They don't really teach true ethics anymore

[Segep]

Or at least someone missed the lesson on avoiding plagiarism. Maybe the poster in question didn't realize the definition of plagiarism is taking another person's ideas (http://www.politicalhotwire.com/107-they-dont-really-teach-true-history.html) and presenting them as your own (http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=788).

[Coyote]

.....interesting...

[randmoe]

The discussion should still be continued. Ethics are getting increasing limelight due to the many corporate and government scandals. The problem is due to culture climate that strives to succeed regardless of the cost. When did these values infiltrate our society?

[numinus]

The discussion should still be continued. Ethics are getting increasing limelight due to the many corporate and government scandals. The problem is due to culture climate that strives to succeed regardless of the cost. When did these values infiltrate our society?

Its called moral relativism.

[Coyote]

Its called moral relativism.

No, it's not. It's a lack of ethics. Nothing relative about it.

[Mare Tranquillity]

No, it's not. It's a lack of ethics. Nothing relative about it.I think the term "moral relativism" is too broad, it's too easy, it's a sound byte and can be quickly attributed to the "whipping boy" group known as "liberals"--which is its appeal.

We live in a greed-based system, where a person is deemed deserving of all the money and power they can garner irrespective of how that money and power were obtained. We don't have royalty in this country exactly, instead we have rich people and no one wants to take them down because they are living proof that it might be possible for each one of us to achieve that elevated state at some point. No one needs millions per year to live on, especially when there are hungry and homeless people, but we hesitate to place confiscatory taxes on the rich just in case we become rich someday and want to keep our ill-gotten gains.

One of my favorite hypocrisies is that people in this country are up in arms over gays because of 6 scriptures that MAY or may not actually refer to loving same-sex relationships, but nearly 2000 references in the Old and New Testament and Jesus admonishment to give all your possessions to the poor go unremarked and ignored while we pile up vast fortunes in the here and now.

[Coyote]

I think the term "moral relativism" is too broad, it's too easy, it's a sound byte and can be quickly attributed to the "whipping boy" group known as "liberals"--which is its appeal.

We live in a greed-based system, where a person is deemed deserving of all the money and power they can garner irrespective of how that money and power were obtained. We don't have royalty in this country exactly, instead we have rich people and no one wants to take them down because they are living proof that it might be possible for each one of us to achieve that elevated state at some point. No one needs millions per year to live on, especially when there are hungry and homeless people, but we hesitate to place confiscatory taxes on the rich just in case we become rich someday and want to keep our ill-gotten gains.

One of my favorite hypocrisies is that people in this country are up in arms over gays because of 6 scriptures that MAY or may not actually refer to loving same-sex relationships, but nearly 2000 references in the Old and New Testament and Jesus admonishment to give all your possessions to the poor go unremarked and ignored while we pile up vast fortunes in the here and now.[

Ain't that the truth!

And, conveniently ignored are other so-called biblical "abominations" like eating shellfish.

Actually, there is a new trend among evangelicals - back towards the basic message of Jesus - charity, helping others etc. and way from judgement and condemnation and politics of social conservatism. They bring up many of the points you do - why are greed, gluttony, cruelty, and lack of charity going unchallanged by Christians today?

[Coyote]

Also...on "moral relativism" - according to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

In popular culture people often describe themselves as "morally relativist," meaning that they are accepting of other people's values and agree that there is no one "right" way of doing some things. However, this actually only has partly to do with the philosophical idea of relativism; relativism does not necessarily imply tolerance, just as moral objectivism does not imply intolerance.

[numinus]

No, it's not. It's a lack of ethics. Nothing relative about it.

A morality that is relative is like having no morality at all.

[Mare Tranquillity]

A morality that is relative is like having no morality at all.

This is why people no longer take you seriously.

[numinus]

This is why people no longer take you seriously.

Why am I not surprised that you do not take facts and logic seriously?

[Mare Tranquillity]

Why am I not surprised that you do not take facts and logic seriously?

Maybe you should try using some of them and people might not see you as such a joke.