Is one person's moral opinion as good as another's?

[LunchBox]

there definately IS a morality that applies to everybody, whether they like it or not, or whether they disregard it or not.

I have to disagree with that. different cultures have different value systems in place. sure, for the most part I think they overlap, but there are some fundamental differences which makes clearcut moral judgements difficult. Granted most cultures value systems are based on the religious ideals in that culture, but religion and morals go together like a lime and a coconut, but are way harder to separate.

 

[125gJoe]

... If it's immoral to kill, it's immoral for ANYONE to kill. Disagreeing doesn't validate your morals..., therefore they are immoral and uncivilized? Please. It's the same argument they use to justify their actions.

To me, anyone that believes death to all that do not believe in "their" religion has 'misguided' moral beliefs and -- is uncivilized. That's what I meant. If you think I'm trying to 'validate' my thoughts, so it goes...


(oops, I almost forgot...
If you can be "converted" to that "belief" or ideology, then your life will be spared..)

...maybe that makes them "almost civilized".. (?)

_______________________

 

[OrionGirl]

No judgement from me. It's just a circular argument, meaning it doesn't really prove much. Any justification that applies equally to both sides of an issue isn't substantive. Is American action is Iraq uncivilized and immoral? Same standard--they don't agree, so kill them. It's a quandry--I don't believe in forcing my beliefs on others, others believe I should agree with them or die, so do I force my belief on them to save my life? There isn't a good resolution, since either I give up my belief that they should be free to choose what to believe, or they give up their belief that I should agree or die, violating my belief.

But--this has nothing to do with morals. Morals aren't tied to religious convictions, morals aren't inherent to beliefs. People can be immoral and still be perfectly civilized, and people can be totally uncivilized and moral. Concepts that may have similarities, but are not bound together.

 

[Leopardess]

Some food for thought:

Often times, the differences between cultures are only apparent differences, and upon closer inspection turn out to not be so morally different, but rather are different interpretations of fact.

For example:

"Consider a culture in which people believe it is wrong to eat cows. This may even be a poor culture, in which there is not enough food; still, the cows are not to be touched. Such a society would appear to have values very different from our own. But does it? We have not asked why these people iwll not eat cows. Suppose it is because they believe that after death the souls of humans inhabit the bodies of animals, especially cows, so that a cow may be someone's grandmother. Now shall we say that their values are different than ours? No; the difference lies elsewhere. The difference is in our belief systems, not in our values. We agree that we shouldn't eat Grandma; we simply disagree about whether the cow is (or could be) Grandma" (Weston 23).

I thought that was interesting. The same thing goes with certain Eskimo tribes that consume their dead. We think it's gross. They think it is a massive assault to one's dignity to be buried and "wasted". They think by consuming the body, the soul lives on, by burying it we waste it. We both want what we think is best for the deceased, we just disagree how to get there.

 

[LunchBox]

It's a quandry--I don't believe in forcing my beliefs on others, others believe I should agree with them or die, so do I force my belief on them to save my life? There isn't a good resolution, since either I give up my belief that they should be free to choose what to believe, or they give up their belief that I should agree or die, violating my belief.

good point. I share much the same point of view in that I don't force what I think on others but I expect the same courtesy from them.

as far as the cow thing, whether a cow is grandma or not it's still a cow. so while we may say "we both think it's wrong to kill grandma, thererfore our cultures really aren't as different as we thought", we could also say "our cultures are different because they think their grandma is a cow, and we don't."

I feel like I'm focusing too much on the cowly goodness here :hang:

 

[Leopardess]

But the morality is the same. It is the perceived facts that differ (ie whether or not souls are reincarnated as animals). The morality involves eating relatives. It is not a moral judgment that cows are reanimated souls. It is a moral judgment that we should/should not eat our loved ones.

 

[LunchBox]

good point. I can agree with that.

 

[SnakeIce]

All I know is if you eat the wrong morel you could die.

 

[Riso-chan]

well, that was kinda my point. everyone thinks what they are doing is right, so what is right and wrong is too subjective to really have any concrete definition.

the world isn't black and white enough to be able to have a definite right and wrong... ther eis too much gray. stealing bread is supposedly wrong, but is stealing bread to feed a starving family? is it wrong to withold said bread from said starving family simply because they can't pay for it? that example is pretty cliche, but it is a simple illustration of how much gray area there is in life, and because of that gray area one can't simply say that someone else is morally wrong just because their belief systems don't agree on some issues.

look at pro-lifers vs. pro-choicers.... both sides believe they are morally justified in their stances, but both have valid opinions on the subject. neither side truly understands the other because of that deep belief, and thus they simply label the other side as "wrong".

the more I tihnk about it the more I feel like today's "right and wrong" are just words used to enable persecution in a society where old fashioned "burn em at the stake" persecution isn't allowed anymore. but then that is just an opinion.

I agree with you here. Even though I have oy own beliefs and opinions about issues like these, I only want for there to be comprimose for people on both sides. It's so much more worth it to find that solution than to argue and hate eachother more over our own complexities.
Really, looking at how others have answered the topic question here, I'd have to say that either no answer at all, or both yes nd no simultaneously are valid responses. In face of so many facets in human society as a whole, there are vast areas of grey. And yet, there are values of right and wrong on more clearly defined circumstances that often stay fairly black and white all around, thusm most people's view on these issues will often be the same. ~Angela

 

[125gJoe]

... I don't force what I think on others but I expect the same courtesy from them.
... ......

If related to 'jihad', you can expect no courtesy at all. I hope others understand this..

Sorry -
..off topic, but I had to relate this to todays' world...




____________________