Tom's Hardware > Forum > Old Man/Woman's Club > Polls > Ethics and Morality

Ethics and Morality

Forum Old Man/Woman's Club : Polls - Ethics and Morality

Tom's Hardware: Over 1.4 million members in 6 different countries available to answer all your high-tech questions. Sign up now! Its free!

Related content
Forum

See all topics related to "ethics morality"

Ask the community Add a reply

Morality

Absolutist
Relativist

Warning, if you click on "see results", you won't be able to vote

Page: Previous 1 2 Next Bottom Search this thread

A moral absolutist believes that there is one set of universal moral guidelines that govern human behavior, and that apply to all people across all cultures.

A moral relativist believes that morality exists only as a function of a specific culture, and therefore the moral guidelines of a particular culture are relevant only to members of that culture; a person from one culture cannot issue any moral judgement on a person from another culture.

Which are you?
Morality
ßunn¥§troker 0wn§ j00!

Add a reply

Hmm.... I see i'm not with the croud on this one.

Nice Lizards crunch Trolls cookies....... :smile: Yummy!! :smile:

Reply to Yahiko81

What if we don't have morals

U got a problem?! Then dial 1800-328-7448!

Reply to Flamethrower205

OO, here's an example of how bad I can be: I was talking with my teacher abotu something, and I see she is eyeing this bag of money on the floor. Just when she slowly starts to reach down to get it (she wqs kinda old), I swoopd down and grab it. Hehe. She got pretty pissed at me for a week. Then sucking up did teh trick

U got a problem?! Then dial 1800-328-7448!

Reply to Flamethrower205

Quote :

A moral relativist believes that morality exists only as a function of a specific culture, and therefore the moral guidelines of a particular culture are relevant only to members of that culture; a person from one culture cannot issue any moral judgement on a person from another culture.

Then I believe that you are the relativist.

Nice Lizards crunch Trolls cookies....... :smile: Yummy!! :smile:

Reply to Yahiko81

Great poll BunnyStroker. I believe I'm a moral absolutists. It would be crazy if one can say that their morals allow them to kill and to terrorize other people. I personally believe morals and perhaps even laws should be absolute and universal so people and governments can't have an excuse to do crazy things like what happened on September 11th.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the ULTIMATE PC processor

Reply to AMD_Man

That's all fine in theory but I'm a relativist. Diferent cultures see things different ways. who's to say what is right and wrong. (no i am not saying terrorism is good) I just want to say every culture and everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Nice Lizards crunch Trolls cookies....... :smile: Yummy!! :smile:

Reply to Yahiko81

But, when one culture believes it is ok to kill, so they kill someone in another culture, which culture's morals apply?

Quarter Pounder Inside

Reply to FatBurger

Your own.

Nice Lizards crunch Trolls cookies....... :smile: Yummy!! :smile:

Reply to Yahiko81

I'm *soooooooo* glad I don't have to deal with you people's crap.

Being amoral has it's advantages... :smile:

Rich is the nation that has many war heroes. Long since forgotten...

Reply to ejsmith2

Which one? The killer or killee?

Quarter Pounder Inside

Reply to FatBurger

Either. You have your morals. So if you kill someone and it's morally OK in your culture then you have done nothing wrong. But if you are in a culture where it is wrong to kill then you are in the wrong. So if you are in another culture you must abide by their rules and laws. Who's to say what morals are right and which ones are wrong?

Nice Lizards crunch Trolls cookies....... :smile: Yummy!! :smile:

Reply to Yahiko81

Quote :

So if you kill someone and it's morally OK in your culture then you have done nothing wrong. But if you are in a culture where it is wrong to kill then you are in the wrong

Its like the Monty Python film "The Meaning of Life". In one scene a wounded British soldier fighting in a colonial war says,
"I killed 10 of those buggers. Now back home they'ed hang me. Here they'll give me a fvcking medal!"

I reckon all cultures are influenced by example. If you see a guy getting beat up by 3 guys you might watch or you might jump in to help him. Usually the moral action would be to help, but who's to say the guy didn't steal their mother's purse?

I think morality should be measured by culture. If the Nazis had deported the Jews instead of murdering them, would they have been cosidered more moralistic? They would have been no less racist by keeping their conscience clear.

