|
1 registered members (7th_zorro),
1,390
guests, and 2
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Moral Relativism
[Re: Doug]
#78476
06/22/06 20:39
06/22/06 20:39
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,900
Bielefeld, Germany
Pappenheimer
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,900
Bielefeld, Germany
|
On relativism:
In school we had a standard joke: "Everything is relativ!" meant: everything is equaly unimportant, nothing counts.
But, relativ means related. This means, it is connected within relations of more or less bigger contexts.
Coherence is the main term.
Taking Hitler as an example: he isolated his moral from the coherences of international agreements.
Relations and coherences can be discussed and lead to agreements, and people can base decisions and agreements and laws on it. And the value of these agreements raise with the respect of the participants who acts in accordance with these agreements. And the value of such agreements decrease with each violation which happen without having consequences for the violator.
In short, such "relativism" is the base of peace, the base of human rights etc.
And, it is a better base than any eternal instance of any group of the affected people, because it leads to balance of interests and powers although not everybody shares the same believes...
|
|
|
Re: Moral Relativism
[Re: Pappenheimer]
#78477
06/22/06 22:14
06/22/06 22:14
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
OP
User
|
OP
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
Not sure I follow your logic here...
Maybe thats because there isnt any?
That's because the logic shot straight over your head. If you were actually able to grasp what I said, then you might have a response. But based on the lack of response, it would be logical to conclude that you have none.
You have nothing, Matt, except your petty insults. 
But feel free to continue. You're making my job [of letting undecided spectators see how rediculous your worldview sounds in practice] much easier.
Quote:
Either you missed the point Irish, or you are just spoiling for a fight here. I'm not saying that Moral Relativism is a good thing, but that it does exist and can be used to explain a lot of things.
All you've proved is that people don't agree. Its as simple as this. You either ascribe to relativism, and say that slavery technically isn't wrong, or you ascribe to absolutism and say it is wrong even if some whiteys thought it was ok. There's no fence sitting on this one. It doesn't matter if people thought it was right. It either really is right, or it really is wrong.
I think that's why you guys seem to have such a hard time understanding what I'm saying. You aren't actually relativists. Its a very difficult position to hold. Relativism, in essence, is the acceptance of evil. 
Relativists use the relativist position to debase the morality of others, and then restructure morality in a way that's more friendly for them. Its not that they don't believe in absolute morals (they believe in their own absolute morals, much like Matt does), its that they have an extreme distaste for the morals of others (much like Matt does).
In order to make their own minority morals more relevant, they have to create a moral 'vacuum'. In other words, if they can prove to people that all morals are relative, then people will be more likely to let their values change. If they make it seem like no one has morals, then their morals seem more 'real.'
You say that people thinking slavery was ok at one point proves that morals aren't absolute. That's jumping the gun a bit. You haven't proved there are no absolute morals, you've just proved we don't always agree on what's best.
In fact, to say that all truth is absolutely relative to the individual is to make an absolute statement. The position is self-defeating. If all truth really is absolutely relative, then that's an absolute truth. Its like writing the sentence, "This statement is false," on a piece of paper and trying to logically work it out. Its invalid.
Quote:
Taking Hitler as an example: he isolated his moral from the coherences of international agreements.
You're only able to say this because we won the war. Otherwise, the statement would work exactly opposite. Once again, you can't say relativism is true, and then tell me that Hitler did something wrong. All you're doing is changing the standard upon which we determine absolute truth.
What makes you more right than him? Because you're in the majority? Relativism says otherwise, so you sound more like an absolutist here.
Quote:
Relations and coherences can be discussed and lead to agreements, and people can base decisions and agreements and laws on it. And the value of these agreements raise with the respect of the participants who acts in accordance with these agreements. And the value of such agreements decrease with each violation which happen without having consequences for the violator.
What does this have to do with relativism?
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 06/22/06 22:29.
"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]
#78478
06/23/06 07:26
06/23/06 07:26
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,900
Bielefeld, Germany
Pappenheimer
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,900
Bielefeld, Germany
|
Quote:
Quote:
Relations and coherences can be discussed and lead to agreements, and people can base decisions and agreements and laws on it. And the value of these agreements raise with the respect of the participants who acts in accordance with these agreements. And the value of such agreements decrease with each violation which happen without having consequences for the violator.
What does this have to do with relativism?
