refuting relativism

[mrnoodle]

For this discussion, I'm not making any of those arguments. I'm just trying to get someone to say in one sentence whether or not they believe there is such a thing as right and wrong.

I would have to go to ludicrous levels of strawmanhood to form a counter-argument where justification for the perpetrator's actions could be found. (But you knew that.)

Yeah, and you know why? Because there's a gaping hole in the philosophy that states that there is no black and white. You can see it every time something black or white goes shimmying through it.

And I think that we are something more than animals. It's easy to look at all the obvious parallels between us and the other creatures who are made of meat, bone and connective tissue and conclude, "Hey we're just another version of that." But there's too much evidence (albeit circumstantial) that we're more.

That's why the Golden Rule is simple, because kindergarteners aren't generally capable of thinking about the world in philosophical terms.

For which we should be eternally grateful. They teach us a lot more that way.

[vsp]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

For this discussion, I'm not making any of those arguments. I'm just trying to get someone to say in one sentence whether or not they believe there is such a thing as right and wrong.

If you are speaking of "right and wrong" in absolute terms, an objective standard at which people of all nations, cultures and religions can or should point, then no, I do not believe there is such a thing as right and wrong.

Happy?

I believe that there are certain behavioral standards that the vast majority of humans can agree upon as being mutually beneficial (i.e. sticking a fork in other people's eyes is generally not a positive and constructive act). But I do not believe that there is a universal "right or wrong," "good or evil," "normal or sick" moral standard that can be applied to all actions equally, regardless of what culture, location, belief system or other subgroup to which the actors belong.

[Happy Monkey]

I believe there is right and wrong, and I don't need any uber-father-figure to justify it. Who am I to make such a grandiose statement? A human being, just like everyone else. My sense of right and wrong is built up by experience, and may change when I am exposed to new information, just as my sense of beauty and justice can be altered by background knowledge. Conflicts may arise between my sense of right and wrong, and that of others. The resolution of these conflicts is called society. Since we're imperfect, society's answers may not always be optimum, but that's why societies change.

Is there an absolute black and white right and wrong mandated from on high? There's no way to know until you're dead, so it's a moot point except for stimulating philosophical discussions. Claiming that there is an absolute right and wrong is fine until you make the further claim that you know what it is and I must change mine to match it.

[mrnoodle]

Happy isn't the word. Relieved that someone actually said it out loud with a (relative) minimum of riders, yes.

So what's the next question? Your opinion and mine are poles away from each other; if everything is relative, then we each have to agree that the other's viewpoint is equally valid. Because of the nature of our debate, that's impossible. It would make a wormhole or something. So relativism has just died from acute cognitive dissonance, and that puts into question your assertion that there can be no absolute right or wrong.

aspirin. need aspirin

edit:
ooops HM beat me again. so i gotta add some. You're saying that there could be an absolute right and wrong, but we're incapable of discerning it. That's even worse. What would be the point of anything? Not wanting someone else to exert their will on me is one thing. Denying that any standard exists except that which I accept for myself is another. If there *is* an absolute "right" then we are bound by it whether we accept it or not.

[Troubleshooter]

Words to consider when trying to design or compare ethical frameworks. I think that those four concepts would be best included, and probably were when many frameworks were conceived. None of the present ones were born in a world thate even remotely resembles the world we live in now.

arbitrary

provisional

consensual

minimalist

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

ooops HM beat me again. so i gotta add some. You're saying that there could be an absolute right and wrong, but we're incapable of discerning it. That's even worse. What would be the point of anything?

That's why I subscribe to relativism for practical purposes even though absolutism is theoretically possible. Unless you know of a way to figure out an absolute moral code unsullied by human hands?

[jaguar]

A car accident is demeaning?

I say without a righteous God against whom we can measure our actions, there is no right or wrong.

Welcome to 18th, maybe 17th century philosophy. If you ever catch up with 19th or 20th century philosophy let us know, kthxbye.

