Read a writing from a close colleague recently which correctly pointed out that Libby's like Clinty made movies that would not take a stand for right or wrong and would never portray us the US in a light where we held the moral high ground like we most assuredly did in WWII and I believe we hold now. Great post and we even received a comment from an unknown that made a counterpoint, which we noticed too late to countercounterpoint. But he used a term that I'd like to discuss. Morally relative, Moral relativism, moral relativity or something like that so I decided to look up the term so Wikipedia gave me this : "Moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect absolute and universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. Moral relativists hold that no universal standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth."
So there you have it. After reading this numerous times and wrapping my brain around it I realize I am a Moral relativist. I don't believe there is an absolute truth in the universe ( see GOD) that guides us on how to act. Our culture most definitely defines our social mores which change over time and have changed over time. Societal rules predate by thousands of years and were codified long before elohyawehovah popped up and way before Haysoos started lovingly bossing us around and WAY before muhamamamamamed Started killing non believers. I think the term is being used by the far right to criticize the shrill left for refusing to make logical stands for that which is good. Here is my take- this has nothing t0 do with relative morality and everything to do with morality of convenience. Stands are being made for a number of reasons and then defended at all costs rightly or wrongly which I've discussed before. It amazes me that the green nuts would die for a squirrel, deer, whale, or tree but cheer for the sucking of babies brains out right before they are sucked down by a vacuum. I am completely flummoxed by the turning of the cheek of all the bad people in the world (see moohammed and that guys name I can't pronounce in Iran) while demonizing our own president. He is NOT the bad guy. He may be a dork, he may have made a couple of mistakes but equating him to Hitler is moral stupidivism. And our righties engage in dubious moral practices too. They want to excommunicate the homersexuals, funnercators, and adulterants out there but turn the other cheek to the casual lying, cheating and stealing that goes on. Hell homersexuality didn't make God's top ten list but gets number 1 airplay on the " the world is going to hell in a hand basket" radio station. So forgive me for the occasional lie as I forgive my esteemed colleagues their love of the Simpson's.
That's my short take on Morality but hey I could be wrong.
The Vic
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Moral relativity
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Good point. Perhaps "truth relativist" would have been a better choice, because the truth IS universal and absolute. Mr. Eastwood practices what I call (for lack of a better term), accountability communism i.e. taking blame from those who have earned it and giving it to those who have not, and conversely, taking credit away from those who have earned it and giving it to those who have not. He probably coaches in one of those soccer leagues that doesn't keep score because they don't want anybody to "feel bad".
At times, and probably more often than not, every human is a moral relativist. Nonetheless, I stand by my use of the term as used in my Clint Eastwood post. So there.
I like this topic, so I hope we can revisit it later.
I'm ok, you're not.
yes fun topic. It's the best. Well maybe or sometimes or never it really matters how you were raised.
Post a Comment