"Conservatives only use hate & fear while Liberals use logic & reason."

[GePap]

Because law does not need moral absolutism to exist, only the acknowledgement of a certain entity backed by cohersive power having the local and temporary authority to define a set of allowed behaviors and acts.

[The Andy-Man]

logic is ilogical.

[Whaleboy]

logic is ilogical

No it isn't (in context)

I'm still curious how an avowed moral relativist can speak of law with a straight face.

What GePap said .

The law is merely the framework for a society, in the case of the Mill Limit, it is merely the apex of relativism, other societies would allow less. It follows on from the notion that without laws there is no freedom. All I can say with these concepts is "use with care".

[Imran Siddiqui]

True, but there are certain aspects of liberalism that strands have in common... the use of relativism to various degrees being one of the most important. Again, I'm talking about moral and cultural

Well, If I'm looking at my own county (indulge me please ), the 'liberals' in the university don't seem to be any more relativists than the 'conservatives'. They do believe in moral absolutes.

I'm still curious how an avowed moral relativist can speak of law with a straight face.

Again, what GePap said . Also, I'd add that under one idea of moral relativism, might makes right. Those that have the might can impliment their morality, or law, and that is just the way it is.

[Whaleboy]

Well, If I'm looking at my own county (indulge me please ), the 'liberals' in the university don't seem to be any more relativists than the 'conservatives'. They do believe in moral absolutes.

Well that sucks doesn't it!

My branch of liberalism is more European and conceptual. Like I said, liberal can mean any number of thing, you can be liberal in some respects, neo/theo con in others.

I have a bit of a problem with the concept of American liberal, for the same reason that theologians may have a problem with liberalism. Other pseudo-religious objectives can get in the way of liberalism, in this case, patriotism or a certain way of life etc. See prev. post.

[Whaleboy]

Again, what GePap said . Also, I'd add that under one idea of moral relativism, might makes right. Those that have the might can impliment their morality, or law, and that is just the way it is

Care to enlighten us on that oxymoronic proposal?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Care to enlighten us on that oxymoronic proposal?

Why is it oxymoronic? Think about it for a second. If all morality is equal, then it really doesn't matter which one impliments the law, does it? Because, in the end, someone has to. I'd prefer that the morality that is shared by most of the people be encapsulated by law, but since it is all equal, why should I care if the mighty impliment their own morality (unless it is contrary to my own personal morality).

[GePap]

Originally posted by elijah


Care to enlighten us on that oxymoronic proposal?

You forgot about the pictures in color!!

[Ben Kenobi]

I personally value human life because of relativist/subjectivist logic, as well as an emotional or deep-rooted philosophical love/respect for other living things.

Sorry for messing up your name elijah. Usually when I type that name it comes capitalised.

Okay. So why should I also value these things, if I am a relativist? If all values are personal and subjective, the only conclusion I can draw is that it is perfectly okay for you to value these things, and perfectly okay for me to value killing others. There can be no moral absolutes under relativism.

GePap

(after all, you only become rich by killing if hired o do so, and thus this must be part of yourt line of thought at the end).

No, honkey, I mug them.

[GePap]

If they have no money on them, then your assumption is incorrect, and thus the whole arguement given ilogical.

See how it works?

[Whaleboy]

Imran: It is oxymoronic for one subjective to impose itself on another and call itself relativist. Obviously, you need a bit of that with the law, thats why there is a limit to relativism, in order to preserve it.

If all morality is equal, then it really doesn't matter which one impliments the law, does it?

You are assuming that relativism has to be subjectivist, which it does not. It is illogical for one subjective point of view, be that a society, a nation or an individual, to impose itself on another. It is like swapping the conclusions of two different arguments.. it just doesnt work.

Put another way, if all morality is equal, what right does one morality have to impose on the other? Logical validity is not granted objectively because it is bigger and badder. That is only valid for that subjective, not in a context where there is more than one.

In that given context, there has to be one objective (for that context, so pseudo-objective) to judge. In the case of two individuals fighting, it may be the law. In the case of two warring nations, it should (ideally) be the UN (or its conceptual equivalent that actually works ).

Now whether, in a society, that pseudo obj. is determined by democracy or competence is another matter, one assumes that it is valid. Otherwise, the criminals become the police.

Imran: Your position is not relativist. "I dont care who impliments morality, as long as its mine" is unsatisfactory.

[Whaleboy]

You forgot about the pictures in color!!

Sorry! But sometimes you can use so much coloured paint that the painting falls off the hook and smashes on the floor!

Sorry for messing up your name elijah. Usually when I type that name it comes capitalised

Thats quite alright!

Okay. So why should I also value these things, if I am a relativist? If all values are personal and subjective, the only conclusion I can draw is that it is perfectly okay for you to value these things, and perfectly okay for me to value killing others. There can be no moral absolutes under relativism.

You dont have to. As a moral relativist, I see no reason why lucipher himself is less valid than me. Its just that in a society, there are certain things you cant act upon, in order to maintain liberty and relativism.

[Verres]

[Imran Siddiqui]

It is oxymoronic for one subjective to impose itself on another and call itself relativist.

Why? How come one can't say that their views are no better than others, but would like to impose them as law anyway according to their own personal beliefs? It is an acceptance that although they have the power, it doesn't follow that their views are naturally better.

Put another way, if all morality is equal, what right does one morality have to impose on the other?

Exactly right, that is ANOTHER way. The other way is saying if all morality is equal, who cares which morality wins out in the struggle?

Your position is not relativist. "I dont care who impliments morality, as long as its mine" is unsatisfactory.

It also isn't relativist to take someone's position and misrepresent it . And people were made that Oerdin misrepresented your views.

My position is that since all morality is relativist, whichever wins out in the end is no better or worse than any other. However, I would prefer my personal morality to win out, obviously, but if it doesn't, I understand.

[Ned]

US Liberals speak like this:

"Conservatives want to kill babies because they want to cut the budget for the environment."

"Conservatives are again talking about repealing Social Security."

Ah, the logic and reason of American liberals.