Absolutism v. Relatavism

[Tjol]

To start a seperate discussion on a seperate point....

Absolutism- There are objective actualities in this world. There is good and evil... change them to any of their synonyms succes and failure, strength and weakness, order and disorder. The universe has a specific nature, their are rules and tendencies that can be discovered and taken advantage of.

Qualititatively the universe has absolute definition. Regardless if the definition is acheivable or not by the intellect of any or every given human being.

Relatavism- There are no objective actualities in this world. No moral judgements to be made, nor any other better or lesser options, all things are equally valid and equally real and equally accurate, because nothing is accurate. There are no rules or tendencies, and so their is no making any use of what we perceive save for to understand ourselves. And even that can only be done from a relatavist point of view.

Qualitatively the universe is as we perceive it, our disagreements over the qualities of the universe do not inherently have a closer to correct and less than correct answer. It is not a lack of intellectual capacity and ability that keeps any individual from understanding the universe, but rather the non existence of such a concrete reality that makes it impossible for us to have a consensus on what the universe is and is not.

Revise and reflect.

My impression is that relatavism starts with the intent of not making moral judgements, but no sane person can truely pretend that they don't operate from absolute imperatives of what they should and shouldn't do. This statement to a relatavist is proof that it's all self defined, because we all have different absolutes we operate under. To me, that everyone has absolute imperatives is proof that there is an actual absolute. Our perception affects our understanding of that absolute truth, but that absolute truth exists outside of our perception, unaltered by our perception.

[The Dreaming]

I kind of feel that, like the determinism/free-will debate, and the nature/nurture debate, that the answer lies somewhere in the middle. There have to be absolutes, the statement "there are no absolutes" if it were true, would invalidate itself. (There's a word for that, I know. God help me I can't remember it)

Then again, there is more than enough in life that is pretty grey. I don't think anyone disagrees with the Golden Rule, but what about transubstantiation? I think this is a case where you can have it both ways.

[wayfriend]

My impression is that relatavism starts with the intent of not making moral judgements

Actually, it starts when you persue objectivism far enough and discover that it breaks down under not-very extreme conditions.

[emotional leper]

Everything but physics is relative. And even physics is relative.

[Wyldewode]

relatives are relative. . .

Okay. . . just couldn't resist!

[Zarathustra]

In the another thread, I wrote:

By “relativism,” I mean several different things. On one hand, it’s a view of morality; namely, that there aren’t absolute, logically necessary nor intrinsically essential features of reality that can be called “good and evil.” There are no universal standards of good or bad. We choose that stuff ourselves, or have someone choose it for us (which still technically requires our choice, though not our authenticity).

So I agree with Wayfriend that the desire to refrain from making moral judgments isn't what produces a belief in relative good/evil. A relativist makes these judgments. In fact, he feels so strongly about his judgments precisely because he feels his judgments are just as valid as anyone else's. Which is the opposite of absolutism. This confidence isn't built upon believing that one's judgment is absolute for all people, but rather upon the right to make one's own subjective decisions. I'm confident that my relative judgments are good enough, because there isn't an absolute judgement to overrule them.

I also wrote:

There's another sense in which "relativism," means "there can exist no objective knowledge outside of the knower." This is only partially true. Certainly, there is knowledge of ontological structures of our being—those features of our being which are necessary constituent structures, without which we couldn’t exist (space and time, for instance). And there is the specific ontic fact of our being in the world, which is known through living a specific life. However, knowledge of the physical properties of the universe is something we participate in “creating” by our act of observation, from the standpoint of either collapsing quantum proxy waves of possible states of actuality, to the standpoint of taking measurements of celestial objects from a particular reference frame. Quantum theory and relativity, respectively. Science began giving up a concept of an absolute solution over 100 years ago.

. . . Science is looking for the Grand Unification Theory—but that’s not an absolute answer. It still wouldn’t give absolute, objective, certain knowledge of the world because intrinsic uncertainty and relativity will be necessary parts of that GUT. It will not, for instance, allow us to calculate the motions of every particle in the universe, past and future, even though it will (potentially) explain every phenomenon in the universe.

