Kevin's Watch

Avatar wrote:

Cail wrote:

Avatar wrote:I'm thinking more along the lines of making slavery legal doesn't make it moral.

Maybe not to you.

Well, no, obviously not to me. That is sorta the whole point. However, I suspect that most people, certainly most people here, could agree with that statement.

I'm a big fan of morality. The fact that I know we all pick our own, and that mine has no more authority than anybody else's doesn't change that.

--A

The problem with completely agnostic relativism is that it asserts the absolute truth of relativism as its founding moral principle, and is therefore contradictory. You can't posit the principle that all principles are morally relative without relying on that principle as an absolute.

Exactly. Right at the onset of any argument, constructive or not, one needs to have absolutes either as the goal, or as the basis of the thesis. Otherwise you get an infinite regression with ever weaker arguments within the argument.

Now, natural rights...

The natural thing is to delay the moment of death; self-awareness and higher processes of thought, like science, metaphysics and rational religion (I don't wanna fall into the etymological trap usually connected to the concept, give me some slack) introduced the possibility, delusional or not, of learning how to ultimately cheat it or at least to scry for a purpose, or absence thereof, in the universe. So, in Nature, predatory events occur all the time, much the same way that accidental collisions between galaxies do, without pausing to consider the consequences. Now, let's have the convention that a tiger is of a higher order than an inanimate rock, and hence that Man is a few steps above in that scale. Intellect makes us rarer than bestiality which in turn, for the simple fact that it only occurs in living creatures, is harder to find than iron balls in outer space. Should we try to see something into this, an apparent goal where the right constants, the right ratios, lead to self-aware life? Either we are forcing a pattern out of scattered clouds, or we are not. If we are, the only natural right is to be allowed a life free of repression within the boundaries of safety for any other third party who benefits of the same right. If we are not, I hazard that for as many twists as we want to give it, the answer would be the same, just not according to perfectly straight lines.

I agree with that, and to expand upon it, you can see that man has created calm tidal pools of society amid a churning sea of nature. The gradual extension of those calm pools until they seem to take up the entire landscape fools us into thinking that this is the default situation of mankind: that war is the aberration, and that our civil laws may decree the reality that exists outside of our society. But the only thing separating us from the unmitigated hazards of nature are the walls of the pool; and if the contents of the pool undermine these walls, the tranquility that we take for granted vanishes as the sea pours in.

Exnihilotto2 wrote:

Avatar wrote:

Cail wrote:Maybe not to you.

Well, no, obviously not to me. That is sorta the whole point. However, I suspect that most people, certainly most people here, could agree with that statement.

I'm a big fan of morality. The fact that I know we all pick our own, and that mine has no more authority than anybody else's doesn't change that.

--A

The problem with completely agnostic relativism is that it asserts the absolute truth of relativism as its founding moral principle, and is therefore contradictory. You can't posit the principle that all principles are morally relative without relying on that principle as an absolute.

That's not a "problem". If all principles are morally relative, then all principles are morally relative.

The principle that all principles are relative is absolute.

Yes. That's not a problem.

That's where your wrong.

Care to support that statement?

Exnihilotto2 wrote:The principle that all principles are relative is absolute.

Why does this come up in so many threads? It isn't contradictory/oxymoronic/paradoxical or any of that...it's simply a matter of perspective/order/reference.
But I've blathered enough on that in those other threads.

Hell, it's not even onomatopoeiac.

May not be a problem, but its contradictory. Unless you are saying there is only 1 absolute principle, that there are no absolute principles?

Cybrweez wrote:May not be a problem, but its contradictory. Unless you are saying there is only 1 absolute principle, that there are no absolute principles?

That's actually saying something different, and it does contradict itself because it places itself within the reference.
But I've said before, at least related/similar that there are a number of ways it isn't so.
One of which is: It isn't in fact a "principle" that all principles are relative.
It is a description of how systems with principles work. The description can be true or false, but it isn't self-contradictory.
And a point I haven't [I don't think] mentioned elsewhere connected to that last: The statement is not an assumption/foundation/rule/axiom...it is the result of all those...it is the solution to the problem that principle systems don't work for everything, but only for those things they are suited for [relative to].

Saying "There are no 6-foot pygmies" is not a contradiction just because we can find 6-foot people. "There are no 6-foot people" is incorrect.

In the same way, saying "All principles are relative" or "No principles are absolute" is not a problem. "There are no absolutes" is incorrect.

Water, for those interested:

instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/relativ.htm

Exnihilotto2 wrote:The problem with completely agnostic relativism is that it asserts the absolute truth of relativism as its founding moral principle, and is therefore contradictory. You can't posit the principle that all principles are morally relative without relying on that principle as an absolute.

