There are no absolutes... or are there?

[KanJe]

Yeah, pretty much.

The best way I could put it is, as long as your morals are real to you thats all that matters. No one can question that.

To think that your moral reality extends further than your world as a truth is another thing all together.

Its stuff like that where people in politics see their idea of right and wrong or truth as more right than other people that causes wars.

Or is that stepping to far...?

[chilli]

Hey komodo, glad you're still weighing in, sorry I didn't really respond to your more recent posts.

Can anyone demonstrate how moral relativism can lead to anything other than nihilism?

ok i'll give it a shot, consider these two:

i like 'stuff' because 'stuff' gives me feelings of pleasure or is interesting to me. therefore i don't want 'stuff' to be annihilated.1\

and another:

i put 'stuff' on moral high ground because for xyz personal values it is to me relatively more good than other 'stuff'. therefore 'good stuff' is better than 'bad stuff'.

the first is a demonstration of how you dont need morality to value things, while the second illustrates that moral relativism requires by definition that everything is not equally empty, ie. this is not nihilism.

These egoistic arguments for personal morality are logical up to a point, but they stop short of explaining how moral relativism does not necessitate nihilism.

The first instance is particularly unhelpful, as it simply shows that someone may act out of self interest, but does not explain why what that person values should be ascribed any meaning.

The second instance is more ambitious but ultimately unconvincing. Good and bad are still defined by the individual's purely relative values, and the argument again fails to invest those values with any meaning. It certainly doesn't illustrate "that moral relativism requires by definition that everything is not equally empty," but merely that that individuals values are not equally empty to the individuual.

I argue that moral relativism requires by definition that no moral judgment can be considered ultimately more right or wrong than another, and therefore divests every individual moral judgment of objective meaning. How is this not nihilism?

[komodo]

The first instance is particularly unhelpful, as it simply shows that someone may act out of self interest, but does not explain why what that person values should be ascribed any meaning.

its only unhelpful because you missed the point... eg. eating tasty food is not a question of values but of pleasure. there are motivations to assigning preferences which are not concerned with morality at all. values go beyond morality.

The second instance is more ambitious but ultimately unconvincing. Good and bad are still defined by the individual's purely relative values, and the argument again fails to invest those values with any meaning. It certainly doesn't illustrate "that moral relativism requires by definition that everything is not equally empty," but merely that that individuals values are not equally empty to the individuual.

ummm... yes. if all things for an individual are not equally empty, that individual is not nihilistic.

I argue that moral relativism requires by definition that no moral judgment can be considered ultimately more right or wrong than another, and therefore divests every individual moral judgment of objective meaning. How is this not nihilism?

because morality is not the be all and end all of existence and investment-in-things. morality is a kind of neurosis reserved for self reflective beings, which may or may not participate in it to whatever extent they please. it does not demand nihilism in its absence.

[chilli]

Hi komodo,

The first instance is particularly unhelpful, as it simply shows that someone may act out of self interest, but does not explain why what that person values should be ascribed any meaning.

its only unhelpful because you missed the point... eg. eating tasty food is not a question of values but of pleasure. there are motivations to assigning preferences which are not concerned with morality at all. values go beyond morality.

I'll admit I'm slightly confused...

I personally would not draw such a sharp distinction between values and morality... Moreover, I thought we differed not about whether values and morals existed, but whether we could consider them to have any meaning beyond a fleeting personal preference? Besides, if it is not a question of values, why did you finish by saying "values go beyond morality"?

I think I understood your point well enough, I'm just saying it is useless to offer arguments that show people derive pleasure from certain actions as a debunking of nihilism, since a nihilistic view would be that there is no valid reason to prefer pleasure over pain. Nihilism goes far beyond both morality and personal values, it is not just about absence of morals, but absence of meaning altogether.

The second instance is more ambitious but ultimately unconvincing. Good and bad are still defined by the individual's purely relative values, and the argument again fails to invest those values with any meaning. It certainly doesn't illustrate "that moral relativism requires by definition that everything is not equally empty," but merely that that individuals values are not equally empty to the individuual.

ummm... yes. if all things for an individual are not equally empty, that individual is not nihilistic.

