Does "dictatorship of relativism" exist?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
That is completely wrong I'm afraid. It all depends upon context as I have said many times before on this thread. Taking that into consideration, no moral absolutism = moral relativism, which is not contradictory given subject and predicate (the latter being essential in anything arbitrary). You're assuming a logical vacuum when that is plainly not the case; try reading what people are writing.

That's the thing. Some people seem to be saying that moral relativism means that there is no such thing as a moral truth, and others are saying that there are multiple and contradicting moral truths. To tell you the truth I'm not sure if all of you are saying both.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
That way you avoid the contradictions Kid seems to have found himself in.

What contradictions?

[Az]

as with all proofs, You'll have to start with some axiom, or some definition.

(1)The ethical thing to do is to the one that meets the general desires and needs of humans ( not the stated ones, but the ones that truly drive them ).

Another axiom:

(2)All people are equal in the improtance of their desires, when taken out of social context- by this I mean that while it is true that at times the happiness level, or the anxiety level, or the level of the feeling of freedom or whatever of a certain person affects his interaction with others, while counting his desires we account for the result of his feelings and desires separately.

Now come the "theoremes":


(3)The thing that drives the general desires and needs of humans is happiness - this is supported by the simple fact that when people are truly happy - not superficially, or seem to be happy, or any other quasihappiness, but I mean the true state of happiness, as defined by levels of that happy drug inside one's body - when people are truly happy, they won't change that, and won't ever knowingly do anything to harm it.

||
V

We'll define the total happiness level of a social system of humans as it's utility function.

from (3) and (2) We learn that we must maximize Utility, over time, that is that the we must strive to have as many people as happy as possible for as much time as possible, while reaching an optimum on the last 3 values.

This is my short, not deeply formulated version of utilitarianism.

Why killing, again, taken out of context, is wrong, flows out of it quite obviously.

[Whaleboy]

That's the thing. Some people seem to be saying that moral relativism means that there is no such thing as a moral truth, and others are saying that there are multiple and contradicting moral truths. To tell you the truth I'm not sure if all of you are saying both.

I'm saying that once you separate "moral" from "truth", then you're boxing clever. Just like preferences for ice cream; one would hardly describe that as a "flavour truth".

[Whaleboy]

What contradictions?

Your problem:
Relativism = no absolute morality
No morality
Even relativists have morality
I'm smarter than Protagoras

My solution:
No absolute morality |= no morality

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Then your entire argument is pointless, since non-absolute morality = moral relativism, given Wittgensteinian contexts, the points raised about which you haven't bothered to address.

You're twisting the meaning of my use of the word "objective."

[Ramo]

as with all proofs, You'll have to start with some axiom, or some definition.

That there's the point. Utilitarianism isn't rationally derived.

[Az]

That there's the point. Utilitarianism isn't rationally derived.

OMG NOTHING IS RATIONALLY DERIVED!

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
I'm saying that once you separate "moral" from "truth", then you're boxing clever.

Why would I make that assumption?

Just like preferences for ice cream; one would hardly describe that as a "flavour truth".

Of course not. It's not a contradiction to say that one person prefers vanilla and another person prefers chocolate.

[Ramo]

OMG NOTHING IS RATIONALLY DERIVED!

Yes. I'm not sure why you're arguing with us...

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
My solution:
No absolute morality |= no morality

And it's just like enjoying ice cream.

[Az]

Yes. I'm not sure why you're arguing with us...

In that case, rationality doesn't exist at all I presume...

well, nighty night, folks.

[Whaleboy]

You're twisting the meaning of my use of the word "objective."

If it means anything like your meaning of "absolute", then you really should buy yourself a dictionary. Care to elaborate?

Why would I make that assumption?

It's not an assumption, it's a conclusion that leads to moral relativism. You would make it upon consideration of emotivism, or the like.

Of course not. It's not a contradiction to say that one person prefers vanilla and another person prefers chocolate.

And it's not a contradiction to say that one person likes murder, and another likes credit card fraud. Think context

[Ramo]

There's nothing that's purely rational. You need to impose an irrational foundation on any logical structure.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ramo

OMG NOTHING IS RATIONALLY DERIVED!

Yes. I'm not sure why you're arguing with us...

I think you disregarded the "quite obvious" part.