I think that religeon plays a huge part in immorality. Far to many crimes are committed (and have been for centuries) for religeous reasons. Not being religeous myself, I sometimes wish religeon didn't exist. It provides an easy and sometimes tolerated excuse for hating someone.

The same goes for colour, sexual orientation etc. It is human nature to dislike the unlike. Humans can be less like animals by rising above their natural tendencies and closing their eyes to the differences. I think the evils in the world need to exist to give us something to make us good. This gives us the chance to have morals.

~scribble~ :wink:

Reply to camieabz

I believe people should be left to believe in what they want to but they should respect certains universal morals such as no religious, racial, sexual discrimination and no killing, etc.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the ULTIMATE PC processor

Reply to AMD_Man

I believe that everyone should have the ability to choose their own morals. Morals are inherited from your guardians and other peers. If you choose another set it's your right.

Nice Lizards crunch Trolls cookies....... :smile: Yummy!! :smile:

Reply to Yahiko81

Ok, so the family of the person that got killed is outraged, and they want the killer punished, but since he did nothing wrong, he can't be punished, right?
Therefore, you have a huge political mess, and a war breaks out.
Sounds like a good idea to me.

Quarter Pounder Inside

Reply to FatBurger

I'm sure that won't happen. But if it does "Oh well". I don't know what to say. You can't force people to have morals. So if you think going to war is fine because someone killed one of your family members then are you really any better than them?

Nice Lizards crunch Trolls cookies....... :smile: Yummy!! :smile:

Reply to Yahiko81

Quote :

I'm sure that won't happen.

No? Remember how good Communism looks on paper, but in reality, it never works.

Quote :

So if you think going to war is fine because someone killed one of your family members then are you really any better than them?

You realize you just said they did something wrong. I thought since it was ok in their culture, then it wouldn't be wrong?

You're a [-peep-]ing [-peep-], Yahiko. You know that?

But wait, I don't think that's rude, so it isn't.

You just gave all the trolls an excuse to troll all they want.

Quarter Pounder Inside

Reply to FatBurger

I'm thrilled that this actually got a response.

Although my major (I'm a student) is chemical engineering, I'm getting a minor (sort of...my University doesn't have proper "minor" degrees) in philosophy/religious studies.

The general consensus in the US today is one of moral relativism. In the name of political correctness, most people will claim that moral absolutism is "wrong" in the sense that it involves leveling a judgement upon another culture.

A particularly relevant example: Women in many "traditional" islamic countries are not allowed to expose any part of their bodies nor get an education nor even travel alone. Can we, as Americans, judge this as wrong? A moral relativist must say no.

However, for several reasons (religious, analytical, etc.) I am a moral absolutist. Here's why I believe moral relativism simply cannot work.

First, the proposition of moral relativism is self contradictory. In any robust system of moral relativism, the moral relativist must make the claim "It is always wrong to impose ethical judgment on any other culture".

However, the moral relativist must hold that this claim is true for all peoples and all cultures. Otherwise it is ok to "judge" another culture, and relativism is destroyed.

So, they are forced into applying a moral judgement (i.e. "moral judgments on another culture are wrong" ) on all cultures. This is self contradictory.

Second, most moral relativists are not willing to take moral relativism at face value. Consider this situation: There is a man in Nazi Germany in 1943. At this point in Germain culture, Jews were widely reviled. The cultural consensus was that they were sub-human. Say that this man is just a fantastic Nazi, and pesonally executes thousands of innocent Jewish men, women, and chldren.

The true moral relativist must claim that no ethical judgment can be made on this man by any person today (unless by some metaphysical miracle that person is a member of 1943 Nazi Germany). The statement "The man committed many evil acts" is false. At this point, most "moral relativists" get a bit squeamish.

Most will compromise their position and say that in extreme cases like that, ethical judgment may be imposed - but this is really just admitting to absolute moral rules (i.e. killing innocents is wrong) and relativism simply fails.

Like I said, I am a moral absolutist. This does not mean that I believe that my culture (United States of America) holds all true moral beliefs (in fact, I cannot think of a culture ever that I would be willing to say did) nor do I believe that I have necessarily gotten all my moral beliefs "right".

