Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The media often pushes this. But right and wrong are relative.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Relative to what? The alternative? In which case, Humane actions are right when compared to IN-Humane actions, which will probably be the alternative.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Obfuscator)
    Relative to what?
    This.

    But there's probably no point in saying it, they'll never learn.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    They aren't always. Its probably humane to euthanise someone with a very painful terminal illness, yet its still not seen as right. At least, not by the majority of the population. I thought you didn't believe in right and wrong, anyway?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Because we recognise the ability of others to suffer and generally see the diminuition of such suffering as a good in and of itself. The relative anthropocentric nature of morality causes most of us to agree to this axiom.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by User722716)
    This.

    But there's probably no point in saying it, they'll never learn.
    does this have to be an academic forum?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jismith1989)
    Because we recognise the ability of others to suffer and generally see the diminuition of such suffering as a good in and of itself. The relative anthropocentric nature of morality causes most of us to agree to this axiom.
    But if morals are relative, then how is humanity an optimum good?

    Why have most societies in human history not had humane actions?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hamix)
    does this have to be an academic forum?
    Evidently not.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hamix)
    But if morals are relative, then how is humanity an optimum good?

    Why have most societies in human history not had humane actions?
    Of course, there is no objective reason why humans should even exist (and there's actually a society out there proposing voluntary human extinction), but nor is there any basis for expecting such a reason or searching for one. As you say, there's no objective reason for anything; everything is, so far as we know, contingent. Since, however, we do exist, we can recognise that pain in ourselves is generally a bad feeling (the closest perhaps to objective badness we can get) and we therefore infer that it's a bad feeling for others too. We may altruistically want other living beings not to suffer that, and thus choose to minimise pain for everyone; on a more pragmatic level, causing pain to others generally results, within human society, in pain being caused in return to oneself, meaning that it's not a rational thing to do, if one wishes to escape pain oneself. Therefore, one can make a strong case for such an ethical system both from altruism and from naked self-interest.

    That's a very big question, but suffice it to say that if, at least, one believes in meliorism, i.e. that things can get better over time, as most of us do, the fact that humans have behaved in ways that we may not like does not necessarily imply that human nature is inherently preprogrammed to do things we don't like (and by we I, of course, mean everyone). Nor even if people are predisposed to such things can we assume that human nature is stable. The only constant in this world is change.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jismith1989)
    Of course, there is no objective reason why humans should even exist (and there's actually a society out there proposing voluntary human extinction), but nor is there any basis for expecting such a reason or searching for one. As you say, there's no objective reason for anything; everything is, so far as we know, contingent. Since, however, we do exist, we can recognise that pain in ourselves is generally a bad feeling (the closest perhaps to objective badness we can get) and we therefore infer that it's a bad feeling for others too. We may altruistically want other living beings not to suffer that, and thus choose to minimise pain for everyone; on a more pragmatic level, causing pain to others generally results, within human society, in pain being caused in return to oneself, meaning that it's not a rational thing to do, if one wishes to escape pain oneself. Therefore, one can make a strong case for such an ethical system both from altruism and from naked self-interest.

    That's a very big question, but suffice it to say that if, at least, one believes in meliorism, i.e. that things can get better over time, as most of us do, the fact that humans have behaved in ways that we may not like does not necessarily imply that human nature is inherently preprogrammed to do things we don't like (and by we I, of course, mean everyone). Nor even if people are predisposed to such things can we assume that human nature is stable. The only constant in this world is change.
    No. If morality is relative, then how can human actions be seen as optimally good?

    And human nature doesn't exist.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hamix)
    No. If morality is relative, then how can human actions be seen as optimally good?

    And human nature doesn't exist.
    I tried to explain. But if that was of no help to you, then I'll bow out.

    Quite evidently human nature exists, since humans exist and they all have a biological make up that is shared in its essentials. The question is to what extent that nature is malleable within persons and diverse between them.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hamix)
    The media often pushes this. But right and wrong are relative.
    If there was no agreed sense of right and wrong then we couldn't rely on being able to walk down the street without being murdered.
    'They're just exercising their choice like choosing whether to wear a particular kind of trainers'.
    We couldn't rely on architects making a moral decision not to make buildings that are designed to collapse after a certain time.
    We couldn't rely on banks not running away with all our money.

    And if there's no right or wrong then there's also no right or wrong about your statement. So I could say that your position is as equally false as it is true.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jismith1989)
    I tried to explain. But if that was of no help to you, then I'll bow out.

    Quite evidently human nature exists, since humans exist and they all have a biological make up that is shared in its essentials. The question is to what extent that nature is malleable within persons and diverse between them.
    Human nature doesn't and has never existed.

