Moral Relativism | Ethics Defined
Vložit
- čas přidán 29. 08. 2024
- Moral Relativism asserts that moral standards are culturally-defined and therefore it may be impossible to determine what is truly right or wrong. This video is part of Ethics Defined, an animated library of more than 50 ethics terms and concepts from Ethics Unwrapped, available at ethicsunwrappe...
For free videos and teaching resources on ethics and leadership, visit ethicsunwrapped...
Ethics Unwrapped is a free online educational program produced by the Center for Leadership and Ethics at The University of Texas at Austin. It offers an innovative approach to introducing complex ethics topics that is accessible to both students and instructors. For more videos, case studies, and teaching materials, visit ethicsunwrapped...
A complete playlist of Ethics Unwrapped videos available on CZcams may be found at: bit.ly/2lzF71u
© 2017 The University of Texas at Austin. All Rights Reserved.
"So unbridled is their madness, that they declare they have in their power all things which are irreligious and impious, and are at liberty to practice them; for they maintain that things are good or evil simply in virtue of human opinion."
-Iranaeus "Against Heresies"
Abortion, liberal gun law, homosexual marriage, different religions and cultures and vaccination refusal all are examples for moral relativism. Our biggest problem is that we cannot judge them universally, because each individual can sometimes be actually different for some objective reasons, e.g. Deaf culture and health reasons.
HAHAHAH well that was a bit bias!
@patrickbertlein4626 Feel free to explain about your above comment. God bless you.
@Patrick Bertlein That was in no way biased, trog. He gave examples of both sides of the aisle.
Probably pointless to help you as you'll just go scream yea at a bar and give noogies to whatever other backwards hat jackasses you're with.
Yes, you cannot judge them on an individual basis, but pushing through laws (who affect a majority of people) that interfere with such highly moral values in a negative way is not as easy as that. You cannot ban abortion for all just because you, be it tradition, cultural or religious beliefs, think it should be banned, because other people with different views will be impacted
@@felixlenert3649 have to interject...
we got here weighing opinions about what not just "fair" but wants moral too and morality while plenty of privileged people who *would like to think* it's not definite it clearly is, abortion should not be a cultural norm in POST PILL post FUCKING CONODM AND SEX EDUCATION society and you should see that if you had half a brain.
Morals are just another evolutionary trait to keep a society alive. I choose my morals on what keeps me alive, but that doesn't mean I don't value others.
@@helloman1051 Depends on who you ask. To that society, it's justified. To our current society, it's generally unjustified. It's all about perspective.
@@helloman1051 Doesn't matter who they target, to them it's justified and to us it isn't. That doesn't make either one of us right or wrong.
@@helloman1051 to them yes to me not
Moral relativism in a nutshell.
There is no prove that my morals are superior to theirs nor the other way around
@@speedwagon4287 yeah no, try speaking from a shack in the third world and tell me those conditions are "relative" 😁
@@shelbyspeaks3287 why should I speak from some shake in supposed third world country🤨?
personally i think i sit more in the middle ground between if you go to either extreme it can have terrible outcomes
@Total Water it's called normal thinking socierty is based on give and take not some extremist viewpoint
@Total Water they are both and neither at the same time you are bound by laws you do not create and you have free will to brake them it is the individual that chooses.
some people choose to brake some but then will obey others, the trouble is you are looking a man as if they are computers and not organic. people do not follow logical rules.
@Total Water then you don't really understand how society works clearly or you are one making the law which i highly doubt.
also if we are not bound by laws then make it rain milk.
@Total Water no I just think it is pointless thing to be obecessed about. The fact of the matter is the common person really has no choice to follow the dictact of the authorities, so the idea that we if you take one position or the other really in actually dose not matter. And to a greater extent reality and the universe is constrained and we within it.
Then you have the constraints of our boolergy that govern our behaviour and has a lot to do with our interactions and essentially our core societal values. so really to say either way if you belive onecposition is true and the other false really is at the end of the day is a belife and really has no real basis in reality. Its pointless thing to take any position on when you live in a socierty the socierty dictates from above
@Total Water the majority just actually comply with it part of our innate biology is to do so we then develop a reasoning mechanism for the compliance its called group think. and you are the only arguing here i accept i am constrained and i also accept that both positions are held by many people. but the individual always takes a position therefore they constrain themselves within laws which they then try to find a group that shares those moral values.
