View Poll Results: Morality: Relativism vs. Absolutism -- who wins?

Voters
40. You may not vote on this poll
  • Moral Relativism

    11 27.50%
  • Moral Absolutism

    29 72.50%
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 53

Thread: Moral Relativism vs. Absolutism

  1. #11
    Freethinker
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Skadi Funding Member
    Thorburn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Last Online
    2 Weeks Ago @ 05:10 AM
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Subrace
    Europid
    Country
    Vinland Vinland
    Location
    Midgård
    Gender
    Family
    Married
    Politics
    Reason, Freedom, Justice
    Religion
    Truth, Greatness, Beauty
    Posts
    1,318
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    130
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    274
    Thanked in
    86 Posts

    Post Re: Moral Relativism vs. Absolutism

    Quote Originally Posted by Ederico Figallo
    I share most of the views expressed in this discussion and in fact I tend more towards Moral Absolutism. However the crux of the question is that it is quite hard to determine what is absolutely and universally moral and in fact as the wikipedia article states Moral Absolutism is used in the modern Human Rights theory which is of detriment to the Western World because of its universal application.
    This is absolutely false. Human rights have been awesome progress (self-fulfilling again; you will not be able to undo them on the long run) and they are surely not to the detriment of the West. There is no human right to immigrate to the West and to live in Europe. A right to become a member of a group against its will is detrimental to freedom and human nature. It violates human rights, in other words. That's quite similar to the laws many European nations know that one is not entitled to bar people on arbitrary grounds from one's property (e. g. gypsies from pubs.) These laws are actually a violation of freedom and human rights, like the hate-speech laws are a violation of freedom and human rights, and none of them will last on the long run.

    Moral Absolutism is in itself utopic and it is easier to hold on to it idealistically then to implement it pragmatically, that is the potential reason why Moral Relativism appeals to a wider section of the Western population.
    Moral relativism is a tiny minority opinion amongst intellectuals. Most Europeans really believe in some sort of moral absolutism; this is in particular true for Christians.

    In my opinion, Moral Relativism can be considered as part or an actual cause of the rot of Western Civilisation and the destruction of once sane traditional societies that had decent values even though they lacked material wealth.
    Moral relativists have hardly an impact. The problem is to enforce the wrong values absolutely, in particular egalitarianism ("treat different things equal"), as it has been and is promoted by many leftists and certain desert religions. To my surprise, so many people really still confuse freedom with egalitarianism. The U.S. term "liberal" even refers to an egalitarian what aggravates the confusion. The problem of the West is not having too much freedom but having too little freedom. There is a quasi-totalitarian enforcement of racial, social, cultural, and gender egalitarianism; and a fundamental attack on the freedom of thought, of expression, and, above all, the freedom of individuals and of the society to act contrary to the enforced egalitarian dogmas.
    This is a placeholder for a signature.

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Ederico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Last Online
    Tuesday, September 4th, 2007 @ 10:37 PM
    Gender
    Age
    38
    Posts
    1,266
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Post Re: Moral Relativism vs. Absolutism

    I would have to agree after your clarification that the inefficiency of Moral Absolutism relates to the fact that it is the Morals that are wrong rather than the Absolutism.

    A few questions would be:

    • Who defines the right set of values within a Moral Absolutist system and what checks and balances are in place to avoid abuse of power in the name of Moral Absolutism?
    • How can the right Moral Absolutist society enforce such a position without the use of coercion and/or the infringement of the rights to freedom of individuals?
    • Within a collective perspective such as a Nation and its Administration how does the Moral Absolutist safeguard the interest of the collective he represents in relation to other collectives and in relations to enemies within?
    • Does Moral Absolutism include Universalism per forza?
    • Can Moral Absolutism be applied over distinct Cultures?


    Those are just a few questions that I came up with in the few minutes that I wrote this post.

  3. #13
    Sideways to the Sun
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Milesian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Last Online
    Thursday, September 18th, 2008 @ 04:55 PM
    Subrace
    Atlantid
    Location
    Aileach
    Gender
    Occupation
    Rebel
    Politics
    Anti-Neophilia
    Religion
    Traditional Catholicism
    Posts
    2,717
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    10
    Thanked in
    10 Posts

    Post Re: Moral Relativism vs. Absolutism

    Moral Absolutism, of course

  4. #14
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Last Online
    Tuesday, March 13th, 2018 @ 09:14 AM
    Status
    Prolonged Absence
    Ethnicity
    Dutch
    Gender
    Posts
    2,668
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Post Re: Moral Relativism vs. Absolutism

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack The Ripper
    This is relative to the idea that preserving the self and/or genelines is important
    Nature seems to dispose of those who do not consider it important. Once again; what better proof of 'absolute wrong' can we expect?


