. Forgetting the previous statement though, I'd like to move to the relative section of my statement. It really depends on the situation whether something can be justified, such as murder in the case of self-defense, though some people still believe even that is still immoral. It depends completely on personal opinion, though most governments are based on popular belief.

[Ferris Bueller]

Both.

There are certain ethical violations that no matter what the time are still wrong. Now pragmatically you can say this or that was the right thing to do in certain scenarios, but morally there are some things like: Slavery, murder, and rape (and other hard-moral topics) that are timeless and without culture influence.

Arguing that something is morally because a society accepted it now or in the past is irvrelevant to morality and what ethics stands for.

However the minor moral issues, are more cultural based.

To create a new term entirely, Relative Moral Absolutism. Certain actions are generally timelessly regarded as immoral, regardless of minority beliefs, though they are just as equally correct. One may make the argument that there is only one true point of morality, though I'd tend to disagree. Morality is an incredibly complex issue, as no one belief or viewpoint is correct, and is based solely on personal opinion. For example, Islam today still considers honor killings entirely moral, while most of us in the developed world see them as entirely unjustified and wholly barbaric. The argument lies in which viewpoint is based on morality, and which one isn't, which is completely impossible to determine. Forgetting the previous statement though, I'd like to move to the relative section of my statement. It really depends on the situation whether something can be justified, such as murder in the case of self-defense, though some people still believe even that is still immoral. It depends completely on personal opinion, though most governments are based on popular belief.

See I was going to propose a mix but the term absolute scares me. Furthermore morals and beliefs are extremely complicated things that can not have a set value or meaning.

Even the values that are immortal change in some way or transform into a completely different thing.

Killing has always been considered immoral and wrong, but then it transformed into honor killings. Honor killings have been accepted throughout history.(Most ancient cultures and some present day religions). Then there's self defense, which you mentioned.

This is a great topic but I think staying open minded to the situation is how morals should be, which is why i think relativism is a better option.

[Poison]

Both.

There are certain ethical violations that no matter what the time are still wrong. Now pragmatically you can say this or that was the right thing to do in certain scenarios, but morally there are some things like: Slavery, murder, and rape (and other hard-moral topics) that are timeless and without culture influence.

Arguing that something is morally because a society accepted it now or in the past is irvrelevant to morality and what ethics stands for.

However the minor moral issues, are more cultural based.

It is impossible to choose both

[Ferris Bueller]

It is impossible to choose both

What they're trying to say is(or at least what i think they're trying to say) is that it's such a complex topic you can't possibly choose one.

This is due to the infinite possibilities where morality falls into question. Sometimes absolutism is viable and others you have to go with relativism

[Poison]

What they're trying to say is(or at least what i think they're trying to say) is that it's such a complex topic you can't possibly choose one.

This is due to the infinite possibilities where morality falls into question. Sometimes absolutism is viable and others you have to go with relativism

If moral absolution is correct moral relativism can not be correct and vice versa.

[Empire]

If moral absolution is correct moral relativism can not be correct and vice versa.

While this is true you are misunderstanding the point of morality as a whole.

There are absolutes in morality/ethics.(regardless of society, time, or place).

There are things that can be morally correct in the scenario but wrong in others.(relative).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Though....I guess morally correct is the wrong word. "Practical" would be the word. There are times when ethics and morality have to be crossed in scenarios.


I wouldn't dare assume morality or ethics isn't anything but an illusion though. History shows us that.

[Poison]

While this is true you are misunderstanding the point of morality as a whole.

There are absolutes in morality/ethics.(regardless of society, time, or place).

There are things that can be morally correct in the scenario but wrong in others.(relative).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Though....I guess morally correct is the wrong word. "Practical" would be the word. There are times when ethics and morality have to be crossed in scenarios.


I wouldn't dare assume morality or ethics isn't anything but an illusion though. History shows us that.

To make it clear
use this format
your Reason:
then add an example:

[Poison]

guess no one had any thoughts on the subject

[Ferris Bueller]

guess no one had any thoughts on the subject

Don't expect much, Debate Section is dead. Only active people around here are empire, aborted, 666hiddenmaster666, a few newbies, a few dumb religious people, and some athiests.

[Empire]

guess no one had any thoughts on the subject

That's lame that my post didn't go through.

Absolute is true.
Example: Rape/murder/slavery is always wrong regardless of circumstance/time/culture.

Relativism is also true, but for the "greater good" aspect.
Example: Lying to someone to protect/help them in the big picture.


Either way, morality comes second to practicality.

[Poison]

That's lame that my post didn't go through.

Absolute is true.
Example: Rape/murder/slavery is always wrong regardless of circumstance/time/culture.

Relativism is also true, but for the "greater good" aspect.
Example: Lying to someone to protect/help them in the big picture.


Either way, morality comes second to practicality.

Is murder rape and slavery wrong? Other people might not think so.
Reason: Beliefs change over time and through cultures.
Example: Eskimo killed his father while he was suffering and it was seen as a act of kindness by his people, but it was seen as an immoral evil act by others(most people). At one point slavery was not seen as wrong by many Americans.

Ill post more later re-watching game of thrones
I'm not taking a side just want to get more input on your side and just thought up a quick counter argument

[Empire]

Is murder rape and slavery wrong? Other people might not think so.
Reason: Beliefs change over time and through cultures.
Example: Eskimo killed his father while he was suffering and it was seen as a act of kindness by his people, but it was seen as an immoral evil act by others(most people). At one point slavery was not seen as wrong by many Americans.

Ill post more later re-watching game of thrones
I'm not taking a side just want to get more input on your side and just thought up a quick counter argument

MMmmmmaking a mistake here on relativism.

Generally you can argue such things as xyz, say it was ok at the time, and if it's not a big offense, then relativism has an argument.

But to argue morality is completely ok because it was "ok at the time" or "ok in a society" as a whole isn't something relativism is used for because the amount of time or cultural difference required is so vague.


For instance we accept the Holocaust as wrong. Relativist don't argue this because it's against morality itself. it's putting yourself in a position that is really just the ass who is trying to win an argument based on technicality.



There are somethings we accept as wrong, regardless of time/culture/scenario. Relativism has it's place, but it's not an all-scenario account.


==================================
----------/

Note:Moral absolutism and relativism are used together quite often.

You might want to check out pragmatism.