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 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 53

Thread: Moral Relativism vs. Absolutism

  1. #41
    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
    To Jack The Ripper

    To whether death is a label of change it is sill absolute for we all shall expirience it.
    That doesn't make it absolute. That makes it relative to the chronological time-span a form of becoming has before it becomes something else.

    On the basis of death it is a existent for we see the existence of it every day call it change call it what you will it exist.
    We witness a change which shows the birth, growth, aging and decay of a series of becomings which we have linked together under the concept of 'life' or 'human' or 'animal'.

    Jack The Ripper- You subscribe to a conceptual singularity called death, which I dispute and say does not exist.

    I ask you why?
    Sure.

    You discussed the changes of the body through death my comment on we do not know what death is for noone has come back to tell was merely my thinking of the soul and not the body.
    There is no proof that this 'soul' exists. It is a useful fiction.

    I know how the body decomposes and it's physical change , I am however much more interested in the change of the soul and inner being .

    I should of rephrased that better sorry.
    No problem. There is still no evidence for your 'soul'.

    I distinguish the sky from what I see in it , and later when I referred to the sun I merely was meaning I see it through the sky . The sun in reality is in outer space. I tend to describe such things I see.
    Most people do describe what they see. That's ok. It's only common sense.

    To get technical the sky is the atmosphere in which gravity dwells that is the seperation of atmosphere and space. Clouds being formed by the this same atmosphere as well. The sun being out of the Earth's atmosphere in space as we all know.
    Gravity dwells everywhere. It is how the planets revolve, it is a field of energy. It the process by which I weigh 68kg. The atmosphere is a series of gradiations, it has no beginning or end, only a 'center', and no essence either - this 'essence' is a concept that we use for the sake of practicality. Which doesn't make it correct.

    [quote]When I was talking of the sky I was merely describing from a visual perspective not in technical terms that you replied me in.[quote]

    I know.

    Does the sky include the moon, comets ect? - Jack the Ripper

    I say no because those are outside of the atomosphere this is probally a question of the sun comment I made and again I shall say I was merely making a visual non technical description.
    I know this. What seperates the technical or scientific perspective from the philosophical perspective?

    What is the essence of the cloud that distinguishes it from the sky in which it lies? - Jack the Ripper

    I would say basically sky is a crude way of saying atmosphere in which clouds are part of the atmosphere and is in it and that is their essence.
    If participating in the atmosphere is the 'essence' of the cloud, should we then call a satellite in the atmosphere a cloud also?

    What is this us and how do we distinguish it from space- Jack the Ripper

    The us is humankind and life itself on earth with certain gravity elements we stay on the ground , common physics what goes up must go down. That is gravity which keeps us down seperates the atmosphere from space.
    'Man is either a zoological construct or an empty word' - Oswald Spengler. I assume you mean vacuum by space. We contain this ourselves in the gaps between the atoms that constitute our physical becoming.

    On my discussion of the self I exist think, walk, talk and breathe I am my own individual , there are those who would make a case against individuality and yet in psychology everyone knows every person has their own behavioral traits. If people have their own behavioral traits and Individuality just another trait of behavior why debate this?
    Psychology is hardly a genuine science. The 'person' is an intensive singularity. It alters with the modification of its 'elements'. Hence there is no 'person' as such, only psychological becoming.

    My own quote: On the existence of time and space, yes it is absolute for if it was not nothing would exist now.

    Jack The Ripper- Time and space have been expirienced differently by different cultures . Oswald Spengler outlines this quite well in his decline of the west, Volume 1. In what sense are time and space considered ' absolute'.?

    On what I was saying was beyond culture I was talking of universal principles existence as a whole. The universe is absolute in this cosmo and to the next and time is eternity.
    The universe is the sum of all becoming. It is inseperable from time and space, and Einstein demonstrated their interdependency.

    I am sorry I am terrible at explaining things I am new to this Skadi forum in which since I have been here I like very much , you must forgive I don't talk much to anybody and what I have to think usually floats around in my head to myself.
    Don't apologise, I never did If you lack a 'normal' social life I wouldn't worry about it or throw you in a psycho-prison.

    In knowing this know it is hard for me talking to others , me and my non-social self .
    You have just refuted yourself, and put a contrast between 'you' and 'yourself', dissolving the idea of the unified individual. Good job
    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. #42
    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
    Sophism.
    Elaborate.

    Because observation and reason prove him wrong.
    Note to self: Buy Critique of Dialectical Reason by Sartre.

