Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Dictatorship of Relativism
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 1 of 17 (463461)
04-17-2008 12:54 PM


Yes, I know that I am not going to be posting for a while. But something was in the news which reminded me of the positions of certain posters here. I thought I'd mention it... since it is in the news... and maybe it would generate some interesting debate among posters (even if not me).
The pope came into town (well the US) and was greeted by Bush. The two of them have something in common: they despise relativism...
Bush also said Americans should see Benedict's U.S. tour as a reminder to "distinguish between simple right and wrong."
"We need your message to reject this dictatorship of relativism and embrace a culture of justice and truth," Bush said. "In a world where some see freedom as simply the right to do as they wish, we need your message that true liberty requires us to live our freedom not just for ourselves."
Leaving aside the error that relativists do not have to believe freedom means living just for oneself, and the question of whether a president should be putting down relativist Americans in such a condescending fashion (that is promoting a religion), I would like to address this concept of relativism being dictatorial... adverse to freedom... that he and the pope share.
What amuses me to some extent is that liberal posters at EvC find themselves in such august company as Bush and Pope (ol' B&P). Yeah, that's a cheap guilt by association shot. But right is right! Right?
Heheheh. The fact is that absolutism is what led to the very conflicts which drove our founding fathers to create the nation they did. In a diverse society, a nation capable of sustaining itself, and an internal freedom for all, had to embrace tolerance which means... relativism. The first amendment was the verbal formulation renouncing absolutism, or at the very least removing gov't as the arbiter of absolutes.
The point was that people have various concepts of what is right and wrong, or worthy/unworthy in life, and so happiness and stability is maximized within a population when all are able to pursue what makes THEM happy, even if it is offensive/undesirable to others.
Hence, freedom and liberty and tolerance go hand in hand as a product of relativism. Dictatorships have and always will be the product of intolerant absolutism, essentially by definition. The switch around B&P make is a "black is white" reformulation of reality like "work makes freedom" posted on concentration camps.
For those that believe relativism is so awful, can you explain how it is bad... in the sense of leading to dictatorships and intolerance? And for those who are absolutists, are B&P not correct as to what is absolutely true? If not, why not, and how can anyone tell?
Another interesting quote from the article was...
Adela Arguello, a Department of Homeland Security worker from Miami, was touched. "We're living in very terrible times and any message like this is important," she said. "He needed to come."
We are living in terrible times such that a message of absolutism is important? WTF? The troubled times we are living in is the direct result of a clash between three absolutist religious sects, vying for domination of the planet.
But here is the punchline for me. B&P promote this absolutist line, and yet...
Bush and Benedict share much common ground, particularly in opposing abortion, gay marriage and embryonic stem cell research.
But they disagree over the war in Iraq, the death penalty and the U.S. trade embargo against Cuba. Benedict also speaks for environmental protection and social welfare in ways that run counter to Bush policies.
So what is absolute? How do we know? And how is imposition of most of these things not dictatorial?
Food for thought, and discussion.

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Grizz, posted 04-17-2008 7:43 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 10 by Chiroptera, posted 04-18-2008 7:40 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 16 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-13-2008 1:40 AM Silent H has not replied

  
Grizz
Member (Idle past 5470 days)
Posts: 318
Joined: 06-08-2007


Message 2 of 17 (463502)
04-17-2008 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
04-17-2008 12:54 PM


