Relativism VS. Absoulte

[Wayfarer]

Right... Now that I'm, off topic, what, exactly, is Absoulteism?

[FrodoFriend]

What? Now I'm entirely confused. The very same arguments I already made can be used to refute the points you just made, Wayfarer. We're going around in circles here, and you keep misreading and misinterpreting what I say. We're obviously on an entirely different page.

I didn't say rape was bad, I said it was unpleasant for the majority of people in the world, which is why we consider it bad.
I'm not assuming that individuals naturally care about the species either. Most of what we believe is taught - that's why we care about this stuff.

As for your second point, I don't see what it has to do with the subject. How does that argument prove absolutism? If you gave up all morality right now - so? That doesn't prove or disprove either absolutism or relativism.

Point #3 - Not given a reason? That whole quote was a reason. And if you let some one else sacrifice themselves for you and don't ever do the same for some one else, again - so? That still doesn't prove or disprove absolutism or relativism!

Point #4 - You've supported your case no better than I have mine, only explained why you're an absolutist with various moral scenarios. The pot's calling the kettle black. Morality is substantially different from gravity. Gravity exists without humans; morality doesn't. Not an apt analogy. The nutrition one's good though. Are you saying that I should give up being vegetarian and strive to eat like everyone else because that's the best way? I assure, I'm healthier than a good many traditional eaters. Different ways do work. Besides (and this is the important part), you overlook the fact that we are born with nutritional requirements, while we are not born with morals. Babies are amoral. They learn moral values from their parents. We don't learn nutritional requirements - they already exist, we just learn what they are. Morals are not a physical part of our make-up.
If a person lived completely alone, they wouldn't need morals because they'd never interact with other people. However, they would still need nutrition. Nutritional needs are biological, unlike morals.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

But it could be argued, FrodoFriend, that morals are biologically needed. Without morals, we might end up destroying our species! I'm just kidding. I get your point. I'd try to join in, but I can't think of anything intelligent to say at the moment.

[FrodoFriend]

Whew, you scared me there. I was afraid I'd have two people to argue against!

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Oh, you might, FF! As soon as I get my brain running again. . .*winds up the key at the back of my neck* okay, now I'm back in business!

[afro-elf]

Wayfarer,

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.

I disagree if circumstances affect it, then it is not absolute.

If you are an absolutist killing is wrong. Period.

Biology DOES play a role in morality. check out the disciplines bio-psychology and socio-biology

[FrodoFriend]

Originally posted by afro-elf
Biology DOES play a role in morality. check out the disciplines bio-psychology and socio-biology

Really? That's very interesting, and I will check it out if I get the chance.

My point with that was this: If you don't eat for the a month, your body shuts down and you die. If you don't exercise your morality for a month, your body keeps on working just fine. Morality is not built into your genetic make-up. Biology may influence morality (through chemicals or whatever), but does not create it.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

I think I'll go read that book "Peacemaking Among Primates" that I have for school, now. I recall some of the chapters bringing up similiar issues, but I don't remember what it said.

Now I have a question: What was the purpose of my saying that?

FF, in a purely biological way, you are right, but only by your example. And that's just fine if you live on a desert island by yourself, but in a society, morals are sort of necessary, or else nothing would work. NOTHING. I'm not sure what my point is. Maybe I should be the elven lord of perpetual confusion. I hope no mods saw that!

[Kevin McIntyre]

would killing Adolf Hitler (or Osam BinLadin) be morally wrong, even if they do not threaten you directly?

[afro-elf]

Really? That's very interesting, and I will check it out if I get the chance.

yeah I THINK its called reciprocity principle
but as it applies to this this

FF, in a purely biological way, you are right, but only by your example. And that's just fine if you live on a desert island by yourself, but in a society, morals are sort of necessary, or else nothing would work.

[Earniel]

Now that I read the enitre thread I notice that most of you have a slightly different view on just what's absloute and what's relative. Maybe you should clear that out first. Afterall how can you discuss absolutism and relativism if you can't agree on their definition?