So I believe that relativism is compatible with the idea of immutable physical laws that hold everywhere (though of course, that's an assumption built upon induction, which is problematic reasoning). However, I leave open the possibility that we could learn the GUT, and though this might be true in every way we could observe, that doesn't rule out the fact that another view of reality might yield a different GUT. For instance, if we could perceive other spatial dimensions than the ones we perceive. So I guess I'm a relativist through and through.

There have to be absolutes, the statement "there are no absolutes" if it were true, would invalidate itself.

But sentences don't effect the nature of reality. Reality doesn't line itself up to match what you consider to be necessary conclusions based solely on the definitions of words. Matters of fact are contingent upon other matters of facts, not the dictates of logical necessity. Logic only applies to the meanings of words. There's nothing about reality that keeps it from being such a place where contradictory sentences can't be accurately constructed to describe it. In order for your argument to work, you have to assume that which you're trying to prove: that reality is already constructed in such a way that no contradictory sentence can describe it accurately. This is the only way you can derive your conclusion: by assuming it to begin with.

Actually, if an acceptable definition of "absolute" can be defined in terms of the affirmation of relativism, then it seems you should conclude that this "absolute" is a nonsensical concept, because it is dependent upon accepting its opposite. It's like saying: "if not A, then A." Thus, your "proof" is fallacious on at least two levels.

Reality can be a place that is entirely relative to observers' reference frames. Otherwise relativity wouldn't work. But the fact that relativity as a theory works doesn't mean that this theory is some kind of absolute. It is merely an affirmation of relativism. And just because a confident, positive affirmation is made, doesn't mean that a statement of absolutism has been made.

I know that still sounds contradictory to you--that I can positively assert relativism and it not be an absolute declaration. But the contradiction is only apparent. It arises out of our ability to transcend our relative, subject view of reality in a paradoxical manner. The paradox lies in our being aware of relativism, not in the relativism itself.

[wayfriend]

There have to be absolutes, the statement "there are no absolutes" if it were true, would invalidate itself.

If I say "This sentence is false", will that prove that the universe is invalid?

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

When I think of absolutism running off the road and into the weeds, I think about all of the things that people, at one time, swore up and down was "absolute good" and "absolute evil"... and now, years later, we can remark on how wrong they were.

So one bad thing about absolutism is that no one can, in fact, ever really know what the absolutes are. Being human, we only think we know. History has shown that no one has ever gotten it right. If there is an absolute out there, it is in all practical ways unknowable. And so the danger is depending on knowing it and not recognizing the flaw in that plan.

Creating a constructive ethical framework upon relativism is much safer.

[emotional leper]

The only absolute is that there are no absolutes.

It's how these things work.

[The Dreaming]

There have to be absolutes, the statement "there are no absolutes" if it were true, would invalidate itself.

If I say "This sentence is false", will that prove that the universe is invalid?

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

When I think of absolutism running off the road and into the weeds, I think about all of the things that people, at one time, swore up and down was "absolute good" and "absolute evil"... and now, years later, we can remark on how wrong they were.

So one bad thing about absolutism is that no one can, in fact, ever really know what the absolutes are. Being human, we only think we know. History has shown that no one has ever gotten it right. If there is an absolute out there, it is in all practical ways unknowable. And so the danger is depending on knowing it and not recognizing the flaw in that plan.

Creating a constructive ethical framework upon relativism is much safer.

I agree completely. But find me a person who disagrees (honestly) with the Golden rule and I will give you a doller.

[Cail]

There are plenty of people who disagree with the Golden Rule (unless you mean, "He who has the gold makes the rules").

[wayfriend]

I agree completely. But find me a person who disagrees (honestly) with the Golden rule and I will give you a doller.

I agree with the Golden Rule --- and I recognize that there are many times when following it is wrong. Which is sufficient to make it a non-absolute. (When is it wrong? When what is good for me is not what is good for someone else. Everyone's different, everyone likes to be treated differently, sometimes people don't like to be treated the way I wish to be.)

