[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
Yeah... I am saying that no valid ethical principle states that killing said woman is wrong.

Ethics are a part of culture.

While *I* say it's wrong... they do not. Who is right?

If said culture is so abominable as to allow such behavior (in those extreme cases), then that culture will be evaluated for intervention by the majority. No culture is so valueable that it may thrive under those actions deemed deplorable by the majority of the species. In fact, that's the reason why some cultures and nations no longer exist. High-minded philosophy won't/can't change that. In those situations, the ethics and morality of the majority will rule. It's historically proven.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
If said culture is so abominable as to allow such behavior (in those extreme cases), then that culture will be evaluated for intervention by the majority. No culture is so valueable that it may thrive under those actions deemed deplorable by the majority of the species. In fact, that's the reason why some cultures and nations no longer exist. High-minded philosophy won't/can't change that. In those situations, the ethics and morality of the majority will rule. It's historically proven.

Yep, we really should get rid of dem damn darkies. T'ain't human what dey do.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
Yep, we really should get rid of dem damn darkies. T'ain't human what dey do.

You might feel that way if they ripped your clitoris off with a pair of pliers or had buried you up to your chin and were lobbing rocks at your head for adultry.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
You might feel that way if they ripped your clitoris off with a pair of pliers or had buried you up to your chin and were lobbing rocks at your head for adultry.

And what should you feel if they kidnap you, chain you up to a thousand others, drag your ass across an ocean in the dark with no air and little food for weeks, and sold your ass into slavery?

Every culture on earth has clear moral standards that are venerated, based on tradition and taught to every generation. Every culture.

And yet, that doesn't seem to have prevented those same cultures to violate their own moral standards and display barbarous cruelty when it suited them to do so.

Do we have the right to speak out when we see cruelty and evil? Of course we do. What gives us the right to do so? We do. We give it to ourselves by chosing a different moral/ethical standard that tells us that the behavior in question is wrong/destructive/cruel/evil. Why do we need some external justification? When my conscience tells me something is wrong, I go by that, not whether or not I can enforce it on others. My ability to enforce my ethical standard has no bearing (to me) on how I judge the behavior in question. Its wrong, IMO, whether or not I can stop it.

So how do ethical individuals stop behavior that they feel is wrong? By persuasion. By convincing others that the behavior is wrong.

[Macfreak7]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
And what should you feel if they kidnap you, chain you up to a thousand others, drag your ass across an ocean in the dark with no air and little food for weeks, and sold your ass into slavery?

Every culture on earth has clear moral standards that are venerated, based on tradition and taught to every generation. Every culture.

And yet, that doesn't seem to have prevented those same cultures to violate their own moral standards and display barbarous cruelty when it suited them to do so.

Do we have the right to speak out when we see cruelty and evil? Of course we do. What gives us the right to do so? We do. We give it to ourselves by chosing a different moral/ethical standard that tells us that the behavior in question is wrong/destructive/cruel/evil. Why do we need some external justification? When my conscience tells me something is wrong, I go by that, not whether or not I can enforce it on others. My ability to enforce my ethical standard has no bearing (to me) on how I judge the behavior in question. Its wrong, IMO, whether or not I can stop it.

So how do ethical individuals stop behavior that they feel is wrong? By persuasion. By convincing others that the behavior is wrong.

You sir, are a moron.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Macfreak7:
You sir, are a moron.

Gee. That's clever.

Please go start another thread about something you know nothing about.

[Spliff]

Originally posted by Macfreak7:
You sir, are a moron.

Whoa, watch the ad hominem attacks. That's not a reasonable or polite way to participate in a debate.

If you don't like something that someone said, then counter it with your own arguments.

[Macfreak7]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Gee. That's clever.

Please go start another thread about something you know nothing about.

Something i know nothing about.. haha yeah right.

Firstly if you think cultural relativism is different from ethical relativism, then please, pick up a book on ethics, ANY book, and read a few pages.

Secondly, just because my conscience tells me thing is right or wrong, doesn't make it so. If my neighbour is playing loud music, and my conscience tells me "go kill him", doesn't make that act right in any way. If people acted the way they "felt like", the populations would be alot more chaotic than they are already.

[Macfreak7]

Originally posted by Spliff:
Whoa, watch the ad hominem attacks. That's not a reasonable or polite way to participate in a debate.

If you don't like something that someone said, then counter it with your own arguments.