    I don't know. I'm not looking for absolutes
    I do Good luck convincing someone of a morality explicitly built on relatives

  5. #15
    Senior Member
    Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Last Online
    Friday, March 25th, 2016 @ 07:28 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Celt Australian
    Subrace
    Keltic Nordic
    Country
    Australia Australia
    State
    Victoria Victoria
    Location
    Terra Australis
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Guerilla Philosopher
    Politics
    Aristotelian Nationalist
    Religion
    Roman Catholic
    Posts
    1,810
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Post Re: Moral Relativism vs. Absolutism

    Quote Originally Posted by Thorburn
    You enjoy losing?
    Variety, as they say, is the spice of life

    It's absolutely self-fulfilling. Deniers will be assimilated.
    Happiness is not absolute. There is happy, more happy, happier than that... but there's no final 'absolute happiness'.

    Proves exactly the point. Pursuit of happiness (the purpose of every action; in this case very limited and always unmaximized but, on the long run, ever growing) by freedom (human nature; in this case arbitrary but, on the long run, becoming ever more concrete) in other words.
    Am I to understand the above as 'all humans want X and the struggle for X will develop Y which will further foster the pursuit of X' where X = happiness and Y = freedom? If so, that's interesting, because how would you explain, through this 'progress' myth, how the Roman Empire collapsed and resulted in continental wide serfdom?

    They are immoral if they don't maximize happiness. Some pharao and his slave driver lackeys might get very happy by enslaving an army of people to build some pyramids but far more unhappiness for hundredthousands of slave workers is created in the process by the enforcement of an order contrary to their nature (freedom).
    So, basically, 'the greatest happiness for the greatest number'.

    This collective unhappiness will, on the long run, lead to progress.
    Groups do not 'become happy', individuals do. Individuals are well capable of distorting, through power, the interests of others and subordinating others to their own interests.

    Progress is the increase of (collective) happiness by maximization of freedom for some, and in the last consequence, for everyone. This will lead to equal freedom for all individuals being limited only by the freedom of others: "nobody shall be deprived of life, (health,) liberty, (or) property, (or honor)" -- "without due process of law" (should read: "unjustifiably in a society committed to freedom and the pursuit of happiness and without due process of law", but it has been awesome progress already.)
    So here Njörd does away with the concept of choice, claiming we are inevitably driven by some instinct towards a liberal society. Which calls into question the idea of 'good vs bad', and correct me if I'm wrong, it seems like you're calling for us to follow the path of least resistance.

    Justice is moral action, i. e. maximization of happiness. It shall be guaranteed if equal freedom (the requirement for the pursuit of happiness of human beings) is not unjustifiably infringed (and not more than necessary),
    How can 'the requirement for the pursuit of happiness' be justifiably infringed, Njörd?

    and if equal affairs are treated equal and unequal affairs unequal, both in accordance with their nature, their relationship, and in proportion.
    And this means...? Better put - why should I bow to a specific Government with its own laws which I may not agree with? Why should I not pick up a gun, make a fence around my land and tell that Government that if any of its agents cross my fence I'll shoot them? Is that not the right to property, to do whatever one wants with one's own property? Now if a Turk has claim via property rights to a section of land in what is called Germany, by what justice do you claim the right to expel him? The whims of the masses?

    Happiness and freedom are really closely linked, albeit not exactly identical. A state can restrict even concrete freedom -- freedom that doesn't infringe upon the freedom of others -- if collective happiness is increased; compare for example the ban of obscene behavior in public (note that such cases always require some direct influence upon others; you can, on the other hand, run around naked in your own home behind closed doors). More important, however, are the cases where concrete freedom is limited for the purpose of safeguarding freedom, i. e. potential future happiness. Military service to protect a society with a higher degree of happiness and freedom from the invasion through barbarians and from slavery, for example.
    So, basically, it's ok to enslave people if the majority are happy.