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Originally posted by Kevin McIntyre
would killing Adolf Hitler (or Osam BinLadin) be morally wrong, even if they do not threaten you directly?

Well, if someone had had the foresight to assassinate him in the 1930's, (which would have been easier then) it would have saved millions of lives, and I personally believe that it would have been okay, in that circumstance, even if they were not directly affected. But no one knew what was coming, they didn't have any way of knowing what would have happened otherwise. It is comparable to getting rid of The Ring back when Isildur took it. Again, there was no way of knowing what was going to happen, but it would have saved many people a lot of suffering. (I won't bring the elven rings into this, that would complicate matters.) But back to Hitler, rather than killing outright, if the big powers in Europe at the time had had any foresight, they would not have gone for appeasement, they would have stopped him from breaking the Treaty of Versailles and not have let him begin to take over.

Eek! I have to run, otherwise I would continue!

[Wayfarer]

Originally posted by FrodoFriend
What? Now I'm entirely confused.

It's ok, you're female.

Originally posted by FrodoFriend
I didn't say rape was bad, I said it was unpleasant for the majority of people in the world, which is why we consider it bad.
I'm not assuming that individuals naturally care about the species either. Most of what we believe is taught - that's why we care about this stuff.

Ok. As far as I can tell, this is what you think:
Morals are taught by humans to protect themselves.
Therefore, we shouldn't pay any more attention to morality than is strictly nescessary.
Humans are taught to care about other humans because we want to protect ourselves.
But we should still pay attention to what we're taught.

Then, if you manage to prove that morals don't really matter because they're subjective constructions (and you have not), you must accept the fact that compassion and anything but selfish motivation, those things likewise being subjective constructions taught by humanity, will also cease to matter. You cannot remove the reason behind conventional morality without likewise crippling morality as a whole.

I can hold to morality, even when I'd rather not, because I know it's more than me.
You can only stick to a truly relativist morality as long as you continue to feel like it.

Originally posted by FrodoFriend
As for your second point, I don't see what it has to do with the subject. How does that argument prove absolutism? If you gave up all morality right now - so? That doesn't prove or disprove either absolutism or relativism.

It's like this:
You have, with your arguements for relativitism, privided an ample justification for humans to think and do whatever they wish. Certainly, we'll continue to behave morally when we happen to care about others, but that's also a learned behavior, and thus not a very strong motivation.

And then, a few posts later, you admit that not only do you want people to be compassionate, you have a certain morality you think they should follow.

You're undermining morality with one hand, and trying to keep it intact with the other. You will, invariably, fail.

Originally posted by FrodoFriend
Point #3 - Not given a reason? That whole quote was a reason. And if you let some one else sacrifice themselves for you and don't ever do the same for some one else, again - so? That still doesn't prove or disprove absolutism or relativism

Please understand, I do not need to logically disprove relativitsm. Theoretically it's a very good model. So was communism. It's merely my intent to show that it factually does not work.

Sure, I'd be willing to let someone sacrifice themself, with no intention to repay. By that token, I'm really not going to jump at the chance to sacrifice myself for anyone who hasn't done something for me.

Originally posted by FrodoFriend
If you don't eat for the a month, your body shuts down and you die. If you don't exercise your morality for a month, your body keeps on working just fine.

That would only matter if I was trying to link Morality directly to physical health. But there's more to people than that. There's social health, mental health, emotional health, and spiritual health.

If you could pre-empt your morality for a month, you would likely be a socio-psychotic, in perfect physical health. Your social, mental, emotional, and spiritual health would likely all suffer.

Originally posted by Afro-Elf
I disagree-if circumstances affect it, then it is not absolute.
If you are an absolutist killing is wrong. Period.

That seems to be a common misconception.

In fact, I can be an absolutist, and believe two different things about two different situations. Just like a can have two different opinions of two differnt books.

I absolutely despise robert jordan, but that doesn't mean I have to hate all books, or even all fantasy, on the contrary, I love most fantasy.