Very much, although not much with the insulting reduction of its meanings and consequences of someone who has his concreted believes but less or no experiences in collaborating with atheists and no experiences in solving social conflicts.
Your imputation is that relativism is something which makes anything arbitrary - and that is wrong. That's what my post was about.
For an example, 'fairness' is a moral product of competiting individuels, not the product of any religion.
Another point:
You are implying that the opponents of your form of christian fundamentalism are "moral relativists", but when they begin to argue, you say that their arguments are results of an absolute value. What is not generally true. If you tried to take the position of others serious, you should take in account that that what you call 'absolute' is simply a constant within the coherences of relativism.
To avoid a new misunderstanding: 'constant' is meant as a stable 'variable' or 'long-range''variable' within socialrelationships.
Another (wrong) implication of your view on the so called "moral relativism" is, that it is necessarily individual, that it is an isolated decision principle of single human beings, but it is indeed a social based principle with the experience of human beings of their social constitution. And one 'moral' decision like that of Hitler has consequences in 'moral' decisions of others.
To take an example of a comparable evil, look at Stalin. He indeed established his power structure. This history is a bit too complicating to analyse its moral relations in short. But, why didn't one of the mightiest man within this power structure, Michael Gorbatschow rely on this power structure furthermore?
|
|
|
Re: Moral Relativism
[Re: Pappenheimer]
#78479
06/23/06 22:53
06/23/06 22:53
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
OP
User
|
OP
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
Very much, although not much with the insulting reduction of its meanings and consequences of someone who has his concreted believes but less or no experiences in collaborating with atheists and no experiences in solving social conflicts.
I'm having a hard time grasping your meaning in this sentence. I'm not going to be a jerk and say why, but I think I did get part of what you said.
Are you saying that because I have no experience in resolving social conflict, I'm not allowed to have an opinion?
Quote:
Your imputation is that relativism is something which makes anything arbitrary - and that is wrong.
"A theory, especially in ethics or aesthetics, that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them."
That's a fancy way of saying that no one is right. This includes issues of racism, murder, or things as trivial as road rage, anger, and even what one eats.
Relativist try and get around this by saying they all agree that slavery is bad. And that's great, but then they aren't agreeing with relativism. The next day they could change their minds and say slavery was ok. And guess what? They'd be right...according to their ideology anyway. I shouldn't say they'd be right, because there's no such thing, but they wouldn't be wrong. Which is just as bad.
By definition, relativism makes EVERY moral viewpoint trivial. We may figure out something that works for us, but it really doesn't matter whether or not it works for us, its not worse or better than anything anyone else has ever agreed upon. To take it to an extreme, America is no more right now for outlawing slavery than it was for considering racial slavery a good thing.
I'm not the one saying relativism makes things trivial (it does, but I'm not pulling this out of my butt), I'm just pointing out the truth about the ideology. If you guys really believed in relativism, then I don't suppose you would have such a hard time accepting this, but I suspect none of you are true relativists. Some people hide behind relativism so that they can have an easier time pushing their own morals on others. Not all 'relativists' do this, but its more common than not. And I'm not specifically saying this is what you're doing. I'm just pointing out why relativism is so popular right now.
The Axis forces in WWII were absolutists, as were the Allies. We believed freedom was absolutely right, and they didn't (to put it simply). To take this to an even bigger extreme, all its going to take is for some idiot absolutist like Hitler to sneak in while all the 'good guys' are convinced there really is no right or wrong to completely turn the world on its head. But that's just my two cents.
I would like to extend my previous comment into our modern political climate, because I think this is happening to an extent right now. But that would be a mistake. I'd especially like to stay on topic, because it seems we're making progress.
Quote:
You are implying that the opponents of your form of christian fundamentalism are "moral relativists",
I don't remember saying this.
A lot of atheists are anti-christian. A lot of atheists are 'relativists'. It doesn't follow that all relativists are opponents to christians.
Quote:
but when they begin to argue, you say that their arguments are results of an absolute value.
I don't remember saying that either. Their arguments are a result of our inability to agree. But disagreements, as I've said, are a natural part of life. It doesn't follow that just because two people or groups disagree, both sides are right. I think it makes more sense that in some cases (many cases actually) when two sides disagree, one side is right. Relativism does not agree with the latter conclusion. That's the debate, so disagreements or arguments are irrelevant.
Any disagreement on the part of relativists that I point out are the fact that what they say isn't consistent with their theory. I believe the theory itself is logically self-defeating. However, this is why I ask the questions that I do, because the self-defeating nature of relativism is very apparent if you ask the right questions of relativists.
