What do you base that on?

I have seen people radically change their views on morality, and change their lives as well. I have done so myself.

Logical necessity.

People’s moralities may be changed, yes. Ultimately, such a change is caused by things outside of the person’s control.

If an event or meeting or exposure to some new idea changes their morality, that is outside of their control.

If they could somehow choose to adopt different values, they would have reasons for doing so. Those reasons would be supplied by things ultimately outside of their control – meeting a new person, having a religious experience, reading a new book, etc.

People don’t choose things for no reason. People choose things for reasons. And people don’t choose their reasons. (If they did, they’d have reasons for picking one reason over another – ad infinitum or outside of their control.)

What do you base that on?

I have seen people radically change their views on morality, and change their lives as well. I have done so myself.

So why then am I about the only one speaking out against ‘tolerance’?

Clearly ‘tolerance’ is a misguided virtue?

I think it’s precisely because people can’t choose their relative morality that we should keep that in mind when dealing with people whose values differ from our own. If intolerance rests on a belief that people with different values are being wilfully stupid or evil, the realisation that morality is relative and not chosen undermines intolerance. When you realise that people are the way they are and sincerely believe the things they do because of a whole bunch of things outside of their control (language, culture, parents, religion, schooling, genetics, personal life experiences, etc.), you can’t help but be more tolerant.

And as you’ve noted, there are plenty of progressives who demonstrate that they don’t really understand this about values and morality. Some treat Christians as if they’re being wilfully ignorant or being groundlessly hateful, for example, when the fact is that if they had lived the lives those Christians had lived, they would hold precisely the same values and hold them just as strongly as they believe whatever progressive values they happen to consider “best”.

It’s not possible to say that one morality is simply right or best, because to evaluate a morality as right/wrong or good/bad is only possible from within a moral framework. There’s no neutral position from which to make such a judgement. And, of course, every moral framework is perfect by its own criteria. Secular values are not best: they are the secular-est. Christian values are not best: they are the Christian-est. And so on. But to the secularist, secularism is best, because she’s evaluating it in terms of her secular framework. And to the Christian, Christianity is best, because she’s evaluating it in terms of her Christian framework.

The trick is to find elements that are common between moral frameworks and start a dialogue from there. It’s not likely to change anyone’s values, but a genuine dialogue generating a clearer understanding of where someone else is coming from (along with a realisation that values are relative and vary from person to person) will undermine a lot of the foundation of intolerance.

“….They’d be wrong. For the most part, you can’t choose your relative morality….”

So why then am I about the only one speaking out against ‘tolerance’?

Clearly ‘tolerance’ is a misguided virtue?

Wouldn’t being ‘judgemental’ be a better virtue to be taught to children?

Afterall, isn’t parenting all about ‘raising adults – not children’? – Especially since it is the next generation that is being raised?

There’s nothing wrong with values and standards being imposed I believe.

and why would they need to differ ‘much’ from person to person & place to place if you live under the same common law etc.

Got a mental block there sunshine – looking for a diversion?? What is it; the ethics bit, or the modern world?

If that’s what it is, then it seems rather weak to me. More an afterthought.

It’s ‘why’ people do things in the first place that matters, morality, thoughtfulness etc.

Yes, and they differ from person to person and place to place.

I read recently[no not Bill Mullenburg ] that if you ask kids today if they believe in morals, then a large proportion will offer up ‘it’s a personal choice’ – that in itself is rather immoral.

They’d be wrong. For the most part, you can’t choose your relative morality.

Cha will fill you in – and also on what you missed.

“….That’s a much better way of putting it. “A construct that acknowledges why people do things.”…”

If that’s what it is, then it seems rather weak to me. More an afterthought.

It’s ‘why’ people do things in the first place that matters, morality, thoughtfulness etc.

I read recently[no not Bill Mullenburg ] that if you ask kids today if they believe in morals, then a large proportion will offer up ‘it’s a personal choice’ – that in itself is rather immoral.

I find it rather amusing when people want to place more constraints on religions and churches etc in society but then not even bother to question the social studies classes etc that is in all the schools and of which is ‘mandated’ by a rather faceless public service.

The individual is now about as removed from the state as what the churches are.Which is probably why numbers are increasing at the churches and decreasing at the polling booth.

Just spend five minutes talking to your average university educated liberal ( and unfortunately I have to regularly)

Liberal: “There is no absolute right or wrong, everything is relative, and it is wrong for anyone to impose their subjective views on others.”

Contrarian: “Europeans have a better work ethic than Maori.”

Liberal: “RAAAAACIST!!!! Thats WRONG and EVIL! I’m telling the Race Relations Commissioner on you! You WILL be re-educated!!!”

Liberal Democracy………..Yeah Right.

Harriet (401) Says:
July 31st, 2012 at 11:56 am

The Truth Gap

Increasingly today we are finding an entire generation which has been raised on the destructive pap of relativism.

Millions of young people in the West today have absolutely no conception of such a thing as truth, and are firmly convinced that everything is relative. We have a whole generation who cannot bring itself to say that the Holocaust was wrong, or that destroying marriage is wrong, or that killing unborn babies is wrong, yet will quite readily assure us that what is wrong is to say these things are wrong!

Two wrongs don’t make a right.

I never said it. But go ask the current generation about it and it wouldn’t be far of the mark.

“I think it might be the modern world that Lee has a problem with!”

Modernism is an ideology. And yes, I reject modernism totally.

That’s not what you said.

Where is this whole generation who cannot bring itself to say that the Holocaust was wrong?

In your own words please.

That’s your “a whole generation that can’t bring itself to say the Holocaust was wrong”?

Lots question it, namely the amount of jews who were killed, before they denounce it. The holocaust is an absolute truth, so why should it be questioned?

‘What goes’ must be based on something that underpins it as most people don’t really act spontanously, so relativity is then not much more than a construct that acknowledges why people do things.

That’s a much better way of putting it. “A construct that acknowledges why people do things.”

“….Relativity is not “anything goes”. It’s “what goes is relative”….’

You really fucked that up Ryan –

‘What goes’ must be based on something that underpins it as most people don’t really act spontanously, so relativity is then not much more than a construct that acknowledges why people do things.