This is where I shake my head disgustedly at yet another moral relatavist argument and bow out. :-)
What, you don't think people have different tolerances for what knowledge they can handle? I think morals are relative for the most part. I believe in meta-ethical moral relativism but not normative moral relativism, the difference being that I believe that most moral stances are not objectively right or wrong, but I hold the right to disagree and fight against moral stances that go against my personal moral feelings. Because different people have different goals and they hold these moral stances as a way of achieving those goals, of course what they consider right and wrong are different. So, a moral stance could be practical, beneficial in one way, but terrible in another. However, I have my own cultural and moral memes and I want them to spread. I pick out the "Way of Emily" and try to get those cultural and moral memes to become popular, because I would not believe in them if I did not think they would make the world a better place, a path of least suffering and most fairness.
Also, Pony fandom as I experience it does not have scary fanfiction, it is mostly funny comics and illustrations, music videos and songs. I don't see the fanfiction because I don't go looking for it. I look at the people who write the erotic slash for the pony fandom the same way as I look at the people who do it for every other fandom I'm into. I kind of roll my eyes and move on.
I think that a moral relativist argument has the inevitable end game of "morality doesn't matter because it's defined on a case by case basis and all societal norms are built on foundations of sand."
I think that a moral relativist argument has the inevitable end game of "morality doesn't matter because it's defined on a case by case basis and all societal norms are built on foundations of sand."
The discussion is entirely moot.
No, that's silly, that's like saying beliefs don't matter, and that's closer to nihilism. Ideas and beliefs obviously affect the world when acted upon and we have to worry about them, so we need to argue and discuss about morals. We just need to accept that there is not one be-all-end-all moral that will be agreed upon the same for everyone with every goal and every experience.
I think that a moral relativist argument has the inevitable end game of "morality doesn't matter because it's defined on a case by case basis and all societal norms are built on foundations of sand."
Case by case morality is not relativism. It's non-absolutism, and it's an answer to an entirely different question. Granted, if you mean "case by case" in that each individual/society gets to decide what's moral, then that is more along the lines of relativism.
Moral absolutism: There is at least one principle that ought never to be violated. Moral objectivism: There is a fact of the matter as to whether any given action is morally permissible or impermissible: a fact of the matter that does not depend solely on social custom or individual acceptance.
Also, though societal norms are liable to shift, it's not sand all the way. There is still some rock if you look deeper down.
I'm not going to reply to any more comments in this thread because it's supposed to be a pony thread and it's polluted enough already. So, bash away, if that's what you wanna do. :-)
I'm not going to reply to any more comments in this thread because it's supposed to be a pony thread and it's polluted enough already.
That has never stopped us around here, and in any case the pony stuff is guaranteed to continue. If you wanted to it could be taken to a different thread, but it looks like you don't want to continue the discussion and that's cool.
Wuss Baby. You're the one who started it. You were all like "I wanna argue" and then when we take you up on it, you got all crumpy. You are new to the forum, because these discussions spring up all the time in random threads. It will get back to ponies in time.
Admittedly, he picked a bad place/subject to start the argument. I for one don't like having my drip-feed of ponies interrupted, and arguments about protecting children from bad media tend to make this forum as a whole very skeptical (as I think they should be).
Comments
I think morals are relative for the most part. I believe in meta-ethical moral relativism but not normative moral relativism, the difference being that I believe that most moral stances are not objectively right or wrong, but I hold the right to disagree and fight against moral stances that go against my personal moral feelings. Because different people have different goals and they hold these moral stances as a way of achieving those goals, of course what they consider right and wrong are different. So, a moral stance could be practical, beneficial in one way, but terrible in another. However, I have my own cultural and moral memes and I want them to spread. I pick out the "Way of Emily" and try to get those cultural and moral memes to become popular, because I would not believe in them if I did not think they would make the world a better place, a path of least suffering and most fairness.
Also, Pony fandom as I experience it does not have scary fanfiction, it is mostly funny comics and illustrations, music videos and songs. I don't see the fanfiction because I don't go looking for it. I look at the people who write the erotic slash for the pony fandom the same way as I look at the people who do it for every other fandom I'm into. I kind of roll my eyes and move on.
The discussion is entirely moot.
A solid PMV:
I'm not saying "END PONY FANDOM FOR THE CHILDRENS!!". Not even close.
(And the answer is not automatically "PARTY!")
(It was done really fast on a podcast as part of an extended joke)