Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kaleon Moonshae" data-source="post: 1603374" data-attributes="member: 12147">Actually a lot of your argument rests on how you define and differenciate (sp) between morals and ethics. That is an argument that has been thrown back and forth between philosophers for ages. I tend to disagree with your theory that these "non-moral" questions are the only real difference and somehow that makes all cultures less "fundamentally" different. I agree that there are certain beliefs that cultures share. In general murder is wrong, in general child molestation is wrong and in general necrophilia is wrong. The problem arises when we start to try and define those terms in a mutually agreed upon way. It just doesn't work. We would call the act of going out to kill every member of the man's family who killed your brother murder. After all, the whole family didn't kill your brother, but the way the nords looked at it they all carried the responsibility. We would call having sex with 11 year olds child molestation, whereas some societies when you turn 11 you are considered marriage age and an adult. You may say these are not "moral" questions but I beg to differ, many people see murder, molestation/rape, and similar things as *evil* which denotes a *moral* value. I do not, myself, I see them as *wrong* which is a completely different system and falls under ethics. You are making large sweeping judgments based on a grey area that no one agrees on. If you notice, I have been careful to use the 'some people' and 'some cultures' because I realize how grey this area truly is.Cultural relativism is very real, if you want to say it is based on ethics rather than morals then I, personally, agree with you. The outcome, however, is the same and is just as deeply rooted. The only reason I tend to agree with your reasoning (if, in fact you are talking ethics versus morals) is that I am amoral and see the only reason for ethics is to control groups of people in order to have society and civilization. People who belive in good and evil would look at your argument and some of them would think you are naive and that even though say the culture that stones (fruits?) their elderly to ensure them a place in heaven is *evil* because it is "murder" just as many religions (remember morals are a religious thing for most philosophers, or at least a spiritual thing for decante (i think is who I am thinking of) and a few like him) see suicide as murder.I have my degree in asian philosophy and can say without doubt that what most people define as *morals* are different between cultures just as *ethics* are. But I think I have rambled enough and hope I did not offend anyone, it was not my desire. I just wished to give a counterpoint to our friend Basilisk, whom I do feel is extremely intelligent and respect.that's my .012 cents (guess I'm slipping, it used to be worth a full .02)P.S. Historically speaking the Babylonians were one fot he easiest cultures to get along with as long as you were respectful and did not try to rebel. They gave you a lot of respect and when most cultures would have destroyed the hebrews for inciting revolution the Babylonian just brought them into their capitol to watch over them, giving them free reign within the city. "Babylonian Captivity" is only spoken of as a horendous thing in the Bible, other sources look at it almost as an honor since the hebrews got a lot more respect and "modern" conveniences within the city and could even buy themselves citizenship. I would say the babylonians were a Lawful-Neutral society.</blockquote>

Verification