• Scemo Villaggio
    7
    Traditionally, "Moral Relativism" was directly concerned with goal oriented methodologies that seemed to lack dogmatic restraint shared within our society. Objective reality, at the time, was not as mysterious as it now seems and seemed a bit simpler of a medium to paint in.Therefore, it was of little use to authority at the time to allow ethical maturity to develop, rather than bottle it up.

    This usage is clear, but I find myself unable to express certain ideas without creating confusion in our current world.Particularly in expressing that relativism does not always need rotate around a single fixed variable.


    I subscribe to a hard deterministic reality.... meaning, I do believe in objective truth seen through a subjective lens.Perspective and communication focus that Lens.


    I call myself a "moral relativist"( for lack of a better term), This consists of:


    -My belief, that my goals and motivations are the very best tool I have for improving my perceived situation.This being the fundamental basis of confident choice making.


    -My belief, that through increased mindfulness I can make rational decisions about my goals in specific situations based on critical thinking and reflection.My fundamental process for in the moment assessment.


    -My belief, that there are common attributes shared by groups, these attributes dictate proper ethical behavior within those groups. There are groups within groups that dictate differing dynamics for optimum goal completion(ex. religious people within secular organizations). In essence, we are all humans on this planet that breathe eat and sleep in very similar ways... This puts all humanity within a large group that dictates some very specific optimal methodologies for improving situations: Breathe, eat, sleep etc. As you begin dividing that group into subgroups, more nuanced methodologies will emerge as you become aware of the specific layers of groups you fall into for your current situational calculation.

    -My belief, that all people act within their own perceived best interest (you too, Gandhi!)


    -My belief, that If you can see yourself as part of a collective whole, and appreciate that you are an integral part of that whole, you will act within your best interest to make that whole better. I addition, as you develop this way, you discover that the most efficient sustainable change begins within yourself and moves outward
    So, in summation:

    How do I explain to people, in short order, my understanding of my "moral relativism".An ethical process where many things are dogmatically calculated in a methodical way, based(relatively) on goals and environment.


    Scemo Villaggio
    (First Forum POST)
    7/27/2020

    -Edit 7-27-2020 Clarification(italicized)
  • Outlander
    1.8k


    Shouldn't take much. It's already the majority view- by far. Summed up by the repeated use of "my". What works for me vs. thee, essentially.

    Not quite so nuanced and black and white though. You seem to at least recognize the difference in an intellectual manner which already places you far above the actual majority. God speed. And good luck. Not that you need it... then again, not that I know your situation, perceived or not.
  • Scemo Villaggio
    7


    you said: 'Shouldn't take much. It's already the majority view- by far.'

    These 10 words not only served to delay my response, but also required me to temper my response a number of times. For that, I thank you.

    You added: 'Summed up by the repeated use of "my". What works for me vs. thee, essentially.'

    I see this part as an ambiguous explanation of the initial 10 words, and do not want to devalue whatever message you are attempting to convey with it.

    Could you clarify why you think the moral relativism I am espousing is the majority view?

    Or,

    Could you acknowledge that the"moral relativism" you are speaking of is an established term within your vocabulary that you refuse to redefine or allow distinction within?

    In addition,

    "Shouldn't take much": could have been interpreted as dismissive... it directly answered my post's question with, "YOU FIGURE IT OUT"

    "it is already the majority view-by far.": In case you didn't notice, this statement assumes that you understand the internal moral landscape of every individual within the majority you speak of that carries the self-label of "moral Relativist".

    We can hit the other paragraph if you hang in there....again, Thank you!
  • Outlander
    1.8k
    These 10 words not only served to delay my response, but also required me to temper my response a number of times. For that, I thank you.Scemo Villaggio

    Just more of what I was saying. Gotta be right. Gotta have core beliefs protected and unchallenged. Until. Well. Let's not worry about that.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.