[vsp]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

Happy isn't the word. Relieved that someone actually said it out loud with a (relative) minimum of riders, yes.

So what's the next question? Your opinion and mine are poles away from each other; if everything is relative, then we each have to agree that the other's viewpoint is equally valid. Because of the nature of our debate, that's impossible. It would make a wormhole or something. So relativism has just died from acute cognitive dissonance, and that puts into question your assertion that there can be no absolute right or wrong.

aspirin. need aspirin

Heh, relax. You're acting as if this is a debate that can be won or lost.

For one thing, relativism is a rejection of absolutes, not an adherence to the idea that EVERYTHING is absolutely equal. That's not the same thing at all. My belief that there isn't a cosmic Right And Wrong Ordained By God and your belief that there is such a concept are not wholly incompatible, depending on how we act upon those beliefs.

Do not make the mistake of thinking that the Golden Rule, however it may be phrased, is a uniquely Christian concept. You'd be hard pressed to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_Reciprocity">find a religion</a> that _doesn't_ incorporate some form of the Golden Rule. "Love thy neighbor as thyself" makes sense to me whether it's Jesus Christ saying it or Floyd the Barber.

So, from my perspective, if I choose to live my life according to that concept (be beneficial to others whenever I can, be good, don't mash people's hands with ball-peen hammers, let others do their thing if they'll let me do mine) because I feel it is the right way to live and is beneficial under the common social contract, and if _you_ choose to live according to that concept because God Wants It That Way, does it really _matter_ in the long run which of our motivations is correct?

Not really. There will be disagreements on some issues, but for the most part, we're going to be treating others the same way.

So I am quite capable of thinking "I do not believe in God. Mr. Noodle does. I believe he is wrong about that, and that it's silly to believe such things, but _it's not my place to try to force him to STOP believing_. That belief isn't directly harming anyone, he isn't harming anyone, and he's not pushing his beliefs on ME, so if it works for him, more power to him, and I'll live my life MY way and hope he sees the truth someday."

You are (hopefully) capable of thinking the opposite: "I believe in God. vsp does not. I believe he is wrong about that, and that it's silly not to believe in God, but he has free will. He's not harming anyone else, and he's not pushing his beliefs on ME, so if it works for him, more power to him, and I'll live my life MY way and hope he sees the truth someday."

Not so hard, is it? You don't have to agree with me, just grant me the right to live a "flawed" lifestyle. You can believe that your own beliefs are true without believing that they're 100%, infallibly, undeniably true and that all other belief systems are therefore inherently wrong, right? That there's even a trifle of a chance that the other guy could be right?

Because I can do that. I may be an atheist, but that doesn't PROVE that God does not exist; I could be wrong. I don't think so, but it's a possibility that I have to consider. Therefore, can I rag on others for believing? Nope... unless they want to restrict _my_ behavior based on _their_ religious concept of right and wrong.

You're saying that there could be an absolute right and wrong, but we're incapable of discerning it. That's even worse. What would be the point of anything? Not wanting someone else to exert their will on me is one thing. Denying that any standard exists except that which I accept for myself is another. If there *is* an absolute "right" then we are bound by it whether we accept it or not.

But if we do not know what that absolute "right" is, how can we judge our actions accordingly as to whether we're meeting that standard?

If you do not take the Bible or other religious tome on pure faith, you cannot "know" whether any one religion or other philosophy's "right" is actually correct.

So you can spend your whole life worrying about whether you're getting it right or not, or you can just shrug and live your life the best you can according to your best judgement of what is right and what is wrong.

Works for me.

[Troubleshooter]

And therein lies the rub. How do you convince someone, who has a philosophy that includes a dying infidel as an entrance criteria, that it's ok to leave you alone?

[mrnoodle]

nah I'm not taking it that seriously. I'm just an amateur at this sort of high-minded blahblahblah. Skipped most of philosophy in college.

jag -- didn't your mom tell you to wear clean underwear in case you were in a car accident? That's actually good advice.