Bush and Benedict share much common ground, particularly in opposing abortion, gay marriage and embryonic stem cell research.
But they disagree over the war in Iraq, the death penalty and the U.S. trade embargo against Cuba. Benedict also speaks for environmental protection and social welfare in ways that run counter to Bush policies.
So what is absolute? How do we know? And how is imposition of most of these things not dictatorial?
Food for thought, and discussion.
The problem is this absolute code has never been completely defined in such a way that two parties will always apply it consistently.
Most Christians will read the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" as "Thou shalt not murder".
People will then start asking more complex questions such as, "is it ok if innocent people die while trying to get at the guy that has it coming? When is it acceptable and when is it not?"
One party might believe it is a morally acceptable proposition that innocent civilians will perish in the course of getting at those who wish to do us harm. Another other party will conclude it is not morally acceptable.
Who is right and who is wrong? Different strokes for different folks - situational ethics.
"Thou shalt not steal" - Is it morally acceptable to steal food if one is starving and has no recourse to any other option?
So, we can see that the absolute moral code may be universal, but not always binding? It is no longer absolute.
The problem with a divine moral code such as the Ten Commandments is not its content or universality, as anyone can proclaim any arbitrary universal moral code. The problem is such a code will never include a specific universal blueprint detailing how it should be applied in various situations. We are never given any information as to what conditions, if any, will negate its absolute context and make it morally(?) acceptable for the code to be broken.
In this sense, I would not consider the code to be absolute, as it is applied differently by different people and is relative to the situations and circumstances.
This is what your are seeing here between Bush and Benedict. I would call it situational ethics disguised as a universal absolute, as is the case with all universal codes of 'divine' origins.
A more accurate wording for the Fifth Commadnment would thus be:
"Taking innocent life is wrong, but it is sometimes OK to kill people as long as they have it coming, or if they are in the way of the guy that has it coming. I will let you be the judge on this. Try to do your best and its not your fault if you make the wrong choice."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 04-17-2008 12:54 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Silent H, posted 04-17-2008 8:19 PM Grizz has replied
 Message 4 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-17-2008 8:54 PM Grizz has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 3 of 17 (463508)
04-17-2008 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Grizz
04-17-2008 7:43 PM


Just to let people know, I will be free till about midnight tonight to be answering questions. Then the window will close for I'm not sure how long. Of course, and perhaps unfortunately, I'm taking this free time to become inebriated so my answers may not be perfect.
To your answer, you know I really like you and sort of wish you'd been a member earlier. I agree with your analysis. I think they are actually advancing situational ethics... and they have different formulas for the situations.
But I want to raise the particular issue with you which is what I wanted to drive at within the OP. They have both posited relativism as being a dictatorial force within the world, Ratz (da pope) having done so at length in earlier writings.
Isn't modern democracy, and tolerance in general, based on relativist principles... not absolutism? How can relativism fall to dictatorial extremes?
In this way I am sort of channeling Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, and Harris on atheism, which is also accused of leading to atrocities and dictatorships. Relativism by its very nature (at least when adopted by governments) appears to advocate acceptance and so tolerance of other cultures, rather than dogma and enforcement of singular ideals.
It seems to me absolutists, desperate to fend off rational attacks on their position, have simply pronounced the opposite of reality.
What do you think?
By the way if this is in any way incoherent, keep in mind that I am at least 1 to 2 sheets to the wind. We'll see if I can match Hitchens on this bit.

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Grizz, posted 04-17-2008 7:43 PM Grizz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Grizz, posted 04-18-2008 2:50 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 4 of 17 (463513)
04-17-2008 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Grizz
04-17-2008 7:43 PM


Grizz have you ever thought of taking up politics yourself, you sound just like one in all of your post. You never seem to take a position on anything, just kinda middle of the road on everything on and every topic.
The problem is this absolute code has never been completely defined in such a way that two parties will always apply it consistently.
And ofcourse this would make an absolute code and an supreme being and impossibility, because people cannot agree on things.
Most Christians will read the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" as "Thou shalt not murder".
People will then start asking more complex questions such as, "is it ok if innocent people die while trying to get at the guy that has it coming? When is it acceptable and when is it not?"
And ofcourse absolute right and wrong cannot exist because people will have different opinions. Tell me Grizz, is it wrong to cut off a mans hand when he steals something. Remembering that you are the absolute standard of right and wrong.
"Thou shalt not steal" - Is it morally acceptable to steal food if one is starving and has no recourse to any other option?
Well ofcourse it is if you are going to set yourself or someone else up as the standard.
The problem with a divine moral code such as the Ten Commandments is not its content or universality, as anyone can proclaim any arbitrary universal moral code. The problem is such a code will never include a specific universal blueprint detailing how it should be applied in various situations. We are never given any information as to what conditions, if any, will negate its absolute context and make it morally(?) acceptable for the code to be broken.
The blueprint you request is contained in the same book that gives the commandments themselves. Are there not details in the levitical law that distinquish between accidental death and murder, etc. Further, Why would there be conditions to break an absolute law given to man by God?
grizz rewrites the fifth commandment.
"Taking innocent life is wrong, but it is sometimes OK to kill people as long as they have it coming, or if they are in the way of the guy that has it coming. I will let you be the judge on this. Try to do your best and its not your fault if you make the wrong choice."
Except for a couple of things here, you pretty much set out what is already in the scriptures, explained in the rest of the texts.
grizz, you remind me of Dathan in the Bible. No matter what he saw, no matter what God did through Moses he was always complaining, always the NAY SAYER.
See ya,
D Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Grizz, posted 04-17-2008 7:43 PM Grizz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Grizz, posted 04-17-2008 9:12 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 7 by Blue Jay, posted 04-17-2008 9:38 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Grizz
Member (Idle past 5470 days)
Posts: 318
Joined: 06-08-2007


