The Euro crisis explained..

[MrJonno]

Ah, situational ethics and moral relativism, what a childish and simplistic way out of an argument. And what an asinine rationalization and attempt to justify the very worst sorts of evil that humans perpetrate on one another. Stalin would be proud of you. (I avoided the obvious Hitler comparison to avoid a Godwinism)

Moral relativism is the only form that any form of right and wrong can be determined. Very few people have ever considered themselves evil no matter what they do thereforefore any one persons view of right/wrong is simply meaningless. Trying to get some sort of majority consensus is the only way a sociey can function

[Seth]

Ah, situational ethics and moral relativism, what a childish and simplistic way out of an argument. And what an asinine rationalization and attempt to justify the very worst sorts of evil that humans perpetrate on one another. Stalin would be proud of you. (I avoided the obvious Hitler comparison to avoid a Godwinism)

Moral relativism is the only form that any form of right and wrong can be determined.

No, it's not, although moral relativists would like us all to believe it is.

Very few people have ever considered themselves evil no matter what they do thereforefore any one persons view of right/wrong is simply meaningless.

Not to him.

Trying to get some sort of majority consensus is the only way a sociey can function

True, so far as it goes, but that doesn't justify moral relativism. The societal consensus of the Nazis was immoral nothwithstanding that it made their society function. Societal function is not the only consideration, nor even the most important, when it comes to morality. That society might function more efficiently by enslaving minorities, thus providing low-cost labor does not make such practices moral. Society might be more peaceful if every petty criminal were executed by a lynch mob, but it would be immoral to do so.

[MrJonno]

True, so far as it goes, but that doesn't justify moral relativism. The societal consensus of the Nazis was immoral nothwithstanding that it made their society function. Societal function is not the only consideration, nor even the most important, when it comes to morality. That society might function more efficiently by enslaving minorities, thus providing low-cost labor does not make such practices moral. Society might be more peaceful if every petty criminal were executed by a lynch mob, but it would be immoral to do so.

I would actually say every moral 'advance' was to make society stronger and more peaceful at least long term.

Women got the vote not because they were equal but because it made them more likely to work in the factories producing weapons while men went out to war. Slavery went as its expensive to look after slaves , better for them to look after themselves. Religious freedom became a reality as country constantly in conflict with itself was weaker than nation 'united' behind one religion.

Basically one of the ways society reaches its consensus is via a form of natural selection, does this way of life work, does it allow long term security. Nazi Germany exterminating and scaring off some of its most intelligent citizens was obviously a bad idea for long term survival.

Morality is complex not because its absolute but how that consensus comes about

[Seth]

True, so far as it goes, but that doesn't justify moral relativism. The societal consensus of the Nazis was immoral nothwithstanding that it made their society function. Societal function is not the only consideration, nor even the most important, when it comes to morality. That society might function more efficiently by enslaving minorities, thus providing low-cost labor does not make such practices moral. Society might be more peaceful if every petty criminal were executed by a lynch mob, but it would be immoral to do so.

I would actually say every moral 'advance' was to make society stronger and more peaceful at least long term.

Women got the vote not because they were equal but because it made them more likely to work in the factories producing weapons while men went out to war.

Interesting recasting of actual history. Citations?

Slavery went as its expensive to look after slaves , better for them to look after themselves.

Which fails to explain why 600,000 Americans were killed in the Civil War to make it illegal to keep slaves. Evidently the South didn't agree with your analysis. I wonder who's right, you, or 130 years of history?

Religious freedom became a reality as country constantly in conflict with itself was weaker than nation 'united' behind one religion.

Non sequitur. Theocracies are not generally associated with "religious freedom."

Basically one of the ways society reaches its consensus is via a form of natural selection, does this way of life work, does it allow long term security.

Correct.

Nazi Germany exterminating and scaring off some of its most intelligent citizens was obviously a bad idea for long term survival.

It was also immoral per se.

Morality is complex not because its absolute but how that consensus comes about

And yet amid the consensus of morality there are moral absolutes.

[MrJonno]

And yet amid the consensus of morality there are moral absolutes.

Oh no there isnt!

[Seth]

And yet amid the consensus of morality there are moral absolutes.

Oh no there isnt!

Oh yes, there are. Such as, if someone were to come to your house and tried to torture, rape and murder your wife and children while you watched helplessly, you would absolutely seek to prevent it and you would, if you had it, use deadly force to prevent that absolute moral wrong.

[MrJonno]

And yet amid the consensus of morality there are moral absolutes.

Oh no there isnt!

