Relativism VS. Absoulte

[BeardofPants]

*Hoo boy! How'd I let this debate slide by me?*

ab·so·lut·ism Pronunciation Key (bs-ltzm)
n.

1.
1. A political theory holding that all power should be vested in one ruler or other authority.
2. A form of government in which all power is vested in a single ruler or other authority.
2. An absolute doctrine, principle, or standard.

rel·a·tiv·ism Pronunciation Key (rl-t-vzm)
n. Philosophy

A theory, especially in ethics or aesthetics, that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them.

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.

Firstly, both absolutism and relativism are subjective human perceptions. They are yet another way of attempting to pidgeon hole a complex species into a nice tidy cardboard box.

Secondly, moralism can be closely tied into a cultural belief system or ideology. What may be considered to be morally wrong in one society, might be considered to be kosher in another. Nothing is completely absolute, but nothing is completely relative either. I agree with whoever said it, that absolute morals are something we aim for, but can not achieve.

Thirdly, since I believe in evolution, the hominid species has not always had the faculties to discern 'right' and 'wrong'. Ideologies are a human trait, applicable it seems, only to humans. Chimpanzees partake in rape and murder, but they are not bound to a moral belief system.

In summation, both absolutism and relativism are a load of bollocks. They're nothing more than nice neat lables which function as a thinly veiled ideology.

[webwizard333]

So it's absolute that there are no absolutes (morally speaking)?

FrodoFriend was upset when someone said men are superior to women. That implies that the moral that men and women are equal is better than the moral of sexism (I agree!), but means that this is absolute, generally speaking. So is that an absoulute? Men and women are equal, no matter what (Very generally speaking)?

[Andúril]

Right. Wrong. This is what it boils down to.

Some live by a moral code, but interestingly (at least to my point of view), there are two moral codes in life. That is, the one they live by, and the other one that they aspire to live by.

I believe it is quite clear that external elements interact with one's chosen moral code (the aspirational one), which creates the end result (the actual practised moral code). What I mean by external is an influence that does not originate from this proposed absolute morality, such as the concious (or subconcious) desire for self-preservation, or the hidden need for stability or freedom from fear.

But my main point is that there is more than one type of right, and more than one type of wrong. Ofcourse there is the moral right and wrong. But we must not forget about the rational or intellectual right and wrong.

One believes that unreasonable killing is "wrong". Why? Because it goes against that person's morals (either aspirational, or practised, or both). Why does that person live by that moral code? Because it is right to do so. This is the intellectual "right".

We are faced with a number of differing moral codes, and it is our intellectual decision to follow one, to hold it as correct. This decision has a number of contributing factors, such as indoctrination, or faith, and other fatcors, as well as a combination of these.

My aspirational morals? I have none.

*Hoo boy! How'd I let this debate slide by me?*

Same here!

[afro-elf]

moral statemnets are meaningless. they do not express facts at all. they are just expressions of emotion. like grunts,sighs, or laughter

when someone says tortue is wrong or you should tell the truth the are doing little more that showing how they feel about the subject. what they have said is neither true or false.

Its like shouting "boo' at torture and "hooray at " truth telling"

[Imladris]

Before I launch into any thoughts I would like to know one matter, is absolutism, or part of it, "might is right"?

[BeardofPants]

1. A political theory holding that all power should be vested in one ruler or other authority.

might is right

Sort of. You *could* say that....

[Andúril]

Moral absolutism, as the subject of this thread, should not be confused with political theory. In my opinion, the third definition is more applicable:

An absolute doctrine, principle, or standard.

Absolutism is a wide-encompassing topic, but we are discussing a branch of it.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

But a lot of that is polotics. Polotics seems to get mixed up in everything. . .

[Andúril]

Well, it seems that moral absolutism does play, now as well as in the past, a political role. From this I would say that while absolutism is a theory broadly practiced in the political arena ("might is right" etc), moral absolutism is a tool used for political gains in a less blatant manner. However, as church becomes more separated from state, the usefulness of this moral absolutist strategy dwindles somewhat.

But that is not to say that absolutism, as a general theory, has lost it's favourability.

[FrodoFriend]

Dear Eru, not this debate again!

[Wulažg]

Ooh boy!!

The problem with trying to determine all this is that everything is relative...

[emplynx]

Originally posted by FrodoFriend
Yes, it's relative. Nothing is absolutely right or wrong.

So, I was just wondering, when is it alright to take a 3 month old baby and torture it brutally for personal pleasure?

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by emplynx

So, I was just wondering, when is it alright to take a 3 month old baby and torture it brutally for personal pleasure?

Not in modern western society, but I believe this practice occured in early inca culture.

http://exn.ca/mummies/Andes.cfm

It *is* relative. While it's considered a monstrosity in our culture, in yet another culture, it might be considered a defining moment in ideology, etc.