I agree with the philosophers that you can’t have the normative idea that we should just get along.
That’s slipping moral absolutism into relativism.
*revs up chainsaw*
Wonderfully explained. Even kids can understand. Need more videos as such in the world.
1:22, there are no "shoulds" in moral relativism. It's "each his own."
Total Water By “should” I mean obligation. There are no absolute moral obligations for any type of moral relativism, metaethical or normative. There is no ultimate objective moral law above a country’s laws that would obligate one to obey a country’s laws.
@@jkm9332 well there is the social threat too if one does not behave according to the x societies customs he then becomes an outcast,generally to oppose a certain way of behavior it is always necessary for the threat of violence to exist,whether its the law with police,society with the feeling of being an outcast or even god with the threat of violence this is simply an observation of course
panos katrin There are consequences to actions. But there are no obligations.
@@jkm9332 obligations are manmade,you and mainly the culture in which you were raised make you react to the world accordingly with the values of that culture,an extreme example is if you asked a nazi about killing jews he would see it as his obligation to his family,his nation and god and also humanity, or a monk might consider that to act peacefully and to seek self improvement is his obligation to himself and humanity , both the monk and the nazi soldier act according to what they see as their obligation to X=probably something the believe is bigger and more important than themselves and their urges,just like the monk sees as his obligation to calm himself down and ignore his feelings and his desires when he is agry and hotheaded ,to show strength and help to improve humanity,so does the nazi soldier belive its his obligation to ignore his feelings of sympathy and love for the jews, to show strength and improve humanity
@@panoskatrin4910 Would you say that Nazi deserters were morally wrong since they objected to the man-made obligation to kill Jews? Should they have fulfilled their obligations as Nazi soldiers?
I cannot escape moral relativism
You will always be a slave, until you realize that slavery is absolutely wrong.
If morality is so self evident. Why are there like 500 different moralities? If morality is so innate and natural. Why does it need to be taught? If morality is so eternal and unchanging. Why was slavery considered a moral fact in 1860 but anti-slavery is now considered the moral fact in 2024? Also why does liberalism think its morality is THE morality?
Thanks, this was really helpful!
Serial Killer: *Brutally murders dozens of people*
Moral Relativist: Eh, who am I to judge.
Well tell me why is it objectively wrong?
@@speedwagon4287??? Killing many people is wrong because the very act of harming life for no good reason is wrong.
Would you rather live in Finland or Saudi Arabia/North Korea?
What is the point of your choice of place to live?
@@ErichCavalcanti let me rephrase his question, do you want to live in a shithole or not ?
@@willhemwill5595 kkkkkkkk moral relativism implies shitholes? Or shouldn't we say that shitholes are full of "absolute unquestionable moral codes"?
@@ErichCavalcanti First answer the question then see how moral relativism is deeply flawed. It might take some intellectual honesty to begin.
@@brianburdett3463 well, you didn't get the point...
I would say you are afraid not of the basic "moral relativism" but of what it implies in your mind. Forget about the name. The basic concept on the table is:
"There is no absolute nor Intrinsic moral code."
What to do with it? Think about it and reflect. There are ALREADY many "solutions", but all of them need to accept the basic concept... For example, I might choose, as I have liberty for it, that the must important principle for me is "life must be guaranteed for all". And I know that since no moral code is absolute, I can simple argue BASED ON my principle, and evaluate in what principles the opinion of others is based.
This is just like the notion "life has no Intrinsic meaning". This is a simple statement. If you choose to think that this idea is unacceptable and enter in despair, the problem is not with the statement, is in your way to face it... Also for this topic there are many "solutions" already.... But all of them need to accept the basic "life has no Intrinsic/absolute meaning".
All morals are relative. I still can impose my morality over others.
My take on this is that moral relativism and moral absolutism are both deeply flawed. There are no moral absolutes. There is only better moral knowledge that becomes instantiated within human minds based on criticism, argument, and other forms of error correction and elimination. There are moral truths that are real and objective but are also fallible. Progress in moral philosophy occurs at a rapid pace when people seek better explanations for their own behavior by deciding what to do next and deciding what kind of life to lead. There is no upper bound on the value of human ideas.