Message 5 of 17 (463516)
04-17-2008 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Dawn Bertot
04-17-2008 8:54 PM


Grizz have you ever thought of taking up politics yourself, you sound just like one in all of your post. You never seem to take a position on anything, just kinda middle of the road on everything on and every topic.
I try to remain somewhat objective and am open to debate.
And ofcourse absolute right and wrong cannot exist because people will have different opinions. Tell me Grizz, is it wrong to cut off a mans hand when he steals something.
In Iran, yes, In the US, no.
The blueprint you request is contained in the same book that gives the commandments themselves. Are there not details in the levitical law that distinquish between accidental death and murder, etc. Further, Why would there be conditions to break an absolute law given to man by God?
Then it would never be morally acceptable to steal food, even when the option would be starvation and death? When dealing with absolutes, either stealing is always wrong or it is always right. If it is conditional, then it is not absolute.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-17-2008 8:54 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-17-2008 9:37 PM Grizz has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 6 of 17 (463523)
04-17-2008 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Grizz
04-17-2008 9:12 PM


Then it would never be morally acceptable to steal food, even when the option would be starvation and death? When dealing with absolutes, either stealing is always wrong or it is always right. If it is conditional, then it is not absolute.
You are ABSOLUTLEY correct here. But God does not judge us anymore on the Law that condemes, because no one could be justified by it because no one except Christ kept it fully. We are under Grace now, while still trying to keep Gods laws. Its Gods absolute law buffered by the grace of Christ.
Thanks
D Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Grizz, posted 04-17-2008 9:12 PM Grizz has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 7 of 17 (463524)
04-17-2008 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Dawn Bertot
04-17-2008 8:54 PM


I know Grizz is fully capable of answering for himself (and is probably formulating his own response as I write), but I wanted to get my two bits in also.
bertot writes:
And ofcourse this would make an absolute code and an supreme being and impossibility, because people cannot agree on things.
This is a mutilation of what he said. He said the code can never be written in such a way that all ambiguities are erased and that it can only be interpreted in a single way. And, he's right: lawyers have very fancy, codified language that they use in writing up legal documents and contracts to avoid ambiguity, and there still manages to always be two sides to any court case--prosecution and defense.
In other words, Grizz's point doesn't rule out an absolute code or a supreme being, but it does rule out homogeneous implementation of any absolute code that is put forth (because of varying interpretations, opinions and understandings of that code).
bertot writes:
Well ofcourse it is if you are going to set yourself or someone else up as the standard.
Who should we set up as the standard, then? Christ? I'm Christian, and I would answer "yes," but I have friends in Taiwan who prefer Buddha or Confucius. How could we objectively make the decision that Christ is superior to Buddha as a moral guide? If the lot fell on Buddha, would you consider the resulting moral code to be a valid way to govern all social interactions? The people in China would.
How would that be any different from if the lot fell on Christ?
bertot writes:
The blueprint you request is contained in the same book that gives the commandments themselves. Are there not details in the levitical law...
As far as I know, the Mosaic Law isn't really being followed by any society today (even the Jews have backed off a bit). And this is major evidence of Grizz's point (i.e. that moral codes are not usually implemented the same by different parties).
bertot writes:
Are there not details in the levitical law that distinquish between accidental death and murder, etc. Further, Why would there be conditions to break an absolute law given to man by God?
Because, for example, God said "thou shalt not kill" in Exodus, then later, in Leviticus, felt it necessary to distinguish between cases when killing was wrong and when it wasn't, as you just said the sentence before.
Edited by Bluejay, : Added "to avoid ambiguity"

I'm Thylacosmilus.
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-17-2008 8:54 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-18-2008 5:51 PM Blue Jay has not replied
 Message 12 by Grizz, posted 04-19-2008 12:57 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Grizz
Member (Idle past 5470 days)
Posts: 318
Joined: 06-08-2007


