Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
just because you dont like it doesnt mean im wrong beefington.
1. No, it means you're wrong from an objective standpoint. To state that Miley Cyrus or Britney Spears are better/more talented than Guns N Roses, would make you wrong.
2. Just because you have an opinion, doesn't make everything relative.
By your logic, the holocaust wasn't wrong, nor was Stalin's regime because it varies from person to person!
It wasn't and it does.
Also,
however, why end the conversation here? if you dislike my rationale, explain your dislike for it. explain why its wrong, at least. do you think that it is wrong in that it simply isnt true, or that it doesnt work?
At least try to do this.
Originally posted by Autokrat
Human beings are machines and therefore they work better (pleasure vs pain) under certain conditions as opposed to other conditions. The same goes for societies. While ethics are metaphysically relative, a person can make a claim that murder is bad because if murder was allowed, a society could not function. This of course presupposes that we want society to function.From a material perspective, one can make objective claims about ethics when one takes into context the levels of pleasure vs pain in society. The presupposition is that pleasure is better than pain.
Another reason why I mostly choose to follow the Torah, because many of its principles are set in stone. If I allow man to dictate morals and ethics for me, then moral relativism becomes reality and everything is permitted.
Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
how.
why? [/B]
Because. An opinion by itself doesn't mean something is relative. Oh, you don't think the holocaust was wrong? Oh well then I guess that makes it relative! Yea, it doesn't work like that, nor do "universal rights and wrongs." What MC said a few months ago is what I agree with. While i'm more for universal rights and wrongs, he said we're in a society where things are "mostly agreed upon".
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Because. Judging musical talent can't possibly be relative when the talent discrepancy is so high, it's ridiculous. Therefore, you claiming B just means you have an opinion, and you can go on thinking that but it's still wrong.
"this isnt possible, therefore-"
thats an absolute statement without any substantiation behind it.
why cant it possibly be relative even with such a high talent discrepancy?
Because. An opinion by itself doesn't mean something is relative. Oh, you don't think the holocaust was wrong? Oh well then I guess that makes it relative! Yea, it doesn't work like that, nor do "universal rights and wrongs." What MC said a few months ago is what I agree with. While i'm more for universal rights and wrongs, he said we're in a society where things are "mostly agreed upon". [/B]
"it doesnt work like"
another absolute statement. why doesnt it work that way?
do you want irrefutable proof that the universe is inherently relative in its entirety?
"why?" look at little kids, and how they can ask you "why" forever and ever. it doesnt matter what the question is nor the answer. they can ask "why" forever and it will always be a valid question, until you finally get frustrated and say "because it just is!", and the real message behind that is "because someone a long long time ago said so, and we all just took that and ran with it."
Originally posted by Nephthys
It kinda does. Hey I have time to elaborate! Via proving that no one truth is the definate, defining truth, by having differences and no unearthly force that defines truth itself, yeah, it shows that any concept of truth is relative.
Yet in my example above, there is a definite. The holocaust was definite, Stalin's regime was definite, Guns N Roses being better is definite. And the fact that there ARE absolutes such as those, proves that everything is NOT relative. Most things are mostly agreed upon.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Another reason why I mostly choose to follow the Torah, because many of its principles are set in stone. If I allow man to dictate morals and ethics for me, then moral relativism becomes reality and everything is permitted.
Except, everything is not permitted. If it was than society would have destroyed itself long ago.
Consider the following:
Theistic ethical absolutism is based on the idea that God exists, an extraordinary claim. The idea is that God establishes absolute rules but there are several problems with this.
1. Religion is highly pluralistic, which God do we follow?
2. Does God arbitrary dictate the good or is good an abstract idea separate from God? Or is God itself intrinsic to the good (in that, it is part of his character.)
Compare to secular ethics:
Secular ethics like theistic absolutism operates on a presupposition (the presupposition in theism is that God exists and established ethical rules), that pleasure (when I speak of pleasure I'm not just talking about simple physical pleasure) is better than pain. Therefore we should seek to maximize pleasure for the greatest number of people while minimizing pain. Under this system it is possible to say that the Holocaust and Nazi Germany are objectively evil because they created so much pain for millions of people.
Secular ethics doesn't demand complete ethical relativism, it's just a retarded trend among young philosophy students (myself previously included) that go about making stupid claims about how everything is relative and therefore nothing is evil.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Yet in my example above, there is a definite. The holocaust was definite, Stalin's regime was definite, Guns N Roses being better is definite. And the fact that there ARE absolutes such as those, proves that everything is [b]NOT relative. Most things are mostly agreed upon. [/B]
Saying something is so does not make it so. 😬
Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
"this isnt possible, therefore-"thats an absolute statement without any substantiation behind it.
why cant it possibly be relative even with such a high talent discrepancy?
"it doesnt work like"another absolute statement. why doesnt it work that way?
do you want irrefutable proof that the universe is inherently relative in its entirety?
"why?" look at little kids, and how they can ask you "why" forever and ever. it doesnt matter what the question is nor the answer. they can ask "why" forever and it will always be a valid question, until you finally you get frustrated and say "because it just is!", and the real message behind that is "because someone a long long time ago said so, and we all just took that and ran with it." [/B]
It's not really a valid question. Then again, my response to the constant "why" would be the same "because the boogieman eats you at night". That will stop the questioning pretty soon..
As I said, everything is NOT relative, most things ARE agreed upon, and some things ARE absolute. Someone thinking that the holocaust was justified doesn't make the issue relative, it makes them wrong and moronic.