Relitivism

[ShrowdedPoet]

I'm up for a good philosophical debate!

[HairyHeretic]

I think you may need to state a position to start with.

Unless your position itself is relative? :)

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Which, doesn't that mean we can't argue it?  Everything being relative, we're all right.

[Apple of Eris]

I am totally against relativism, having relatives, relationships. Basically anything that starts with rela.

[calamity]

Firm non believer!  I stand with Kant on this one - ethics are objective.  

There are a lot of problems with moral relativism/ethical subjectivism.  All philosophical ideas go through a period of evolution - ethical subjectivism is no different in this regard.  Simple Subjectivism (moral relativism in its most immature form) makes the presumption that any statement about morality can and must be reduced to an emotive statement about personal preference.  For example, if I say that abortion is wrong, what I am truly saying is that I do not like abortion, abortion makes me feel things I do not enjoy, or any variation thereof.  The most obvious flaw in this belief system is that it posits that such a statement as "I do not like abortion" can be true or false while also claiming that every single person's own opinion must be considered equally true.  This creates serious issues when it comes to moral disagreement.

If any moral statement is actually a statement about attitude, and there is no "moral truth," then there is no such thing as moral disagreement.  Unless one person can say to another person, "your opinion is wrong" (and subjectivism on the whole denies this possibility), there is no disagreement.  Instead, there are simply statements that are not about facts, but about beliefs.  This is in conflict with the basic human understanding of the existence of disagreement!  If I say that abortion is wrong and you say it isn't, we disagree.  Moral relativism doesn't allow for this.  Moral relativism says instead that we are simply discussing our attitudes.  No resolution can ever take place this way.

Ethical disagreement occurs: I am pregnant.  If I say that abortion is morally reprehensible and my acquaintance says that abortion is morally permissible, one of us has to be wrong.  This is supported by the fact that no matter what our opinions, a moral choice has to be made.  I will either have an abortion or I will not.  Furthermore, my action will either be morally correct or morally incorrect.  It cannot be both, and it certainly cannot be neither.  Ethical disagreement is important to us because it helps us to reason our way into moral understanding.  Through discourse, revelations occur.  Could society truly move forward if relativism were the best moral attitude?  What about rape, murder, child abuse, and torture?  Are these things only wrong to some people?  Or are they objectively wrong?  I say they are.  Morality, according to Kant, is something we as humans are able to reason to.  It doesn't mean that we always get it right.  We stumble, we make mistakes, we disagree.

If discovering a way that one should live and behave is important, then the adoption of relativism cannot be propitious.  The person interested in correct moral reasoning must hold an ethical belief system that will allow such reasoning to take place.  Moral relativism doesn't allow for this kind of rationalization because it is against the idea that moral principles exist objectively: everyone can be correct about morality because morality is nothing more than a conglomeration of arbitrary emotions.  This conviction leaves no real platform for why one 'ought' to do or believe any one thing over another.  Individuals need only ask themselves what their 'attitude' is on a particular matter.  The theory seems to nullify the whole concept of moral truths as objective and correct prescriptions and proscriptions of universal truths.  Determination of right and wrong seems reduced by ethical subjectivism to simple individual whim.  Ethical subjectivism tells us that there is no way that one should live.

Whew!  That's all I have for now.  *grins*

[Inkidu]

I think you may need to state a position to start with.

Unless your position itself is relative? :)

Relativity is the order of the day? :]

[RubySlippers]

I'm not religious but I tend to look to the tradition of Natural Law although there are variations on this I include a link for reference.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

Its suits my Libertarian sensibilities as the concept that a certain center of moral good can be considered that doesn't actually differs from one people to another regardless of class or situation. And this is not on its own steeped in religion although Christian Natural Law is one strong postion led by Thomas Aquinas. I feel that one cannot be a moral relativist and have a center that can suitably balance ones life or a society. And using it with no strong sense of what is right to do it can lead to great wrong such as slavery or even rape of children. What I consider is what is good and how can a human follow what natural law says which overall is steeped in common sense after all if one really studies it. And it can fit whether your religious or not based on what position is taken.

[ShrowdedPoet]

My stance on relativism. . .

