Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
edited June 2007
Moral relativism deals with vested interests. Moral relativism means that I say that Geneva Accords should be abided by, but the people in Guantanamo Bay are terrorists so they don't count. Subjectivity says that there is no Authority or objective truth, and that a black person saying n**** and a white person saying it make for completely different scenarios.
Moral relativism deals with vested interests. Moral relativism means that I say that Geneva Accords should be abided by, but the people in Guantanamo Bay are terrorists so they don't count. Subjectivity says that there is no Authority or objective truth, and that a black person saying n**** and a white person saying it make for completely different scenarios.
That's not the fundamental definition.
Morality deals fundamentally in Right and Wrong. Only two opposing positions. Two absolutes, one might say. Though you can have many occurances of Right and Wrong conflicting in a particular situation which make it 'grey', each occurance is either Right or Wrong. There are not degrees of Right or Wrong on a single quesion.
For this to work, moral systems argue that Right and Wrong are not subjective. They are whether everyone agrees or not. Those who argue that Right and Wrong are subjective, and differ according to person, situation etc, are arguing for moral relativism.
EDIT: Ok, I know Wiki isn't evidence, but:
In philosophy, moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances.
Note the first sentence. Relativism argues that moral propositions are not univeral truths (ie absolutes).
PS The number of moral relativism arguments you guys have had, and you still can't agree on the widely accepted definition?
PPS Here's another one:
Although there are many different kinds of relativism, they all have two features in common.
1) They all assert that one thing (e.g. moral values, beauty, knowledge, taste, or meaning) is relative to some particular framework or standpoint (e.g. the individual subject, a culture, an era, a language, or a conceptual scheme).
2) They all deny that any standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others.
1) one thing is relative or subjective, 2) there is no absolute standpoint.
Britain has never had a strong right to free speech
No, I don't think it's alarmist. Check out some of the recent laws & cases over here before you say that.
And we have never had a codified right to much at all. On the other hand, we've only had a pretty much inviolate tradition of free speech (through parliament) for longer than most countries have been in existence, and it was only our philosophers who largely invented the modern definition of free speech.
Shit when I lived over there in 88, they were banning radio play of mild shit like "I want your sex". I mean, granted that British tradition has been fairly good about trying to keep a fairly open right to free speech, but they've generally capitulated in the face of public outrage or practical concerns. Given the recent amount of racial tension with your Muslim ghettoes and the big conflagrations in neighboring France, it's not surprising that yet again Britain has punted to what they regard as pragmatism.
Morality deals fundamentally in Right and Wrong. Only two opposing positions. Two absolutes, one might say. Though you can have many occurances of Right and Wrong conflicting in a particular situation which make it 'grey', each occurance is either Right or Wrong. There are not degrees of Right or Wrong on a single quesion.
For this to work, moral systems argue that Right and Wrong are not subjective. They are whether everyone agrees or not. Those who argue that Right and Wrong are subjective, and differ according to person, situation etc, are arguing for moral relativism.
This doesn't refute the point that subjectivity isn't synonymous with moral relativism. Yes, you can parse a Wiki entry. Bra-vo. Still, subjectivity doesn't even imply that you're talking about questions of morality.
Going back to the whole freedom of speech thing, which is what this topic is ostensibly about at this point, you can say that we should have the freedom of speech line drawn here. I can argue that it should be drawn over there. This is a subjective question, but it's not a moral question, or at least not exclusively a moral question. It's also a question of pragmatism, and of simple taste. Where can we draw the line in order to cause the fewest headaches and legal issues? Are legal issues necessarily a bad thing in lieu of the alternatives? There's not an absolute answer to these questions, and recognizing this fact doesn't make you a po-mo moral relativist.
tl;dr: No.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Shit when I lived over there in 88, they were banning radio play of mild shit like "I want your sex". I mean, granted that British tradition has been fairly good about trying to keep a fairly open right to free speech, but they've generally capitulated in the face of public outrage or practical concerns. Given the recent amount of racial tension with your Muslim ghettoes and the big conflagrations in neighboring France, it's not surprising that yet again Britain has punted to what they regard as pragmatism.
Actually it's worse than that, they thought it was "I want your sax", and we don't want no debil musik here!
Otherwise, yes, you are right. All I'm doing here is being part of the public outrage / practical concerns which keeps prodding until the tide turns and the government stop rolling back centuries of traditional liberties.
I'm not running for the hills with an M16 and sixteen tons of spam, but on the other hand if some people don't keep prodding the issue (and most people won't) until it captures the public consciousness, then the tide won't turn. It's far too easy for the government over here to put things on the statute books, and then never take them off. Since we don't have the Constitutional guarantees you have, that actually matters.