As I've already said, there are some principles which appear to be absolute. On earth, for example, g = 9.8 m/s².

I'm not necessarily rejecting the notion of absolutism, I just think that morality, social conventions, etc. are subjective. Moral absolutism is nothing but a kind of arrogance: "Only what I believe can be right."

--A

Avatar, moral and conventions are not facts. I cannot will a cream pie into existence just because I state that cream pies out of nowhere may be relative to some cultures and beliefs. Conversely, if a fundamentalist tries to either prove or disprove the existence of God, the only thing I can do is sit back and relax, because that cannot be discussed within the boundaries of science; theism and atheism are beliefs. However, and even though it's off topic here, I personally find it hard to explain a world without a deity.

My point is just that we have to be very careful not to confuse facts (g=9.8 ) for opinions (you will burn in Hades if you eat meat on Fridays).

Avatar wrote:

Exnihilotto2 wrote:The problem with completely agnostic relativism is that it asserts the absolute truth of relativism as its founding moral principle, and is therefore contradictory. You can't posit the principle that all principles are morally relative without relying on that principle as an absolute.

As I've already said, there are some principles which appear to be absolute. On earth, for example, g = 9.8 m/s².

I'm not necessarily rejecting the notion of absolutism, I just think that morality, social conventions, etc. are subjective. Moral absolutism is nothing but a kind of arrogance: "Only what I believe can be right."

--A

Absolutism is not the only alternative to strict agnosticism. There are intermediate states.

Anyway, we're not saying there's no such thing as an absolute. We're saying there aren't absolute morals/ethics.

I'd like to discuss a very basic misunderstanding of the relative position. At least of my position.

The argument is self-contradictory. “Everyone should be respectful and tolerant” is a moral maxim the relativist intends to apply to all people in all cultures; yet at the same time the relativist denies that any moral maxims apply to all people in all cultures! The relativist, to be consistent, must say that respect and tolerance are required only if one’s culture requires them.

The point isn't that we should respect and tolerate different, even opposing, morals of other individuals and cultures. The point is that there are different, even opposing, morals between individuals and cultures. CS Lewis and rus have said there is a universal moral compass, and you recently called it "an ethical sense which is either followed or ignored." I say respect and tolerance are required if no harm is being caused. That's my morality. Others do not agree. That's their morality. I am not "ignoring" any ethical sense that tells me not to respect or tolerate, for example, different religions, homosexuality, and polygamy. I respect and tolerate them because they're not harming anyone, and they're none of my damned business.

OTOH, some have a morality that demands they respect and tolerate someone else's morality when that person is making child pornography, murdering people, and stealing. My morality does not demand I respect and tolerate that kind of morality. My morality demands that I oppose it.

You see - the morality of respect and tolerance is also relative.

Morning wrote:My point is just that we have to be very careful not to confuse facts (g=9.8 ) for opinions (you will burn in Hades if you eat meat on Fridays).

Exactly. And "It is wrong to kill people" is an opinion. It's a widely held opinion, it's a largely agreed upon one. But it's still just an opinion.

--A

Holsety wrote:

Exnihilotto2 wrote:

Cail wrote:Exactly. Natural rights pretty much amount to a collection of nice ideas which get codified into law.....Sometimes, and usually with exceptions (which, of course, makes them privileges, not rights).

I'm amazed both by how completely we agree and by how vehemently you deny it.

All rights ever are, is the consequence and implication of might. People have a right to be armed, for instance, because others are powerless to disarm an armed people with the will to resist. It really is that simple, and that empirical.

So you're contending that in the absence of might on the side of another, people not only have the freedom to do whatever they will to that person but always will do what they want to to that person?

I would agree with this statement.

"Rights" do not exist in nature. "Abilities" do. We human beings create the idea of legal and civil rights and privilages. These are no more arbitrary than the price of bread. I would even go so far as to say morality is analogous (but not identical) to economics--an extremely complex field of human inter-action, one often not really understood.

And you can't really divorce the idea of "rights" from the values of societies and individuals. In Ancient Rome, slaves had legal rights they never had in the Confederate South. That seems bizarre to our way of looking at things but remains an historical fact. Until very very recently our culture placed little or no value on women or racial minorities. The change into actually recognizing people with different genetalia as equally valuable was a new idea, a good idea, one that reaps enormous benefits. Likewise compassion isn't something airy-fairy kinda nice in the right circumstances--it makes a tangible difference in people's lives, one that improves all our lives. Not least is that it helps keep large numbers of human beings from reaching the most dangerous state we ever achieve--desperation.