[The Dreaming]

Semanticly the Golden rule doesn't apply sometimes, (take pedophilia for example) but the principle of empathy and reciprocity is the basis of all morality.

[emotional leper]

Semanticly the Golden rule doesn't apply sometimes, (take pedophilia for example) but the principle of empathy and reciprocity is the basis of all morality.

I always thought the Golden Rules was about Mercy. Judaism was a religion heavy on Justice. Jesus' teachings were heavy on Mercy. There's an old tale I remember, which I believe is of Rabbinic Origin, about God realising a universe built solely upon Justice or solely upon Mercy would never work. Justice must be tempered by Mercy.

[Zarathustra]

But find me a person who disagrees (honestly) with the Golden rule and I will give you a doller.

Inability to imagine or expect an alternative doesn't mean that an alternative doesn't exist. I answer your question with two examples. Me. And Nietzsche.

The transmutation of values is one of the primary underpinnings of Nietzche's entire project, and as such is suitably complex but I will attempt to explain it. I have made a chart to make it more clear:



Roman Era: Good Bad (good for me) (not good for me)
II \\ // II
II \\ // II
II \\ // II
II \\ // II
II Jesus Christ II
Judeo-Christian Era: II (transmutation of values) II
II // \\ II
II // \\ II
II // \\ II
II // \\ II
V \/ \/ V
Evil Good
(bad for others) (the golden rule)

[***Edit: I can't make this chart look right. Click on the link to see it.***]

From pre-History through the Rise of the Roman Empire (what I have termed the Roman Era), morality was basically a very simple thing: Something was noble or good, if it was good for you or helped you, conversely something was contemptible or bad if it was bad for you or hurt you.

However, then Jesus was born and the world got turned on its head. Jesus, (really the entire Judeo understanding which Jesus popularized- hence Jesus is referred to by Nietzsche as "the king of the Jews") ushered in a new era (which I have called the Judeo-Christian Era), in which the previous paradigm of morality was inverted. The Gods no longer loved you for being self interested. Now God said, you should do unto others as you would have done unto you. What had previously been seen as Good (doing what was beneficial to you) was now seen as a sin: Evil, and what had previously been viewed as being bad, was now going to be rewarded in the Kingdom of Heaven, and was called Good. This inversion, or stated alternatively transmutation, of the value system changed the entire world.

Nietzsche's question was to try to determine in terms of psychological effect which value system (good v. bad, or good v. evil) was better?

To his understanding, the value system where Good was what was good for you (which he termed the Master Morality) required a man to act nobly: to be accountable for his actions, and forced him to make a choice of what to do based on what he felt like doing (free will) - thus he was the Master of himself.

However, in the value system where what was morally good followed the golden rule, (the Slave Morality) Nietzsche felt that any individual would be conflicted: if someone was rude to you, you would want to smash his face in, (under the Master morality, the only thing constraining you would be your own intellect), but the current moral system would dictate that you turn the other cheek. The result was if you didn't hit him, you would feel ressentiment, ineffectual and unable impose your will- thus being a Slave to your emotions. Further if you did go ahead and hit him then you would be worse off, because now you would have bad conscience or guilt eating away at you, and again you would be left ineffectual and unhappy.

Thus to Nietzsche's understanding the current (Slave) morality is incorrect, or reduces men from attaining their true potential by hindering their actions; it is a morality of utility, which is based on the transmutation of the previous paradigm. Thus Zarathustra (the superman) is the one who rejects today's morality, but that is a story for a different node.

If you enjoyed this, have a paper to write, or are otherwise interested, I suggest reading The Genealogy of Morals, Beyond Good and Evil, Ecce Homo, the Gay Science, and come to think of it, everything else too.

everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=768094

Can I have my dollar now?

[wayfriend]

Semanticly the Golden rule doesn't apply sometimes, (take pedophilia for example) but the principle of empathy and reciprocity is the basis of all morality.

It's notable that those are not absolutes.

