We have facts about the world we live in. One of these is that people have different opinions about good and evil. But this fact says nothing about the possibility of any of those opinions being right or wrong, or morality being relative with no opinion correct or incorrect except in the mind of the person holding the opinion
Tim, we were not discussing whether the moral opinions were correct or incorrect. We were discussing whether they were relative or absolute.
As to the rest of your post, I really don't understand the meandering. It doesn't relate to what you quoted from me as (presumably) what you were responding to, and it is impossible for me to relate it, through memory, with any previous posts of mine. If you disagree with anything in any of my posts, I would be happy to make it clearer for you.
In the meantime, I will try once again to demonstrate the simple thing we are discussing.
All the evidence we have tells us that what is helpful or hurtful, moral or immoral, is dependent upon various cultural norms and individual differences of thought, feeling, and perspective. This is clear from observation, it is clear from example, it is clear from all empirical evidence. This is the nature of human beings so far as we know. This is the nature of the world, so far as we know. Moral relativism is an evidentiary belief system.
But it is not the only belief system about moral values. Billions of people claim to believe in absolutism. However, they do not have any evidence to justify this belief. Their "arguments" normally take such forms as, "I just do", or "I believe it, because". Generally, they claim that the absolutist belief is true because it was revealed by (insert the name of any popular God). Of course, we also have a history of tyrants, fascists, totalitarians, etc. Who claimed absolute truths. Their argument was generally the sword or the faggot.
The point is that the relativistic belief system is empirically evidenced, while absolute values are conjectured, and are merely believed. Relativism is the default moral system of the secular world which values empiricism as a path to knowledge.
It is important to understand, Tim, that relativists do not claim that absolutism is conclusively disproved. It can never be disproved. Relativists only claim that there is, heretofore, no evidence in this secular realm of empiricism, which remotely suggests that values have an absolutist "ought" against which they may be measured or judged.
I doubt that any relativist objects to you believing in absolute values. Such beliefs are extraordinary, and contradictory to the empirical world in which we live, so we treat it like any other mystical and unjustified belief. Still, it may be true. Everything could be a dream, or anything else. Human knowledge is limited, no doubt.
I don't know, however, why you would wish to believe in absolute values. And I hope you never find one.
I can't think of an uglier concept than that of absolute values. It is cruel and repugnant. Why would a human being want to ignore all the subtle and refined sensitivities that they may express in their conduct, in order to practice a "one size fits all" type of "caring". Could absolute values honour the way people are? Would they honour the differences in mind, heart, feeling, desires, goals...these relative differences which serve to make every human unique and special?
The idea of absolute values militates against the sharing, empathy, consideration, and acceptance of otherness which still gives us hope that our species may transcend and survive her Hitlers and her Inquisitions. It argues against the advanrtages of change, adaptation, and co-operation. The purpose of "absolute" values are to control, subjugate, dehumanize, and separate. Does the past teach us nothing? Does the present teach us nothing?
Absolute values are for computers and robots--not for loving and feeling human beings. Loving people do not stone an old man to death for gathering sticks for a fire on a Sunday. Loving people use empathy and reason to discover what is helpful or hurtful. The feedback and feelings of the other are essential to the choice of conduct. They CONSIDER the other's relative and unique point of view.
Many of the things we hate, many of the things we fear, are bed partners of absolutism, and absolute "values": authoritarianism, totalitarianism, fascism, etc. They encourage intolerance, bigotry, insensitivity, prejudice, racism, and every form of hatred conceivable by the imagination. They are enemies of free thought, free speech, and free existence.
Why would anybody ever seek or hope for "absolute" values? Do they not know what they value? Do they need to be told how to limit their compassion, or how to demonize others? Who do they wish to tell them how to value, and how to think--and WHY? |
