Relativism VS. Absoulte

[Arathorn]

I've been following this thread closely too. I think that these discussions do get heated up because when anyone lays their core beliefs out on the table, someone else almost always lays theirs on top of the first guy's; and if not worded properly, (who's to say exactly what proper is) toes get stepped on. These discussions are fun to ponder on but the Ents have the best moot sense "Do not be hasty". There's my rambling for the day.

Please continue.

[Khadrane]

I am definitely an absolute. Christians pretty much are.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Although it's not just Christians, Khadrane, believe me! I sorta brought this discussion to the dinner table today, because once I had read this thread, I can't really stop going over it in my mind--"is this what I REALLY think?" Anyway, my mum (who is Jewish) is totally an absolutist, so I ended up arguing mostly on the side of relative. Of course, I do not think it really is a dichotomy (I hope I don't misuse this word again-once was bad enough!), I think you aren't necessarily just one or the other. Anyway, the point I was making, which is sort of extraneous (sp?) anyway, but it is that, my mother, who is very liberal and not Christian, is strongly an absolutist, with no room for the relative. Nor does she (to my mind) easily respect the opinions of others with whom she does not agree, (i.e. polotics. . .) which I started a big debate about. So, I'm not exactly sure why I bothered to say all this, because nobody ever said it was just Christians who tend to be absolutists. I hope I have not offended anyone (too much, at any rate ) in this post. I also hope I am not being to hasty!

Maybe I just enjoy rambling. . .

[Arathorn]

Here's my X-Files version as a relative absolutist:

Morality is out there.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

That's great, Arathorn! I love it. . . "Morality is out there"

[FrodoFriend]

Hmmm, I guess I'm one of those who doesn't word things very well. I'll try harder.

Gildor, I'm sorry I got angry about your statement on homosexuality. I let my own moral beliefs get in the way of the debate. That's just something I believe in strongly, and I shouldn't have mentioned it here. I was rash (and hasty *sigh* not a good Ent at all!), and I'm sorry.

Wayfarer -

Notice that when I talk about humans inventing morality I say "we." We as a species invent morality to protect ourselves, as a species. Collectively. Somewhere way back in history, people realized, perhaps subconsciously, that if we were going to live in large groups, we would need some kind of control over harmful actions (i.e. rape, murder, etc.). Hence, morals. You didn't invent your entire morality anymore than I invented mine. Morals are mostly taught by parents and society, with some help from experience. Most of it, however, is passed down.

If you feel like raping someone, why do you stop? Not because it's beneficial to you. Because throughout your life you've been taught that it's wrong. It is a common opinion among humans that being raped is unpleasant; so as protection, our moral codes prohibit rape. You are taught this, and respond accordingly.

Similarly, if you jumped in front of a car to save an old lady, you're obviously not doing it for your self-preservation. It is the same moral code that you've been taught that prompts you to do this. Why? Well, if a car was about to run you over, wouldn't you like to be heroically saved? Most people would agree that being saved is definitely more pleasant than being run over and thus, inculcate sacrificing yourself to help others into the moral code.

The evolution of morals has been a long and slow process that continues today. It doesn't happen to one person alone. It is general, collective. It is also subject to our desires. What we need slowly works its way into our morals. If in the future we have radically different needs, the moral code will slowly change.

Is this more clear? If not, I'll try to explain better next time.

You claim that moral judgments are subjective-but that in itself is a moral judgement. You say 'Relativism is right. Therefore, nothing is really right.' And so you can't claim that relativism is right.

Ah, but that's a different kind of right. Unfortunately, our language is not very clear on the distinction. I believe relativism is factually correct. Right in the way that 2+2=4, not right in the way kindness is "right." I believe in relativism by default - because I believe absolutism to be scientifically and factually impossible. Who, after all, makes the universal laws of morality? You would say God, but I don't believe in God. I believe no authority defined any set of moral laws for us to follow. Logically, the only other possibility is that we invented them ourselves (collectively and over time!), which means they are subject to the pressures of society, and hence, relative.