    Immigration shall be barred and the multi-racial society will have to be opposed on the same grounds. Happiness and the safeguarding of freedom.
    Right. Let's violate freedom, the apparent prerequisite for happiness, in order to protect both.
    All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream at night, in the dusky recesses of their minds, wake in the day to find that it was vanity. But the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams, with open eyes, to make it possible.

  6. #16
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Last Online
    Tuesday, March 13th, 2018 @ 09:14 AM
    Status
    Prolonged Absence
    Ethnicity
    Dutch
    Gender
    Posts
    2,668
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Post Re: Moral Relativism vs. Absolutism

    If happiness is the ultimate measure of progress, so that even freedom can be restricted to increase happiness, there are no valid arguments against a State like Huxley described in his Brave New World, right? After all, those people were happy; they were comfortably numb, glad they belonged to their respective castes, and enjoyed promiscuous sexuality and mind altering drugs. They were reduced to incomplete humans and had their consciousness and personal will corrupted, but if it's alll about 'feeling happy', what's to say against that?


    Is that not the right to property, to do whatever one wants with one's own property? Now if a Turk has claim via property rights to a section of land in what is called Germany, by what justice do you claim the right to expel him? The whims of the masses?
    Property rights are meaningless without State approval. There's no such thing as an objective right to property, or at least I'm unaware of such a right. The State that has granted the Turk property rights to a section of land, can also repeal them, as such rights only exist within the legal system of said State.

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Last Online
    Friday, March 25th, 2016 @ 07:28 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Celt Australian
    Subrace
    Keltic Nordic
    Country
    Australia Australia
    State
    Victoria Victoria
    Location
    Terra Australis
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Guerilla Philosopher
    Politics
    Aristotelian Nationalist
    Religion
    Roman Catholic
    Posts
    1,810
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Post Re: Moral Relativism vs. Absolutism

    If happiness is the ultimate measure of progress, so that even freedom can be restricted to increase happiness, there are no valid arguments against a State like Huxley described in his Brave New World, right? After all, those people were happy; they were comfortably numb, glad they belonged to their respective castes, and enjoyed promiscuous sexuality and mind altering drugs. They were reduced to incomplete humans and had their consciousness and personal will corrupted, but if it's alll about 'feeling happy', what's to say against that?
    Njörd, apparently, would approve.

    Property rights are meaningless without State approval. There's no such thing as an objective right to property, or at least I'm unaware of such a right. The State that has granted the Turk property rights to a section of land, can also repeal them, as such rights only exist within the legal system of said State.
    And now we've gone to drop 'justice' from the equation and now focus on law, the realm of self-regulating force.
    All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream at night, in the dusky recesses of their minds, wake in the day to find that it was vanity. But the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams, with open eyes, to make it possible.

  8. #18
    Freethinker
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Skadi Funding Member
    Thorburn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Last Online
    2 Weeks Ago @ 05:10 AM
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Subrace
    Europid
    Country
    Vinland Vinland
    Location
    Midgård
    Gender
    Family
    Married
    Politics
    Reason, Freedom, Justice
    Religion
    Truth, Greatness, Beauty
    Posts
    1,318
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    130
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    274
    Thanked in
    86 Posts

    Post Re: Moral Relativism vs. Absolutism

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack The Ripper
    Variety, as they say, is the spice of life
    Indeed. The unhappiness caused by this defeat will guarantee that you enjoy your future victories against Moody and AryanKrieger more.

    Happiness is not absolute. There is happy, more happy, happier than that...
    Right.

    but there's no final 'absolute happiness'.
    Who said there is? You can't stay constantly on a plateau of a high degree of happiness.

    Firstly, there are surely chemical limits to how happy one can feel. We might not have discovered the biologically possible peak experience yet, but I don't think there is currently any drug, act, or proceeding known to man that makes people feel more happy than injecting coke or smoking crack, i. e. rapid reuptake inhibition of dopamine, serotonin and norepinephrine. The problem is that you can't stay on this level for too long, and even if you could, barring all negative side-effects, you would soon consider it neither particularly pleasant nor disturbing. Crushing, however, will give you an unpleasant experience of depression and unhappiness.

    Secondly, I think these relative and conditioned mechanisms of happiness are well-known. There is this old joke about how to make a dog happy: stop beating him. How to you make a smoker happy? Deprive him of smokes for 12 hours, then throw a cigarette. When does plain bread taste divine? If you haven't eaten for three days. There is a balance to be kept.