I think that it's utter bull.  If you are a relativist you can't argue your point because if you argue you have to be saying that you are right or wrong and you can't because everything is relative.  So you really can't get mad when I tell you that you're wrong.  But how many relativists do we see who not only argue but get downright pissed off when they are told they're wrong.  If in fact they believe that everything is relative they shouldn't care either way.

Now here is my example of how wrong relativism really is.  Sally believes that there is only one God, Timmy believes that there are multiple Gods, and John believes there is no God.  Amy, our resident relativist says, "you're all right".  But that statement doesn't work because they can't all be right.  There can not be only one God at the same time that there are multiple Gods at the very same time there is NO God.  This is a contradiction.  It is impossible. 

Just an example. 

[Greenthorn]

My stance on relativism. . .

I think that it's utter bull.  If you are a relativist you can't argue your point because if you argue you have to be saying that you are right or wrong and you can't because everything is relative.  So you really can't get mad when I tell you that you're wrong.  But how many relativists do we see who not only argue but get downright pissed off when they are told they're wrong.  If in fact they believe that everything is relative they shouldn't care either way.

Now here is my example of how wrong relativism really is.  Sally believes that there is only one God, Timmy believes that there are multiple Gods, and John believes there is no God.  Amy, our resident relativist says, "you're all right".  But that statement doesn't work because they can't all be right.  There can not be only one God at the same time that there are multiple Gods at the very same time there is NO God.  This is a contradiction.  It is impossible. 

Just an example. 

*Amy walks in*

Well..no.  They are all right.  Because who is to say what is right or wrong?  Is it ego which makes one believe that in a conversation about God that what they have learned/experienced means there can be nothing else? 

Think:  If I raise my child, homeschool her and everything...and I tell her the sky is not blue, it is green and really, the grass is not really grass, it is rock, is she WRONG when she tells her friends this?  Nope, she is not...nor are her friends.

There truly is no right and wrong if you think about it.  Everything we know we have been TAUGHT...so is the sky color really blue...or is it in fact green but we have always been taught to call it blue?

*smirks*

Yeah...probably time for my meds

[Sherona]

GT's post made complete and perfect sense to me, and I have often times wondered about what would happen if Humanity decided to discard everything they were taught on the fundamental level such as "red is red not Blue" ;)

[Greenthorn]

I'll add in:  There really is no right and wrong, there are degrees of acceptibility.

[ShrowdedPoet]

*Amy walks in*

Well..no.  They are all right.  Because who is to say what is right or wrong?  Is it ego which makes one believe that in a conversation about God that what they have learned/experienced means there can be nothing else? 

Think:  If I raise my child, homeschool her and everything...and I tell her the sky is not blue, it is green and really, the grass is not really grass, it is rock, is she WRONG when she tells her friends this?  Nope, she is not...nor are her friends.

There truly is no right and wrong if you think about it.  Everything we know we have been TAUGHT...so is the sky color really blue...or is it in fact green but we have always been taught to call it blue?

*smirks*

Yeah...probably time for my meds

*grins*  Ah, we have an Amy huh?  I really do believe in right in wrong.  It's just the way I think and feel.  If murder is wrong and someone who was taught it is right walked up to me and said it is I wouldn't just shrug and say it's all relitive.  I'd tell them that murder is wrong.  I don't believe that two things such as god exists and god doesn't exist can be right at the same time.  Either there is a god or there isn't.  One statement is right and one statement is wrong cause they can't both be right.  That's my way of thinking.  

I'm Timmy by the way. . .*laughs*  ;D

[Greenthorn]

Well wait...Poet....

If JimmyJoeBob walked into your house and killed/hurt/raped your daughter....and you killed him.  Is it wrong that you killed him?

*points to my last post*

[ShrowdedPoet]

Well wait...Poet....

If JimmyJoeBob walked into your house and killed/hurt/raped your daughter....and you killed him.  Is it wrong that you killed him?

*points to my last post*

Actually, yes it is.  I also believe in justice and going through the right outlets to get it.  Now if I was there and I had to defend myself against his attack and killed him in the process It would still be wrong. . .but I had no choice.  *shrugs*

[Greenthorn]

Actually, yes it is.  I also believe in justice and going through the right outlets to get it.  Now if I was there and I had to defend myself against his attack and killed him in the process It would still be wrong. . .but I had no choice.  *shrugs*

Well wait!

