Quote:
|
Originally Posted by davem
3) If an 'amoral' person chooses to support an immoral act they cannot actually be considered 'amoral' because they are making a conscious choice not to be either moral or amoral.
|
An amoral person will consider their acts to be amoral, whatever these acts may be. It would be better to say that, from the viewpoint of somebody who thinks supporting orcs is immoral, the person is immoral.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lalwende
"You do not like the same thing as I do, therefore I do not think you are as moral as I am" is not far from "You do not follow the same faith/politics/football team as I do, therefore you are not as good as I am".
|
Nicely stated.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lalaith
moral relativism sucks. I am probably considered to be on the liberal end of things, but there are certain things that I strongly believe are wrong, and I don't give a monkeys if these things were/are considered ok in ancient Babylon or Easter Island or whatever. They're still wrong.
|
Why? What makes them so wrong? Where does this "wrongness" come from?
SpM - In saying that morality depends on social context, you are supporting moral relativism. However, you seem to be saying that this does not make that society's morality any less valid as a system and, furthermore, that a society's system of morality should be used to judge the individuals within it.
What about dissenters? Mixed-race marriages, gay marriages and supporting women's right have all been regarded as immoral in history (simply staying within British history). I presume you have no objection to these things now. How can you support temporal, societal-based morality to judge people today, but be against using it historically?
I'm sleepy (shamefully early, I know!) and am aware that I'm a bit rambly, but I hope that was clear enough to be understood.