this is possibly the most important entry this site will see this year.. unfortunately, i feel like we live in an age of great ignorance.. but an entry like this will give a person the words needed to fully explain why foolishness is foolishness whether it is recognized as such or not. ok so.. this entry will be a more technical explanation of why the whole "don't judge" thing is a form of ethical relativism, and why said relativism- is extremely flawed
i believe this will be my final say on the matter.. this is the nail in the coffin for all of these people saying "don't judge" aka "don't think" aka "let me be a pervert" "let me do things that are immoral without guilt" or "i can haz akshunz witout consaquancez?" ok so i just took a class that explained it all in words that i never heard before there are 3 main ways of looking at matters of ethics 1. absolutism ethical absolutism would say that you should not do something wrong under any circumstance.. there are really no shades of gray in absolutism.. you do things based on principle.. you tell the truth because telling the truth is right, not because it is convenient or easy.. special considerations are not taken in ethical absolutism "i know you broke your ankle and so you'll lose the race, but finish it anyway" ...its all principle based the ethical absolutist is in the position to both applaud those beliefs and behaviors that agree with their own view of what is universally valid, and to condemn those beliefs and behaviors that differ from their own the main belief is: universally valid norms, beliefs, and practices define what is right and good for all people at all times intolerance and judgment are both acceptable in absolutism 2. relativism this is what relativism would say: "how can you judge someone when you don't understand the totality who who they are and/or where they come from? after all, morals, values, and ethics are all relative.. there is no black or white, its all gray.. you say up is up but someone else might say up is down.. who are you to judge if someone wants to say up is down? there is no right or wrong, just different viewpoints" now.. here is the short textbook version of the problem with ethical relativism: "if we degrade or destroy our ability to discern the good and judge what it means, we thereby will lose our ability to make the judgments needed to pursue a genuinely good life of contentment and harmony." now back to me.. judgment of right and wrong is a central ability inherent to those who are not sociopaths.. to say "don't judge" is to push order, justice, and righteousness a little further away, only to inch chaos, disorder, and an "anything goes" mentality a little closer the problem with an "anything goes" mentality is.. well anything goes.. right or wrong.. if a person completely diminishes his or her ability to judge rightly then in their mind, there would be no difference between a hitler and a mother theresa.. who can say one is right and one is wrong when there is no judgment of either? this is the peril of ethical relativism.. this is what has been happening to our society.. "why not get an abortion?" "why not be gay?" "why not be a transgender?" what's next? "why not live in incest?" "why not have 10 wives" "why not be an idiot?" to say "don't judge" is to undermine any sort of decency.. it is a weak attempt to live a guilt free life.. but guilt- like anger, or sadness, or any "negative" emotion is there for a reason.. it serves a very important purpose.. it is a time of harsh reflection, to get us to change our ways if people read their bibles they would know your conscience is an authority in your life, yet it can be seared and destroyed.. if you have no real sense of morality then your conscience has likely been seared and you need to have your mind renewed.. you don't need people (i.e. ethical relativists) to just "accept you the way you are" if you're an alcoholic on your way to the grave.. do you need people to "accept you the way you are?" no. you need people in your life who urge you to change sometimes ethical relativism assumes that there are no universally valid ethical norms.. because of this, judgment and intolerance are off limits under this ethical viewpoint however there ARE universally laid ethical norms.. the main one being the "golden rule"..the golden rule is "treat others the way you would like to be treated" .. the golden rule is practiced in all countries and cultures .. it is a universally shared ethical norm those who do not adhere to this norm are oftentimes placed in prisons or otherwise punished in some way furthermore.. one perceived benefit of ethical relativism is that it "allows us to tolerate the views and practices of others" but here's the problem (textbook).. "if values and practices are always and only legitimate in relation to a specific culture, then we are under no obligation to look further for values, practices, frameworks, etc for ethical/moral guidance" in other words.. under the assumptions of ethical relativism.. if a person's religion is to kill people of a different religion, then they are morally ok in doing so because tolerance of their religious freedom is paramount.. in other words again.. while ethical relativism claims to not have any absolutist views, it actually is a form of absolutism, but instead of being absolute about right and wrong, ethical relativism is absolute about tolerance.. now.. ask yourself, what does absolute tolerance amount to? if all is to be tolerated, and no objections can be implemented then right and wrong do not exist wickedness and righteousness are ultimately the same to an ethical relativist.. they have no sense of the difference between order and chaos or right and wrong because ALL IS TOLERABLE what they fail to realize is that forcing someone to be tolerant is actually oppressive another fallacy of ethical relativism is that there is a new "respect" and "love" for others when we cease any judgment of them ok.. think about it, how is that possible, if i don't judge you at all.. if i don't judge you or anything you do on any level, then there can be no such thing as a hero or a villain.. there is absolutely no praise or condemnation without judgment in summary: ethical relativism is nothing more than a proposed fatal paralysis of moral judgment. 3. pluralism pluralism is basically absolutism and relativism combined into a more reasonable mix of the two it doesn't have the "do whatever! ahyuck!" of ethical relativism and it doesn't have the "do what i say or die" or "you don't wear the shoes we wear so ur crazy" that some absolutists may have instead it has standards, yet at the same time it affords some flexibility as well, based on factors like time, setting, circumstance, and culture a person's idea of what another person should or should not do is present but not exactly 100% paramount conclusion i am not saying you should classify yourself as an ethical pluralist, because ultimately there are probably some circumstances where each viewpoint would apply.. but i do implore readers to truly understand the contextual drawbacks to ethical relativism.. society today wants to make you into an ethical relativist who doesn't know up from down.. i am saying to you: UTTERLY RESIST THAT.. there may be a place where you find relativism ok like in something small like: "how a person chooses to style their hair" but even in that there could be some place where you draw a line.. so OF COURSE in the context of morality- ethical relativism is pretty much nonsense moral pluralism imo is fairly cool absolutism imo is also cool i personally believe i stand somewhere between absolutism and pluralism i have standards and i have standards for other people.. i try to operate on principles of integrity.. i understand people have different backgrounds and don't always have understanding of things.. including myself.. so while i would like people to always act morally, i understand we have need of mercy and patience at times but all in all.. understand the negatives of ethical relativism.. when you believe in nothing, you have nothing to stand on or fall back on.. there is no backbone.. no sense of justice or right or wrong when you think that way process what i'm saying here, i believe i'm being fair in this entry.. and pass along what i am saying so when people come up to you saying "don't judge" you can tell them upfront how and why they are being absurd in even suggesting that a person should sacrifice the faculty of perception, observation, and assessment of the morality presented in an issue.. you cannot tell a person to just tolerate everything and lastly, if you don't believe anything i'm saying here.. then how about you tolerate me emptying your bank account into my pocket, slapping you across the face, and telling you not to judge me good day.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
we here!
chillen in mushroom hill zone Archives
December 2013
|