NationStates Jolt Archive

More PC madness from New Liebur. If this does go ahead and is implemented then I pity my country.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/5230598.stm


Last Updated: Monday, 31 July 2006, 09:16 GMT 10:16 UK

'Right and wrong' lessons to end

In future, 'secure values and beliefs' will be taught

Pupils will no longer have to be taught the difference between "right and wrong" under draft plans put forward by England's exams regulator.

Instead, 11 to 14-year-olds should learn the importance of "secure values and beliefs", the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority says.

Pupils would also have to "understand different cultures and traditions".

But the Church of England said it was "fundamental" that schools should deal with "spiritual and moral" education.

Cultural heritage

Ministers want the national curriculum reduced to allow teachers more flexibility.

The current aims state: "The school curriculum should pass on enduring values.

"It should develop principles for distinguishing between right and wrong."

QCA chief executive Ken Boston set out his proposals, which have just been published, in a letter in March to the then education secretary, Ruth Kelly.

A Church of England spokesman said: "We would be very concerned to see any erosion of the fundamental principle of education to provide for the spiritual and moral development of pupils and of society."

Under the proposals, the requirement to teach Britain's "cultural heritage" would also go.

'Place in world'

The current wording states: "The school curriculum should contribute to the development of pupils' sense of identity through knowledge and understanding of the spiritual, moral, social and cultural heritages of Britain's diverse society."

This will be replaced with the aim to help individuals "understand different cultures and traditions and have a strong sense of their own place in the world".

Professor Alan Smithers, director of the University of Buckingham's centre for education and employment research, said: "The idea that they think it is appropriate to dispense with right and wrong is a bit alarming."

But a National Union of Teachers spokeswoman said: "Teachers always resented being told that one of the aims of the school was to teach the difference between right and wrong. That is inherent in the way teachers operate.

"Removing it from the national curriculum will make no difference to teachers. They will still ensure that children learn the difference between right and wrong."

'Personalisation'

A spokesman for the QCA said the proposals were only in draft form and would be consulted on next year.

He added: "One aim of the review is that there should be more flexibility and personalisation which focuses on practical advice for teachers.

"The new wording states clearly that young people should become 'responsible citizens who make a positive contribution to society'.

"It also identifies the need for young people who 'challenge injustice, are committed to human rights and strive to live peaceably with others.'"

More PC madness from New Liebur. If this does go ahead and is implemented then I pity my country.

[i]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/5230598.stm
This will be the beginning of the end for Merry Olde! :(

More PC madness from New Liebur. If this does go ahead and is implemented then I pity my country.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/5230598.stm


Last Updated: Monday, 31 July 2006, 09:16 GMT 10:16 UK

'Right and wrong' lessons to end

In future, 'secure values and beliefs' will be taught

Pupils will no longer have to be taught the difference between "right and wrong" under draft plans put forward by England's exams regulator.

Instead, 11 to 14-year-olds should learn the importance of "secure values and beliefs", the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority says.

Pupils would also have to "understand different cultures and traditions".

But the Church of England said it was "fundamental" that schools should deal with "spiritual and moral" education.

Cultural heritage

Ministers want the national curriculum reduced to allow teachers more flexibility.

The current aims state: "The school curriculum should pass on enduring values.

"It should develop principles for distinguishing between right and wrong."

QCA chief executive Ken Boston set out his proposals, which have just been published, in a letter in March to the then education secretary, Ruth Kelly.

A Church of England spokesman said: "We would be very concerned to see any erosion of the fundamental principle of education to provide for the spiritual and moral development of pupils and of society."

Under the proposals, the requirement to teach Britain's "cultural heritage" would also go.

'Place in world'

The current wording states: "The school curriculum should contribute to the development of pupils' sense of identity through knowledge and understanding of the spiritual, moral, social and cultural heritages of Britain's diverse society."

This will be replaced with the aim to help individuals "understand different cultures and traditions and have a strong sense of their own place in the world".

Professor Alan Smithers, director of the University of Buckingham's centre for education and employment research, said: "The idea that they think it is appropriate to dispense with right and wrong is a bit alarming."

But a National Union of Teachers spokeswoman said: "Teachers always resented being told that one of the aims of the school was to teach the difference between right and wrong. That is inherent in the way teachers operate.

"Removing it from the national curriculum will make no difference to teachers. They will still ensure that children learn the difference between right and wrong."

'Personalisation'

A spokesman for the QCA said the proposals were only in draft form and would be consulted on next year.

He added: "One aim of the review is that there should be more flexibility and personalisation which focuses on practical advice for teachers.

"The new wording states clearly that young people should become 'responsible citizens who make a positive contribution to society'.

"It also identifies the need for young people who 'challenge injustice, are committed to human rights and strive to live peaceably with others.'"

Right and Wrong starts home.

But I think they might have a little trouble with above.

This will be the beginning of the end for Merry Olde! :(

Well we don't agree on many things but this we do.

Madness. Utter utter madness.

Wait, what's all this? Is this some British thing?

I fear that a society where the children are not taught right and wrong will result in a reversion to Classical Central Europe; that is to say, dancing around the sacred fires of the Aesir in our underwear.

Well we don't agree on many things but this we do.

Madness. Utter utter madness.


The Saving Grace of England is the Church of England - and not some politician.

What else is new?

But a National Union of Teachers spokeswoman said: "Teachers always resented being told that one of the aims of the school was to teach the difference between right and wrong. That is inherent in the way teachers operate.

"Removing it from the national curriculum will make no difference to teachers. They will still ensure that children learn the difference between right and wrong."

IMO this is the key part of the article, teachers will continue to teach right and wrong despite the change in the law. What I'm worried about is the way that learning about Britain's cultural heritage has been removed from the curriculum.

IMO this is the key part of the article, teachers will continue to teach right and wrong despite the change in the law. What I'm worried about is the way that learning about Britain's cultural heritage has been removed from the curriculum.

Indeed. Hence the use of the word appeasement in the title...it is appeasing the PC brigade who just want to hide from the reality that the world is actually a dangerous and nasty place but you can survive if you learn about it.

I hope that makes sense! LOL

The Saving Grace of England is the Church of England - and not some politician.

What else is new?

The saving grace of Britain used to be the working classes....

I reckon the items being removed are references to theological concepts of absolute morality, to be replaced with moral relativism. This actually represents a welcome embrace of a century of intellectual progress.

This is the manner in which I was taught at my school anyway. We need less dogma.

Frankly, I would be more concerned with the likely failure of most British school leavers to spell "intellectual" and "moral relativism".

My god! If this keeps up, you might raise a nation of free thinkers! Disaster! :eek:

Good!

The State has no right indoctrinating its young to follow its definition of Right and Wrong. People _must_ make up their own mind.

I reckon the items being removed are references to theological concepts of absolute morality, to be replaced with moral relativism. This actually represents a welcome embrace of a century of intellectual progress.

This is the manner in which I was taught at my school anyway. We need less dogma.

Frankly, I would be more concerned with the likely failure of most British school leavers to spell "intellectual" and "moral relativism".

No. What this means is more wishy washy New Liebur (insert whatever political party) rubbishing of our culture.

Sorry TG but there are abolutes in morality. Moral relativism is a crutch for those who think that everything can be smudged or excused in some form.

However you do hit the nail so to speak with your last sentence. I'd also add being able to perform basic maths as well.

No. What this means is more wishy washy New Liebur (insert whatever political party) rubbishing of our culture.

Sorry TG but there are abolutes in morality. Moral relativism is a crutch for those who think that everything can be smudged or excused in some form.

However you do hit the nail so to speak with your last sentence. I'd also add being able to perform basic maths as well.
Well if morals are absolute prove it … show us and example of even one moral that is ABSOLUTE through ought history.

Right and wrong, in the western cultural sense, must indeed be taught to students. Basic things like "don't kill people because they disagree with you" "think for yourself" "individuals do indeed have rights". If schools teach those basic things as relative, well, that's not going to be a good idea.

My god! If this keeps up, you might raise a nation of free thinkers! Disaster! :eek:

Not that we haven't before ....don't forget that modern 'Freethinking' came from England (17th century) and France (latterly)...

William Molyneux
John Locke
Anthony Collins

to name just three English 17/18th century freethinkers.

Well if morals are absolute prove it … show us and example of even one moral that is ABSOLUTE through ought history.

Murder is wrong

Well if morals are absolute prove it … show us and example of even one moral that is ABSOLUTE through ought history.

Peeing into the wind is immoral and always has been. :)

Right and wrong, in the western cultural sense, must indeed be taught to students. Basic things like "don't kill people because they disagree with you" "think for yourself" "individuals do indeed have rights". If schools teach those basic things as relative, well, that's not going to be a good idea.

Exactly and better put than I ever could!

Peeing into the wind is immoral and always has been. :)

No....thats just plain wrong LOL :)

Murder is wrong
Murder is a term WAY to dependant on the society it is in. Hell what “Murder” actually is, is even relativistic to what society you are in (great example of moral relativism thank you)

As murder is the ILLEGAL taking of a human life and society determines what is Legal and not Legal it changes from society to society.

Though this all starts to get muddied with ethics rather then morals … its really interesting seeing how the definition changes through the years.

This will be the beginning of the end for Merry Olde! :(
Oh yes, quoter of doom...surely England will be toppled ere the year is out...:rolleyes:

Well if morals are absolute prove it … show us and example of even one moral that is ABSOLUTE through ought history.

How many cultures can you think of that prize cowardice in battle above all others?

To be honest, this goes beyond moral relativism. After all, relativism does still teach that, relative to culture, certain things are considered right and wrong within that culture. In point of fact, right and wrong is a central tenet of culture; what is a society after all but a group of people who collectively decide what does and does not constitute acceptable standards of behavior within the collective? This is moral nihilism.

How many cultures can you think of that prize cowardice in battle above all others?

To be honest, this goes beyond moral relativism. After all, relativism does still teach that, relative to culture, certain things are considered right and wrong within that culture. In point of fact, right and wrong is a central tenet of culture; what is a society after all but a group of people who collectively decide what does and does not constitute acceptable standards of behavior within the collective? This is moral nihilism.
Hmmm never heard it referred to as moral nihilism before … cool

Murder is a term WAY to dependant on the society it is in. Hell what “Murder” actually is, is even relativistic to what society you are in (great example of moral relativism thank you)

As murder is the ILLEGAL taking of a human life and society determines what is Legal and not Legal it changes from society to society.

Though this all starts to get muddied with ethics rather then morals … its really interesting seeing how the definition changes through the years.


There is no society that I know of that condones the unsanctioned killing of another human.

There is no society that I know of that condones the unsanctioned killing of another human.
There are plenty that did not need official permission, hell even in the old west we can see examples where defense or a “Fair fight” were later approved as alright with ought official sanctioning before the fact.

And even as such you are showing examples where society is the authority on what is right or wrong … murder or not. That’s not an example of absolute authority that’s an example of popular enforcement of a popular moral.