This doesn't refute the point that subjectivity isn't synonymous with moral relativism. Yes, you can parse a Wiki entry. Bra-vo. Still, subjectivity doesn't even imply that you're talking about questions of morality.
No, I did, when I said a few posts above that I consider right to various freedoms a moral issue.
Going back to the whole freedom of speech thing, which is what this topic is ostensibly about at this point, you can say that we should have the freedom of speech line drawn here. I can argue that it should be drawn over there. This is a subjective question, but it's not a moral question, or at least not exclusively a moral question. It's also a question of pragmatism, and of simple taste. Where can we draw the line in order to cause the fewest headaches and legal issues? Are legal issues necessarily a bad thing in lieu of the alternatives? There's not an absolute answer to these questions, and recognizing this fact doesn't make you a po-mo moral relativist.
One, like I said, I think freedom of expression is a moral issue.
Two, I think freedom of expression only works if it is an absolute right. I've explained why above in previous posts, along the principle of it being self-regulating, but only if you are allowed to say whatever you want.
Three, if you want to cause the fewest headaches and legal issues (cmon, you know this as a conservative), the easiest way to do that is to enforce a zero sum game - namely freedom of expression as an absolute right. This is simply because there are vastly more cases arguing that people should not be allowed to say something than there are that people should be allowed to say something.
Not Sarastro on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Shit when I lived over there in 88, they were banning radio play of mild shit like "I want your sex". I mean, granted that British tradition has been fairly good about trying to keep a fairly open right to free speech, but they've generally capitulated in the face of public outrage or practical concerns. Given the recent amount of racial tension with your Muslim ghettoes and the big conflagrations in neighboring France, it's not surprising that yet again Britain has punted to what they regard as pragmatism.
Actually it's worse than that, they thought it was "I want your sax", and we don't want no debil musik here!
Otherwise, yes, you are right. All I'm doing here is being part of the public outrage / practical concerns which keeps prodding until the tide turns and the government stop rolling back centuries of traditional liberties.
I'm not running for the hills with an M16 and sixteen tons of spam, but on the other hand if some people don't keep prodding the issue (and most people won't) until it captures the public consciousness, then the tide won't turn. It's far too easy for the government over here to put things on the statute books, and then never take them off. Since we don't have the Constitutional guarantees you have, that actually matters.
Well see I can have some respect for that position, but I don't see how it translates into a broad indictment or forewarning of the abridgment of free speech in the US.
Well see I can have some respect for that position, but I don't see how it translates into a broad indictment or forewarning of the abridgment of free speech in the US.
It wasn't a broad indictment of what is going on in the US, I think all my examples have been in the UK, and I've pointed out several times that the freedoms discussed are much better enshrined in the US. I did however, 1) draw a parallel between the similar debates in both countries over who-can-say-what-word, or the boundaries between the right to be offensive / offended, 2) point out that it was important to acknowledge the clear line between being offended by someone else expressing themselves and preventing them from doing so, and 3) do those because it is quite easy to slip into a state where the public debate is so focused on what people 'cannot' say, that it then becomes very easy to actually stop them from saying it.
PS I like your guitar tag.
Not Sarastro on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
edited June 2007
It's Woody Guthrie, man. I guess he's actually a pretty appropriate figure to this free speech discussion, given that he was a popular folk artist and socialist at a time where this was not regarded as entirely respectable.
edit: takeaway: America's always been pretty good about protecting unpopular speech, and is even stronger today because of groups like the ACLU. Britain tends to drift away from free speech in localized responses to national events, but tends to drift back. There's also, IMO, a stronger and more pervasive sense of free and open dialogue in England than there is in the US.
There's also, IMO, a stronger and more pervasive sense of free and open dialogue in England than there is in the US.
That's interesting. I always found the same about the US, simply because I found there political / public debate is commonplace and accepted wherever you go, while over here talking politics or debate is seen as more of a social faux pas. I attribute this largely to the fact that you have much more grassroots political representation than we do (PTA, council, mayors, county, state, national etc).
On the other hand, when you do talk over here, people are much more open to new ideas, tolerant of opposing ideas, and allowing of mix'n'match politics (ie mixing left and right). In the US I found the debate tended to be hopelessly partisan from the outset, with both the opposing side demonising your ideas and, worse, people who agree with you on one, say, conservative issue demonising you for not taking the party line on all conservative issues. But then, perhaps I just ran in to some total cunts - I knew one guy in particular (ended up working in Congress sadly) who was slowly trying to convert a whole bunch of younger kids to be good little production line Republicans, and didn't at all like anyone questioning his propaganda.
