Moral Relativism

Quote:

nonsense.. this doesnt follow in the slightest. Consciousness--while evolutionarily emergent, allows humans and higher animals to make choices. This leads to question of morality in general.

How does consciousness lead to a question of morality? Whether or not I'm conscious, sex with whomever I want whenever I want is still going to be pleasurable. Why would I wonder if its right or wrong?

Quote:

Morality is obviously derived from early tribal behavior in which poeple in a small to mid-sized social group needed rules of conduct.

Which I'm sure you've concluded from years of on-location research with tribal humans, and hundreds of hours spent writing peer-reviewed papers. That's why its so apparent to you.

Quote:

Similar rules of conduct are visble in great ape social groups as well. The fact is moral codes are advantageous for a society.

Yes, except humans don't have to act on instinct (although we do quite often). We can act based on conscious decisions that literally can override our genetic code. The 'decisions' apes have to make are nothing like human social interaction. Before you say we're pretty much apes, I'll remind you that apes put their fingers in their butts and smell them, we make airplanes. Apes will pee into their own mouths, whereas we make works of art.

Moral codes are good for society, but that doesn't mean people follow them just because they're good. Much of what our genetic code tells us to do is actually bad for us. Being promiscuous is one that society has yet to make a social rule for, but it causes the rapid spread of disease, causes unwanted pregnancies, etc. Not everything bad is prevented by social rules, and in fact social rules cause bad stuff all the time. You provided me with a prime example.

Quote:

This of course creates a problem for moral absolutists, who cant accpet that practics they find abhorent may have been perfectly acceptable in other cultures. Pederasty in ancient Greece was a normal part of life for many poeple (particularly upper class or warrior classes). Regardless of how WE view that behavior, it was viewed in a fundamentally different way by THEM.

Ok, so basically raping little boys isn't really all that bad, because it was socially acceptable? This goes along the same lines of you thinking that technically the nazis would have been right had they won the war. In fact, your position that all morals are relative is an absolute statement. The fact is, you can't avoid absolutes. Its logically contradicting to believe in relativism. But the fact of the matter is you don't like being told what to do. You want to replace your creator as the only absolute for right and wrong.

Quote:

I could also say the love for God of some of us have wars as a result. I would be closer to the truth than you stating that evolution is evil my friend.

But let's look at it this way. Christianity does not teach killing people for not believing. In order to justify that you would have to act contrary to the teachings. However, justifying rape is NOT contrary to evolutionary teaching. In fact, its a good way to propogate your genes if you otherwise wouldn't have much sexual activity. Its VERY easy to justify just about anything when your belief says that the only absolute is that you've survived. From there, its up to you to figure out what you need to do.

This is ok for intellectual atheists who know not to hurt other people (sometimes). However, most atheists aren't intellectuals. They're petty criminals, punk kids, etc. They hear that society is the only standard for right and wrong, but they don't care. If society is the only standard for right and wrong, then all they have to do is not get caught and that means they didn't do anything wrong. Thanks to 'intellectual' atheists, these people are being force fed this philosophy in my country's public schools. Thanks.

Just last night I was nearly t-boned (I probably would have been hospitalized), from someone driving a van like a madman away from a crimescene where they either injured or killed several people. The ambulance sirens must have spooked him into running away. I literally had to drive all the way off the road just to keep from being hit because he didn't stop before merging onto my road.

This person does not care one single bit about anyone but himself. Really, he's playing right into your philosophy. He stopped himself from getting caught, even if that meant hurting one more random collection of chemicals. You can tell him he's wrong, but no moral is absolutely right anyway. So as long as he doesn't get caught, then no big deal. What's the loss of a few more of nature's accidents anyway?

Tell me, if Hitler had taken over the world, would his version of morals have been right? I can't really remember if I got an answer to this one.

Quote:

Apart from that prove to me that other organisms than humans do not 'love' eachother. You can't really expect that a squirrel loves like the way we do, considering the big differences, especially when it comes to consciousness and intelligence.

Squirrels treat each other fairly because they have no choice. Its hard coded in their genes. We treat each other fairly because we Love each other. Its hard coded into our genes to be able to make the choice, not to be forced into the choice. We have the choice to abuse each other, and we might be able to get away with it, but we choose not to. Some of us. Husbands who beat their wives, people who make fun of different kids at school, don't know love. But that they have the choice between treating someone right and wrong, and they sometimes do choose to treat them right, is the difference between love and simple instinct.

Quote:

I'd say love is a pretty irrelevant argument, not just because while sometimes it strikes you down in a split second and you know 'wow, I'm in love', sometimes it takes time to develop, but maybe you haven't witnissed this yet.

My family is a witness to God's love working to create love. Long story short, there were problems with my parents, and they were on the verge of divorce. However, at some point they became christians, and they also reconciled. I basically owe my life to God. Since God changed their lives through the prayers of my father's uncle, they've been a great example of love for me. I may not have experienced love yet, but I have witnessed it.

Quote:

What implications on my practical live? Again, we can love just like they can .. Infact it's quite arrogant of them to think they can do better, they are not saints and most of them are not acting like they could become one either...

You refuse to accept that nothing really matters, because you're just a random collection of chemicals. That emotions, including love, really have no meaning. That the purpose you think you have in your life is just an illusion because in the end anything you do doesn't matter whatsoever, except that your accidental combination of genes is tricking you into thinking it does matter.

Those implications.

Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Moral Relativism - 06/24/06 22:13

Quote:

You need to stop trying to be sophisticated, becasue it doesnt work.

I am once again floored! You have wowed me with your brilliant observations.

Quote:

Please please read first an answer as a whole, then think about it, and after you get the coherence and relations within the thought (or thoughts) and what is meant, then answer!

My last two posts were about that 'relative' does NOT mean 'arbitrary'!

You said, "Your imputation is that relativism is something which makes anything arbitrary - and that is wrong." So I was responding to the "meaning" that relativism makes everything (actually just truth) arbitrary, not that relative means arbitrary. Relativism does make everything arbitrary. But relative doesn't literally mean arbitrary.

Quote:

The only responses that I get by you show that you completely ignored or missunderstood nearly anything that I wrote!

I thought I was responding literally to every word you wrote down. I make it a point to try and read an opponent's post as thoroughly as possible.

Quote:

[Your way of arguing makes no sense at all. What you are doing is more like a reflex movement.]

I've tried to establish why, logically, relativism is self-defeating, and that you guys probably aren't even relativists.

The only response I've gotten is, "No, relativism isn't self defeating, there are no absolutes." And, "You're not understanding my words."

So your way of arguing makes no sense to me. You guys won't admit that you're either hypocrites (you take absolute positions on things when there are no absolutes), or you won't admit that yeah, some of the really bad things people have done, technically aren't bad.

Posted By: MathewAllen

Re: Moral Relativism - 06/25/06 03:58

OK.

Morals exist. I said it.

They are not there because some big stupid god said they are.
They are not part of the universe like some lame fantasy novel.
They are certainly not built into some cosmic justice system.

Morals are a byproduct of love.

Well, more a byproduct of fear, as anyone can see by the way many religious folk see them.

Let me explain....

First of all, love:
We all have people we love, we all have things we love. Most healthy people love themselves. We all have a grudging love for our tribe, our society, even the rebels, who always seem more in love with the concept then the reality... but anyways, we all love. Love being merely a word for our midns forming a strong conceptual connection between our well-being and the well-being of something else - at times to the point where it's seen as more important. ie. you love a girl, truly love her, you want to see her happy more than you want to be with her.

Now, morals:
Morals, morals, morals...
look at every moral you have, and you can find some link to protecting something you love. I challenge you to submit one which is not so.
Example: murder - if you kill, you may be destroying your loved ones' views of you, you may be destroying your own life, you may even think so far as to realize the destruction you are having on society.
You abhorr murder in others because you fear that someday it might happen to you, or one you love, and even thinking that sends shivers down your spine. You may even experience empathy. The ability to realize that other people would also feel those shivers, and that those terrible feelings are nothing to the sudden disconnection of the actual loss of a loved one.

Of course, added to this for theists - is the fact that they fear the loss of their salvation, that they will be less in their lord's eyes, and worst of all, that they may be denied reunion with loved ones beyond the grave... Does this make them 'morally superior'??

No. For atheists, the fear is just as great, for we feel a cold certainty that we will NEVER see anyone we lose again. That any life we ruin is gone forever. We think how we would feel in these situations, and it is not pleasent.