Murder is WRONG remember?  And murder is murder no matter what the reason behind it.

(I have just made my entire point *grins*  like how I did that?)

[Inkidu]

Personally I believe the greatest sin of mankind is moral relativity. My two cents.

[Greenthorn]

If it is wrong that you kill someone for a valid reason in your own mind..is it really wrong?

Someone rapes/kills one of my children, they will die by my hand...and I will have no regret even if in the courtroom I find out this guy has 6 kids and is a loving husband and father.  He took away something that is mine, so in my mind I was RIGHT.  Do I also know that what I did was WRONG?  Yep.  Do I care? Nope.

Murder is wrong.  True.
Murdering someone because they murdered your child is still wrong.  True.
Murdering someone (by execution) because they killed 23 women is wrong.  True.

Murder is always wrong.  FALSE.

[ShrowdedPoet]

Well wait!

Murder is WRONG remember?  And murder is murder no matter what the reason behind it.

(I have just made my entire point *grins*  like how I did that?)

. . .I just agreed it was wrong on all points.  Even if I had to kill him in self defence I said it was wrong. 

[Inkidu]

If it is wrong that you kill someone for a valid reason in your own mind..is it really wrong?

Someone rapes/kills one of my children, they will die by my hand...and I will have no regret even if in the courtroom I find out this guy has 6 kids and is a loving husband and father.  He took away something that is mine, so in my mind I was RIGHT.  Do I also know that what I did was WRONG?  Yep.  Do I care? Nope.

Murder is wrong.  True.
Murdering someone because they murdered your child is still wrong.  True.
Murdering someone (by execution) because they killed 23 women is wrong.  True.

Murder is always wrong.  FALSE.

Alright lets pose this in a better format. When is murder right, GT?

[Greenthorn]

. . .I just agreed it was wrong on all points.  Even if I had to kill him in self defence I said it was wrong. 

But..if you don't murder them, society says it's okay (wait..not society, but the law says) to execute him for killing.  

Facts are just opinions.

What's wrong may be right to some, and it all depends on how they have been "taught".

I think murdering someone who hurt my child is right...you think it's wrong...that's okay...but I think it's wrong that he hurt my child and so do you!

Ahhh...all goes back to my third sentence.



Inkedu: It depends on how you were taught and what opinions you have formed yourself.  My own opinion does not matter because it might be different than yours and that is my entire point.  Neither of us is RIGHT...or rather be BOTH are.

[Inkidu]

Alright better question. When do you think murder is right, GT?

[Greenthorn]

Alright better question. When do you think murder is right, GT?

Well asking me that, would it not start a debate on murder?  Don't we already know from society that everyone holds a different opinion?  Why would I make a stand about it here?  Just to start a debate?  I think not.  The right and wrong of murder is not something I can change with my opinion, so I don't bother arguing about it.  Now, if I was a politician....*smiles* (the world would be screwed)

[ShrowdedPoet]

But..if you don't murder them, society says it's okay (wait..not society, but the law says) to execute him for killing.  

Facts are just opinions.

What's wrong may be right to some, and it all depends on how they have been "taught".

I think murdering someone who hurt my child is right...you think it's wrong...that's okay...but I think it's wrong that he hurt my child and so do you!

Ahhh...all goes back to my third sentence.



Inkedu: It depends on how you were taught and what opinions you have formed yourself.  My own opinion does not matter because it might be different than yours and that is my entire point.  Neither of us is RIGHT...or rather be BOTH are.

*nods*  I understand what you're saying but it will still be wrong to me.  

I also understand that in different cultures it's seen as ok to murder.  So lets say we take is a little deeper.

I believe that humans (all humans except sociopaths who seem to be missint this function) have something in their minds, souls, spirits that tells them what is right and wrong ALWAYS.  And I also believe that these absolute truths are the same for all humans.  

[Greenthorn]

I believe that humans (all humans except sociopaths who seem to be missint this function) have something in their minds, souls, spirits that tells them what is right and wrong ALWAYS.  And I also believe that these absolute truths are the same for all humans.  

Again..but who is to say what -is- right and wrong?