As a closing word, I most definitely think my moral code is superior (this by the way, is an opinion). So do you. Who doesn't? I won't deny that it's difficult to admit, though. Obviously, I wouldn't believe what I believe unless I thought it was the most effective, true, and "right" answer. I want everyone to be loving and tolerant. Those are the values I have picked up. I am human, and certainly not impartial (no one is impartial, of course). However, I recognize that my moral code is not an absolute. It is an opinion. I may think it's the best opinion, but everyone thinks that about their opinions. That does not, however, change the fact that they are opinions.

I await your reply.

[afro-elf]

morals change over time


take infanticide it was MORALLY the proper thing to due but now we think that it is horrible

in the middel ages it was MORALLY ok to give money to the church to "buy off" your sins ( don't recall the technical term)

but today christains would find that wrong

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Indeed, morals do change, Afro-elf. Yet some morals do remain the same, or pretty much the same. Such as not taking the life of fellow human beings. Usually. I'd better go think of some more examples. . .

[Kevin McIntyre]

whoever said the taking of human life is wrong. There are always context in regards to actions. Murder is, and for recorded history has been, wrong - that can be seen as absolute or as a consequence of maintaining a stable group. IMHO absolute morals are only those that have been around for a very long time, they have proven their worth.

[afro-elf]

If someone is attempting to kill me, or those i care for, or my fellow mooters here i have no qualms about taking life


I hate those peace mongers and much as war mongers

any human who would not kill to save their child or spouse, or parents is NOT a human being for me

siblings are optional

Yet some morals do remain the same

the key word in your sentence is SOME. therefore ALL morality is not absolute.

Kevin nice to see you back
you said

IMHO absolute morals are only those that have been around for a very long time, they have proven their worth

should i read that as "absolute". meaning you call them absolute because they have been around for awhile or REALLY absolute?

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

No, you're right, Afro-elf, not all morals are absolute. I believe that some are, though. Also, I would agree with you that there are some circumstances in which taking another's life is reasonable, in self defense, or defense of a loved one.

[Earniel]

I'm going to keep this short. I always tangle myself in long arguments and then I get hopelesly confused. In my idea, absolute morality is an ideal. Reached for, but still unreached and perhaps unreachable. If morality was absolute I doubt this thread has gotten as long as it has.

[afro-elf]

i like that one

[Kevin McIntyre]

Originally posted by afro-elf






should i read that as "absolute". meaning you call them absolute because they have been around for awhile or REALLY absolute?

absolute in the sense that they have proven their worth overtime. Just as certain genetic patterns are ancient and are common to almost all life because they're that good, while others are more recent and have come about due to change.

[Wayfarer]

Afro Elf (and others)

The circumstances surrounding an action, do, determine wheter it was morally right or not. We agree that murder is wrong, and killing in self defense is permissible (though not to be encouraged. That's really not relativism, but two different things. I don't dispute that.

What I have a problem with is... I suppose I should call it Personal Relativitsm (as opposed to circumstantial relativitsm). It's the idea that "this may not be right for you, but it'd right for me.

I.E. In identical circumstances, say those you have described (You are defending someone close to you), I can't say "if it was right for you, you ought to kill him, but it was right for me to do nothing."

See what I'm getting at?

2+2 is 4, and 2+3 is 5. That makes sense. But you cannot say that 2+2 is sometimes 4 and sometimes 5.

[olsonm]

Originally posted by Wayfarer


2+2 is 4, and 2+3 is 5. That makes sense. But you cannot say that 2+2 is sometimes 4 and sometimes 5.

But, you just did.

[Kevin McIntyre]

unfortunatly the rules of mathematics and the concepts of morality are two different things entirely.

[Wayfarer]

Originally posted by FrodoFriend
Notice that when I talk about humans inventing morality I say "we." We as a species invent morality to protect ourselves, as a species. Collectively. Somewhere way back in history, people realized, perhaps subconsciously, that if we were going to live in large groups, we would need some kind of control over harmful actions (i.e. rape, murder, etc.). Hence, morals. You didn't invent your entire morality anymore than I invented mine. Morals are mostly taught by parents and society, with some help from experience. Most of it, however, is passed down.