@Total WaterI accept that I have preconceptions. Would you please tell me what you think these mistaken preconceptions might be? At any rate, absolutes are, quite thankfully, impossible. Religious zealots often claim that their beliefs in a god(gods) cannot possibly be mistaken. There can be an infinity of improvement in moral reasoning because all reasoning in all fields is fallible. Both absolutism and relativism are pessimistic and just ways to deny the potential of human ideas. Regarding moral relativism, maybe you could consider that claiming female genital mutilation is not a problem "because that is just part of their culture." We can make an infinity of progress in moral reasoning if we choose to do so.
@Total Water Thank you for your criticism. I like to be exposed to ideas from someone who is more learned. So I guess my stance is on morality is relative. So is it situationally relative and can it be criticized? Also, I think you meant inherent and not inherit? Also, could morality be an emergent phenomenon and neither absolute or relative?
@Total Water Again, thank you for your criticism. I did not mean to leave you in a fit of laughter. I guess real philosophy cannot involve real-world practicality?
Morality is a law built into this place, stomp your feet and yell all you like, it's completely, universally absolute
@@degenerate82 So I guess you do not believe in free will?
Problem arrises when one religion sees itself as perfect and makes it compulsory for the believers of that religion to enforce it on others (by any means possible), even when they might be in a minority. You know like the glorious religion....
Are you a moral realist?
@@jkm9332 hi Jkm. I had to look up "Moral Realism", and I would say that for the most part I am a moral realist.
For example, stealing is wrong. If a culture says that stealing from others is right. Then I believe that stealing being a bad thing is universally true just as 2+2 =4
Of course there can be special situations. but that does not make stealing right.
BTW, why do you ask?
@@vickingvicbubble8042 Cool. I asked because I was curious to know if you thought religious conversion via violent force was actually immoral (or a problem, as you call it) or just something you didn't like (an opinion or personal preference). If you were a moral relativist, you couldn't really call anything an actual "problem" or "wrong," but since you're a moral realist and believe in moral facts, then you can. :)
@@jkm9332 So are you a moral realist or relativist?
@@vickingvicbubble8042 Realist.
Morality is both universal and relative. We all think differently, but we wanted to strive what is good. Morality is also to strive what is good.
It's either objective or subjective. It cannot be both. Hope you make up your mind soon
@@coldtrigon66 subjectivity goes into the calculation, but the formula used is objective
@@coldtrigon66 It is objective, that all morals are subjective.
The only position to take is to take no position.
If you believe in a standard of morality that exists beyond and in addition to the relativistic systems of morality we observe then you're a moral absolutist. If you dont then you're a moral relativist.
Total Water Human observation of the human condition is highly limited to our observable understanding of the conditions around us. In no way does it have any relevance or meaning to the universe. Therefore, I prefer the relativistic and nihilistic interpretation of humanity.
@@ultrasonicradiation
*"Human observation of the human condition is highly limited to our observable understanding of the conditions around us"*
- Human understanding of ALL things is limited by the information we have access to.
*" In no way does it have any relevance or meaning to the universe."*
- incorrect, we can only work with the information we have, disregarding the best and most well evidenced explanation because of 'the possibility that contradictory information exists which we do not have access to' is highly irrational.
Your crazy. There can't be two conterdictery truths. It can be right and wrong at the same time (yes in different places) to kill. It is wrong to kill that is absolute. There can't be both God and Dharma. They are conterdictery, only one can be true. Yes they could both be true but only one is right. And sometimes mother is right. Yes sometimes your truth is different than mine, but that is a communication issue. Yes my possible truth can be different than your possible truth, but they can't both be true. Thsi is the conseept of the non-conterdictory law.
Yes the truth might not be found, or might not make sense to find (like with insurance companies), and sometime you can't even find it. But the point is it is that there is a truth. Something can be and not be sending on its circumstances. A fetus can be a person if the mother wants it but then not a person if the mother doesn't want it. Then it's poersonhood would be based on feelings, not reality. Because that is what relativism is, selfdefining by you or feelings not reality. A transgender person feels like they are a man so they try to become a man. FEELS! THATS THE key word. Your feelings don't make relaity. just because I feel something is true doesn't mean it is. Well who are you to judge actually I am everything to judge. I am a person who has the truth (of you disagree tell me why). Because that's the other thing is our culture, people really, get offended when their wrong. Why! I want to know the truth even if I am wrong. Why, because I find knowing the truth living right and justly more important than my inner ego and how I FEEL.
