|
2 registered members (AndrewAMD, dr_panther),
1,290
guests, and 4
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Moral Relativism
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#78494
06/26/06 00:55
06/26/06 00:55
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,655
testDummy
Serious User
|
Serious User
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,655
|
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.
|
|
|
Re: Moral Relativism
[Re: MathewAllen]
#78495
06/26/06 01:00
06/26/06 01:00
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
Matt_Aufderheide
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
|
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.
|
|
|
Re: Moral Relativism
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#78496
06/26/06 01:07
06/26/06 01:07
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,900
Bielefeld, Germany
Pappenheimer
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,900
Bielefeld, Germany
|
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.
|
|
|
Re: Moral Relativism
[Re: Matt_Aufderheide]
#78497
06/26/06 01:13
06/26/06 01:13
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 363
Ottawa
MathewAllen
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 363
Ottawa
|
Quote:
I agree with Matthew Allen here. This is good summing up of a rationalist approach to morality.
 my name has one t.
< /endspam>
|
|
|
Re: Moral Relativism
[Re: MathewAllen]
#78498
06/26/06 03:19
06/26/06 03:19
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
OP
User
|
OP
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
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.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Moral Relativism
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#78499
06/26/06 03:39
06/26/06 03:39
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 363
Ottawa
MathewAllen
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 363
Ottawa
|
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
|
|
|
Re: Moral Relativism
[Re: MathewAllen]
#78500
06/26/06 04:12
06/26/06 04:12
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
OP
User
|
OP
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
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?
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 06/26/06 04:23.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Moral Relativism
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#78502
06/26/06 11:42
06/26/06 11:42
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,900
Bielefeld, Germany
Pappenheimer
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,900
Bielefeld, Germany
|
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.]
|
|
|
Re: Moral Relativism
[Re: Pappenheimer]
#78503
06/26/06 21:18
06/26/06 21:18
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
OP
User
|
OP
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
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.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
|