When you love nothing but yourself, or when you believe that the only way to achieve the love of others is trough respect, and thus by force, this is when you can become 'amoral'.

Hitler? He was deluded. He believed that he was destroying all those lives to create a foundation for a future where all would be happy, where his love (power) would be permenant. The rage i mentioned before was there as well - I think he truly believed that the jews were destroying everything he loved. It's sad in many ways.

Are morals relative? The answer is apparent. They are relative from person to person based on what they love, and what they fear to lose, but some are more-or-less constant between societies because the vast majority of humans - when it comes right down to it - don't want to live in a world where anyone can kill them or a loved one on a whim.

Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Moral Relativism - 06/25/06 04:49

I think Matthew Allen is wrong here, morals are not a byproduct of love. Moral codes likely developed as a needed set of rules of behavior in small tribal groups.

Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Moral Relativism - 06/25/06 05:49

Quote:

OK.

Morals exist. I said it.

I can't respond in full tonight. But even relativists think that morals exist. Are you saying you believe in absolute morals, or relative morals? Because near the end of your post, and actually through most of the rest of it, it sounds like you're saying 'relative'.

Quote:

I think Matthew Allen is wrong here, morals are not a byproduct of love. Moral codes likely developed as a needed set of rules of behavior in small tribal groups.

We all know, and its only because you still believe in a literal interpretation of your creation myth.

Posted By: exile

Re: Moral Relativism - 06/25/06 06:04

I am sort of new to this whole thing and it is my first post in this topic, but here it goes. Morals are a byproduct of social norms. Social norms are things which are consitered normal in society. Now, morals are the unforced laws that a society has to keep social norms in place. For example, in our society we would consider eating with our hands to be rude and barbarrac. But to another society, it may be a norm that everyone does. Morals vary from different cultures all the way down to different families. Morals are not absolute because of their variance. HOWEVER, Mores are absolute. Mores are pretty much morals, but on a global scale. Laws are created to prevent mores from happening. Things like murder, child rape, or robbery, are considered mores. In conclusion, Morals = relative, Mores = absolute. I took a sociology class which we debated these types of subjects, so i'm pretty sure I know what i'm talking about. But, if anyone finds me wrong, please let me know. Thank you.

Posted By: testDummy

Re: Moral Relativism - 06/25/06 09:09

Quote:

What you are doing is more like a reflex movement.

Quoted Pappenheimer.
Looks more like a dangerous, self-destructive impulse or compulsion to me, but what do I know?

Although I wouldn't have used the term "love", I like MathewAllen's post and I believe there is some truth to it. (It contains a principle or two in common with what I had written earlier but didn't post.)

Quote:

I think Matthew Allen is wrong here, morals are not a byproduct of love. Moral codes likely developed as a needed set of rules of behavior in small tribal groups.

Quoted Matt_Aufderheide.

From my idiot's perspective:
I don't really see a true conflict with some principles that were hinted at in MathewAllen's post and what was stated in Matt_Aufderheide's post.

I for one, do not want myself, nor my mate(s), nor my offspring to be raped and/or killed (not in preferred order) by other members of my species (edit: not by whales either).
I would rather not be a member of a society which allows such acts.

I think that societies may have "evolved" over time to support somewhat "absolute" rules which are beneficial to the survival of the members of those societies or groups (specific members of the species) and those which are also beneficial to the survival of the species as a whole. I think that a society that does not support rules which are productive or beneficial for the species, may be consumed by a society with better, more productive rules. (Please cite examples where creatures which are a members of a herd, kill other members of their herd periodically or often. Now please debate whether or not these "herd creatures", which may or may not have forms of consciousness, debate "absolute" or "relative" morals. Deduct 5000pts if anyone mentions ants for some reason. Deduct another 2500pts if someone states that "herd creatures" rape each other often, and that, for human beings, rape is a good means by which to reproduce.)

Without some form of natural empathy or sympathy, an individual may not protect its mate(s) and offspring and may not supply its mate(s) and offspring with needed resources, food, shelter, etc. If there is, indeed, some form of natural or innate form of empathy or sympathy, it is maybe not so difficult to conceive of instances where empathy and sympathy are extended to other somewhat unrelated members of the species. To some degree, if unrelated members sacrifice excess time and resources, those resources which can be spared without serious detrimental effects to related members, to aid other unrelated members in need of such resources, then such behavior (when replicated) might be beneficial to the survival of the species as a whole.

I'm a fool, but I still think that its absurd, a waste of time, utterly ridiculous, a true mark of insanity, to try to get anyone to claim that, Hitler and slavery are only wrong based on context, if the current applicable contexts (personal + group) force such to be absolutely wrong for the groups individuals belong to and themselves. I can not pretend that my context has no meaning, nor can I completely, immediately, separate myself from my context...not even to make absolute statements such as "slavery is only wrong based on context" or "Hitler is only wrong within context." (edit:This may be a general limitation of being a simpleton which might be overcome in another paragraph.) Sorry, but both slavery and Hitler may still be absolutely wrong from my context. Morals and beliefs may be generally relative, but relative to me, my morals and beliefs may be absolutes.

@Irish_Farmer
Really, from the dummy's perspective, what you seem to be trying to do, looks more like a setup for some form of "catch the stupid" trap. I'm probably just dumb enough to try to spring it..."Ok, I'm a super, mega, ultra, platinum, gold, die-hard, true-blood, professional version bad kitty...I mean relativist (whatever that might be...strange...some dictionaries don't have an entry for it). There is no right or wrong. If Hitler had won, and at the time he just so happened to be a Confederate general, killing "subhumans" that don't make good slaves, might now be the "right" thing to do. If I take everything out of context, including myself, Hitler and slavery are at the very top of the "right tree", and when mixed together, are like peanut butter and chocolate...two great tastes that taste great together. Again, Hitler is only wrong because he lost the war blah blah blah. I reckon, raping your jewish slaves (a good way to reproduce (edit: more slaves?)) is only "wrong" because raping slaves is illegal in these here parts (and specifically over yonder at 2:42 p.m. on Tuesdays)."

Idiots like myself, can only wonder if something else happens now.

Posted By: exile

Re: Moral Relativism - 06/25/06 09:14

I completely agree with you, I feel that such acts are in fact wong. No, not just wrong, pure evil. Hitler was a man who made crimes againt humanity itself by conducting a genocide of the jewish people. He was also contradictory in the fact that the rules of the "utopia" which he so desperately tried to create, wouldn't even be able to apply to him.

Posted By: Pappenheimer

Re: Moral Relativism - 06/25/06 21:01

Quote:

I've tried to establish why, logically, relativism is self-defeating, and that you guys probably aren't even relativists.

So, your idea of relativism is wrong. It is your isolated creation of a meaning which doesn't relate to its actual meaning.

Quote:

So your way of arguing makes no sense to me. You guys won't admit that you're either hypocrites (you take absolute positions on things when there are no absolutes), or you won't admit that yeah, some of the really bad things people have done, technically aren't bad.

I'm absolute precisely in my thoughts.

Quote:

I thought I was responding literally to every word you wrote down.

...and that is exactly what I discribed as a completely wrong way of discussion, because you take it literally, you can't get the thought. Within a thought a sentence gets its precise meaning by its context! Or, to explain it the other way round, each sentence can have a range of meanings, and only through the context within the other sentences it gets its precise meaning.
(By the way, if you don't understand this, you won't ever understand a theory, because the words in a theory at its best are like x,y,z in a big mathematical function, wherein you finally after reading the whole theory understand the meaning of x,y,z, because of the 'context' of the 'function'.)

Let's compare it to coding:
Can someone understand a line of code without knowing the other lines? Maybe, sometimes. But, at least, the more complicating this code is, the more you have to investigate this single line of code _within the context_ of the whole code and its functions. Now, imagine an AI code. Is it more complicating than intelligence in reality, or less?

[My question to others than Irish Farmer: Can you understand me? Or is it my fault that Irish Farmer cannot understand what I write?]

Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Moral Relativism - 06/25/06 22:03

There are about seven posts which amount to the same, tired, irrelevant argument that people disagree. How many times do I have to say that it doesn't matter whether or not people disagree?

Quote:

Really, from the dummy's perspective, what you seem to be trying to do, looks more like a setup for some form of "catch the stupid" trap.

It may seem that way, but all I'm asking people to do is pick a side. Which they seem completely and utterly incapable of doing. They avoid my question at all cost, because a relativist who isn't completely out of his mind can't answer it without making himself sick. Many of you have 'answered' it by giving me your opinion of Hitler. But I'm not asking your opinion of Hitler and what he did, I'm asking what your perception of the truth of his morals are.