Posts
That's not the fundamental definition.
Morality deals fundamentally in Right and Wrong. Only two opposing positions. Two absolutes, one might say. Though you can have many occurances of Right and Wrong conflicting in a particular situation which make it 'grey', each occurance is either Right or Wrong. There are not degrees of Right or Wrong on a single quesion.
For this to work, moral systems argue that Right and Wrong are not subjective. They are whether everyone agrees or not. Those who argue that Right and Wrong are subjective, and differ according to person, situation etc, are arguing for moral relativism.
EDIT: Ok, I know Wiki isn't evidence, but:
Note the first sentence. Relativism argues that moral propositions are not univeral truths (ie absolutes).
PS The number of moral relativism arguments you guys have had, and you still can't agree on the widely accepted definition?
PPS Here's another one:
1) one thing is relative or subjective, 2) there is no absolute standpoint.
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/r/relativi.htm
This doesn't refute the point that subjectivity isn't synonymous with moral relativism. Yes, you can parse a Wiki entry. Bra-vo. Still, subjectivity doesn't even imply that you're talking about questions of morality.
Going back to the whole freedom of speech thing, which is what this topic is ostensibly about at this point, you can say that we should have the freedom of speech line drawn here. I can argue that it should be drawn over there. This is a subjective question, but it's not a moral question, or at least not exclusively a moral question. It's also a question of pragmatism, and of simple taste. Where can we draw the line in order to cause the fewest headaches and legal issues? Are legal issues necessarily a bad thing in lieu of the alternatives? There's not an absolute answer to these questions, and recognizing this fact doesn't make you a po-mo moral relativist.
tl;dr: No.
Actually it's worse than that, they thought it was "I want your sax", and we don't want no debil musik here!
Otherwise, yes, you are right. All I'm doing here is being part of the public outrage / practical concerns which keeps prodding until the tide turns and the government stop rolling back centuries of traditional liberties.
I'm not running for the hills with an M16 and sixteen tons of spam, but on the other hand if some people don't keep prodding the issue (and most people won't) until it captures the public consciousness, then the tide won't turn. It's far too easy for the government over here to put things on the statute books, and then never take them off. Since we don't have the Constitutional guarantees you have, that actually matters.
No, I did, when I said a few posts above that I consider right to various freedoms a moral issue.
One, like I said, I think freedom of expression is a moral issue.
Two, I think freedom of expression only works if it is an absolute right. I've explained why above in previous posts, along the principle of it being self-regulating, but only if you are allowed to say whatever you want.
Three, if you want to cause the fewest headaches and legal issues (cmon, you know this as a conservative), the easiest way to do that is to enforce a zero sum game - namely freedom of expression as an absolute right. This is simply because there are vastly more cases arguing that people should not be allowed to say something than there are that people should be allowed to say something.
It wasn't a broad indictment of what is going on in the US, I think all my examples have been in the UK, and I've pointed out several times that the freedoms discussed are much better enshrined in the US. I did however, 1) draw a parallel between the similar debates in both countries over who-can-say-what-word, or the boundaries between the right to be offensive / offended, 2) point out that it was important to acknowledge the clear line between being offended by someone else expressing themselves and preventing them from doing so, and 3) do those because it is quite easy to slip into a state where the public debate is so focused on what people 'cannot' say, that it then becomes very easy to actually stop them from saying it.
PS I like your guitar tag.
edit: takeaway: America's always been pretty good about protecting unpopular speech, and is even stronger today because of groups like the ACLU. Britain tends to drift away from free speech in localized responses to national events, but tends to drift back. There's also, IMO, a stronger and more pervasive sense of free and open dialogue in England than there is in the US.
That's interesting. I always found the same about the US, simply because I found there political / public debate is commonplace and accepted wherever you go, while over here talking politics or debate is seen as more of a social faux pas. I attribute this largely to the fact that you have much more grassroots political representation than we do (PTA, council, mayors, county, state, national etc).
On the other hand, when you do talk over here, people are much more open to new ideas, tolerant of opposing ideas, and allowing of mix'n'match politics (ie mixing left and right). In the US I found the debate tended to be hopelessly partisan from the outset, with both the opposing side demonising your ideas and, worse, people who agree with you on one, say, conservative issue demonising you for not taking the party line on all conservative issues. But then, perhaps I just ran in to some total cunts - I knew one guy in particular (ended up working in Congress sadly) who was slowly trying to convert a whole bunch of younger kids to be good little production line Republicans, and didn't at all like anyone questioning his propaganda.