I tried that, but he just seems to be going in circles. Besides, the post where i quoted him, deserved that response.

[Spliff]

Macfreak7,

Have you read any articles or books about Social Contract Ethics, like John Rawls A Theory of Justice? I think you might find some useful arguments in it to answer your original question in this thread.

A Theory of Justice by John Rawls

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Macfreak7:
Something i know nothing about.. haha yeah right.

Firstly if you think cultural relativism is different from ethical relativism, then please, pick up a book on ethics, ANY book, and read a few pages.

Secondly, just because my conscience tells me thing is right or wrong, doesn't make it so. If my neighbour is playing loud music, and my conscience tells me "go kill him", doesn't make that act right in any way. If people acted the way they "felt like", the populations would be alot more chaotic than they are already.

At least you're presenting an argument now. That helps.

I think they're different because I think ethics and culture are different. You're welcome to disagree.

I'm saying people set their own rules for right and wrong (ethics) and societies set their own rules for right and wrong (morals) and both are based on what people choose to be right and wrong--sometimes rationally and sometimes irrationally.

If you disagree, what makes right and wrong?

[Macfreak7]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
At least you're presenting an argument now. That helps.

I think they're different because I think ethics and culture are different. You're welcome to disagree.

I'm saying people set their own rules for right and wrong (ethics) and societies set their own rules for right and wrong (morals) and both are based on what people choose to be right and wrong--sometimes rationally and sometimes irrationally.

If you disagree, what makes right and wrong?

The main problem with everything that you say, is that it is based on what you think. I'm not talking about what YOU think, or what *I* think. Your definition of the word ethics on the previous page is not precise. Try some other sources and you will see that ethics means customs/tradition/*culture* of a group of people. That word has its root in greek. Moral, means the same thing, but it has its root in latin. So please, if you want to use your own definitions, or use your own interpretations to justify your beliefs, don't post in my threads.

Like everything, there are degrees of "rightness" and "wrongness". Obviously the situation has to be taken into context. That doesn't justify "cultural relativism". Now again, instead of me being redundant, read my previous posts. I really don't feel like repeating myself over and over again.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Macfreak7:
The main problem with everything that you say, is that it is based on what you think. I'm not talking about what YOU think, or what *I* think. Your definition of the word ethics on the previous page is not precise. Try some other sources and you will see that ethics means customs/tradition/*culture* of a group of people. That word has its root in greek. Moral, means the same thing, but it has its root in latin. So please, if you want to use your own definitions, or use your own interpretations to justify your beliefs, don't post in my threads.

Like everything, there are degrees of "rightness" and "wrongness". Obviously the situation has to be taken into context. That doesn't justify "cultural relativism". Now again, instead of me being redundant, read my previous posts. I really don't feel like repeating myself over and over again.

I offered my defintions early on for clarification of my point. I didn't see your objection to them. In fact, you accepted my definitions as proof of your point.

If you want to offer different definition for "ethics" and "morals" go right ahead. No point in objecting in secret and then losing your temper about it a page later.

I consider ethics a personal matter of character, and morals a matter of cultural tradition. If you want to offer a different formulation, go right ahead.

As for degrees of "rightness" and "wrongness" in everything, I can't say I understand that at all. Is it a substance? Like trace amounts of carbon? How do we detect it? By what do we measure it to determine how much of either material is present?

I know you've mentioned a desire for some kind of Universal Axiom or something by which we could measure "rightness" or the absense of "rightness", but I'm not sure if you've offered any such axiom or even and example of what it might look like. That might help me understand your position much easier.

I don't know why you suddenly got all testy and decided to insult me. Seems to me the conversation has moved on fairly well, albeit with a few tangents. As I see it, we're down to the essential question:

Do people decide for themselves (individually or collectively) what is "right" or "wrong"?

If not, how do we know what they are?

[Macfreak7]

The reason why i accepted your defintions is because i didn't bother to cross check them. Out of respect, i decided to take your word for it. I should've cross checked anyway.

The reason why I threw an insult at you is because of what you said about deciding what's right and wrong based on your "conscience". I already showed you why that is completely illogical and retarded.

The definitions of "ethics" and "morals" i gave aren't *MY* definitions. They are simply what the root of the words mean.
AGAIN, i'm not talking about your definitions of the words ehtics or morals, so PLEASE quit being redundant. You're killing the thread.

