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 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 53

Thread: Moral Relativism vs. Absolutism

  1. #21
    Senior Member Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Last Online
    Friday, March 25th, 2016 @ 08:28 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
    Still a strawman, because nobody argued otherwise.
    Last I checked this thread was 'Moral Relativism vs. Absolutism'. That 'vs' implies an opposite, an incompatibility. And if you want to declare that last sentance wrong, I'll concede the whole debate.

    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.
    Proof? Oh, that's right, it's Hegelianism, it doesn't need proof

    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.
    So you drop empiricism in favour of head-in-the-clouds dreaming. Ok.

    Everything considered, it probably does.
    I know it does

    Relatively, sure.
    The individual lost the right to his own property during the American civil war. An American citizen is no longer permitted to declare his own land a different country and use it however he wishes. Lincoln was a tyrant.

    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.
    If you put a frog in a pot of boiling water, it'll try to get out immediately. Drop it in a pot of cold water, and slowly raise the temperature over a few hours, and it will sit there, cook, and die.

    A group is a plurality of individuals.
    Better put: do these individuals relate to each other and share a common basic identity arising out of both these interrelations and those outside the group? Or is it a collection you've lumped together because they share, say, green eyes for example.

    For sure. And, on the long run, ever more freedom-consciousness will be preserved.
    I would not call this progress. I'd be more inclined to call it cyclical history.

    No, it didn't protect the American nation and its freedom. It was an imperialist war.
    And what's the difference between perception and actuality?

    That was the idea.
    Hmmm. Interesting. I don't want to unveil my mysterious political ideology until I'm tired of reading different philosophers and slowly integrating their ideas in together with it.

    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.
    Ok. Let's say I agree with you. And then, I ask, why happiness, this state of feeling brilliant (for lack of better words)? What purpose does happiness itself serve to those who feel it?

    It is not an absolute, right. How could it be an absolute?
    Morally inviolable principle = absolute.

    Right.
    Ok.

    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.
    But what if they enjoy it afterwards? Like Moody's ridiculous 'forced to be free' argument

    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.
    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.
    So you think it's ok to rely on 'feelings' in order to kill someone, even if there's no concrete evidence that those 39 people actually had the intention of killing the other fourty (or however many, for example). They might load guns, scream invectives, and organise and draw up plans which may lead you or I to think those 39 want to kill the rest. But they could be acting. Sick humour, for example. Is it still ok to kill them?

    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.
    Now, how do you manage to oppose capitalism while upholding the right to property? Does an individual not have the right (even in your system) to save his money and get others to invest, buy materials, assemble a factory, and then hire labourers who agree to work for a certain amount of hours at a certain wage rate of their own free will, organise a marketing campaign so customers will be aware and may choose to buy his products? Or does the right to produce, distribute, market and invest one's own property somehow manage to be seperable from the right to do whatever one wants (without harming others) with his own property? Presuming you do actually believe in the right to the product of your own labour...

    Just what is this mythical exploitation and how do you manage to logically uphold your opposition to capitalism based on your Hegelian logic?

    Think about it. What's injustice?
    Whatever I'd like to believe it is.
    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.

  2. #22
    Freethinker "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Thorburn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Last Online
    Saturday, November 2nd, 2019 @ 03:09 PM
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Subrace
    Europid
    Country
    Vinland Vinland
    Location
    Midgård
    Gender
    Family
    In a steady relationship
    Politics
    Reason, Freedom, Justice
    Religion
    Truth, Greatness, Beauty
    Posts
    1,381
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    89
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    224
    Thanked in
    65 Posts

    Post Re: Moral Relativism vs. Absolutism

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack The Ripper
    Last I checked this thread was 'Moral Relativism vs. Absolutism'. That 'vs' implies an opposite, an incompatibility. And if you want to declare that last sentance wrong, I'll concede the whole debate.
    It's absolute as criteria, obviously. So you concede?

    Proof?
    The motivation of every action is to increase happiness. Limitation of actions leads to limitations of ways to increase happiness. Consequently, lack of freedom limits the increase of happiness.