Catch up to 20th century philosophy? Which, nuclear warfare or chicken soup for the yuppie soul? I'll take mine mouldy and dusty, thanks.

[jaguar]

Sartre, Jung, Nietzsche(just), Foucault, de Beauvoir and a few other nobodies but hey, don't let facts get in your way, it hasn't in the past.

[mrnoodle]

Originally Posted by Sartre

I was just thinking … that here we sit, all of us, eating and drinking to preserve our precious existence and really there is nothing, nothing absolutely no reason for existing.

No, thanks.

Originally Posted by Jung

Anyone who wants to know the human psyche will learn next to nothing from experimental psychology. He would be better advised to abandon exact science, put away his scholar's gown, bid farewell to his study, and wander with human heart throught the world. There in the horrors of prisons, lunatic asylums and hospitals, in drab suburban pubs, in brothels and gambling-hells, in the salons of the elegant, the Stock Exchanges, socialist meetings, churches, revivalist gatherings and ecstatic sects, through love and hate, through the experience of passion in every form in his own body, he would reap richer stores of knowledge than text-books a foot thick could give him, and he will know how to doctor the sick with a real knowledge of the human soul.

The human what?

Originally Posted by Nietzsche

And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.

He gazed too long, and died insane. Again, I'll pass on that worldview. Rather, I'll pass on the abyss that Nietzsche flung himself into with such abandon for his entire life.

Foucault. Sartre. Nietzsche. de Beauvoir. It's like a baker's Trinity of French depression and insanity. Again, what's the draw? I am starting to see why you're so bloody negative all the time, though.

[lookout123]

i have nothing invested in this discussion... but when has that stopped me from sticking my nose where it doesn't belong?

mrnoodle - it might help to keep things in context. Jaguar (and i'm not passing judgement, these are just my observations) sees no higher light than our own. if i understand correctly, Jag doesn't believe in God. that means that the answers for all questions are to be found by man and in some cases the answers are held within man. ok, fine. with that as a starting point Jaguar looks at what the philosophers have published as meaningful explanations and revelations of the human condition. ideas that can help us better mankind, and move us one step at a time along the evolutionary trail.

jaguar - mrnoodle is a christian. apparently not a "i go to church and hum along with the choir" christian - but a person who chooses to follow Christ's teachings the best that he can. he believes that there is a creator who has set all things in motion in an order that, while indiscernible to us, makes perfect sense within His framework. what that means is that the philosophers through the ages have no more wisdom or insight than each of us. if they are looking to man for answers rather than their creator, their starting point is flawed, so the end results are also flawed -- thus, modern human-centered philosophy is no more than mental masturbation.

Jag sees the philosophers and thinkers as growing and building upon eachother with the goal of unlocking or revealing the truths that are hidden from us now. mrnoodle sees them as clever guys who were able to sell their ideas.

mrnoodle views the Bible as factual. The Word of God. a handbook for life, if you will. the answers we need are within - they are found within the salvation message. Jag views the Bible as an often mistranslated, misquoted, misused collection of fairy tales and myths.

i used Jag and mrnoodle here, not because they are different or unique but because they are prime examples for each and every one of us. well, that - and i like to make fun of both of them.

either you believe A) that man is the result of chance, created through completely random events in nature then that means any answers to the important questions must be found within us, or not at all, or B) there is a creator and the answers to our questions can only be found by looking outside of ourselves. neither camp can prove their case - until it is too late to choose differently.

while we are here, it would help if we kept the other person's basic philosophical starting point in mind - it will make discussions like this a bit easier.

and BTW - if i have misrepresented either of your views in any way, my apologies, feel free to correct me.

[wolf]

Hmmm. I may just have to re-read Jung. For fun this time (I've never done the collected works, but I have a copy of The Essential Jung here somewhere).

[LCanal]

Jung in Thai is mosquito. Like all philosophers one can keep you up all night!