It's our upbringing, our own opinions.  There is no true right and wrong..only what is or is not acceptable.

I think animal cruelty is wrong...testing on animals for our products is wrong.  But someone could come in and say...well...if we didn't test on animals we could potentially harm humans.  Hmmm welll okay, you're point is valid...but I still think it's wrong to do so.

[ShrowdedPoet]

Again..but who is to say what -is- right and wrong?

It's our upbringing, our own opinions.  There is no true right and wrong..only what is or is not acceptable.

I think animal cruelty is wrong...testing on animals for our products is wrong.  But someone could come in and say...well...if we didn't test on animals we could potentially harm humans.  Hmmm welll okay, you're point is valid...but I still think it's wrong to do so.

*nods*  I understand what you're saying and I will honestly say, I don't know who says what is right or wrong.  I just know what I believe and feel.  I also know what I observe.  I can not prove anything so this is all thought and speculation.  I'm sure that my Philosophy teacher could put up a much better arguement but sadly I'm not THAT advanced in that field. . .  *laughs*  ;D

[HairyHeretic]

I believe that humans (all humans except sociopaths who seem to be missint this function) have something in their minds, souls, spirits that tells them what is right and wrong ALWAYS.  And I also believe that these absolute truths are the same for all humans.  

Unfortunately what is deemed right and wrong has changed with both time and culture.

Slavery
Womens rights
I'm sure there are plenty other examples that it wouldn't take too much effort to produce.

[Greenthorn]

Unfortunately what is deemed right and wrong has changed with both time and culture.

Slavery
Womens rights
I'm sure there are plenty other examples that it wouldn't take too much effort to produce.

Exactly my point.  It all has to do with what we are taught then how we process those teachings.  And it comes down to..no one is right or wrong...or better...everyone is right and wrong.

*smiles*

[Trieste]

Universal right and wrong leaks into the anthropology of things... considering that you are using murder as an example, this may seem to actually back up Poet's point, but it doesn't... Study of morals and ethics across human cultures has found that in modern and ancient cultures, there are only a few constants of accepted morality. There is a prohibition on murder of someone in your culture (doesn't often apply to them damned furriners). There is some form of discouragement of incest, though it's not always a taboo... sometimes, the concept is just simply laughable. Like a monkey with an adding machine. And often there is smoe form of marriage, although it may not take a form that is recogniseable to us.

That's it.

No theft taboo. No taboo against sneaking into your neighbour's house and secreting away his daughter if you can. Abortion. Fraud. Lying. All of these things we take as things you Just Don't Do to others might not exist in another culture. They may decide that right or wrong, Poet AND GT are two women who are JUST too mouthy and both of them need their tongues cut out as a lesson in humility to the rest of the women in the town. Would that be wrong? Of course not. It's considered for the greater good.

So ... yes. Relativism isa bit stronger than you might think, especially if you start getting into a discussion on other cultures.

[Inkidu]

Well asking me that, would it not start a debate on murder?  Don't we already know from society that everyone holds a different opinion?  Why would I make a stand about it here?  Just to start a debate?  I think not.  The right and wrong of murder is not something I can change with my opinion, so I don't bother arguing about it.  Now, if I was a politician....*smiles* (the world would be screwed)

No I was just curious.

[Inkidu]

Again..but who is to say what -is- right and wrong?

It's our upbringing, our own opinions.  There is no true right and wrong..only what is or is not acceptable.

I think animal cruelty is wrong...testing on animals for our products is wrong.  But someone could come in and say...well...if we didn't test on animals we could potentially harm humans.  Hmmm welll okay, you're point is valid...but I still think it's wrong to do so.

I believe there are just wrong things. Killing off a whole race of people. Rape. Child abuse,

[Greenthorn]

*sticks tongue out at Trieste*

To sum up my own end of this discussion...right and wrong are interchangable and no one truly has the power to say which is which because even if the lawmakers tell me that wearing green on St Patricks Day is right (and yeah I'm using something trivial as an example), it doesn't mean that I agree...and it doesn't mean that they are wrong.

The more serious in nature that one gets with right and wrong, the more people are forced to think...and people who don't like to think are the ones who will slam their hands on the table and say YOU ARE WRONG.

