crimsader, I understand that you want to be the ultimate moral realtivist and that you think you can acheive a perfect, objective morality. the problem is, in doing so, you have tied yourself to a new nonsensical dogma. I had the same arguement with communistik a while back
http://www.gamespot.com/forums/topic/27515112/proposed-genocide-in-uganda
here is the whole discussion.I think you should read it.
red = communistik
blue = me
yello = some other user
-------------------------------------------------
Why should we care what Uganda does? Moral principles are relative. We don't need to interfere with another country's domestic policy unless it's going to materially affect our own interests. This policy in Uganda will not.
There's such a thing as having too much of an ethnocentric viewpoint, I agree, but at the same time there are such things as universal standards in regards to how humans can be treated.
Really? Because, if you have legislatures passing laws like this, those "standards" are clearly not universal.
I know exactly where you are going with this. Your belief is probably
"there is no objective morality. so even something as basic as human rights should not be vigorously protected across borders because then you would simply be forcing your subjective morals onto someone else."
It seems you are talking something along the lines of nihilism. From my experience, there is nothing more vacuous, circular, and utterly pointless than arguing nihilism. If you truly believe that there are no objective (or at least somewhat accurate) moral standards that can be obtained through deductive reasoning, observation, and basic philosophy, than why are you here at all? If you truly believe that there is no universal moral standard than why do you have a problem with me pressing mine on the world? If a collective of governments forced their standard of human rights onto Uganda, why would that matter to you? What standard are they violating by doing so? Yours? you must see how the argument
"there are no standards, therefore you shouldn't do ______"
is self defeating (aside from contributing nothing to the intellectual playing field).
What moral standards you obtain through reasoning and observation are subjective. Acknowledging that morals are relative doesn't mean you do whatever you want or take on a nihilistic point of view. It means you recognize other people might want to do something differently than you, and you accept it.
logic. there is a severe lack of it here.
1) once again. This universal respect for other people's "subjective standards" is, within itself, a "subjective standard." Why do you feel a need to recognize other people's standards? You apparently see this as an inherent human right and that if denied it it would cause harm to individuals. you are already working under the basic ethical auspices "pain/harm = negative" and "pleasure/benefit = positive."The hypocrisy is crystal clear. There is no reason why I should let your self-defeating, contradictory ideology take precedence over genuine, deductive reasoning, observation, and analysis.
2) why does this rule of yours not apply to the leaders of Uganda? They intend to not only shove their subjective morality on innocent people, but they also intend to kill them. For some reason you do not protest this at all, but if we try to stop them, than we are just going too far. What kind of sense does this make? This is like condemning the actions of police officers to rescue children from an underground slaving ring because they infringed on the rights of the slavers to their own individual moralities. You are using the virtues of tolerance to debase tolerance. You are using the ideals of human rights to undercut human rights. You are using the concept of freedom, to justify fascism. You construe the defenders of freedom to be the attackers of freedom.
3) I will simply be honest. I do not hold all ideologies, morals, belief systems, opinions, and world views as equal. Morals that call for the abuse, torture, and/or murder of my fellow human beings, for absolutely no reason whatsoever, are not worthy of my respect. Beliefs based in reality are not on the same level of accuracy as beliefs that are based on delusion. Policies that produce tolerance and alleviate suffering are not equally valid with policies that promote nothing but senseless killing and bigotry. The morals of the bronze age are inferior to the morals of the twenty-first century.
4) Alleviating human suffering and preventing the victimization of innocent people are both infinitely more important than your tattered ideology of ethical complacency and certainly more important than the precious feelings of the murderous, bigoted, leaders of Uganda. Yes. I plan to shove my oh-so egregious policy of basic human rights down the throats of anyone and any country that would protest them. And if that offends you, you can very well stay offended.
Log in to comment