Oh yes, there are. Such as, if someone were to come to your house and tried to torture, rape and murder your wife and children while you watched helplessly, you would absolutely seek to prevent it and you would, if you had it, use deadly force to prevent that absolute moral wrong.

I would seek to prevent it but if society had got to the unfortunate state of affairs where it deemed that to be wrong then it would be wrong.
No gods, no natural rights, no inalienable rights just social consensus

[Seth]

And yet amid the consensus of morality there are moral absolutes.

Oh no there isnt!

Oh yes, there are. Such as, if someone were to come to your house and tried to torture, rape and murder your wife and children while you watched helplessly, you would absolutely seek to prevent it and you would, if you had it, use deadly force to prevent that absolute moral wrong.

I would seek to prevent it but if society had got to the unfortunate state of affairs where it deemed that to be wrong then it would be wrong.
No gods, no natural rights, no inalienable rights just social consensus

What a fucking lunatic universe you live in that you would argue that "social consensus" would allow society to rightfully torture, rape and murder your family. I'm glad the rest of us don't inhabit it, and I pity you.

[Santa_Claus]

What a fucking lunatic universe you live in that you would argue that "social consensus" would allow society to rightfully torture, rape and murder your family. I'm glad the rest of us don't inhabit it, and I pity you.

I thought that was pretty much SOP for the Americans - as part of increasing Terrorism.

[MrJonno]

What a fucking lunatic universe you live in that you would argue that "social consensus" would allow society to rightfully torture, rape and murder your family. I'm glad the rest of us don't inhabit it, and I pity you.

It's a society I wouldnt want to live in, but that doesnt change the fact to a SS guard at a concentration camp he probably thought he was doing a good thing and if his ideology had come to dominate the world it would be considered as such

[Geoff]

What a fucking lunatic universe you live in that you would argue that "social consensus" would allow society to rightfully torture, rape and murder your family. I'm glad the rest of us don't inhabit it, and I pity you.

There is no absolute reason why the torturers and rapists would share our moral viewpoint, as MrJonno points out.

[Seth]

What a fucking lunatic universe you live in that you would argue that "social consensus" would allow society to rightfully torture, rape and murder your family. I'm glad the rest of us don't inhabit it, and I pity you.

It's a society I wouldnt want to live in, but that doesnt change the fact to a SS guard at a concentration camp he probably thought he was doing a good thing and if his ideology had come to dominate the world it would be considered as such

Yes, if everyone in the world was a sadistic, murderous child rapist you'd be right. But it's fairly obvious to anyone with even a modicum of intelligence that the vast majority of humanity are no such thing and never have been, and that to suggest that there are no moral absolutes in human society based on a reductio ad absurdum argument is irrational and not worthy of serious consideration.

The moral absolute regarding self-defense and defense of one's family is genetically-based, you see. it's built into our DNA, which makes it a moral absolute. If it weren't, if we (like all other vertebrates and higher animals) did not have the instinct for personal and family survival, none of them would have survived.

The right to defend onesself is a fundamental organic right and a moral absolute.

[Seth]

What a fucking lunatic universe you live in that you would argue that "social consensus" would allow society to rightfully torture, rape and murder your family. I'm glad the rest of us don't inhabit it, and I pity you.

There is no absolute reason why the torturers and rapists would share our moral viewpoint, as MrJonno points out.

I disagree. Except in the rarest of circumstances, I believe that even someone who would torture, rape and kill someone else's family would act to protect their own. That the occasional psychopath might not agree does not mean that the morality is not ingrained. There is always an exception to every rule that does not disprove the rule.

[Geoff]

The moral absolute regarding self-defense and defense of one's family is genetically-based, you see. it's built into our DNA, which makes it a moral absolute. If it weren't, if we (like all other vertebrates and higher animals) did not have the instinct for personal and family survival, none of them would have survived.

Again. not so. There are many animals that abandon their offspring before or shortly after birth/hatching, and many that die shortly after reproducing.

We do appear to have strayed somewhat from the Euro crisis, though

[Seth]

The moral absolute regarding self-defense and defense of one's family is genetically-based, you see. it's built into our DNA, which makes it a moral absolute. If it weren't, if we (like all other vertebrates and higher animals) did not have the instinct for personal and family survival, none of them would have survived.

Again. not so. There are many animals that abandon their offspring before or shortly after birth/hatching, and many that die shortly after reproducing.

We do appear to have strayed somewhat from the Euro crisis, though

Well, it's not built into their DNA. So what? It's built into ours, which is all that counts. And every organism has an instinct to survive, otherwise it would not survive and would be extinct.