    Oh, that's right, it's Hegelianism, it doesn't need proof
    Source?

    So you drop empiricism in favour of head-in-the-clouds dreaming. Ok.
    No, I rely on long-term observation supported by reason.

    The individual lost the right to his own property during the American civil war. An American citizen is no longer permitted to declare his own land a different country and use it however he wishes.
    There you go.

    If you put a frog in a pot of boiling water, it'll try to get out immediately. Drop it in a pot of cold water, and slowly raise the temperature over a few hours, and it will sit there, cook, and die.
    Source? In any way, fallacious reasoning as one can't logically induce a rule from a single example of a heat-related behavior of a certain species of a class of animals and apply it to freedom-related behavior of a certain species of a different class.

    Better put: do these individuals relate to each other and share a common basic identity arising out of both these interrelations and those outside the group? Or is it a collection you've lumped together because they share, say, green eyes for example.
    Group identities exist in the mind of individuals.

    I would not call this progress. I'd be more inclined to call it cyclical history.
    Would be so, if nothing would be preserved and.... which stages do your cycles have and how are they defined?

    And what's the difference between perception and actuality?
    Perceptions are like arseholes. Everyone has one.

    Hmmm. Interesting. I don't want to unveil my mysterious political ideology until I'm tired of reading different philosophers and slowly integrating their ideas in together with it.
    If you want to make philosophical progress, you have to resolve the contradictions of Hegel on a higher level.

    Ok. Let's say I agree with you. And then, I ask, why happiness, this state of feeling brilliant (for lack of better words)? What purpose does happiness itself serve to those who feel it?
    In the greater scheme of things survival, in the sense of more likely than not.

    Morally inviolable principle = absolute.
    If I accept your definition, then it isn't, as I said.

    But what if they enjoy it afterwards?
    It's like a woman that might have enjoyed the sex when having been raped by the right guy. That would be post actionem consent, and thus the act is not immoral.

    Like Moody's ridiculous 'forced to be free' argument
    I missed it?

    So you think it's ok to rely on 'feelings' in order to kill someone, even if there's no concrete evidence that those 39 people actually had the intention of killing the other fourty (or however many, for example). They might load guns, scream invectives, and organise and draw up plans which may lead you or I to think those 39 want to kill the rest. But they could be acting. Sick humour, for example. Is it still ok to kill them?
    Putative self-defense in due proportion is permissible.

    Now, how do you manage to oppose capitalism while upholding the right to property? Does an individual not have the right (even in your system) to save his money and get others to invest, buy materials, assemble a factory, and then hire labourers who agree to work for a certain amount of hours at a certain wage rate of their own free will, organise a marketing campaign so customers will be aware and may choose to buy his products? Or does the right to produce, distribute, market and invest one's own property somehow manage to be seperable from the right to do whatever one wants (without harming others) with his own property? Presuming you do actually believe in the right to the product of your own labour...

    Just what is this mythical exploitation and how do you manage to logically uphold your opposition to capitalism based on your Hegelian logic?
    The term Capitalism, as I use it, encompasses much more than you described. Above all violation of freedom by a monetary monopoly that leads to interest slavery, illegitimate accumulation of wealth and exploitation.
    This is a placeholder for a signature.

  3. #23
    Senior Member Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Last Online
    Friday, March 25th, 2016 @ 08:28 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
    It's absolute as criteria, obviously. So you concede?
    On the point that relativism is incompatible with absolutism. If you say they are compatible, I concede.

    The motivation of every action is to increase happiness. Limitation of actions leads to limitations of ways to increase happiness. Consequently, lack of freedom limits the increase of happiness.
    And if we limit the ways which people can harm themselves, say, suicide - is that ok? Say that a Christian fanatic (they exist in this country) argues that voluntary euthenasia is immoral, while person X is dying in the critical stages of cancer and really, really wants to simply die. Christian fanatic is morally offended at the idea and is convinced that person X will go to 'Hell', a post-existence tourist destination with undesirable attributes according to its reputation (), which he believes would be even worse for person X given that Christian fanatic doesn't think person X will ever get out. While Christian fanatic moralises about the issue, person X is dying rather painfully. Who gets their way, going by your theory? Assuming that only those two are involved in the equation.