Message 8 of 17 (463582)
04-18-2008 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Silent H
04-17-2008 8:19 PM


But I want to raise the particular issue with you which is what I wanted to drive at within the OP. They have both posited relativism as being a dictatorial force within the world, Ratz (da pope) having done so at length in earlier writings.
Isn't modern democracy, and tolerance in general, based on relativist principles... not absolutism? How can relativism fall to dictatorial extremes?
In this way I am sort of channeling Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, and Harris on atheism, which is also accused of leading to atrocities and dictatorships. Relativism by its very nature (at least when adopted by governments) appears to advocate acceptance and so tolerance of other cultures, rather than dogma and enforcement of singular ideals.
It seems to me absolutists, desperate to fend off rational attacks on their position, have simply pronounced the opposite of reality.
What do you think?
We need to make a distinction between civil, religious, and moral law. The differences between these vary wildly across societies regardless of whether or not they share things in common in any one of these categories. For most societies, how we should behave and govern ourselves is not only based on an appeal to morals, but also to practical and utilitarian considerations. Should we live in a Democracy or Monarchy? Should the Government stay out of the business of regulating religion and morals? Should people be able to publicly profess views that might anger or incite others(see the story in France about Bridget Bardot being prosecuted for defaming Islam in her new book)?
When looking at the differences in specific positions between Bush and Benedict, it is easy to view these differences as a battle of these all-encompassed world-views rather than a battle over the absolute nature of morality. It is 'American Capitalist Christians Values' vs 'Papal Socialist Christian Values'.
The absolute moral code is kind of nebulous and hidden somewhere in the background of these amalgamations. It will be brought out as the trump card if, for instance, an American Democratic Agnostic/Atheist proposes something or runs for office. When pressed for details of this code we will be given the usual list- respect for life, equality, etc. As stated earlier, an instructional kit detailing the proper application of the code is never included inside the box - it is kind of just thrown at us.
In a way, we are all absolutist in the sense that we believe there is one way man should go about his business - whether that entails the freedom to live encumbered by any appeal to universal morality or the belief that there is one universal code that man should be subject to. As with the Pope and Bush, we often contradict ourselves in the process. These are pretty complex issues that will always be around and philosophers have been debating them for millennia. It comes with the territory of living in a pluralistic society.
I would agree that adherence to a religiously mandated universal code does lead to discrimination and social ostracization in many situations for individuals whose lives fall outside the realm of this code(for example -- homosexuals, single mothers, atheists, agnostics, and even those not considered part of the majority religion). The majority consensus rules in the political arena and these views are often taken into the voting booth. Personally, I see the term 'Moral Relativism' as something that has become more of a political catch-phrase than anything else. It is used primarily as a tool to demonize the opposition by insinuating that moral relativism=moral free zone.
So in a sense, yes, I would aggree the American-Christian-Absolutist position holds somewhat of a dictatorship in the voting booths by the reason of majority. It is also inherently discriminatory in its view of people of differing faiths and world views. That is the nature of the system, however, and as it is their right to believe as they wish, there is not much the minority can do about it accept let their vote be heard and, through example and dialogue, show the majority that relatvists are not savage, depraved beasts who lack morals or ethics. I don't think anyobdy out there is is asking for a society without values, morals, or laws.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Silent H, posted 04-17-2008 8:19 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 9 of 17 (463609)
04-18-2008 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Blue Jay
04-17-2008 9:38 PM


Bluejay writes
Because, for example, God said "thou shalt not kill" in Exodus, then later, in Leviticus, felt it necessary to distinguish between cases when killing was wrong and when it wasn't, as you just said the sentence before.
Bluejay, respectfully, I think it is ironic you accuse me of mutilating some point of Grizz, when it appears you understood most to nothing of what I was saying. I am busy on another thread, but I will get back to this.
Thanks
D Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Blue Jay, posted 04-17-2008 9:38 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 17 (463619)
04-18-2008 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
04-17-2008 12:54 PM


I would like to address this concept of relativism being dictatorial... adverse to freedom... that he and the pope share.
Well, first a couple of thoughts: first, Bush is a moron, so it's not surprising that what he says is nonsense. To quote a long ago cartoon, I'm not even sure whether Bush realizes that the sounds that come out of his mouth are a form of communication.
Second, Bush is a politician. Politicians make their living composing sound-bites -- strings of words that ultimately don't mean anything sensible but sound pretty. Conservatives especially seem to think that putting several sound bites together constitutes reasoned argument.
But aside from that, there are those that do feel that relativists are dictatorial in that they think that relativists demand that everyone be a relativist, and will force this type of conformity of thought if given the chance.
I suspect that Bush's sound bite was composed to appeal to this crowd.

