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."