Traditional values

[cehs]

Liberals want change and that change is worse than what we had.
I don’t understand what they have against TRADITIONAL values and prosperity.

The question is: What do liberals have against TRADITIONAL VALUES?

.

[Marc O'Brien]

Liberals want change and that change is worse than what we had.
I don’t understand what they have against TRADITIONAL values and prosperity.

The question is: What do liberals have against TRADITIONAL VALUES?

Things shouldn't change merely for the sake of change. True. But, for example, it once was tradition to trade in and own slaves. To answer your question you'd have to go back and look at all the older traditions now removed and with each one give an explanation. Then apply similar thinking to the more recent changes.

The old ways may never have been proved correct - perhaps the old ways have recently been understood to be wrong. Circumstances may have changed requiring that the traditional ways be modified to bring the overall system back into balance.

You'd have to show why each change is questionable - you cannot ask that traditions remain simply because they are traditions.

[Hugh B]

Things shouldn't change merely for the sake of change. True. But, for example, it once was tradition to trade in and own slaves. To answer your question you'd have to go back and look at all the older traditions now removed and with each one give an explanation. Then apply similar thinking to the more recent changes.

The old ways may never have been proved correct - perhaps the old ways have recently been understood to be wrong. Circumstances may have changed requiring that the traditional ways be modified to bring the overall system back into balance.

You'd have to show why each change is questionable - you cannot ask that traditions remain simply because they are traditions.

Marc, what is the source and foundation for your personal values? On what basis do you determine what is moral? For example, if you believe slavery is wrong, on what basis is slavery wrong? Is slavery wrong for everyone or is that just a personal ethic?

[scrogdog]

Marc, what is the source and foundation for your personal values? On what basis do you determine what is moral? For example, if you believe slavery is wrong, on what basis is slavery wrong? Is slavery wrong for everyone or is that just a personal ethic?

Morality is not an absolute, despite your attempts to describe it as such.

Morality is what is agreed upon by men.

It is as simple as two men agreeing. "Look, I don't want you to kill me. Presuming that you don't want me to kill you either, what do you say that we agree not to kill each other?"

Why does it need to be more than that?

Slavery is wrong among those who agree that it is. Pretty simple. No rocket science or deep philosophy required.

[Hugh B]

Morality is not an absolute, despite your attempts to describe it as such.

Morality is what is agreed upon by men.

It is as simple as two men agreeing. "Look, I don't want you to kill me. Presuming that you don't want me to kill you either, what do you say that we agree not to kill each other?"

Why does it need to be more than that?

Slavery is wrong among those who agree that it is. Pretty simple. No rocket science or deep philosophy required.

So if there is a culture or group that does not think slavery is wrong are they wrong?

[scrogdog]

So if there is a culture or group that does not think slavery is wrong are they wrong?

To me they are. Again, the reasoning here is quite simple. I don't want to be a slave and presume that others would not like it either. It's called empathy.

Not everyone has that capacity. Unfortunately, most Christians don't understand that we are not all alike.

Might makes right and the majority rules. If the majority beleived that slavery was ok, then it would be.

In fact, once upon a time, it was just that.

Are you claiming that many of our founding fathers were immoral? Or was it more "a sign of the times" sort of thing?

[Hugh B]

To me they are. Again, the reasoning here is quite simple. I don't want to be a slave and presume that others would not like it either. It's called empathy.

Not everyone has that capacity. Unfortunately, most Christians don't understand that we are not all alike.

Might makes right and the majority rules. If the majority beleived that slavery was ok, then it would be.

In fact, once upon a time, it was just that.

Are you claiming that many of our founding fathers were immoral? Or was it more "a sign of the times" sort of thing?

I am not claiming anything here yet. I am trying to understand how those who do not believe in absolute values determine their values.

Do you actually believe that if the majority thinks slavery is ok then slavery is ok?

[scrogdog]

Of course that's what I believe since it has been demonstrated throughout history to be the case.

I am trying to understand how those who do not believe in absolute values determine their values.

Easy. I told you. Empathy. Or the idea that one should treat others as he or she would wish to be treated.

I do not, for example, think that fighting each other with swords in an arena is an awfully good idea. But, at one time, people were ok with that.

Maybe someday football will be declared too violent a sport, who knows? If that happens, it will be a majority decision.

[adamste81]

Values and morals are not instinctual. Values and morals are learned and taught. My 16 month old daughter finds it funny to kick our dog, if we do not teach her that it is not funny how should she learn?

