Crest Falls
16-01-2006, 02:18
It seems that whenever we get into a morality debate, that Moral Aboslutism Vs. Moral Relativism is brought forth (often in an attempt to guilt people into believing in god, because "The universe can't really work that way, can it?")
The argument quickly degenerates because the moral absolutists don't understand moral relativism, and thus equate it with no morality at all. The whole point of moral relativism is that there is no universal point of view that is "correct." in a morally relativistic universe, something cannot be described as "better" "worse" "more moral" or "less moral" in the way that we can describe shades of paint as more or less "Blue." Morality is abstract. Morality works by certain precepts. If you held that sex was immoral, then anything involving, glorifying, leading to, encouraging, or implying sex would be immoral to you. moral absolutists confuse the issue by trying to use the same language to describe the effects of both. Was Mother Teresa a "better" person that Hitler? In my mind she was, by far. If there is a God, or some other Cosmic Principle that says what is good, then it may descided one way or the other, based on it's precepts. If God believed that Charity was inherantly wrong, then he might indeed see Mother Teresa as a worse person than Hitler. But that would just be God's moral point of view. We might view that as an absolute, but even in a world with a God, it might not be.
And now I feel like I'm rambling. The whole point is one of language. Mother Teresa cannot be described as a "Good person" without the context of the perception of the describer. The phrase "Mother Teresa is a better person than Hitler" is as meaningless in a morally relativistic universe as "Red is better than Green." You may perfer Mother Teresa, and you may perfer Green, but there is no universal force declairing which is better.
The argument quickly degenerates because the moral absolutists don't understand moral relativism, and thus equate it with no morality at all. The whole point of moral relativism is that there is no universal point of view that is "correct." in a morally relativistic universe, something cannot be described as "better" "worse" "more moral" or "less moral" in the way that we can describe shades of paint as more or less "Blue." Morality is abstract. Morality works by certain precepts. If you held that sex was immoral, then anything involving, glorifying, leading to, encouraging, or implying sex would be immoral to you. moral absolutists confuse the issue by trying to use the same language to describe the effects of both. Was Mother Teresa a "better" person that Hitler? In my mind she was, by far. If there is a God, or some other Cosmic Principle that says what is good, then it may descided one way or the other, based on it's precepts. If God believed that Charity was inherantly wrong, then he might indeed see Mother Teresa as a worse person than Hitler. But that would just be God's moral point of view. We might view that as an absolute, but even in a world with a God, it might not be.
And now I feel like I'm rambling. The whole point is one of language. Mother Teresa cannot be described as a "Good person" without the context of the perception of the describer. The phrase "Mother Teresa is a better person than Hitler" is as meaningless in a morally relativistic universe as "Red is better than Green." You may perfer Mother Teresa, and you may perfer Green, but there is no universal force declairing which is better.