Search the Community

I've been pondering over moral relativism. Seems that one camp says that moral absolutes don't exist because of historical evidence. I take this as a fair point but I see it as fallacious because of appeal to tradition. It tells us nothing about the fact that moral absolutes _can_ exist in the future. Based on this question "Is it right to argue that no moral absolutes can arise in a moral system?" YES, NO Either answer affirms to me that moral absolutes exist in a moral system, because you used a moral judgement to answer a moral question. What is wrong with this argument? Is it fallacious? If so what fallacy does it fall under? It seems like St Anselm's proof to me.

Overall Question: If I cannot make clear the immorality of sneaking a second movie, what likelihood do I have of convincing friends of the immorality of the state, parental, and religious violence with which they were raised? Situation: An older, retired friend brags that he was able to get past "The Rules" and "societal customs" and snuck into a second movie after his first movie was over, overcoming his wife's concern about "getting caught" so that they could "have fun". When they were caught (because few other patrons had bought tickets for the second movie) and asked to leave, his "worst case scenario" had not proved as bad as he had thought and thus reinforces his belief that he should have "more fun" and worry less about "The Rules". (At one point he nodded to me that he was acting "more libertarian". (Ouch!)) Problem: My attempts to suggest that he had crossed a line in morality have failed. My Question of You: Am I wrong about the morality of the situation? Am I missing an important point? How might you address a friend with a similar brag? My Initial Response: I denied that this had to do with "The Rules" or with "societal customs", but instead with personal integrity. I pointed out that he was out of integrity because he had agreed individually to a clear, implied contract that the ticket would be for one and only one movie. I argued that the destructiveness to himself of promising one thing, and then doing another, was something he needed to worry about, not whether the usher would catch him. Arguments: Friend: There was no implied contract. My Answer: You did not, nor would you have, told them your intention because you know that they would not have sold you the ticket. Thus, you knew of the implied contract. Friend: In the past... Movie theaters, when I grew up, used to permit multiple viewings per ticket. My Answer: And you know that not to be the agreement at this time. (See "No Implied Contract") Friend: I see myself as virtuous. I have no problem with integrity. My Answer: Integrity is oneness between word and deed. You acted contrary to your implied word. There are consequences that expand far beyond a movie ticket for being so quickly willing to break your word. Friend: Only explicit contracts are valid. I never explicitly gave my word. My Answer: So, the universal rule is that, as long as something is not spelled out in black and white, you may do it, even if you understand fully that your host expects you not to do that? Friend: No harm; no foul. As long as (I believe that) there is no detrimental impact on the service provider, I may do this, for the greater good (in this case, harmless "fun"). My Answer: 1) He actually returned a few days later and paid a ticket to see the movie that he had tried to steal. 2) His guess of the other person's mindset or value or benefit can not abrogate the contract. 3) This rationalization is the path down which Evil frequently travels. My Query: So, if it is okay to sneak in to a second movie, you could have also snuck into it for the first time by having someone open for you the fire door? His Answer: No, that would have been "wrong". "Interestingly, that is where I would draw a line." My Query: So, I'm trying to understand the universal rule here. Friend: There are no universal rules, only situational and (culturally) relative. My Answer: So, you believe that you may do anything for which you have a good story for? Other Threads Discussed: I talked to him separately about the difference of having rules imposed one-sidedly upon one, like by his parents, his religion, his schools, versus coming to a win-win agreement of a voluntarily-entered, mutually beneficial contract. He denied that he was confounding the two (despite his initial presentation of the issue as his being able to break "The Rules" and "Societal Customs".) His Bottom Line: As long as he "feels" that his action is justified, moral, and in integrity, it is. There can be no external measures of Right or Wrong, only internal. (I asked him about murder, and his contention is that he does not think murder is right, but the emphasis on him.) His Catch Phrase: "I just don't see the world as you do." "That is not true in my world." "[Other people with my world view] agree with me.", etc. My Fear 1: I don't think he will ever be able to understand universalizing morals, or absolute concepts of Evil. He is typical of people around me -- who use only their gut to judge morality and regularly justify anti-UPB actions. Are all my study and thought wasted, because there is little hope of ever changing him and his kind. My Fear 2: I believe that this type of subjective ethics is the slippery slope down which all Evil travels. Yet all my friends subscribe to something like this. I often feel alone and alien.