    However, all other factors being equal, people are happier if free than if enslaved. Do you disagree?

    Am I to understand the above as 'all humans want X and the struggle for X will develop Y which will further foster the pursuit of X' where X = happiness and Y = freedom?
    Absolutely correct.

    If so, that's interesting, because how would you explain, through this 'progress' myth
    It's not a myth, it's a fact.

    how the Roman Empire collapsed and resulted in continental wide serfdom?
    Ignorance. Invasion by barbarians. A sufficient freedom consciousness caused by reflection and by historical experiences of injustice had not been educationally spread all over Europe to a sufficient number of people of the elite and the masses. It had not been constitutionally, legally, and institutionally sufficiently entrenched either. So people have to learn the hard way again. There have been regresses all over history. Bolshevism, Fascism, and Nazism only in the last century.

    How many people from abroad wanted to live in the USSR? A handful, and those only if they were promised power, status, and privileges. How many people wanted to live in the USA, the state that, since it has been founded, protected freedom more effectively than any other state on this planet? Millions and millions and millions. And they were promised neither power, nor status, nor privileges. Not even health care and social security. But they were promised freedom and guaranteed freedom -- not fully developed concrete freedom, but a higher developed degree of freedom than anywhere else. And that's why they poor and oppressed and exploited came, and that's why half of the world would move to America if they only could.

    So, basically, 'the greatest happiness for the greatest number'.
    Self-evident.

    Groups do not 'become happy', individuals do.
    If the individuals of a group are happy, the group is happy.

    Individuals are well capable of distorting, through power, the interests of others and subordinating others to their own interests.
    Your point?

    So here Njörd does away with the concept of choice, claiming we are inevitably driven by some instinct towards a liberal society.
    Not a liberal society ('liberal' in the U.S. sense means egalitarian; egalitarianism is opposed to freedom, because freedom leads to difference) but a society that respects freedom.

    Which calls into question the idea of 'good vs bad', and correct me if I'm wrong, it seems like you're calling for us to follow the path of least resistance.
    Not at all.

    How can 'the requirement for the pursuit of happiness' be justifiably infringed, Njörd?
    Given that freedom is a prerequisite for all higher experiences of happiness, it can be justifiably infringed, if the degree of this infringment protects freedom more effectively than if no infringment would have taken place. Military draft to protect the freedom-conscious society against the invasion of less freedom-conscious barbarians and slavery is the classic example.

    And this means...? Better put - why should I bow to a specific Government with its own laws which I may not agree with?
    If it makes you unhappy, you shouldn't.

    Why should I not pick up a gun, make a fence around my land and tell that Government that if any of its agents cross my fence I'll shoot them?
    That's exactly what you should do if it makes you more happy.

    Is that not the right to property, to do whatever one wants with one's own property?
    For sure.

    Now if a Turk has claim via property rights to a section of land in what is called Germany, by what justice do you claim the right to expel him? The whims of the masses?
    Happiness for my people. You can believe me that they would be much happier, if the Turks would all be gone by tomorrow, as every poll shows.

    Additionally, freedom is much better safe-guarded by a mono-ethnic and mono-racial society. The U.S. will finally collapse because of lack of racial and ethnic homogenity and because of ignorance, same reason the Roman Empire collapsed.

    Needless to say, I'm also not a racial egalitarian. I do not expect by the mere evolutionary advancement of Negroes, for example, that they are going to create a society that lastingly respects the freedom of individuals anytime soon.

    So, basically, it's ok to enslave people if the majority are happy.
    For sure. But given that, by their human nature, and all other factors being equal, people are always happier in freedom than in slavery, it's simply not going to last.

    You had people selling themselves into a relative form of slavery, namely totalitarianism, if their most basic needs (food and shelter from the elements) have not been satisfied, but it's not going to last. Once these needs and basic security are satisfied, they will want their freedom of speech, their freedom of conscience, their freedom to act according to their own choices back. All totalitarian societies are immanently self-destructive.It's self-fulfilling.

    Right. Let's violate freedom, the apparent prerequisite for happiness, in order to protect both.
    See above.
    This is a placeholder for a signature.