Quote:

If Hitler had won, and at the time he just so happened to be a Confederate general, killing "subhumans" that don't make good slaves, might now be the "right" thing to do. If I take everything out of context, including myself, Hitler and slavery are at the very top of the "right tree", and when mixed together, are like peanut butter and chocolate...two great tastes that taste great together.

There is no gradient of right and wrong when it comes to relativism. There is no 'right tree'. Its all relative. Hence, relativism.

But it sounds like you're saying its easy for us to say slavery was wrong, as long as we aren't a dictator like Hitler? That's kind of fuzzy logic. As I recall, the confederates weren't Hitler, and they still thought slavery was ok. What makes you more right than them?

Quote:

So, your idea of relativism is wrong.

Ok, you made a claim, now can you back it up? I pulled an exact quote of the definition of relativism. I can post it again if you want. You can argue my definition of relativism, but you can't escape its implications unless you can prove I'm somehow wrong about it.

Quote:

and that is exactly what I discribed as a completely wrong way of discussion, because you take it literally, you can't get the thought.

I'm sorry, you're not my girlfriend so I'm not going to translate what you 'meant to say' out of what you actually said.

I don't really see many other ways to take what you said. If you feel that there's an underlying thought to what you're saying, and you want me to grasp it better, find a better way to communicate it.

Can I get an answer to the question? Was Hitler absolutely wrong, or was he only relatively wrong? Or-Is racial slavery absolutely wrong or is it only relatively wrong? Its a simple question.

If you have a problem with my definition of relativism then please point it out. Don't just say, "You're wrong."

Posted By: MathewAllen

Re: Moral Relativism - 06/26/06 00:26

Let me sum up here what I've tried to say, in a less... elaborate... way.
1) Morals exist
2) Everyone creates their own morals based on their needs, social pressures etc.
3) Even the worst acts in history were either almost definetly seen as morally right by the perpetrators

Here matt would say: morals are not created for the individual! they are created for the species/society

And Irish would say: Eloquent post, but you didn't answer whether there are absolute morals, or relative. Remember if you pick relative hitler was a good guy.

So.

Relative morals.

Well, of course.

If there is one thing we've found out about this world, it's that the only constant is that there are no absolutes, no constants in this universe.

What about mathematical constants, you ask.
They almost unimaginably slowly change. At least one of them does. A very fundamental one. So why can't the others? It's just recently been discovered, but it's true that the fine-structures constant is changing inexorably slowly.

Anyways...

The thing is, I'm not saying hitler was right. I'm not saying mussolini was right. I'm certainly not saying Bush is right. I'm saying that nothing is inherently wrong OR right. It's people who decide what is right and what is wrong. We all agree hitler was wrong. Therefore he was wrong in our frame of reference. That's all that really matters.

Besides (jokingly) maybe some alien race is looking at us right now, the destruction we wreak on the world, and figuring anything that kills millions of us is morally right?

Posted By: testDummy

Re: Moral Relativism - 06/26/06 00:55

Quote:

They avoid my question at all cost, because a relativist who isn't completely out of his mind can't answer it without making himself sick.

Quoted Irish_Farmer.
Are you claiming that "relativists", based on your definition of the word, which I can't seem to find entries for in some dictionaries, can't even answer your question without either admitting to being sanity-impaired or otherwise regurgitating their last meal eaten? You expect "relativists" that answer your question should either waste (resources) food (I know that this is not what you meant) or otherwise appear to be "out of their mind"? So you want to either make "relativists" feel sick, maybe because you are having temporary sadistic impulses, or you want to continue the discussion with those that are "out of their mind", which might give you an unfair advantage?

According to your definitions, which may be incorrect or skewed maybe: (I've read the whole thread but please post your definitions again.)
*sometimes a "true" relativist may be out of his mind
*sometimes a "true" relativist may feel sick

Quote:

It may seem that way, but all I'm asking people to do is pick a side. Which they seem completely and utterly incapable of doing.

Are you repeatedly surprised that they find this difficult to do? Are you repeating the same actions and expecting different results?
Are you validating your viewpoint and definition of "relativism" with what appears to be, from your perspective, the expected non-reponses or invalid responses received for your questions? Do you bother to question your definition of "relativism"?
Maybe you should be happy if you are getting the invalid responses you expected?

I think that there might be some misunderstandings about what you mean by "relativism" and "relativists".
I think some may find motivations to argue against "your absolutism (the belief in vodka)" because of history (on the Conitec forums or elsewhere) with your identity.

Quote:

But it sounds like you're saying its easy for us to say slavery was wrong, as long as we aren't a dictator like Hitler? That's kind of fuzzy logic. As I recall, the confederates weren't Hitler, and they still thought slavery was ok. What makes you more right than them?

Quoted Irish_Farmer.
I am not a good communicator. I tried to invent a nonsensical context in an attempt to pretend to answer a question that otherwise might or might not make me sick and/or prove that I am sometimes out of my mind.

Hold on! I need to check my bible to determine whether or not I want to be raped by an entire professional basketball team today. (I am heterosexual and male.) Wait just a second! I need to rexamine my bible to try to figure out whether or not I want my offspring to be brutally murdered and dismembered with a fork tomorrow.

Quote:

Can I get an answer to the question? Was Hitler absolutely wrong, or was he only relatively wrong? Or-Is racial slavery absolutely wrong or is it only relatively wrong? Its a simple question.

Quote:

There is no gradient of right and wrong when it comes to relativism. There is no 'right tree'. Its all relative. Hence, relativism.

Quoted Irish_Farmer.
Code:


try {
	System.out.println("trying to initiate next stage for thread...");
	Hitler is relatively wrong or Hitler is neither wrong nor right.
	Slavery is relatively wrong or slavery is neither wrong nor right.
} catch (threadInCirclesException tice) {
	thread.exit();
} catch (regurgitationException re) {
	blameItOnTheCatsOrGodOrIndigestion(re);
} catch (starkRavingMadException srme) {
	streak();
	self.medicate();
}

Quote:

My question to others than Irish Farmer: Can you understand me? Or is it my fault that Irish Farmer cannot understand what I write?

Quoted Pappenheimer.
This might have been a rhetorical question. For the most part, I seem to able to understand what you write, and I believe that I interpret it correctly (I don't find it difficult to interpret it), although I may not actually interpret it correctly in all instances. Often, unlike what I write, what you write appears to make a lot of sense.

Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Moral Relativism - 06/26/06 01:00

I agree with Matthew Allen here. This is good summing up of a rationalist approach to morality.

The key point is, that since morality is relative, we can always reserve the right to *modify* our moral thinking. This flexibility is needed for progress and social health. The societies with the most rigid morals are the most backwards and self-destructive, such as the Islamic world.

For instance, we have changed our views on things like homoexuality, slavery, racism, etc. In the not-so-distant past, homosexuality was almost universally regarded as immoral and an aberrant abomination. Now we are somewhat more tolerant, and many poeple view it as an acceptable lifestyle, even if they dont neccessarily approve of it. This saves much pain and suffering for many poeple.

Racism was regarded as a normal way of life in many parts of the country, and blacks were regarded as inferior beings. This too has changed somewhat, because we have, in part, changed our views on how all poeple should be treated, even if they are not like the majority.

What about torture, which was once believed to be acceptable? Now we have redefined, in the main, our moral stance on this. Capital punishment too has been seen in the past as appropriate, but now morally progressive regions like Europe now view it is immoral.

There are of course many other exmaples that be examined, but the point is, flexiblie morality is needed in a complex society--the old monolithic, top-down system is outdated and destructive in modern societies, as in Iran, where a women can be murdered for adultery, etc.

Morality MUST be view as relative and flexible. To view it otherwise is immoral in my view.

Posted By: Pappenheimer

Re: Moral Relativism - 06/26/06 01:07

Quote:

Can I get an answer to the question? Was Hitler absolutely wrong, or was he only relatively wrong? Or-Is racial slavery absolutely wrong or is it only relatively wrong? Its a simple question.

Okey, let's try to make clear what I'm saying by this:
Wether you state, that it is relatively wrong or absolute wrong, doesn't make a difference, if you don't have the power to prevent yourself and others against it. But, if you have the power to prevent yourself and others against it, at least when you collaborate with others against it then you have a chance to get an agreement on the base of a moral relativism, while you don't have a chance to get an agreement on the base of an absolutistic moral, if the collaborators are of a different culture and believe.