    Source?
    My ego Actually, I have yet to see an Hegelian refer to empircal support for his views, whatever they may be.

    No, I rely on long-term observation supported by reason.
    Your reason. Mine is not dialectical

    Source?
    Uncommon sense

    In any way, fallacious reasoning as one can't logically induce a rule from a single example of a heat-related behavior of a certain species of a class of animals and apply it to freedom-related behavior of a certain species of a different class.
    I have yet to see anything that demonstrates otherwise.

    Group identities exist in the mind of individuals.
    Yes, but which individuals? The observer or those observed?

    Would be so, if nothing would be preserved and.... which stages do your cycles have and how are they defined?
    Perhaps cycles was a bad way of putting it. I see action and reaction, but no synthesis.

    Perceptions are like arseholes. Everyone has one.
    Oh, I have many, and so do you

    If you want to make philosophical progress, you have to resolve the contradictions of Hegel on a higher level.
    Except I'm not an Hegelian

    In the greater scheme of things survival, in the sense of more likely than not.
    And what is it that survives?

    If I accept your definition, then it isn't, as I said.
    This is an interesting balance. Laws, social customs, and regulations are subordinated towards the ever-changing relation between happiness and the possibilities of pursuing it.

    It's like a woman that might have enjoyed the sex when having been raped by the right guy. That would be post actionem consent, and thus the act is not immoral.
    Not immoral?

    I missed it?
    It wasn't much worth missing. In an argument (debate is too kind a word ) I had with him about anarchism, he put foward Rosseau's idea that man should be forced to be free, and I told him that was a contradiction in terms. I won.

    Putative self-defense in due proportion is permissible.
    So it's ok to kill innocent people if you think they're guilty of trying to kill you.

    The term Capitalism, as I use it, encompasses much more than you described. Above all violation of freedom by a monetary monopoly that leads to interest slavery, illegitimate accumulation of wealth and exploitation.
    Monetary monopoly I understand. Exploitation I do not, unless this is related back to a non-gold based money supply. In which case I would say you advocate capitalism as understood by Ludwig Von Mises and Murray Rothbard
    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.

  4. #24
    Freethinker "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Thorburn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Last Online
    Saturday, November 2nd, 2019 @ 03:09 PM
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Subrace
    Europid
    Country
    Vinland Vinland
    Location
    Midgård
    Gender
    Family
    In a steady relationship
    Politics
    Reason, Freedom, Justice
    Religion
    Truth, Greatness, Beauty
    Posts
    1,381
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    89
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    224
    Thanked in
    65 Posts

    Post Re: Moral Relativism vs. Absolutism

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack The Ripper
    On the point that relativism is incompatible with absolutism. If you say they are compatible, I concede.
    They are surely compatible because one refers to the criterium or category, while the other to the degree. It's an absolute criterium with (relative) degrees.

    And if we limit the ways which people can harm themselves, say, suicide - is that ok?
    No, because suicide might make them most happy.

    Say that a Christian fanatic (they exist in this country) argues that voluntary euthenasia is immoral, while person X is dying in the critical stages of cancer and really, really wants to simply die. Christian fanatic is morally offended at the idea and is convinced that person X will go to 'Hell', a post-existence tourist destination with undesirable attributes according to its reputation (), which he believes would be even worse for person X given that Christian fanatic doesn't think person X will ever get out. While Christian fanatic moralises about the issue, person X is dying rather painfully. Who gets their way, going by your theory? Assuming that only those two are involved in the equation.
    X, obviously.

    My ego Actually, I have yet to see an Hegelian refer to empircal support for his views, whatever they may be.

    Your reason. Mine is not dialectical
    And that's where you are wrong.

    Uncommon sense
    Exactly.

    I have yet to see anything that demonstrates otherwise.
    Romanian Communism peaking in the 1989 revolution.

    Yes, but which individuals? The observer or those observed?
    Potentially in both.

