Anti-intellectualism

[Ben Kenobi]

Why this difference, Whaleboy? It is patently useless to say that it is wrong for you to drink and drive, but perfectly fine for others to go and do so.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


No, not everything is indistinguishable, that is clearly false. However, there is no inherent property of validity. One of course can forge an idealistic relativism where all is homogenous and nothing until we interpret it, but that's not what we're talking about here, in terms of meta-ethical and moral relativism. Let me use the analogy I have used before, though not on this thread I think. You have two mountains, one taller than the other. An observer has to decide which he likes better. Instantly, he recognises one as taller than another (that is one level of interpretation that we all take for granted, but is only the realms of cognetive relativism). He likes taller mountains. Which does he decide to be his favourite? He does not consider the shorter inferior however, thus he is a relativist in this instance.



The basis for choosing is individual disposition, not some belief in something they cannot logically know, i.e. a moral absolute. I'm sorry if it demeans you, but it is a consequence of relativism that morality does not exist in a coherent or objective form beyond each individual. Put simply, it does not exist as anything more than an extension of an individuals emotional disposition.



What did I previously say? Have I not made my point clear that you come back with the same criticism thuogh it has been addressed?

well yes unfortunately none of ur retorts have blown my skirt up. first u compare morality to benign choices. favorite color, etc. this is a good trick but it is also lacking in gumption.

and of course the famous "we are all ignorant so lets just not do anything." this is the most impressively unimpressive argument I've ever heard(mind u not just from you). it gets thrown around a lot, theologans like it. basically the idea that a lack of certainty is a demand for inaction or creates an inability to decide.

[Whaleboy]

Why this difference, Whaleboy? It is patently useless to say that it is wrong for you to drink and drive, but perfectly fine for others to go and do so.

Not at all. Rather, I may think it wrong but not that it "ought" to be wrong. The fact that I choose not to does not preclude their choice to do so, though of course you complicate matters by introducing laws and stuff within a sociological context. As far as I'm concerned your example is merely me as an individual and them.

well yes unfortunately none of ur retorts have blown my skirt up. first u compare morality to benign choices. favorite color, etc. this is a good trick but it is also lacking in gumption.

Please explain, that statement says nothing. I do compare morality to benign choices. You think it something more? Please enlighten me!

and of course the famous "we are all ignorant so lets just not do anything." this is the most impressively unimpressive argument I've ever heard(mind u not just from you). it gets thrown around a lot, theologans like it. basically the idea that a lack of certainty is a demand for inaction or creates an inability to decide.

Where did I make that argument. "We're all ignorant so let's not do anything?" How is that, in any way a representation of my position. This should be good...

Lack of information, or a subjective perspective is not a reason for a subjective to act in some way. It merely stops them from acting with logical validity in a context in which they are not objective (one is objective unto onself of course). For example, relativism tells me to take more seriously in a court the judges view, as opposed to the plaintiffs. The latter would seek vigilante action, the former would seek a reasonable conclusion.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Drogue

In his posts maybe, but IMHO you have misunderstood what he was trying to do.

Apparently that happens a lot

[Whaleboy]

Apparently that happens a lot

With 4/5 people on this thread... all of which seem to be adopting the same position opposed to me... hmmm

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Whaleboy



Lack of information, or a subjective perspective is not a reason for a subjective to act in some way. It merely stops them from acting with logical validity in a context in which they are not objective (one is objective unto onself of course). For example, relativism tells me to take more seriously in a court the judges view, as opposed to the plaintiffs. The latter would seek vigilante action, the former would seek a reasonable conclusion.

u must have some unknown type of relativism if ur taking one view over another? is this the new non relativist relativism?

and logic is perfectly capable of operating w/in uncertainties. it merely requires an asessment of the uncertainties that one is facing. so to say that the presence of an uncertainty removes all logical validity is silly.

[Ben Kenobi]

I may think it wrong but not that it "ought" to be wrong.

Very Clintonesque.

At least you choose a longer word than "is".

[Whaleboy]

u must have some unknown type of relativism if ur taking one view over another? is this the new non relativist relativism?