Furthermore relativism is conterdictery to its self. Relativism believes that the is no objective truth, only your truth, which is saying that there is only on obelective truth: that there is no objective truth which is contrary to its self! Thsi is crazy, do you not see what is going on people! If we have a world that is based off of felling, accomodation, and no jugement that everything is a limbo. Its chaos. And the sad part is this is already happening, it has for the past 200 years and in the past 70 it has gone out of controle and insane. So I ask you today to fight for what is right! To fight for real truth! And to fight to kill, to end this insane chaos which is relativism! May God be with you.
@@chromebook1794 There is no god you brainwashed fool. The only certainty in life is death, and it is devoid of all meaning, just like all life in the universe. You can choose to give meaning in your life by believe in fairy tail, but it does not change the fact that humanity is merely stardust.
And remember kids, the Romans sacrificed people to their gods.
Kind of like basically every other religion
Ancaps:*nice*
Who am i to judge? Umm..im me, im me to judge..
Yeah Im not gonna do the Rome part.
Slavery is absolutley wrong. There is no such thing as a moral argument that is pro-slavery. If you are pro-slavery, all you can do is come up with stupid excuses, and a pro-slavery person will always be wrong. Deciding that slavery is moral is impossible.
While you must base that judgement, on secular or theological grounds,however i can deny theology and deny those morals,and point put holes in secular systems,like utilitariansit organ donation problem.And some solipsist will say that its all based on his mind so he CAN’T base morals
So to extent of it you CAN’T objectively 100% base morals
If that was a universally agreed upon moral, then we would not have had slavery for thousands of years. What about Abortion, gun control, the death penalty, vaccine mandates, are those right or wrong? Not everyone agrees with you, hence moral relativism
Slavery gives free labor.
Mike Tyson punches Buster Douglas in the face during a boxing match: not immoral. Mike punches his wife in the face: immoral. It's pretty obvious that morality is relative to time and place and situation.
Disagree
-punches over 6ft pro fighter
-punches wife
big brained take.
Moral Relativism is one of the great poisons of our Age.
We should be slow to condemn but not paralyzed to act against possible evils. Yeah moral realism sucks.
@Germanisch NationalsozialistI meant relativism
Yes
Amen
Not at all. Moral relativism states an apparent fact: there is no intrinsic moral code, they are imposed upon us.
What you choose to do with this fact is up to you. The "poison" is to simply choose to violate all moral codes.
*Shoots baby*
One reason that we are plagued by race conscious bias is that it seems to be in our nature to have the need to feel superior to others. Differences of skin color is just one of the many reasons we succumb to feelings of hostility toward others with whom we have little or no personal contact. We are tribal still even as the peoples of the world have migrated to create societies of significant diversity. Ancient hatreds remain just below the surface based on differences of ethnicity, of language, of religion, and of cultural norms. We remain tied to values based on moral relativism, even as history's great thinkers have sought to identify universal principles upon which the just society ought to be based.
There is no simple solution to our seeming inability to live in peace with one another. The existing socio-political arrangements and institutions in every society have evolved from a time when settlement in one place required the establishment of rules over access to nature and to what one produced by one's labor. While the early rules might have been based on communitarian values and a consensus over what was just and equitable, every society throughout history eventually came to be dominated by hierarchy and hierarchical privilege. And, from that point on the societal norm is for surplus production to be taken by a privileged elite and a subsistence existence destined for the remainder of the population. This redistribution of wealth is enforced by deepening police powers of the state until rebellion occurs and a new regime is brought to power. Eventually, every new regime adopts the pattern of carving out hierarchical privilege for itself and the cycle repeats.