My argument earlier was that the moral relativist generally lives a lifestyle inconsistent with the logical claims of their espoused wordlview, and I think this is a good illustration of that. Granted, the individual does not behave as a nihilst, but what I am arguing is that based on their belief system, they logically should.

I argue that moral relativism requires by definition that no moral judgment can be considered ultimately more right or wrong than another, and therefore divests every individual moral judgment of objective meaning. How is this not nihilism?

because morality is not the be all and end all of existence and investment-in-things. morality is a kind of neurosis reserved for self reflective beings, which may or may not participate in it to whatever extent they please. it does not demand nihilism in its absence.

Sorry, I can't resist... all three of your statements there appeal to objective standards... as a moral relativist you must be careful about how you phrase these things. I am only half joking, this is in large part why I am skeptical with regards to this position. It is a difficult code to live by with consistency.

Komodo, I hope you understand that none of this is levelled at you personally. I having been working these ideas out for myself in the back of my mind for a long time, and it is refreshing to bounce them off a real human instead of a dusty old book. Whenever you get sick of it, let me know and I'll go join a philosophy forum or something, where they can eat me for breakfast.

[komodo]

wellll i'll respond, but its not seeming like a very constructive discussion right now...

I personally would not draw such a sharp distinction between values and morality

i did, and for good reason. if you sharpen your focus you might see why i wasnt making a 'useless argument'.

i repeat - values go beyond morality, because values can be formed from moral frameworks but also from other things which have no moral investment in themselves, eg. compulsions, sensations or addiction. if we didnt value anything outside of our morality, we would never act contrary to our morals, this in itself is a proof value does not equate to morality. so if you say that this 'nihilism' youre talking about is a complete absence of meaning and if when we value something it has a relative position in a hierarchy of desire, which means it is more or less meaningful to us, the distinctions between value, morality and nihilism become pretty significant.

your claim that they 'logically should' be interchangeable is also false. the fact that the nihilistic outcome your concept universally dictates upon moral relativists is not universally evidenced in the minds of others is, when coupled with the proof in the previous paragraph, showing quite the opposite, that your logic of 'absolutes or nihilism' is flawed.

it is useless to offer arguments that show people derive pleasure from certain actions as a debunking of nihilism, since a nihilistic view would be that there is no valid reason to prefer pleasure over pain.

umm, debunking of nihilism? i didnt mention any such thing, nihilists are welcome to their absence of values, the position is quite valid if you hold to that. similarly, you are welcome to your moral values, you can even call them absolutes if it makes you sleep better at night

It is a difficult code to live by with consistency.

for me it comes naturally, as i see that all positions are relative, and moral absolutes can only stem from an absolute moral authority, a fixed seat of judgement if you will. i think people fabricate moral firmament so they dont have to question (or worse.. live out!) their REAL desires too deeply. i act within vague moral boundaries ive set up for the general benefit most of the time, but i overstep those boundaries without blinking if i want to. my imminent sensual monism is of more value to me than a code of good behaviour some meme-pusher infected me with, and i have integrated this philosophically, and its nowhere near nihilism.

while i'm grateful i'm not required to subscribe to this either/or code you seem to want others to acknowledge, that doesnt mean i begrudge you your moral insistences, as long as you dont push them on others. this is one thing that people with absolute morals often do, since they believe they can act from absolute moral authority.

all three of your statements there appeal to objective standards

what objective standards exactly are you talking about, show me for each statement.

i suspect that (perhaps unconsciously) both your attempt at a logical proof that absolute morality is the only defence against the void and also your condascension toward relative morality, is motivated out of some kind of 'higher ground' ego formation, which makes your arguments come across a bit high-handed at times. not saying this is good or bad, its all relative anyway, just thought i'd put that out there. maybe youre doing some kind of mental quality control operation, in which case, i'm happy to help

peace.

