Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A critique of moral relativism
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 121 of 219 (412181)
07-24-2007 2:58 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by PaulK
07-24-2007 2:32 AM


And there's no explicit references or links in the posts you list. It seems more like general memories (which may or may not refer back to the threads you have in mind)
My point exactly, which is why I said "people generally refer to their memories rather than the posts". Getting anyone to provide specific examples in this discussion has proven peculiarly difficult.
Two points off the top of my head. The "is murder wrong" question
Sure all of that - but this little subthread was discussing two sexual activities forbidden in the OT, not the murder scenario.
The second is the basis of the link between homosexuality and bestiality in his argument which he refuses to explain.
That is what I am asking you about when I asked "What would you see as vague about his comments?" I know that you find his comments vague, but I don't see them as vague just disagreeable. I thought it might be useful to learn why other people think he refuses to explain since I see plenty of explanation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by PaulK, posted 07-24-2007 2:32 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by PaulK, posted 07-24-2007 3:16 AM Modulous has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 122 of 219 (412183)
07-24-2007 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Modulous
07-23-2007 6:18 AM


Re: Oh, Christ...not again
Modulous responds to me:
quote:
Do you think that discussing the criteria for marriage would indicate that I think there is some question between marrying a lawnmower and marrying the person I'm in love with.
If you look to one for the justifications for the other, yes.
[putting mathematician hat on]
(A->B ^ A->C) !-> (B->C)
That is, A may lead to B and A may lead to C, but you have to produce the justifications for them independently. You can't rely on B to justify C. You have to go back and start over from scratch.
quote:
quote:
No, they can't. It's called "orthogonality." You do understand what that means, yes?
Since it is likely that you will probably say that I don't even if I explain it, if you'd like you can explain it's relevance again.
"orthogonal": From the Greek "orthos" meaning "straight," "upright," "correct." In common usage, it's a synonym for "perpendicular."
What this means is that if you have two lines that are orthogonal, then there is no relation between the two. That is, there is no metric that can be constructed where a change in one produces a corresponding change in the other.
Thus, when used colloquially, it's a way of saying that something is irrelevant or unrelated, that this trait provides no insight into the other trait as there is no connection between the two.
quote:
I feel that nj would simply feel his point has been proven by our inability to answer it.
(*chuckle*)
Considering that he hasn't even responded to direct responses to his point, what good can possibly come from legitimizing his claim?
quote:
What name do you think I should be using to describe people that believe there is a single moral answer to a given moral question which is objectively true?
Phantoms. They don't exist.
quote:
Hopefully you've gathered my point: absolutism is a defined by a belief.
Incorrect. Absolutism is not theism.
quote:
A lot of absolutists say that they themselves fall short of living in the most moral fashion possible.
Which is just a rationalization for the realization that they don't actually believe what they claim they do.
And if we're going to go off of what they believe, shouldn't we be using what they actually believe and not what they merely say they believe simply because they don't want to be thought of as "one of them"?
quote:
quote:
It doesn't matter what they believe. It only matters what they do.
Not when it comes to discussing what they believe
Huh?
If they don't actually believe it, why are we discussing it?
They can say they believe it all the want but if their actions belie that claim, then they don't really believe it.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Modulous, posted 07-23-2007 6:18 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Modulous, posted 07-24-2007 3:34 AM Rrhain has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 123 of 219 (412185)
07-24-2007 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Modulous
07-24-2007 2:58 AM


You're the one arguing that we can look for specific explanations in some other thread. But if all you can say is that there is some vague link and nobody - not even NJ - has actually used it as a direct reference in the course of discussion - there really isn't much there. Maybe you expect everyone to go diving into the archives to try to find the right posts in the right thread but I don't see that as reasonable.
What I see as completely vague about his comparison between homosexuality and bestiality is the link that justifies his argument. He won't explain what it is. Simply arguing that both are forbidden in Leviticus won't do since it doesn't touch on the reasons why they are forbidden. If thats all he's got - and it seems it is - then my point, that he sees them as arbitrary rules - is sustained. Which is why it's odd that you and he keep disagreeing with me but not producing any valid alternative.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Modulous, posted 07-24-2007 2:58 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Modulous, posted 07-24-2007 4:10 AM PaulK has replied
 Message 132 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-24-2007 12:34 PM PaulK has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 124 of 219 (412190)
07-24-2007 3:34 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Rrhain
07-24-2007 3:04 AM