If I say, it is _relatively_ wrong, you make your conclusions that in your opinion are unavoidable, while I see in your threads that you are not even getting an idea about what is moral relativism in its consequences. (Maybe, it is because you have no idea, what moral absolutism means in its consequences.)

By the way, dictionaries and definitions are 'no laws of meaning', they are only written by people, as any other books, too. So, don't build your knowledge on dictionaries and definitions only.

Posted By: MathewAllen

Re: Moral Relativism - 06/26/06 01:13

Quote:

I agree with Matthew Allen here. This is good summing up of a rationalist approach to morality.

my name has one t.

< /endspam>

Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Moral Relativism - 06/26/06 03:19

Quote:

The thing is, I'm not saying hitler was right. I'm not saying mussolini was right. I'm certainly not saying Bush is right. I'm saying that nothing is inherently wrong OR right. It's people who decide what is right and what is wrong. We all agree hitler was wrong. Therefore he was wrong in our frame of reference. That's all that really matters.

Ok! So you admit that technically Hitler wasn't wrong. I'm glad I finally got someone to pick a side. We can move on from here, then. But only after I respond to the other posts. I haven't read what they say yet.

Quote:

Are you claiming that "relativists", based on your definition of the word, which I can't seem to find entries for in some dictionaries, can't even answer your question without either admitting to being sanity-impaired or otherwise regurgitating their last meal eaten?

No, I think they would be sane if they said the Hitler was for sure wrong. But I shouldn't belittle a side while at the same time trying to get people to pick sides. Pretend I didn't do that.

Quote:

Are you repeatedly surprised that they find this difficult to do? Are you repeating the same actions and expecting different results?

This whole debate, up until the post before yours has basically involved both of us doing the same thing over and over again. But it worked, I finally got someone to not only admit to being a relativist, but to admit to the consequences of the belief. So I guess it was kind of worth it.

Quote:

Do you bother to question your definition of "relativism"?

Its not my definition. I got it from dictionary.com. Did you find one that contradicts mine?

Quote:

Some attacks on the bible to try and validate my opinions by attacking yours

Yeah, I've already responded to this numerous times.

Quote:

Okey, let's try to make clear what I'm saying by this:
Wether you state, that it is relatively wrong or absolute wrong, doesn't make a difference, if you don't have the power to prevent yourself and others against it. But, if you have the power to prevent yourself and others against it, at least when you collaborate with others against it then you have a chance to get an agreement on the base of a moral relativism, while you don't have a chance to get an agreement on the base of an absolutistic moral, if the collaborators are of a different culture and believe.

If I say, it is _relatively_ wrong, you make your conclusions that in your opinion are unavoidable, while I see in your threads that you are not even getting an idea about what is moral relativism in its consequences. (Maybe, it is because you have no idea, what moral absolutism means in its consequences.)

By the way, dictionaries and definitions are 'no laws of meaning', they are only written by people, as any other books, too. So, don't build your knowledge on dictionaries and definitions only.

Still not answering it. The definition of relativism is pretty self evident. You keep saying not to believe the definition I have, but why not? Give me a reason.

I build my knowledge on the obvious. I only used the dictionary definition to get the specifics ironed out. But relativism is pretty self-evident.

Anyway, now that we have the admission from a relativist that indeed, Hitler technically wasn't wrong, we can move on from there.

I'm not going to go the obvious route and question your belief that Hitler, while opposed to your illusion of the truth, is still not wrong.

But. I want to get to the first point, and I'm going to wrap this up quick because I want to do something besides this tonight.

Relativism holds that all truths are relative to the people holding them. But in order to accept that belief, you have to believe the absolute truth that all things are relative. Don't you think this is contradictory.

And we'll go from there.

Posted By: MathewAllen

Re: Moral Relativism - 06/26/06 03:39

Quote:

Relativism holds that all truths are relative to the people holding them. But in order to accept that belief, you have to believe the absolute truth that all things are relative. Don't you think this is contradictory.

My philosophy for a lot of things is that in life, it's not 1, or 0, it's something else. Not black or white, not even gray. Maybe cyan. I can of course see the use's of digital reasoning, but anyways... enough musing.

We're talking Moral Relativism.
we're not debating that all truths are relative. I say that all morals are, since everyone builds their own.

It's quite different from what you suggested - what you suggested I supported in fact - there.

Even if I was to say all truth is relative, it wouldn't be so much that there's a rule per-say that there are no hardcoded truths, it's a lack of hard-coding. Just like, a stupid example, in a society that has no law against wearing red, there does not have to be a law that you must wear red.

Same goes for moral relatavism. Which isn't effected by your logic paradox anyone since the idea that all morals are relative is not a moral in itself.

As a side note, please don't continue with this truth being relative buissness. I really don't want to go there, since it gets into complicated philosophy involving definition of selves, objects, actions, and time - even if i were to say that it is fundamentally true that I just hit the e key on my keyboard... so lets stick to morals, since that's the threads topic

Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Moral Relativism - 06/26/06 04:12

Quote:

In philosophy, moral relativism takes the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect absolute and universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal references.

That's wikipedia. Morality and truth are rather intertwined. I believe relativism is accepted, because people don't believe there is any absolute truths. They see people disagreeing and say, "Why should any of them be any more right than anyone else?"

I don't think its an accident that theists often believe in absolutes, and atheists do not. Theists see something greater to the universe. A purpose, or a design. So they feel that it would be logical to believe that (even if they get it wrong every now and then, its only because they're disobeying a greater standard). Atheists view the universe as accident, without purpose and meaning. We can never get it wrong, because there is no right. So by extension our perception of truth and meaning are all based on accidents. Maybe you can correct me where I'm wrong.

This is why relativists keep mentioning that people can't agree. To an atheist, humanity is the ultimate cognitive power in the universe (in a sense). So whatever we decide, is true, even if it contradicts what other's decide.

However, based on both of those meanings to relativism (moral relativism is the same as relativism because morality is a lot like truth), you must assert that in order for your view of relativism to make sense and in order to apply it to morality and truth in general, you have to assert that its absolutely true.

Truth is an unavoidable topic of relativism. But I don't think it has anything to do with our selves, or objects, actions, etc directly. Truth is roughly defined as:

Quote:

Conformity to fact or actuality.
A statement proven to be or accepted as true.
Sincerity; integrity.
Fidelity to an original or standard.

Reality; actuality.
often Truth That which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence

It needn't be complicated. You can talk about truth without worrying about physical actions like hitting a keyboard key. In this case, we're talking about the truth of morals. Moral relativism works on the principle that the truth of morality is relative to persons or groups. So we can view truth in the context of morals, and it would be preferrable, because any other kind of truth is, frankly, irrelevant.

In other words, in regards to truth, I believe that in order to believe relativism, you must admit that all truth is really subject to our own experience and choices. That there is no ultimate truth to anything we believe. The difference in actions like hitting a keyboard key is that there isn't any room for relativism. Either the key moves, or it doesn't. And we can study it. However, non-physical truths are subject to our own subjective experience, and so relativism says that they technically only exist in our minds. Much like evolution asserts we evolved God in our mind. We made up our own perceptions of truth, and thus no one is right except in their own minds.

Do you disagree?

Posted By: MathewAllen

Re: Moral Relativism - 06/26/06 04:25

At the moment I'm rather tired, but I think that one of my problems with your argument that I must accept an absolute truth that there are none, before I may say that there are none, is that I see it more as a vaccuum of truths. It's difficult to articulate, since we're taught in terms of the concept of truths and untruths...

Yeah I'm too tired to be eloquent. I'll be back though.

Posted By: Pappenheimer

Re: Moral Relativism - 06/26/06 11:42

Quote:

Relativism holds that all truths are relative to the people holding them. But in order to accept that belief, you have to believe the absolute truth that all things are relative. Don't you think this is contradictory.

Nope. I don't have to believe that "absolute truth that all things are relative", because there are still things which are unrelated, I see them, but I can only manage them, when I ignore them and rely on other things insteed or when I act 'as if' they are related.

You can proceed trying to find the final contradiction, but most of philosophical proofs lead to paradoxes. If we had eternal lifetime, this might worry me, but life, as it is, urges: when you have a baby you can't begin to study to find out the best pedagogical approach, when you are working you have to take in account the time and effort and money as conditions of your thinking and acting.

