Does "dictatorship of relativism" exist?

[Kidlicious]

Whaleboy,

Your opposing arguments concerning absolute morality don't concern me so much as your arguments in support for moral relativity. This is what I find illogical. MRs believe that since you can't prove that claim A is either true or not true that it is both true and not true at the same time.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ramo

No. That's similar to saying that something doesn't exist, because you haven't proven it to exist. I don't find that to be good logic.

I'm asking you to justify your ideas of absolute morality. In some way. Any way. I've already justified relative morality: a moral system is an abstract logical structure, and thus can be constructed arbitrarily. QED.

Did we cross post? I think people's brains work that same, except that feelings differ a little from place to place. I don't think that moral reasoning is dependant on our feelings though, except where some people have limited capacity.

[Odin]

Moral relativism seems right to me philosophically, and scientifically, but it seems like one of those things that you just can't believe, lest it torture your conscience. For example, according to the moral relativist would defend female genital mutilation and other opressive acts we westerners would call barbaric because stoping it would be imposing western values on another society.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Agathon
Which comes down to saying "the rules are internal to the practice".

It can only be answered by looking at what people actually do. The problem is that people are putting the bar for moral justification as high, or higher than the bar for regular epistemological justification.

Spot-on.

[Fake Boris]

Physics is an approximation, but the significant fact is not that it's inexact but that it makes no claim to describe how the world actually works but merely to be able to predict what will occur. Even if our physics was perfect, it would still be only a useful tool.

Ummm... unless you believe that the functioning of anything can be described outside of causality, you've pretty much pwn3d yourself.

[Ramo]

Was this for me?

Yeah, but I misread what you were writing, so I guess it's for Kid.

Your opposing arguments concerning absolute morality don't concern me so much as your arguments in support for moral relativity. This is what I find illogical. MRs believe that since you can't prove that claim A is either true or not true that it is both true and not true at the same time.

I've never asserted that (I don't even know what that means).

I think people's brains work that same, except that feelings differ a little from place to place. I don't think that moral reasoning is dependant on our feelings though, except where some people have limited capacity.

On what basis do you say that they mostly work the same? How do you quantify this similarity?

And if morality is independent of feelings, where does it come from?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ramo

Your opposing arguments concerning absolute morality don't concern me so much as your arguments in support for moral relativity. This is what I find illogical. MRs believe that since you can't prove that claim A is either true or not true that it is both true and not true at the same time.

I've never asserted that (I don't even know what that means).

This is what I'm getting as implied. I'm trying to get someone to explain how you guys aren't saying this in a way that makes sense. Whaleboy tried, but it didn't make sense to me.

I think people's brains work the same, except that feelings differ a little from place to place. I don't think that moral reasoning is dependant on our feelings though, except where some people have limited capacity.

On what basis do you say that they mostly work the same?

Frankly I don't see any differences. If you don't have the capacity to do math you will fail Calculus and if you don't have the capacity to do Science you will fail Science. It follows that if you don't have the capacity to reason on moral issues that you will fail that.

How do you quantify this similarity?

You know that I can't quantify it if I don't know what I am quantifying. It goes back to the question of whether or not something can be true if you can't prove that it is, and we disagree on the grounds of definitions it seems.

And if morality is independent of feelings, where does it come from?

Reason. If I get a math problem wrong on the test I feel like it was correct, but that doesn't make it correct. I may feel like stealing is moral so that I can do it guilt free, but that doesn't make it moral.

[Ramo]

This is what I'm getting as implied. I'm trying to get someone to explain how you guys aren't saying this in a way that makes sense. Whaleboy tried, but it didn't make sense to me.

It's really simple. As I said earler: a moral system is an abstract logical structure, and thus can be constructed arbitrarily. QED. You can have your subjective morality. Everyone does. That's how we make judgements. But there's nothing that makes your morality absolutely better or worse than another.

Frankly I don't see any differences.

You believe that revenge is moral, I don't. There's a difference, for instance.

Reason. If I get a math problem wrong on the test I feel like it was correct, but that doesn't make it correct. I may feel like stealing is moral so that I can do it guilt free, but that doesn't make it moral.

You need to study more math. Math is a system where conclusions follow from its axioms. Change the axioms, and you can get a totally different mathematical structures. When you take a calculus test, you take for granted the axioms that Cauchy et al. developed when creating analysis. But Cauchy's axioms aren't magical, and you change them to develop a different sort of mathematics.

