Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, Moderators, move, protect, rollback, Administrators
27,336
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 8:
Line 8: − + Line 17:
Line 17: − + − explain these things for me. If killing is wrong in the first place, why should the punishment be death. I mean, shouldn't then the executioner be killed too? That's some moral relativism for ya.+ − Moral relativism is not a philosophy that suggests morals SHOULD very from culture to culture, it is a philosophy that contends that they DO very from culture to culture. These two positions are very different in nature, despite their ostensible similarity. If one contends that morals SHOULD very from culture to culture, that person is not a moral relativist. On the contrary, this person is a moral absolutist. For this individual is making a normative statement – that is how things OUGHT to be. The ought in this case is predicated on a conviction they have regarding the ABSOLUTE TRUTH of their believe in cultural diversity. The moral relativist, on the other hand, is merely making a descriptive point regarding morality – that is morality does not exist. They may even wish morality did exist; but they just do not believe that it does.+
→It has been linked...
{{cquote|It has been linked to atheism and to Communist and Nazi ideology.}}
{{cquote|It has been linked to atheism and to Communist and Nazi ideology.}}
Erm... yeeeees? How has it been linked to it? Who linked it? Is the link valid? This is a horrible way to end the article, and I wouldn't even know where to begin to look for sources. Could either Miss Cleo or whoever put these claims into the article help me out here? I'll try to look for material myself, of course, but I guess that those who made the claims would more readily know where to look (and what to look for).
Erm... yes? How has it been linked to it? Who linked it? Is the link valid? This is a horrible way to end the article, and I wouldn't even know where to begin to look for sources. Could either Miss Cleo or whoever put these claims into the article help me out here? I'll try to look for material myself, of course, but I guess that those who made the claims would more readily know where to look (and what to look for).
--[[User:DHayes|DHayes]] 18:23, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
--[[User:DHayes|DHayes]] 18:23, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
What about moral relativism in bible and conservative american behaviour? In the ten commandments it is clearly said "Thou shalt not kill" and yet although killing is marked as evil by the bible itself, many conservatives
What about moral relativism in bible and conservative american behaviour? In the ten commandments it is clearly said "Thou shalt not kill" and yet although killing is marked as evil by the bible itself, many conservatives
are in favor of the death penalty and although I'm not an expert on the subject of bible, I recall there being a line about "eye for an eye". This makes no sense to me, so please,
are in favor of the death penalty and although I'm not an expert on the subject of bible, I recall there being a line about "eye for an eye". This makes no sense to me, so please, explain these things for me. If killing is wrong in the first place, why should the punishment be death. I mean, shouldn't then the executioner be killed too? That's some moral relativism for ya.
:In answer for this unsigned comment, how about the liberal version of what the Bible says and liberal American behavior? The Ten Commandments clearly says "Thou shalt not kill", and this liberal in the above statement wanted that line linked with the death penalty, forgetting about the death penalty that his kind is determined to protect at all costs: [[abortion]]. And they call us the hypocrites. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 03:23, 26 August 2012 (EDT)
Moral relativism is not a philosophy that suggests morals SHOULD very from culture to culture, it is a philosophy that contends that they DO very from culture to culture. These two positions are very different in nature, despite their ostensible similarity. If one contends that morals SHOULD very from culture to culture, that person is not a moral relativist. On the contrary, this person is a moral absolutist. For this individual is making a normative statement – that is how things OUGHT to be. The ought in this case is predicated on a conviction they have regarding the ABSOLUTE TRUTH of their believe in cultural diversity. The moral relativist, on the other hand, is merely making a descriptive point regarding morality – that is morality does not exist. They may even wish morality did exist; but they just do not believe that it does.
Well, I'm surprised by the civilicity of the answer, that's for sure. So thanks, you have shown me that conservatives do not always hit below the belt.
Well, I'm surprised by the civilicity of the answer, that's for sure. So thanks, you have shown me that conservatives do not always hit below the belt.