[If you love to discuss only for fun, and not because you think there are points to be considered because of our lifes, then I'm wrong within this thread, because I was already bored 20 years ago, when it came to these sort of discussions which had no strong relation to reality.]

Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Moral Relativism - 06/26/06 21:18

Quote:

Nope. I don't have to believe that "absolute truth that all things are relative", because there are still things which are unrelated, I see them, but I can only manage them, when I ignore them and rely on other things insteed or when I act 'as if' they are related.

You're going to have to restate this, because I didn't get this in the least. Relativism doesn't say that all things are relative. It says conceptions of morality and truth are relative to the persons or groups that hold them.

But if that's true, then its absolutely true, in which case it isn't true.

Quote:

You can proceed trying to find the final contradiction, but most of philosophical proofs lead to paradoxes.

Bah, that's such a copout. Philosophical positions may lead to paradoxes, but they normally aren't paradoxes themselves.

Quote:

but I think that one of my problems with your argument that I must accept an absolute truth that there are none,

You guys are the ones saying relativism is an absolute truth. If you want to say that relativism isn't absolutely true, then go ahead because you'll just have defeated your own philosophy.

Quote:

before I may say that there are none, is that I see it more as a vaccuum of truths.

But if its absolutely true that there is a vacuum of truth, then there is no vacuum of truth because its true that there's a vacuum of truth.

Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Moral Relativism - 06/26/06 23:51

Quote:

Bah, that's such a copout. Philosophical positions may lead to paradoxes, but they normally aren't paradoxes themselves.

This from someone who then says:

Quote:

You guys are the ones saying relativism is an absolute truth

This is nonsensical...

No one is saying relativism is an absolute truth, you just use bizare extremes to attemp to reduce our arguments.

Anyway, regardless of that, how do you respond to my earlier point, that morality ought to flexible, to allow chnaging moral standards to suit various present and future circumstances? If all morality is absolute, then it can never change.

Who then determines the absolute moral code? You? The Bible? Because as shown before, the Bible is full of contradictory moral statements. On one hand, the OT says we should murder homosexuals, and Jesus in the NT says "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" (paraphrased).

The Bible then implicitly confirms that morality is relative; it is dependent on context.

Posted By: ICEman

Re: Moral Relativism - 06/27/06 00:02

I find the most basic and unshakable form of morality is the simplest.

For example.. the ten commandments (oh I know I am I gonna get it for this but):

Thou shalt not kill

This does not contain any ambiguity. It does not say..thou shalt not kill...humans... or thou shalt not kill.. animal. It says Thou shalt not kill.

Meaning.. Dont kill...anything which lives.

This is because.. you wouldnt want someone to kill you..right? it's painful and permanent.

The best way to evaluate what is right and what is wrong is to truly put yourself on the recieving end of the questionable infraction..and evaluate whether or not you'd like them to do that infraction to you, you being the victim or recieving end of immediately subsequences.

The next time you ask.. "I wonder if there are acceptions to " thou shalt not kill/steal/ covet someones partner" because its so short a more that it appears elastic.. ask yourself.. if you were a bug, other man, other woman..would you want to be killed/ stolen from/ or have someone take you husband/wife.

If your answer as applies to yourself contains no ambigiuity, neither should your position about the activity whos morality youre questning.

We read into things and try to find elasticities and loopholes because its our nature to lean toward the wicke,d but in reality, simple right and wrong are not open to interpretation.. as they woulndt be open to interpretation if you were the victim or subject to be "questionably" wronged.

I find myself doing all sorts of wrongs.. on a daily basis sometimes.. but thats not because I dont know theyre wrong, or have to think about it.

Sadly I operate on a different system..one which includes good..evil..neccesary and unneccesary evil

. These are personal things tho. I know right from wrong in most everything I do..but the above is where choice plays a part in me believing one thing and doing another

Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Moral Relativism - 06/27/06 00:15

But in the same OT, it prescribes death for homosexuals and others... the Bible itself is morally contradictory. And god kills poeple left and right ..the pillar of salt and all that jazz.. so if god doesnt obey his own commandments, what good are they?

Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Moral Relativism - 06/27/06 01:22

Quote:

This is nonsensical...

No one is saying relativism is an absolute truth

But if relativism isn't absolutely true, then that means there are absolutes. So you're still wrong.

Quote:

you just use bizare extremes to attemp to reduce our arguments.

No, I'm using logic.

These aren't bizarre extremes. If relativism is true, then its an absolute truth, and it defeats itself because it says there are no absolute truths. If relativism isn't absolutely true, then by the definition of relativism there must be absolute truths. That's not extreme, its just common sense.

Quote:

Anyway, regardless of that, how do you respond to my earlier point, that morality ought to flexible, to allow chnaging moral standards to suit various present and future circumstances?

Flexible in what way? Can you give an example?

Quote:

Who then determines the absolute moral code? You? The Bible? Because as shown before, the Bible is full of contradictory moral statements. On one hand, the OT says we should murder homosexuals, and Jesus in the NT says "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" (paraphrased).

This topic is relativism (and by extension absolutism) not the bible. Let's just get down whether or not relativism or absolutism makes more sense, and we can go from there.

Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Moral Relativism - 06/27/06 06:17

Morality has to be flexible, partly becasue it must change to accept new ideas. For instance, homosexuality was considered widely immoral in the past, now most popel accept as morally ok, even if they dont approve of it themselves. This is an example of how flexible morality can save many poeple a lot of pain.

And, there is no one source everyone can agree on to establish an absolute morality, so therefore, any absolute moral code has to be imposed on everyone, making the whole system corrupt.

Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Moral Relativism - 06/27/06 18:27

If people find homosexuality to be wrong, what harm did that do? I think you're attributing the hatefilled actions of the closeminded minority of people with anyone who says homosexuality is wrong.

So, let's say that instead of society saying homosexuality is ok, we all just agreed that even if we think its wrong to be homosexual, its just as wrong to hate someone for being homosexual. That would have saved all sorts of pain. What would be the difference?

Besides that it wouldn't have changed any absolutes. Hating people (for any reason) could just as well be an absolute.

Posted By: ICEman

Re: Moral Relativism - 06/27/06 20:03

I dunno I just know what to and not do to as a decent human being.

Typically I find the more flexible morale codes are, the more room for loopholes get found. And morals to me shouldnt be aubject to debate that way.

Posted By: Anonymous

Amazon touts anti-Israeli views, - 07/21/06 17:36

{edit: off-topic spam removed by request.}

Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Amazon touts anti-Israeli views, - 07/21/06 18:15

Go away spammer.. we dont care about your propagandist garbage

Posted By: broozar

Re: Amazon touts anti-Israeli views, - 07/21/06 21:07

why's this the only forum where the guest restriction is not applied to?

Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: Moral Relativism - 07/22/06 22:52

Quote:

But if relativism isn't absolutely true, then that means there are absolutes. So you're still wrong.

I tend to agree with you here Irish, relativism can't be absolute, hence the word relativism off course ..

It's also useless to call relativism's existence absolute, since it isn't, it's one of the most dynamic things in the god blessed world.

Quote:

These aren't bizarre extremes. If relativism is true, then its an absolute truth, and it defeats itself because it says there are no absolute truths. If relativism isn't absolutely true, then by the definition of relativism there must be absolute truths. That's not extreme, its just common sense.

These are bizarre extremes, why should something be absolute simply when it's valid? I don't see why this should be.

Relativism implies 'it can/could/will change', how can it be absolute then? Even if it, whatever it may be, changes, relativism stays valid, and by being valid it's true, but not absolute in any way. Give me an example of something relative that's absolute ... trust me, you won't find any. Infact, I'd even dare to say there are no absolutes, not even just the 'being' of things is absolute. Not even time is absolute. Not even our universe is absolute. Not even a God could be absolute.

Infact if you ask me, the word absolute doesn't quite have a meaning in the real word, when talking about the big picture of things anyway ...

Cheers

Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Amazon touts anti-Israeli views, - 07/23/06 20:56

At first I thought you guys wanted another round of me destroying your philosophy.

So what did this guy post? It must have been good if the subject was "Amazon touts anti-Israeli views."

Posted By: Anonymous

Petition to destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities - 08/06/06 15:20

While you are reading this, the Iranian reactor produces enriched bomb-grade uranium. Terrorists can deliver that bomb to your city, and it can kill you and your children. Yet the government does nothing.

Do we demand violence? Not in any common sense. Similarly, police use force to arrest criminals in order to stop violence.