    Through its self-realization. It is already conscious of itself.
    I can partly agree on Hegelian synthesis. This universal teleological 'self-realization' thing is what I object to. I'm not sure why yet, but probably because it sounds stupid.

    Unhappiness in general. Glad you cede to my premise.
    Sure.

    Freedom is also not the last criterium of morality. Never claimed otherwise. However, will he be happier on this non-existant drug with or without the right to freedom of speech? With or without the insecurity of being tortured, imprisoned, shot, or deprived of this drug if he says something wrong -- drug-induced or not? Concrete freedom (the one that doesn't violate the freedom of others) potentially only adds happiness, never decreases it, and that's why it should be maximized.
    The sad thing is, I actually am becoming an Anarchist of some variety again...

    It's not an alternative. It's a legitimate choice to deal with an issue. Question in this case would merely be what should happen during this effort which typically is long-lasting and frequently subject to failure. This parent would have preferred his child to stay legal, socially integrated, healthy and alive while the issue is tackled, like every reasonable, concerned parent or human being would.
    Generally agreed. People are stupid though.

    Different topic. Surely, your position can be well-argued, but even then there would be different categories of motivation. I used the term in its common understanding, namely making someone else the primary, direct benefactor of an action.
    I'm well and truly convince that my position on that topic is absolutely bulletproof. It's also the key to Anarcho Neo Fascism.

    Where power is not limited, there is a potential of unlimited abuse of power.
    C, B, A, D -- or what was your priority order?
    That pretty much fits what's happened...

    Biology.
    And happiness does what for an organism?

    Explain them?
    How and why agents act.

    Because net happiness is to be maximized and happiness comes in degrees. It's not about more happiness for the majority. An action that would make 49% of the affected extremely unhappy and 51% insignificantly more happy would be immoral.
    And how do you figure out that an action is moral, then?

    There is an effective money monopoly of state banks or private banks, depending on the country, enforced by federal and international laws. No competition is possible.
    So far as I know, it is legal to use whatever one wants to establish a currency (a universally accepted barter resource) in Australia. However, it won't be legally accepted in a court.
    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.

  3. #43
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Online
    Wednesday, September 28th, 2016 @ 11:48 AM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Subrace
    Home Europeus
    Country
    Frisia Frisia
    State
    Berlin Berlin
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Philosoph
    Politics
    Große Politik
    Religion
    Lebenslehre
    Posts
    199
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post

    First point. - Moral RELATIVISM!

    Quote Originally Posted by Thorburn
    1. A simple way to express this view is that "everyone draws their own moral from the same story" and behaves according to their own impression, acceptance, or rejection of it.

    2. A moral relativist, on the other hand, would hold that even people in such a circumstance do not follow a common moral code, but are simply unable to follow their varying personal urges due to social pressure.
    1. Yes, that's the Reality.
    2. Whether moral Relativist have to (in any case) commite a crimes only becouse of being Relativist??? And if they somehow don't behave so this is only becouse of so-called social pressure??
    Maybe they (a part of them) have their own code? I believe they do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thorburn
    1. Moral absolutism has my vote. There are absolute criteria in human affairs, namely happiness (the final purpose of every human action)

    2. and freedom (the nature of human beings).

    3. Actions are moral if they maximize happiness. To maximize happiness the human nature has to be respected, i. e. freedom shall never be unjustifiably infringed.
    1. I do not agree. It is not happines what people seek out. People simply live, something do, make, create. Instincts supervise over them. And the most impotant instinct speaks that everyone should selfexpresse and only therefor we do something...
    2. This is just consequence of Might.
    3. (If it suppose that everyone seek out happiness) You mean that anything what you only do, would be moral if it maximize a happiness? That's a pure amoralism....
    Last edited by Zealous; Sunday, September 4th, 2005 at 02:04 AM.

  4. #44
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Schmetterling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German
    Gender
    Age
    36
    Posts
    756
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    30
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    63
    Thanked in
    30 Posts
    Moral absolutism, and this needs to come back and be enforced at least within our cultures. Muslims who rape for example use the concept of moral relativism, that in their culture it's not wrong to just take what they want from a woman. I think actions which create a victim - rape, murder, torture, etc. are morally questionable and there should be a universal standard against them.
    "Tradition doesn't mean holding on to the ashes, it means passing the torch."
    - Thomas Morus (1478-1535)

  5. #45
    Senior Member Catterick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Last Online
    Thursday, September 7th, 2017 @ 01:29 AM
    Ethnicity
    Mixed Germanic and Celtic
    Ancestry
    British Isles & Scandinavia
    Subrace
    Borreby x Nordic
    Country
    Other Other
    Location
    Aqua
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Gondolier
    Posts
    2,196
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    20
    Thanked in
    20 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Schmetterling View Post
    Moral absolutism, and this needs to come back and be enforced at least within our cultures. Muslims who rape for example use the concept of moral relativism, that in their culture it's not wrong to just take what they want from a woman. I think actions which create a victim - rape, murder, torture, etc. are morally questionable and there should be a universal standard against them.
    Islam is not relativistic. If they use such arguments successfully on us, the the fault is our moral relativism. Yet only the liberal form of relativism is weak and susceptible. Mussolini's was not weak nor was Nietzsche's.