Edited March 24, 2007 by komodo

[chilli]

Hi komodo, thanks for your response,

I am sorry you feel this is not a constructive discussion, it certainly has been for me... Your arguments are thoughtful and thought-provoking, and I appreciate you taking the time and energy to discuss them. As I asked in my previous post, please don't take it personally if I seem to be attacking your beliefs, I am just trying to discover how well they stand up to scrutiny, not so that you can be convinced of anything, but so I can.

It is easy for me to argue against moral relativism in my own mind, as it is somewhat alien to my natural thought processes. I find it much more challenging and interesting to argue them with someone who believes in moral relativism and has well-considered reasons for doing so, hence this thread.

In my last post, I asked you to tell me when you wanted to end the exchange, and I gather from your last post this is what you would like to do, so I won’t respond to any of your arguments in this post, and allow your most recent input to stand as the end of the discussion regarding moral relativism.

On a personal level though, there are a couple of things I would like to straighten out. I think perhaps the reason for your apparent offense at the way I have put my arguments is due partly to a difference in writing style. Most of the non-fiction books I read comprise fusty philosophers and theologians debating and attacking one another’s arguments sometimes quite mercilessly, and yet without allowing personal attacks or insults to ruin things. To me, this is the essence of healthy debate, and that is how I had been viewing this thread. As an example, when I say “it is useless to offer … as an argument against …” I am not saying that your arguments are useless per se, but simply objecting to one point in particular then going on to explain my reasons why.

For the record, although I, like almost everyone (probably you too), was raised to think in terms of absolute morality, I have experienced many logical and emotional obstacles to this way of thinking, and so have been trying to formulate my beliefs in this and other areas… I would dearly love to believe anything that made me “sleep better at night,” but if I do not think it is true or reasonable, I won’t hold on to that belief no matter what it costs me.

…you are welcome to your moral values, you can even call them absolutes if it makes you sleep better at night

…i think people fabricate moral firmament so they dont have to question (or worse.. live out!) their REAL desires too deeply.

…while i'm grateful i'm not required to subscribe to this either/or code you seem to want others to acknowledge, that doesnt mean i begrudge you your moral insistences, as long as you dont push them on others. this is one thing that people with absolute morals often do, since they believe they can act from absolute moral authority.

i suspect that (perhaps unconsciously) both your attempt at a logical proof that absolute morality is the only defence against the void and also your condascension toward relative morality, is motivated out of some kind of 'higher ground' ego formation, which makes your arguments come across a bit high-handed at times.

Again, I am sorry if I have somehow offended you, I was not sure what I said, and so I just read back over this thread. I can’t see where I have been condescending towards you or your beliefs, and I certainly have not tried to read your personal motives for believing what you believe, as you have done here. Where I have disagreed with you and offered differing arguments, I have endeavoured to do it with respect and politeness. In the phrases I have quoted above, I feel you have in fact been quite condescending and perhaps even intolerant of what you have wrongly assumed to be my views, and I think this is perhaps more high-handed than anything I have said to you so far.

What is Perth like at the moment komodo? How long have you lived there? I am probably moving back there within a year, so your response better be nice. :D

That was totally a joke BTW, please don’t take it seriously... I'm a nice person, really.

[komodo]

no offence taken at all brain, what i was objecting to was within the realms of the discussion; that your posts seem to be doing more asserting/criticising than engaged reasoning. i have satisfied myself that the statement you made about relative morality logically demanding existential nihilism is false, even if you dont agree with my proof, but i dont mind continuing to post, as long as i feel someone out there is responding to the content of my posts. i'm equally happy to drop the subject, as you please

i cant speak for most of perth as i live in the fremantle ghetto, but its good here, we are feeling the change of seasons now. there are certainly worse places to be.

Edited March 29, 2007 by komodo

[chilli]

no offence taken at all brain, what i was objecting to was within the realms of the discussion; that your posts seem to be doing more asserting/criticising than engaged reasoning.

Actually, you went quite a bit further than that... If you'll read back over where I quoted you in my last post, can't you can see where you have repeatedly made assumptions and judgments about my motives? Despite the fact that I have repeatedly explained that these are not my beliefs, but are questions I am grappling with, you continue to attribute them to me.

