A moral universalist could feel quite confortable in separating the right of killing in self defense (in his home or for his country) from the right to kill for no "good" reason. An universalist could also say: the home owner was had the right to protect himself and the burgler deserved to die as he was acting outside natural law.
i dont think you're a moral relativist, i think you're just afraid to form an opinion. you live in a culture where having a strong opinion (and expressing it) is frowned upon.
think of what values you'd like to pass on to your children - would you like your son to be killed/jailed for being a homosexual? would you want your daughter stoned to death for being raped? you approve of cannibalism?
this is the cultural equivalent for survival of the fittest, help your culture survive.
@myusq "Rape is considered morally wrong absolutely also holocaust"
Obviously not.. a lot of Germans felt they were doing the right thing, and its not a stretch of the imagination to assume that some culture at some point in time justified rape under certain circumstances, considering some of the customs that are held by tribes even today.
You seem to relate the intent of an action to whether or not the action is right or wrong. I wonder if they are truly related... I accept that there are objective fundemental moral values that can be refined as we get closer to rational perfection, so I dont think that whether an action is right or wrong is relative. But its an interesting question: Is intent directly related to the moral status of an action?
the point u r making are flawed..we need not find an exclusion by example to refute objectivism. it is not about wether some morals hold for all situations, it is more in the natrual course of things something are right and some are not.
morals are often confused by ppl even the educated ones, there are morals, customs, and code of conducts. morals are some inherent tendency to certain action regardless of the origin of a person. this should not be confused by code of conduct. this person is one of them who confuse them.
Mmmmm...not quite sure you expressed correctly what MR really is. Have a look at wikipedia. MR is more related to moral judgements in relation to differnt cultures and societies, not on intepreting acts based on the circumstances surrounding that act.
A moral universalist could feel quite confortable in separating the right of killing in self defense (in his home or for his country) from the right to kill for no "good" reason. An universalist could also say: the home owner was had the right to protect himself and the burgler deserved to die as he was acting outside natural law.
theantisauronist 1 month ago
marry me
pkmntrainernik 1 month ago
i dont think you're a moral relativist, i think you're just afraid to form an opinion. you live in a culture where having a strong opinion (and expressing it) is frowned upon.
think of what values you'd like to pass on to your children - would you like your son to be killed/jailed for being a homosexual? would you want your daughter stoned to death for being raped? you approve of cannibalism?
this is the cultural equivalent for survival of the fittest, help your culture survive.
wildlettuce 2 months ago
@myusq "Rape is considered morally wrong absolutely also holocaust"
Obviously not.. a lot of Germans felt they were doing the right thing, and its not a stretch of the imagination to assume that some culture at some point in time justified rape under certain circumstances, considering some of the customs that are held by tribes even today.
seblasian 2 months ago
You seem to relate the intent of an action to whether or not the action is right or wrong. I wonder if they are truly related... I accept that there are objective fundemental moral values that can be refined as we get closer to rational perfection, so I dont think that whether an action is right or wrong is relative. But its an interesting question: Is intent directly related to the moral status of an action?
mrabdrum 2 months ago 2
the point u r making are flawed..we need not find an exclusion by example to refute objectivism. it is not about wether some morals hold for all situations, it is more in the natrual course of things something are right and some are not.
Sam10947 3 months ago
morals are often confused by ppl even the educated ones, there are morals, customs, and code of conducts. morals are some inherent tendency to certain action regardless of the origin of a person. this should not be confused by code of conduct. this person is one of them who confuse them.
Sam10947 3 months ago
so if a woman is raped in a culture where its accepted and not considered immoral its cool with you? interesting
PrinzVidar 3 months ago
Mmmmm...not quite sure you expressed correctly what MR really is. Have a look at wikipedia. MR is more related to moral judgements in relation to differnt cultures and societies, not on intepreting acts based on the circumstances surrounding that act.
Aramis7 5 months ago
i think....
moral universalism--morals related to masses, rather simple, and needs strong reasoning and proof.
moral relativism-- morals applicable based on situation, and variable.
eg:
mildpace 5 months ago