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Last Online
    Friday, March 25th, 2016 @ 07:28 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Celt Australian
    Subrace
    Keltic Nordic
    Country
    Australia Australia
    State
    Victoria Victoria
    Location
    Terra Australis
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Guerilla Philosopher
    Politics
    Aristotelian Nationalist
    Religion
    Roman Catholic
    Posts
    1,810
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Post Re: Moral Relativism vs. Absolutism

    Quote Originally Posted by Thorburn
    Indeed. The unhappiness caused by this defeat will guarantee that you enjoy your future victories against Moody and AryanKrieger more.
    Haha, maybe. What future victories against Moody? It's like Big Brother got to him and put him in Room 101.

    Right.

    Who said there is? You can't stay constantly on a plateau of a high degree of happiness.

    Firstly, there are surely chemical limits to how happy one can feel. We might not have discovered the biologically possible peak experience yet, but I don't think there is currently any drug, act, or proceeding known to man that makes people feel more happy than injecting coke or smoking crack, i. e. rapid reuptake inhibition of dopamine, serotonin and norepinephrine. The problem is that you can't stay on this level for too long, and even if you could, barring all negative side-effects, you would soon consider it neither particularly pleasant nor disturbing. Crushing, however, will give you an unpleasant experience of depression and unhappiness.
    My point stands that it's relative Happiness is relative to the chemical abilities of the brain.

    Secondly, I think these relative and conditioned mechanisms of happiness are well-known. There is this old joke about how to make a dog happy: stop beating him. How to you make a smoker happy? Deprive him of smokes for 12 hours, then throw a cigarette. When does plain bread taste divine? If you haven't eaten for three days. There is a balance to be kept.
    Ok.

    However, all other factors being equal, people are happier if free than if enslaved. Do you disagree?
    I believe it's impossible to know because no one has ever been truly free

    Absolutely correct.

    It's not a myth, it's a fact.
    Fact until the world economy collapses, people riot on the streets, millions starve to death because of labour shortages and loads of people on welfare, inter-ethnocultural conflict, etc. This does not necessarily mean 'the world is getting better'.

    Ignorance. Invasion by barbarians. A sufficient freedom consciousness caused by reflection and by historical experiences of injustice had not been educationally spread all over Europe to a sufficient number of people of the elite and the masses. It had not been constitutionally, legally, and institutionally sufficiently entrenched either. So people have to learn the hard way again. There have been regresses all over history. Bolshevism, Fascism, and Nazism only in the last century.
    *blinks*

    I comprehend the madness...

    How many people from abroad wanted to live in the USSR? A handful, and those only if they were promised power, status, and privileges. How many people wanted to live in the USA, the state that, since it has been founded, protected freedom more effectively than any other state on this planet?
    Actually I'd say Switzerland does a better job, but anyway. The US also abandoned 'freedom' in the 1860's.

    Millions and millions and millions. And they were promised neither power, nor status, nor privileges. Not even health care and social security. But they were promised freedom and guaranteed freedom -- not fully developed concrete freedom, but a higher developed degree of freedom than anywhere else. And that's why they poor and oppressed and exploited came, and that's why half of the world would move to America if they only could.
    Self-evident.
    Wonderful. Really, it is.

    If the individuals of a group are happy, the group is happy.
    So what is 'the group'? Is it a collection of individuals put together under the same concept you construct, or does the group actually have some substance?

    Your point?
    It will happen again, and again, and again.

    Not a liberal society ('liberal' in the U.S. sense means egalitarian; egalitarianism is opposed to freedom, because freedom leads to difference) but a society that respects freedom.
    I meant liberal in the sense of a society that respects freedom. 'Liberal' in Australia generally means liberalism (not liberal socialism)
    Not at all.

    Given that freedom is a prerequisite for all higher experiences of happiness, it can be justifiably infringed, if the degree of this infringment protects freedom more effectively than if no infringment would have taken place. Military draft to protect the freedom-conscious society against the invasion of less freedom-conscious barbarians and slavery is the classic example.
    Are you going to tell that to the ten thousand American corpses that were created in Vietnam, who were drafter to fight a war that they had no real interest in, and many who weren't too keen on fighting it anyway?

    If it makes you unhappy, you shouldn't.
    Ok.

    That's exactly what you should do if it makes you more happy.
    We are progressing slowly towards my hidden ideology of Anarcho Neo-Fascism. OK then.

