Does "dictatorship of relativism" exist?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by 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?

You keep going back to the "basis." The basis of a belief is not necessarily the determinant of the belief. The reason that a beleif is either moral or immoral is because the conclussions that people would come to are the same if none of them had limitations to their reasoning.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by 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.

Yeah. Sure you do.

[Az]

Let us please not again confuse feelings about things with ethical codes. These are different, otherwise, how is tolerance possible at all? Had you just "felt that X is wrong, and one shouldn't do it" you'd always stop X... But you don't. People don't take sigarettes out of other people's mouths, etc. That's because there is, usually, a more logical level that dictates that in matters of personal preference, people shouldn't be bothered. ( and various ethical theories have different explanations as to why not ).

[Ramo]

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

Why do you say that? And does this only apply to humans? What about intelligent aliens?

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.

On what basis do you say that a cultural norm is absolutely wrong? Your hierarchy assumes an absolutely morality.

Cultural norms affect a person's morality. So does everything else about a person's life.

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

No, you don't understand what I'm saying. No mathematical statement is intrinsically correct. You have to presuppose a set of axioms. Mental capacity is irrelevent to the argument. Moral statements can be seen in a similar light.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ramo
Why do you say that?

Let's see

1) All people have a limitless capacity for moral reasoning. Check.
2) All people come to the same conclussion. Check.

Why wouldn't I believe it?

And does this only apply to humans? What about intelligent aliens?

Why would aliens be different? I don't know, maybe they are, or maybe there is no such thing as aliens. All I am saying is that the human brain works the same in every human, except where there are capacity limitations.

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.

On what basis do you say that a cultural norm is absolutely wrong? Your hierarchy assumes an absolutely morality.

Cultural norms affect a person's morality. So does everything else about a person's life.

I'm not saying that it's wrong or right. I'm saying that most people have a tendency to believe in a similar way to their culture, family etc.. and that that is a limitation to moral reasoning.

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

No, you don't understand what I'm saying. No mathematical statement is intrinsically correct. You have to presuppose a set of axioms. Mental capacity is irrelevent to the argument. Moral statements can be seen in a similar light.

I don't believe in your axiom thingy.

[Ramo]

Yeah. Sure you do.

Yes, you do. If you study some advanced math, you'd see that the mathematical axioms we use are there because we think they create interesting structures, no other reason.

Let us please not again confuse feelings about things with ethical codes. These are different, otherwise, how is tolerance possible at all? Had you just "felt that X is wrong, and one shouldn't do it" you'd always stop X... But you don't. People don't take sigarettes out of other people's mouths, etc. That's because there is, usually, a more logical level that dictates that in matters of personal preference, people shouldn't be bothered. ( and various ethical theories have different explanations as to why not ).

Freedom is important to me, emotionally. When it comes between a person's health and their freedom, one feeling is sometimes greater than the other. From these (often-conflicting) feelings, we distill an ethical basis.

You keep going back to the "basis." The basis of a belief is not necessarily the determinant of the belief.

I don't know what you're trying to say.

The reason that a beleif is either moral or immoral is because the conclussions that people would come to are the same if none of them had limitations to their reasoning.

You keep repeating that, yet don't provide a rational justification for any moral statement. That there's a bald assertion.

[Kidlicious]

brb

[Az]

Freedom is important to me, emotionally. When it comes between a person's health and their freedom, one feeling is sometimes greater than the other. From these (often-conflicting) feelings, we distill an ethical basis.

But, in reality, it's not a synthesis of two emotions, but rather your reason and your feelings fighting each other.For example, if you commit something, You could know it's bad, and wrong, but feel great about it.

[Ramo]

Dude Kid this is rediculous. You haven't provided one whit of justification that morality is rational. That simply is an absurd idea. You have to start with something that is irrational. You have to start with something that is arbitrary. That's how logic works. If you don't have assumptions, you can't make any meaningful statement. That applies in mathematics or morality. You can't prove that 1+1=2 without any axioms. You can't prove that killing is wrong without any axioms.

[Ramo]

But, in reality, it's not a synthesis of two emotions, but rather your reason and your feelings fighting each other.For example, if you commit something, You could know it's bad, and wrong, but feel great about it.

No, it's your feelings fighting with each other. Your feelings create that ethical system that can fights with other feelings.

[Ramo]

Az, maybe you can take a shot at my question: prove some moral statement (i.e. killing is wrong) rationally.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ramo

Yeah. Sure you do.

Yes, you do. If you study some advanced math, you'd see that the mathematical axioms we use are there because we think they create interesting structures, no other reason.

You're speaking theoretically. 1+1=2 is true regardless of your reasoning. It's been so since before you were born.

You keep repeating that, yet don't provide a rational justification for any moral statement. That there's a bald assertion.

I'm not trying to prove that any moral reasoning is correct. I'm not trying to prove anything in fact. I'm just trying to explain why I believe what I do. It's not necessary for me to prove something beyond any doubt to believe it.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ramo
Dude Kid this is rediculous. You haven't provided one whit of justification that morality is rational. That simply is an absurd idea. You have to start with something that is irrational. You have to start with something that is arbitrary. That's how logic works. If you don't have assumptions, you can't make any meaningful statement. That applies in mathematics or morality. You can't prove that 1+1=2 without any axioms. You can't prove that killing is wrong without any axioms.

I think I have provided plenty of justification, but you are looking for objective proof which is impossible for me to provide.

[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.

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.

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.

Relativism isn't something one believes, it's more a consideration within which you place your own morality which gives it a nice premise for the likes of pacifism... i.e. oppose horrible things but recognise that your morality *is* premised in yourself so you wouldn't fight to change it unless there were de-neutralising circumstances. That way you avoid the contradictions Kid seems to have found himself in.

[Whaleboy]

I think I have provided plenty of justification, but you are looking for objective proof which is impossible for me to provide.

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.