In the end, because of my belief in the base moral system of the Semetic religions (Judaism/Christianity/Islam) I believe that the moral "truth" is established by God and that as humans we must strive to get as close as possible to that.

Anyway, I find this to be a fascinating topic - any comments on my arguments are more than welcome!

ßunn¥§troker 0wn§ j00!

Reply to BunnyStroker

Very good argument (although some will obviously disagree). One question:

Why do you group Judaism, Christianity and Islam? Obviously you need some point of detail at which to draw the line and stop dividing groups (Protestants and Catholics, instead of just Christians, or Baptists and Non-denominational instead of just Protestant, or Traditional Baptist and Reformed Baptist, instead of just Baptist...you get the point).

Anyhow, I'm curious why you put Islam with Judaism and Christianity.
Personally, I regard Islam as very different from Christianity (me). Judaism is also of course different, but not as much so, and I could understand those two being grouped together.

Let me know why you did.

Quarter Pounder Inside

Reply to FatBurger

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are often grouped together as the "Semitic" religions for a couple of reasons.

These three constitute the bulk of Western religions, as opposed to the Eastern religions (Buddhism, Hinduism are the main ones). All three arose in the Middle East.

The three (J,C,I) all believe in an omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect God who cares very deeply about humanity.

All three consider the fundamental human problem to be sin; that is to say they believe that humans, through their own free will, have chosen selfish motivation and live in sin. All three consider sin to be self-destructive and a barrier between people and God.

The three share a common ground in scripture as well. Jews have as their main religious text the Hebrew Bible. Christians view this as fundamental as well; they call it the "Old Testament", but read it through the lens of the New testament. Muslims view both the Hebrew scriptures and the Christian new testament as doctrine, but read both through the lens of the Koran.

All three share very similar moral principles - they believe that the basis for ethics is laid out in the 10 commandments as handed down to Moses.

These are the main reasons why the three are grouped together. Naturally, as you point out, there are very fundamental (irreconciliable even) differences - namely, in how each views religious (not moral) obligations.

I know less about these, as I am neither Jewish nor Muslim. So for an easy difference, here's something: Christians view Christ as the key to human salvation and the 'ultimate' form of divine grace - most Christian sects would claim Christ is both fully man and fully God. Although muslims see Christ as an important figure, he is viewed not as God incarnate but merely as a prophet. For muslims the central religious figure is the prophet Mohammed through whom the Koran was revealed.

These differences are enormous, to be sure - to the point where one could not logically nor consistently claim to be both Jewish and Christian - all three are mutually exclusive.

But, consider comparing Christianity to Theravada Buddhism - the two are completely different. The TB would say that there is no God, that humans are really just collections of impermanent bundles of motivations and desires, and that "salvation", although they would call it "Nirvana" is achieved by recognizing this fact, achieving freedom from all desire and escaping the karmic cycle of reincarnation.

So, after that long-winded discussion, it makes a reasonable amount of sense, when "grouping" religions, to lump J/C/I.

ßunn¥§troker 0wn§ j00!

Reply to BunnyStroker

Here's how I look at it:

Jews: Use the Torah. It says, "Go forth and smite your enemies. See them driven before you. Collect their foreskins. If they aren't Jews, they are breaking the first commandment, which means you're not smiting enough. Import a Killsword if you need too."

Catholics: Use the Bible, which includes the Old and New testament. It says, "Yeah, we still refer to that old book with all the smiting and collecting foreskins. But since it's a thousand plus years old, and you've paid me back all the foreskins I lent you, here's a new one which superseedes it. Think of it as the Bible mk.II. Don't get hukin fammered every day; that's what the weekends are for."

Baptists: Use the Bible. They think it says, "It's ok to get hukin fammered, as long as you do it when no one is looking, and condemn everyone that gets caught doing it. Yes I know this makes you a hypocrite; take it up with Martin Luther, because he started it. It's also ok to have extra marital affairs, but if you get the chick pregnant you better have the cash for all the bribes and abortion. Women be subservient to your husbands."