There is no society that I know of that condones the unsanctioned killing of another human.
Define sanctioned killings.

Guaranteed your definition will be based on your cultural and societal mores.

What is 'sanctioned' to you may be 'unsanctioned' to others.

There are plenty that did not need official permission, hell even in the old west we can see examples where defense or a “Fair fight” were later approved as alright with ought official sanctioning before the fact.

And even as such you are showing examples where society is the authority on what is right or wrong … murder or not. That’s not an example of absolute authority that’s an example of popular enforcement of a popular moral.

Um, I'm thinking you're looking at the Hollywood Old West. The real Old West was actually pretty safe, primarily because it was filled with Civil War vets who were armed and knew how to use their weapons. Most killings were less quickdraw at high noon and more shotgun in the back; it also resulted in fairly quick and bloody peacekeeping.

In any case, self-defense is always sanctioned. As such, your descriptions, even as inaccurate as they are, are merely cases where people retroactively decided that the person shot in self-defense, therefore was justified. When he was talking about "unsanctioned", he didn't mean "going to a judge to pre-clear my actions before I do anything". He meant "in accord with standing law and tradition", which killing in self-defense always is.

There are plenty that did not need official permission, hell even in the old west we can see examples where defense or a “Fair fight” were later approved as alright with ought official sanctioning before the fact.

And even as such you are showing examples where society is the authority on what is right or wrong … murder or not. That’s not an example of absolute authority that’s an example of popular enforcement of a popular moral.

I think you know what I mean UpwardThrust.

No society that I know of condones the unsanctioned slaying of another human.

It is as simple as that.

Unsanctioned meaning slaying outside of the current mores of that society.

Um, I'm thinking you're looking at the Hollywood Old West. The real Old West was actually pretty safe, primarily because it was filled with Civil War vets who were armed and knew how to use their weapons. Most killings were less quickdraw at high noon and more shotgun in the back; it also resulted in fairly quick and bloody peacekeeping.

In any case, self-defense is always sanctioned. As such, your descriptions, even as inaccurate as they are, are merely cases where people retroactively decided that the person shot in self-defense, therefore was justified. When he was talking about "unsanctioned", he didn't mean "going to a judge to pre-clear my actions before I do anything". He meant "in accord with standing law and tradition", which killing in self-defense always is.

Yes. That is exactly what I mean.

Thank you.

Define sanctioned killings.

Guaranteed your definition will be based on your cultural and societal mores.

What is 'sanctioned' to you may be 'unsanctioned' to others.

I hope my post above answers your question....

Since when did they ever teach right and wrong at schools anyway?

IMO this is the key part of the article, teachers will continue to teach right and wrong despite the change in the law. What I'm worried about is the way that learning about Britain's cultural heritage has been removed from the curriculum.

Political correctness demands that you always teach that Britain, throughout history, has been bad, evil, and never a good thing, and that the belief systems of everyone outside of "mainstream Britain" is Good and Pure.

So, for all those people whose religion says, "burn all infidels and kill them, rape their women, and overthrow their governments" those people get not only a free pass, but encouragement to be "secure in their values" however horrific.

Your kids are going to be taught to come home and say, "mum and dad, why did you fuck up the world?" and then your kids will set fire to your house, and your daughter will don a burka, and your son will leave for jihad.

In any case, self-defense is always sanctioned.
Self-defence is not universally sanctioned. A woman being raped may be justified in self-defence in some societies, but not in others. A person of a certain caste, class or race may not be socially justified in any sort of self-defence.

Political correctness demands that you always teach that Britain, throughout history, has been bad, evil, and never a good thing, and that the belief systems of everyone outside of "mainstream Britain" is Good and Pure.

So, for all those people whose religion says, "burn all infidels and kill them, rape their women, and overthrow their governments" those people get not only a free pass, but encouragement to be "secure in their values" however horrific.

Your kids are going to be taught to come home and say, "mum and dad, why did you fuck up the world?" and then your kids will set fire to your house, and your daughter will don a burka, and your son will leave for jihad.
So at your meetings, is Eut the main speaker, or are you?

So at your meetings, is Eut the main speaker, or are you?
Just me.

Eut lives at least 8 hours drive from here.

I'm rather glad I moved out of a US state that went out of its way to teach that not only should you not take off for Columbus Day, but taught that Columbus was a very evil man with no good motives whose sole thought was to infect the American native population with diseases on purpose.

Got tired of that sort of bullshit - sure, he was looking for a trade route to the Indies - and wanted to get rich - but spreading disease wasn't something they he even knew about.

Political correctness demands that you always teach that Britain, throughout history, has been bad, evil, and never a good thing, and that the belief systems of everyone outside of "mainstream Britain" is Good and Pure.

So, for all those people whose religion says, "burn all infidels and kill them, rape their women, and overthrow their governments" those people get not only a free pass, but encouragement to be "secure in their values" however horrific.

Your kids are going to be taught to come home and say, "mum and dad, why did you fuck up the world?" and then your kids will set fire to your house, and your daughter will don a burka, and your son will leave for jihad.

LMAO

So at your meetings, is Eut the main speaker, or are you?
That's not a fair comparison. Eutrusca can be quite profound in his own way some times, rather than simply preaching violently.

Political correctness demands that you always teach that Britain, throughout history, has been bad, evil, and never a good thing, and that the belief systems of everyone outside of "mainstream Britain" is Good and Pure.

So, for all those people whose religion says, "burn all infidels and kill them, rape their women, and overthrow their governments" those people get not only a free pass, but encouragement to be "secure in their values" however horrific.

Your kids are going to be taught to come home and say, "mum and dad, why did you fuck up the world?" and then your kids will set fire to your house, and your daughter will don a burka, and your son will leave for jihad.


I fear that in this case you are right in that this proposal will lead down this path.

I do not think it will be as extreme as you discribe but the PC brigade are taking us in that direction.

I hate this term but I really cannot think of a better one....this proposal is an example of self loathing Liberal PC rubbish.

I think you know what I mean UpwardThrust.

No society that I know of condones the unsanctioned slaying of another human.

It is as simple as that.

Unsanctioned meaning slaying outside of the current mores of that society.
Why would society allow something to go on beyond the mores of society? Of what use would society be then?

You seem to be showing that society is in control of “morals” in which I agree, I also agree that it is necessary. I just have yet to see that any other power or authority or any evidence that morals extend beyond the level of society

Just me.

Eut lives at least 8 hours drive from here.

I'm rather glad I moved out of a US state that went out of its way to teach that not only should you not take off for Columbus Day, but taught that Columbus was a very evil man with no good motives whose sole thought was to infect the American native population with diseases on purpose.

Got tired of that sort of bullshit - sure, he was looking for a trade route to the Indies - and wanted to get rich - but spreading disease wasn't something they he even knew about.
Perhaps what you object to is the oversimplification of such subjects. I know I do. Like, "Columbus was all good, and everything in history was wonderful and gentle and loving" and "Columbus was a devil, and everything in history was driven by horrible conspiracies and cruelty".

But frankly, oversimplification is what is going to happen in schools since knowledge, rather than skills is STILL the main focus. Hence all the importance attached to memorising dates, and names that could be easily Googled rather than burned into your brain...rather than learning how to do your own research, find primary sources, recognise bias and work around it...etc...you know, critical thinking. Most students come by that IN SPITE of school.

That's not a fair comparison. Eutrusca can be quite profound in his own way some times, rather than simply preaching violently.
So can Deep Kimchi. Maybe you just miss those posts.

I hate this term but I really cannot think of a better one....this proposal is an example of self loathing Liberal PC rubbish.
Is it really liberal? I would have thought the "liberal" approach would have been to teach as many ways of looking at things as "right" and "wrong" as possible rather than cutting it out altogether.

Perhaps what you object to is the oversimplification of such subjects. I know I do. Like, "Columbus was all good, and everything in history was wonderful and gentle and loving" and "Columbus was a devil, and everything in history was driven by horrible conspiracies and cruelty".

But frankly, oversimplification is what is going to happen in schools since knowledge, rather than skills is STILL the main focus. Hence all the importance attached to memorising dates, and names that could be easily Googled rather than burned into your brain...rather than learning how to do your own research, find primary sources, recognise bias and work around it...etc...you know, critical thinking. Most students come by that IN SPITE of school.


Exactly.

But what drives school curricula today is "which oversimplification" we're going to have trampled into our childrens' brains.

Self-defence is not universally sanctioned. A woman being raped may be justified in self-defence in some societies, but not in others. A person of a certain caste, class or race may not be socially justified in any sort of self-defence.

1) While I don't approve of such a narrow definition, self-defense in the narrowest context is defense of life against unwarranted and unsanctioned coercive force. Rape alone doesn't threaten life, so it doesn't count as an instance of self-defense in this instance.

2) You are incorrect in your assertion that a woman is not "justified" in self-defense in some cultures. A woman is always entitled to fight for her sexual honor, it's just that in some cultures she may be punished for failure. That isn't an abrogation of the right of self-defense so much as a harsh take on failing to self-defend enough.

3) I would think that this would be a prime example of where culture could be wrong universally: it doesn't matter if culturally, a woman is guilty of inciting rape; she is not, and any culture that defines her as guilty is violating a higher law.

So can Deep Kimchi. Maybe you just miss those posts.
Evidently so. Do I need any sort of special equipment or software?

Why would society allow something to go on beyond the mores of society? Of what use would society be then?

You seem to be showing that society is in control of “morals” in which I agree, I also agree that it is necessary. I just have yet to see that any other power or authority or any evidence that morals extend beyond the level of society

Because there are no societies existant that I know of that allow unsactioned slayings of other people.

Unless you know of such a society? If so please...the floor is yours....

Exactly.

But what drives school curricula today is "which oversimplification" we're going to have trampled into our childrens' brains.
Right. Before that it wasn't 'which oversimplification' it was just, 'there is only one truth'.

Now there are choices. Right and wrong are morally subjective terms, and children should recognise them as such.

However, what will really happen is that teachers will go on teaching just like they always have. This is not going to spell the doom of the nation, and it's not really going to even have much of an impact period.

Perhaps what you object to is the oversimplification of such subjects. I know I do. Like, "Columbus was all good, and everything in history was wonderful and gentle and loving" and "Columbus was a devil, and everything in history was driven by horrible conspiracies and cruelty".

But frankly, oversimplification is what is going to happen in schools since knowledge, rather than skills is STILL the main focus. Hence all the importance attached to memorising dates, and names that could be easily Googled rather than burned into your brain...rather than learning how to do your own research, find primary sources, recognise bias and work around it...etc...you know, critical thinking. Most students come by that IN SPITE of school.
Agreed that is one of the biggest things when getting into collage. You realize as you get out of general courses that the real skill and what makes you a “guru” in your area is not just what you have memorized but your ability to go GET that information when you need it.

I know and have memorized a TREMENDOUS amount of information on networking and security, but my biggest skill is going to find and interpret processes that I don’t use on an every day basis and get the job done.

