it does work like that. everything is relative. nothing is absolute. if you disagree youre an idiot.
so because i made those statements... im right? youre going to say that im wrong and that im an idiot. but thats just your word (or your word and a lot of other peoples words) against mine (and a lot of other peoples). so why is the person whos right right?
Originally posted by Autokrat
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.)
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. [/B]
Well this is the crap I've gotten used to for so long so if I DO have a negative opinion about secularism, thank those Starbucks morons.
Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
it does work like that. everything is relative. nothing is absolute. if you disagree youre an idiot.so because i made those statements... im right? youre going to say that im wrong and that im an idiot. but thats just your word (or your word and a lot of other peoples words) against mine (and a lot of other peoples). so why is the person whos right right?
No, you just proved my point. You made an opinion without any kind of backing.
I wouldn't need to prove anything regarding the holocaust, or Stalin's regime. I might humor myself with proving an obvious like Guns N Roses being better than Miley and Britney, but I feel that I would be wasting my time.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
[B]No, you just proved my point. You made an opinion without any kind of backing.
im sorry, what was your point in regards to this?
I wouldn't need to prove anything regarding the holocaust, or Stalin's regime. I might humor myself with proving an obvious like Guns N Roses being better than Miley and Britney, but I feel that I would be wasting my time.
i dont think you cant prove any of them though.
Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
im sorry, what was your point in regards to this?i dont think you cant prove any of them though.
.....? Was there a point to this post?
It's funny, I remember one of Dennis Prager's lectures in which liberals claim that everything is art. His response was "if everything is art, then nothing is art." I found that rather amusing.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
[B].....? Was there a point to this post?
can you answer that question i asked you there?
It's funny, I remember one of Dennis Prager's lectures in which liberals claim that everything is art. His response was "if everything is art, then nothing is art." I found that rather amusing.
whats the point to this?
Originally posted by truejedi
pretty sure the holocaust was wrong though. At least, if it were a true/false test, that would be my guess.
It's deemed pretty much universally wrong except by the 1% of the radical muslims whose intentions are to wipe Jews off the map. But according to Marvel, because they have opinions, the holocaust CAN'T be considered wrong, because it's all relative!
Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
can you answer that question i asked you there?whats the point to this?
Yes, my point was having an opinion doesn't make something relative. You stated an opinion, based on absolutely nothing. I gave you examples of things that can be classified as universally right or wrong, better or worse. The fact that you might have a different opinion just means you have an opinion, and that you're wrong. It doesn't make the case "relative".
If everything is relative than Person A that claims that everything is objective is just as sound as Person B that claims that everything is relative.
Its called the relativistic paradox.
Relativism is not a solution, it is the default state until one establishes a presupposition (absolute morals as established by God, a secular ethical standard etc.)
Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
sure it can be "considered" wrong. that doesnt conflict with anything ive said. imo the holocaust and stalins regime were horrendous and wrong.
In your opinion, you also claim that everything is relative. By that logic, there is NO right or wrong, NOTHING is better or worse than anything else. Democracy is NOT better than a dictatorship, or communism. All of this because everything is allegedly relative.
Originally posted by Autokrat
If everything is relative than Person A that claims that everything is objective is just as sound as Person B that claims that everything is relative.Its called the relativistic paradox.
Relativism is not a solution, it is the default state until one establishes a presupposition (absolute morals as established by God, a secular ethical standard etc.)
See I must not understand this. How do you establish a secular ethical standard? I would have thought that if God alone established the morals, then they WOULD be absolute, where if man established the morals, its every man for himself and therefore, most things CAN be relative. If we follow man's laws, we can create ANY scenario when something can be justifiable.
Edit: I think I solved the first part in the previous post. If everything is relative, then nothing is better or worse, nothing is good or bad.
By that logic, there is NO right or wrong
This is 100% correct. Except it isn't, becuase it can't be.
Edit: Damn, Ninja'd. Again.
If we follow man's laws, we can create ANY scenario when something can be justifiable.
'Everything is possible. Once.'
Hopefully though, you wouldn't want to have to be in the position to justify anything.
Originally posted by Autokrat
If everything is relative than Person A that claims that everything is objective is just as sound as Person B that claims that everything is relative.Its called the relativistic paradox.
Relativism is not a solution, it is the default state until one establishes a presupposition (absolute morals as established by God, a secular ethical standard etc.)
i agree with you.
i think that is something that people are failing to understand about my stance. gonna extrapolate on that now.
In your opinion, you also claim that everything is relative. By that logic, there is NO right or wrong, NOTHING is better or worse than anything else. Democracy is NOT better than a dictatorship, or communism. All of this because everything is allegedly relative.
and that is reality. all of those things are true, imo. but it being the reality doesnt matter, and that i think is what people should be focused on. morality does not mean anything; authority means everything.
for example:
the US law states that murder is wrong. i think that murder is okay. because everything is relative, neither(or both) of us are right or wrong.
however
because the us government has lots of guns, and i dont, if i killed someone i would suffer consequences, morality be damned. so unless i want to suffer these consequences i will do what the law says and abide by its rules.
another example:
jews think that mass genocide of their race is wrong. hitler does not. because morality is relative, neither are right or wrong.
however
hitler has lots of guns, and the jews dont. so the jews are mass murdered. then the allies say that genocide is wrong and so they use their even larger mass of guns to make hitlers opinion irrelevant.
do you understand that there is a vast difference between "everything is permitted" and "anarchy", in this context?
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Society did destroy itself, time and time again. The fact that a select few had the knowledge and wisdom to move beyond their barbaric nature doesn't change this fact.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
I've heard something like this posed in intro to philosophy. I think it was "Does God make the laws because they're inherently good or." I forgot the second part I'm sure you know it.[
Its called the Euthyphro Dilemma. It’s a constructive dilemma written in one of Plato’s Socratic Dialogues. The typical response (at least the one formulated by Aquinas) is that good is integral to God’s character ergo he dictates the good because he is the good.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
See I must not understand this. How do you establish a secular ethical standard? I would have thought that if God alone established the morals, then they WOULD be absolute, where if man established the morals, its every man for himself and therefore, most things CAN be relative. If we follow man's laws, we can create ANY scenario when something can be justifiable.
Secular ethics (and by association, secular humanism) rests on an assumption, a presupposition that we should try to develop social mores and ethics that maximize human happiness and minimize pain. There is no absolute standard for it, not on a metaphysical level.
Theism also rests on an assumption and this is that God exists and is good and therefore developed absolute laws for humans to follow.
Think of it this way: I have faith that happiness is better than unhappiness and you have faith that God exists and is good. Both sides rest ultimately on an assumption.
Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
i agree with you.i think that is something that people are failing to understand about my stance. gonna extrapolate on that now.
and that is reality. all of those things are true, imo. but it being the reality doesnt matter, and that i think is what people should be focused on. morality does not mean anything; authority means everything.
for example:
the US law states that murder is wrong. i think that murder is okay. because everything is relative, neither(or both) of us are right or wrong.
however
because the us government has lots of guns, and i dont, if i killed someone i would suffer consequences, morality be damned. so unless i want to suffer these consequences i will do what the law says and abide by its rules.
jews think that mass genocide of their race is wrong. hitler does not. because morality is relative, neither are right or wrong.
hitler has lots of guns, and the jews dont. so the jews are mass murdered. then the allies say that genocide is wrong and so they use their even larger mass of guns to make hitlers opinion irrelevant.
do you understand that there is a vast difference between "everything permitted" and "anarchy", in this context?