Muslims: Use the Quran. It says, "Listen to Mohammad. Chicks cover your hair. Be strong of will, but respect everyone regardless of their race/religion. If you turn away from Islam, someone will smite you, so don't do it. But it's ok if someone outside the group wants to join. Visit Mecca and throw some pebbles at a couple of pillars. You can drink fermented honey, but not grapes or grain. Stay away from bacon."

Well......got that one cleared up.

Move on to the next.

Rich is the nation that has many war heroes. Long since forgotten...

Reply to ejsmith2

Although u might add that with Catholicism, they say "we want complete world peace and unity...but only if everyone converts to Catholicism, the religion where you pray to saints, pray to Mary, pray to Jesus, but believe you are monotheistic".

Althons and Pentiums are just melted rock. Who’s rock is better? Who cares, let’s play some games

Reply to wolverinero79

I don't really see your point. You say that moral relativist have to pass judgement on all moral cultures. Could it not also be that every culture has it's own morals. So what if the nazi killed thousands. Yes to me that is morally wrong. To him it was a job well done. That's why he did nothing wrong but at the same time committed the most hiddeous crime you could. I don't see why everyone needs one set of morals. Different conditions lead to different morals. If this was not the case then we would surely have one set of morals. Look I'm not saying killing is ok. I probably have the same morals as most of you on this board. I'm just saying people are entitled to their own opinion. If you were in Germany back in the 40's and killing jews it would be morally ok. Maybe not with you, but it would be with their culture. So it really depends on where you live and how you are brought up.

Nice Lizards crunch Trolls cookies....... :smile: Yummy!! :smile:

Reply to Yahiko81

Well, the important distinction is that what we are talking about is not what people think the moral rules are - rather, it's about what they really are.

To a moral absolutist at least, there are moral principles that are completely independant of human beings. Example: the statement "Action P is wrong". The moral absolutist will hold that this statement is either true or false, no matter what people of a certain culture think about it. A more concrete example - most absolutists would claim that the statement "Killing innocents is wrong". That a nazi might not consider this true is irrelevant; If he or she thinks that the statement is false, he/she is simply wrong.

I understand what you are trying to say - you are a moral relativist. That's where the debate lies.

ßunn¥§troker 0wn§ j00!

Reply to BunnyStroker

Wolverinero79 -

I'm Catholic. Your statements are really just standard anti-Catholic propoganda.

"We want complete peace and unity...but only if everyone converts to Catholicism" - hardly. The Catholic church, as with all major religions, holds a belief of religious tolerance. Nobody is going to claim that the Catholic church hasn't committed violence in the name of religion in the past (the Inquisition, for example) but this is true of nearly every religion - I challenge you to name a belief system that hasn't at one time or another committed violence in the name of conversion.

"Forced Conversion" is a perversion of Catholic and more broadly Christian ethics and beliefs.

As for the praying to Mary, saints etc -
Please don't spout off unless you know what you are talking about. It is true that the Catholic Church holds that Mary, as well as the Saints, hold elevated positions - but a prayer to them is a prayer for them to petition God - Saying the "Hail Mary" doesn't mean you believe that Mary is a Goddess; that is blasphemy.

In short, you may have your opinions about Catholicism - that's fine. But please be respectful of other religions and the people who hold them.

ßunn¥§troker 0wn§ j00!

Reply to BunnyStroker

First off BunnyStroker this is a great poll, makes ya think about life.
I have to disagree with on a couple of points

Quote :

second, most moral relativists are not willing to take moral relativism at face value. Consider this situation: There is a man in Nazi Germany in 1943. At this point in German culture, Jews were widely reviled. The cultural consensus was that they were sub-human. Say that this man is just a fantastic Nazi, and personally executes thousands of innocent Jewish men, women, and children.