Solving the problem of hierarchical privilege was the challenge taken on by Henry George in the late 19th century. George resurrected the wisdom of past moral philosophers and offered a path of peaceful transition to finally bring justice and equality of opportunities to the world's societies. For a time many listened. Men such as Leo Tolstoy and Sun Yat-Sen embraced his program. A young Winston Churchill campaigned in 1909 delivering speeches that came almost directly from Henry George's writings. Unfortunately, as the decades passed following George's death in 1897, the power of his message faded into obscurity. Humanity endured cycles of boom and bust again and again. Two global wars and an endless number of territorial wars has continued in unrelenting fashion. All because we have not been able to end the power of hierarchical privilege. The thoughtful among us would do well to find and study the writings of Henry George. His wisdom and keen insights have always been needed, never more so than today.
Edward J. Dodson, Director
School of Cooperative Individualism
www.cooperative-individualism.org
bet·ter1
/ˈbedər/
adjective
of a more excellent or effective type or quality.
🤔could some cultures produce a higher quality of society? Could the citizens of that culture evolve to become more efficient within it?
Could such evolution cause defining traits?
Way too long.
I'll boil it down: Self vs Other. That's all it is. Racism and sexism are never, and cannot be wrong, unless used to make a biased decision against them, such as housing or job opportunities. To simply hate another for whatever arbitrary reason, in all honesty, is meaningless, because it is inconsequential. Just a thing to be sensitive about.
Is slavery as an idea ethical? According to me it is dangerous in the sense of considering human-beings as a material of use.
Bread labour is a sensitive idea. It is for gaining self-respect by working in social manner for earning bread. It is an opportunity which society can provide.
Human-beings as an asset is justified.
Did you mean to ask Is slavery moral? In other words, is it ok for one human being to own another human being?
I would say no. I do not want to be treated as property nor do I want to treat another person as property.
If there are people who disagree, then they should be my slaves.
Relativists would say yes slavery is equally moral...but they would not say we need to treat it as such-that’s actually what a universalist would say if they found slavery to be moral.
Moral relativism makes a universal truth statement concerning morality that there are no universal truths concerning morality. It's a self-contradicting and defeating ideology.
@@pdlsuper7lanck873 It isn't. It's an argument based on logical thinking. For all the cultures that have ever existed, and all the cultures that will exist in the future, saying that there are no objective morality based truths is merely a reasoned observation.
It's just like saying that life has no objective meaning or value. That's also true.
@@kanani717 *"Relativists would say yes slavery is equally moral"*
- No, a relativist would ask you what standard you are using to assess the rightness/wrongness of slavery because your question makes no god damn sense.
*You:* Is slavery moral?
*Relativist:* Moral in terms of what? Your opinion, my opinion, the laws of a given society .etc ?
*You:* In terms of an absolute standard of morality.
*Relativist:* I dont believe in an absolute standard of morality you mook.
Why is everything red in this video?
I wonder, can this be both right and wrong at the same time?
Technically yes, it’s like a variable that changes from person to person. In the end morality is based on opinion.
@Total Water ‘One difficulty in applying the law of non-contradiction is ambiguity in the propositions.[1] For instance, if is not explicitly specified as part of the propositions A and B, then A may be B at one time, and not at another. A and B may in some cases be made to sound mutually exclusive linguistically even though A may be partly B and partly not B at the same time. However, it is impossible to predicate of the same thing, at the same time, and in the same sense, the absence and the presence of the same fixed quality.’
‘As is true of all axioms of logic, the law of non-contradiction is alleged to be neither verifiable nor falsifiable, on the grounds that any proof or disproof must use the law itself prior to reaching the conclusion. In other words, in order to verify or falsify the laws of logic one must resort to logic as a weapon, an act which would essentially be self-defeating.[25] Since the early 20th century, certain logicians have proposed logics that deny the validity of the law.’
@Total Water Perhaps, it’s just quite a bit more complicated than a simple statement can make it out to be.
@Total Water Well who says they’re completely contradictory, I say there is much room for overlap between both. I don’t think there is such thing as truly absolute morality, everything is more or less relative, though there may be some absolute truths.
We’re talking about moral principles and not the fundamentals of logic.
@Total Water Well I don’t think conversation is going anywhere my dude, I have my thoughts and you have yours and that’s fine.
What application did you use to make these videos?
What?