I apologize for any times I have made bald assertions without providing evidence or explaining my reasoning... perhaps you could point the specific times I have done this out to me, as I know this is an annoying trait and one I would like to correct. However, I think criticizing the other person's view is an integral part of a reasonable debate, wouldn't you agree? After all, most of your last two posts have consisted of crticism of me and my views.

Don't you find it a little unsettling that you have accused me of condescension towards your views, but failed to show me specifically where I have done this, and yet in the same paragraph you have patronized not just my belief system, but me personally? It would be similar to me now saying something like "...but I guess that kind of disingenousness is all we can expect from moral relativists, they often fabricate a belief of moral relativism to excuse their own moral shortcomings. I think perhaps your unwillingness to accept moral absolutes is due to some kind of childish avoidance of universal moral strictures."

i have satisfied myself that the statement you made about relative morality logically demanding existential nihilism is false, even if you dont agree with my proof

I'm happy that your views on the matter have been settled, it would be nice if I could come to satisfactory conclusions so quickly.

i dont mind continuing to post, as long as i feel someone out there is responding to the content of my posts.

I too, am happy to continue the discussion as long as both parties engage the content and leave personal slights aside... as I objected in my last post, I found your previous response littered with sarcastic gibes that I felt were unwarranted and inconducive to reaching a mutual understanding. You suggest that I have not been responding to the content of your posts, again could you possibly point out where this has happened? I'm seeing a lot of assertions, but little evidence.

I get frustrated with these forum discussions because of the misunderstandings they so often foster. It is hard to have to spend half the discussion explaining what one actually meant, and so often interesting discussions get bogged down in this kind of bullshit.

*edit to add genial banter* I loved trawling the ops-shops at Freo, although they've mostly become overpriced now... There certainly are worse places you could be... like New Zealand for instance, which would actually be great if it wasn't for all the fucking New Zealanders. (not you Tong, Faslimy and zeewerp).

Edited March 29, 2007 by IllegalBrain

[komodo]

brain, i do think the personal note that has entered the thread has come from you. at first i just wrote a few lines to the effect of "its your problem not mine", but that didnt sit well with me so i'm editing it and addressing your complaints as a token of respect.

can't you can see where you have repeatedly made assumptions and judgments about my motives?

you assigned generalisations i made to yourself. the one claim i made about your position (the either/or thing) was based solely on your statement. i dont know you and i certainly dont judge you.

Don't you find it a little unsettling that you have accused me of condescension towards your views

i accused you of nothing, and i said your condascension was toward relative morality, not 'my views'.

in the same paragraph you have patronized not just my belief system, but me personally?

i said i suspected your motives came from an ego formation rather than a sequence of reasoning, because that was all you were presenting at the time, i did not patronise you or your beliefs.

I think criticizing the other person's view is an integral part of a reasonable debate, wouldn't you agree? After all, most of your last two posts have consisted of crticism of me and my views.

you want to know a problem with this 'personal' argumentative style youve said you fancy? anything i criticise that you associate yourself with can and has been read as a personal attack directed at you, even though it wasnt intended that way. i think if you find youre getting bogged down in personal bullshit a lot in these kind of threads, that would be a possible cause.

i think you gave up on the topic a couple posts ago and then turned to this personal stuff instead. i dont like that kind of sideways movement from philosophy to personal politics, and normally i will write off the discussion at that point.

disclaimer against violent reaction: im totally cool with this thread. i have no issue with you, i dont know you. im just saying i dont like the tone anymore. its possibly all my fault, but i dont think so. peace.

Edited March 30, 2007 by komodo

[gomaos]

Hi Gomaos,

I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but you are the kind of person I think of as a "plain man"

there have been times when I wished I was a "plain man" but not very often.

Am quite happy with my head in the clouds thank you very much.

[mr toodly]

I have noticed that a lot of people on this forum subscribe to the belief that there are no absolutes, and therefore truth is relative. Concomitantly, all beliefs should be tolerated, except those that claim absolute truth.

There is a difference between the statement "there are no absolute [truths]" and the statement "all truths are relative." That all truths should be tolerated does not seem to follow from either of these statements. They are both descriptive, but the statement about toleration is normative.