But Iran is not a criminal? Wrong. Iran has proven malicious intent. Iran, under the current regime, conducted many terrorist bombings in the West, and sponsors deadly terrorists. Iranian leaders repeatedly called for fight against the United States and annihilation of Israel.

Perhaps Iran needs nuclear weapons for self-defense? No. Iran already bullies the Middle East with its huge conventional army. No country threatens Iran.

Since the eighth-century jihad and the Ottoman army at the gates of Vienna, the West has never been exposed to such threat. Iran�s several nuclear bombs can inflict more damage on America than the World War II. Never before the Islamic fundamentalists who hate the West and dream of attacking it had military might of apocalyptic dimensions. Are you crazy to doubt they will use the bomb?

We call on the United States: Do not hesitate. Protect your people. Protect your allies. Destroy the Iranian reactor!

To sign the petition, visit http://terrorismisrael.com/nuclear_iran.htm

Posted By: Blattsalat

Re: Petition to destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities - 08/06/06 16:28

you are right, there is nothing as anoying as some mind twisted extremist

worst are those who dont even show their names and spread hate from the underground

have a nice one and dont kill anyone
cheers

Posted By: Irish_Farmer

sldl - 09/11/06 18:51

Quote:

I tend to agree with you here Irish, relativism can't be absolute, hence the word relativism off course ..

It's also useless to call relativism's existence absolute, since it isn't, it's one of the most dynamic things in the god blessed world.

But if it relativism isn't absolute, then what good is it? The opposite of relativism is absolutism. So if relativism isn't absolutely true, then why isn't absolutism absolutely true?

Quote:

These are bizarre extremes, why should something be absolute simply when it's valid? I don't see why this should be.

You'll have to explain to me why this is extreme. The way I see it, I've broken the argument down to its most basic components of logic. And having thus done that, I think I've exposed the weakness of your philosophy. You believe nothing is absolutely true, except that its absolutely true that nothing is absolutely true. But if that's absolutely true, then relativism is false as I've said many times before. If you want to argue that relativism isn't absolutely true, then you'll have a hard time making the argument that its true.

Quote:

Relativism implies 'it can/could/will change', how can it be absolute then?

No, 'truth' can change even in the absolutist position. The difference is relativists will see the change and say, "Neither position is more right than the other." Absolutists will say, "This position is true while the other is false."

That would be the difference.

Quote:

Give me an example of something relative that's absolute ... trust me, you won't find any.

What we're dealing with here is truth. I could come up with many examples of relative perceptions of absolute truths, but it wouldn't really get us anywhere.

Quote:

Infact, I'd even dare to say there are no absolutes, not even just the 'being' of things is absolute.

From the perspective of truth, there are. I can't exist and not exist at the same time.

Quote:

Not even time is absolute. Not even our universe is absolute.

What about time and the universe is relative? Does the universe not exist?

Quote:

Not even a God could be absolute.

I beg to differ. We have a lot of absolute truths 'hard coded' into the universe. I don't think random chance can create everything, including random chance. We have mathematics, logic, and laws (etc) that are absolute. I think that's the reflection of an absolute, and consistent, creator.

Quote:

Infact if you ask me, the word absolute doesn't quite have a meaning in the real word, when talking about the big picture of things anyway ...

This has been a rather illuminating discussion.

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: sldl - 09/12/06 03:30

Quote:

Does the universe not exist?

Define exist.
Define universe.

As far as we know what we perceive as exsistance is actually an enormous amount of ridiculously tiny ...things... which act as waves sometimes and paticles at others (actually all matter exhibits wave properties anyway... which is odd to say the least), hell electrons even phase out of existance when switching energy levels. On top of this hazyness of what matter is or isn't we have things like the uncertainty principle where we can't even know exactly where things are when we know how fast their going....

And then theres the stuff behind the crazy half existing particles that's even hazier and I don't even have the half-understanding I do of basic quantum mechanics with, like string theory... super-string theory... the thought that the universe is made of Branes... quarks...

We have no clue what the universe is, how can we know it exists? Can our minds even grasp it? Is there even a truth to the nature of the universe?

As far as we know there are no absolutes in nature. EX. the fine structure 'constant' is in fact changing slowly. What does that mean? The universe is not fine-tuned, or if it is then somebody has definetly been lazy lately with keeping it so.

Everything is variable, everything is relative. There are no absolute co-ordiantes because there is no absolute origin point. Even if there was it would be impossible to chart things from it with any degree of accuracy in the long run since literally EVERYTHING is moving in relation to everything else.

Maybe you should take a look at your perfect natural machine, your fine-tuned universe created specifically for us, where the vast majority - and I mean VAST - of space is well... space. Where giant nuclear furnaces whip around crushing darknesses, drawn slowly in over millions of years... Where tiny dense spinning balls fire off streams of death. Where unexplainable bursts of massive amounts of radiation fire into the permanent blackness. Where all of this is merely another level of tiny building block to the grand scheme of things... Where everything our brains -so tailored to this tiny rock - can comprehend ceases to apply.

Then ask yourself, what do I really know? What is certainty? how can I truly believe that there are moral absolutes, that these ideas from the minds of social apes have any merit?

Logic does not apply to existance.

Posted By: MathewAllen

Re: sldl - 09/12/06 03:33

That really artsy post with lots of grammatical problems and probably some incorrect descriptions of phenomena (neutron stars and EM bursts and whatnot) was me.

Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: sldl - 09/13/06 05:18

Quote:

Define exist.
Define universe.

I'm not going to bust out the dictionary. You reference a lot of EM bursts and whatnot, if they don't exist (inside of this universe) then don't bother mentioning them.

Quote:

We have no clue what the universe is, how can we know it exists?

For me, you asking that question answers it. Our understanding of something isn't a requisite of its existence. We didn't know what gravity was (maybe we still don't) but that doesn't mean it doesn't affect us at all times.

Quote:

As far as we know there are no absolutes in nature. EX. the fine structure 'constant' is in fact changing slowly. What does that mean? The universe is not fine-tuned, or if it is then somebody has definetly been lazy lately with keeping it so.

Actually, last I heard it was up in the air and they were hoping to experimentally clarify earlier results by the end of this year.

Assuming the fine structure constant is changing, the universe hasn't decended into chaos yet.

Quote:

Everything is variable, everything is relative. There are no absolute co-ordiantes because there is no absolute origin point.

Ok.

Quote:

Maybe you should take a look at your perfect natural machine, your fine-tuned universe created specifically for us

I don't think it was created for us. If it was, you're right it probably wouldn't look like it does. I wouldn't expect the universe to be specifically created down to every detail just for us, though. I mean, I'm flattered that I'm part of the only species able to grasp the universe (to an extent), but I have no delusions of importance. The universe is in many ways finely tuned for life, but we're not living in a bubble meant just for humans. In fact, I'd be contradicting the bible if I wanted to believe otherwise.

Quote:

the vast majority - and I mean VAST - of space is well... space. Where giant nuclear furnaces whip around crushing darknesses, drawn slowly in over millions of years... Where tiny dense spinning balls fire off streams of death. Where unexplainable bursts of massive amounts of radiation fire into the permanent blackness. Where all of this is merely another level of tiny building block to the grand scheme of things... Where everything our brains -so tailored to this tiny rock - can comprehend ceases to apply.

Then ask yourself, what do I really know? What is certainty? how can I truly believe that there are moral absolutes, that these ideas from the minds of social apes have any merit?

Its rather interesting to follow the atheist line of reasoning here. I'm not trying to belittle what you're saying here, if that's what it sounds like. It just really helps me see things from your viewpoint like I never could before. I don't know, your diction is interesting too, "crushing darkness", "streams of death", "permanent blackness" and so on.

I can definately see why you would feel the way you feel if this is the way you perceive the universe around you.

I don't know, I've always felt privelaged to be a witness to 'the show' if you will. Where you see permanent blackness, I see a sprawling canvas. Where you see streams of death, I see something akin to a cosmic fireworks show. Frankly, the creation never ceases to amaze me, and its one of the few beautiful things that's too far out of our reach to 'taint'; Lord knows we've really managed to mess things up here on earth. Sure, most of these things are dangerous from the perspective of life. But think about how dangerous and destructive the sun is, even though we couldn't survive without it. I don't see danger, I see opportunity (in a sense).

I have to ask you a question though.

Quote:

Then ask yourself, what do I really know? What is certainty? how can I truly believe that there are moral absolutes, that these ideas from the minds of social apes have any merit?