[Greenthorn]

No I was just curious.

Well why curious?  I had used murder as an example to why no one is truly right or wrong.  *smiles*  I wasn't taking a stand, nor trying to.  Murder was not what was on the table.

[Inkidu]

GT Hitler was legally right. That is to say he was endowed by law to kill millions of Jews. That will never be morally right no matter how you spin it.

[Trieste]

!

...!

You will never ... never be forgiven for not wearing green on Saint Pat's, you godless heathen savage!

NEVER WILL I FORGET! ... March... uhm, March ... You know, that day is a little fuzzy, and I don't remember it that well. What date is it, again?

[Greenthorn]

GT Hitler was legally right. That is to say he was endowed by law to kill millions of Jews. That will never be morally right no matter how you spin it.

I didn't say whether Hitler was right or wrong...did I?

*blinks*

[HairyHeretic]

I don't think it was written into law that he could kill them. Otherwise why the whole charade of sending them to the camps? Why not simply march in armed troops and gun them down in their homes?

The law permitted him to do a lot of nasty things, but I think it fell short of legalising murder.

[Inkidu]

I didn't say whether Hitler was right or wrong...did I?

*blinks*

Throughout your whole thing you keep saying no one can say anyone is right or wrong. That means anything anyone ever does they don't have to account for it. You can't call me wrong if I decide to off someone for kicks. If you choose to stand by your argument.

[HairyHeretic]

I would say that everyone has their own definitions of what is right and wrong, but those are not necessarily universal ones.

As for accounting for things, every action, every inaction, every word spoken, has consequences. Some will be minor, some will not. I believe that you should take responsibility for those consequences, since you chose to be the cause of them.

[Inkidu]

I would say that everyone has their own definitions of what is right and wrong, but those are not necessarily universal ones.

As for accounting for things, every action, every inaction, every word spoken, has consequences. Some will be minor, some will not. I believe that you should take responsibility for those consequences, since you chose to be the cause of them.

I don't know if it a hundred percent true but if everyone's not right or wrong that absolves them of any responsibility. It's like saying they didn't do anything why should they pay.

[Sherona]

I don't know if it a hundred percent true but if everyone's not right or wrong that absolves them of any responsibility. It's like saying they didn't do anything why should they pay.

In the US there is actually a clause which will excuse people's bad behaviors, such as murder. If they were mentally unable to comprehend what they did was wrong then they can not be sent to prison. Mental Competency thing.

[Inkidu]

In the US there is actually a clause which will excuse people's bad behaviors, such as murder. If they were mentally unable to comprehend what they did was wrong then they can not be sent to prison. Mental Competency thing.

Yes. Sometimes its bull sometimes its not but they should be sent to the mental hospital.
However, saying there's no right and wrong makes anyone of any reasoning ability free of any responsibility.

[HairyHeretic]

I don't know if it a hundred percent true but if everyone's not right or wrong that absolves them of any responsibility. It's like saying they didn't do anything why should they pay.

But they did do something. Whether their actions were right or wrong, they still chose to perform those actions, therefore they have responsibility for them (assuming mental competance, granted).

It may still be that someone chooses to perform an action which could be considered wrong (ie murder) but also necessary (stop someone from murdering others).

[Inkidu]

But they did do something. Whether their actions were right or wrong, they still chose to perform those actions, therefore they have responsibility for them (assuming mental competance, granted).

It may still be that someone chooses to perform an action which could be considered wrong (ie murder) but also necessary (stop someone from murdering others).

Yes but I believe that someone who shoots a psycho about to light me on fire, is damn well justified in killing him. Is it murder. I don't know. When a policeman does it, is it murder?

[HairyHeretic]

I'm sure its listed as justifiable homicide or something technical like that. The police officer is granted the right to do so under the law though. It could be argued that a lesser wrong is acceptable to prevent a greater.

[Greenthorn]

Throughout your whole thing you keep saying no one can say anyone is right or wrong. That means anything anyone ever does they don't have to account for it. You can't call me wrong if I decide to off someone for kicks. If you choose to stand by your argument.