People as individuals are smart, intelligent and competent, however mobs of people are dumb and easily influenced especially by propagandist means. What happened in Nazi Germany was terrible. However the one thing many people overlook is the fact that we were not in their position. The US has done the same thing only no one made a big deal about the extermination and subjection of the native Americans who live here. We practically wiped out an entire race, and for what, land, greed and manifest destiny. Not to mention all of the atrocities that our government has committed in the name of "FREEDOM. I am not going to condone what the Nazis did by any means, but it is unfair for us to pass judgement on them simply because we see things differently. Do you really want to know what our government has done to other cultures? The whole thing about morality is it varies from one person to another. What I hold dear, you most certainly do not. Can you really blame the Germans for what happened, no. What happened there is no different than Jim Jones and Jonestown. Germany fell under the spell of an opportunistic charismatic person who saw the chance to bring his country out of darkness and back to greatness. Germany had been blamed viscously for World War 1, and unrightly so.
The whole problem I have with religion and morals is no one, but myself is going to tell me how to live my life. How many people have died in the name of "GOD" and their particular values. By your reasoning we should all die for atrocities we have committed against the people of Islam, or so they say. Absolutism is scary by its very essence. It says to me that you have no room for anything that does not coincide with your beliefs. That is a direct path to fascism and totalitarianism. Most people don’t want to see what is going on, Germany was no different.

Turn around and smell what you don't see... here's a mirror, behind there is a screen

Reply to jmycal

Being an absolutist does not necessarily mean that you're a bad person. I believe all people should believe in what they want as long as they follow certain restrictions. Killing for example should be a restriction. Discrimination also should be another restrictions. Just because we live in free countries doesn't mean we have total freedom. I don't think it's fair to kill someone and claim they're doing it in the name of "GOD". Killing and discrimination should be universally prohibited no matter what your religion or background is. If every person in the world is completely free to do what they wish then we would all be savages.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the ULTIMATE PC processor

Reply to AMD_Man

Quote :

If every person in the world is completely free to do what they wish then we would all be savages.

Could it not be also that if everyone in the world were completely free to do what we wish then we could acheive a state of utopia?

Nice Lizards crunch Trolls cookies....... :smile: Yummy!! :smile:

Reply to Yahiko81

Quote :

In short, you may have your opinions about Catholicism - that's fine. But please be respectful of other religions and the people who hold them.

Thank you. That goes for ejsmith2, as well. I understand it was light-hearted, but it's not usually a good idea to go knocking every religion on this board.

Ok, Yahiko. You say that if everyone was free to do what they wish, you would be in utopia? Is your view of utopia waking up one morning to find your truck stolen, then when you're walking to the bus stop, someone sets your house on fire? You get to work, and you're jumped on by coworkers, tied down, and slowly tortured to death?

As long as they believe it's ok, then they aren't doing anything wrong. Is that your view of a perfect world?

Quarter Pounder Inside

Reply to FatBurger

Why does it have to be like that? Oh and by the way I said it could go either way. Just because you have complete freedom doesn't mean you are going to lose all of your senses. You being an absolutist should agree on this. If everyone has one set of morals and complete freedom then why would be turn into savages?? Would the individual have enough sense to help out his fellow man? I understand human greed and lust for power but if everyone is totally free then they should eventually work towards a harmony. there are always two sides to a coin.

Nice Lizards crunch Trolls cookies....... :smile: Yummy!! :smile:

Reply to Yahiko81

"That goes for ejsmith2, as well. I understand it was light-hearted, but it's not usually a good idea to go knocking every religion on this board."

In all actuality, I really don't care about the religion aspect. I've met Hindu's who were the most awesome people to work with. Easy going, relaxed, humorous, and familial. That goes for Muslims (only worked with 2, maybe), a couple of jews (one of them used to be a stripper). I've gone to church with too many Roman Catholics to still have sympathy for them; sorry. And my state legislature has been run by Baptists for the past 70 years, so I've developed my level of respect for them.

Anyway, if everyone gets along, with the holy-hell difference does it make?

But, there's always idiots in the world who think there is only *One* correct way, and all other ways are not only incorrect, but evil. So, my policy is to level the playing field.

Nukem' from orbit.

Rich is the nation that has many war heroes. Long since forgotten...

Reply to ejsmith2

You're missing the point, or maybe it's just that we have different beliefs.

People are inherently bad. Do you agree?

Let me ask you this. What single group of people (by age, religion, race, whatever), do you think is the most kind, caring, helping, whatever? By choice, I mean.

Quarter Pounder Inside

Reply to FatBurger

Quote :

People are inherently bad. Do you agree?