Here is a popular Realist/Christian response to these somewhat interconnected ideas, to which I have never really heard a solid rebuttal:

The statement that there are no absolutes is itself an absolute statement, and is therefore self-refuting: similarly, the statement that all truth is relative is a self-defeating and pointless statement.

One might avoid this problem by saying that there are absolute truths, just none of ethical importance. This is probably what most of your opponents have in mind, anyway.

It is hypocritical to say all beliefs should be tolerated, except those which claim absolute truth, because this statement is itself a claim to an absolute truth.

'All beliefs should be tolerated, except those which claim absolute truth" does not appear to be "a claim to an absolute truth." The sentence does not seem to be like (say) "All dogs are black." (if that's an absolute truth?)

It is not clear how we would provide any counter-example to the sentence above ('All beliefs should..'). We certainly could not adduce what we would normally call evidence. No, to argue against such a claim, we would have to find some other normative claim the person believes (or most people would believe) that would be inconsistent with his statement about toleration.

i.e. you are using the word "truth" in at least two different ways.

I'll clarify after I get some sleep.

[mr toodly]

There is a difference between the statement "there are no absolute [truths]" and the statement "all truths are relative."

Or rather, one isn't implied by the other. There might be no absolute truths, but no relative ones either. Or there could be one absolute truth: that there are no absolute truths (i.e. except this one).

And so on.

[chilli]

Hi komodo,

Ironically, I also wrote a different post first, except mine was longer and nicer. I let it sit for a day, reconsidered and decided to write something slightly more curt instead...

you assigned generalisations i made to yourself. the one claim i made about your position (the either/or thing) was based solely on your statement. i dont know you and i certainly dont judge you.

As I've already said, you attributed a belief in moral absolutes to me when you said "you are welcome to your moral values, you can even call them absolutes if it makes you sleep better at night" and then you went on to speak in general terms about the kinds of problems you see with people who believe in moral absolutes. If I was not supposed to read this as directed at me, at least admit you did a terrible job of wording it. This was doubly frustrating to me because I'd already clearly stated that these were not my views.

When you speculated about my unconscious motivations for having this discussion, you made a 'judgment' about my motives.

i accused you of nothing, and i said your condascension was toward relative morality, not 'my views'.

You are the one who associated yourself with moral relativism... are you now saying you are not a moral relativist?

When you say someone is condescending, you are making an 'accusation'.

i said i suspected your motives came from an ego formation rather than a sequence of reasoning, because that was all you were presenting at the time, i did not patronise you or your beliefs.

You must have quite an ability to be able to discern someone's unconscious psychological motives from a few paragraphs they have written in a largely theoretical debate. I'm not sure what you mean by me presenting an 'ego formation rather than a sequence of reasoning', would you care to show me where I did this? Also, perhaps this would be a good time for you to show me where I started asserting instead of reasoning... with one or two possible exceptions I have been careful to explain my reasoning.

When you try to explain someone's unconscious motivations to them, you have 'patronized' them.

you want to know a problem with this 'personal' argumentative style youve said you fancy? anything i criticise that you associate yourself with can and has been read as a personal attack directed at you, even though it wasnt intended that way. i think if you find youre getting bogged down in personal bullshit a lot in these kind of threads, that would be a possible cause.

If you bother to read back over this discussion, I think you'll find that I didn't take any of your criticisms about moral absolutes personally until you started making personal statements about me and my motives. Also, I have not said I fancy any kind of 'personal' argumentative style, in fact I said the exact opposite if you'll read a bit more carefully.

This is only the second philosophical discussion I have had on the internet, and the other one did not end up like this. I was referring to other people's discussions I have read. The problem as I see it is partly that people are anonymous, and so speak much more boldly than they would face to face, and partly that the form of discussion is so impersonal, lacking the ability to communicate body language, and the ability to ask for or offer clarification intermittently. This is why I think it's so important to leave all the mind-reading and psychonanalysis out of it, and just stick to the words on the page.

i think you gave up on the topic a couple posts ago and then turned to this personal stuff instead.

