Relativism VS. Absoulte

[Wayfarer]

As for what FF said earlier... I hate to take just part of a post and reply to that, but I'd like to start where she ended:

MLifestyles are changing, and we have to change our moral systems to maintain order and continue looking out for our own welfare.

I submit that lifestyles are not, in fact, changing. My bible certainly doesn't say 'this is how lifestyles used to be, back when people were good and decent'. The historical segments of the bible are rife with immorality. We see murder, rape, adultery, incest, theft, and any number of other nasty goings on. Indeed, there are a number of prominent locations that would still make most americans shiver.

No, christianity says, (and I don't know how you keep missing this) that humans, as a species, has a natural inclination to screw up. And that, unless we get help, we're going to keep screwing up. I have yet to see evidence to the contrary. We suck.

Now, to continue with the rest of the message...

Morals are made up to fulfill instincts for self-preservation and happiness.

Tell me something. If I were to, say... kill your parents. And do some other nasty things along the lines of what I described at the beginning of this thread, would you complain? Defenitely. Certainly I am interfering with your happiness, and possibly with your self-preservation. But you know what? If morals are simply made up for selfish reasons, there is absolutely nothing that you, as a relativist, can do to tell me I'm wrong.

Let's assume, for a moment, that morals are simply devised because of what people want. So... I want to kill you, but you want to live. What happens? You appeal to a moral standard bigger than either of us. The law, right. We get that from our government. But how do we justify our government interfering in other countries? we appeal to a still higher authroity.

You, will eventually come to a point hwere you can go no further. The relativist says, at this point, that the absolute is 'whatever I want at the moment'. The christian absolutist says 'whatever god wants'.

But even a relativist such as yourself likely resorts to invoking a higher sense of right and wrong quite often. We shall see. ]: )

[Earniel]

Let me get this straight.... When you talk about absolute moral values, you mean it as an universal law, right? And relative, you mean it depends on the situation, right?

(there's just no point in me participating in this debate without knowing the basics and I hate making a fool of my self)

[Wayfarer]

I think so...

But then, I just jumped in when I saw the title.

I have been going with this understandintg:

Absolutism claims there is a standard to which everybody is accountable.
Relativitism claims that the only standard that matters is the one you set for yourself. Nobody is answerable to anybody else.

[emplynx]

Originally posted by Rogue Elf
Apparently Christianity is about love: well, what if a guy is in love with a guy?

Christianity is based on love. But it is not based on romantic love. I can say that I love my best friend, who is a guy, but I am not going to kiss him and hop in bed with him! That is not at all what christianity is about! I have been agreeing with Wayfarer on this, and I now have a bible verse on the topic.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will hnherit the kingdom of God.

That is not to say if we slipup and do one of those things we will not go to Heaven. It is to say if we make a lifesyle of sinning we are not to inherit the kingdom of God.

Romans 3:22-24
This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through th eredemption that came by Jesus Christ.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Originally posted by Rogue Elf
Apparently Christianity is about love: well, what if a guy is in love with a guy? How is that supposed to be wrong when the whole point of this religion is love? Of course, them being both male isn't physically natural compatible-wise, but we're focusing in on the mind here. I can't say someone is wrong for being in love - whether they be gay, straight, or bi.

Okay, I agree with a lot of what you are saying here, about Christianity being about love. I am not a Christian myself, so I cannnot reasonably join in a discussion like this, about Christianity. But, if Christianity is about love, than how can there be so much hate of certain people (i.e. gay people) by certain (trying not to generealize) people who call themselves Christian? Okay, I know I am treading on very dangerous ground here, by saying this, so I should probably shut up now, but I feel very strongly about this. And I know there are a lot who do not hate gay people (for example, again) but do not agree with what they do. That's fine, but the key thing here is respect. I believe very strongly that we should respect each others beliefs and actions. Then again, by saying that, I could possibly be implying that we should respect the beliefs and actions of those who would destroy others because of their beliefs, which to my mind is wrong. But then one could go back and say, the key is respect, and therefore we should all hold to the standard of respect for everyone, and therefore believing that it is one's duty to destroy people is wrong, because it does not respect them. That is where I stand, that respecting others is the key. Therefore, I am an absolutist, and I believe the standard we should all go by is respect for our species, and the Earth we live on, and the other species that inhabit it. (Now here I go tring to bring protection of the environment into it too. . .)

[FrodoFriend]

I submit that lifestyles are not, in fact, changing. My bible certainly doesn't say 'this is how lifestyles used to be, back when people were good and decent'. The historical segments of the bible are rife with immorality. We see murder, rape, adultery, incest, theft, and any number of other nasty goings on. Indeed, there are a number of prominent locations that would still make most americans shiver.

I didn't say lifestyles were changing for the worse, or that people are getting more "immoral." I merely said people's lives are changing, which is a factual truth. We have different countries, technologies, cultures, etc, than two thousand years ago, and our morality has to adapt to the change (views on adultery and women's rights, for example).