No, I do not agree. I think there are certain limit factors that exist which prevent people from acting helpful towards others. On the kind people. I belive there is no one group that is particularly helpful. It's up to the individual.

Nice Lizards crunch Trolls cookies....... :smile: Yummy!! :smile:

Reply to Yahiko81

Ok, so the only people that will be happy are the ones that will walk all over everyone else?

Quarter Pounder Inside

Reply to FatBurger

Why don't you think anyone can be happy helping other people? Many people like helping other people. It adds meaning to their lives.

Nice Lizards crunch Trolls cookies....... :smile: Yummy!! :smile:

Reply to Yahiko81

i think many people are/can be happy helping other people.

Turn around and smell what you don't see... here's a mirror, behind there is a screen

Reply to jmycal

Many, but not everyone. Until all people share the exact same values and beliefs, Utopia cannot be possible with complete freedom.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the ULTIMATE PC processor

Reply to AMD_Man

Exactly. Until EVERYONE has the same (or close to) beliefs, you can't possibly live in Utopia. Or unless you completely segregated the different types of beliefs so they couldn't affect each other. But a couple of them would end up killing themselves off anyway.

Quarter Pounder Inside

Reply to FatBurger

Why not? People are surely intelligent enough to incorporate tolerance.

Nice Lizards crunch Trolls cookies....... :smile: Yummy!! :smile:

Reply to Yahiko81

They haven't so far, what are you going to do to change that?

Quarter Pounder Inside

Reply to FatBurger

Nope.

Nice Lizards crunch Trolls cookies....... :smile: Yummy!! :smile:

Reply to Yahiko81

The only way you could possibly change that is to change the way you act. In turn that will reflect upon other people. Hopefully they will change and then it's a ripple effect. But a lot of people are against change.

Nice Lizards crunch Trolls cookies....... :smile: Yummy!! :smile:

Reply to Yahiko81

I completely agree with FatBurger. People need leaders and laws to bring chaos to order. You can't expect people to be orderly and peaceful without rules and regulations. Another way to bring order would be to assimilate the entire world population into Borg drones, hehe.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the ULTIMATE PC processor

Reply to AMD_Man

Quote :

But a lot of people are against change.

So it won't work.

Let me put it simply. In order to have the perfect world, EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON EARTH must have very close to the same beliefs (and follow them their whole life). Also, they must be good beliefs and help others, not hurt others. That will never happen.

Quarter Pounder Inside

Reply to FatBurger

No that's where you are wrong. People will not have to have the same beliefs to get along. They will just have to have tolerance and learn to share. But you are however right that it will never work. People will never be completely tolerant of one another. It is possible for different cultures with different morals to exist in peace. If they have radically different ideas then they stay away from each other. If they have similar Idea's then they peacefully coincide. Is this not how it is today to some extent?

Nice Lizards crunch Trolls cookies....... :smile: Yummy!! :smile:

Reply to Yahiko81

But it's rules and regulations that are forcing them to tolerate each other. Being completely free means not being bound by laws. Once people aren't bound by laws they will no longer tolerate each other.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the ULTIMATE PC processor

Reply to AMD_Man

You don't have to have rules and regulations to tolerate people. That's a bunch of bull. Think of someone you dislike, but tolerate just because it's wrong to hate them.

Nice Lizards crunch Trolls cookies....... :smile: Yummy!! :smile:

Reply to Yahiko81

Yeah, well that might apply to me but not everyone in the world. Some would love the chance to kill other people they hate.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the ULTIMATE PC processor

Reply to AMD_Man

"People are inherently bad"

Well, every history book I've *ever* read through says the exact same thing.

Statistics don't lie; people just interpret them wrong.

Rich is the nation that has many war heroes. Long since forgotten...

Reply to ejsmith2

1 2

Ask the community Add a reply

Tom's Hardware > Forum > Old Man/Woman's Club > Polls > Ethics and Morality

Go to:

Help |
Forum rules

There are 549 identified and unidentified users. To see the list of identified users, Click here.

Page generated in 0.494 seconds

Please mind

You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months.
If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.

Add a reply Cancel

Focus On

Ethics and Morality

Forum Old Man/Woman's Club : Polls - Ethics and Morality

Please mind