    Perhaps cycles was a bad way of putting it. I see action and reaction, but no synthesis.
    The synthesis is the result of action and reaction.

    Except I'm not an Hegelian
    I'm actually synthesizing Hegalianism with Utilitarianism here, as you have surely noticed, and am testing my theories.

    And what is it that survives?
    Life. In the wider scale of things the universe realizes itself.

    This is an interesting balance. Laws, social customs, and regulations are subordinated towards the ever-changing relation between happiness and the possibilities of pursuing it.
    Brilliant, isn't it? Now we just have to synthesize the whole thing with Anarcho Neo-Fascism somehow. Oh wait, you don't believe in synthesis.

    Not immoral?
    Indeed.

    It wasn't much worth missing. In an argument (debate is too kind a word ) I had with him about anarchism, he put foward Rosseau's idea that man should be forced to be free, and I told him that was a contradiction in terms. I won.
    You are lying. Moody never loses, because he manages always to ignore all inconvenient parts.

    Where can one read this gem?

    So it's ok to kill innocent people if you think they're guilty of trying to kill you.
    In a system that maximizes happiness and minimizes unhappiness, it would have to be putative self-defense in the sense of the word and the measure would have to be proportional (i. e. not creating more unhappiness than necessary): termination of the attack or disablement of the attacker with the mildest means that achieve the end.

    Monetary monopoly I understand. Exploitation I do not, unless this is related back to a non-gold based money supply. In which case I would say you advocate capitalism as understood by Ludwig Von Mises and Murray Rothbard
    Interest bondage.
    This is a placeholder for a signature.

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Last Online
    Tuesday, March 13th, 2018 @ 10:14 AM
    Status
    Prolonged Absence
    Ethnicity
    Dutch
    Gender
    Posts
    2,673
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Post Re: Moral Relativism vs. Absolutism

    Quote Originally Posted by Thorburn
    Where can one read this gem?
    http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=3914

  6. #26
    Senior Member Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Last Online
    Friday, March 25th, 2016 @ 08:28 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
    They are surely compatible because one refers to the criterium or category, while the other to the degree. It's an absolute criterium with (relative) degrees.
    Sounds like Platonism

    No, because suicide might make them most happy.
    True.

    X, obviously.
    But Christian fanatic moraliser™ is very, very sure that he's got a duty according to his invisible, really powerful friend that he must prevent X from killing himself off, and perhaps Christian fanatic moraliser™ belives both will go to hell if he lets it happen.

    And that's where you are wrong.
    Explain. You could concievably turn me into an Hegelian

    Exactly.
    Common sense is not so common. Hence 'uncommon sense'.

    Romanian Communism peaking in the 1989 revolution.
    Alternatively, Russia's 1991 Revolution. But then, quite a few, if not most, Russians believe they were better off under totalitarian Communism.

    Potentially in both.
    How does Hegelianism deal with the subject-object distinction, by the way?

    The synthesis is the result of action and reaction.
    And what makes you think all actions and reactions are working towards a perfect utopian whole?

    I'm actually synthesizing Hegalianism with Utilitarianism here, as you have surely noticed, and am testing my theories.
    Yes, I have. However, I prefer my neo-Nietzschean outlook because I can account for group identity with it. Can you?

    Life. In the wider scale of things the universe realizes itself.
    So right now it's a fake? What exactly does that sentance mean?

    Brilliant, isn't it? Now we just have to synthesize the whole thing with Anarcho Neo-Fascism somehow. Oh wait, you don't believe in synthesis.
    I crossbreed and add concepts, remove elements and do whatever works in order to get Anarcho Neo-Fascism.

    Indeed.
    Why don't we conduct subtle tests on people to see if they'd react badly to Prozac, and for the vast majority who don't, let's drop it in their food or something?

    You are lying. Moody never loses, because he manages always to ignore all inconvenient parts.
    True. I confess. I lied. No, wait - I STILL WON! HE'S A SORE LOSER!!!

    Where can one read this gem?
    Siegfried provided the link.

