Does "dictatorship of relativism" exist?

[Brundlefly]

Kant's Categorical Imperative qualifies as an absolute moral template. The application of this template will yield different answers to a given question depending on culture, but still, I consider it a universal law..

"Formula of Universal Law: always act in ways such that you could will that the maxim of your action become a universal law."

[Kidlicious]

Absolute moral code is different from abslolute morality though isn't.

edit: This is just the same pont that Agathon and bfg9000 made.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Agathon
I've heard this all before. It still doesn't show that morality is relative. In fact a lot of things that people will think are moral principles differ only because they aren't in fact principles, but adaptations of principles to the environment.

And what would yopu point to to say that Marality is absolute?? I have yet to see anything from you on that end.

As for "adaptation of principles to the environment"-interestingly enough, that is pretty much what I said- there are very few principles, all having to do with social stability. To work they must conform to the environment because otherwise the group dies, showing the inadequacy of the values.

The fact we can make the moral codes of others intelligible to ourselves as moral codes in the vast majority of cases speaks against relativism.

We are all human. Well, maybe not YOU, given your utter inability to seemingly understand or make intelligible to you a variety of other moral values not your own- maybe I should use you as a prime example of the relativism.

There are different level aggie:

One level is left unspoken, if universally assumed to be true, and therefore ignored. At this basic level, the SOURCE OF morality, is Universal. The codes and rules that are devised by people thought are NOT universal, and their worth is based solely on how well they work to meet the underlying goal.

People debate the rules, and the rules are relative. The source (our humanity) isn't relative. BUt then, no one goes around debating humanity.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Absolute moral code is different from abslolute morality though isn't.

edit: This is just the same pont that Agathon and bfg9000 made.

And its the point I made as well- lovely how we all agree.

The problem is that someone like Aggie places bits of the code and calls them absolute. THAT is invariably the mistake.

[Agathon]

And what would yopu point to to say that Marality is absolute?? I have yet to see anything from you on that end.

The fact that most people tend to agree in principle. Where there are differences they are down to environmental needs or strange beliefs about the facts.

As for "adaptation of principles to the environment"-interestingly enough, that is pretty much what I said- there are very few principles, all having to do with social stability. To work they must conform to the environment because otherwise the group dies, showing the inadequacy of the values.

That's not relativism.

We are all human. Well, maybe not YOU, given your utter inability to seemingly understand or make intelligible to you a variety of other moral values not your own- maybe I should use you as a prime example of the relativism.

Maybe you should actually read about this before making such old fashioned claims.

One level is left unspoken, if universally assumed to be true, and therefore ignored. At this basic level, the SOURCE OF morality, is Universal. The codes and rules that are devised by people thought are NOT universal, and their worth is based solely on how well they work to meet the underlying goal.

Which isn't relativism.

[GePap]

Man, are you behind the times? Keep up with the arguement, old man.

[Ramo]

As a logical abstraction, there's no absolute basis on which to say that a system of morality is "correct." Even if everyone agreed on the same morality (which they certainly don't), there would be no such basis. You have to impose this critera externally.

[GePap]

Well, since the "absolute" basis of morality is NOT logical, but Biological, of course as a purely logical excercise there can be no such things as an absolute morality.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by GePap


And its the point I made as well- lovely how we all agree.

The problem is that someone like Aggie places bits of the code and calls them absolute. THAT is invariably the mistake.

Claiming that one's moral reasoning being absolute is different than believing that morality is absolute. Claiming that your morlaity is absolute is just self-righteousness. And a code can not be absolute because it doesn't work in all circumstances.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ramo
As a logical abstraction, there's no absolute basis on which to say that a system of morality is "correct." Even if everyone agreed on the same morality (which they certainly don't), there would be no such basis. You have to impose this critera externally.

And what if you could impose criteria externally. Then do you agree that you could derive at a correct morality?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by GePap
Well, since the "absolute" basis of morality is NOT logical, but Biological, of course as a purely logical excercise there can be no such things as an absolute morality.

The conclusions we derive have very little to do with the basis of our reasoning, but of the reasoning itself. We all know that biological impulses do not always lead us to correct conclusions about the universe.

[The diplomat]

Re: Does "dictatorship of relativism" exist?

Originally posted by VetLegion
Isn't relativism = tolerance?

Relativism means all moral systems are equal and their worth really just depends on the situation and the person. In some cases this is a good thing but in other cases it is not.

What if someone believes rape is ok? True relativism would say that you have to accept that point of view because you have no right to judge other people's morality. Would tolerating that view be ok? No.

Tolerance is not a good thing if you tolerate evil. The problem with relativism is that you can't define what is evil. So you end up tolerating evil because you are not allowed to say that it is evil.

[Ramo]

You totally misunderstand the concept. You are allowed to say that something is evil or that a point of view is unacceptable. You just can't say that something is evil or unacceptable by an objective standard.

And what if you could impose criteria externally. Then do you agree that you could derive at a correct morality?

If you impose criteria externally, the idea ceases to be absolute. Since someone else can apply a different criteria.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ramo
You totally misunderstand the concept. You are allowed to say that something is evil or that a point of view is unacceptable. You just can't say that something is evil or unacceptable by an objective standard.

And what if you could impose criteria externally. Then do you agree that you could derive at a correct morality?

If you impose criteria externally, the idea ceases to be absolute. Since someone else can apply a different criteria.

So why do you think morality is relative because you can't judge moral statements by an objective standard?

[Ramo]

Because that's a definition.