Updated: May 21, 2021
Moral Relativism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism
Very interesting, good read. Some things and comments in bold:
"“Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900) believed that we have to assess the value of our values since values are relative to one's goals and one's self. He emphasized the need to analyze our moral values and how much impact they may have on us. The problem with morality, according to Nietzsche, is that those who were considered "good" were the powerful nobles who had more education, and considered themselves better than anyone below their rank. Thus, what is considered good is relative. A "good man" is not questioned on whether or not there is a "bad", such as temptations, lingering inside him and he is considered to be more important than a man who is considered "bad" who is considered useless to making the human race better because of the morals we have subjected ourselves to. But since what is considered good and bad is relative, the importance and value we place on them should also be relative. He proposed that morality itself could be a danger.
I agree – when people are so ingrained in their own extremes and what they believe to be right and good – it is dangerous to others. That is true. Look at history.
Nietzsche believed that morals should be constructed actively, making them relative to who we are and what we, as individuals, consider to be true, equal, good and bad, etc. instead of reacting to moral laws made by a certain group of individuals in power.
Agree as well but I think Allah/God (SWT) has made things happen, such as prophets, who have influenced history and also guided humanity and therefore, made the present day as it is such today (with a lot of guiding morals in society but there is definitely a lot of wrong as well). Therefore I also agree with
One scholar, supporting an anti-realist interpretation, concludes that "Nietzsche's central argument for anti-realism about value is explanatory: moral facts don't figure in the 'best explanation' of experience, and so are not real constituents of the objective world. Moral values, in short, can be 'explained away.'"
It is certain that Nietzsche criticizes Plato's prioritization of transcendence as the Forms. The Platonist view holds that what is 'true', or most real, is something which is other-worldly while the (real) world of experience is like a mere 'shadow' of the Forms, most famously expressed in Plato's allegory of the cave. Nietzsche believes that this transcendence also had a parallel growth in Christianity, which prioritized life-denying moral qualities such as humility and obedience through the church. (See Beyond Good and Evil, On the Genealogy of Morals, The Twilight of the Idols, The Antichrist, etc.)
Yes, religion has sometimes gotten in the way of people to take action against fighting against injustice and has also been used as a tool to indoctrinate people into believing extreme views and putting hate and anger in hearts. Also though, lust, jealousy etc. can cause hate. Deprivation (psychology – look at children who are born poor and know they are poor and what it does to psychology) and trauma – has effects. What would society look like now though without the previous history? Are there not examples of people going against the grain all the time (not being "obedient" and like everyone else).
Anthropologists such as Ruth Benedict (1887–1948) have cautioned observers against ethnocentricism—using the standards of their own culture to evaluate their subjects of study. Benedict said that transcendent morals do not exist—only socially constructed customs do (see cultural relativism); and that in comparing customs, the anthropologist "insofar as he remains an anthropologist ... is bound to avoid any weighting of one in favor of the other". To some extent, the increasing body of knowledge of great differences in belief among societies caused both social scientists and philosophers to question whether any objective, absolute standards pertaining to values could exist. This led some to posit that differing systems have equal validity, with no standard for adjudicating among conflicting beliefs.
The Finnish philosopher-anthropologist Edward Westermarck (1862–1939) ranks as one of the first to formulate a detailed theory of moral relativism. He portrayed all moral ideas as subjective judgments that reflect one's upbringing. He rejected G.E. Moore's (1873–1958) ethical intuitionism—in vogue during the early part of the 20th century, and which identified moral propositions as true or false, and known to us through a special faculty of intuition—because of the obvious differences in beliefs among societies, which he said provided evidence of the lack of any innate, intuitive power.
I agree with some of this and disagree with others. Upbringing is super important, yes, obviously! I don’t agree that there is such “obvious differences in beliefs among societies”. There is, obviously (I believe), morals found around the world and this in my opinion, gives credence to a creator and guider and that we are blessed to have a so called “spirit” and so called “heart”. Psychology and the human brain is a beast! (the conscious, the subconscious, the body, the spirit/heart). And why, I believe in Allah (SWT) as the one and true creator and guider. That's just me (now) of course though - respect.