    In a system that maximizes happiness and minimizes unhappiness, it would have to be putative self-defense in the sense of the word and the measure would have to be proportional (i. e. not creating more unhappiness than necessary): termination of the attack or disablement of the attacker with the mildest means that achieve the end.
    Supposing these conspirators made the majority - oh, right, then they can have their way Tell me where the absolute moral rules come from again? Oh, arbitrary happiness based on the majority...

    Interest bondage.
    Which people voluntarily sign into. Does that really count as 'slavery' then?
    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.

  7. #27
    Freethinker "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Thorburn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Last Online
    Saturday, November 2nd, 2019 @ 03:09 PM
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Subrace
    Europid
    Country
    Vinland Vinland
    Location
    Midgård
    Gender
    Family
    In a steady relationship
    Politics
    Reason, Freedom, Justice
    Religion
    Truth, Greatness, Beauty
    Posts
    1,381
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    89
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    224
    Thanked in
    65 Posts

    Post Re: Moral Relativism vs. Absolutism

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack The Ripper
    Sounds like Platonism
    All philosophy is but footnotes to Plato, and all philosophy that is not dialectic is not a philosophy but a sophism. Prostitution, in other words.

    But Christian fanatic moraliser™ is very, very sure that he's got a duty according to his invisible, really powerful friend that he must prevent X from killing himself off, and perhaps Christian fanatic moraliser™ belives both will go to hell if he lets it happen.
    So is drug prohibition hypocrite™ and he is wrong.

    Explain. You could concievably turn me into an Hegelian
    Another topic.

    Alternatively, Russia's 1991 Revolution. But then, quite a few, if not most, Russians believe they were better off under totalitarian Communism.
    It exists but doesn't have reality. Lack of consciousness.

    How is sheep™ educated that totalitarianism is wrong? Rape his daughter, kill his wife, burn down his house, send him to the gulag for 20 years, then ask him again.

    How is drug prohibition hypocrite™ convinced that prohibition is wrong? Once his kid gets addicted to drugs. Then ask him what he wants. Keep his child healthy, legal, alive, socially integrated, able to continue its studies and to hold down a job, until it grows tired of drugs or kicks the habit due to medical, psychological, or social assistance? Or fuck up its life, health and existence with prison, criminal records, job loss, loss of shelter, rape, underworld, violence, mental and physical degradation, lack of nutrition, lack of medical assistance, poisoning, prostitution, disease, aids, death.

    They all get it once it affects them. Example:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2002026.stm

    Most people don't care much about anything that doesn't affect their lives personally. Some people do, namely those with more brain, a higher education, and a higher degree of selflessness.

    So, for progress to happen, you need injustice and suffering on a large scale, sufficient that it becomes an 'issue'. It must either affect the powerful or a large number of people latently threatening their power.

    This is simply not the case with the European hate speech laws, and albeit I can make you a coherrent case that they are idiotic to the core, they will last for quite some time still to come. Why? Because not enough injustice is created for those that could change them to care. They protect the powerful, and, in Germany for example, affect only 10,000+ people directly each year. Many cases are dropped, and almost everyone else gets a monetary fine or a suspended sentence. There are only a handful of cases where people have go to jail for a more extended period of time. So people don't care, most don't even know that they exist, and those that do don't understand them... it doesn't affect them, plain and simple.

    Take Nazism on the other hand. There has been lots of injustice and suffering created by National-Socialism in Germany and beyond it. Everything from concentration camps, arbitrary arrests, protective custody without the right to appeal, Gestapo, SD, torture, disproportional punishments, Einsatzgruppen, the World War, Germany bombed into pieces, millions of people dying and crippled, rape, murder, genocide, expulsions, and so on, and this all on a massive scale.

    There are not that many people alive anymore that lived during this time as adults, but there exists a huge anti-Nazism consciousness in Germany nonetheless. A consciousness of injustice. It's ever-present and all-penetrating. Now one can argue that it has not all been Nazism's fault. Sure. That there has been reeducation. Sure. That it is exploited for political aims. Sure. All granted. But the basic fact remains that there has been a huge amount of injustice created, and most of it is at least somehow linked to National-Socialism, totalitarianism, and its policies. Most of it has either been system-immanent or is potentially system-immanent.