Speaking personally, I find few things more awesome than contemplating this vast and majestic process of evolution, the ebb and flow of successive biotas through geological time. Creationists and others who cannot for ideological or religious reasons accept the fact of evolution miss out a great deal, and are left with a claustrophobic little universe in which nothing happens and nothing changes.
-- M. Alan Kazlev

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 04-17-2008 12:54 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Grizz, posted 04-19-2008 12:14 PM Chiroptera has not replied
 Message 13 by Silent H, posted 04-19-2008 2:12 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
Grizz
Member (Idle past 5470 days)
Posts: 318
Joined: 06-08-2007


Message 11 of 17 (463722)
04-19-2008 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Chiroptera
04-18-2008 7:40 PM


But aside from that, there are those that do feel that relativists are dictatorial in that they think that relativists demand that everyone be a relativist, and will force this type of conformity of thought if given the chance.
The political pundits have done a very good job of trying to convince the majority that the goal of the relativist is to create a society free of moral values.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Chiroptera, posted 04-18-2008 7:40 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Grizz
Member (Idle past 5470 days)
Posts: 318
Joined: 06-08-2007


Message 12 of 17 (463730)
04-19-2008 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Blue Jay
04-17-2008 9:38 PM


This is a mutilation of what he said. He said the code can never be written in such a way that all ambiguities are erased and that it can only be interpreted in a single way. And, he's right: lawyers have very fancy, codified language that they use in writing up legal documents and contracts to avoid ambiguity, and there still manages to always be two sides to any court case--prosecution and defense.
In other words, Grizz's point doesn't rule out an absolute code or a supreme being, but it does rule out homogeneous implementation of any absolute code that is put forth (because of varying interpretations, opinions and understandings of that code).
That pretty much sums it up.
I would also add that most religions have inferred the existence of a universal moral code from the specific social and civic prohibitions supplied by divine revelation.
The Ten Commandments are basically an instructional booklet on how to conduct oneself. It also should be noted that many of these commandments are found in any society in existence, regardless of their religious and political affiliations. Any society that wishes to stay afloat for long certainly must have prohibitions and consequences for acts such as stealing, murder, etc
The line becomes blurred and conflict usually arises when dealing with other aspects of human and social existence, such as sexuality and the role of religion in the political arena. What does the universal moral code have to offer in these areas? Again, the code will be inferred from specific prohibitions contained in religious literature.
The absolute moral code is never revealed verbatim, just the specific prohibitions. My opinion, already supplied, is that one can never infer there is an absolute right and wrong from the prohibitions, since the application and interpretation of these may vary in different situations and under different conditions. Is it always morally wrong to steal? Is it always morally wrong to take life?
Related to the OP, the conflict in society comes about when one affiliation wishes to dictate to the entire society what is absolutely right and what is absolutely wrong.
The absolutist holds that somewhere behind the scenes of the specific prohibitions there actually exists an absolute moral code that does not vary in any situation and is not open to interpretation. The absolutist will then take a stab at what this code is and it becomes dogma. The absolutist will then attempt to apply this dogmatic code to all people, all places, and all situations.
The Relativist is not calling for an end to moral values, nor is the relativist calling for an end to those laws which are necessary for a society to function. The goal is also not to dictate to others how they should form their conscience and morals. The relativist is simply stating their belief that those areas that are nebulous and thus open to interpretation are relative to a culture and society and are often very personal. One should not attempt to try to impose any universal code or dictate to each individual or society how they should conduct themselves in these matters.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Blue Jay, posted 04-17-2008 9:38 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 13 of 17 (463737)
04-19-2008 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Chiroptera
04-18-2008 7:40 PM