Re: Oh, Christ...not again
If you look to one for the justifications for the other, yes..That is, A may lead to B and A may lead to C, but you have to produce the justifications for them independently. You can't rely on B to justify C. You have to go back and start over from scratch.
You'll have to explain what A, B an C are in the discussion. I'm not sure anyone has used an A to justify B and B to justify C where only A can be shown to justify C.
7
Thus, when used colloquially, it's a way of saying that something is irrelevant or unrelated, that this trait provides no insight into the other trait as there is no connection between the two.
Yep, there's the definition, now the relevance?
Considering that he hasn't even responded to direct responses to his point, what good can possibly come from legitimizing his claim?
We legitimize the creationists by the existence of this forum. Snopes legitimizes urban legends. The Badastronomy blog legitimizes moon landing hoaxes (and when NASA refused to legitimize them that was seen as proof the MLHs were on to something).
Phantoms. They don't exist.
There are no people in this world that believe there are absolute moral answers? That sounds like a handily unfalsifiable position.
Incorrect. Absolutism is not theism.
I never said it was. I said absolutism is a belief. More specifically it is a philosophical position. From wiki: Moral absolutism, the position that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged.
If they don't actually believe it, why are we discussing it?
They can say they believe it all the want but if their actions belie that claim, then they don't really believe it.
All we have to do now is examine the actions of every human being that has ever lived and decide if their actions line up with their beliefs. Since many 'phantoms' will say that nobody is perfectly moral, and that people's actions are sometimes immoral by an absolute moral standard this might be interesting. How do we tell if a person is an absolutist if their philosophy includes the fallibility of man to adhere to the absolute standard?
What about absolutists that state that we cannot know exactly what the absolute standard is, but we can try to come up with a good model for it? How do we judge them to see if they are absolutists?
And of course, all of this is irrelevant. Even if they are wrong in that there is no absolute moral standard or even if they behave as if there were no absolute moral standard...they can still hold the position that there is an absolute moral standard.
I fear though, you will just gainsay that.
If you really really want to, you can just replace 'absolutist' in my OP with the phrase 'people that state that they think there is an absolute moral standard' and replace 'relativist' with 'people that state that they think there is no absolute moral standard'. The latter is necessary because this thread is about how relativists come to definite moral conclusions which (say the 'absolutists') belies their claim to be relativists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Rrhain, posted 07-24-2007 3:04 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Rrhain, posted 07-24-2007 5:31 AM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 125 of 219 (412197)
07-24-2007 4:10 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by PaulK
07-24-2007 3:16 AM