Evidently so. Do I need any sort of special equipment or software?
:p

1) While I don't approve of such a narrow definition, self-defense in the narrowest context is defense of life against unwarranted and unsanctioned coercive force. Rape alone doesn't threaten life, so it doesn't count as an instance of self-defense in this instance.

2) You are incorrect in your assertion that a woman is not "justified" in self-defense in some cultures. A woman is always entitled to fight for her sexual honor, it's just that in some cultures she may be punished for failure. That isn't an abrogation of the right of self-defense so much as a harsh take on failing to self-defend enough.

3) I would think that this would be a prime example of where culture could be wrong universally: it doesn't matter if culturally, a woman is guilty of inciting rape; she is not, and any culture that defines her as guilty is violating a higher law.

Self-defense using lethal force is allowed in the US in cases of attempted rape, since death often follows the rape.

And by the time you've allowed the rape to occur, you're not really in any position to defend yourself.

Agreed that is one of the biggest things when getting into collage. You realize as you get out of general courses that the real skill and what makes you a “guru” in your area is not just what you have memorized but your ability to go GET that information when you need it.

I know and have memorized a TREMENDOUS amount of information on networking and security, but my biggest skill is going to find and interpret processes that I don’t use on an every day basis and get the job done.
Information is available at the click of a button. There is absolutely no need to know when the Battle of Ziga'marig'itz happened. Understanding the impact it had, understanding what led up to it...that can be valuable perhaps...but requires a more in-depth understanding of the events. A lot of high school students going into University literally need to learn how to do research, and how to think critically about sources. THOSE skills should be honed from the very beginning...but doing that would create an entire segment of the population bent on questioning...and that would be highly inconvenient, especially those in their teens, since not only would they question, they would also be absolutely convinced that they knew the answers...:cool:

Because there are no societies existant that I know of that allow unsactioned slayings of other people.

Unless you know of such a society? If so please...the floor is yours....
Again I ask why a society would accept something it does not approve of … you seem to be arguing against the idea of a society not morality.

How can a society “Allow” something that it does not “Allow”

You are asking me to show society to sanction something it does not sanction. I dont see how that is possible

I can show you society allowing all sorts of different taking of human life’s But asking me to show you a society that sanctions something that is unsanctioned is contradictory in terms and rather silly

Because there are no societies existant that I know of that allow unsactioned slayings of other people.

Unless you know of such a society? If so please...the floor is yours....
No offense, but I think you might be missing the point.

'Sanctioned' or 'unsanctioned' are dependent upon the society in question. So if you say something like, 'killing someone because of their hair colour is always wrong', you are stating something as an absolute, universal truth. Clearly I'm making up an example here, don't go asking for proof that this actually is sanctioned anywhere:) If you say, "In our culture, and in the cultures of 'so and so', killing someone because of their hair colour is always wrong", then you would likely be correct. If interested, you could then point out the counterpoint to this..."In 'fictitional land', killings based on hair colour are sanctioned'".

So there is no society that allow unsanctioned slayings. But there is no absolute, universal definition of what is sanctioned and unsanctioned.

My god! If this keeps up, you might raise a nation of free thinkers! Disaster! :eek:
Or if current trends continue, a nation of non-thinkers. :(

Again I ask why a society would accept something it does not approve of … you seem to be arguing against the idea of a society not morality.

How can a society “Allow” something that it does not “Allow”

You are asking me to show society to sanction something it does not sanction. I dont see how that is possible

I can show you society allowing all sorts of different taking of human life’s But asking me to show you a society that sanctions something that is unsanctioned is contradictory in terms and rather silly

Twist & turn UpwardThrust...or have you forgotten whatever point is you were trying to make?

Twist & turn UpwardThrust...or have you forgotten whatever point is you were trying to make?
Not particularly but your request has become ludicrous and contradictory…

No offense, but I think you might be missing the point.

'Sanctioned' or 'unsanctioned' are dependent upon the society in question. So if you say something like, 'killing someone because of their hair colour is always wrong', you are stating something as an absolute, universal truth. Clearly I'm making up an example here, don't go asking for proof that this actually is sanctioned anywhere:) If you say, "In our culture, and in the cultures of 'so and so', killing someone because of their hair colour is always wrong", then you would likely be correct. If interested, you could then point out the counterpoint to this..."In 'fictitional land', killings based on hair colour are sanctioned'".

So there is no society that allow unsanctioned slayings. But there is no absolute, universal definition of what is sanctioned and unsanctioned.

So if you say something like, 'killing someone because of their hair colour is always wrong', you are stating something as an absolute, universal truth.

Well yes...have you also forgotten what was posted just a few pages ago? :)

I was asked to give an absolute...

Murder is wrong.

Then someone bleated about relevitism...well there is no relevitism as it is an absolute...

No society that I know of condones the unscantioned slaying of another human.

I think the issue here could be my use of the word unsanctioned.

If that is the case then I am sorry but you are in no position to discuss this. Not being nasty or rude but it is pretty fundemental....

Not particularly but your request has become ludicrous and contradictory…

OK .... please....re-read the thread or my post above this one....maybe it might offer some clarity for you.

So if you say something like, 'killing someone because of their hair colour is always wrong', you are stating something as an absolute, universal truth.

Well yes...have you also forgotten what was posted just a few pages ago? :)

I was asked to give an absolute...

Murder is wrong.

Then someone bleated about relevitism...well there is no relevitism as it is an absolute...

No society that I know of condones the unscantioned slaying of another human.

I think the issue here could be my use of the word unsanctioned.

If that is the case then I am sorry but you are in no position to discuss this. Not being nasty or rude but it is pretty fundemental....
Lol it is not her that is asking us to show a society that sanctions what it by definition does not sanction

Seems to be a pretty fundamental issue with your reasoning as well … not meant to be rude but maybe you are the one not in a position to discuss this

OK .... please....re-read the thread or my post above this one....maybe it might offer some clarity for you.
Have done so you again reiterate the example that murder is wrong

As murder by its very definition is dependant on society it is relative to said society by definition.

You asked me to show murder (by definition an unsanctioned event) is sanctioned by a society … that is contradictory at best, also a silly request.

Maybe you are choosing your words incorrectly and we are getting confused in that, but with a topic like this clarity is important.

So if you say something like, 'killing someone because of their hair colour is always wrong', you are stating something as an absolute, universal truth.

Well yes...have you also forgotten what was posted just a few pages ago? :)

I was asked to give an absolute...

Murder is wrong.

Then someone bleated about relevitism...well there is no relevitism as it is an absolute...

No society that I know of condones the unscantioned slaying of another human.

I think the issue here could be my use of the word unsanctioned.

If that is the case then I am sorry but you are in no position to discuss this. Not being nasty or rude but it is pretty fundemental....No society santions an unsanctioned killing. That is obvious, and redundant. That is the same as 'murder is wrong', but it doesn't tell the whole story, because what YOUR society defines as murder is not the definition of murder everywhere. I'm not sure why you can't see that, or exactly what point you think you are arguing?

Teaching kids 'murder is wrong' is really teaching them only a very truncated 'truth'. Unsanctioned killing is not sanctioned...but who sanctions what determines what is unsanctioned, what is murder. There is no universal definition of murder OTHER THAN "unsanctioned killing".

Unsanctioned killing is not enough of a definition, unless you happen to know what is sanctioned and what is not in every single society in existence.

No society santions an unsanctioned killing. That is obvious, and redundant. That is NOT the same as 'murder is wrong', because what YOUR society defines as murder is not the definition of murder everywhere. I'm not sure why you can't see that, or exactly what point you think you are arguing?
Exactly how can a society scansion what is by DEFFINITION unsanctioned

Lol it is not her that is asking us to show a society that sanctions what it by definition does not sanction

Seems to be a pretty fundamental issue with your reasoning as well … not meant to be rude but maybe you are the one not in a position to discuss this

Actually the issue lies with your reading comprehension.

Still I am sure it's not all your fault.

Now unless you have something useful to contribute to this thread...find a different thread to troll. Preferably not one of mine.

Actually the issue lies with your reading comprehension.

Still I am sure it's not all your fault.

Now unless you have something useful to contribute to this thread...find a different thread to troll. Preferably not one of mine.
Wow, you are getting incredibly rude, when really, you need to clarify yourself.

You state that 'murder is wrong' is an abosolute truth.

It is.

But it isn't a whole truth.

Can you concede that?

Actually the issue lies with your reading comprehension.

Still I am sure it's not all your fault.

Now unless you have something useful to contribute to this thread...find a different thread to troll. Preferably not one of mine.
I don’t and never have trolled … just pointing out the flaws in your argument … that’s what we do on a debate thread.

Well if morals are absolute prove it … show us and example of even one moral that is ABSOLUTE through ought history.
Do unto others as you would have done unto you. A universal basis of morality.

Murder is a term WAY to dependant on the society it is in. Hell what “Murder” actually is, is even relativistic to what society you are in (great example of moral relativism thank you)

As murder is the ILLEGAL taking of a human life and society determines what is Legal and not Legal it changes from society to society.
There isn't a universal agreement on what murder is, but social condemnation of murder is universal.

With moral relativism, the idea and doctrine of human rights goes down the toilet.

Self-defence is not universally sanctioned. A woman being raped may be justified in self-defence in some societies, but not in others. A person of a certain caste, class or race may not be socially justified in any sort of self-defence.
Do you think things like "self-defense rape" and separating people into classes and castes are just OK? Don't you think that such things shouldn't happen?

Do the victims of such systems not have rights?


Your kids are going to be taught to come home and say, "mum and dad, why did you fuck up the world?" and then your kids will set fire to your house, and your daughter will don a burka, and your son will leave for jihad.
Bit of a straw man there, DK.

That's not a fair comparison. Eutrusca can be quite profound in his own way some times, rather than simply preaching violently.
So can DK, though it's hard to believe when you see him type crap like that.

Do unto others as you would have done unto you. A universal basis of morality.
]
Yet we can see prime examples of society doing things like capital punishment to criminals ... they wish it done upon to them?


There isn't a universal agreement on what murder is, but social condemnation of murder is universal.

Well duh society does not allow what it does not allow … like Sin said redundant at best

With moral relativism, the idea and doctrine of human rights goes down the toilet.


No you can still use global socity as a basis that human rights is "Good"

Do you think things like "self-defense rape" and separating people into classes and castes are just OK? Don't you think that such things shouldn't happen?

Do the victims of such systems not have rights?



I think it can be showed that they are detramental to society and should not be allowed based on that rather then some un-provable un shown ancorage of "Morality"

Wow, you are getting incredibly rude, when really, you need to clarify yourself.

You state that 'murder is wrong' is an abosolute truth.

It is.

But it isn't a whole truth.

Can you concede that?

