Furthermore, the idea of Aethetic Relativism fails as well. It is totally at odds with the fact that the Golden Ratio appears in the architecture of every culture that's gotten past clay huts.

I don't see how you can people argue about what seems to be a fact. Obviously everyone has an opinion, motivation, and justification of their own. But why would their justifications concern you, let alone the law? No potential for chaos and anarchy here, move along.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]In other news--playing devil's advocate is another form of trolling. Friend14 is a hypocrite.[/QUOTE]

Wait...how am I playing Devil's Advocate? I haven't taken a side in the debate. I only pointed out that your view isn't necessarily the only view possible (as you were portraying it), but that in a discussion views of various perspectives are acceptable. Beyond that, my only other post (the one before this one) was constructive towards the discussion of the thread (even if it was targeted at the rationale aspect).

So how does this make me a hypocrite? Oh, or was that an attempt at a "pot-shot"?

News flash Yoshi, just because someone makes a point about a point that you make, does NOT mean that they necessarily don't agree with you at all. Just that they may not agree with that particular point OR are just pointing out how your point is flawed (whether they agree with the point itself or not). My 'personally motivated' opinion is that I agree with you. However, I still see some valid points that the other side is making from an 'outside' objective/nomative perspective.

**********************************************

It's interesting to note that "Devil's Advocate" has apparently taken on a different meaning then what it was originally used for. Originally, a 'Devil's Advocate' was said to be someone who brought out the aspects of both sides and thus helped to make a discussion/debate more objective. Makes me wonder what this kind of person would be labeled today since the term now carries a negative conotation to it (a Reasoning Fallacy Moderator?). I also wonder if the reason for the negative conotation comes from those who would get frustrated in a debate when someone would question the validity of all points (regardless of side)...

he wasn't wanted for being a polygamast or arranging polygamist marriages, but for arranging underage marriages.

I've never understood the reasoning behind making laws against men having more than one wife. Having more than one wife is its own punishment.

Agreed. I mean, as if the jealousy aspect isn't bad enough. Not to even mention the fact that ussually when women live in the same house together, their PMS cycles tend to sync. No thanks, I've got enough stress as it is with one wife.

Here's the REAL reason...


If a man married more than one woman he's hording and that leaves less for us normal folk.

Gays on the other hand are ok because they don't steal our womenfolk.

Likewise Lesbians are ok because the vast majority are ugly.

Forgive me if I've overlooked something already stated in here, because I'm jumping in from mid page 2.

If by Moral Relativism you mean the relativity to culture that it usually refers to, then I think taht yes, it is largely bull****. Why? Because morality consists of the choices made to create a good outcome. Morality is based on the end result; what will come of such an action? By and large, the major things like death and stealing shouldn't change from culture to culture, because the end result is the same. Just because a certain country thinks sacrificing children is moral doesn't necessarily justify it as moral. A moral decision is derived through logical analysis of the situation, often faster than we realize we've done such, and the analysis of such a situation does not have any boundaries between nations. Killing a child is still infringing on that child's right to life, regardless of what country it's in. To say that a country accepts such an act is a completely different thing. They tolerate an act but the act is still immoral.

Tehre are, I would say, some things that do change from nation to nation, culture to culture, so moral relativism isn't ALL bull****. Take for example teh culture of Japan and that of teh US, economically. In their businesses, there are different ideas about how people should act to the company and how the company should treat them, etc, but the way that they react doesn't necessarily seem to be a clear cut issue universally. So there is some subjectivity there.

Morals, I would say, are generally SITUATIONALLY subject, however. And almost everybody operates this way, even if they claim not to. This is logic at work, and very few of us don't use it. Basically, situational subjectivity means that there are no absolutes such as 'killing is bad', 'stealing is bad', etc. Depending on the situation, murder or theft could produce the best possible end results. i.e., killing in self defense, or killing a murder who has been on a killing spree. The all so common 'stealing a loaf of bread so your starving family can eat'.

Back to polygamy - there's nothing wrong with it, so long as all parties are consentual. If that floats your boat, and everyone's game, why should we stand in the way? Polygamous relationships exist, they're just not allowed to be legally recognized as such. Consent pretty much dismisses the arguments about marrying little girls and coersion.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]That's actually exactly what it is. In a sense.

Moral relativism is "what may be right to you is wrong to someone else"--basically, some people may think of murder as no big deal, some may think of it as a big deal. Etc etc. It has its merits as an idea, but only to a point. After that point it's complete retardation.[/QUOTE]

Well, no one is going to disagree that some actions aren't bad based on the situation. Eg. killing not being wrong in self-defence, but that's why we use the term murder instead of killing. Killing describes and action, murder describes an evil.

But if right and wrong are defined by one's own personal views, the whole idea is worthless. They a) Transgress no underlying objective standard, and b) there are no real consequences to the actions, other than social repercussion, but that sort of repercussion is then taken to the level of, say, the repercussion for dropping a hammer on your foot. In other words, if the standard is emotion, there is no underlying deference between good and bad, and the concept absurd. You don't have good or bad actions, you simply have actions. You can't really say a greedy CEO is worse than a Philanthropist anymore.