That's right I have said no one is wrong or right..or rather everyone is right.  I never once said that one should not have to account for their actions.  If you have read my posts, one of my examples were me being in a courthouse facing prosecution for killing someone...*smiles*...I said I would still think I was right, but I did -not- say that I should not also be punished for what I had done.

So..before I sign off Elliquiy for the day I will say this.  Inkedu, I think you should read posts more thoroughly and not assume something because it simply was not stated.  Not once did I go into whether or not someone should be held accountable for their actions.  I am only stating that there is no true right or wrong...it all depends on how one has been raised and how one perceives things.

And I will say again...I never gave my opinion on murder...so this is not a debate on -what- is wrong or right...it is a general discussion on right and wrong....or at least it is supposed to be!

[RubySlippers]

How can a relativist say anything is right or wrong? An advocate of Natural Law can say murder is wrong because its taking another life unnecessarily and therefore takes their liberty (dead person) and upsets the community norms making it unstable. This would be one approach naturally one can argue.

A relativist can't ever say murder is wrong.

I consider this entire philosophy dangerous on so many levels. Hitler used an immoral view to kill anyone his people didn't like not just Jews, Stalin did so in the USSR and the like one cannot have a civilized society and not have a moral center. That doesn't have to be religious but there has to be one ingrained in law and custom.

[calamity]

That's right I have said no one is wrong or right..or rather everyone is right.  I never once said that one should not have to account for their actions.  If you have read my posts, one of my examples were me being in a courthouse facing prosecution for killing someone...*smiles*...I said I would still think I was right, but I did -not- say that I should not also be punished for what I had done.

This is a problematic concept, though.  Why should anyone suffer punishment for committing acts they consider right?  If it is to protect society, then a wrong has been committed.  If an entire society believes you did something wrong but you believe you did something right, one of you has to be incorrect in your estimation.  You can't have both.  Either your punishment is just or else it is not.  If we believe that morals don't really exist and that everyone can be right about what is good and bad or right and wrong, then a system of punishment becomes irrelevant.  Why punish someone?  To teach them a lesson, to keep society out of harm's way.  Well, what lesson are you teaching someone with federal prison or even probation/community service if he didn't do anything objectively wrong?  What is the point?

Regarding murder - of course there is a correct moral answer to the question, "when is it okay to kill someone?"  It doesn't have to be a simple "never."  I don't know the answer, but I could certainly use my moral reasoning to attempt it.  But make no mistake - I will be wrong or I will be right.  Not some suspended half-right that coexists equally with everyone else's opinions and personal feelings about when it's okay to pull the trigger.

Trieste - I see the temptation of swaying towards cultural relativism (the idea that what is okay for one culture might not be okay for another - it leads beautifully into Hobbes' idea of absolute government sovereignty and presents its own problems, such as the oft-used Holocaust example).  The problem is deciding upon action taken.  If, for example, we take cultural relativism to heart, we have absolutely no reason to interfere with Darfur.  Perhaps you are someone who believes we shouldn't.  I happen to believe we should, because what is happening in Darfur is objectively, morally repugnant.  Genocide - whatever the reason for it - is wrong.

As an aside, I am an evolutionary psychology student.  There are certainly ways in which we can reduce ethics or morality into explanations of biological programming whose purpose is to keep us alive and well.  But changing the language does not change the facts about morality.  We evolved into creatures of what Kant calls "moral autonomy."  We can reason to correct morality.

[Inkidu]

GT, I'd love a world where everyone could be right but that's just not the case. It never has been. It can't ever happen, and I'm an idealist.

[ShrowdedPoet]

Ok, I'm pretty sure it started with you, Inkedu, trying to debate the rightness or wrongness of murder.  Drop it.  This is a discussion of relitivism.  GT was just using murder as an example as I was just using the existance of God as an example.  Hitler has nothing to do with the discussion of relativism unless we're discussing his stance on it.  I want the thread back on topic please and thank you!

[Trieste]

GT, I'd love a world where everyone could be right but that's just not the case. It never has been. It can't ever happen, and I'm an idealist.

This is a statement of opiniona nd ideals, without facts or reasoning to back it up. The stated purpose of this thread was philosophical debate - make some.