    Also, what defines better? To state that human conditions should improve over time is meaningless, since there is no objective standard of "better"?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jismith1989)
    Because we recognise the ability of others to suffer and generally see the diminuition of such suffering as a good in and of itself. The relative anthropocentric nature of morality causes most of us to agree to this axiom.
    Do we? I think humans are continually demonstrating inhumanity.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hamix)
    The media often pushes this. But right and wrong are relative.
    relativism is not omnipotent ```specially when it comes to moral thing
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    How can they not be? Right and wrong are not absolute, but always subjective.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DH-Biker)
    They aren't always. Its probably humane to euthanise someone with a very painful terminal illness, yet its still not seen as right. At least, not by the majority of the population. I thought you didn't believe in right and wrong, anyway?
    Most people don't.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hamix)
    Do we? I think humans are continually demonstrating inhumanity.
    The vast majority of the time when they do, it is in a situation where the victim has been 'dehumanised'. The Romans dehumanised the slaves they made become gladiators, giving them animal names and using other methods to make them just a spectacle and not real human beings. The Nazis spent years propagandizing in order to dehumanise the Jews before they began their 'Final Solution'...it goes on. Find an example and I'll tell you how dehumanisation was accomplished.

    Morality is, perhaps, relative, but is it any surprise to you that since people, pretty much always and everywhere, think "I don't want to get hurt", the morality of most societies has involved "Do not hurt other humans of your society"? If the people of the society want to enjoy life, or if the rulers of the society simply want peace, this is an obvious requirement. The biggest change over time has been that most people now tend to recognize their society as involving a far wider variety of people, rather than say just the full Roman citizens or just the WASPs.

    I'm sorry, but rejecting that human nature exists is just plain stupid. Look into some fMRI research and other examinations of the reactions of the brain to stimuli, and you'll find there are a great deal of emotional and cognitive responses which are common to all humans (except perhaps those with brain damage or similar disabilities). You can reject a moralized concept of human nature, which I suspect is what you are doing, but rejecting human nature altogether is saying "We are an empty slate" which anyone with an ounce of knowledge of the human brain knows is completely and utterly false.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Philosopher-of-sorts)
    The vast majority of the time when they do, it is in a situation where the victim has been 'dehumanised'. The Romans dehumanised the slaves they made become gladiators, giving them animal names and using other methods to make them just a spectacle and not real human beings. The Nazis spent years propagandizing in order to dehumanise the Jews before they began their 'Final Solution'...it goes on. Find an example and I'll tell you how dehumanisation was accomplished.

    Morality is, perhaps, relative, but is it any surprise to you that since people, pretty much always and everywhere, think "I don't want to get hurt", the morality of most societies has involved "Do not hurt other humans of your society"? If the people of the society want to enjoy life, or if the rulers of the society simply want peace, this is an obvious requirement. The biggest change over time has been that most people now tend to recognize their society as involving a far wider variety of people, rather than say just the full Roman citizens or just the WASPs.

    I'm sorry, but rejecting that human nature exists is just plain stupid. Look into some fMRI research and other examinations of the reactions of the brain to stimuli, and you'll find there are a great deal of emotional and cognitive responses which are common to all humans (except perhaps those with brain damage or similar disabilities). You can reject a moralized concept of human nature, which I suspect is what you are doing, but rejecting human nature altogether is saying "We are an empty slate" which anyone with an ounce of knowledge of the human brain knows is completely and utterly false.
    *******s. Most human societies have always demonised groups. the only exception today is that we have human rights laws/international agreements to prevent this from occurring. If "do not hurt others" is truly primary, then most societies would not have enslaved others, or denied them equal rights.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hamix)
    *******s. Most human societies have always demonised groups. the only exception today is that we have human rights laws/international agreements to prevent this from occurring. If "do not hurt others" is truly primary, then most societies would not have enslaved others, or denied them equal rights.
    ................................ ..........
    ................................ ..........
    ................................ ..........
    ................................ ..........

    You just decided to completely ignore what I wrote and take out of context the part you could respond to didn't you? You really need to work on actually reading arguments before responding, if you want to be taken at all seriously.

    I said, quite clearly, do not hurt others in your society. I even went so far as to give very clear and simple examples of that in the form of Roman citizens and WASPs (White Anglo-Saxon Protestants). As for enslaving, thank you for proving my point. The Romans enslaved those who fought against them because they considered them inferior and inhuman, for resisting the civilising influence of Rome. The Arabs and Europeans enslaved millions of Africans as again, they considered them inferior and inhuman, and so saw nothing wrong with this. I further went on to say that the difference between now and then is that people's 'societies' have expanded to include more than such small groups. Many societies are now acceptingly multi-racial and some are acceptingly multicultural. As for human rights laws and international treaties, these may have been passed by vanguardists whose ideas of their own society extended beyond their borders before those of their populace did, but it is quite simple to see it is the same principle.
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.