I am getting incredibly rude? Nah...this is minor rudeness :) But yes you are right...it is born of frustration as I think I have been consistant with my arguement in the entire thread so far and I would expect people who do want to debate the point (not that it can be debated as it is an absolute) actually have a grasp of the more technical terminology like sanctioned/unsanctioned.

Why should I concede something that has nothing to do with the original question?

I was asked to give an example of an absolute truth. An absolute truth is that murder is wrong.

In a society that does allow killing, then within the remit of that, you can kill as it is sanctioned by the mores of that society. Of course if you murder (kill outside of that sanction) you are wrong.

I thought this was pretty simple 101 stuff....???

Wow, you are getting incredibly rude, when really, you need to clarify yourself.

You state that 'murder is wrong' is an abosolute truth.

It is.

But it isn't a whole truth.

Can you concede that?

Part of the problem is that you two seem to be using different terminology. You are claiming that "Murder* is wrong" is a descriptive truth, applicable wherever any given society has codified what murder is. He is claiming a normative truth, that in any properly-constructed society, killing another for any reason except in self-defense or time of war would be considered wrong.

In that sense, I think that you are both right. It is certainly true, for instance, that tribes in the Middle East take a dim view on female sexual honor, and will kill women even in cases where she is raped. That is, at one level, the law of the tribe. I don't think it's a stretch, however, to say that the law in that case is wrong. You don't have to believe in the One and Holy God to think that. You don't have to believe in any God to believe that. You only have to believe that women are people, and that people have some fundamental or contingent dignity that said law is not respecting.

I don’t and never have trolled … just pointing out the flaws in your argument … that’s what we do on a debate thread.

Ok...I was trying to drive the point home that you are not discussing...all you are doing is obfuscating.

I am getting incredibly rude? Nah...this is minor rudeness :) But yes you are right...it is born of frustration as I think I have been consistant with my arguement in the entire thread so far and I would expect people who do want to debate the point (not that it can be debated as it is an absolute) actually have a grasp of the more technical terminology like sanctioned/unsanctioned.

Why should I concede something that has nothing to do with the original question?

I was asked to give an example of an absolute truth. An absolute truth is that murder is wrong.

In a society that does allow killing, then within the remit of that, you can kill as it is sanctioned by the mores of that society. Of course if you murder (kill outside of that sanction) you are wrong.

I thought this was pretty simple 101 stuff....???

Ok I see where you are going with this rather then “Murder is wrong” you are taking it as a definitional absolute rather then a Moral one … which is different then what I was picking up

Then yes by definition Murder is not allowed as society can not sanctioned the unsanctioned.

Do unto others as you would have done unto you. A universal basis of morality.
But that tells you very little. It's as vague as saying, "doing wrong is bad and this is a universal truth".

There isn't a universal agreement on what murder is, but social condemnation of murder is universal.

With moral relativism, the idea and doctrine of human rights goes down the toilet.I'm not particularly into moral relativism, though I am not particularly into a universal truth either, because inevitably, what is deemed 'universal' is actually the imposition of one's culture over all others, and what is 'universal' is often no such thing at all... moral relativism disguised as absolutes...


Do you think things like "self-defense rape" and separating people into classes and castes are just OK? Don't you think that such things shouldn't happen? I am against these things, yes...but that doesn't mean that other societies are. We need to be very careful about what we condemn as 'evil' or 'wrong' without actually understanding the issue well enough. Telling people to change NOW is not an option. Else gay marriage would be enjoyed in every state in the US, had I the power to make it so:)

Do the victims of such systems not have rights?Not necessarily under that system. That's the point. People are quick to condemn that which is foreign or 'alien', and ignore the own injustice in their backyard. To me, that is foolish. To claim that 'we sanction these actions' and that makes those actions universally 'good' is not enough. Saying, 'we sanction these killings, therefore these killings aren't murder' isn't good enough...whether we're discussing capital punishment or the beheading of 'infidels'. Don't oversimplify with cheesy maxims and commandments...they never tell the whole story.

Right and wrong are not black and white, cut and dry, set in stone.

Right and wrong are not black and white, cut and dry, set in stone.

So, there's a society that would welcome serial killers to prey upon children in their society at random?

I am getting incredibly rude? Nah...this is minor rudeness :) But yes you are right...it is born of frustration as I think I have been consistant with my arguement in the entire thread so far and I would expect people who do want to debate the point (not that it can be debated as it is an absolute) actually have a grasp of the more technical terminology like sanctioned/unsanctioned.

Why should I concede something that has nothing to do with the original question?

I was asked to give an example of an absolute truth. An absolute truth is that murder is wrong.

In a society that does allow killing, then within the remit of that, you can kill as it is sanctioned by the mores of that society. Of course if you murder (kill outside of that sanction) you are wrong.

I thought this was pretty simple 101 stuff....???
Forgive us for wanting to go in depth on the concept of 'absolute truth'. What you have stated as 'absolute' is only 'absolute' if you don't probe beneath the surface of that whatsoever. So I question just how 'absolute' that can be. Don't you?

Murder is wrong.

What we don't call murder is okay.

That's absolute?

So, there's a society that would welcome serial killers to prey upon children in their society at random?
How about pedophiles?

It's a booming tourism industry in many nations...

No society santions an unsanctioned killing. That is obvious, and redundant. That is the same as 'murder is wrong', but it doesn't tell the whole story, because what YOUR society defines as murder is not the definition of murder everywhere. I'm not sure why you can't see that, or exactly what point you think you are arguing?
The point is, I believe, that there is no society on earth which says that it's OK to kill people if it's in your interests. All of them have some form of limit on how much killing is OK. No society lacks regulation in that regard. All of them have an idea of murder.

Unsanctioned killing is not enough of a definition, unless you happen to know what is sanctioned and what is not in every single society in existence.
Yes, which is why there must be agreement on what killing we can sanction and what not. I would prefer to sanction no killing at all. No death penalty, no abortion, no war, no "self-defense killing", nothing.

If everyone followed the above, this would be a better world.

Ok I see where you are going with this rather then “Murder is wrong” you are taking it as a definitional absolute rather then a Moral one … which is different then what I was picking up

Then yes by definition Murder is not allowed as society can not sanctioned the unsanctioned.

:) ok...can we start afresh then ? :)

I hope you understand my frustration...

As far as I know there are no societies that allow unsanctioned murder.

Maybe I should have said that instead of just 'murder is wrong'.

Ok...I was trying to drive the point home that you are not discussing...all you are doing is obfuscating.
Not particularly trying to

:) ok...can we start afresh then ? :)

I hope you understand my frustration...

As far as I know there are no societies that allow unsanctioned murder.

Maybe I should have said that instead of just 'murder is wrong'.
I know in my case, it isn't just an issue with definitions, it's a desire to dig into it a bit deeper...you see...I actually do want to find a universal truth that could be universally agreed upon (not sure if it's possibly), but 'murder is wrong' isn't enough in my mind, because what is classified as 'murder' varies, society to society.

If that's going too in depth for this thread, that's fine, I'll desist:)

The Government isn't really serious about trying to get this drivel through the House of Commons, let alone the House of Lords, is it?

:) ok...can we start afresh then ? :)

I hope you understand my frustration...

As far as I know there are no societies that allow unsanctioned murder.

Maybe I should have said that instead of just 'murder is wrong'.
Ok before we get into it again maybe a correction or clarification "no societies that allow unsanctioned killing"

Hell we could just change it to "No societies that allow an unsanctioned event" to clear up all the issues with "Murder" in itself being an unsanctioned event by deffinition

Forgive us for wanting to go in depth on the concept of 'absolute truth'. What you have stated as 'absolute' is only 'absolute' if you don't probe beneath the surface of that whatsoever. So I question just how 'absolute' that can be. Don't you?

Murder is wrong.

What we don't call murder is okay.

That's absolute?

I have no issue with going in depth with regard to absolutes bearing in mind that the basis of this is moral relevitism as applied by the proposal detailed in the original article.

The question was asked if I could name one absolute....well unsanctioned murder is univerally reviled and is (within that) an absolute.

Ok before we get into it again maybe a correction or clarification "no societies that allow unsanctioned killing"

Hell we could just change it to "No societies that allow an unsanctioned event" to clear up all the issues with "Murder" in itself being an unsanctioned event by deffinition

Ahh no....murder can also be sanctioned...state executions to war...

Yes some clarifiction is needed but I do think we are getting away from the moral relevitism issue...

I know in my case, it isn't just an issue with definitions, it's a desire to dig into it a bit deeper...you see...I actually do want to find a universal truth that could be universally agreed upon (not sure if it's possibly), but 'murder is wrong' isn't enough in my mind, because what is classified as 'murder' varies, society to society.

If that's going too in depth for this thread, that's fine, I'll desist:)

No...I think now we have had the first spat we can settle down and debate this....

I know I do not have the answers by a long shot...

I do understand though...the need to dig into the issue....but this really is just a side show to the moral relevitism issue...

Ahh no....murder can also be sanctioned...state executions to war...

Yes some clarifiction is needed but I do think we are getting away from the moral relevitism issue...
How can society scansion an event that is not legal? Murder can NEVER by its definition be sanctioned by society. If it is sanctioned it is no longer Murder as it would be legal.

You can scansion the killing of a human … if it is unsanctioned killing it is murder if it is sanctioned killing it is not murder.

Not particularly trying to

No...our subsequent posts show that what I said was unwarranted.

apologies...

How can society scansion an event that is not legal? Murder can NEVER by its definition be sanctioned by society. If it is sanctioned it is no longer Murder as it would be legal.

You can scansion the killing of a human … if it is unsanctioned killing it is murder if it is sanctioned killing it is not murder.

Yeah...this is where things start to fall apart LOL

Serious -

If the state/society allows sanctioned murder (I perfer the term killing) then it does become an issue of morality.

However the unsactioned murder of another human as being wrong is unversally deemed as wrong as far as I am aware.

I think both statements are valid....

How can society scansion an event that is not legal? Murder can NEVER by its definition be sanctioned by society. If it is sanctioned it is no longer Murder as it would be legal.

You can scansion the killing of a human … if it is unsanctioned killing it is murder if it is sanctioned killing it is not murder.

Yeah...this is where things start to fall apart LOL

Serious -

If the state/society allows sanctioned murder (I perfer the term killing) then it does become an issue of morality.

However the unsactioned murder of another human as being wrong is unversally deemed as wrong as far as I am aware.

I think both statements are valid....

But that tells you very little. It's as vague as saying, "doing wrong is bad and this is a universal truth".
Not really. Before you do something, think "would I be OK with someone else doing this to me". It doesn't need to be any more complicated than that. Every major religion agrees with it.

I'm not particularly into moral relativism, though I am not particularly into a universal truth either, because inevitably, what is deemed 'universal' is actually the imposition of one's culture over all others, and what is 'universal' is often no such thing at all... moral relativism disguised as absolutes...
I'm not particularly into micromanaging the cultures of other people, but I believe that there should be a rule of universal human rights. I've not been slogging away for Amnesty International for years with no purpose.