You're the one arguing that we can look for specific explanations in some other thread. But if all you can say is that there is some vague link and nobody - not even NJ - has actually used it as a direct reference in the course of discussion - there really isn't much there.
All I am saying is this: After a loooot of debate there has only been one candidate put forward as to where this started "The Haggard Thread". Which was about marriage. I can't remember if NJ has mentioned the Haggard thread directly, but he has clearly referred to it. Hence why I thought part of the problem might be that people are arguing about their memory of what NJ is saying rather than what NJ is actually saying.
Maybe you expect everyone to go diving into the archives to try to find the right posts in the right thread but I don't see that as reasonable.
It's reasonable if people start making accusations about what someone else has said in the past. Either be prepared to back up the accustations or don't make them - it's built into the rules more or less.
For instance: you say that NJ has not explained himself about the sexual practices issue. I say he has, and show where. The defence to this is not "you can't expect us to read what he said!"
What I see as completely vague about his comparison between homosexuality and bestiality is the link that justifies his argument. He won't explain what it is.
And yet I see that he has, many times. I was hoping you could point me in the direction of where he has been vague about the whole thing so that I might see for myself. I've certainly spent a lot of time pointing to where he hasn't been vague. Once again, I have found it odd that people say NJ has done this or that, but are somewhat reluctant to get specific. It's like people hope that the general homophobia is enough to springboard from.
. Simply arguing that both are forbidden in Leviticus won't do since it doesn't touch on the reasons why they are forbidden.
It's usually at the start of the chapters in leviticus: I am your LORD, God.
If thats all he's got - and it seems it is - then my point, that he sees them as arbitrary rules - is sustained. Which is why it's odd that you and he keep disagreeing with me but not producing any valid alternative.
You're the one arguing that we can look for specific explanations in some other thread. But if all you can say is that there is some vague link and nobody - not even NJ - has actually used it as a direct reference in the course of discussion - there really isn't much there. Maybe you expect everyone to go diving into the archives to try to find the right posts in the right thread but I don't see that as reasonable.
What I see as completely vague about his comparison between homosexuality and bestiality is the link that justifies his argument. He won't explain what it is. Simply arguing that both are forbidden in Leviticus won't do since it doesn't touch on the reasons why they are forbidden. If thats all he's got - and it seems it is - then my point, that he sees them as arbitrary rules - is sustained. Which is why it's odd that you and he keep disagreeing with me but not producing any valid alternative.
God's will is obviously arbitrary - he is The Arbiter of Arbiters. The Judge of Judges and all that shite. I don't think I've ever argued otherwise on that. That isn't why NJ brought the issue up though. NJ assumed most people do not want for interspecies marriage to becoem the norm and asked why that was. I don't see that as particularly vague. In your terms - NJ has an arbitrary rule - but relativists don't. So how to decide what parties get to marry?
The only other time the issue came up was that NJ simply said all sins are equally sinful. But that isn't particularly interesting or offensive either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by PaulK, posted 07-24-2007 3:16 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by PaulK, posted 07-24-2007 4:49 AM Modulous has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 126 of 219 (412200)
07-24-2007 4:49 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by Modulous
07-24-2007 4:10 AM


quote:
It's reasonable if people start making accusations about what someone else has said in the past. Either be prepared to back up the accustations or don't make them - it's built into the rules more or less.
Well I'm not doing that. I'm asking him to explain what he's saying now.
quote:
For instance: you say that NJ has not explained himself about the sexual practices issue. I say he has, and show where. The defence to this is not "you can't expect us to read what he said!"
This is the first time you've given a reference to a specific thread - I certainly didn't know it was "the Haggard thread" you were talking about. And if someone is making vague comments now the answer is not to go diving into the archives in the hope of finding some explanation somewhere. If NJ had provided a clear reference in place of simply answering then I would not be complaining - but that's not the case. Trawling the archives is not the same as following a link or even being given the name of a thread (and even searching a thread can be something of a chore, even with the 300 post limit)
quote:
And yet I see that he has, many times. I was hoping you could point me in the direction of where he has been vague about the whole thing so that I might see for myself. I've certainly spent a lot of time pointing to where he hasn't been vague.
He's been vague in this thread and the other threads run at the same time. And you haven't been pointing at anywhere specific. Just because he has bene more specific at some time in the past is no excuse for refusing to explain himself with anything other than denials.
quote:
God's will is obviously arbitrary - he is The Arbiter of Arbiters. The Judge of Judges and all that shite. I don't think I've ever argued otherwise on that
Well you disagreed with me when I said that the connection was that there was nothing actually wrong with either. And that's saying the same thing.
quote:
In your terms - NJ has an arbitrary rule - but relativists don't. So how to decide what parties get to marry?
Well if there's no good reason for allowing or forbidding any particular marriage - which is your version of NJs position - why worry about it ? I'd say that there are good reasons for allowing marriages on more or less the current basis (it seems to work and wholesale change would cause problems which require us to justify making the change). Fairness requires that we extend that to gays (because their relationships are so similar to heterosexual relationships that we consider valid marriages) and because they are denied some of the basic benefits (like hospital visiting rights for partners) on the basis that they are not married. But there's no such reason to extend it to allow marriage to non-humans until there are non-humans actually capable of being a full partner in a marriage.
quote:
The only other time the issue came up was that NJ simply said all sins are equally sinful. But that isn't particularly interesting or offensive either.
The only objectionable thing there is that it isn't really true. It's an official position that doesn't really reflect the attitudes on the ground.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Modulous, posted 07-24-2007 4:10 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Modulous, posted 07-24-2007 10:07 AM PaulK has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 127 of 219 (412205)
07-24-2007 5:31 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Modulous
07-24-2007 3:34 AM


