I mean seriously. On a general level, I agree with most of it, but then again, I actually understand why.

If you are using morality with the assumption that "What is right, is what is good and what is wrong is bad"

Next week on If You Give a Ssume a Tautology...

then with those two precepts then it is obviously relative to a particular individual.

Obviously
If you are using "obviously" in an argument, odds are you're not actually making an effective argument. Especially when you proceed to not make an argument. Let me try.


Morality is obviously not relative to a particular individual. Bam. Checkmate. F on the final.

Now with that being said there are without a doubt cultural influences that come into affect and that may pressure you to commit an act that is seen by the majority as "wrong" however, another culture may see it is "good". IO believe your question should be reworded because the only answer is that it can be relative and subjective.

>unrelatedwordvomit
>ERGO the answer is obviously x.

If we're gonna be honest with each other, and we are, I just subconsciously filtered his post out. Didn't even see it. Obviously.

After reading davo's post, my subconscious brought up that image of a fine, ginger Lindsay Lohan walking down a hall in that light blue mini skirt.

Originally Posted by The Colostomizer

Yeah, you were thinking of McDevy (formerly Borat? I dunno, stupid name changes).

I took that name in stride for as much irony as I could seep out of it. It was time for change, man.

Also I'd just like to say (I'm not looking to argue for Sam Harris as I was previously) that I don't see how it's so dated if it being reactionary. His whole outlook is reactionary. It's not you ought not, but you ought to get out of the way, ease others' pain if you're incidentally a contributor or onlooker.

Asking that others' be more conscientious of their decisions is more or less what his schtick boils down to, and however uneducated he may or may not be in regards to philosophical discourse; it had probably slighted his fundamental argument from reaching any skeptics who are past the things he's arguing, as if saying it was revelatory or current.

I'm all for one wishing to "get out of the way" of others' lives and provide an ease of comfort based on their own self-righteousness or selflessness, whichever -- ultimately, I think thats what Harris' deal was about.

Asking that others' be more conscientious of their decisions is more or less what his schtick boils down to

But that's true for basically every ethical theory.

So, davo, I remember you mentioning the veil of ignorance in terms of policy decisions, but do you have a position on what one ought to do?

Try to make the world how you'd want it to be from behind the veil of ignorance.

What does that entail? Getting involved in politics?

Originally Posted by davobrosia

But that's true for basically every ethical theory.

Which is why I'm also in agreeance that there's nothing new here! I'm under the impression that there are misinterpreted intentions of his, and likewise, misconceived underlying intentions of his own. That's all.

I guess I can see why you find him so tired, but I don't find him all that bothersome.

Probably not relative.

Originally Posted by Bacon

Morality is clearly relative, otherwise people wouldn't do extreme or different things, or have severely different mindsets politically and socially.

Absolutely not. Just because people haven't discovered or determined the universal moral law does not mean it does not exist.