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."