Tell me something. If I were to, say... kill your parents. And do some other nasty things along the lines of what I described at the beginning of this thread, would you complain? Defenitely. Certainly I am interfering with your happiness, and possibly with your self-preservation. But you know what? If morals are simply made up for selfish reasons, there is absolutely nothing that you, as a relativist, can do to tell me I'm wrong.

Logically, you are not "wrong." "Wrong" is a term humans made up. Nature and the rest of the universe doesn't care if you kill my parents. I, however, would. And because I have compassion for other people whom you might treat in the same way and I love my parents, I would go to the law and try to get you jailed and provide you with counseling or other helpful services. It has nothing to do with whether you are "wrong" or not. Those are simply the measures I would take to protect myself and others. Self-preservation.

Let's assume, for a moment, that morals are simply devised because of what people want. So... I want to kill you, but you want to live. What happens? You appeal to a moral standard bigger than either of us. The law, right. We get that from our government. But how do we justify our government interfering in other countries? we appeal to a still higher authroity.

In the end, we use our own morality, which is formed from experience and teaching, to judge. I would appeal to a higher authority not because I think it's morality is absolute or superior to mine, but because it has the power to save my life - again, self-preservation. The government doesn't appeal to any authorities, it goes by the morality of the people who constitute it. In the end, it all comes back to our personal morals.

In conclusion, I agree whole-heartedly with FrodoFriend on everything she has said and how beautifully she has put it

Thanks, RE!! I'm glad someone agrees!

This is what I'm basing my arguments on, by the way:
Absolutism = There is a universal moral law defined by someone or something. If you deviate from it, you are wrong and that's it.
Relativism = Everyone has their own morality. Wrong and right are not definite or set in stone, but differ depending on culture/experiences/etc. They are basically made up to fit requirements in life.

[Rána Eressëa]

Emplynx, I never said Christianity is based on romantic love. I'm saying it's based on love period. That includes any kind of love. Just as when you say murder is a sin, is that not true? You're not saying unreasonable murder is a sin, you're saying all murder is a sin because it is taking away another person's life regardless of what they were planning to do with you or someone else.

Absolutism only exists in your head. In reality, borders do not exist except for those that are scientific. Everything else born in the mind (i.e. morals and beliefs) are all shaped and manifested from the mind. Absolutism is universal, and there is not a single thing the entire population of human beings can agree on completely together. Nothing.

Absolutism is about borders and about limits. The imagination and the mind have no borders and no limits. If you believe in a God or gods, however, you're trying to make a belief into a fact, which you cannot physically prove. Therefore, arguing with religion is not a plausible excuse. Interesting, yes, but plausible? No.

[FrodoFriend]

Exactly. That was very well put.

[emplynx]

Originally posted by Rogue Elf
Emplynx, I never said Christianity is based on romantic love. I'm saying it's based on love period. That includes any kind of love. Just as when you say murder is a sin, is that not true? You're not saying unreasonable murder is a sin, you're saying all murder is a sin because it is taking away another person's life regardless of what they were planning to do with you or someone else.

Comparing Love to Murder is never a good thing.

[Rána Eressëa]

You're not seeing my point, though. I'm saying all love counts, just as all hate counts, just as all murder counts. If you want to separate different kinds of love, hate, etc. - it's possible, but still overall: I may love you like a brother or a boyfriend - but I still love you. Just as I may hate you for your color or your religion - I still hate you. See my point?

Christianity is about love, whether it be brotherly love or romantic love - it's still about love. Look up the definition - love is love. Stop trying to segregate it.

[Darth Tater]

I'm sorry I let this go on so long. We've had the homosexuality debate before, and it didn't end well, please return the topic to what it originally was or let this debate rest.

[Gildor]

Thanks,

I’ve been following this discussion a bit and I’m pleased to see high school students who
are concerned with these issues at all. You have all put considerable thought into your
posts, and that’s refreshing to see also.

I think we can agree that some things are “good” and “right”: kindness, mercy, joy, perseverence, courage, and honesty, work, creativity, dependability, encouragement, to name a few.

Other things are wrong: torture, treason, laziness, meanness, deceit, brutality, wanton destruction. etc.

(Someone said there was no such thing as "wrong" In that case, why argue at all...if everything and everybody is right, just be happy and don't waste your time.)

Relativists argue that under some circumstances each of these may not be the “right” or “wrong” thing to do. (For instance “persevering in reaching a city so that you can blow it up”) I say that is stretching the good to make it include the bad. Perseverence is still a good thing. It was just used wrongly. (Another example--the clasic--one must lie to
shield an innocent person when someone is trying to find him to kill him a la Hitler and the Jews. In this case the lie is “right”. My argument is that the lie is still not right. When one is offered a choice between lying and murder, he may have to choose a “wrong” thing. That doesn’t make lying “right”. Hence the phrase--the lesser of two evils)

If our society ever “evolves” so that these values no longer exist, or so that the two are flip-flopped, it will be a sad world. Even the orcs weren’t happy with their twisted-value world. . . and even if you think cannibalism is fine (survival of the fittest and all that) it hurts to be the “eatee” rather than the “eater”.

As for the statement (there are no absolutes) Even that is an absolute.