Then how can you trust yourself? Why should I believe any of the conclusions you or any relativist comes to? How do you know that you're right about the 'hopeless' situation we 'advanced apes' find ourselves in? The problem I have, according to you, doesn't just apply to me.

The whole relativist philosophy says that I'm not more right than you are, even though I'm saying the exact opposite of what you're saying. Something doesn't match up.

Quote:

Logic does not apply to existance.

I don't think you could prove that without using logic. Although I wouldn't mind having a debate on the existence of logic, because that's something an atheist might have a hard time with when it comes to accounting for its existence.

Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: sldl - 09/14/06 18:27

Quote:

But if it relativism isn't absolute, then what good is it? The opposite of relativism is absolutism. So if relativism isn't absolutely true, then why isn't absolutism absolutely true?

Don't get confused by using the same words over and over again.

Absolutism might be the opposite of relativism linguistically, that still doesn't prove it actually exists, it's just that we made up what it's opposition would be called.

Relativism can't be absolute, it would have had to be called absolutism instead in that case, and it's not. Why would something be absolutely true? Is it possible to even determine what's truth and what's not beyond any reasonable doubt? I'd say truth itself is 100% relative, stating something is true is relative, it all depends on the gathered knowledge and know-how.

I simply know relativism exists, it's everywhere. The amount of knowledge (in general and individually), (linked) events/action/reaction, chance, choices, emotions, language, intelligence, perspectives. There's no absolute in any of those, it's really all relative. The fact that all is relative is not absolute, and this is not contradicting at all, even if it may seem so.

Quote:

I beg to differ. We have a lot of absolute truths 'hard coded' into the universe. I don't think random chance can create everything, including random chance. We have mathematics, logic, and laws (etc) that are absolute. I think that's the reflection of an absolute, and consistent, creator.

No, mathematics, laws and logic are all based upon compromises, we have agreed upon those rules, those agreements are relative. Just because we've decided 2 + 2 = 4, doesn't mean it's actually true. It's IS true when we follow are own made rules. Without these rules, mathematics would be rather pointless, hence the rules's existance.

Exactly the same goes for logic. A bit more complicated though, because it's based upon learned rules mixed with 'reason', both can determine once's "logic" (you may not always agree with those 'learned rules', in that case 'reason' tells you to think different, IF you are using your brains and don't think like the big masses

).

There are more kinds of logic too by the way, again it's very relative.

Quote:

This has been a rather illuminating discussion.

I see, however prove to me absolute things exist. You will find out it's impossible. The only thing that may be absolute, is it's non-existance hahahaha,

Quote:

What about time and the universe is relative? Does the universe not exist?

It's subject to a constant change, so no it's definately not absolute in any way whatsoever.

Cheers

Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: sldl - 09/14/06 19:55

Quote:

Don't get confused by using the same words over and over again.

I think I've used that sentence about 8 times now. I need to stop.

Quote:

Absolutism might be the opposite of relativism linguistically, that still doesn't prove it actually exists, it's just that we made up what it's opposition would be called.

Its the opposite of it logically. The linguistics are just symbols and patterns assigned to reality so that our brains can grasp it.

In some ways, black is the opposite of white. Just because we assign words to these colors, doesn't mean that black and white don't exist. It just means that we, in our limited capacity, need such constructs to understand the world.

Quote:

Relativism can't be absolute, it would have had to be called absolutism instead in that case, and it's not.

Yes, that's what I've been saying. But you don't take it to its logical conclusion. If relativism isn't true, then its false. But if its true, then its also false, because then that's an absolute. I hate having to repeat myself like this, but I don't see how you're not making the connection.

Quote:

Why would something be absolutely true?

Something may be absolutely true if all the opposing alternatives are false. In morals, this may be that homosexuality is wrong. If homosexuality is wrong, no matter what, then that's an unchanging absolute. Of course, I'm not going to get into determining sources of absolutes like this, because then that will get into a debate over the validity of the bible and all that. Which is an ok debate to have, but right now, I have to establish that relativism is logically wrong so that we're playing in the right ball park. Then we can decide if the bible is the source of moral absolutes and stuff like that.

Quote:

Is it possible to even determine what's truth and what's not beyond any reasonable doubt? I'd say truth itself is 100% relative, stating something is true is relative, it all depends on the gathered knowledge and know-how.

Perhaps, but I think that's beyond where I'd like the focus to be. But, the way I see it, its our understanding of Truth that's relative, not truth itself.

Quote:

I simply know relativism exists, it's everywhere. The amount of knowledge (in general and individually), (linked) events/action/reaction, chance, choices, emotions, language, intelligence, perspectives. There's no absolute in any of those, it's really all relative.

Hm. This could be a debate in itself because much of these are rock solid absolutes. A lot of nature is absolute. A green light is green, whether or not the viewer observes it as green. I can't exist and not exist at the same time. Etc.

Quote:

The fact that all is relative is not absolute, and this is not contradicting at all, even if it may seem so.

Ok, this is kind of where you need to be at this point. But you still need to make your case. Otherwise all you've done is state an opinion here. If its absolutely true that truth is relative, then why isn't that contradicting? If it isn't absolutely true that truth is relative, then why isn't relativism false?

I could switch up your statement here without changing its meaning. "The fact that relativism is absolute is not absolute."

Quote:

No, mathematics, laws and logic are all based upon compromises, we have agreed upon those rules, those agreements are relative. Just because we've decided 2 + 2 = 4, doesn't mean it's actually true.

Hm.

Hmmmmm.

What we've agreed on are the symbols and language to apply to mathematics. However, the principles of mathematics are transcendant. You can say there are three cubes, tres cubes, (1+2) cubes, III cubes, or whatever you want. While the symbols and language of each of those examples is different, they're all true (assuming there really are three cubes). The truth of the existence of thoes three cubes can be described by language, but is no dependent on language.

Quote:

Exactly the same goes for logic. A bit more complicated though, because it's based upon learned rules mixed with 'reason', both can determine once's "logic" (you may not always agree with those 'learned rules', in that case 'reason' tells you to think different, IF you are using your brains and don't think like the big masses ).

Logic would have to exist or we would never have discovered mathematics. Again, its how we apply logic (on a person-to-person basis) that's relative. Not logic itself.

If logic wasn't absolute, then there should be any number of ways to solve a sudoku puzzle, actually sudoku puzzles wouldn't even be possible. So on and so forth.

Quote:

I see, however prove to me absolute things exist. You will find out it's impossible. The only thing that may be absolute, is it's non-existance hahahaha,

Then that would be an absolute and you would just have proved that absolutes exist.

I'm not out to 'prove the existence' of absolutes. What I'm trying to do is show that relativism isn't logically consistent, which makes it little more than 'junk philosophy.' Although, the reason I think its so prevailent is that its the 'logical' step one might make if they're a secular evolutionist (just being an atheist would probably suffice, but I don't know of any that aren't evolutionists), because then there's no source for absolutes.

However, I can prove that absolutes must exist (even if we don't know what they are) by proving that relativism is false. Therefore, I'm trying to prove relativism is false.

Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: ... - 09/14/06 21:13

Quote:

In some ways, black is the opposite of white. Just because we assign words to these colors, doesn't mean that black and white don't exist. It just means that we, in our limited capacity, need such constructs to understand the world.

No, it's not that black and white at all. What's black? When do you say dark grey is infact black? Which dark grey-black is the opposite of white? Okey, it's a bit unfair, but colors have no opposites. What's the opposite of purple? Only light against no light or 'dark', but not black versus white. These constructs are relative as h*ll, they are what we make them to be and may not represent the truth. The color blue is blue because we say so, not because it is. Yes, a color may exist, but it's not blue because it is blue, but because we agreed to call it blue.

Quote:

Perhaps, but I think that's beyond where I'd like the focus to be. But, the way I see it, its our understanding of Truth that's relative, not truth itself.

The truth we know, is the truth we think we understand, stating there's more to it, some sort of real truth won't get us nowhere, since we don't know that. We can't determine wether or not our truth is the same anyway, so that alone means it's relative to what we know. This absolute truth you are talking about only exists in theory, not in practise and reality. There's no way you could say which is the right and therefore absolute truth of anything.

Quote:

A green light is green, whether or not the viewer observes it as green.