Bhikkhu Bodhi, an American Buddhist monk, has written: "By assigning value and spiritual ideals to private subjectivity, the materialistic world view ... threatens to undermine any secure objective foundation for morality. The result is the widespread moral degeneration that we witness today. To counter this tendency, mere moral exhortation is insufficient. If morality is to function as an efficient guide to conduct, it cannot be propounded as a self-justifying scheme but must be embedded in a more comprehensive spiritual system which grounds morality in a transpersonal order. Religion must affirm, in the clearest terms, that morality and ethical values are not mere decorative frills of personal opinion, not subjective superstructure, but intrinsic laws of the cosmos built into the heart of reality."
Really love that /\. Even if one knows what is right, without spirituality it is hard to subject oneself to one's own moral codes and beliefs. It's hard enough to develop ones own "perfect" set of principles but to also stick to those if you don't have any fear or negative repercussions. It takes much mindfulness to cultivate thinking perfectly clean and non-judgmentally (for example!, we all live in our own minds and have limited perspective and knowledge etc.) The athiest/agnostic/secular humanists can think they have "perfect" or near perfect morals and just to be decent and not kill anyone but you yourself are just making up those rules because, probably most likely, the society we live in isn't totally evil and wrong in the first place. Still, for the athiest is a struggle of acting individually upon what is best and good. Living, doing and having discipline other than just what one wants to do or what is easy (I was lost), - having purpose and meaning to life and to every thing we can do in it. Nearly a complete 180 for the apathy of nihilism (or the greed and negativity of "survival of the fittest" or "live for the day" nihilism)
The Age of Enlightenment (also known as the Age of Reason or simply the Enlightenment)[note 2] was an intellectual and philosophical movement that dominated the world of ideas in Europe during the 17th and 18th centuries. The Enlightenment included a range of ideas centered on the pursuit of happiness, sovereignty of reason and the evidence of the senses as the primary sources of knowledge and advanced ideals such as liberty, progress, toleration, fraternity, constitutional government and separation of church and state.
The Enlightenment emerged out of a European intellectual and scholarly movement known as Renaissance humanism and was also preceded by the Scientific Revolution and the work of Francis Bacon, among others. Some date the beginning of the Enlightenment to René Descartes' 1637 philosophy of Cogito, ergo sum ("I think, therefore I am"), while others cite the publication of Isaac Newton's Principia Mathematica (1687) as the culmination of the Scientific Revolution and the beginning of the Enlightenment. French historians traditionally date its beginning with the death of Louis XIV of France in 1715 until the 1789 outbreak of the French Revolution. Most end it with the beginning of the 19th century.
Philosophers and scientists of the period widely circulated their ideas through meetings at scientific academies, Masonic lodges, literary salons, coffeehouses and in printed books, journals, and pamphlets. The ideas of the Enlightenment undermined the authority of the monarchy and the Catholic Church and paved the way for the political revolutions of the 18th and 19th centuries. A variety of 19th-century movements, including liberalism and neoclassicism, trace their intellectual heritage to the Enlightenment.
Islam had an enlightening kind of period as well. The world was in such a bad state in the 6th C. from one Youtube video I watched. I believe Islam inspired the Geneva Convention, did so much for Women's rights, etc., etc.
The separation of Church and State is good, I believe religion is personal and sacred. It's one's beliefs and influences how they view the world. Unbelief is also a belief and influences a person and their interactions with other people and the world because we all live on this planet together.
"Diversity is a plus, it’s not necessarily a danger. Multi-faith relations based on mutual understanding and respect, a religious pluralism that acknowledges religious diversity, though not necessarily, an agreement on doctrine. Recognizing our shared beliefs and values, as well as acknowledging our differences, is also an important part of what it means to be an American. We have our differences, historically and today, but we live in a global world and we do share things in common. Not just stability and security, but faith; “love of God and love of neighbor”".
Fascinating debate here especially in these times - I really like the guys on the right's point but also do agree with a lot of what is said on the left and generally accept their positions as well - balance is good. Discussion is good. Hearing people out. I think that that is the point though with the guys on the right and having freedom of speech. Without that freedom, and without argumentation, black people might still be oppressed or not as far along as we are, etc. To put limits and protections though can be healthy, but can also be used negatively and can be VERY dangerous as well.
Interesting news now of crypto going for carbon neutrality now. Coincidence? Posted on the issue a few days ago, and was angry thinking about it the other day, "why does this plastic water bottle hold no value, or this metal pan hardly worth much, yet crypto worth so much, yet isn't anything and only burns up electricity?!" Is madness especially in these times seemingly.