See? This is what I find so offensive, your audacity to make statements about my 'real' motives. I'm afraid your psychic powers are slightly off, as I haven't given up on this topic, and would thoroughly enjoy continuing to discuss it. As I've already said I have found it challenging and thought-provoking. The reason I said I would let your post end the discussion was because you indicated you were reluctant to keep going, and I thought it was fairer to let you have the 'last word', seeing as I had asked the initial question... I'll pick it up again right from where you left off if we can leave this stuff behind.

i dont like that kind of sideways movement from philosophy to personal politics, and normally i will write off the discussion at that point.

I don't like amateur mind readers who make unnecessary snide remarks, and will usually write the person off if they continue in this vein after I've objected to it once or twice.

Disclaimer against haughty brushoff: I would like to continue discussing the topic in a friendly way, without any personal quips. I'm sure at least part of this mess is my fault and part is yours. You don't have to reply to this post if you don't want to, I will post an on topic response in a day or two as if none of this happened, and you can take it from there if you want, or leave it, or tell me to fuck off... Personally, I'm hoping that after all this we will be able to have a more fruitful discussion.

Edited April 2, 2007 by IllegalBrain

[chilli]

Hi r.Jackson, thanks for your posts,

There is a difference between the statement "there are no absolute [truths]" and the statement "all truths are relative." That all truths should be tolerated does not seem to follow from either of these statements. They are both descriptive, but the statement about toleration is normative.

Well I said it was concomitant, not a necessary conclusion. Granted though, this was an imprecise way to word it, but I was simply summing up a popular view and the reasons for it.

One might avoid this problem by saying that there are absolute truths, just none of ethical importance. This is probably what most of your opponents have in mind, anyway.

Yes, I think this is what komodo has said above, and the more I think about it, the more I see it poses a substantial problem for the realist theory.

"All beliefs should be tolerated, except those which claim absolute truth" does not appear to be "a claim to an absolute truth." The sentence does not seem to be like (say) "All dogs are black." (if that's an absolute truth?)

It is not clear how we would provide any counter-example to the sentence above ('All beliefs should..'). We certainly could not adduce what we would normally call evidence. No, to argue against such a claim, we would have to find some other normative claim the person believes (or most people would believe) that would be inconsistent with his statement about toleration.

i.e. you are using the word "truth" in at least two different ways.

I see your point about the dual way I have used the word "truth," and admit it was clumsy. However, I don't see how the statement "all beliefs should be tolerated, except those..." is not making an absolute truth claim, just because it is a prescriptive statement. For example, we can expand it slightly to say "it is absolutely true that all beliefs should be tolerated."

Actually, its is probably tidier to avoid "should" and "tolerate" altogether, and say "all truth is relative, therefore all beliefs are valid." What do you think when it is put this way?

[chilli]

One isn't implied by the other.

I think its taking it a bit far to say that A:"there are no absolute truths" does not imply B:"all truth is relative." I think B necessitates A, and while I suppose the reverse is not strictly necessary, wouldn't you say it is a valid and obvious logical conclusion?

I think I see your point, and I guess it would be clearer to add the premise "some form of truth exists," but that's kind of already assumed in the other two statements.

There might be no absolute truths, but no relative ones either.

I agree.

Or there could be one absolute truth: that there are no absolute truths (i.e. except this one).

If you say "there is one absolute truth: that there are no absolute truths" its self-refuting, and if you add "except this one" isn't it just another way of saying that absolute truth exists?

Edited April 2, 2007 by IllegalBrain

[mr toodly]

Hi r.Jackson, thanks for your posts,

Well I said it was concomitant, not a necessary conclusion.

Yes, it's just a description of what you think most people believe. Your idea about the implications between the first two propositions was wrong, though.

However, I don't see how the statement "all beliefs should be tolerated, except those..." is not making an absolute truth claim, just because it is a prescriptive statement.

The statement is not "not absolute" (as you seem to be using the word) because it's normative. It's not "absolute" because 'all beliefs except x,y,z should be tolerated' looks like it's reducible to 'some beliefs should be tolerated.'