    This consciousness has been constitutionally and legally preserved, and there is, in addition, as I have mentioned, still this active, vigorous consciousness in almost every German. And that's why National-Socialism is finished and will not rise again in the next generations to come.

    Eventually, this active consciousness against Nazism will vanish and become insignificant. In hundreds of years, hardly anyone will care anymore about WW2, not more than people care now about the Thirty Year War which depopulated half of Germany. However, a general consciousness against totalitarianism and injustice will still exist, and these experiences of injustice will still be preserved in the constitution and in laws.

    Evolved constitutions, in general, contain much more wisdom than the average person that is subjected to it possesses, in particular as far as the constitutional principles are concerned.

    What about revolutions? For a revolution to happen, you need to have a lot of injustice that must affect a lot of people. Consequently, the more evolved and progressive a constitution is, and the more past experiences of injustice it preserves and thus avoids, and the higher the consciousness of the population is, the less likely is a revolution to happen.

    If it happens, the new constitutions and laws will contain the consciousness of the revolutionaries. This can be extraordinarily progressive for this time (take the U.S. constitution), or extraordinarily regressive for this time (take the USSR), or it can be something inbetween (take NS Germany; good principles discarded, good principles added).

    They always draw at least some principles from the past, however, and typically many, because their consciousness, too, has been formed by past experiences of injustice, by the consciousness that still exists in the people, so there is always something preserved. And that's why it's finally all self-fulfilling. If injustice gets too bad, constitutions will be revolutionary or evolutionary reformed, containing ever more justice and freedom on the long run.

    In our times, consciousness has become globally propagated. It can't be reversed anymore, not on the long run. Even if we managed to nuke the planet and everything that has ever been written or preserved, there would still be consciousness and education left in the survivors. In the worst case scenario, with only Kaspar Hauser and his wife surviving, we have to start all over again, but as long as there are men they will follow their nature, which is freedom, by the acts of pursuing happiness.

    How does Hegelianism deal with the subject-object distinction, by the way?
    http://www.marxists.org/reference/ar...bjec.htm#SL193

    And what makes you think all actions and reactions are working towards a perfect utopian whole?
    All things follow their potential.

    Yes, I have. However, I prefer my neo-Nietzschean outlook because I can account for group identity with it. Can you?
    Yes. But what would we need Nietzsche for in the field of metaphysic of morals?
    So right now it's a fake? What exactly does that sentance mean?
    It means it becomes what it contains as potential.

    I crossbreed and add concepts, remove elements and do whatever works in order to get Anarcho Neo-Fascism.
    Why not preserve what makes sense, discard what doesn't, and see what comes out?

    Why don't we conduct subtle tests on people to see if they'd react badly to Prozac, and for the vast majority who don't, let's drop it in their food or something?
    Because our tests might be wrong, and it also gives a precedent that such conduct is permissible, opening the doors to hell for all sorts of abuse in future.

    Supposing these conspirators made the majority - oh, right, then they can have their way Tell me where the absolute moral rules come from again? Oh, arbitrary happiness based on the majority...
    Not necessarily the majority.

    Which people voluntarily sign into. Does that really count as 'slavery' then?
    In fact, they don't. They don't have a reasonable alternative, as the monetary system is enforced by tyrannts as a monopoly.
    This is a placeholder for a signature.

  8. #28
    Senior Member Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Last Online
    Friday, March 25th, 2016 @ 08:28 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
    All philosophy is but footnotes to Plato, and all philosophy that is not dialectic is not a philosophy but a sophism. Prostitution, in other words.
    Solipsism?

    So is drug prohibition hypocrite™ and he is wrong.
    How do you know he's wrong?