I am against these things, yes...but that doesn't mean that other societies are. We need to be very careful about what we condemn as 'evil' or 'wrong' without actually understanding the issue well enough.
What possible justification could there be for punitive rapings, honour killings or FGM?

Telling people to change NOW is not an option.
I agree, that's unrealistic.

Else gay marriage would be enjoyed in every state in the US, had I the power to make it so :)
Same here, so you are not OK with Americans being against gay marriage, but you are OK with Pashtun Pakistanis using rape as a punishment for non-crimes.

Not necessarily under that system. That's the point. People are quick to condemn that which is foreign or 'alien', and ignore the own injustice in their backyard. To me, that is foolish.
I think we should try to eliminate injustice both at home and abroad.

Yeah...this is where things start to fall apart LOL

Serious -

If the state/society allows sanctioned murder (I perfer the term killing) then it does become an issue of morality.

However the unsactioned murder of another human as being wrong is unversally deemed as wrong as far as I am aware.

I think both statements are valid....
Killing IS the correct term so might as well use it sanctioned “murder” is not “murder” it is just killing

Either way we are to this point is that morality or just the definition of society … choosing to allow or not allow certain things.

Same here, so you are not OK with Americans being against gay marriage, but you are OK with Pashtun Pakistanis using rape as a punishment for non-crimes. No, nor did I ever say I was 'okay' with such things.

What I'm not okay with is the people in power who decide what is right, and what is wrong, because those judgements are almost always based on personal or societal morality, and not any sort of universal concept of 'right and wrong'. Hence, abstinence education is 'right', deporting Canadian citizens to be tortured in Syria is 'right', but some consensual adult relationships are 'wrong', etc etc etc.


I think we should try to eliminate injustice both at home and abroad.
Sure.

But who determines what is injust? This is my sticking point.

Killing IS the correct term so might as well use it sanctioned “murder” is not “murder” it is just killing

Either way we are to this point is that morality or just the definition of society … choosing to allow or not allow certain things.

Yes but there is also the absolute truth that unsanctioned killing is reviled by all societies that I know of...

How does this impact on moral relevitism?

Moral relativism determines what is sanctioned and what is not.

Here's your situation:

You're a teacher.

A student in your class is recently from Afghanistan, where his family used to be Taliban.

The young man is 14 years old, and will not listen to you, because you are a woman.

He is mightily offended by the dress and manner of women and girls at the school. So is his father.

The father speaks to the school administration (being careful only to talk to a man), and demands that the women be punished.

Are you, or is anyone in the school system, going to tell him that they are "wrong" for believing such a way of life would apply in Canada?

Yes but there is also the absolute truth that unsanctioned killing is reviled by all societies that I know of...

How does this impact on moral relevitism?
Moral relativism holds that there is no universal truth and that everything depends on societal mores. There are no universal standards that we can all point to and say are unwaveringly, absolutely, and universally true. We might, collectively, be able to agree on a few points, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

If 'murder' is defined by a society, then the absolute applies only to the term, and not to the actual taking of a life.

Here's your situation:

You're a teacher.

A student in your class is recently from Afghanistan, where his family used to be Taliban.

The young man is 14 years old, and will not listen to you, because you are a woman.

He is mightily offended by the dress and manner of women and girls at the school. So is his father.

The father speaks to the school administration (being careful only to talk to a man), and demands that the women be punished.

Are you, or is anyone in the school system, going to tell him that they are "wrong" for believing such a way of life would apply in Canada?

They defiantly can be wrong in reference to society … what he is doing is not acceptable by that society’s standards that makes him wrong in that case.

Here's your situation:

You're a teacher.

A student in your class is recently from Afghanistan, where his family used to be Taliban.

The young man is 14 years old, and will not listen to you, because you are a woman.

He is mightily offended by the dress and manner of women and girls at the school. So is his father.

The father speaks to the school administration (being careful only to talk to a man), and demands that the women be punished.

Are you, or is anyone in the school system, going to tell him that they are "wrong" for believing such a way of life would apply in Canada?
Your situation has nothing to do with the current conversation. Clearly, the rules of the society are going to prevail...but claiming that wanting women to dress a certain way is universally 'wrong' is false.

Again, teach, 'this is right and wrong for us, in our society'. Don't teach, 'this is right and wrong for everyone in every society', unless you can actually find a universal truth you are able to articulate well enough.

What I'm not okay with is the people in power who decide what is right, and what is wrong, because those judgements are almost always based on personal or societal morality, and not any sort of universal concept of 'right and wrong'. Hence, abstinence education is 'right', deporting Canadian citizens to be tortured in Syria is 'right', but some consensual adult relationships are 'wrong', etc etc etc.
So your problem is that you don't agree with the morality of the people in power in the US government (I assume that this is the government you're talking about).

Sure.

But who determines what is injust? This is my sticking point.
How can you possibly agree with me, or have any political opinions of your own at all, if you have no certainty about principles of justice?

Again, teach, 'this is right and wrong for us, in our society'. Don't teach, 'this is right and wrong for everyone in every society', unless you can actually find a universal truth you are able to articulate well enough.
What about human rights?

Moral relativism holds that there is no universal truth and that everything depends on societal mores. There are no universal standards that we can all point to and say are unwaveringly, absolutely, and universally true. We might, collectively, be able to agree on a few points, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

If 'murder' is defined by a society, then the absolute applies only to the term, and not to the actual taking of a life.

And this is why moral relevitism is fit for purpose as there are universal standards.

And why what is proposed in the article is wrong.

Yes but there is also the absolute truth that unsanctioned killing is reviled by all societies that I know of...

How does this impact on moral relevitism?
It doesn’t really it says a lot of people think killing is bad therefore regulates what is and is not acceptable killing policies. Its rather important for societies which shows that it is maybe of benefit to said society to regulate it.

A more appropriate question is there a society that sanctions every form of killing … that is a different question ( one that I am going to spend some time doing the research for right now lol interesting stuff)

But in the end you don’t have to go to the most extreme to show that there are “Morals” that are different between every society

Everything from pre-marital sex to homosexuality to incest is different in different societies

Now how does that reflect on absolute morality?

Your situation has nothing to do with the current conversation. Clearly, the rules of the society are going to prevail...but claiming that wanting women to dress a certain way is universally 'wrong' is false.

Again, teach, 'this is right and wrong for us, in our society'. Don't teach, 'this is right and wrong for everyone in every society', unless you can actually find a universal truth you are able to articulate well enough.

But the new standards posed in the OP say that you won't be able to tell them they are wrong in any sense.

Everything from pre-marital sex to homosexuality to incest is different in different societies
lol, this group of example issues hardly cover "everything"! You just listed a few sex-based issues.

lol, this group of example issues hardly cover "everything"! You just listed a few sex-based issues.
No but sex seems to be such a morally trod upon example that I figured I would use it

Sexual practices are deeply ingrained in with people find “right” or wrong… yet people thought time have found a lot of said things to be right or wrong.

If you want different examples look at land ownership by native Americans was found to be morally wrong to possess something that belonged to everyone … yet by our morals today land ownership is perfectly acceptable.

If you say morals are absolute, which are? And what makes them absolute rather then popular?

It doesn’t really it says a lot of people think killing is bad therefore regulates what is and is not acceptable killing policies. Its rather important for societies which shows that it is maybe of benefit to said society to regulate it.

A more appropriate question is there a society that sanctions every form of killing … that is a different question ( one that I am going to spend some time doing the research for right now lol interesting stuff)

But in the end you don’t have to go to the most extreme to show that there are “Morals” that are different between every society

Everything from pre-marital sex to homosexuality to incest is different in different societies

Now how does that reflect on absolute morality?

But morals cannot be absolute as societies evolve/de-volve....truth however....can be abolute...?

As for a society that sanctions every form of killing...well as I cannot find one that accepts unsanctioned killing I am not sure you will be successfull...

hmmmm surely these issues of moral/truth/relevitism and absolutes cannot be so complicated? LOL!

So your problem is that you don't agree with the morality of the people in power in the US government (I assume that this is the government you're talking about). No. I question the 'morality' of any and all governments.


How can you possibly agree with me, or have any political opinions of your own at all, if you have no certainty about principles of justice? I'm sorry if I'm not making this clear enough. I absolutely have 'principles of justice' that are absolute and certain in my mind. But so does everyone else. Some people will not agree with my principles, just as I will not agree with theirs. Who gets to implement their principles? The people in power. Being in power doesn't mean they are right. My issue is not that there are absolutely no things that are right or wrong...simply that what is commonly defined as 'right or wrong' are not in fact absolutes, but subjective, societally or personally based, depending on who is in power.


What about human rights?What about them? Just like saying 'murder is wrong', many human rights are phrased in a simplistic manner, that do not really delve into the issues. Or the definitions are contested...the article on torture is one example.

What is 'murder', what is 'torture', what is 'cruel and inhumane'? All of these definitions are defined by societies in different ways. Do you claim to have a universal definition?

And this is why moral relevitism is fit for purpose as there are universal standards.

And why what is proposed in the article is wrong.
What are these universal standards?

hmmmm surely these issues of moral/truth/relevitism and absolutes cannot be so complicated? LOL!
They absolutely are;)

What are these universal standards?

Originally Posted by Rubiconic Crossings
And this is why moral relevitism is not fit for purpose as there are universal standards.

And why what is proposed in the article is wrong.
------------------------------------------------

My mistake...I forgot to put not in the post....

Well one universal standard is that no society allows unsanctioned killing.

Another could well be that societies must co-operate to survive as a society...??

They absolutely are;)
*groans* that was horrible

They absolutely are;)

LOL yeah....I walked right into that one huh? LOL :)

Well if morals are absolute prove it … show us and example of even one moral that is ABSOLUTE through ought history.
#1; Only liberals think in absolutes. Why does everything have to be so extreme with you? There are exceptions to everything, but not everything is the exception. Are you too primitive to understand that concept? Are you an animal? Do you need to be locked in a cage because you can't understand right and wrong? Explain it to me..

#2; We hold no responsibility to prove anything to you Stalin.:upyours:

#1; Only liberals think in absolutes. Why does everything have to be so extreme with you? There are exceptions to everything, but not everything is the exception. Are you too primitive to understand that concept? Are you an animal? Do you need to be locked in a cage because you can't understand right and wrong? Explain it to me..

#2; We hold no responsibility to prove anything to you Stalin.:upyours:
Lol you got to be kidding me what’s with the Stalin reference?

So basically you have said that you have no proof and no examples and failed to provide anything … good job at arguing nothing lol

Lol you got to be kidding me what’s with the Stalin reference?

So basically you have said that you have no proof and no examples and failed to provide anything … good job at arguing nothing lol
Don't feed the troll.

Don't feed the troll.
You are right I should know better …

So basically you have said that you have no proof and no examples and failed to provide anything … good job at arguing nothing lol
That's your problem troll, I'm not going to argue with you. If you can't understand my simple concept (which apparently you cannot as you completely ignored it) then there's nothing more to discuss. You're infrior to me, and you need to be in a zoo. I believe in evolution, and genes like your's are stunting productivity..

