Another great quote from Facebook on Morality

INTEGRATIONALISM

"all things in existence are physiologically connected"

Another great quote from Facebook on Morality

January 10, 2011 at 8:00 am · Filed under Philosophy, Socio-cultural and tagged: MOrality, Mortality, Sociology

A few days ago my new Facebook friend wrote this

“Any individual who attempts to formulate an objective set of values will always fail, because the prism through which they analyze the world will inevitably be marred by their own experiences and perspectives. Therefore, moral standards are actually cultural standards, and nothing more. Cultural Relativism posits that there are no universal ethical truths, only various cultural codes!”
-Alvin MP Delfian-

This is accurate.

Further, as we evolve, humans need to acknowledge mortality (constant) instead of morality (relative). This is the only way to provide an adequate ethical regard for our species as we evolve technologically.

Permalink

6 Comments»

Adrian Novato wrote @ January 10, 2011 at 8:27 am

A topic widely discussed in a bioethics class I once took.

A great, and somewhat disturbing, question we would pose is to what extent do we interfere in cultures we deem inadequate or immoral? Do we have the right to stop something like female genital mutilation, or would it unethical to impose our own cultural beliefs on another people? Would it be the more ethical decision to provide a clean and sterile environment to perform the surgeries in?

Good question and quote.

Xavier Labonte wrote @ January 10, 2011 at 11:45 am

Morality may be relative, but so is nutrition. We have a science to study nutrition to promote the best possible choice, so why do we not have one for morality? Although there are many right answers to both, there are clearly wrong ones, and some answers provide a better standard of living. This is what Sam Harris is proposing in his latest work “The Moral Lanscape.”

JFKII wrote @ January 10, 2011 at 4:57 pm

@Xavier:
I’m an engineer (mostly) and I think that I agree with what you wrote (based on my interpretation). But it is difficult to create a rigid science or anything quantifiable out of morality when the very definition of the term is not rigid. That is why in Integrationalism, I’ve started it’s definition as a “mortal stance”. This eliminated ambiguities that arise when scenarios of scarce economic realities are prevalent. In a age where resources of sorts (all sorts) are not necessarily scarce, the ideal of morality becomes obsolete, which is why I try an focus exclusively on that of mortality.

Alvin M P Delfian wrote @ January 11, 2011 at 1:31 pm

GET BETTER GRADES Moral relativism is the view that ethical standards, morality, and positions of right or wrong are based on a person’s individual choice/ belief (subjectivism). Different moral truths hold for different people. It comes in two forms: ethical subjectivism and cultural relativism. We can all decide what is right for ourselves. You decide what’s right for you, and I’ll decide what’s right for me. Moral relativism says, “It’s true for me, if I believe it.”Dan Ariely is a professor of behavioral economics, and he believes “we’re not as rational as we think when making decisions”. I agree with his belief. Individual Moral Relativism depends solely upon ones individual beliefs. Dan Ariely came up with the idea that we repeatedly and predictably make the wrong decisions in many aspects of our lives and that research could help change some of these patterns. I agree we do make wrong decisions in many aspects of our lives. For example the nurses who removed Ariely’s band aids did it in a painful process because they Is this Essay helpful? Join OPPapers to read more and access more than 325 ,000 just like it! believed it was right (subjectivism) for the reason that is was their job because what might seem right to them, you might understand differently and have a difference of opinion; therefore it may appear wrong in your eyes and vice versa. In my opinion being a nurse does not mean you know everything about everything. How would you ever know what works well and what does not, if you don’t try. Cultural relativism holds that moral truths vary from one culture to another. According to cultural relativism, the fact that a given practice is morally wrong in one culture does not entail that it is morally wrong in another. One should try to understand the culture on its own terms instead of judging it based upon one’s own culture. The nurses should have taken Ariely’s suggestion into consideration and not judge that his suggestion was wrong because he was simply just a patient. Ethical subjectivism states that a full description of all of the morally…

Alvin M P Delfian wrote @ January 11, 2011 at 2:12 pm

Moral relativism is the view that ethical standards, morality, and positions of right or wrong are based on a person’s individual choice/ belief (subjectivism). Different moral truths hold for different people. It comes in two forms: ethical subjectivism and cultural relativism. We can all decide what is right for ourselves. You decide what’s right for you, and I’ll decide what’s right for me. Moral relativism says, “It’s true for me, if I believe it.” We’re not as rational as we think when making decisions. Individual Moral Relativism depends solely upon ones individual beliefs. You might understand differently and have a difference of opinion; therefore it may appear wrong in your eyes and vice versa. How would you ever know what works well and what does not, if you don’t try. Cultural relativism holds that moral truths vary from one culture to another. According to cultural relativism, the fact that a given practice is morally wrong in one culture does not entail that it is morally wrong in another. One should try to understand the culture on its own terms instead of judging it based upon one’ s own culture.

freeze43 wrote @ January 11, 2011 at 2:32 pm

An interesting post.

I use to be, but now reject, moral relativism. Do you feel there are any moral laws that are culture-free, or any moral laws that are genuinely good in all circumstances?

INTEGRATIONALISM