Comments | simpleparadox: Stealing to eat and killing to live

simpleparadox

Stealing to eat and killing to live

Jan 16, 2008 12:54

Moral Absolutism VS Moral Relativism:

Are there blacks and whites, or does everything have a tinge of gray?

I WANT TO KNOW YOUR THOUGHTS.

ahem.

Comments 5

mutantkoala January 17 2008, 20:56:57 UTC

Is it a paradox to believe that moral relativism is ALWAYS true?

simpleparadox January 17 2008, 21:27:07 UTC

I think my brain just imploded from the pressure of that question ( ... )

objectivity is a subjective matter... mutantkoala January 30 2008, 08:32:07 UTC

"Humans are imperfect and influenced by environment, so their opinions will always be suspect. Less ethnocentric lenses and more objectivity, dammit!"

You could be an archaeologist, and a good one, with the first part of that statement. Tragically though, in answer to the second sentence: both history and modern day have taught us that there really is no such thing as pure objectivity. Not in the way we view the past, the present or people's actions. Every opinion is always contextual and may differ not only from person to person, but also within a person from context to context.

Life. No one ever said it was simple, right? How's yours? I was reading a friend's LJ and decided to see if good ol' Matteo was still around. And there you were. After months of silence too, I see.

x Inger

Re: objectivity is a subjective matter... simpleparadox January 30 2008, 14:26:49 UTC

Fortunately, I know that pure objectivity would be too lofty a peak to climb. What I meant by limiting ethnocentrism and increasing objectivity is to do so in situations where opinions on morals differ. If people would step back from the beliefs ingrained within their being, and colored their viewpoint with a bit more of cold logic, there would be less clashes of culture. For example, I can step back and look at a topic, such as abortion, through the eyes of a fundamentalist christian. They believe that it is taking a life and is wrong, despite the circumstances. I can also step back and objectively think that in certain contexts, is it not worse to risk the life of the mother for something that is not in the world yet? At what point does an unborn child's existence become more important than someone who is already established in the world ( ... )

livejurnul December 6 2009, 15:04:16 UTC

I have a tinge of gay.