I'm not saying it again on how morals are not absolute but they aren't just "differant cultures" either. I said it once, that's enough. You either can re-read my first post and think about it for a while. Or I can get a taser, hogtie you, and put you up on my wall.

Originally Posted by Rubiconic Crossings
And this is why moral relevitism is not fit for purpose as there are universal standards.

And why what is proposed in the article is wrong.
------------------------------------------------

My mistake...I forgot to put not in the post....

Well one universal standard is that no society allows unsanctioned killing.

Another could well be that societies must co-operate to survive as a society...??
*bangs head against wall*

I thought we had gotten to the point where 'no society allows unsanctioned killing' was recognised as not being good enough for a 'universal truth', since it doesn't really tell us what is sanctioned, and what isn't? I mean, if you want your kids to know when killing is right and wrong, do you really want to leave it up to 'it's right and wrong depending on the society you live in'? Isn't there something outside of that? Isn't there something deeper than just 'society determines what is sanctioned and what is not'???

#1; Only liberals think in absolutes. Why does everything have to be so extreme with you? There are exceptions to everything, but not everything is the exception. Are you too primitive to understand that concept? Are you an animal? Do you need to be locked in a cage because you can't understand right and wrong? Explain it to me..

#2; We hold no responsibility to prove anything to you Stalin.:upyours:

Unless you have something valid to say go away please.

*groans* that was horrible
I aim to please...;)

#1; Only liberals think in absolutes. Why does everything have to be so extreme with you? There are exceptions to everything, but not everything is the exception. Are you too primitive to understand that concept? Are you an animal? Do you need to be locked in a cage because you can't understand right and wrong? Explain it to me..

#2; We hold no responsibility to prove anything to you Stalin.:upyours:
Weren't you recently given a forum-ban for exactly this type of posting?

I'm sorry if I'm not making this clear enough. I absolutely have 'principles of justice' that are absolute and certain in my mind. But so does everyone else.
Why have any principles of justice if you don't want to see them implemented because people might disagree with them?

What about them? Just like saying 'murder is wrong', many human rights are phrased in a simplistic manner, that do not really delve into the issues. Or the definitions are contested...the article on torture is one example.

What is 'murder', what is 'torture', what is 'cruel and inhumane'? All of these definitions are defined by societies in different ways. Do you claim to have a universal definition?
http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm

Unless you have something valid to say go away please.
He wont … but I wont respond so don’t worry we can continue without need to derail the real discussion

Right and wrong, in the western cultural sense, must indeed be taught to students. Basic things like "don't kill people because they disagree with you" "think for yourself" "individuals do indeed have rights". If schools teach those basic things as relative, well, that's not going to be a good idea.
Hear hear!

*bangs head against wall*

I thought we had gotten to the point where 'no society allows unsanctioned killing' was recognised as not being good enough for a 'universal truth', since it doesn't really tell us what is sanctioned, and what isn't? I mean, if you want your kids to know when killing is right and wrong, do you really want to leave it up to 'it's right and wrong depending on the society you live in'? Isn't there something outside of that? Isn't there something deeper than just 'society determines what is sanctioned and what is not'???

I read it the other way around! LOL That there is at least one universal truth....that unsanctioned killing is wrong.

I mean, if you want your kids to know when killing is right and wrong, do you really want to leave it up to 'it's right and wrong depending on the society you live in'?

Yes...that is exactly the problem with the idea of not teaching right from wrong...why moral relevitism is not fit for purpose.

Is there something deeper? I think there is....otherwise we would not have an absolute truth in that there are no societies that think unsanctioned killing is acceptable.

Told you this gets confusing....its your pennance for that awfull joke :)

Why have any principles of justice if you don't want to see them implemented because people might disagree with them? Who said I didn't want them implemented?


http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm
Quoting the UN Declaration of Human Rights doesn't answer my question.

You haven't defined torture, you haven't defined cruel and inhumane, you haven't defined murder. All you've done is said you believe these things to be bad, as do I.

But bad under what definition? How do we know we're discussing the same thing?

Your situation has nothing to do with the current conversation. Clearly, the rules of the society are going to prevail...but claiming that wanting women to dress a certain way is universally 'wrong' is false.

Again, teach, 'this is right and wrong for us, in our society'. Don't teach, 'this is right and wrong for everyone in every society', unless you can actually find a universal truth you are able to articulate well enough.

Okay, I'll bite.

Suppose, just for the sake of argument, that Canada had outlawed FGM and the U.S. allowed it. You live in a city along the border; in point of fact, you and your neighbor live less than 20 feet from the border. Your neighbor is preparing to circumsize his little girl. You point out that under Canadian law, his practice is illegal. He moves 20 feet to the south, into U.S. territory, where FGM is legal.

Your question: did that 20 foot move suddenly make cutting off that little girl's clitoris okay? If not, how far would he have to walk to make it perfectly good for him to cut off his daughter's clitoris and labia minora? 100 feet? A mile? Ten miles? Maybe he has to increase or decrease his elevation? Where is the geographical limit for you, Sinuhue? I ask because by your definition of morality, morality being defined purely by geographically-constrained cultures, morality is therefore purely dependent upon control of a geographic region by a culture; ergo, morality is dependent upon geography.

I read it the other way around! LOL That there is at least one universal truth....that unsanctioned killing is wrong.

I mean, if you want your kids to know when killing is right and wrong, do you really want to leave it up to 'it's right and wrong depending on the society you live in'?

Yes...that is exactly the problem with the idea of not teaching right from wrong...why moral relevitism is not fit for purpose.

Is there something deeper? I think there is....otherwise we would not have an absolute truth in that there are no societies that think unsanctioned killing is acceptable.

Told you this gets confusing....its your pennance for that awfull joke :)

Can an un-sanctioned killing ever be right “within” the realm of a society? If it was “Right” according to that society would it not be sanctioned rather then unsanctioned”

Who said I didn't want them implemented?
If you do, then you're answering your own question of "who gets to decide what's justice?" with "Me."

Quoting the UN Declaration of Human Rights doesn't answer my question.

You haven't defined torture, you haven't defined cruel and inhumane, you haven't defined murder. All you've done is said you believe these things to be bad, as do I.
Then we people in the world must talk about it and come to a conclusion about what the definitions are.

Frankly I put more trust in Europe and Canada to do that rather than Asia, the USA, South America, Middle East or Africa.

Weren't you recently given a forum-ban for exactly this type of posting?
Yes, I gave him a week-long one which just expired. It has been renewed.

I ask because by your definition of morality, morality being defined purely by geographically-constrained cultures, morality is therefore purely dependent upon control of a geographic region by a culture; ergo, morality is dependent upon geography.
First of all people, let me point out that the majority of you are misunderstanding my point, and assuming that I am championing moral relativism; that I believe that what is wrong somewhere is right somewhere else. That's not the case. I believe that certain things are right or wrong, regardless of where they are happening.

What I have been trying to point out is that the trite statement that 'this is wrong' is simply not enough, and I hope you look into it better. "Murder is wrong" isn't enough, if the definition of murder is based on society's definition of such. If you do not have a clear-cut definition of what murder is, regardless of the society it is practiced in, then you are only saying that what is deemed murder is wrong, and what is deemed murder can vary, and that's fine. It isn't fine.

My point is, yes, morality is dependent on geography, and it will continue to be so unless you actually have a deeper understanding of what you are talking about.

Society phrases it's morality in slippery ways. It says 'this is wrong', and proceeds to commit that wrong, but in a sanctioned manner because it fudges the definitions. So suddenly, torture isn't torture, it's interrogation, and lawful. Murder isn't murder, it's execution, and lawful.

I also question the concept that what you consider to be universally true is the universal truth. Private property is a prime example. My people do not believe in private property...were we as a people living in a state of human rights violations because of it? We champion communal property...which one of us is right? You? Us? Who decides? I don't believe in God, so it can't come from there? Where are you going to get your universality from if what you believe is based on your own beliefs, and perhaps the shared beliefs of others? How are you going to prove universality in that situation? How are you going to tell me that you have some objective 'truth' you can fall back on?

We as a species can agree on certain things, but I believe that agreement comes from within us, not from without...and universality is entirely dependent upon us and our existence.

Can an un-sanctioned killing ever be right “within” the realm of a society? If it was “Right” according to that society would it not be sanctioned rather then unsanctioned”

Exactly!

100% spot on!

And I am glad Mr. T. Grace took care of that troll :)

First of all people, let me point out that the majority of you are misunderstanding my point, and assuming that I am championing moral relativism; that I believe that what is wrong somewhere is right somewhere else. That's not the case. I believe that certain things are right or wrong, regardless of where they are happening.

What I have been trying to point out is that the trite statement that 'this is wrong' is simply not enough, and I hope you look into it better. "Murder is wrong" isn't enough, if the definition of murder is based on society's definition of such. If you do not have a clear-cut definition of what murder is, regardless of the society it is practiced in, then you are only saying that what is deemed murder is wrong, and what is deemed murder can vary, and that's fine. It isn't fine.

My point is, yes, morality is dependent on geography, and it will continue to be so unless you actually have a deeper understanding of what you are talking about.

Society phrases it's morality in slippery ways. It says 'this is wrong', and proceeds to commit that wrong, but in a sanctioned manner because it fudges the definitions. So suddenly, torture isn't torture, it's interrogation, and lawful. Murder isn't murder, it's execution, and lawful.

I also question the concept that what you consider to be universally true is the universal truth. Private property is a prime example. My people do not believe in private property...were we as a people living in a state of human rights violations because of it? We champion communal property...which one of us is right? You? Us? Who decides? I don't believe in God, so it can't come from there? Where are you going to get your universality from if what you believe is based on your own beliefs, and perhaps the shared beliefs of others? How are you going to prove universality in that situation? How are you going to tell me that you have some objective 'truth' you can fall back on?

We as a species can agree on certain things, but I believe that agreement comes from within us, not from without...and universality is entirely dependent upon us and our existence.

Very well put!

And I should have been more specific rather than to have made my 'off the cuff' remark regarding murder is wrong.

Exactly!

100% spot on!

And I am glad Mr. T. Grace took care of that troll :)
So we are back to not proving absolute morals rather proving that our definitions are in fact definitions.

So at this level we have said that society has said what it thinks is right is allowed and what it does not think is right is not allowed (which is the function of society). We have not shown that what society thinks is right or wrong is ABSOLUTLY right or wrong. In some broader frame of reference

Very well put!

And I should have been more specific rather than to have made my 'off the cuff' remark regarding murder is wrong.
Oh no, I freely admit that I've taken this further than the scope of the original topic likely intended (and you'd know, being the OP:)), and again, if this is going too deep into it, I have no trouble backing off...it's just that I find the subject fascinating, and I've had students really probe deeply into what 'universal truths' do in fact exist. It helps to analyse this a little...or say, 'let me think about it and I'll get back to you' rather than just sticking with something that doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

First of all people, let me point out that the majority of you are misunderstanding my point, and assuming that I am championing moral relativism; that I believe that what is wrong somewhere is right somewhere else. That's not the case. I believe that certain things are right or wrong, regardless of where they are happening.