Politicians make their living composing sound-bites -- strings of words that ultimately don't mean anything sensible but sound pretty. Conservatives especially seem to think that putting several sound bites together constitutes reasoned argument.
Just to let you know, it was Ratz which came up with the phrase dictatorship of relativism. He used it back in 2005. My thought is that Bush's speech writers decided to add it in for a nice sound byte + a plug that ol Ratzy would enjoy.
relativists are dictatorial in that they think that relativists demand that everyone be a relativist, and will force this type of conformity of thought if given the chance.
Perhaps I will change my position's name to "realist", as it is reality there is no single absolute moral code, and no way to judge one code using another... except as preference.
Will they then maintain that realists demand everyone conform to reality, as if that's a bad thing?
The dictatorship of reality... if only.
I suspect that Bush's sound bite was composed to appeal to this crowd.
Yeah, but I get pissed off about it as an American. I don't need him telling me that a religious figure needs to teach me something, nor imply that my "kind" are out to subvert this nation.
I definitely will not vote Bush for a third term... Harumph!

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Chiroptera, posted 04-18-2008 7:40 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Chiroptera, posted 04-21-2008 8:45 PM Silent H has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 17 (463903)
04-21-2008 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Silent H
04-19-2008 2:12 PM


Hi, H. Sorry it's taken me so long to respond. I thought that other posts would be very quick, but it turns out that some of them were rather involved, leaving me with little energy to respond here.
I'm also not very sure what your intentions for this thread are. Excuse me while I try to push it in various directions. There are a number of moral absolutists around (as well as, as you pointed out, a number of absolutists who think that they are relativists), and so I think the whole topic tends to be interesting.
-
Just to let you know, it was Ratz which came up with the phrase dictatorship of relativism.
Heh. That pretty much is consistent with my thought that Bush isn't even original in his stupidity.
But the accusation is an old one -- I suspect that it predates Benny16 -- that the so-called relativists are intent on stifling peoples' free exercise of their moral conscience or to discuss right or wrong.
-
I agree that in general a moral absolutist would be interested in imposing her moral code on others whenever possible. However, I don't think such a thing is necessarily true for all absolutists. I think a great many absolutists (although too few, it would seem, these days) would recognize that even if there is some objective standard for ethics, they don't necessarily know how to apply it in every single particular instance. I think that in many instances, an absolutist would allow for incomplete knowledge of what this standard is, and allow some leeway in allowing people to come to their various conclusions.
The other point is that simple self-interest would caution against setting up mechanisms for the state to impose moral standards out of fear that the other side can then use them when they come to power. I think this was an opinion held by many of the founders of our nation, that one must keep the powers of the state limited since one can never be sure just who was going to eventually come to power.
-
In the same vein, being a relativist doesn't mean that one will accept anyone's moral standard as equal value. One can realize that morals are subjective and none are more "correct" than any other, but nonetheless decide that some are worth fighting for.
I mean, to be completely "consistent" (in this simple-minded sense) with relativism, one would have to be completely apathetic. Yet I would still intervene if I saw someone attacking someone else on the street -- knowing that the attacker's moral sense that he's completely justified in his attack is no better or no worse than the victim's moral sense that the attack is unwarranted or my sense that this is wrong. I would still call the police if not physically intervene if necessary.
In the same way, even though I refuse to say my morality is somehow "better" or "superior" to others', I would still not refrain from putting some restrictions on what can occur even in peoples' private homes, or from advocating universal standards of international justice and human rights.
On the other hand, I do think that a relativist would be more likely to "let and let live", at least within certain bounds. But I can see that a person might recognize that her ethical standards are purely arbitrary, but nonetheless feel so compelled to act on them that she ends up trying to regulate the minute behavior of other people around her. I can't think of any examples like this, but I don't see anything that would prevent such a thing from occurring.

Speaking personally, I find few things more awesome than contemplating this vast and majestic process of evolution, the ebb and flow of successive biotas through geological time. Creationists and others who cannot for ideological or religious reasons accept the fact of evolution miss out a great deal, and are left with a claustrophobic little universe in which nothing happens and nothing changes.
-- M. Alan Kazlev

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Silent H, posted 04-19-2008 2:12 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Silent H, posted 04-22-2008 12:30 AM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 15 of 17 (463925)
04-22-2008 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Chiroptera
04-21-2008 8:45 PM