This sounds like a nice claim to go and prove, but you can't. Infact, what we see comes first, according to what we see, we define it's color, after that we call it a green light, not the other way around. The proof of this? Well, dig a few big holes in the ground and ask people to explain what color they see. Some may say it's dark brown yellowish dirt, others may say yellow grey brown dirt. Who's right?
You may think it's the interpretation that's relative, and it is indeed, however the interpretation that we agree upon will become the 'truth'. Colors therefore can't be absolute.

Quote:

Then that would be an absolute and you would just have proved that absolutes exist.

I'm not trying to make fun of you, but you still don't get it. If something is true, then it's still not necessarily absolute. Infact, I would say quite the contrary, since like I said before, truth is based upon what we know and that's limited and thus relative.

Quote:

However, I can prove that absolutes must exist (even if we don't know what they are) by proving that relativism is false. Therefore, I'm trying to prove relativism is false.

Which is a rather impossible task. Even if you could prove relativism is false, however you'd do that is a mystery to me, but then you still haven't proven absolutes exist. It's like infinity, in order to proof that you'd need to see the whole of infinity or be able to show it, not just explain the concept. There already have been numerous occasions on which it turned out that our 'past truths' were invalid and new discoveries have led us to believe in different truths, infact these kind of developments are going on constantly, again the biggest proof for relativism is out there, right in front of us. It's called 'reality'. lol ...

Cheers

Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: ... - 09/17/06 20:19

Quote:

No, it's not that black and white at all. What's black? When do you say dark grey is infact black? Which dark grey-black is the opposite of white? Okey, it's a bit unfair, but colors have no opposites.

What I had in mind while making that statement was colors on a computer. 0,0,0 would be black, and 255,255,255 would be white. In a way its opposite. Besides, it was just an example.

Quote:

The color blue is blue because we say so, not because it is.

A rose by any other name is still a rose.

You're right, the construct, the language, the symbolism is relative. But what the construct is constructed around is not relative. 'Blue' is just a term we give to a certain wavelength or frequency or whatever. The physics of color don't change based on what name we give the color, so it is therefore absolute. Science has proved this, and the burden of proof is then on you to prove that somehow your philosophy doesn't contradict what we empirically know to be true.

Quote:

There's no way you could say which is the right and therefore absolute truth of anything.

I can logically prove that there are absolute truths. I can scientifically prove that the universe is based on many absolutes (in the above statements we were discussing the language used to describe the wavelength of light, although we could really name it whatever we want, the wavelength itself is absolute).

As far as figuring out what the truth is, I would agree that humans are not the source of absolute truth.

Quote:

This sounds like a nice claim to go and prove, but you can't.

So you're honestly going to sit there and tell me that the wavelength or frequency or whatever of light will change depending upon who's viewing it?

Quote:

Well, dig a few big holes in the ground and ask people to explain what color they see. Some may say it's dark brown yellowish dirt, others may say yellow grey brown dirt. Who's right?

If our eyes are working properly, we'll all see the same color even if we describe it differently. So your example is not only inadequate, but proves my point.

Quote:

You may think it's the interpretation that's relative, and it is indeed, however the interpretation that we agree upon will become the 'truth'. Colors therefore can't be absolute.

Although our interpretations are relative, as long as they fall somewhere near the 'truth', we can communicate correctly about what color it is.

Quote:

I'm not trying to make fun of you, but you still don't get it. If something is true, then it's still not necessarily absolute. Infact, I would say quite the contrary, since like I said before, truth is based upon what we know and that's limited and thus relative.

You do understand the difference between providing logic, and providing an opinion don't you? You've shown time and time again that your premise is based upon faulty logic that you refuse to admit to. Therefore, any conclusions you come to will be faulty by the nature of your logic.

Besides that, most of what you're doing is repeating opinion. You still haven't even provided the most basic of logic to prove that relativism is non contradictory.

Besides, just because we can't always figure out what truth is correctly, doesn't mean that truth is then not relative. You're making a leap of logic there. I would agree with you that humans all have different interpretations of the truth, but that doesn't mean that there is no absolute truth and until you establish that, you have no argument.

Quote:

Which is a rather impossible task. Even if you could prove relativism is false

I have, several times now. I've just said that if relativism is a universal absolute, as you believe, then that means that all truth isn't relative and relativism is then false. Which opens the door to all kinds of absolutes. The logic is sound, and you've provided no counter-logic, except to state that you disagree, and then give examples of people giving relative interpretations of absolute things. Which only proves that people don't always know what's right, not that they could never know what's right.

Reality, in fact, proves that relativism is false. If relativism was true and nothing in the universe was absolute, science, mathematics, logic, and even physical reality itself would not exist. You have no way to explain their existence, and your philosophy has even caused you to make several incorrect statements concerning these things. For instance, you thinking that mathematics is a human construct (whereas the principles are founded in reality, and the symbology, language, etc are human constructs used so that the mind can grasp these things).

Since your premise is based on faulty logic, you are using irrelevant examples, and your philosophy has incorrectly intrepreted reality, its easy to conclude that your philosophy is false.

Unless you can use some kind of counter-logic (which according to you doesn't really exist) or you can find some new argument that isn't irrelevant, you're just wasting time.

Posted By: Pappenheimer

Re: ... - 09/17/06 22:19

Quote:

If relativism was true and nothing in the universe was absolute

"If relativism was true"

and

"nothing in the universe was absolute"

are two different statements, and it is not the fault of others that you can't see the difference.

It is your problem that you state that relativism is an absolute statement, not that of relativistic thinking people. A statement isn't necessarily absolute. It is only your claim.

Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: ... - 09/18/06 01:04

Quote:

"If relativism was true"

and

"nothing in the universe was absolute"

are two different statements, and it is not the fault of others that you can't see the difference.

Excuse me. "If relativism is true and truth is relative." That's basically what I meant. Now if you're going to tell me that the accepted definition of relativism is wrong because its devastating to your philosophy, then do me a favor and don't waste my time.

Quote:

It is your problem that you state that relativism is an absolute statement, not that of relativistic thinking people. A statement isn't necessarily absolute. It is only your claim.

I don't think its an absolute statement. In fact, I only believe its relatively true. For some people, relativism is true. But just because its relatively true doesn't mean it isn't absolutely false.

Anyway, I'm only using your guys' arguments. Either you're a relativist and you think that relativism is a universal truth (an absolute), or you're not and even if you don't know what they are, you admit there are absolutes.

The best position you can take is that even though there are absolutes, we can never know what they are, so we should just give up and live with the knowledge that we're left with our own relative constructs of truth. Including morals. However, a fundamental belief in relativism is nothing but intellectually false, or just plain dishonest. Whether or not you're willing to admit it.

Besides, this is yet another post by a relativist where nothing but an opinion is stated. I would love, just once, for one of you to actually back up your opinion with some logic or reasoning, instead of just stating your opposition to my view.

P.S. its seems to me that you're trying to establish that relativism is only relatively true. But that's actually true of my absolutist philosophy. To me, I see some people who agree with relativism and some who don't. So its relatively true, but absolutely false. In the sense that while its the truth for some people, its still a false philosophy because humans are fallible and can believe things that aren't true.

You might not like the sound of that, but consider the fact that you take similar positions if only subconsciously. To you, even though Naziism was the truth for Hitler and the nazis, you know it to be wrong.

This goes back to some of my earlier statements. I'm sure you guys do believe in absolutes (Naziism is wrong, slavery is wrong, etc), its just that you want to be the ones to decide what those absolutes are (i.e. man determines truth, not God). Of course, that's just my opinion, so feel free to disagree if you want.

edit: Let me try and get you into a logic train that will expose the fallicy of your argument. I'll start with this statement.

Quote:

I'm not trying to make fun of you, but you still don't get it. If something is true, then it's still not necessarily absolute. Infact, I would say quite the contrary, since like I said before, truth is based upon what we know and that's limited and thus relative.

Ok, so to you relativism isn't absolutely true, truth is just what man determines it to be but it never gets above that level. Its all relative.

Now, I take the opposite position, i.e. there are absolutes which directly opposes what you believe. So the only thing keeping my opinion from overriding yours is that its only relatively true (to me). Do you believe this?

Posted By: Pappenheimer

Re: ... - 09/18/06 19:13

Quote:

The best position you can take is that even though there are absolutes, we can never know what they are, so we should just give up and live with the knowledge that we're left with our own relative constructs of truth. Including morals.

2.

"The best position you can take is that even though there are no absolutes, we can never know whether there are any, so we should just give up and live with the knowledge that we're left with our own relative constructs of truth. Including morals. "

Question:

Is the second statement less true than the first?