|
|
|||||||
| View Poll Results: yes, but how much have you lost playing poker during your lifetime? | |||
| Less than 50k |
   
|
16 | 32.65% |
| 50 - 100k |
  
|
1 | 2.04% |
| 100 - 200k |
  
|
2 | 4.08% |
| 200 - 300k |
  
|
0 | 0% |
| 300 -500k |
  
|
0 | 0% |
| 500k - 1mm |
  
|
3 | 6.12% |
| 1mm-2mm |
|
0 | 0% |
| 2mm-3mm |
|
0 | 0% |
| 3mm-4mm |
|
0 | 0% |
| 4mm+ |
|
27 | 55.10% |
| Voters: 49. You may not vote on this poll | |||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#31
08-22-2007, 11:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: For moral relativists
Absolute morality is an idealized concept that could never concievably exist. You can't make any meaningful statement about the 'consistency' of morality in a society when it is impossible to find two people with the same exact set of morals.
Treating people equally, I'm all for that. But I'm not sure how this lends itself to any point you may be trying to make. 
|
|
#32
08-22-2007, 03:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: For moral relativists
[ QUOTE ]
i've always said so. I will say that of course people have subjective personal preferences when it comes to morals. And once a set of subjective personal preferences has been selected, moral systems CAN be objectively evaluated against those preferences. [/ QUOTE ] I'm not following this. Can you explain this another way, like break it down for a simpleton like me? How are the varying moral systems 'objectively' evaluated? I am also generally confused by the second 1/2 of the second sentence. I am holding off on voting until I understand what you are trying to communicate.
|
|
#33
08-22-2007, 06:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: For moral relativists
I am strongly against moral relativism. Lets use a fictional society. For example, if this fictional society thinks it is moral to destroy an entire society that doesn't share thier beliefs, are they morally right? How about sacrificing someone against their will for a certain God? To a moral relativist, yes, because morallity is relative to the culture. I lean more utilitarian, which is do whatever you want as long as long as it doesn't harm others. Of course, the debate is what constitutes as harming others. Also, I don't advocate laziness, but I think this falls outside the realm of morality.
|
|
#34
08-22-2007, 08:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: For moral relativists
I'm not a moral relativist out of preference or convenience, but because I see no way around it. Your argument against it seems to be one of personal distaste rather than logic.
[ QUOTE ] I lean more utilitarian, which is do whatever you want as long as long as it doesn't harm others. [/ QUOTE ] This is another one of these overly broad attempted moral principles. There is so much gray area in "harming others" and I could think if a ton of examples of harming others that I'm sure you would not call immoral. [/ QUOTE ]
|
|
#35
08-22-2007, 09:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: For moral relativists
[ QUOTE ]
PVN, Hypothetically, if one had a moral system which justifies seizing property of those with an excess of 10x the average and giving to those well below the average, is this considered treating people equally (morally) by your definition? [/ QUOTE ] Insufficient information. Who gets to seize it? Who gets to determine how far below average you need to be to get the loot?
|
|
#36
08-22-2007, 10:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: For moral relativists
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] PVN, Hypothetically, if one had a moral system which justifies seizing property of those with an excess of 10x the average and giving to those well below the average, is this considered treating people equally (morally) by your definition? [/ QUOTE ] Insufficient information. Who gets to seize it? Who gets to determine how far below average you need to be to get the loot? [/ QUOTE ] Say it's in the "town charter" which was approved by referendum. It is seized by the "town deputies" as stipulated by the charter.
|
|
#37
08-22-2007, 10:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: For moral relativists
[ QUOTE ]
How are the varying moral systems 'objectively' evaluated? [/ QUOTE ] By their own principles. For example, if my moral system is based on non-initiation of force except in case of self-defense, but my system looks the other way on the initiation of force for wealth redistribution, then by its own standards, I can obvjectively evaluate it as inconsistent. I think that's the gist, PVN or someone else can correct if I erred.
|
|
#38
08-22-2007, 11:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: For moral relativists
[ QUOTE ]
"My personal preferences are for moral systems which are consistent over those which are inconsistent, and for systems which treat all people as equal (morally) over systems that have different classes of people." How could a moral relativist have any preference? By definition, if you have a preference then you aren't a moral relativist. [/ QUOTE ] Ya I agree. OP is saying he thinks some moral systems are better than others. That sounds like absolutism to me.
|
|
#39
08-23-2007, 12:34 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: For moral relativists
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Treat others as you wish to be treated. All the rest is commentary. [/ QUOTE ] Let's hope there's a lot of it ( commentary) because the advise is terrible. luckyme [/ QUOTE ] It was not advise - it wasn't even advice - it was a moral system. However, I'm all a-twitter with anticipation waiting for you to explain the terrible part. Please....grace us with your insights.
|
|
#40
08-23-2007, 01:29 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: For moral relativists
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] PVN, Hypothetically, if one had a moral system which justifies seizing property of those with an excess of 10x the average and giving to those well below the average, is this considered treating people equally (morally) by your definition? [/ QUOTE ] Insufficient information. Who gets to seize it? Who gets to determine how far below average you need to be to get the loot? [/ QUOTE ] Say it's in the "town charter" which was approved by referendum. It is seized by the "town deputies" as stipulated by the charter. [/ QUOTE ] It's inconsistent, then. It's now OK for certain "blessed" people to seize assets, but not OK for anyone else to do so.
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