Note the words "One might argue". I never said I assumed the complete truth of relativism. It just seemed to me that you misunderstood it, maybe I was wrong.

In any case, it's a likely theory that morality arose as a result of evolution. E.g. killing is detrimental to the survival of a species. A species of creatures that kill each other for fun isn't going to last long. Over time, it's not hard to see it manifesting and incorporating itself into our first primative beliefs, religions, etc.

[QUOTE=Mr. Stafford]LEGALISE CANNIBALISM[/QUOTE]
I know it's a joke, but I agree.

But you're a Roach. Not only a Roach, a zombie Roach.

Emon; that is certainly possible. As a species, we are still rooted to our herbivore ancestry. Herd animals behave that way, putting the survival of the group over the species. Carnivores do not. Male lions often kill each other, and will always kill anothers male offspring. The survival of the individuals genetic code is much more important to the lion than the survival of the species. And yet, the lion survives. We are, at our core, social animals. If we weren't, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Therefore, it is more appropriate to say that morals are a product of social evolution, not genetic evolution. It is unknown how much of our 'morality' is instinct and how much is learned. It seems plausibly that the biggest - Thou Shalt Not Kill - is instinct; atleast when it comes to what would have been immediate members of our social group when we still lived in trees. That is, our family.
I heard it put quite nicely recently. When you see someone hurt on the news, you feel sorry for them. But do you care? Not really. We care about our children; they have half our DNA. We care about our grandchildren. They have 1/4th of our DNA. We care about siblings; they also have roughly 1/4th of our DNA. Cousins have an eighth. Second cousins have a sixteenth. Third cousins only have 1/32nd. Do you even know any of them? Your great grand children have the same amount of your DNA as a cousin. Their children are the same as your third cousins. Do you care about them? Not really. (That's why we're so bad at saving the planet. We just don't care.)

Of course, lions are also legendary Polygamists!

I'm not sure exactly what point you were trying to illustrate there, or what it had to do with Moral Relativism. Could you elaborate?

Here's something interesting I found in the Wikipedia article: If this is true, then by definition Moral Relitivity in it's purest form cannot be applied effectively to society (which we have agreed is necessary, right?). Moral Relativity might be a great personal philosophy that encourages trying to understand others, but it simply isn't feasible to base a society on it.

And just look how well they did because of it. They build massive cities and structures, have harnessed the power of the atom and even explored space.

...oh wait.

Humanity is also contributing to its own demise. I presently do not contribute, but if all hell breaks loose then I will happily contribute. Crimes are taboo. Taboo is appealing. And so is breaking someone's knees with a steel pipe. I won't until I get a chance to get away with it, because by then moral relevatism no longer really applies.

Please don't make that argument, Emon. You know that there are so many other reasons that lions don't rule the world. Now people will respond to your weak argument instead of other ones.

(That may have come off as kind of insulting )

My point is that just because they exhibit that behavior does not mean it's the best for their species, the lion example doesn't work to show how morals haven't arisen from genetic evolution. Maybe they haven't, it's not my field - but that's not a good argument against it. I'm sure plenty of animals do things that are counter productive to not only themselves but the entire race. See the dodo bird in Ice Age.

You make the assumption that we are better because we have done these things.

You say that like the two things are somehow comparable...

How are they not comparable? </devil's advocate>

Isuwen, that seems like a pretty silly argument to make. Do you really want to be living on the plains of Africa eating raw flesh? How many people do you know that actually want to live like that?

I honestly don't see how they are comparable at all.
Maybe if gay polygamy was legal...

Uh.. they're both untraditional marraiges...

And the common cold and AIDS are both viruses, doesn't mean they're comparable.

Neither are viruses, smartypants. They are both however, caused by viruses, HIV causing the latter and roughly 200 different viruses causing the former.

(Irrelevant!)

You're irrelevant.

Here's a poser.

If polygamy wasn't illegal/taboo, would you have more than one wife?

I wouldn't. Marriage costs too much for just one.

So just because noone wants to, it's bad? Gee, who's the Moral Relativist now? I guess I am...

I was just trying to say that, because a successful species doesn't exhibit species-wide preservation doesn't mean that it can't be a source of morality. =/

But man DOESN'T exhibit species-wide preservation! I was pointing out that you would have been correct if you had replaced 'species' with 'social group', or as is usually the case, 'family'.

Well, not the stupid ones.

Yeah, it is quite clear the morality of homosexuality.... wait a minute, that's subjective to religion!!! oops

A lot of morality is subjective indeed, even stealing, for exmaple, if you're starving and need to feed a family and you steal from an "evil" person, is that immoral?

stupid picture

The picture isn't meant to be taken seriously...

It's a joke.

Do you know what the punishment for bigamy is?
Two mothers in law

And two women PMSing in your house at the same time every month.

Isuwen: If no one wants to do it, it is certainly undesirable by definition. All I'm saying is that, in general, Moral Relativity can't be applied to a functioning society.

....and 40 stepmothers-in-law.

Or the smart ones, depending on how you look at it.