[The Dreaming]

You can make the argument that the evolution of the Golden rule is part of the natural development of civilization. Think of the science of ethics (I'm borrowing from Heinlen). Everyone begins trying to do what is best for themselves. Socialization causes us to expand the circle or moral responsibility, to the family, the village, the state, and eventually, to all humanity.

Show me another civilization that advanced as far as the West in the time of Christ without a principle of reciprocity? Even in America, the most individualist country on the face of the earth, we have a strong sense of responsibility to the state.

Philosophy also brings to light that doing what is best for yourself can lead to good for others. For example, starting a business to make money for yourself leads to other people having jobs, consumers having products, investers making money. Even the most cutthroat individualist still wants a level playing field. If he starts to do things that he wouldn't tolerate being done to him (becoming what you hate! for the Dune readers) he is in violation of his own ethic.

Valuing trueness to one's own beliefs must be universal. I just can't imagine that it's not. Liking the Golden Rule and hating hypocricy are pretty much the same thing.

Anyway, my point is Transmutation of values can be seen as "discovery" of a deeper philisophical truth. And Nietzche was a proffesional Buzz-kill anyway.

[Zarathustra]

You can make the argument that the evolution of the Golden rule is part of the natural development of civilization.

That's an interesting proposal. And I'm sure there were natural reasons for it to develop, otherwise it wouldn't be so prevalent in the first place. However, the ability to trace its source in "natural" causes doesn't mean that this was the final or necessary end of human development, no more than America was predestined to become dominant (China had a really good shot at it centuries before the West became dominant, with the earlier invention of gunpowder, a printing press, and boats. But completely accidental things kept them from rising as quickly as the West--such as an insanely large alphabet delaying the full utilization of movable type.)

Think of the science of ethics (I'm borrowing from Heinlen). Everyone begins trying to do what is best for themselves. Socialization causes us to expand the circle or moral responsibility, to the family, the village, the state, and eventually, to all humanity.

While that is plausible, and in some senses desirable, Robert Wright's book NONZERO points out that nature (on both biological and social levels) more often utilizes the logic of game theory, nonzero-sum logic. Upon this view, entities and groups of entities follow their own self-interest in ways that end up being mutually beneficial. Your example of a capitalist economy is a perfect example. Adam Smith's "invisible hand" is the guiding force of this logic; the economy following a self-perpetuating pattern of development by making use of individuals seeking their own gain in a way that benefits the whole. Wright shows that the history of societies is a consistent pattern of increased individual freedom (i.e. more individualism) combined with increased prosperity, because individuals seeking their own gain are inherently more productive on a whole. The benefit to the whole might form a self-reinforcing loop by in turn benefiting the individuals, but it is still a by-product of the original self-interest activities (i.e. pursuing one's own prosperity).

Show me another civilization that advanced as far as the West in the time of Christ without a principle of reciprocity? Even in America, the most individualist country on the face of the earth, we have a strong sense of responsibility to the state.

It may just be an accidental correlation. There's only one civilization as advanced as far as the West, so whichever moral values it happens to have may be purely accidental. There's no way to compare it to another "equally advanced" civilization to find out if they have the a different moral system. However, we can make conclusions in the opposite direction, because those Eastern or otherwise non-western areas of the planet which are thriving are doing so mainly by adopting our capitalist economy, not our religion. So it seems to me this is better evidence for the idea that a "self-interest-first" social strategy is a more important factor in social development than "society first" or "others first" moral or economic system.

Even the most cutthroat individualist still wants a level playing field. If he starts to do things that he wouldn't tolerate being done to him (becoming what you hate! for the Dune readers) he is in violation of his own ethic.

Well, usually when we demand that there's a level playing field, we do so to protect ourselves. Someone who is benefiting from an unfair situation usually is the last to speak up about it. Level playing fields are better kept in check by things like strenuous competition or government intervention, not people being kind to each other.

Anyway, my point is Transmutation of values can be seen as "discovery" of a deeper philisophical truth. And Nietzche was a proffesional Buzz-kill anyway.