    Relativism is about the nature of ethics nothing more. Absolutist dispositions, not necessarily philosophies, win out.

  6. #46
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Last Online
    Sunday, November 12th, 2017 @ 07:54 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    Silesia Silesia
    Gender
    Posts
    853
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5
    Thanked in
    5 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Catterick View Post
    Relativism is about the nature of ethics nothing more. Absolutist dispositions, not necessarily philosophies, win out.
    The dichotomy per se is mistaken. It is not whether a certain 'moral' is absolute, or whether it is relative, instead, the true opposition is between a moral based on true religion, or a 'moral' based on random prejudices, i.e. on nothing.

    The modern, 'western', capitalist-liberalist moral is not based on any (true) religion, and that is the reason why it appears 'relative'. Because for modern westerners, there is no higher, i.e. spiritual instance who could once and for all settle any moral issues, hence they are permanently in danger of complete moral breakdown.

    A true religion is a set of ample beliefs which tell the human being where he came from before he was born, and where he will go to, after he has died. If -- and only after -- this is made clear, anything else follows easily, and doubts are minimized.

    Now, the joo- & negro-whorship, which is tried to spread among westerners, is no real substitute for a true religion, because it fails to tell the westerners where they finally will go after they must say good-bye to all those precious, god-like joos & negros here on earth. Because of this decisive flaw, western moral has no basis, is not 100% convincing to anybody, and -- most of all -- has no fanatical defenders in case of need.

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Spjabork For This Useful Post:


  8. #47
    Omnia in bonum
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Alice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    English and German
    Subrace
    Nordid + CM
    mtDNA
    K1c2
    Gender
    Religion
    Catholic
    Posts
    1,835
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,898
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,055
    Thanked in
    585 Posts
    The moral framework of current Western culture is based on moral relativism, but I don't believe in moral relativism, I believe in objective truth, which is timeless and absolute. Moral relativism is contrary to the moral order.
    Let us not desire delights, daughters; we are well-off here; the bad inn lasts for only a night.
    -St. Teresa of Avila

  9. #48
    Senior Member Skärmträl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Last Online
    3 Weeks Ago @ 12:59 AM
    Ethnicity
    Swedish
    Gender
    Posts
    141
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    34
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    128
    Thanked in
    80 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Alice View Post
    The moral framework of current western culture is based on moral relativism
    One could make the case, though, that Western culture is based on moral absolutism seeing as the UN is pretty keen on universal human rights and whatnot.

  10. #49
    Grand Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Online
    Thursday, October 31st, 2019 @ 04:26 AM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    English, Anglo-Saxon
    Country
    England England
    Location
    South Coast
    Gender
    Zodiac Sign
    Aries
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Self Employed
    Politics
    Free Speech / Anti-EU
    Religion
    Pagan
    Posts
    5,040
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,584
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,592
    Thanked in
    1,392 Posts
    The only thing we know for sure is that absolutism has already been tried and failed!

    Take look at the few countries where it's still in force today and I can guarantee you wouldn't want to live in any of them.

    Moral relativism needs the right conditions in order to function and they certainly aren't provided by 'multicultural' societies, which are a complete disaster. Indeed, all MR appears to be doing in the West right now is paving the way for Islamic absolutism.

  11. #50
    Omnia in bonum
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Alice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    English and German
    Subrace
    Nordid + CM
    mtDNA
    K1c2
    Gender
    Religion
    Catholic
    Posts
    1,835
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,898
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,055
    Thanked in
    585 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Skärmträl View Post
    One could make the case, though, that Western culture is based on moral absolutism seeing as the UN is pretty keen on universal human rights and whatnot.
    It has become a sort of religion, really. Too bad the notion of human rights has been severed from its original foundation in the idea of natural law. Without any idea of natural law, no one can settle any question of human rights, except by personal opinion.
    Let us not desire delights, daughters; we are well-off here; the bad inn lasts for only a night.
    -St. Teresa of Avila

Page 5 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
  •