Re: Oh, Christ...not again
Modulous responds to me:
quote:
You'll have to explain what A, B an C are in the discussion.
No, I don't. It's an abstraction: It doesn't matter what A, B, and C are. Just that they're different.
For example (A->B) ~-> (B->A). It doesn't matter what A and B are...the logic is always the same: A implies B does not imply that B implies A. I can give you examples of such, but those are specific and may only apply to that one example. If we're going to move on to a more general concept, we have to abandon the specifics for the abstraction.
quote:
Yep, there's the definition, now the relevance?
You mean you really don't know?
If you're just going to play dumb, there really is no point in continuing.
quote:
We legitimize the creationists by the existence of this forum.
That's because the inquiry into the diversification of life upon this planet is legitimate and various attempts to explain that diversification can be legitimately examined. It may be that the examination leads to a conclusion of, "This explanation is false," but that doesn't delegitimize the examination. That is, after all, how science works: You examine the possibilities, even if they turn out to be wrong, since there is a possibility that they could be right which we won't know until we examine them.
But orthogonal points are illegitimate. The conjugation of Spanish verbs is not an explanation for the diversification of life on this planet.
quote:
There are no people in this world that believe there are absolute moral answers? That sounds like a handily unfalsifiable position.
Incorrect. All you have to do is show me one. Do not confuse the difficulty or impracticality of the task with impossibility.
No, not someone who merely says so. I need someone who actually does so and thus lives up to the beliefs they claim to have. If they admit that they don't always do so, then it is clear that they don't believe what they claim to and thus aren't an absolutist.
They're just a wannabe.
quote:
All we have to do now is examine the actions of every human being that has ever lived and decide if their actions line up with their beliefs.
No, that would be shifting the burden of proof. The absolutists are the ones saying that they exist, therefore it is up to them to provide an example of one. The default position is that they don't.
Burden of proof is always on the one making the claim.
quote:
How do we tell if a person is an absolutist if their philosophy includes the fallibility of man to adhere to the absolute standard?
That's just a rationalization for the realization that they aren't absolutists. When we examine their behaviour, we find they don't really think that to be true. There are some things for which they are relativist for which they don't think they are "not living up to the standard."
quote:
What about absolutists that state that we cannot know exactly what the absolute standard is, but we can try to come up with a good model for it? How do we judge them to see if they are absolutists?
Same way as we judge everybody else: By their behaviour. If they don't follow a single standard, then they aren't absolutists. It doesn't matter whether they know what the standard is or not. If they don't follow the same process in every instance, then they are not absolutists.
quote:
Even if they are wrong in that there is no absolute moral standard or even if they behave as if there were no absolute moral standard...they can still hold the position that there is an absolute moral standard.
Not if they don't think it to be true. And we can find that out simply by examining their behaviour. If they don't actually hold to that standard, then they don't actually think there is an absolute moral standard.
That's what's known as "hypocrisy."

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Modulous, posted 07-24-2007 3:34 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by ikabod, posted 07-24-2007 6:50 AM Rrhain has replied
 Message 129 by Modulous, posted 07-24-2007 7:26 AM Rrhain has replied

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 4493 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 128 of 219 (412212)
07-24-2007 6:50 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by Rrhain
07-24-2007 5:31 AM


Reality check
If they don't actually hold to that standard, then they don't actually think there is an absolute moral standard.
incorrect , i can think / belive there is a absolute moral standard , i can then chosse to behave immorally .. its called free will ...
others can belive in a absolute moral code , and can "belive" that they never break it , even if they do ..
people can belive in a religious code , totally and absolutely , and yet can behave at variance to that code ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Rrhain, posted 07-24-2007 5:31 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Rrhain, posted 07-27-2007 3:02 AM ikabod has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 129 of 219 (412214)
07-24-2007 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by Rrhain
07-24-2007 5:31 AM