Love is good, therefore all who love must be "good" and we must accept their lifestyles?

Why does any criticism of homosexuality turn into an accusation of "You hate gays"? We do not "hate gays" anymore than you hate us. We do argue that they have misused a good thing. Disagreements don't equal hatred. We do believe that the lifestyle they have chosen is wrong, and we don't feel they should be given charge of training our children. (Neither do I want someone who is a thief to be in charge of training my children, or a liar, for that matter.) No. I'm not a misanthrope. I'm just one who wants my children raised with absolutes...respect for truth and beauty and decency. Maybe, in your mind these will all become "wrong" someday.

All I can say is I'm glad that beyond this world there are stars shinning that our evil cannot touch. It makes me feel kind of like Sam.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Actually, Rogue Elf, there is something to the attempt to segregate love. In Ancient Greek, there were three words for love, (and I'm sure I'm just repeating stuff most of you already know, but I'll go ahead anyway) eros, philios and agape. Without going into a detailed explanation of the differences between the three, I will make my point, from what I know of these, and of Christianity: agape is the kind of love we should all strive for, for everyone. It is the unconditional love of all human beings because they are fellow human beings, and it is the love that God has for all humans (someone correct me if I'm wrong). No matter what someone's sins are, there is still this love for them. It is considered to be the highest kind of love, superior (maybe, I might be misinterpreting this) to eros and philios. Not to say that those are bad, but they are not as good as agape. Something like that. How this connects to the discussion, well, it ties in to what I was saying about respect. Although I am not a Christian, and I do not believe in the specifics of what I just said above, I do believe this respect that I believe is key is very similiar to the concept of agape. Love and respect everyone, and a minimum of bad stuff will happen. Did I forget to mention that I am an Idealist? But I also think that my ideal will never happen, because I do not believe in our own innate goodness. So, on the absolutism vs. relativism, I guess I actually stand somewhere in between: we all have our different beliefs and moral codes, and we should all respect each others beliefs. Unfortunately, this would only happen in an ideal world, which we do not live in. I do not know where I am really going with this, so I guess I'll end now. BTW, Darth Tater, I hope I have not strayed too far from the original topic at all in this post.

[Rána Eressëa]

Okay, in order to lighten to the original topic: I'm an absolute relativist


Absolutism = The same borders for everyone. If you believe in the afterlife and an ultimate power, you are an absolutist.

Relativism = Everyone has their own borders. If you believe there is no afterlife or ultimate power and humans have made all of that up from their imagination, you are a relativist.


Am I right, or am I right?

[FrodoFriend]

Gildor -

When I say that nothing is "wrong" I am also saying that nothing is "right." Our minds and our need for stability require us to categorize things into "wrong" and "right." Nothing is *really* either right or wrong, since those are just made-up terms we use. And no, I for one do not simply "agree" that some things are good and right and others are bad and wrong. We say things are bad and wrong when they disrupt our lives (that is why nearly everyone will agree that torture, laziness, etc, are wrong), and things are good and right when they further our happiness (which is why people say that kindness, mercy, etc, are good).

If that's how you want to phrase it, the only moral absolute is that there are no moral absolutes. I'm not talking about other absolutes here, only morality.

Calling homosexuals evil is simply intolerant and biased (I'm not saying it's wrong, mind you!). Gays are no different from anyone else. I am sad that you would actually discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation. I also find it interesting that you, who believe in doing what is right, are furthering hatred and intolerance, while I, who believe in neither, can live with people the way they are. Perhaps humanity would be happier if we could cast off ideas of "evil" - we wouldn't condemn people anymore. Instead, there would be more wide-spread tolerance and happiness.

[Arathorn]

Well, R. Elf. That's one where I am different from you. I am a relative absolutist.

I think that there is only one true set of borders but we are all not looking at it from outer space due perhaps to our lack of perfection. Some of us live in higher mountains and can therefore get a better picture than others; but we do move from time to time and sometimes we fall. I'll leave it at that for now.

[Rána Eressëa]

Basically this is just boiling down to whether or not you believe in an ultimate power. If you do, you believe in ultimate punishments for everyone alike, which makes you an absolutist. If you don't, you believe others make up limits and borders that were not naturally there to begin with, which makes you a relativist.

That's all we're focusing on people! Now, can we get back to the original topic, please?

[Arathorn]

I thought we both were on-topic. But I liked your example so I replied without saying whether you or I were correct and the other wrong. 'Just giving the other side of the coin.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

But Rogue Elf, I am somewhere in between, but I do not believe in an ultimate power. Being somewhere in between, probably as a relative absolutist, as Arathorn put it (which, by the way, I thought to be a very well-said post), I do believe in a certain set of borders. But no ultimate power (not to put down anyone else's beliefs!). So an ultimate power is not quite a requirement for an absolutist. Or it could be, since I am not entirely an absolutist.

[FrodoFriend]

Relative absolutism . . . that's an interesting take. I like your scenario, Arathorn. But Eruviel, who defines the borders? The general consensus of humanity, maybe? That seems as close to an absolute as one can get.