You're still assuming that Individuals should care at all about the species, that we should try not to do harm, and that rape, murder, etc are bad. I could argue quite persuasively that rape and murder are good for the species, but I'll spare you that-for now. ]: )

Originally posted by FrodoFriend
If you feel like raping someone, why do you stop? Not because it's beneficial to you. Because throughout your life you've been taught that it's wrong. It is a common opinion among humans that being raped is unpleasant; so as protection, our moral codes prohibit rape. You are taught this, and respond accordingly.

Ah! But you see, I now realize that morality is completely subjective, and thus it doesn't matter what I've been taught. Thanks to you, I've seen the light, and will only pay attention to morality when I happen to feel like it. As for whether it's unpleasant, well, I'll make my own judgement on that as well.

You cannot short circuit morality this minute and expect to find it still functioning the next!

Originally posted by FrodoFriend
Similarly, if you jumped in front of a car to save an old lady, you're obviously not doing it for your self-preservation. It is the same moral code that you've been taught that prompts you to do this. Why? Well, if a car was about to run you over, wouldn't you like to be heroically saved? Most people would agree that being saved is definitely more pleasant than being run over and thus, inculcate sacrificing yourself to help others into the moral code.

You provide a wonderful rationilization, frodofriend. But you still neglect to provde a ample reason. If someone wants to sacrifice thier happiness for mine that's well and good, but don't expect me to do the same. That's a moral judgement, and as youve shown me it's somehting we've all got to decide for ourselves.

Originally posted by FrodoFriend
Ah, but that's a different kind of right. Unfortunately, our language is not very clear on the distinction. I believe relativism is factually correct. Right in the way that 2+2=4, not right in the way kindness is "right." I believe in relativism by default - because I believe absolutism to be scientifically and factually impossible. Who, after all, makes the universal laws of morality? You would say God, but I don't believe in God. I believe no authority defined any set of moral laws for us to follow. Logically, the only other possibility is that we invented them ourselves (collectively and over time!), which means they are subject to the pressures of society, and hence, relative.

No, it's not. Indeed, if you'll look at my previous post you'll see that that's exactly what Absolutism says. All you've done is explain that you're a relativist-you've done nothing to support your case. Of course you believe in relativitsm if you don't Absolutism. There are only two options.

Who sets the morality? It doesn't matter. I could ask you-who dictates the effects of gravity? Or, better, yet, who decided that humans need X, Y, and Z nutrients to be healthy?

Because that's what I'm saying it's like. Sure, with food you have anorexics, and overeaters, and yes, everybody does get to decide how much they eat. But that doesn't change thae fact that eating in a certain way will keep you healthy. This what absolute morality claims. You, can, will, do it differently, but there's one way that is best, and that's the way we should strive to be.

Originally posted by FrodoFriend
As a closing word, I most definitely think my moral code is superior (this by the way, is an opinion). So do you. Who doesn't? I won't deny that it's difficult to admit, though. Obviously, I wouldn't believe what I believe unless I thought it was the most effective, true, and "right" answer. I want everyone to be loving and tolerant. Those are the values I have picked up. I am human, and certainly not impartial (no one is impartial, of course). However, I recognize that my moral code is not an absolute. It is an opinion. I may think it's the best opinion, but everyone thinks that about their opinions. That does not, however, change the fact that they are opinions.

You know what? My 'moral code' isn't an absolute either. That's not what I'm arguing here. I've said (repeatedly) that there is a perfect moral code, but in point of fact nobody manages to follow it. As with food, there is a certain, perfect diet, but nobody eats that way.

The fact of the matter is that we've all got two moral codes. The one is what we know things should be like. The other is what we actually follow.

[Wayfarer]

Alas, Olsonm! You have cruelly slain me with your rapier wit!

*/staffbaps Olsonm. "Now don't do that again!"

[Kevin McIntyre]

There may be a perfect code, one that could work at all times for all circumstances, but it is also most likely a pipe dream.