    For sure.
    Then you don't really believe in freedom of speech or property rights, only happiness of the mob. Freedom is not an absolute, according to Njörd, but its importance is entirely dependent on happiness. Furthermore, if one could make a drug that would keep someone 'happy' for a year at a time, and 3/4 of Germans loved it and wanted the rest to take it, or they would be 'unhappy', Njörd would have no issues force feeding this drug to the rest.

    Happiness for my people. You can believe me that they would be much happier, if the Turks would all be gone by tomorrow, as every poll shows.
    So it's ok if fourty people demand the murder of 39 or they'll all fall into clinical depression because it's happiness for the majority, right?

    Additionally, freedom is much better safe-guarded by a mono-ethnic and mono-racial society. The U.S. will finally collapse because of lack of racial and ethnic homogenity and because of ignorance, same reason the Roman Empire collapsed.
    I actually agree with this part.

    Needless to say, I'm also not a racial egalitarian. I do not expect by the mere evolutionary advancement of Negroes, for example, that they are going to create a society that lastingly respects the freedom of individuals anytime soon.
    Ok.

    For sure. But given that, by their human nature, and all other factors being equal, people are always happier in freedom than in slavery, it's simply not going to last.
    And when are all other factors going to be equal?

    You had people selling themselves into a relative form of slavery, namely totalitarianism, if their most basic needs (food and shelter from the elements) have not been satisfied, but it's not going to last. Once these needs and basic security are satisfied, they will want their freedom of speech, their freedom of conscience, their freedom to act according to their own choices back. All totalitarian societies are immanently self-destructive.It's self-fulfilling.
    There might be, perhaps, ten thousand free people on this planet. I'm not sure they have 'all other factors equal' or whether it's possible for them to have all other factors equal.

    See above.
    I fail to see any justice theory evolving out of this.
    All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream at night, in the dusky recesses of their minds, wake in the day to find that it was vanity. But the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams, with open eyes, to make it possible.

  10. #20
    Freethinker
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Skadi Funding Member
    Thorburn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Last Online
    2 Weeks Ago @ 05:10 AM
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Subrace
    Europid
    Country
    Vinland Vinland
    Location
    Midgård
    Gender
    Family
    Married
    Politics
    Reason, Freedom, Justice
    Religion
    Truth, Greatness, Beauty
    Posts
    1,318
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    130
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    274
    Thanked in
    86 Posts

    Post Re: Moral Relativism vs. Absolutism

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack The Ripper
    My point stands that it's relative Happiness is relative to the chemical abilities of the brain.
    Still a strawman, because nobody argued otherwise.

    I believe it's impossible to know because no one has ever been truly free
    It doesn't need an absolute to demonstrate it. All other factors being equal, people are happier if having more freedom than if having less freedom.

    Fact until the world economy collapses, people riot on the streets, millions starve to death because of labour shortages and loads of people on welfare, inter-ethnocultural conflict, etc. This does not necessarily mean 'the world is getting better'.
    I'm also not claiming it's getting better at any arbitrary spot of this planet at any arbitrary point in time. I'm claiming there is progress on the long run.

    Actually I'd say Switzerland does a better job, but anyway.
    Everything considered, it probably does.

    The US also abandoned 'freedom' in the 1860's.
    Relatively, sure. Liberties in the U.S. have been on a constant decline since its foundation. There is still far more liberty than in most states left, however. Once it gets too oppressive, the tree of liberty will be refreshed with the blood of tyrannts.

    So what is 'the group'? Is it a collection of individuals put together under the same concept you construct, or does the group actually have some substance?
    A group is a plurality of individuals.

    It will happen again, and again, and again.
    For sure. And, on the long run, ever more freedom-consciousness will be preserved.

    Are you going to tell that to the ten thousand American corpses that were created in Vietnam, who were drafter to fight a war that they had no real interest in, and many who weren't too keen on fighting it anyway?
    No, it didn't protect the American nation and its freedom. It was an imperialist war.

    We are progressing slowly towards my hidden ideology of Anarcho Neo-Fascism. OK then.
    That was the idea.

    Then you don't really believe in freedom of speech or property rights, only happiness of the mob.
    Equal freedom will lead to most happiness. The belief in the one causes the belief in the other. However, it can simply not be debated that it is happiness that is the last instance that motivates all actions of people.

    Freedom is not an absolute,
    It is not an absolute, right. How could it be an absolute?

    according to Njörd, but its importance is entirely dependent on happiness.
    Right.