The boy in Iraq who sees his brother and uncle commit suicide for their religion is not going to understand our morality that killing is wrong. There is no such thing as "absolute" morals or "instinctual" values. What are we defining as traditional values? Slavery was once legal and now it is not, abortion was not legal and now it is yet in both cases the argument was made that "they are not really people" so slavery was ok as caucasians viewed themselves above the slaves. The argument for abortion is made that "they are not really people" and goes hand in hand with the way slavery was viewed…….one population sees themselves more important that another. Remember, everyone who supported slavery was free and everyone who supports abortion was born…….that is how it works.

There are very few traditional morals left in this country. Very soon the things considered "traditional" will be a thing of the past, which is sad.

[cehs]

In my original post, I never mentioned morals.
I did ask about TRADITIONAL values, and what liberals have against them.
Traditional values are what have been the norm, until recently.
I did not ask what we should be doing with them, nor what will become of them.
I merely asked why liberals are AGAINST them....

I don't believe an answer has been given.
.

[adamste81]

In my original post, I never mentioned morals.
I did ask about TRADITIONAL values, and what liberals have against them.
Traditional values are what have been the norm, until recently.
I did not ask what we should be doing with them, nor what will become of them.
I merely asked why liberals are AGAINST them....

I don't believe an answer has been given.
.

Since I am not a liberal i cannot tell you, and good luck getting an answer from any liberal on this forum as they themselves have no clue what their political stance stands for until they have some rhetoric to regurgitate.

[Hugh B]

Of course that's what I believe since it has been demonstrated throughout history to be the case.



Easy. I told you. Empathy. Or the idea that one should treat others as he or she would wish to be treated.

I do not, for example, think that fighting each other with swords in an arena is an awfully good idea. But, at one time, people were ok with that.

Maybe someday football will be declared too violent a sport, who knows? If that happens, it will be a majority decision.

Is there even one example of a value that transends all cultures for all times? A single constant that equally applies to all people at all times past, present and future?

[Marc O'Brien]

Marc, what is the source and foundation for your personal values? On what basis do you determine what is moral? For example, if you believe slavery is wrong, on what basis is slavery wrong? Is slavery wrong for everyone or is that just a personal ethic?

Yeah, I would have to agree with Scrogdog. Adamste too actually.

I have found my ethics assignments the most difficult. And it seems so too have all of histories philosophers. Meta-ethics, Normative Ethics and Practical Ethics.

Firstly, on relativism. We need to keep in mind the difference between values and facts. Natural facts too. We cannot say that because the Vatican used to believe that the sun orbited the earth it used to be true that the sun orbited the earth. We know that this view was plain wrong and that the Vatican always were clearly very mistaken. Relativism doesn't work with these sorts of facts. Then neither can we argue the "what is" to "what ought to be" method either - the question remains open as there can never be a logical link between what is - to - what ought. Consider the good Samaritan - his action is likely to give rise to the most happiness for the greater number of people, but the question remains open, is it the morally right thing to do?

Philosophers generally agree that there is in fact no such thing as "Human nature". Jean-Paul Sartre, for instance in his Existentialism and Humanism.

Kids spend a lot of time calibrating their emotions and physical/logical understandings of the world around them. Kicking dogs and all stuff experimental. In the end they pretty much all choose to follow the right morals - really because they already were sufficiently empathetic to see what our right morals are. If they were not already innately empathetic then they would not have seen how obviously easy it is to adopt our existing moral system.

Morals are not factual things though. They are more of a common sense thing. Like it used to be common sense that the sun revolved around the earth. That is a good example of what we mean by the expression "common sense" which is very different from "true justified beliefs" established by logic and observation from a position of systematic doubt. Slavery used to be a common sense necessity. It was an acceptable belief and practice because it was common sense.

A J Ayer 1910 - 1988 offered a system of explanation called EMOTIVISM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Jules_Ayer

And as far as I took my thinking of ethics I agree with Alfred Ayer, who concluded that ethical statements are literally meaningless. They do not express any facts at all. Instead they express the speakers emotion. Moral judgments have no literal meaning at all, they are just expressions of emotion like grunts, sighs or laughter. When we say torture is wrong or you ought to tell the truth you are doing little more than showing how you feel about torture or telling the truth. Like shouting Boo to torture and Hooray to telling the truth. Nick named the Boo/Hooray theory. Just as when someone shouts Boo or Hooray they are not simply showing how they feel but usually are also trying to encourage other people to share their feeling. So with moral statements the speaker is simply trying to persuade others to think likewise about one or another issue.

Empathy - How can I expect you to live or be treated like that when I know I would not like to live or be teated like that. It is an aspect of the human condition that we have to work out our value judgments on our own and without any guidelines. Empathy - I wonder what it must be like to be you.