    Another topic.
    http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.p...733#post228733

    It exists but doesn't have reality. Lack of consciousness.
    How is the universe supposed to become conscious of itself? Are we identified with the universe? Oh, silly question... Hegelian idealism

    How is sheep™ educated that totalitarianism is wrong? Rape his daughter, kill his wife, burn down his house, send him to the gulag for 20 years, then ask him again.
    That's how he learns pain is wrong. Not totalitarianism. Drug him up and deny him freedom of speech and he may be the happiest creature on the planet. See Brave New World by Aldous Huxley.

    How is drug prohibition hypocrite™ convinced that prohibition is wrong? Once his kid gets addicted to drugs. Then ask him what he wants. Keep his child healthy, legal, alive, socially integrated, able to continue its studies and to hold down a job, until it grows tired of drugs or kicks the habit due to medical, psychological, or social assistance? Or fuck up its life, health and existence with prison, criminal records, job loss, loss of shelter, rape, underworld, violence, mental and physical degradation, lack of nutrition, lack of medical assistance, poisoning, prostitution, disease, aids, death.

    They all get it once it affects them. Example:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2002026.stm
    Alternatively, he'll do what he can to get his kids off drugs, which is what the vast majority of parents in my country do in that situation.

    Most people don't care much about anything that doesn't affect their lives personally. Some people do, namely those with more brain, a higher education, and a higher degree of selflessness.
    How can anyone be selfless? A selfless action is the same as a 'disinterested action', correct? So how can you do anything you don't have a direct or indirect interest in?

    So, for progress to happen, you need injustice and suffering on a large scale, sufficient that it becomes an 'issue'. It must either affect the powerful or a large number of people latently threatening their power.
    Wir lieben dem Schmerz

    This is simply not the case with the European hate speech laws, and albeit I can make you a coherrent case that they are idiotic to the core, they will last for quite some time still to come. Why? Because not enough injustice is created for those that could change them to care. They protect the powerful, and, in Germany for example, affect only 10,000+ people directly each year. Many cases are dropped, and almost everyone else gets a monetary fine or a suspended sentence. There are only a handful of cases where people have go to jail for a more extended period of time. So people don't care, most don't even know that they exist, and those that do don't understand them... it doesn't affect them, plain and simple.
    Ok.

    Take Nazism on the other hand. There has been lots of injustice and suffering created by National-Socialism in Germany and beyond it. Everything from concentration camps, arbitrary arrests, protective custody without the right to appeal, Gestapo, SD, torture, disproportional punishments, Einsatzgruppen, the World War, Germany bombed into pieces, millions of people dying and crippled, rape, murder, genocide, expulsions, and so on, and this all on a massive scale.

    There are not that many people alive anymore that lived during this time as adults, but there exists a huge anti-Nazism consciousness in Germany nonetheless. A consciousness of injustice. It's ever-present and all-penetrating. Now one can argue that it has not all been Nazism's fault. Sure. That there has been reeducation. Sure. That it is exploited for political aims. Sure. All granted. But the basic fact remains that there has been a huge amount of injustice created, and most of it is at least somehow linked to National-Socialism, totalitarianism, and its policies. Most of it has either been system-immanent or is potentially system-immanent.
    System immanent? Could you explain this term?

    This consciousness has been constitutionally and legally preserved, and there is, in addition, as I have mentioned, still this active, vigorous consciousness in almost every German. And that's why National-Socialism is finished and will not rise again in the next generations to come.

    Eventually, this active consciousness against Nazism will vanish and become insignificant. In hundreds of years, hardly anyone will care anymore about WW2, not more than people care now about the Thirty Year War which depopulated half of Germany. However, a general consciousness against totalitarianism and injustice will still exist, and these experiences of injustice will still be preserved in the constitution and in laws.

    Evolved constitutions, in general, contain much more wisdom than the average person that is subjected to it possesses, in particular as far as the constitutional principles are concerned.

    What about revolutions? For a revolution to happen, you need to have a lot of injustice that must affect a lot of people. Consequently, the more evolved and progressive a constitution is, and the more past experiences of injustice it preserves and thus avoids, and the higher the consciousness of the population is, the less likely is a revolution to happen.

