Keith Russell

Greetings:

And yet, subjectivism leaves one no way to guage 'improvement', not even in one's own behaviour.

Even to claim that one is 'better than the average' is to advocate some sort of standard.

So, to promote any action as beneficial--which even the subjectivists here do--seems to require some sort of standard for comparison.

Unless improvement really isn't the subjectivist's goal...

Keith.

[ September 09, 2002: Message edited by: Keith Russell ]</p>

Sojourner553

Keith, most people have a moral philosophical system. The point is, that it does not have to be based on religion. {In fact, religions to not agree on the same absolute moral system]

My philosophical moral system is based on secular humanism.

Regards,

Sojourner

Keith Russell

Sojourner:

I was responding to the comment made in several of the above posts that no moral absolutist had yet presented a valid case for moral absolutes.

I was addressing the moral subjectivists...

Keith.

Marz Blak

Anyone know what happened to luvluv?

Pomp

Keith Russell,

And yet, subjectivism leaves one no way to guage 'improvement', not even in one's own behaviour.

I don't see why not. Does my current behavior better serve the fulfillment of my values than my behavior of a year ago? If so, then I have improved. If not, then I haven't.

Even to claim that one is 'better than the average' is to advocate some sort of standard.

I would say that a general assertion that one is "better than average" is meaningless unless a particular standard of measurement is indicated. Given that we can specify such a standard whenever we make value judgements, I'm not sure what your contention is. Certainly, a subjectivist will not declare that the standard (s)he has indicated is the only vald standard, as an absolutist might, but that does not change the fact that (s)he can choose a standard, and judge by it.

Furthur, I would claim that the subjectivst enjoys a much greater degree of flexibility, as (s)he can choose appropriate standards for each individual judgement to be made, rather than adopting a single Universal standard of judgement.

So, to promote any action as beneficial--which even the subjectivists here do--seems to require some sort of standard for comparison.

Of course. The point, however, is that the subjectivist is free to use the standard that reflects his or her own values.

Unless improvement really isn't the subjectivist's goal...

I'm not sure what to make of this. In the sense that most subjectivists would prefer to see more of their values fulfilled than less, improvement is a goal, but I'm not sure that this is the sense in which you mean it.

hinduwoman

Luvluv, you wrote:

Sorry Luvluv, they do not. Do you know that among Arabs stealing was not wrong? What mattered was who you stole from. Similarly, Red Indian youths thought it honourable to steal horses from other tribes. They would not steal among themselves --- but that is only good survival-sense, horse-sense! Stealing therefore is not wrong because of an absolute standard, but because most people wish to enjoy their property --- which has nothing to do with morality.

Would marriage between maternal uncle and niece do? In many parts of South India, the mother's own brother marries the daughter. Though officially marriage between such close relatives is illegal, in the case of these communities the law makes an exception, because it is such an ancient custom. So far there had been no indication they are moving towards non-kin marriages more.
Incidentally monogamy is not an absolute value either. Hindu society practiced monogamy, polygamy and polyandry --- the latter two is considered fully as moral as monogamy. But monogamy was forcibly imposed by the State for the sake of domestic peace and simplifying legal tangles. That is practical morality. However both Muslims and Christian missionaries (Muslims more so) go into hysterics at the thought of polyandry calling Draupadi the epic heroine with 5 husbands immoral, but no devout Hindu feels she is immoral even though he himself would be shocked if his daughter wants to emulate Draupadi.


I can see that you have not debated with any Muslims who support the death-penalty for adultery and apostasy

Well, of course! They would be coming for me next.
Besides the Aztecs did not recognize it as wrong, basically because they sacrificed slaves and war-captives more than their own people.

I understand you are trying to say that some crimes are recognized everywhere as wrong. But actually, that is a matter of social survival. Let us say that rape is recognized as a crime by every society. But is it really because of some moral code alone? In OT, rape was not a human-rights violation, but a violation of property rights more like ; that is why if the girl was a virgin the rapist had to marry her --- no one would take damaged goods. Similarly in Koran, a man who commits adultery with another man's wife/property is punished, but he can rape as many of his slave-girls with Allah's permission, because they are his legal property.
In modern society we allow women to have lovers on the grounds her body is her own and she has the right to choose to do what she likes with it, while in Islamic countries they still kill women for it, even for being raped.

Sojourner553

Yes, please accept my apologies - -I obviously did not carefully read the earlier posts as you say.

My post was more appropriate to Luvluv.

Sojourner

Sojourner553

Outstanding post! Tell us about your background sometime... Are you a practising Hindu today for example.

Sojourner

[ September 12, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

hinduwoman

Hi Sojourner,
not a practising Hindu in the religious sense.A Hindu in the cultural sense though --- and yes,there are many atheist Hindus hanging around in India.

Sojourner553

Thanks! Again I found a number of innovative responses in your post. I especially liked the way you tied in the "female as property" perspective with morality --which is a very alien concept to many of us in the West. This is especially true for someone like Luvluv -- who assumes everyone's morality "has to be the same" as hers.

Sojourner