Moral argument against interracial dating

02-Jul-2016 23:09 by 10 Comments

Moral argument against interracial dating - the office andy dating erin

I just read “Sam Harris’ TED video and the danger of liberal atheist moral absolutism” by Ravi Iyer.

I find several problems with Iyer’s essay and argument. moral relativism, measured on the Your site using agreement to statements like “Different types of moralities cannot be compared as to ‘rightness’” with agreement indicating more absolutism and disagreement indicating relativism.

(I suppose he might define moral absolutism as the view that moral agreement is a good thing.) He offers us two reasons to reject moral agreement: Objection 1 Even the most liberal person can be made to consider ideas of morality outside of the idea of the greatest well-being possible.

For example, liberals believe in equity too, such that some people deserve more well-being than others.

Jon Haidt’s brother-sister incest dilemma confounds both liberals and conservatives meaning that there is a universal ability to moralize disgust, even if it is less developed in some than others.

That will easily prove people are “moral absolutists!

” Iyer then wants to argue that he doesn’t think people should want others to agree with them about morality.

He says, “I do not believe that my values be the values of other people as well” (my emphasis).He wants to prove that moral agreement is a bad thing.For example, Iyer seems to think that there are no true moral beliefs, which would imply that he disagrees that “torturing babies is wrong.”Harris correctly observes that “the only people who seem to generally agree with me (Harris) and who think that there are right or wrong answers to moral questions are religious demagogues, of one form or another, and of course they think there are right and wrong answers to moral questions because they got these answers from a voice in a whirlwind, not because they made an intelligent analysis of the conditions of human and animal well-being.” [My emphasis.] The problem is that Harris is clearly wrong here. We aren’t told how exactly Your Morals defined “moral absolutism” nor are we told how we can identify a person as a moral absolutist.The “statement” mentioned, “Different types of moralities cannot be compared as to ‘rightness’” doesn’t even make sense.If that statement was used for the research, then I don’t know how the data could prove anything about what people believe.Moral absolutism was implied earlier to mean “there are right or wrong answers to moral questions” and there is no way that the data proved that people reject this belief. ” People can rate their agreement with statement 1-10, with 10 being absolute agreement, and people will tend to rate their agreement as a 9 or 10.