    If it happens, the new constitutions and laws will contain the consciousness of the revolutionaries. This can be extraordinarily progressive for this time (take the U.S. constitution), or extraordinarily regressive for this time (take the USSR), or it can be something inbetween (take NS Germany; good principles discarded, good principles added).

    They always draw at least some principles from the past, however, and typically many, because their consciousness, too, has been formed by past experiences of injustice, by the consciousness that still exists in the people, so there is always something preserved. And that's why it's finally all self-fulfilling. If injustice gets too bad, constitutions will be revolutionary or evolutionary reformed, containing ever more justice and freedom on the long run.

    In our times, consciousness has become globally propagated. It can't be reversed anymore, not on the long run. Even if we managed to nuke the planet and everything that has ever been written or preserved, there would still be consciousness and education left in the survivors. In the worst case scenario, with only Kaspar Hauser and his wife surviving, we have to start all over again, but as long as there are men they will follow their nature, which is freedom, by the acts of pursuing happiness.
    I would agree with that, if I agreed with teleology. But I don't.

    At some point I will have finished reading this. Right now I need to A) save it to my favourites, B) recover from last night's bourbon, C) try remembering that brunette girl's home phone number, D) study because I have to go to Canberra for Officer Selection Board tomorrow

    All things follow their potential.
    Man can do just about anything concievable. Why does he do what he does? What motivates him to pursue happiness?

    Yes. But what would we need Nietzsche for in the field of metaphysic of morals?
    It means it becomes what it contains as potential.
    Not so much morals as power analysis. From that, plus my triad of will-desire-power I can explain group identity and a variety of other things. Including human action.

    Why not preserve what makes sense, discard what doesn't, and see what comes out?
    Because our tests might be wrong, and it also gives a precedent that such conduct is permissible, opening the doors to hell for all sorts of abuse in future.
    This is interesting. But coherant.

    Not necessarily the majority.
    'The greatest happiness for the greatest number' is the morality of Utilitarianism, last I read. Why not the majority?

    In fact, they don't. They don't have a reasonable alternative, as the monetary system is enforced by tyrannts as a monopoly.
    No one's stopping them from using cows or anything else as currency, it just isn't recognised in the courts of the system. Bartering is still legal, that's what currency was derived from - a substance that could be bartered for anything else.
    Last edited by Jack; Saturday, November 20th, 2004 at 02:42 AM.
    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.

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Last Online
    Wednesday, November 24th, 2004 @ 08:47 AM
    Subrace
    Alpinid
    Country
    United States United States
    Location
    Somewhere In U.S. Hypocrisy
    Gender
    Politics
    White Pride & World Peace
    Religion
    Greek Polytheist Ancient Beliefs
    Posts
    43
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post Re: Moral Relativism vs. Absolutism

    Absolutism can describe things such as existence, life and death these things are all absolute.

    Also during the existence of time in the known ages what was absolute then changed to somthing else making the ideas of absolutism in the past irrelevant now to those of us in the future.


    Moral- a : the moral significance or practical lesson (as of a story) b : a passage pointing out usually in conclusion the lesson to be drawn from a story
    2 : plural a : moral practices or teachings : modes of conduct.


    Relativism- 1 a : a theory that knowledge is relative to the limited nature of the mind and the conditions of knowing b : a view that ethical truths depend on the individuals and groups holding them .



    I chose Moral Relativism because there is only so much the human mind is to grasp of the universe and our natural surroundings. To put it bluntly we were not made to know everything. Though as I state before some things are Absolute like death, life, existence and such.


    Absolutism- 2 : advocacy of a rule by absolute standards or principles .
    3 : an absolute standard or principle .

  10. #30
    Senior Member Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Last Online
    Friday, March 25th, 2016 @ 08:28 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 OraclePhilosophy
    Absolutism can describe things such as existence, life and death these things are all absolute.
    Life is constant change, it is a process. Death is a name
    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.

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: Thursday, December 1st, 2016, 01:14 AM
  2. Does Ethnoculturalism Lead To Ethical Relativism?
    By Bernhard in forum Law, Ethics, & Morals
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Wednesday, February 22nd, 2012, 07:38 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, 06:39 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
  •