(rather a loaded statement that, typical. )

[BeardofPants]

Ooh, and while I remember, I seem to remember a few dodgy references in the bible regarding torturing children/babies.

[Rána Eressëa]

Oi . . . and I thought this was gone for good. Shame on emplynx for bringing it back up.

[samwise of the shire]

Um way back when this began someone mentioned there are no absolutes in nature. Then I have to ask this...what about territories set down by different animals? Large cats for example pee and claw on trees to let other cats know that that is THIER territory and to STAY OUT! If one cat steps over the line of that territory then the first cat will chase the other out. Birds do this too. They sing at different places on their territory to tell rival birds to bug off. Aren't those absolutes? And aboslute boundery for territories. If one rival crosses the border then all goodness to who knows what breaks out until the rival is chased off. So I dont care what you ugys say. There ARE absolutes in nature.
And as far as the killing goes. Animals have no sense of right or wrong. THEY ARE INNOCENT. They kill for FOOD. They dont kill because some rival ticked 'em off, or because they feel like it. They have no sense of right or wrong so to compare human morals with animal morals is silly...because animals DONT have morals. They just live day to day.
And if there were no morals then that would mean there was no God, and if there was no God then what use are our lives if there is no soveriegn deity to listen to us and help us with our problems?Why does the Christian relegion keep on going if there is no God? In fact why does ANY relegion exsist if there is no god to listen to us? Why dont we just give up?
I'll give an answer to that last one...because something cant come from nothing. There has to be a designer, someone who creates that something from nothing.
*waits for someone to bite her head off and quietly and somewhat feebley says*
Cheers,
Sam
ps.Who here is a Christian? Please Pm or e-mail me. I want to know seriously. Enough of the suprises that pop up in posts and signatures.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by samwise of the shire
Large cats for example pee and claw on trees to let other cats know that that is THIER territory and to STAY OUT! If one cat steps over the line of that territory then the first cat will chase the other out.

Yes, BUT, this territory is not just utilised by the big cat. Other animals share this niche with the species. So that is not really an absolute. Plus, niches have a way of overlapping. Again: not absolute.

There ARE absolutes in nature.

I'm going with a "nope." There are adaptations - but each adaptation is different, depending on a variety of factors, not least including environment, resources, etc.

And if there were no morals then that would mean there was no God, and if there was no God then what use are our lives if there is no soveriegn deity to listen to us and help us with our problems?

A code of morals is not necessarily governed by deity, especially the modern one. These are separate phenomena, though both fall under the umbrella of ideology...

Why does the Christian relegion keep on going if there is no God? In fact why does ANY relegion exsist if there is no god to listen to us? Why dont we just give up?

Christianity is still a relatively new religion. The culture and ideology of Ancient Egypt was around FAR longer. Furthermore, humans are still a new species - we're still finding our feet so to speak. And mass-delusion is a powerful tool. Not only does it permeate ideology, but other aspects as well, including science. Nothing is safe: human fallacy is pretty insurmountable at the moment.

I'll give an answer to that last one...because something cant come from nothing.

Why ever not? Where did God come from then? No... don't answer that. We'll be at it all day.

This debate is about absolutes vs relativism, NOT theological short-comings. Lets try and stick to the topic. Just once.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

They dont kill because some rival ticked 'em off, or because they feel like it

That is not quite true. Chimps kill each other, occasionally. I know they are very closely related to us (As I recall, we have about 90% of the same genes), so perhaps this says something about their habits and so on. But, they do carry on wars between groups, and they have been known to murder rivals. This is all males, doing the murdering and so on. Chimp polotics are very interesting, not to mention complicated, but they have a male leader of each group, who becomes leader for a varying reasons. Of course, there are always rivalries. One example of chimps killing each other is found in the book Peacemaking Among Primates, by Frans de Waal. de Waal spent 6 years observing the Chimpanzees at the Arnhem Zoo in the Netherlands. There were three powerful males in the group, and they were constantly forming alliances and coalitions. One night, they were in a cage together, after their insistant behavior among the keepers, wanting to stay together at night, they fought all night, making considerable phycical damage. The damage to the third chimp was serious; he died of his wounds. And his death had been the cause of the other two chimps.
Now, this was of course an example of chimps in captivity. If I could find a specific example of wild chimps, I would, but the point is, not all animals just kill for food. Discuss.

[BeardofPants]

They dont kill because some rival ticked 'em off, or because they feel like it

Thanks EG - I missed this quote. Animals kill for rivallry all the time. Rivalling for mates, resources - you name it. It's part of surviving amongst limited resources. Have you perhaps not heard of hierarchy?

[Arathorn]

I think Jane Goodall(sp?) observed that there's a lot of politics going on with Chimp society.

A chimp at the lower part of the pecking order can enhance himself and become an alpha by simply taking care of the alpha female's infant.