No need to apologize. When I started the thread I wasn't even sure that I could post past that day. So my main intent was to point out that interesting item to provoke discussion of some kind. Where it went, I didn't really care.
For myself, I thought it was ironic how these two guys were mirroring commentary thrown at me by more than a few self-professed "liberals" and "enlightened" people at EvC. Relativists seem to catch more hate these days than atheists or gays. I just got done watching a clip from Hirsi Ali cheering the end of multiculturalism, with all these supposed free thinkers supporting her. Diversity sucks? Man I can't seem to get a break on anything I believe!
So I wanted, if one would dare, an explanation of how exactly relativism leads to such catastrophic lack of freedom. It seems as ridiculous a claim as evolutionary theory or atheism leads to the holocaust.
I think you just gave a pretty good break down of the issue overall. Not all absolutists would necessarily be able, or desire, to impose an absolute, even if they feel one exists. Likewise relativists can feel passionate about their morality, even while recognizing its arbitrary nature, and might even try to impose it.
My only thought is that in general, I think the tendency is for one group to do more imposing than another. This is especially true when using the state as an instrument of moral guidance/enforcement.
I'm sure it comes as no surprise that I'd agree the founders of the Constitution had that problem in mind. I don't seem to get much support around here when I point out that majorities shift, which is why we don't grant powers to the state to meddle in personal affairs. It cannot solve all our problems, and can screw things up. You'd think going from Reagan, to Clinton, to Bush Jr would give some people pause in handing a "saviour of children" role to the state. Or at the very least blunt criticisms of my position as mere paranoia.
Yet I would still intervene if I saw someone attacking someone else on the street -- knowing that the attacker's moral sense that he's completely justified in his attack is no better or no worse than the victim's moral sense that the attack is unwarranted or my sense that this is wrong.
Agreed. I think detractors might go beyond the charge of apathy (which is what you set out), to also suggest a relativist might join in with the attacker if he felt that would be the bigger thrill.
I know Bush Jr began his presidency announcing how people should stop using a "if it feels good, do it" motto. I believe this was a stab at relativism in a sense, perhaps as he envisions it. If there is no real good, then what is one left with but vicarious thrills?
I would still not refrain from putting some restrictions on what can occur even in peoples' private homes, or from advocating universal standards of international justice and human rights.
Well maybe we have the material for an argument between us. I still have a very strong concept of a wall between morality and legality. The founders had the idea of a wall between church and state, and to them church was synonymous with morality.
While I agree that some restrictions will come into play (even in people's homes), I am not swayed by any moral arguments. To my mind it has to come down to protections of individual rights. Kind of like the walls of a person's home are not made of lead, when the issue is individual rights.
Of course this is where children become a big sticky issue. While they are individuals and so should have "equal" rights in theory, in practice they don't and never have. In reality someone has to shape their lives and concepts about the world. Someone has to make decisions for them. I feel that handing that control to the parents, rather than to the state, is the only real way to preserve individual rights. Harm might very well come from that, but then it is limited to the errors of two individuals on a single child (or set of children), rather than the majority over all children.
In an extension from this, while I am willing to fight for international rights, that stands for rights of nations within the international community, and not a standard of rights all nations must accept with respect to their own citizens.
Going for a universal code, moral or legal, which binds all citizens equally, just makes no sense to me. It appears to me a recipe for greater conflict as new groups rise to power to impose the new universal concept. That is of course a brief description of human civilization up till now, and I'd like to think we can learn a lesson from it. I think we will do better as a species when we can put in mechanisms (ideological or legal) to get the majority to relax and not take advantage of its power.
I think allowing for legal diversity among nations is a pressure release valve for the international community, just as allowing for cultural diversity is a pressure release valve for citizens within democratic-republic nations.
Humans have always been diverse and resist singular lifestyles. In fact, that is a characteristic of life itself. Always in change. Just as I don't think we should attempt to craft one single kind of spider to replace all spiderkind, we should not be trying to make one kind of human or human society. It'll be a mess in the end.
This is where legal relativism is most valuable, creating an atmosphere of tolerance. And within that, a nation will fight to protect its own way of doing things. It just won't clobber another into accepting the same (internal) legal system.
Of course my moral and legal theories ARE superior to everyone else's and should be imposed... right now!
Ok, I should note that this is likely my last post for a while. I just got some good news (I think) and so will be pretty busy from now on, like I thought I was going to be already (when unfortunately some things feel through). I can pop in from time to time. But that might be a bit... before I post anyway.
Glad to have made one of my last posts to you. Always a pleasure. Talk with you later (assuming I don't get more changes in plans and am back tomorrow).
Edited by Silent H, : brief history

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Chiroptera, posted 04-21-2008 8:45 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024