I agree with the first sentence. But then I'm confused by the one that follows it. I think Nietzsche's point was that a rediscovery of pre-Christian moral codes were more authentic, noble, and appropriate for the next stage in humanity's development.

[The Dreaming]

The last part was a joke, jeez guys. I guess a little playfulness doesn't read well on a computer screen.

[Linna Heartbooger]

GAHH! Soo much I want to say!!

Malik- I found your post about Nietzche's transmutation of values fascinating, and from my perspective, disturbing. That does explain alot that I didn't realize about the course that human thought has taken - thanks.

The result was if you didn't hit him, you would feel ressentiment, ineffectual and unable impose your will- thus being a Slave to your emotions. Further if you did go ahead and hit him then you would be worse off, because now you would have bad conscience or guilt eating away at you, and again you would be left ineffectual and unhappy.

This part really hits home with regards to what often happens in PRACTICE. I agree that there's some truth in it... it's more authentic than what many of us Christians (or people who aren't Christian but live under a human version of the "christian ethic" - I actually think that trying to do such a thing is quite potentially morally harmful for people such as these) practice. When a person spends his or her life "sacrificing"... and making sure that everyone on the receiving end knows it, then the question, "Don't you actually WANT to smash his face in?" is rather relevant.

But this is where the question comes up: "Does that person actually (deep in his heart) expect a reward from God, based on Grace?" or "Did that person actually do all these things out of faith that God cared about these things and that he/she would receive joy through doing them - or to impress other people / for reasons of personal pride at being a 'shining example' of conforming to the ethic of Christianity?"

You know what Pharaseeism is. You know why it was an appealing "option" in Jesus' time, and why it still is today. What do you think? Do you really think that ALL so-called "Christians" inevitably fall prey to Pharaseeism as the dominating factor dictating their walk?

[Linna Heartbooger]

Relatavism- There are no objective actualities in this world. No moral judgements to be made, nor any other better or lesser options, all things are equally valid and equally real and equally accurate, because nothing is accurate. There are no rules or tendencies, and so their is no making any use of what we perceive save for to understand ourselves. And even that can only be done from a relatavist point of view.
...
Revise and reflect.

Although I too am incredibly frustrated with the mindbendingness of moral relativism... I have to say what you give here is sorta a caricature of relativism based on what it's become today - I think it was supposed to be an observation of reality rather than a MORAL VALUE-determiner. (hehe, a generation of people creating their value judgements based on the idea that one should not make value judgements. Ha, EL's ironic comments are... more succinct and say just as much. )

My impression is that relatavism starts with the intent of not making moral judgements, but no sane person can truely pretend that they don't operate from absolute imperatives of what they should and shouldn't do.

This is what it's degraded into today... but originally I think it was based on the observation (from an anthropology-oriented study of people's ethics) that within individual cultures (that were isolated from each other) there were shockingly different standards of what people thought was supposed to be the guiding idea of the best ways to treat others and that it was incredibly hard for someone within each individual context to see (or imagine) beyond it. (I'm thinking especially of different tribal cultures here - just because that's where it's highlighted MOST dramatically.)

One ironic thing is that so many people have a very ethnocentric view of OUR culture, or of "tolerance" or of "science" as being a primary virtue / guiding assumption when developing their ethics... and can't comprehend wisdom from earlier time periods (if it violates their fundamental assumptions) as being anything but foolish... and can't see beyond that.

Here is a frickin' cool quote from a book called "The Fight" that I think pertains heavily to the "answer" to the question of "now, how do I love my neighbor rightly in the context of the fact that different cultures have different moral systems built up from their histories":

Scripture also gives you clear moral guidelines to live by. They will not always be in the form of simple do's and don'ts. God designed Scripture to give moral orientation to people living in any culture, in any age and in any moral climate.

(my emphasis added!)

(although that's not the primary question we're discussing here, I know! I just thought it was so cool... and I think it's so frustrating when people who are teaching the Bible try to oversimplify things and not explain things in context - and not think about how we need to interpret what we've learned about the character of God and apply it to a new context.)