@@micalronan9014 as in software program.
aca qn de usil p bateria
calla serrano
This is a dangerous idea and should be apposed. If there is a culture wherein it is "moral" to harm others including outside of their cultures one can see the problem. Think 9/11. The morals within most religions are off mark. And don't think that I think our culture has it right. But perhaps there are universal moral principles that are logically sound that can be found almost anywhere. Such as actions taken that harm others are generally bad. Cooperation as a group to achieve what is best for all and putting in your share of hard work. Taking responsibility for one's self and one's offspring. Universal. It's not actually that hard to see that it's not all that relative. Some cultures are just shit and need improvement.
I agree.
You are talking about Normative moral relativism.
@@dynionpiler5150 What makes moral relativism different from normative moral relativism?
Counterargument: you can take the opposite extreme and claim that one culture's morals are superior to all others, and force them onto other countries, potentially leading to mass violence. Sort of like imperialism. I think both extreme moral relativism and extreme moral absolutism are insane and dangerous, and most people are probably somewhere in between.
@@bread8465 If that mass violence is objectively evil, then moral relativism is false. All you seem to be saying is that a particular culture does evil things, falsely proclaiming to be good. Well one does not have to be a moral relativist to accept people can be wrong about absolute notions of good and evil. On the other hand, if moral relativism is true, that mass violence cannot be any more evil than opposing it.
WHERE'S MY ENGLISH 2B GANG? SHAWAWT! HAHAHAHAHA
It's honestly not how I see it defined in a philosophy course.
Then how do you explain our conscious?
No one can explain it, why?
Lovely
nope, my morals are that its OK as long as it's not hurting anyone else. this includes the right to commit suicide. the suicide is only directly hurting yourself, unless you have someone else relying on you, in the case of pets or God forbid, kids.
Fine but the thing is not everyone agrees on that and their opinion isn’t invalid
Moral Relativism: making a universal truth statement concerning morality that there are no universal truths concerning morality.
Out of all the atheists I exchanged ideas with, I'd say about 50% or so have claimed to be more relativists, and about 10% are actually moral relativists. The remaining 40% instantly think someone is unethical when they promote religion, even if everyone else in the room believes it is okay. The 10% that are moral relativists don't care when others believe they're wrong and put up minimal or no fight against a consensus against them.
That is an excellent point. If promoting religion is absolutely evil, there exists one absolutely evil thing and therefore, moral relativism is false. They cannot be consistently moral relativists and claim promoting religion is wrong absolutely, it can only be done by holding a self-contradictory philosophy.
I can relate to those atheists.
I am mostly a moral relativist, but in the majority of real life circumstances, the most moral choice can be determined as the one which causes the least harm.
Most people feel the same way about ethical absolutism/relativism, but their judgement can still be skewed by what harm they are aware of, or sadly more often what harm they are in denial of. For example, if you are unaware of homosexuals being Thrown from buildings in Afghanistan, LGBT suicide rates in the USA, or how often fundamentalist parents give their children traumatic hadephobia, then you might believe that religion is harmless and therefore moral.
@@TheBryce98 Well yeah, of course you can go overboard with religion and cause harm with it. Of course, ignoring any standard religion has set up over the centuries and living by your own whims isn't too promising either. Too much religion in a society crushes you from the outside and too little standards within yourself corrupts you from the inside. If you just ignore the warnings religion has given about drunkenness and promiscuity, which we started doing in America in the 60's, you end up with single parent families and kids with mental issues. That's not good either. You can't go by your own whims by having no sort of standard. And you can't enforce standards too rigidly so that you violate other standards by doing so. Both of those are no good.
moral relativism doesn't dictate one to accept all standard of morality as equal, if you're uncomfortable with one standard of morality it's still fine to reject it, however even though you reject said moral standard that doesn't mean the morality itself is entirely wrong, it may be wrong from your own perspective but it isn't from others'
@@sleepless2541 Moral relativism DOES dictate that one cannot INSIST that one standard of morality is superior to another. And if you can't INSIST there's a difference in value, then you might as well just say they're equal. If you can't insist that three is more than two, might as well just say it's equal to two.
Dump universal because we're on planet Earth and we need to move out of this fucked up place for Mars and Alpha Centauri!
"to each "her" own"
How relativistically sexist...
😝
well in that case
"to each "their" own"
@@StarShadow9009 or gender neutral 😅
moral relativism is what keeps humans in a state of perpetual slavery
@Total Water Nonsense. Moral laws are visible and are absolutely there regardless of whether you believe in a Creator or not. For example, if I break into your house and try to hurt you and you have a gun, I will probably receive dire consequences. That is a very basic example of the Law of cause and effect
@Total Water the extreme negative effects of moral relativism are things like mass genocides. The extreme negative causes of them are the belief in moral relativism. What other cause could there be?