I'll shamelessly quote myself from my previous post since you didn't read it:

If you re-read my posts, you'll see that I'm not suggesting a "set of choices" like you put it. They certainly don't have to be predefined. They don't have to be be outside time, history, space or whatever else you said. It's a matter of BASIC set of axioms, which would be used as a guide to make decisions, considering various factors that could be unique to each culture or region. When that is done, everyone will be under the SAME context. We are all humans and have the same needs. So obviously this IS possible. Again, don't forget about scope and room for variation.

As for an example, think of any single culture today. Think of how that one culture has it's code of "right" and "wrong" set up. Now apply that same method to 'one world culture' (for lack of a better phrase). I don't see why those axioms would have to be formed any differently. The only difference would be that they encompass the entire human race, rather than regional populations.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
And what should you feel if they kidnap you, chain you up to a thousand others, drag your ass across an ocean in the dark with no air and little food for weeks, and sold your ass into slavery?

Pardon, but that doesn't happen today. If it did other countries would intervene to stop it. At the time, people of different races didn't think other races were even human beings. Human rights, on the whole, are much more evolved now than ever before. We've come a long way, but we still have much further to go.

Besides, just for clarification, the Africans were selling their own peope into slavery. Yes, the colonialists and early Americans were buying, but other Africans are to blame for that as well. Both sides were acting in a despicable manner. No, I don't want to get into this subject, just making a point.

I know you've mentioned a desire for some kind of Universal Axiom or something by which we could measure "rightness" or the absense of "rightness", but I'm not sure if you've offered any such axiom or even and example of what it might look like. That might help me understand your position much easier.

A large part of the world's cultures and laws are based on religious practices. FWIW, the golden rule is still the best axiom to live by. The Geneva convention (which was ratified by almost everyone anyway) should simply be broadened and updated slightly. It covers everything.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Macfreak7:
As for an example, think of any single culture today. Think of how that one culture has it's code of "right" and "wrong" set up. Now apply that same method to 'one world culture' (for lack of a better phrase). I don't see why those axioms would have to be formed any differently. The only difference would be that they encompass the entire human race, rather than regional populations.

So you agree with me, it seems. People decide for themselves (collectively in your example) what is "right" and "wrong".

Of course, that would mean that we were all being relativists but I'm ok with that. You sounded like you started with doubts. I'm surprised you came around so quickly.

[BlackGriffen]

Well, since the golden rule obviously cannot be a proscription, why don't we tweak it a little in to a prohibition?

Do not do unto others that which you would object to being done unto you.

Thus, obedience to the rule is a necessary but not sufficient condition for determining rightness or wrongness.

BlackGriffen

Edit: P.S. Your lollipop and stick of butter are in the mail, t_f, you kinky bastard, you.

[Macfreak7]

thunderous_funker
Don't make me call you a moron again. READ THE PART WHERE I QUOTED MYSELF!
geez!!

Here, i'll do it for you moron AGAIN

If you re-read my posts, you'll see that I'm not suggesting a "set of choices" like you put it. They certainly don't have to be predefined. They don't have to be be outside time, history, space or whatever else you said. It's a matter of BASIC set of axioms, which would be used as a guide to make decisions, considering various factors that could be unique to each culture or region. When that is done, everyone will be under the SAME context. We are all humans and have the same needs. So obviously this IS possible. Again, don't forget about scope and room for variation.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Macfreak7:

thunderous_funker
Don't make me call you a moron again. READ THE PART WHERE I QUOTED MYSELF!
geez!!

Here, i'll do it for you moron AGAIN

Don't blame me if there is a communication gap. Sheesh.

I read your post to say:

paraphrase: "Each culture picks its rules. Then we get all cultures together to pick rules we all live by so they are universal and apply to all cultures based on ideas we all share."

Is that accurate? Seems to me that is what you're saying. If it is, then you've just given the perfect argument for relativism whether you intended to or not.

P.S. Don't insult me again unless you've got the balls to attempt it in person. Anyone who picks a fight over the internet is worst kind of coward. I've gone out of my way to be civil to you.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
So you agree with me, it seems. People decide for themselves (collectively in your example) what is "right" and "wrong".

Of course, that would mean that we were all being relativists but I'm ok with that. You sounded like you started with doubts. I'm surprised you came around so quickly.

Problem is that this assumes that the rules are arbitrary. The only way that they can be arbitrary, long term, is if they are inconsequential to the survival of the group.

So, because moral rules are very much a traits that effect a group's odds of survival, Darwin is going to come in to play.