Actually, its is probably tidier to avoid "should" and "tolerate" altogether, and say "all truth is relative, therefore all beliefs are valid." What do you think when it is put this way?

Do you think any intelligent person would say, "all truth is relative, therefore all beliefs are valid"? I think that if you want to be fair, you need to say something like: all/most moral principles can only be said to be right or wrong within their socio-cultural context.

Your opponents will list a few socio-cultural practices and principles held by different cultures. They will try to argue that custom is king, or something like that, because we see such a great variety of ethical practices across cultures.

I think you just need to remember that a state of affairs or states of affairs can be consistent with a proposition or hypothesis without the hypothesis being true.

Edited April 3, 2007 by r. Jackson

[mr toodly]

I think its taking it a bit far to say that A:"there are no absolute truths" does not imply B:"all truth is relative." I think B necessitates A, and while I suppose the reverse is not strictly necessary, wouldn't you say it is a valid and obvious logical conclusion?

No. Other relations are possible when A obtains.

If you say "there is one absolute truth: that there are no absolute truths" its self-refuting, and if you add "except this one" isn't it just another way of saying that absolute truth exists?

It means that there is one "absolute truth" (or whatever), but it might not be one that is very useful to you.

Edited April 3, 2007 by r. Jackson

[chilli]

Hi r.Jackson,

Yes, it's just a description of what you think most people believe. Your idea about the implications between the first two propositions was wrong, though.

Its not a description of what I think most people believe, but as I said at the time, what I think a lot of people on this forum believe. The implications between the first two propositions is included in the belief I ascribed to others, not my idea: "I have noticed that a lot of people on this forum subscribe to the belief that there are no absolutes, and therefore truth is relative. Concomitantly, all beliefs should be tolerated, except those that claim absolute truth."

The statement is not "not absolute" (as you seem to be using the word) because it's normative. It's not "absolute" because 'all beliefs except x,y,z should be tolerated' looks like it's reducible to 'some beliefs should be tolerated.'

Which is still making an absolute truth claim, ie "it is true that some beliefs should be tolerated". You seem to imply I am using the word 'absolute' incorrectly, would you care to explain?

Do you think any intelligent person would say, "all truth is relative, therefore all beliefs are valid"? I think that if you want to be fair, you need to say something like: all/most moral principles can only be said to be right or wrong within their socio-cultural context.

Your opponents will list a few socio-cultural practices and principles held by different cultures. They will try to argue that custom is king, or something like that, because we see such a great variety of ethical practices across cultures.

Your arguments here are only applicable to moral relativism, not cognitive or epistemic relativism. People may not state it such a simplistic form, but intelligent people seem to believe it.

I think you just need to remember that a state of affairs or states of affairs can be consistent with a proposition or hypothesis without the hypothesis being true.

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by this.

No, Other relations are possible when A obtains.

I didn't say it is the only logical conclusion, just that it was a valid one.

It means that there is one "absolute truth" (or whatever), but it might not be one that is very useful to you.

Again, I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at here.

Thanks for your responses.

[komodo]

QUOTE(komodo @ Mar 30 2007, 06:14 PM) *

i think you gave up on the topic a couple posts ago and then turned to this personal stuff instead.

See? This is what I find so offensive, your audacity to make statements about my 'real' motives. I'm afraid your psychic powers are slightly off, as I haven't given up on this topic, and would thoroughly enjoy continuing to discuss it.

then how come your entire post to me just then was a whole lot more garbage about how youre offended and i'm to blame?

its boring and personally demanding, but no i'm not going to tell you to fuck off as you suggest because i'm not that kind of person. however, as its going nowhere constructive as i noted awhile back, enjoy your style of conversation, because i dont.

[chilli]

then how come your entire post to me just then was a whole lot more garbage about how youre offended and i'm to blame?

its boring and personally demanding, but no i'm not going to tell you to fuck off as you suggest because i'm not that kind of person. however, as its going nowhere constructive as i noted awhile back, enjoy your style of conversation, because i dont.

I'm not sure if you have just been skimming my posts, or if you are purposefully being obtuse, but I'm genuinely sorry you feel that way, komodo.