Re: Oh, Christ...not again
No, I don't. It's an abstraction: It doesn't matter what A, B, and C are. Just that they're different.
If you don't explain what A,B and C are in the context of this discussion I don't see the relevance to the topic.
You mean you really don't know?
If you're just going to play dumb, there really is no point in continuing.
That's right, I really don't know. If you think I'm playing dumb and that means there is no point - then stop continuing.
That's because the inquiry into the diversification of life upon this planet is legitimate and various attempts to explain that diversification can be legitimately examined.
And exploring human sexuality and marriage contracts is legitimate, isn't it?
The conjugation of Spanish verbs is not an explanation for the diversification of life on this planet.
Agreed.
Not if they don't think it to be true. And we can find that out simply by examining their behaviour. If they don't actually hold to that standard, then they don't actually think there is an absolute moral standard.
That's what's known as "hypocrisy."
Yes - are you suggesting that people always adhere to their own personal code of morality? I know I don't - but that doesn't mean I don't have a code of morality. Let us say my morality is known as Modulism. Modulism says that the moral thing to do is maximise happiness throughout all of humanity. If I do something selfish that reduces happiness - does that mean I do not think the moral thing to do is maximise happiness? No - it means I did something that I accept is immoral.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Rrhain, posted 07-24-2007 5:31 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Rrhain, posted 07-27-2007 2:56 AM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 130 of 219 (412283)
07-24-2007 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by PaulK
07-24-2007 4:49 AM


This is the first time you've given a reference to a specific thread - I certainly didn't know it was "the Haggard thread" you were talking about. And if someone is making vague comments now the answer is not to go diving into the archives in the hope of finding some explanation somewhere. If NJ had provided a clear reference in place of simply answering then I would not be complaining - but that's not the case. Trawling the archives is not the same as following a link or even being given the name of a thread (and even searching a thread can be something of a chore, even with the 300 post limit)
I think I understand the confusion now. You replied to a comment from cavediver who was replying to Rrhain who was discussing previous threads with me. Rrhain and I were operating on the assumption that we knew what had happened in previous threads without the need to continue explicitly mentioning them since it was a spillover from other threads.
He's been vague in this thread and the other threads run at the same time. And you haven't been pointing at anywhere specific. Just because he has bene more specific at some time in the past is no excuse for refusing to explain himself with anything other than denials.
I've only seen him bring up the bestiality related argument once in this thread (edit twice) I thought that was fairly clear and specific:
No, you have it all backwards. I am saying, and Modulous has clarified, that if there is no good reason to consider homosexuality immoral, then there is no good reason to think that beastiality, pedophilia, incest is immoral by the same relativistic reasoning. Whether my argument is only that God has concluded it, or that nature abhors the unnatural, or any other derivative of the argument, I am curious to know your reasoning on why homosexuality is okay, but the others are not. Because you seem to have no reason, whatsoever, to come to the conclusions you've made.
Since absolutism isn't the primary topic here, I don't think nemesis has to justify why his God has chosen to command against the two. Even if it was - nemesis should have no problem with shrugging his shoulders. It's God's rule - take it up with him. If no believey God: take it up with 'Moses'.
The only objectionable thing there is that it isn't really true.
Quite probable. I don't claim absolute knowledge. I have asked various people to point to other examples, to little avail. Perhaps someone on the ground might throw me a bone at some point - up here on the ivory tower we sometimes get out of touch.
edit: I did a google search of EvC and found another couple of other threads it came up in, one was a spillover from the marriage thread (or rather the moderation thread in which the issue was raised again). He seemed to be saying the same things in the other threads and I don't see any vagueness there either.
Well you disagreed with me when I said that the connection was that there was nothing actually wrong with either.
Did I? I missed that, sorry.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by PaulK, posted 07-24-2007 4:49 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by PaulK, posted 07-24-2007 1:24 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 131 of 219 (412320)
07-24-2007 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Hyroglyphx
07-19-2007 7:00 PM