Quote:
you should take in account that that what you call 'absolute' is simply a constant within the coherences of relativism.
Again, we get into the messy argument over whether some of the more extreme disagreements had a side who was correct. Even relativists side with absolutists on this one. Which is why I conclude relativism is a moot ideology.
Quote:
Another (wrong) implication of your view on the so called "moral relativism" is, that it is necessarily individual,
Well, relativism is relative to a 'group.' But a group is very subjective. Most of my examples of morals are relative to an entire country or society. So that would constitute a group.
But technically, within one society there can be a disagreement, in which case either side could be said to be a group.
This gets even easier for me when you consider the relativism allows for different 'persons' to have disagreements that are relative. You guys are the ones who invented the idea that relativism only applies to social groups. You're apparently trying to create an arena where its harder for me to win , but even then its still difficult to justify your ideology.
Quote:
To take an example of a comparable evil, look at Stalin. He indeed established his power structure. This history is a bit too complicating to analyse its moral relations in short. But, why didn't one of the mightiest man within this power structure, Michael Gorbatschow rely on this power structure furthermore?
I don't know. But I have to wonder why it matters if Russian leaders changed their mind. Perhaps it has to do with pressure from the common people. After all, it was a big to do when the wall came down. People like freedom.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 06/23/06 23:38.
"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]
#78480
06/23/06 23:57
06/23/06 23:57
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
I don't remember saying that either. Their arguments are a result of our inability to agree. But disagreements, as I've said, are a natural part of life. It doesn't follow that just because two people or groups disagree, both sides are right. I think it makes more sense that in some cases (many cases actually) when two sides disagree, one side is right. Relativism does not agree with the latter conclusion. That's the debate, so disagreements or arguments are irrelevant.
You still believe in absolutes and nothing but these non-existing absolutes. I doubt you will ever find out the true meaning of relativism, since according to you everything is either A or B and nothing in between or outside these two is possible, eventhough there are infact an infinite amount of possibilities...
Quote:
Any disagreement on the part of relativists that I point out are the fact that what they say isn't consistent with their theory. I believe the theory itself is logically self-defeating. However, this is why I ask the questions that I do, because the self-defeating nature of relativism is very apparent if you ask the right questions of relativists.
What's not consistent with our theory? It's not our view and our theory that have any inconsistencies, it's your view and our theory that collide, that's something totally different.
Self-defeating? Lol, uuhm yeah, and in your believe it's either "dead or alive", right? Not that you would understand... but there's a lot of relativism in the bible you know ...
Quote:
A lot of atheists are anti-christian. A lot of atheists are 'relativists'. It doesn't follow that all relativists are opponents to christians.
Oww come on, give me a break ... Generalizing is one thing, but please do so based upon some facts, which you are obviously not.
We are not anti-christian at all, we just disagree on what they believe, because we have good reasons to do so. It's not simply our opinion, it's based upon facts and evidence. I even dare to state that we know the christian views or most of them are in error. Again, show me one piece of evidence that God exists, proof to me that all science is wrong, proof to me that God has influence at all and is able to help in any way whatsoever, and then I'm talking about being able to do more than just be a 'invisible ear' when talking to yourself again ... 
Cheers
Last edited by PHeMoX; 06/24/06 00:09.
|
|
|
Re: Moral Relativism
[Re: PHeMoX]
#78481
06/24/06 03:52
06/24/06 03:52
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
OP
User
|
OP
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
You still believe in absolutes and nothing but these non-existing absolutes.
I'll stop believing in absolutes when someone gives me a logical reason not to believe in absolutes. Of course, giving a logical reason to believe in relativism is kind of contradictory.
Quote:
I doubt you will ever find out the true meaning of relativism,
I apparently have a better grasp than the other relativists who consistently contradict their own theory, or say its based on 'social preferences' when its not defined that way.
Quote:
since according to you everything is either A or B and nothing in between or outside these two is possible
I didn't say EVERYTHING was. Can you guys go one post without putting words into my mouth? I just said that NOT EVERYTHING is relative.
Quote:
eventhough there are infact an infinite amount of possibilities...
Yes, an infinite ways to disagree proves that people disagree. Please explain to me how us disagreeing proves there are no absolutes. Explain how it proves anything except that we disagree.
