When I first joined your conversation, I did so because you had referred to absolutist beliefs you held. My purpose was to point out that such beliefs were extraordinary--and involved something beyond the secular world where we lived and thought Also that, although a relativist would not state with certainty that "right" and "wrong" did not have some mystical exisrence outside of the cultural and individualistic interpretations that mortals are subject to, still...there is no evidence of absolutes in the secular world of personal bias and limitation.
In that regard, I used "objective" in the usage of agreement or rational consensus, as is the common understanding in science, discussion, or debate. It now appears to me (in light of your last post), that you are using "objective" in another of its definitions, to wit: as relating to something which exists independently of mind. Is this correct? Is it exactly correct--or will you define what it is that you do mean?
I think right and wrong exist independently of these opinions and that I think we can be as certain about them as we can be about any other thing
Again, you believe that right and wrong exist independently of mind?
I also don't think that the fact that human understanding is limited means that nothing is objectively right or wrong.
Again, are you using "objectively" to refer to moral values or principles which exist independently of mind? What evidence do you have to support a belief that right and wrong are immanent in some realm of the universe, and independent of human assesment and judgement?
My answer to that question is that there is objective truth. You are asking a question beyond that; If there is objective moral truth how can we understand it with our limited human reason
Well, more to the point: How is it that YOU claim to understand it. Certainly, you keep claiming it; but I don't consider unjustified claims as compelling.
But if you do consider some opinions to be better or more valid then others then what standard would you apply to determine this
What standard do you apply, Tim?
I would say that whether or not a killing is a murder does depend on the circumstances but I would apply inflexible criteria to determine if it was a murder
"INFLEXIBLE CRITERIA", eh, Tim! :-)
What would you use to arrive at these inflexible standards, Tim? As you know, it is always defined in gross or subtle shades of difference, and in our culture it requires a trial to look at the circumstances on which such final assessment or "JUDGEMENT" will finally rest.
I assume you are using "murder" as a concept to describe an "immoral" or wrong killing. How would you arrive at your personal "OPINION" of an "inflexible standard" for punishment. Or are there inflexible standards that exist outside of your opinion which you would bring into the court on a clay tablet, perhaps? Would you exempt (as did the Mayans) the killing of teenaged girls to honor them and the Sun God? or would your opinions lead you to a different set of inflexible criteria?
B can simply point out that he does not accept the existence of the supernatural so any arguments based on it, without evidence or at least further argument for the existence of the supernatural, would be unconvincing.
Just my point. All of us exist in the natural world. Certainly, we enjoy imagining various speculations about the possibility of a supernatural realm; but serious arguments based on conjecture of another realm are, as you say, unconvincing. And when they are used to control social policy, and thus people, they become exceedingly dangerous. Surely, it would be the height of madness for people to willingly follow some earthly "representative" of another world without subjecting his claims to the rigours of reason, and asking for some empirical evidence.
So, yes. Claims of the supernatural are extraordinary and extra-mundane. If supernatural premises could be allowed as legitimate to an argument, it would mean that ANY thing claimed could be thus "proved".
Unfortunately, much of the world does swim in this very type of madness, where they wrap their arguments with hidden supernatural assumptions, while eschewing the evidence and facts which exist in the world in which they are doing the arguing.
One can certain imagine a hypothetical situation where a supreme being exists but where no objective moral principles exist
In the example I gave, an objective moral principle would still exist.
...but the supreme being does not reveal them for some reason or even acts against them (which would then mean that the world was created by and evil God,
It wouldn't mean that. It would mean that the opinions which you currently happen to hold about good and evil (for whichever reasons you assess them as one or the other) hapen to be incorrect. A "Supreme" Being IS Supreme. If you believe in some "objective" good which exists independently of mind, then your opinion of what is good does not matter here.
But that still leaves the question of what is helpful or hurtful
Society or individuals may (as relativists) choose any of myriad moral paradigms which are felt to be appropriate to their reasoning. Our basic moral beliefs are culturally derived. However, I believe that thoughtfulness transcends culture.
What is good or right is precisely what you think it is. You have spent many posts telling me so. If we are equally reasonable, thoughtful, and disposed to cooperation and kindness, then I doubt there would be much (of an ethical nature), for us to disagree on. But remember that what is good or right for you gets trumped by the opinion of the society you depend on.
As a matter of interest, however, my relativism rests upon a foundation of rights theory-not as "God"_given--but as a natural complement of living as a free and uncoerced human being amongst others. As a relativist, I recognize that i need to adjust my behaviour and values to the society in which I find myself, and in a way which maximizes the mutual benefits of sharing, affirming, and valuing. It is self evident that people can help one another or hurt one another. People know what this means. People know what acceptance and tolerance entail. People know that hurting others hurts them. They know that intolerance will be returned to them, as will kindness and acceptance.
Also, there appears to be a hard-wired benevolence and a teleology which motivates people to seek intimacy, sharing, affirmation, and acceptance. You may recognize such motives within yourself. Of course, you know what behaviours lead to acceptance and being valued and needed by others, and which do not.
It needs only one principle: that all people have equal rights. No chosen people; no "blessed" people; no people inferior by virtue of color, faith, religion, etc.
But this wouldn't in my opinion be because the people who create the ugliness and evil have absolute opinions
This is not the point. Relativists can commit reprehensible acts, as well. But there is a difference.
Absolutists generally are motivated by their devotion to a belief systemm which has overweening importance to them. A belief system which makes them "RIGHT" writ large in this secular world; and gives them eternal life and pleasure (oh, yes, they know what the good is ;-)) in the supernatural realm.
Oddly enough, people who are motivated by such stories seem to find it unnecessary to pass their absolute communiques through the filter of reason or human compassion. Of course, such thinking might be difficult for us to understand; but if you understand the superstition in which much of the world is yet steeped, you will appreciate the potential for absolutist enemies to sacrifice unlimited numbers of innocent people without considering it wrong in any way.
Relativists, on the other hand, generally confine their "self-interest" to this secular realm and are likely to be somewhat less inclined to follow the insane and inhuman directives of a madman or a mad institution, as being hated or dead are not values which appeal to a relativist. There are, of course, exceptions... |