@Total Water So Germans ALWAYS had an inherent belief that murdering people was fine?
@Total Water The Golden Rule comes from moral absolutism, not relativism. That's basically *the* only legitimate law, although I think the proper way of phrasing it is "Do not do unto others which you would not have them do unto you"
@Total Water "I would like to be murdered, therefore I can murder you!" Does that sound like moral absolutism or moral relativism?
hey hey people
hmm i get where people are coming from but i feel like this would separate people and we wouldn’t be able to show others how we or any other person did things therefore keeping them stagnent perhaps in a place where things could b better
Saxen EEFTING how is spreading culture not better?
Saxen EEFTING wait i think i worded this wrong, cause looking now i didn’t make it clear that spreading culture is good and separation = stagnent and bad
Saxen EEFTING why can’t ppl j accept that cultures are different? we don’t have to be the same, u can find it gross and weird but u don’t have to separate urself from the ppl
Saxen EEFTING i get that, BUT we live on this earth all together. Imagine u we’re in a house w five ppl that had completely diff morals than u, but this house was locked and there was no way out. you would argue obviously and have disagreements, BUT to overcome these disputes u must talk to each other and actually communicate what is wrong or right, if they don’t agree than the majority of the house will have to stop that person for doing something “wrong” no one might get there way b yk what life isn’t great, but to become better you don’t separate from each other, nothing would get solved.
Saxen EEFTING it seems like the easy way out instead of getting to the real problems and living in one house where we can tolerate each other, ALSO science. science science science, as we develop our knowledge, our ideas and reasons why we do stuff all make sense and can change what we think exactly, this can help the even ground but if we are isolated, science would never grow, we would be so stuck in one place
Copied everything from Wikipedia
No way man, this is from the McCombs School of Business. #1 accounting program in the country.
Think of Syria then thing of Iceland say I know what one I would pick if I had to live their
So, your point is that, since *there exists* a moral relativism, we can choose the moral code that pleases us by arbitrarily choosing the country? Okay, that's fine.
@@clangboomsteam Saudi Arabia then
@@ErichCavalcanti no...some things are universally right and wrong. Stuff like legally stoning a woman to death is bad. Universally. And don't you dare give me the slavery bs to gave to the whites in other comments. We didn't do that. Neither moral relativism nor moral absolutism is correct. With times, the natural selection plays out and some ideologies are finished because of their inability to catch up with the evolving society.
.
One more huge flaw of moral relativism I think is...it ignores the fact that 'cultures are what they are because of a reason, a history and a story'....hence why they are made for different times, circumstances and people. You can't just put them together in one basket. And yes, according to this current era...some cultures are better than other...but we aren't quite at the truth yet that helps us tackle problems in this age and era. For example...how majority of the developed and developing world have a huge problem maintaining a work life balance, how to deal with the innate nature of human civilization that eventually degrades us the more we develop(low fertility rates, atheism, an increasing intolerant society, higher rates of depression than ever and so on)
@@harshjain3122 there's nothing wrong with atheism! as long as religious people and nonreligious people are able to respect each other, we as a global society should be okay.
Sin is still wrong even in 2023
But doesn't different cultures have different meaning of what would considered to be a sin?
Moral relativism is what makes the political arena such a crock of shit. Maybe if people actually realized that what is moral is subjectively defined we wouldn't have so much political divisiveness.
This video is Jordan Peterson's worst nightmare.
Moral relativism: when in Nazi Germany, do as the Nazis do.
Thats a complete strawman
One of the most disastrous philosophies in human history
Why?
Very sloppy !language throughout. Sadly, a worthless, well-produced, video.
This moral relativism is a distortion of what morality means.
Your crazy. There can't be two conterdictery truths. It can be right and wrong at the same time (yes in different places) to kill. It is wrong to kill that is absolute. There can't be both God and Dharma. They are conterdictery, only one can be true. Yes they could both be true but only one is right. And sometimes mother is right. Yes sometimes your truth is different than mine, but that is a communication issue. Yes my possible truth can be different than your possible truth, but they can't both be true. Thsi is the conseept of the non-conterdictory law.