[Ramo]

And reason ain't an answer. What's the rational reason for killing to be wrong? What's the rational reason for people to be happy? The answer is that there ain't, a priori. You need to impose a value system to get those conclusions, and those values come from your emotions.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ramo

This is what I'm getting as implied. I'm trying to get someone to explain how you guys aren't saying this in a way that makes sense. Whaleboy tried, but it didn't make sense to me.

It's really simple. As I said earler: a moral system is an abstract logical structure, and thus can be constructed arbitrarily. QED. You can have your subjective morality. Everyone does. That's how we make judgements. But there's nothing that makes your morality absolutely better or worse than another.

That is not answering my question. Your believe is either true or not. Explain to me how it can be both.

Frankly I don't see any differences.

You believe that revenge is moral, I don't. There's a difference, for instance.

Now tell me why that is the result of our brains working differently as opposed to us having different capacities. Perhaps you were raised to believe that revenge was not ok, and I was raised to believe that it was ok. That would affect our relative capacities. There are other things as well that will affect our capacities.

Reason. If I get a math problem wrong on the test I feel like it was correct, but that doesn't make it correct. I may feel like stealing is moral so that I can do it guilt free, but that doesn't make it moral.

You need to study more math. Math is a system where conclusions follow from its axioms. Change the axioms, and you can get a totally different mathematical structures. When you take a calculus test, you take for granted the axioms that Cauchy et al. developed when creating analysis. But Cauchy's axioms aren't magical, and you change them to develop a different sort of mathematics.

We've been down this road before. Some people can study until they are blue in the face and they are not going to understand Partial Derivatives. That's just a fact.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ramo
And reason ain't an answer. What's the rational reason for killing to be wrong? What's the rational reason for people to be happy? The answer is that there ain't, a priori. You need to impose a value system to get those conclusions, and those values come from your emotions.

I meant "reason" the verb, not the noun.

edit: I don't believe that values come from your emotions. I don't think that you refrain from hurting someone because you love them, or because you will feel guilt if you do hurt them. I think you reason that hurting them is immoral. At least it's that way for some people.

[Ramo]

That is not answering my question. Your believe is either true or not. Explain to me how it can be both.

It's neither true nor false. You don't have a well-defined proposition. What does it mean for a morality to be absolutely true?

Now tell me why that is the result of our brains working differently as opposed to us having different capacities. Perhaps you were raised to believe that revenge was not ok, and I was raised to believe that it was ok. That would affect our relative capacities. There are other things as well that will affect our capacities.

What does that mean, to have a different capacity? You're creating a terminology of superiority and inferiority with justifying a single thing.

We've been down this road before. Some people can study until they are blue in the face and they are not going to understand Partial Derivatives. That's just a fact.

That doesn't have anything to do with what I wrote.... Please reread the point cuz it's important.

[Ramo]

I meant "reason" the verb, not the noun.

edit: I don't believe that values come from your emotions. I don't think that you refrain from hurting someone because you love them, or because you will feel guilt if you do hurt them. I think you reason that hurting them is immoral. At least it's that way for some people.

You have a needless contrained idea of what emotions constitute. I feel bad at the thought of people being hurt. That's why I don't hurt people. Not for any rational reason.

I'm still wondering, what's the rational basis for not hurting people?

[Ramo]

"1 + 1 = 2" is neither an absolutely true nor false statement. You have to assume the axioms of number theory before that statement becomese true. And those axioms can be arbitrarily constructed.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ramo
What does it mean for a morality to be absolutely true?

It means the conclussion that every person would reach if they were not limited in their capacity to reach that conclusion.

What does that mean, to have a different capacity? You're creating a terminology of superiority and inferiority with justifying a single thing.

Do you agree that you will have a propensity to have a moral belief that is consistant with the cultural norm for that belief. Isn't that a limitation if this cultural belief is wrong? If you are able to think rationally then you can overcome that limitation, but only if you have the capacity.
were not limited in their capacity to reach that conclusion.

We've been down this road before. Some people can study until they are blue in the face and they are not going to understand Partial Derivatives. That's just a fact.

That doesn't have anything to do with what I wrote.... Please reread the point cuz it's important.

I understand what you are saying I think. My point is that people have different mental capacities for different things.