    Furthermore, if one could make a drug that would keep someone 'happy' for a year at a time, and 3/4 of Germans loved it and wanted the rest to take it, or they would be 'unhappy', Njörd would have no issues force feeding this drug to the rest.
    It's not a realistic scenario because there are biological and chemical limits of drugs, and because you still do not consider all parameters.

    However, there are already some drugs that come very close to this idea, actually. Take Prozac, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor. It prevents the reuptake of serotonin, a neurotransmitter, and so contributes to lucency and quiteness of the mind. Like Cocaine does but not rapidly, extremely and short-lasting but slowly, hardly noticably, and long-lasting. Some people report "crushes" if they stop after months or years, but the majority doesn't. It also really works for most people and they would feel happier than before, all other circumstances being unchanged. For most people, it has really no side-effects. There are studies that suggest that it is safe during pregnancy even. It does not impair judgment but invigorates it. That's at least what the current scientific community and the drug industry tells us.

    So, most people, all other circumstances of their lives remaining equal, would probably be happier if they took it, minus those who develop disproportional side-effects. So why not force-feed it to people in schools, at university, in the military and at the work-place? I mean, in some countries, they force-fed Fluor tablets to us already in schools while we were kids, no? Why not force-feed Prozac?

    Well, these Fluor tablets eventually turned out not to be so beneficial as they have been thought then. Science might be wrong, and there might be long-term effects associated with controlled Prozac use that are still unknown. There might be side-effects that have not been thoroughly established. Do you trust your government to decide what you can say or not? Why would you trust your government or the pharma-industry to establish which drugs you can't take and which you have to take? They might have an agenda to push this drug onto you -- maybe they found out that if you take it long enough you will turn into a mindless hippie voting for them again. Maybe they just want to silence you. Maybe they want to get rid of you. Maybe your God or conscience tells you better not to take any drugs. So, force-feeding of drugs, like the prohibition of drugs, leads to lots of insecurity and unhappiness, because it disrespects the freedom of choice of those blessed with them.

    Even if 3/4 of the population like a certain drug (that's the case with alcohol, for example), how much happiness does it create for them to push it onto the rest that abhor it? Nil. (Realistically spoken, even more unhappiness than happiness.) In either way, the balance is negative, and that's why freedom should be preserved, and why it would be an immoral action.

    So it's ok if fourty people demand the murder of 39 or they'll all fall into clinical depression because it's happiness for the majority, right?
    If that would be the whole world population and if there would be guarantees that it would stop there, it would be the moral thing to do, for sure, given that more happiness than unhappiness would be created. The unhappiness of the one person in question could be easily limited by choosing a quick and painless method of death. The happiness for the many could be created by a lot of factors, e. g. they feel threatened that he could murder them.

    However, there are no guarantees and this is again not a realistic scenario, and I might still not have made clear how happiness and freedom (and the integrity of the person, the right to live is the most fundamental freedom) are interwoven. If a person can be killed arbitrarily by a group, then this will create insecurity and unhappiness for every surviving member of the group. Who is to say that he is not going to be the next one that is killed because someone does not like his nose or wants to rape his wife? Thus, after a few of these experiences the group will form a gentlemen's agreement, tacitly or explicitly, that nobody shall be unjustifiedly deprived of his life (= his freedom to live), and that whoever does this to anyone else shall be painfully tortured and murdered himself to deter. There you have your first murder statute protecting the freedom of man, and all formed out of the desire to be happy.

    And when are all other factors going to be equal?

    There might be, perhaps, ten thousand free people on this planet. I'm not sure they have 'all other factors equal' or whether it's possible for them to have all other factors equal.
    For sure, it's a constant struggle, but on the long run self-fulfilling. Even now, in the exploitative Capitalist West, the laborer has much more freedom than in the slaveholder or Communist society.

    I fail to see any justice theory evolving out of this.
    Think about it. What's injustice?
    This is a placeholder for a signature.

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: Thursday, December 1st, 2016, 12:14 AM
  2. Does Ethnoculturalism Lead To Ethical Relativism?
    By Bernhard in forum Law, Ethics, & Morals
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Wednesday, February 22nd, 2012, 06:38 AM
  3. Monarchy: Hobbes/Absolutism vs Locke/checks and balances
    By Abby Normal in forum Political Theory
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: Thursday, June 3rd, 2004, 05:39 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •