Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (34275)	10/19/2001 4:02:41 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

" 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. I bolded possibility for a reason. I wouldn't have included that word if I was talking about which ideas where correct or incorrect. If morality is totally relative then there is no real correct or incorrect involved. If it is possible for some things to be truly and totally wrong then you have some objectivity to morals. That's why I said "this fact (that people have different moral opinions) says nothing about the possibility... Also note that I then added "or morality being relative with no opinion correct or incorrect except in the mind of the person holding the opinion". That whole paragrah was about absolute vs. relative morality. 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. It relates to the 2nd half of the post that it was a reply to. Specifically - "I will agree that there may be a supreme and perfect authority--one who has absolute rules. Of course, you understand, that such would transcend self interest, and do away with individualism. These absolute rules would be for the benefit and the use of the absolute entity. Individuals may only pursue self interest through relativistic interpretations of an infinite variety of considerations. They may not remain as individuals, or act in their own self interest, if interpretation and choice are effectively denied them by fiat. " In that post you imply that there has to be a supreme and perfect authority for the belief in an objective or absolute morality to be true. You then state that the existence of such an authority would mean that we could no longer be individuals because we would be forced to follow the supreme authorities selfish choices. My response rejected this conclusion. 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. No it is not an evidentiary belief system. The evidence shows us that people have any number of opinions about what is moral. They also have any number of opinions about why X or Y is moral and immoral. Evidence also shows that the culture that someone grows up in can have a major effect on these opinion. But none of these provides any evidence that morality is relative. You say the evidence "tells us that what is helpful or hurtful, moral, or immoral is dependent on cultural norms and individual differences". That's close but not quite true. What the evidence tells us is that people's opinions about what is helpful or hurtful, moral or immoral, is dependent on cultural norms and individual differences. If you add to that evidence the assumption that there is no objective morality but rather just different opinions then your statement is true but you are using circular reasoning. If you don't add that assumption to the statement then the facts as you report them are evidence for nothing about the nature of morality. As for the end of your post including the statement "I can't think of an uglier concept than that of absolute values. " I don't know if its actually worth me typing in almost the exact same text as you but changing it so that every statement is the opposite. For example changing "It is cruel and repugnant." to "It is not cruel and repugnant.", but doing so would state my opinions pretty well. Would they honour the differences in mind, heart, feeling, desires, goals...these relative differences which serve to make every human unique and special? Every human is unique and special but there are some things that are wrong for any of them to do. I'm sure that in a relativist sense its your opinion that the people who attacked the WTC were wrong, that at least it is your opinion that such activites are not a good thing. I would make that in a more absolute sense. I think that even if it is their opinion that it was a good and wonderful thing to do that their opinion is simply wrong. I may not be honouring their mind, heart, feelings, desires, and goals, but I don't want to. I think to a limtied extent I am honoring the unique individuals whose lives they ended when I say they where wrong and that anyone who thinks they where not is also wrong. 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. The idea causes me and others like me to reject the next Hitler or Inquisition as absolutly wrong and to put our efforts in to preventing it or getting rid of it rather then thinking "we all have different opinions, and from their perspective going after the jews, or heritics or whatever is good. I only care about understanding that perspective, so that I can better fight against it, not to honor it as an opinion that is just as good as mine. It argues against the advanrtages of change, adaptation, and co-operation. It only argues against these things if you have absolute moral ideas that cover almost any action or thought. It can argue for them if they are part of your value system. The purpose of "absolute" values are to control, subjugate, dehumanize, and separate. Absolute values in general have no specific purpose. The purpose depends on the particular values. Some people values accept such things or even support them but other perceived absolute values do not. Freedom is one of the values I support. I don't see how it has a purpose of control and subjugation. If I had the values like those of Hitler or Stalin then yes these values would support the things you list, but the problem is with the speicific values they supported and the fact that respect for freedom and the value of all human life was apparently not among them. Do they need to be told how to limit their compassion, or how to demonize others? My values do not such thing. Quite the opposite. Tim