What I have been trying to point out is that the trite statement that 'this is wrong' is simply not enough, and I hope you look into it better. "Murder is wrong" isn't enough, if the definition of murder is based on society's definition of such. If you do not have a clear-cut definition of what murder is, regardless of the society it is practiced in, then you are only saying that what is deemed murder is wrong, and what is deemed murder can vary, and that's fine. It isn't fine.

My point is, yes, morality is dependent on geography, and it will continue to be so unless you actually have a deeper understanding of what you are talking about.

Society phrases it's morality in slippery ways. It says 'this is wrong', and proceeds to commit that wrong, but in a sanctioned manner because it fudges the definitions. So suddenly, torture isn't torture, it's interrogation, and lawful. Murder isn't murder, it's execution, and lawful.

I also question the concept that what you consider to be universally true is the universal truth. Private property is a prime example. My people do not believe in private property...were we as a people living in a state of human rights violations because of it? We champion communal property...which one of us is right? You? Us? Who decides? I don't believe in God, so it can't come from there? Where are you going to get your universality from if what you believe is based on your own beliefs, and perhaps the shared beliefs of others? How are you going to prove universality in that situation? How are you going to tell me that you have some objective 'truth' you can fall back on?

We as a species can agree on certain things, but I believe that agreement comes from within us, not from without...and universality is entirely dependent upon us and our existence.
Well said and agreed

So we are back to not proving absolute morals rather proving that our definitions are in fact definitions.

So at this level we have said that society has said what it thinks is right is allowed and what it does not think is right is not allowed (which is the function of society). We have not shown that what society thinks is right or wrong is ABSOLUTLY right or wrong. In some broader frame of reference
Right.

I don't think enough has been done to really close the 'loopholes' in terms of human rights (is this my lawyer brain already forming? Someone shoot me now). But human rights law is notoriously easy to slip out of because of issues with definitions. In essence, I believe that a 'universal morality' would in fact simply be a 'global society' framing its morality. I'm not necessarily against that, but I am leery about what gets included, and what gets excluded.

So we are back to not proving absolute morals rather proving that our definitions are in fact definitions.

So at this level we have said that society has said what it thinks is right is allowed and what it does not think is right is not allowed (which is the function of society). We have not shown that what society thinks is right or wrong is ABSOLUTLY right or wrong. In some broader frame of reference

You are using a term with which I am not altogether familiar with....absolute morals...

As morals can change as a society changes the term holds no meaning as far as I (in my uneducated state) can see.

There are abosolute truths though....and one of those is that unsanctioned killing is wrong.

Or am I being particularly obtuse and missing something?

Oh no, I freely admit that I've taken this further than the scope of the original topic likely intended (and you'd know, being the OP:)), and again, if this is going too deep into it, I have no trouble backing off...it's just that I find the subject fascinating, and I've had students really probe deeply into what 'universal truths' do in fact exist. It helps to analyse this a little...or say, 'let me think about it and I'll get back to you' rather than just sticking with something that doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

Well everything must be questioned so I have no problem with this at all.

Also the conversation/debate has taken a road I did not expect to have travelled so its all good!

Students? You are a lecturer or teacher? Sorry...none of my biz...

I'm just a digital prostitute (IT contractor) so deep philosophical debates rarely happen in my sphere so to speak...so please forgive if I get a bit convoluted...

I can write business cases for porject initiations until the cows come home but that does not require proper thinking....this thread however...is a different matter and I appreciate the time you and the others have taken to keep this on an even keel :)

The only universal truth I can think of is the one of killing. Maybe that is an ultimate truth?

There are abosolute truths though....and one of those is that unsanctioned killing is wrong.

Or am I being particularly obtuse and missing something?
Only that...if a society sanctions a killing, that doesn't necessarily mean the killing is just.

Well everything must be questioned so I have no problem with this at all.

Also the conversation/debate has taken a road I did not expect to have travelled so its all good!

Students? You are a lecturer or teacher? Sorry...none of my biz...

I'm just a digital prostitute (IT contractor) so deep philosophical debates rarely happen in my sphere so to speak...so please forgive if I get a bit convoluted...

I can write business cases for porject initiations until the cows come home but that does not require proper thinking....this thread however...is a different matter and I appreciate the time you and the others have taken to keep this on an even keel :)

The only universal truth I can think of is the one of killing. Maybe that is an ultimate truth?Teacher, about to enter the study of Law.

How would you phrase your ultimate truth about killing? That all killing is wrong, regardless of the circumstances? (rules out self-defence) Or that it is wrong if it is unsanctioned? (introduces possibility of unjust sanctioned killings) That killing humans is wrong? (ruling out killing of animals, plants, etc...also raises issues of 'when is a foetus a human bleh, let's not go there) You see, I'm not being intentionally convoluted, but kids probe at these things, and it's good to consider them. At some point, you examine your own beliefs, and you decide...is this right, or is this wrong, according to my beliefs? Trying to phrase those beliefs is an important part of understanding them...even if you never really succeed in phrasing them perfectly.

Only that...if a society sanctions a killing, that doesn't necessarily mean the killing is just.

Yeah...and that is where morality comes in.

Morality only has a part to play in something that is defined by society...of that I am quite certain....

Outside of that area all I can say is that looking at all societies one must consider the everpresent theme as being an ultimate truth....?

Murder is a term WAY to dependant on the society it is in. Hell what “Murder” actually is, is even relativistic to what society you are in (great example of moral relativism thank you)

As murder is the ILLEGAL taking of a human life and society determines what is Legal and not Legal it changes from society to society.

Though this all starts to get muddied with ethics rather then morals … its really interesting seeing how the definition changes through the years.


More muddled in the halls of academia than on the streets where it happens I think.

First of all people, let me point out that the majority of you are misunderstanding my point, and assuming that I am championing moral relativism; that I believe that what is wrong somewhere is right somewhere else. That's not the case. I believe that certain things are right or wrong, regardless of where they are happening.

What I have been trying to point out is that the trite statement that 'this is wrong' is simply not enough, and I hope you look into it better. "Murder is wrong" isn't enough, if the definition of murder is based on society's definition of such. If you do not have a clear-cut definition of what murder is, regardless of the society it is practiced in, then you are only saying that what is deemed murder is wrong, and what is deemed murder can vary, and that's fine. It isn't fine.

My point is, yes, morality is dependent on geography, and it will continue to be so unless you actually have a deeper understanding of what you are talking about.

Society phrases it's morality in slippery ways. It says 'this is wrong', and proceeds to commit that wrong, but in a sanctioned manner because it fudges the definitions. So suddenly, torture isn't torture, it's interrogation, and lawful. Murder isn't murder, it's execution, and lawful.

I also question the concept that what you consider to be universally true is the universal truth. Private property is a prime example. My people do not believe in private property...were we as a people living in a state of human rights violations because of it? We champion communal property...which one of us is right? You? Us? Who decides? I don't believe in God, so it can't come from there? Where are you going to get your universality from if what you believe is based on your own beliefs, and perhaps the shared beliefs of others? How are you going to prove universality in that situation? How are you going to tell me that you have some objective 'truth' you can fall back on?

We as a species can agree on certain things, but I believe that agreement comes from within us, not from without...and universality is entirely dependent upon us and our existence.

Okay, so we're back to the point I made about two pages ago that everybody ignored: that there is a necessary distinction between descriptive wrongs ("People in Sinihue's Native American tribe believe that individual property is wrong") and normative wrongs ("People in Sinihue's Native American tribe ought to believe individual property to be wrong"). The problem is that what you have just said is merely truistic, and anything deeper, to use your language, is apparently beyond where you want to go.

Apparently, if I've parsed together your position on morality correctly, then you hold certain things to be absolutely true and absolutely moral. You do not, however, choose to advocate imposing those absolute truths and absolute morals on others, partly out of skeptical consideration that your absolute may not conform with the absolute, and partly because claiming the moral absolute is the standard tactic of imperialists, fascists, or whatever other ist you choose to demonize. In the absence of such absolutes, the only morality you can define and codify are the already-existing moralities in place about the world.

This position, however, is that such a position is that of moral cowardice wrapped in a non-sequitur twisted inside a strawman/ad hominem. Put simply, if all you can identify as moral beyond "I think it's wrong, but you may not" is already-existing moralities, then you have precisely zero grounds for claiming that already-existing practices such as FGM or female infanticide or racial discrimination is wrong not just within the context of one particular culture, but wrong period. Moreoever, such a position is based on a non-sequitur: it simply does not follow from the fact that, in the past, many people have demonized such relatively harmless things as homosexuality or masturbation does not mean that there is nothing to demonize rightly. Even further than that, the fact that such demonization is a tool of ideologies you are trained to despise (rightly, in my judgment) does not mean that the tool itself has no value; the Nazis maintained a public sewage system, but that doesn't mean that we should not maintain a public sewage system lest we be like the Nazis.

Teacher, about to enter the study of Law.

How would you phrase your ultimate truth about killing? That all killing is wrong, regardless of the circumstances? (rules out self-defence) Or that it is wrong if it is unsanctioned? (introduces possibility of unjust sanctioned killings) That killing humans is wrong? (ruling out killing of animals, plants, etc...also raises issues of 'when is a foetus a human bleh, let's not go there) You see, I'm not being intentionally convoluted, but kids probe at these things, and it's good to consider them. At some point, you examine your own beliefs, and you decide...is this right, or is this wrong, according to my beliefs? Trying to phrase those beliefs is an important part of understanding them...even if you never really succeed in phrasing them perfectly.

heh yeah...I can see why you want to study Law...! :)

hmmmm do absolutes have a morality? This question of yours about the phrasing...that's pretty hard to do as I would also be defining my own morals...

Having said that I do think it is still possible to look at it objectively....and I do think the definition would have to be 'that the unsanctioned killing of another human is wrong'.

Now it would be nice to say that 'the killing of another human is wrong' but the reality of the world dictates otherwise.

This is the problem....morality is easily transposed onto whichever defintion you come up with.

More muddled in the halls of academia than on the streets where it happens I think.
Maybe, but that doesn't mean it doesn't matter. If we allow people to wriggle out of crimes because of definitions, we need to work on that. I would say the same about nations as well. On the individual level, I think the choices are clear...it's when you go beyond that you start finding things aren't so easily defined.