Ok, I'm pretty sure it started with you, Inkedu, trying to debate the rightness or wrongness of murder.  Drop it.  This is a discussion of relitivism.  GT was just using murder as an example as I was just using the existance of God as an example.  Hitler has nothing to do with the discussion of relativism unless we're discussing his stance on it.  I want the thread back on topic please and thank you!

Stop attacking Inkedu because he is not going about the debate in the same fashion you would. The rightness and wrongness of murder is a perfectly valid example of relativism, and just because his posts have been frustrating you doesn't mean that they are flat out wrong, or that you have the right to tell him to stop posting.

Play nice por favor, or thread will be locked.

[ShrowdedPoet]

This is a statement of opiniona nd ideals, without facts or reasoning to back it up. The stated purpose of this thread was philosophical debate - make some.

Stop attacking Inkedu because he is not going about the debate in the same fashion you would. The rightness and wrongness of murder is a perfectly valid example of relativism, and just because his posts have been frustrating you doesn't mean that they are flat out wrong, or that you have the right to tell him to stop posting.

Play nice por favor, or thread will be locked.

I was not telling him to stop posting I was telling him I'd like the thread to go back on topic.  I thought that was what you were supposed to do when you saw it getting off topic.  Sorry, I just won't say anything else.

[Trieste]

Ok, I'm pretty sure it started with you, Inkedu, trying to debate the rightness or wrongness of murder.  Drop it.  This is a discussion of relitivism.  GT was just using murder as an example as I was just using the existance of God as an example.  Hitler has nothing to do with the discussion of relativism unless we're discussing his stance on it.  I want the thread back on topic please and thank you!

That's the part I was referring to ... though I'm sure you meant to steer the thread back on topic, it came off as an order to just leave it alone, stop debating, etc.

What about cultural relativism, Poet? Or what would be another good example, if you wanted to get off of the murder example? I brought up incest and marriage earlier... and I think there have been other topics that are less extreme...

[Apple of Eris]

I just wanted to point out that Killing != Murder (that's does not equal). Murder is a legal term, meaning the unlawful killing of someone. Lawful killing is a different term entirely.

So if you're going to debate 'murder' you are debating the 'unlawful killing of a person' however, if you are talking about 'justifiable homicide' it is NOT murder because, it is lawful killing.

So maybe you all should just debate the same thing?

---------------------------------------
Oh, and I'd like to point out, that grass is not green on the sub-atomic level. And it is not green to beings that do not see in the visible light spectrum or to those that do not see in color.

The answer to the old zen koan who is he who makes the grass green, is us. :)

[Inkidu]

This is a statement of opiniona nd ideals, without facts or reasoning to back it up. The stated purpose of this thread was philosophical debate - make some.

Stop attacking Inkedu because he is not going about the debate in the same fashion you would. The rightness and wrongness of murder is a perfectly valid example of relativism, and just because his posts have been frustrating you doesn't mean that they are flat out wrong, or that you have the right to tell him to stop posting.

Play nice por favor, or thread will be locked.

Thanks Trieste.

[calamity]

I'll add in:  There really is no right and wrong, there are degrees of acceptibility.

I wanted to touch on this statement, also, because it delves into the issue of language.  If something exists somewhere on a scale of acceptability, are you suggesting that there is an objective slider, here?  If we were to replace "wrong" with "unacceptable" and "right" with "acceptable," have we really done anything except use different words to say the same thing?

If you mean that acceptability is relative, which I suspect you do, then how can we make moral decisions?  There must be some objective truth buried beneath all of the semantics - Kant would say that it is the Categorical Imperative.  There are many things I disagree with Kant on (such as the idea that lying is never morally permissible), but the Categorical Imperative seems to basically be right:  "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."  It's a statement that requires some philosophical thought to truly digest, and I would recommend that anyone interested in ethics read Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals for a deeper understanding.

Morality is not a simple thing.  It is complex and difficult and there are many mistakes to be made along the road of moral reasoning, but that hardly means that it isn't a worthwhile journey.  Relativism is dangerous.  As long as we all say "everyone is right," nothing can be truly accomplished.  There is no world in which everyone agrees with everyone else; if there were, Thomas More would never have had to write Utopia.  Disagreement over moral issues is what allows us to interact with the world and with each other - without discourse that considers certain truths objective, we can take no action.  We can't move forward.