What relativism is not
Now, lets say that this judge is deciding to up the ante a bit in order to set an example. He is sick and tired of Westerner's coming to his country and spitting on their soil. But Westerner's just keep on doing it. So, for future deterence, the punishment is now being caned to death....Are you going to stand by laurels or are you going to hypocritically cave in to spare your own life?
I'm not sure how one would hypocritically cave in here. I would argue that the fair thing to do would be to only punish those that had been made aware of the penalty (due to its disproportionality) that each case should be searched for its merits, that mitigating factors should should be brought into judgement etc etc.
That is because death penalty for spitting is an immoral thing relative to my moral system, which was partly handed to me by the way my society does things (Culture). I would not argue that this criminal justice system is an invalid way to structure and regulate social interaction, just that there are other ways that achieve those same ends that are more efficient. For instance: Do not allow people in who are on pleasure trips unless they have explicitly accepted and understood the odd capital crimes in the country. That would probably dent tourism, and if they were still so bothered about the practice they could just limit the number of people coming in entirely.
However - if I'd gone there knowing it was a capital crime to spit on the floor, then spitting on the floor would be essentially suicide. I'd have nobody to blame but myself. I'd try and change their minds about optimum ways of achieving the same goals.
What is the meaning of justice without an absolute truth? There is no right or wrong.
There is right and wrong in moral relativism, the thing is - there is no absolute truth value that can be placed on moral statements. One thing can be wrong to you, but right to me. That's relative morality - not that there is no right and wrong, but that there is no way to know whose right and wrong is 'true' - they both share the same level of validity.
Justice works the same way. What is justice in my country might not be seen as justice in your country. For instance: arresting somebody without telling them what for, keeping them without access to a lawyer, trying them without telling them what the evidence is, and sentencing them to life imprisonment might be seen as just by some people in the US, but not everybody considers that justice.
Now - everybody considers their version of justice to be the right version, the fairest and the most practical. Whose is right? As it turns out - a system is usually placed to be the arbiter on what is right and just and we call them judges. On their own they represent absolute judge on justice - what is right and what is unfair. However, judges rarely act as the final final authority. Several judges might end up being asked to make a decision. Perhaps majority rules, or perhaps a hierarchy is established with checks and balances in place or whatever.
Either way - justice is whatever you mean it to be. There is no absolute standard of what is just and what is not and we can function perfectly well without pretending there is. We function fine without being able to divine what that perfect system is.
Final thought on this: Life is unjust. Some humans have tried to help make it more just, as just as possible. But villains can sometimes prosper and the virtuous can die alone and in poverty. What is the meaning of justice you ask? The meaning is what as a society choose it to mean, it means what we as individuals choose it to mean.
You can't trust other people's judgments, much less, your own thoughts. You are a vessel tossed about in a sea of disorder.
One always has to critically examine one's own thoughts and moral systems all the time - that's part of humility. You can trust them - but you should always be prepared to be wrong in thought.
And so you see yourself as water-- fluid, undulating-- never staying in the same spot, never able to identify itself with it surroundings.
People grow, people change. Someone once said "some minds are like concrete: all mixed up and permanently set". That I strive to not be like this should not be regarded as a vice. A Republican senator once said "Life is not a static thing. The only people who do not change their minds are incompetents in asylums, who can't, and those in cemeteries."
You are neither here nor there.
You are always here, and the relativit admits that there is also a 'there' and that 'there' is just another 'here' for those that are there.
Is this what life is? Is this all that it is? Do my own feelings betray me? Oh, I am utterly lost because I'm anchored by nothing-- the very thing I wanted to believe about life.... That its nothing.
Kant had this same kind of reasoning (although obviously better (and more) worded). Rationalism, he argued, reduces to nihilism. However, it is not moral nihilism since that holds that normative moral statements are false. This is in contrast to moral relativism which holds that one cannot say that a normative moral statement is either true or false.
There is no point of reference.
Is once again an incorrect statement of moral relativism but more akin to moral nihilism. The relativist does not say there is no point of reference but rather that there are multiple valid points of reference. Absolutism is that there is only one valid point of reference, rejection of this does not mean relativists accept there are no points of reference at all.
Because without truth, there is nothing.
Moral relativism simply says that there is no absolute moral truth but there are relative truths. It does not say that there is nothing. Compare it to the theory of relativity. The statement "I am travelling at 5m/s" has no truth value on its own. It is neither true nor false. However, if we give a point of reference "I am travelling at 5 m/s, relative to the earth", we can give it a truth value. Relativity argues there is no absolute frame of reference, and that all frames of reference must be described relative to another frame of reference.
The theory of relativity does not argue there is no such thing as velocity, just that there is no absolute definition of a thing's velocity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-19-2007 7:00 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-24-2007 1:13 PM Modulous has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 132 of 219 (412337)
07-24-2007 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by PaulK
07-24-2007 3:16 AM