This position, however, is that such a position is that of moral cowardice wrapped in a non-sequitur twisted inside a strawman/ad hominem. Put simply, if all you can identify as moral beyond "I think it's wrong, but you may not" is already-existing moralities, then you have precisely zero grounds for claiming that already-existing practices such as FGM or female infanticide or racial discrimination is wrong not just within the context of one particular culture, but wrong period.
I'm not going to lay out my beliefs for you here, I have neither the time nor the inclination, so in that sense, I'm not willing to go deeper HERE. In a wider sense, I am absolutely willing to go deeper, but I do not claim to know how to go about doing it on a global level, and on a global level is the only way I think we can really apply any sort of 'universal truth'.

If you really want to chew on it, then explain to me how anyone can have grounds to claim that any practice is right or wrong, objectively. If you can do that succinctly, then perhaps we can get somewhere right now.

And as for 'moral cowardice'...I'm not sure where you think you're going with this, or why you think you have the authority to in any way berate me about my beliefs, and your interpretation of them, especially considering you have not laid out yours OR defined a universal truth and how to apply it.

Okay, so we're back to the point I made about two pages ago that everybody ignored: that there is a necessary distinction between descriptive wrongs ("People in Sinihue's Native American tribe believe that individual property is wrong") and normative wrongs ("People in Sinihue's Native American tribe ought to believe individual property to be wrong"). The problem is that what you have just said is merely truistic, and anything deeper, to use your language, is apparently beyond where you want to go.

Apparently, if I've parsed together your position on morality correctly, then you hold certain things to be absolutely true and absolutely moral. You do not, however, choose to advocate imposing those absolute truths and absolute morals on others, partly out of skeptical consideration that your absolute may not conform with the absolute, and partly because claiming the moral absolute is the standard tactic of imperialists, fascists, or whatever other ist you choose to demonize. In the absence of such absolutes, the only morality you can define and codify are the already-existing moralities in place about the world.

This position, however, is that such a position is that of moral cowardice wrapped in a non-sequitur twisted inside a strawman/ad hominem. Put simply, if all you can identify as moral beyond "I think it's wrong, but you may not" is already-existing moralities, then you have precisely zero grounds for claiming that already-existing practices such as FGM or female infanticide or racial discrimination is wrong not just within the context of one particular culture, but wrong period. Moreoever, such a position is based on a non-sequitur: it simply does not follow from the fact that, in the past, many people have demonized such relatively harmless things as homosexuality or masturbation does not mean that there is nothing to demonize rightly. Even further than that, the fact that such demonization is a tool of ideologies you are trained to despise (rightly, in my judgment) does not mean that the tool itself has no value; the Nazis maintained a public sewage system, but that doesn't mean that we should not maintain a public sewage system lest we be like the Nazis.

So what you are saying is that there is no real truth but only right and wrong based on present reality?

I'm not sure I quite understand....

You are using a term with which I am not altogether familiar with....absolute morals...

As morals can change as a society changes the term holds no meaning as far as I (in my uneducated state) can see.

There are abosolute truths though....and one of those is that unsanctioned killing is wrong.

Or am I being particularly obtuse and missing something?
No you just clarified a belief ... so what makes unsanctioned killing any more wrong then sanctioned killing

No you just clarified a belief ... so what makes unsanctioned killing any more wrong then sanctioned killing

Because it is outside of the mores of that society....

damn and blast those morals! LOL

I'm not going to lay out my beliefs for you here, I have neither the time nor the inclination, so in that sense, I'm not willing to go deeper HERE. In a wider sense, I am absolutely willing to go deeper, but I do not claim to know how to go about doing it on a global level, and on a global level is the only way I think we can really apply any sort of 'universal truth'.

If you really want to chew on it, then explain to me how anyone can have grounds to claim that any practice is right or wrong, objectively. If you can do that succinctly, then perhaps we can get somewhere right now.

And as for 'moral cowardice'...I'm not sure where you think you're going with this, or why you think you have the authority to in any way berate me about my beliefs, and your interpretation of them, especially considering you have not laid out yours OR defined a universal truth and how to apply it.

First, let me say that the term 'moral cowardice' was a bad term; not because it is strictly inaccurate, but because it comes with unintended connotations attached. I wasn't saying that you were morally reprehensible or a coward or anything else, but rather that some of your beliefs apparently entail you not to have to fight for other beliefs that nevertheless automatically entail belief in fighting for them. To say "I believe that x is wrong universally" is in my mind no different from saying "Confronted with a situation entailing x, I would work to stop x". To not make that leap is in some sense an act of cowardice, as cowardice in its narrowest sense is unwillingness to fight for that which you hold to be right. Unfortunately, I don't think there is a word in the English language that carries the same definition without also being laden with the unintended connotation as well.

Now, that being said, your argumentation thus far has been beneath you, Sin. Far be it for me to assert a categorical on the boards, but in general if you want to debate, the maxim "He who asserts must prove" applies. You asserted a positive claim that there was a certain kind of morality that was the only true universal, namely the descriptive morality that says "Given that x is definable by any culture on its own terms, x is always wrong in society." I have merely played the role of devil's advocate, arguing that such a stance leads to downright goofy conclusions. You then modified the point to say "I believe that x is universally wrong, but the only way to define it as right or wrong universally is through contingent cultural definitions". To this, I pointed out (or at least tried to) that this is even more goofy than your original assertion, because it tries to seperate belief and truth when the two are inextricable. To say "I believe x, but y is true" is absurd, because an inherent part of saying that something is true is that you believe it's true. To this, rather than further refine your own positive claim, you've just thrown it back in my face and said "You prove something, because I'm not playing anymore".

Now, this isn't my role in the debate; I never asserted my stance on universality or relativity at all. All I've done is, as noted before, point out that positions already articulated are inconsistent. But at the risk of making the weaker argument the stronger, Thrasymachus, I'll try to articulate something, if for nothing else than so you feel better and not so aggreived.

If I had to define anything as a moral categorical, I would say that it's that, at least initially, I find anything objectionable that leaves me dead. Partly this is simple statement of nature; my natural inclinations lead me to fight even unto death to preserve my own life. Now, because I am a reasoning creature, and because I can observe similar reasoning to mine in others, it follows in my own mind that other people find it objectionable for me to leave them dead as well. As such, both practically and morally, it seems to follow that I shouldn't leave others dead any more than they should leave me dead. It also follows that I shouldn't do things that render people in a state akin to death: to take away their means of living, or depriving them of their choice as to how to live, then, ought also to be forbidden, because it puts them in a position of surviving at another's whim, a precarious position I wouldn't want myself and would resist to the death to oppose.

So there are, at least initially, three basic categoricals: life, the means to sustain life, and the ability to choose to acquire new, additional, and alternative means. But I also need to realize that I live in a world where resources are scarce, and everybody needs a cut. I also realize that some people aren't going to play fair; partly because they may be lacking in a good and seek to acquire it by force from me, and partly because sometimes people are just irrational in their thinking. So, the best way to secure those categoricals is to band together with other like-minded people into a common compact of what we will define as our collective responsibilities and privileges. Because our resources and our people will be different from other people and resources, our compact may be different from others. One group may define certain practices as taboo where others wouldn't; if our group were out in the desert, for instance, we might agree that food ought to be shared in common rations and wine forbidden, because food is scarce and diuretics (sp?) are not good to drink in the desert clime, whereas if we lived in hilly wine country our agreement might be different. One thing we will agree upon, however, is that we must always measure our costs and benefits of society based upon whether or not we are receiving net benefits from remaining in the compact. Put simply, if it's more easy to live within the compact than on our own, we will agree to sustain the compact; if not, then the compact must be rescinded or remade.

So what you are saying is that there is no real truth but only right and wrong based on present reality?

I'm not sure I quite understand....

No, I'm saying that there are, in effect, two ways of responding to the question "What is moral?"

One way is to look at any given society, look at what they define as immoral and what they enforce and penalize as being immoral, and say "That is immoral, because that is what group x defines as immoral".

Then there is the case of reasoning out something as being universally bad, inconsistent with reason, ungodly, whatever, and saying "That is always wrong, because it is universally bad/inconsistent with reason/ungodly/whatever".

Further, I'm taking the position that, while the first is true in a fashion, it does not comprise the totality of moral/immoral, for the simple reason that what you define as moral and immoral is, in that case, defined by which side of an arbitrary line in the sand you happen to be standing on. That, in my view, is just goofy.

No, I'm saying that there are, in effect, two ways of responding to the question "What is moral?"

One way is to look at any given society, look at what they define as immoral and what they enforce and penalize as being immoral, and say "That is immoral, because that is what group x defines as immoral".

Then there is the case of reasoning out something as being universally bad, inconsistent with reason, ungodly, whatever, and saying "That is always wrong, because it is universally bad/inconsistent with reason/ungodly/whatever".

Further, I'm taking the position that, while the first is true in a fashion, it does not comprise the totality of moral/immoral, for the simple reason that what you define as moral and immoral is, in that case, defined by which side of an arbitrary line in the sand you happen to be standing on. That, in my view, is just goofy.

If there is no basis in reality then how can geographic location affect morals?

Or am I looking at this entirely wrong?

I admit that this discussion is getting very much out of my depth now.

Are you saying that even a universal truth is a matter of opinion/morals?

HELP! :)

School kids need to realise that actions have consequences. School kids need to be taught honour IMO. They need to be taught respect, if the board must insist that telling kids some things are bad and some things are good is un pc. At least letting kids learn the idea of respect makes people think before they do something.

You absolutely must not have a society where anything that anyone does is ok because they are living the way "they want to" and not letting some "evil dogmatic opresssor" tell someone that somethings are just wrong.

Pure retardness

I think it is a brave and marvelous experiment and I couldnt be happier that they are trying it someplace other than here.

Because it is outside of the mores of that society....

damn and blast those morals! LOL
Which is what "moral relivitism" is ... that morals are relitive to the society rather then some absolute deity

I tend to agree with the Natural Outgrowth theory myself

Apparently, if I've parsed together your position on morality correctly, You haven't. Why? Because I haven't stated my position.

then you hold certain things to be absolutely true and absolutely moral. You do not, however, choose to advocate imposing those absolute truths and absolute morals on others, partly out of skeptical consideration that your absolute may not conform with the absolute, and partly because claiming the moral absolute is the standard tactic of imperialists, fascists, or whatever other ist you choose to demonize.

No. I have said that I do not believe that 'absolute truths' are so clearly absolute as you make them out to be, and my entire purpose in this discussion is to punch holes in the thought that 'because I think murder is wrong, I've got it all wrapped up'. Saying 'murder is wrong' isn't enough.

My purpose has not been to lay out my morality for you, or define a way in which my morality should be imposed or not...YOU are the one taking it in that direction. So your constant suppositions about 'this is what you meant' and 'that is what you meant' are in fact misleading...and a little annoying frankly. I am challenging those who claim to believe that there are universal absolutes...I'd like them to define what those universal absolutes are, because in my experience, most people are usually unable to past a certain point, a very general point.

Which is what "moral relivitism" is ... that morals are relitive to the society rather then some absolute deity

I tend to agree with the Natural Outgrowth theory myself

No! It cannot be reletive if it is the same across the board....

Now what the hell is the Natural Outgroth theory?????