Yes the truth might not be found, or might not make sense to find (like with insurance companies), and sometime you can't even find it. But the point is it is that there is a truth. Something can be and not be sending on its circumstances. A fetus can be a person if the mother wants it but then not a person if the mother doesn't want it. Then it's poersonhood would be based on feelings, not reality. Because that is what relativism is, selfdefining by you or feelings not reality. A transgender person feels like they are a man so they try to become a man. FEELS! THATS THE key word. Your feelings don't make relaity. just because I feel something is true doesn't mean it is. Well who are you to judge actually I am everything to judge. I am a person who has the truth (of you disagree tell me why). Because that's the other thing is our culture, people really, get offended when their wrong. Why! I want to know the truth even if I am wrong. Why, because I find knowing the truth living right and justly more important than my inner ego and how I FEEL.
Furthermore relativism is conterdictery to its self. Relativism believes that the is no objective truth, only your truth, which is saying that there is only on obelective truth: that there is no objective truth which is contrary to its self! Thsi is crazy, do you not see what is going on people! If we have a world that is based off of felling, accomodation, and no jugement that everything is a limbo. Its chaos. And the sad part is this is already happening, it has for the past 200 years and in the past 70 it has gone out of controle and insane. So I ask you today to fight for what is right! To fight for real truth! To ooAnd to fight to kill, to end this insane chaos which is relativism! May God be with you.
Really? What about "religious sacrifice"? Or societies that could value cannibalism? Or better... what about the death penalty or killing someone at a war?
@@ErichCavalcanti Well religious sacrifices under the truth (Christianity) are ok, but doing it otherwise is wrong. For is it wrong to use a whole pencil for drawing no but it is just to break it.
@@ErichCavalcanti There is only one truth, it does not change, ever, and I can't believe that we have got to a stage in humanity where we think our thoughts and ignorenrce can change it.
@@ErichCavalcanti Kiiling someone at war is always dependent and Im not God, bring I don't know the exact premis or anything, so I can't say.
@@ErichCavalcanti for if God is with you you can make desisions that do not play by the rules of odds but rather the rules from thing yond us. For rather in the spiritual world.
“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow is the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.” - Matthew 7:13-14
Jesus is the ONLY way, the truth, and the life! Repent of your sins and put your trust in faith in Jesus’ death and resurrection to save you! The kingdom of God is at hand. Jesus will return and EVERY knee will now and EVERY tongue confess that Jesus is LORD!
"Do not enrich yourself upon the misery of another."
One billion humans suffer starvation, only because seven billion refuse to feed them.
More intelligent upper-half always hoards all the land, wealth and political power.
Virtually everyone enriches themselves upon the misery of those with less education, less wealth or less whiteness of skin.
commie
@@micahabramson1798 How is it communist to speak the truth?
even if we offered food to the starving, the evil leaders, political figures, etc. of the starving might hoard it for themselves
I tried to abolish my whiteness but no matter how hard I tried I was still always white when I woke in the morning.
I'm an Atheist and I think the more extremes of moral relativism are idiotic, which would be moral nihilism. I'm also against completely objective morality as well. The answer lies between objectivism and subjectivism.
So sometimes morality is objective in that nature creates it, and other times man creates what's moral? I would argue that's still moral absolutism. Because it's saying at least one objective moral standard exists.
Moral relativism is not synonymous with promoting anarchy or used to excuse behavior. We still hold our set of morals. We just understand that morality is subjective and there are no universal objective moral truths that were given to us by a conscious universe on a marble plaque who came up with its own idea of right and wrong. It’s not saying there’s no right or wrong. There is, but it’s subjective because there is no objective right or wrong.
This is the insanity of our times
Throw the 10 Commandments OUT the window
Well according to the ten commandments that is ok so long as they do not land on someone and kill them. So go for it.
@@thousandaireradio3199 nice response
@@Wolagio 😁
Yes, do. Throw the old wicked book out.
What is wrong with the Western society, why replace all “he”, “him”, “his” with “she” and “her”? Wouldn’t it be A BIT more inclusive to say “they” instead?
Hope you didn't give up a good paying job to make these vids , , ,