Listen to what I am saying, as opposed to hearing what you want to hear
You're the one arguing that we can look for specific explanations in some other thread. But if all you can say is that there is some vague link and nobody - not even NJ - has actually used it as a direct reference in the course of discussion - there really isn't much there. Maybe you expect everyone to go diving into the archives to try to find the right posts in the right thread but I don't see that as reasonable.
Modulous and AdminPD have been gracious enough to post three separate threads where I made a similar argument. The undeniable fact is that I have remained absolutely consistent in those themes, all in different time frames.
Listen to me, please. When I brought up beastiality, incest, pedophilia, or whatever else, in a context of homosexuality, it was always from a reference from a moral position.
The argument I've made is this: how can you say that homosexuality is perfectly acceptable, while maintaining that incest or pedophilia is not, all the while defending moral relativism?
Why am I considered a "bigot," when
The answer is that you can't without compromising one or both positions. Its a lesson in futility-- one that apparently quite a few still haven't learned.
What I see as completely vague about his comparison between homosexuality and bestiality is the link that justifies his argument. He won't explain what it is.
The ENTIRE point of the argument is that you, as a relativist, cannot defend both positions philosophically without contradicting those beliefs. How has this flown over everyone's head? Seriously. I'm absolutely mystified.
Secondly, how is it that people can say that I can't use beastiality, either in an argument on morals or nature, because the sexuality of animals and humans are too different. Yet, these are the same people who have no problem pointing out that homosexual unions are found within nature, and use that as a justification that extends to humans.
I shouldn't have to belabor the obvious by pointing out how its completely contradictory.

"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by PaulK, posted 07-24-2007 3:16 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by jar, posted 07-24-2007 1:14 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 136 by PaulK, posted 07-24-2007 1:42 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 149 by kongstad, posted 07-24-2007 5:12 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 164 by Tusko, posted 07-27-2007 6:48 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 133 of 219 (412345)
07-24-2007 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Modulous
07-24-2007 11:48 AM


Relativism and multiculturalism clash
I would argue that the fair thing to do would be to only punish those that had been made aware of the penalty
But what does fairness mean without some solid, unyielding standard that you expect others to intrinsically know and follow?
That is because death penalty for spitting is an immoral thing relative to my moral system, which was partly handed to me by the way my society does things (Culture).
I thank you for mentioning this because right before I got suspended, I was going to bring up how moral relativism and multiculturalism clash.
You say on the one hand that being executed for spitting on the ground is immoral, according to your culture. However, you are now in another culture with its own set of social mores. Spitting on the ground, ofr them, is like you desecrating everything they view as scum to be trodden under foot.
Who then is right? Are we entitled to different opinions equally?
I have recently been reading a few books by English authors who are saying that they are having a very difficult time reconciling the irreconcilable.
One author gives an instance where a young Indian girl is scheduled to be married by her parents. She, of course, is left bereft and in terrible anguish. She rebels and the parents physically imprison her within their home. The English authorities have a big problem on their hand.
Their own cherished beliefs say that every one is entitled to lead their lives. But, they also have a cherished belief that we should honor other cultures. Besides, getting involved might give them the impression that they are racists. But by the same token, a young girl is being held against her will.
Without an absolute standard to rely on, which is the morally correct action to take, and which isn't? Seeing that despite them choosing one or the other, the authorities are going to have to compromise one of their positions.
quote:
What is the meaning of justice without an absolute truth? There is no right or wrong.
There is right and wrong in moral relativism, the thing is - there is no absolute truth value that can be placed on moral statements.
Then do you believe that truth, as an absolute, can ever be established? Or are we to find ourselves as human beings to be perpetually in a stalemate situation?
One thing can be wrong to you, but right to me. That's relative morality - not that there is no right and wrong, but that there is no way to know whose right and wrong is 'true' - they both share the same level of validity.
Then it does boil down to mere opinion. In which case, my castigation for being called a bigot is completely unfounded as it attempts to foist one opinion above another.
Either way - justice is whatever you mean it to be. There is no absolute standard
The argument could be made that we all operate under the assumption that no true moral authority could be made because of our moral relativism. But that would only mean that we are not following an absolute, not the negation of its existance. Indeed, my whole argument is premised upon the notion that without an absolute standard, this is what we inevitably resort to-- in which case, we undermine our own sense of justice.
Final thought on this: Life is unjust.
The only way for life to be unjust is if we have in mind a sense of what justice should look like in an absolute sense. See, this is my problem. You can't make such pronouncements without contradicting yourself. (I don't mean, you, necessarily. I'm saying that is the inevitable conclusion philosophically).
quote:
Is this what life is? Is this all that it is? Do my own feelings betray me? Oh, I am utterly lost because I'm anchored by nothing-- the very thing I wanted to believe about life.... That its nothing.
Kant had this same kind of reasoning (although obviously better (and more) worded). Rationalism, he argued, reduces to nihilism. However, it is not moral nihilism since that holds that normative moral statements are false. This is in contrast to moral relativism which holds that one cannot say that a normative moral statement is either true or false.
I see it as nihilism. Because if we are all formulating our own opinions on the matter, what we are really acquiescing to, is that, Truth® claims can only be made in light of us only knowing that Truth within ourselves.
Nihilists believe that there is no justification for any knowledge claims. They believe that nothing can truly be known with any sort of veracity. It should not take long, however, to see the flaw in their basic premise. How can the nihilist even purport such a claim if he hasn’t the ability to know that knowledge is unattainable?
If nothing can be verified, then he should not offer any solutions, being that, it means nothing. What I mean to say is, if knowledge or truth is unattainable altogether, then what gives him the reason to question my truth?
Similarly, the one who holds fast to the solipsist argument believes that the self is the only verifiable thing anyone could know. Ironically, these are often the same people who will argue with you for hours about reality, and what’s more, morality. If they are only able to acquaint themselves with reality, strictly through themselves, then what is their justification for criticizing my reality? If they do not know if there is even knowledge apart from themselves, then what are they arguing about?
It is this kind of illogic that unwittingly pits the philosopher against his own beliefs. Is it not absurd and contradictory that nihilists know that knowledge is impossible? I think we can safely say, yes. This is just one example of how the epistemology of relativism is constantly at ends with itself.

