Moral Relativism: Good, bad...etc?

[Ben Kenobi]

Loinburger, it is a contradiction, because rights have no meaning unless applied to everyone.

You may have the right to believe what you want, but that right means nothing, unless you believe everyone ought to have this right.

[Whaleboy]

BK: Belief is like an anchored ship in an intellectual rising ride, relativism is a useful tool to cut the chain.

[Ben Kenobi]

And cast adrift to wreck ashore?

[Whaleboy]

Loinburger, it is a contradiction, because rights have no meaning unless applied to everyone.

Ridiculous, though I'd ask you to qualify what you mean by "rights". In the sense that you usually use the word, does it not seem possible to present people with rights on certain bases? Why is it that you think rights are universalisable? Categorical imperative or hypothetical? It should be blisteringly obvious for the sake of consistency that the only workable concept here is the hypothetical imperative.

[Whaleboy]

And cast adrift to wreck ashore?

Que?

[Ben Kenobi]

Anchors have a length of chain, that allows them to keep the ship safe even in a rising tide.

[Whaleboy]

So ones beliefs are relatively flexible... so in given context something one may take as absolutely true need to be... so not absolutely true?

Of course, I lack your obvious naval experience

[Ben Kenobi]

Whaleboy, if you cut an anchor at night, then the ship will be cast adrift, and will float wherever the currents direct, even if it crashes against the shore.

An anchor on the other hand, in a rising tide, just lets out a longer length of chain.

Go sailing some time, and you will see what I mean.

[Ben Kenobi]

So ones beliefs are relatively flexible... so in given context something one may take as absolutely true need to be... so not absolutely true?

Having an anchor keeps you steady when buffeted by outside forces.

[Ben Kenobi]

Why is it that you think rights are universalisable?

"...they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,..."

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Firstly, we have established that it is not a moral code, merely an evaluation of the concept itself and (if you buy emotivism) a description of it.

Good, so all we have to do now is agree that you believe in the concept of truth. Obviously you do.

Lawyers and lawyer types? So if I told you its my opinion, I don't go around with a belief of right and wrong, what would you say (it is the case of course).

If you mean 'never' then I would say you are lying. If you mean 'sometimes' then I could believe that.

Simply because you yourself cannot perceive someone being a relativist does not refute the notion, it just speaks volumes for your understanding of the subject at hand.

No. I can't perceive that someone can believe that they do not believe. Of course not, because there is nothing wrong with my perceptions or understanding.

[Whaleboy]

Whaleboy, if you cut an anchor at night, then the ship will be cast adrift, and will float wherever the currents direct, even if it crashes against the shore.

In which case, it is being true to the waters at the time and not upsetting it by some psychological attachment to a particular spot on the seabed.

An anchor on the other hand, in a rising tide, just lets out a longer length of chain.

But in a storm?

Having an anchor keeps you steady when buffeted by outside forces.

But can't really let the ship go anywhere. If you want to have your debate as a d1ck size contest or an attempt at converting the heathens, then psychological attachment to your opinions is probably a good idea. If you regard the debate as an art, a joust, and your own opinions as, to steal from Shakespeare, "trifles, light as air", then a psychological attachment to your ideas becomes as embarrasing to yourself as that of "believers" is to the rest of us!

[Ben Kenobi]

If I want to sail somewhere else, the last thing I want to do is cut my chain.

I may pull it up, but I will store it until needed.

[Whaleboy]

"...because they are endowed by their Creator, certain unalienable rights..."

Oh jeez not this crap again

Good, so all we have to do now is agree that you believe in the concept of truth. Obviously you do.

I do?

If you mean 'never' then I would say you are lying. If you mean 'sometimes' then I could believe that.

Well I'm human and i'm not always true to my working intellect as it were, as opposed to my hypothetical intellect, but my working intellect as as relativistic as my hypothetical.

No. I can't perceive that someone can believe that they do not believe. Of course not, because there is nothing wrong with my perceptions or understanding.

No there isn't, nor did I say there was, but the problem with human perception, even that which is functioning perfectly is that sometimes we cannot perceive certain things and thus assume they cannot be the case. I can assure you that they are but you do not know me, how can you verify that? I certainly cannot unless we speak 1-on-1 however, for the purposes of this debate, I doubt that will be necessary, considering your point is a strawman and does not refute the argument, which, levelled against you, was hypothetical and yet still stands.

[Whaleboy]

I may pull it up, but I will store it until needed.

Then I shall present another analogy.... the grass stem that bends in the wind whereas the twig does snap. Yet they both reach the same height