What you read as "a whole lot more garbage" was an attempt to reach a mutual understanding before we carried on the discussion, in the hope that you would stop making remarks about my motives... all I asked was for you to leave the personal aspersions, innuendo and psychologizing out of it, and stick to the topic.

If you don't like that 'style' of conversation, then its probably for the best that you've chosen to opt out.

[komodo]

i read them in depth and responded in depth. all i'm opting out of is the psychodrama, i dont care what you want to ascribe it to. i'm confident i havent done anything wrong by you by either accident or intention. hope that satisfies you.

Edited April 3, 2007 by komodo

[chilli]

i'm confident i havent done anything wrong by you by either accident or intention.

Yeah, you're definitely the best ;)

[komodo]

Yeah, you're definitely the best ;)

i'm sorry you have that attitude, as i feel ive wasted my time responding to your offended posts. peace.

Edited April 4, 2007 by komodo

[mr toodly]

I am using the word 'absolute' incorrectly, would you care to explain?

I don't think you are using the word "absolute" incorrectly. I have witnessed a number of people use that word the way you have been using it. But I find that these people typically fail to illustrate how the term works or how it is used. The result is that I feel I must play a little game of fishing to figure out usage.

Your arguments here are only applicable to moral relativism, not cognitive or epistemic relativism. People may not state it such a simplistic form, but intelligent people seem to believe it.

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by this.

e.g. The miasmatic theory of disease. Crudely: where fetid odors obtain, cholera (other diseases) infect and kill. Fetid odors are the causes of disease. Eliminate the fetid odors, and eliminate the disease.

or

You are stuck in traffic. You see bright lights ahead. You believe something like, "A UFO has landed on the freeway and blocked traffic." (The traffic jam was really caused by an auto with a flat)

The facts are consistent with each hypothesis. The miasmatic theory example even provided a working principle. The fact that we have a working principle tempts us to believe that odor causes disease. In many cases, this will suit us well, especially if we are only interested in diseases like cholera. And if we live in a society where it is not practicable to eliminate all fetid odors (and discover inconsistencies - people getting cholera regardless when fetid odors are absent) we shall have to be very creative to discover any problems with the miasmatic theory (i.e. Pasteur, etc). The UFO example is unparsimonious, but there is still consistency. If there is a UFO on the road (and say, it is constructed out of a solid material) it will block traffic.

I think that this sort of consistency tends to intoxicate people. They will (say) observe ethical differences between cultures and assent to relativistic moral theories without thinking of other possibilities.

Some have suggested that it is not that our (in a worldwide, universal sense) ethical beliefs tbat differ so greatly and lack any common features, but our interpretations of phenomena.

I'll give an example of this if you ask for it. For some reason I find typing into this forum console excruciating, and I don't want to do it anymore, but something keeps pushing me on.

I didn't say it is the only logical conclusion, just that it was a valid one.

Please tell me what you think the conditions of validity are.

[chilli]

i'm sorry you have that attitude, as i feel ive wasted my time responding to your offended posts. peace.

I'm not sure exactly what attitude you expect me to have, I asked was for a simple explanation of where I allegedly stopped using reason and stopped engaging the content of your posts. You complained that I took personal offense at your criticism of absolute morality, and I showed you that the personal note only entered after you made assumptions about what my 'real' motives were. You made these complaints, I just asked for an explanation, which you have yet to provide. These are the only things I have asked you to address, and you brushed me off with more arrogant remarks. I apologized for my part in this misunderstanding and told you I would like to carry on the discussion, and you wrote off the whole post and said you didn't want to talk about it anymore. This is what you call 'responding in depth to my posts'.

I really am sorry for all this komodo, I apologize for the sarcastic remark in my last post. I feel like its a stupid frustrating misunderstanding, and possibly I am totally blind and just can't see what I'm doing wrong. I don't think its 'all your fault,' and I don't harbour any ill will towards you. If you genuinely can't see the validity of anything I've said, then we obviously just have very different mindsets, and its best if we just leave it here... hopefully we can still talk to one another without any of this stuff coming up again.