"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Modulous, posted 07-24-2007 11:48 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Modulous, posted 07-24-2007 4:34 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 134 of 219 (412346)
07-24-2007 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Hyroglyphx
07-24-2007 12:34 PM


Re: Listen to what I am saying, as opposed to hearing what you want to hear
Why am I considered a "bigot," when
1. Morals are merely an opinion.
2. How can you possibly distinguish which is good, and which isn't, while holding to a relative standard?
No one has said morals are simply an opinion. You distinguish good and bad by comparison with other events.
But none of that has to do with morality.
Why do you keep misrepresenting what anyone says?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-24-2007 12:34 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-24-2007 2:19 PM jar has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 135 of 219 (412347)
07-24-2007 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Modulous
07-24-2007 10:07 AM


I find Rrhain's recent posts rather ranty so I tend to skim those.
quote:
Since absolutism isn't the primary topic here, I don't think nemesis has to justify why his God has chosen to command against the two. Even if it was - nemesis should have no problem with shrugging his shoulders. It's God's rule - take it up with him. If no believey God: take it up with 'Moses'.
I guess you still don't understand my point. NJ is explicitly arguing that unless you think that homosexuality is immoral you shouldn't think that the other things on the list are immoral either. But there has to be some basis for this argument. And if it isn't that the various behaviours are so similar that the same objections must apply to each or that there is no good reason to forbid any of them it must be based on an understanding of the reasons WHY they should be banned. So if he shrugs his shoulders and says "I dunno" he's saying that his argument is unfounded since he doesn't know of any basis for it.
quote:
Quite probable. I don't claim absolute knowledge. I have asked various people to point to other examples, to little avail. Perhaps someone on the ground might throw me a bone at some point - up here on the ivory tower we sometimes get out of touch.
Have a look at the earlier posts in the Haggard thread again. Archer Opteryx points out that Iano regards Jar wanting Hovind to get the sentence he's earned as far worse than Haggard taking crystal meth and paying a male prostitute for gay sex.... Talk about subjective morality !
Anyway looking at the thread it looks like NJ's argument is that non-absolute morals should be ignored. And he's ignoring all the refutations, including my point that in saying that he's arguing for nihilism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Modulous, posted 07-24-2007 10:07 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Modulous, posted 07-24-2007 4:51 PM PaulK has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024