Quote:
What's not consistent with our theory? It's not our view and our theory that have any inconsistencies, it's your view and our theory that collide, that's something totally different.
What you mean to say is that logic and your theory collide. I'm not even refuting relativism yet. I'm just trying to get you guys to stop fence sitting.
Quote:
What's not consistent with our theory? It's not our view and our theory that have any inconsistencies
Would you not agree that your theory states that no one is right, and that absolute truth does not exist (except as an illusion to people or groups)?
Assuming for the moment that you agree, you then have two choices. You can either be a relativist, and say that even though you think Hitler was wrong, he technically was not wrong, slavery technically was not wrong even if you believe it is.
Or you can admit that you do believe absolutes. In this case that slavery really was wrong, even if we thought it was right at one point, and that Hitler was wrong, even if German society at the time thought he was right.
You can't have it both ways. You can believe he's wrong, but according to your own theory, your view is relative, and he technically wasn't wrong. You have to admit that, or you have to call relativism bunk.
Quote:
Not that you would understand... but there's a lot of relativism in the bible you know ...
That's the weakest, most inane argument for relativism I've ever heard. But it does back up my theory that, for some people, relativism is a guise to establish a moral vacuum for people who don't like other's absolute morals. You can't logically establish relativism, but if you can attack those who believe in absolutes and make them seem wrong, then that's all the justification you need.
Quote:
We are not anti-christian at all,
Please read what I wrote. A lot of atheists are anti-christian. I didn't say all atheists, and I didn't say most atheists. Just a lot.
That's not stereotyping, its just recognizing a truth about some atheists.
In fact, the point of that statement was to refute that I was generalizing. Someone put words in my mouth, saying I thought relativists were christian opponents. I was trying to say that I don't think that's true.
I think most of them are just mislead.
Quote:
I even dare to state that we know the christian views or most of them are in error.
Eh, the alchemists were pretty certain they could turn lead into gold....
Quote:
Again, show me one piece of evidence that God exists, proof to me that all science is wrong, proof to me that God has influence at all and is able to help in any way whatsoever, and then I'm talking about being able to do more than just be a 'invisible ear' when talking to yourself again ...
Since you bring God into a discussion on relativism would I be mistaken in believing that you simply cannot justify absolute truth, as long as you're sure there is no God? What kind of foundation is that for a theory? If you can't seperate relativism from your judgment on the validity of the existence of God, then it might seem you don't believe in relativism for the right reasons. You believe it because you have to.
I don't want to be too forceful here, because that can lead to flaming and emotional arguments, but I hope some people see what I'm saying.
What God does in your life is personal. I can't prove God to you, because there are an infinite number of ways to rationalize Him out of existence. Even the most miraculous of comprehendable miracles will never prove He exists.
If you think that you need 'help', Jesus said, "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." [Matthew 11:28] There is only one way to God, and that is through Jesus. [John 14:6] Just call upon him with sincerety. If you ask for salvation, God won't ignore you.
Anyway, I didn't want to distract the topic. Just thought I would answer your question slightly. In the meantime, I'll be more than happy to stay on subject. We have other threads to discuss validity of believing in God.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 06/24/06 05:02.
"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]
#78482
06/24/06 07:15
06/24/06 07:15
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
Matt_Aufderheide
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
|
Quote:
That's because the logic shot straight over your head. If you were actually able to grasp what I said, then you might have a response. But based on the lack of response, it would be logical to conclude that you have none.
You need to stop trying to be sophisticated, becasue it doesnt work.
|
|
|
Re: Moral Relativism
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#78483
06/24/06 15:09
06/24/06 15:09
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,900
Bielefeld, Germany
Pappenheimer
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,900
Bielefeld, Germany
|
Quote:
Are you saying that because I have no experience in resolving social conflict, I'm not allowed to have an opinion?
Quote:
Your imputation is that relativism is something which makes anything arbitrary - and that is wrong.
"A theory, especially in ethics or aesthetics, that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them."
That's a fancy way of saying that no one is right. This includes issues of racism, murder, or things as trivial as road rage, anger, and even what one eats.
These few lines are showing me that you answer before you understand. You even answer before you read the whole post!
My advice:
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'!
The only responses that I get by you show that you completely ignored or missunderstood nearly anything that I wrote!
'Meaning' is the 'thought' within a post, not isolated sentences or part of sentences.
[Your way of arguing makes no sense at all. What you are doing is more like a reflex movement.]
|
|
|
|