Nope, descriptive and meta-ethical relativism -> cognetive relativism is what I use. Not all relativism is represented by normative relativism, which few take seriously, least of all me.

and logic is perfectly capable of operating w/in uncertainties. it merely requires an asessment of the uncertainties that one is facing. so to say that the presence of an uncertainty removes all logical validity is silly.

No, you misunderstand. One can still act logically within oneself, but to claim ones view to be absolute (the definition of objective logical validity), one requires it to be based upon absolute premises and total knowledge, which is of course impossible. Any notion of moral truth is based upon tautologies. Seems fairly easy to comprehend to me.

At least you choose a longer word than "is".

Not that hard to understand

[Ben Kenobi]

With 4/5 people on this thread... all of which seem to be adopting the same position opposed to me...

The words make sense, the problem is how you put them together.

How does it make any sense to say that you believe something is wrong, but not that it ought to be wrong?

Are you saying your conscience is flawed?

[Whaleboy]

How does it make any sense to say that you believe something is wrong, but not that it ought to be wrong?

To put it another way. I believe something is wrong, but that is not a sufficient condition to it thus being wrong objectively. Of course, I have the right to purport it as such, but as a relativist, I do not, and furthermore recognise this situation.

Are you saying your conscience is flawed?

Yep!! Very much so. And until you can prove that my thread about me being the next Jesus wasn't as ridiculous as I dearly wanted it to be, that will remain so!

[Ben Kenobi]

Very much so. And until you can prove that my thread about me being the next Jesus wasn't as ridiculous as I dearly wanted it to be, that will remain so!

Own goal.

Your own statement here argues against you. Christ was sinless. You are not. You admit your conscience is flawed, but that presupposes an objective morality with which one can evaluate your conscience.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


To put it another way. I believe something is wrong, but that is not a sufficient condition to it thus being wrong objectively.

Is fine as theoretical point, but then you cannot justify why everyone in a society should follow the same rules. You cannot justify a law that declares murder illegal, because even when a majority decides that it hates murder, others could still say they do like it, and those who hate it have no basis to outlaw it. You'd make "justice" totally meaningless.

And it isn't so good when a theory fails in praxis.

[Whaleboy]

Your own statement here argues against you. Christ was sinless. You are not. You admit your conscience is flawed, but that presupposes an objective morality with which one can evaluate your conscience.

*cough*Mary Magdalane*cough*

I am joking of course

that presupposes an objective morality with which one can evaluate your conscience.

No. A flaw does not imply something that is not flawwed from which to view it as flawed. We do that from each other, but though I cannot see it, I know it must necessarily be flawwed, otherwise I would in fact be God. See, either relativism is true, or I am God. That, my friend, is philosophy jk.

[Whaleboy]

Is fine as theoretical point, but then you cannot justify why everyone in a society should follow the same rules. You cannot justify a law that declares murder illegal, because even when a majority decides that it hates murder, others could still say they do like it, and those who hate it have no basis to outlaw it. You'd make "justice" totally meaningless.

And it isn't so good when a theory fails in praxis.

A very good point, which is why meta-ethical relativism leads to moral relativism, which in turn leads to ideas such as sociological relativism (like the Mill Limit), where one can say you can influence, but not inhibit another subjective point of view, otherwise in the context of a society, you'd end up with chaos. In other words, "all is good in theory, but come on, you can't impose upon another, you cant kill people, that's wrong within the context of this society", and as such, you have that limit or apex. It all fits together doesnt it?

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


Nope, descriptive and meta-ethical relativism -> cognetive relativism is what I use. Not all relativism is represented by normative relativism, which few take seriously, least of all me.



No, you misunderstand. One can still act logically within oneself, but to claim ones view to be absolute (the definition of objective logical validity), one requires it to be based upon absolute premises and total knowledge, which is of course impossible. Any notion of moral truth is based upon tautologies. Seems fairly easy to comprehend to me.



Not that hard to understand

I dont think I've even used the word absolute. much less made it part of a subject in a post of mine?

at any rate if u mean that we can not be ridiculously absolutely positively certain that our way is the bestest of the bestest evar. than I agree. BUT if u think that implies that no ways can be distinguished logically or on other merits besides some persons weird emotional response.

than yah, no.