Perhaps this would be a better example. If I go out looking for someone, find them and kill them I can be convicted of murder 1 and face the death penalty. If I accidentally do somehting that results in death, I'm facing involuntary manslaughter and a much lighter sentance. This is just because they're two different crimes.

On the contrary, If you and I were to both commit murder, but I caught the death sentance and you got off with a slap on the wrist because of our races, that would be completely bogus.

Get what I'm saying?

[Earniel]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
It's ok, you're female.

Eärniel hereby delivers a virtual uppercut to Wayfarer and knocks him senseless and there was much rejoicing.

[Wayfarer]

You can't knock a wizard senseless! Everybody knows that!

*/staffbaps Earmiel.

[Earniel]

Excuse me!?! Did you just staffbapped me?! If you want to staffbap me, at least write my name correct, it stand so sloppy.
*Turns to her black feline minion, Jinx! Bite him! Watches happily as Wayfarer flies screaming in fear from the mini-balrog-cat* Since when are you a wizard anyway?

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

*staffbaps Wayfarer* So what if my staff isn't magic? It still works for bapping, oh Wizard!

[mirrille]

Originally posted by Wayfarer

Perhaps this would be a better example. If I go out looking for someone, find them and kill them I can be convicted of murder 1 and face the death penalty. If I accidentally do somehting that results in death, I'm facing involuntary manslaughter and a much lighter sentance. This is just because they're two different crimes.

On the contrary, If you and I were to both commit murder, but I caught the death sentance and you got off with a slap on the wrist because of our races, that would be completely bogus.

Get what I'm saying?

Well that's just the point, isn't it? Who says that the in this first example these are 2 different crimes? (For that matter, there are places in the world where the death penalty is considered immoral, my own country being one. But that's a whole other argument.) Who says that committing murder but by people of different races is the same crime? For that matter, I can think of quite a few places in the world and periods in North American history where killing 2 different victims in the same way is considered 2 different crimes because the victims were different races. The dominant group decided that these were the standards they want for their society. Laws on these kind of things vary from country to country. That is a true thing.
People tend to frame what is considered moral and immoral according to their own social conventions and context. That does not mean that morals do not exist and that they are not real. They are very real, but they do have a tendency to mutate over time. This, to me, suggests that there is an element of relativism. But they are still morals even so.

[FrodoFriend]

It's ok, you're female.

That wasn't funny. Don't even get superior with me.

Therefore, we shouldn't pay any more attention to morality than is strictly nescessary.

Hellooo? Are you not reading my posts at all? We should most definitely pay attention to morals, and morals certainly DO matter! Since you seem even more confused than I was, I will try to explain yet again.

How about an analogy? Love : Morals

Human love evolved from breeding instincts and chemicals in the brain. These things still play a factor in some ways, such as when people are attracted to each other at first sight. However, due to our intellectual capacity, we have augmented love mentally and spiritually. Love is not absolute. No one says you have to love, even though pretty much everyone does. Not everyone loves in the same way. No one kind of love is more factually correct than another.

Same with morals. They evolved from instincts, which still factor today, though unconsciously so. They were/are augmented by our increased intellectual capacity into abstract ideas that play a huge part in our lives. No authority says you have to have morals, though nearly everyone does. No one's morals are exactly the same. One kind of moral belief is not more factually correct than another.

Do I want to get rid of love? No!! Do I want to get rid of morals? No!! I am a very moral person, at least as much as you are. I have very strong beliefs. I am simply arguing that morals are not absolute. That is all; I am not passing judgment on morals.

And it's absolutism that factually doesn't work. If you believe in absolutism, you have to define the absolute and explain where it came from. Relativism is explained by opinions and evolution, both of which we know exist. I am NOT saying that morals don't exist (obviously they do, since we all have them) or that we shouldn't have them, merely that THEY ARE RELATIVE.

Do you understand what I've been saying NOW?

[FrodoFriend]

Anyway, there's my POV. It's perfectly logical if you try to understand it. Since I'm tired of this debate now (we're basically just repeating ourselves, no new ground covered), that's my last word. Nice debating with you all!

P.S. This is my thousandth post!