Now, this can easily be degraded in to a "last man standing" battle royale, but only if you ignore the long term. Long term, it is always better if you can work together for the common good than if one group strikes down another.

Like I said before, this is the origins of what I consider to be my moral system.

Re: ethical vs. cultural relativism. Looks like we didn't quite agree on the definitions, tf. I was thinking in terms of a heuristic tool for understanding history versus a philosophical framework.

My understanding of the parlance is that there are two types of ethical relativism: cultural and individual (abbrev. CER and IER).

CER, as I've shown, is nihilism with conformity bolted on.

IER doesn't even bother with bolting on conformity.

Sorry, but I can't support such empty philosophies.

As a side note: I finally managed to sum up Kant's philosophy in a sentence. It is a breed in the Golden Rule family of thought:

Do only that which you wouldn't mind everyone doing all the time.

Night, all.



BlackGriffen

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Problem is that this assumes that the rules are arbitrary. The only way that they can be arbitrary, long term, is if they are inconsequential to the survival of the group.

So, because moral rules are very much a traits that effect a group's odds of survival, Darwin is going to come in to play.

Now, this can easily be degraded in to a "last man standing" battle royale, but only if you ignore the long term. Long term, it is always better if you can work together for the common good than if one group strikes down another.

All you're saying here is that people should be rational and sensible when they decide the rules. Ideally, of course. But people choose poorly all the time. There is no garauntee that they will consider all the necessary factors--consider pollution standards, for example.

The long and short of it is that people decide what is right and wrong. And they will have to live with the consequences of those choices.

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Do only that which you wouldn't mind everyone doing all the time.

Not bad

The existentialists used to say "Choose Thyself. And in so choosing, choose for all mankind."

[Macfreak7]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Don't blame me if there is a communication gap. Sheesh.

I read your post to say:

paraphrase: "Each culture picks its rules. Then we get all cultures together to pick rules we all live by so they are universal and apply to all cultures based on ideas we all share."

Is that accurate? Seems to me that is what you're saying. If it is, then you've just given the perfect argument for relativism whether you intended to or not.

P.S. Don't insult me again unless you've got the balls to attempt it in person. Anyone who picks a fight over the internet is worst kind of coward. I've gone out of my way to be civil to you.

Like i've said like 5 times already, you're not reading what i'm typing. You're only skimming over it, and implementing your own interpretation to justify your beliefs.

If you'd made those same arguments in person in a debate... i'd call you a moron just like i did on here becaues that was a moronic thing to say.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Macfreak7:
Like i've said like 5 times already, you're not reading what i'm typing. You're only skimming over it, and implementing your own interpretation to justify your beliefs.

If you'd made those same arguments in person in a debate... i'd call you a moron just like i did on here becaues that was a moronic thing to say.

I've read every single word. Are you familiar with the concept of the ambiguity of language??

Jesus fvcking Christ. Communication is 2-way.

My last post paraphrases what I am getting from your posts. Feel free to correct it if you want to make your point.

If you want to call me names, I'll happily PM you my address you can can see how much you might enjoy trying it to my face.

I am sincerely trying to understand your POV. Each time I try, you insult me. The only reason I'm even bothering at this point is because the topic is important to me and I'm honestly curious how others view it (even hotheads like you).

[Macfreak7]

You seem to be the only one that has problems comprehending what my point of view is.

Oh, and i'm not a hothead, i just don't like moronic statements/logic.

[thunderous_funker]

I will politely offer you yet another chance to clarify your point.

paraphrase: "Each culture picks its rules. Then we get all cultures together to pick rules we all live by so they are universal and apply to all cultures based on ideas we all share."

Is that the nub of your point or isn't it?

[Macfreak7]

No.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
All you're saying here is that people should be rational and sensible when they decide the rules. Ideally, of course. But people choose poorly all the time. There is no garauntee that they will consider all the necessary factors--consider pollution standards, for example.

The long and short of it is that people decide what is right and wrong. And they will have to live with the consequences of those choices.

I agree, people choose what is right and wrong in the short term.

Nature then 'chooses' who was right and wrong in the long term.

For a pantheist like me, what could be a clearer message from God?

Well, I had better admit right now that the above choice of words is poor, and not really representative of what I honestly believe. It could be construed to mean that everyone who dies deserves it, which is not the intent. For instance, given the existence of war, then it could be called 'might makes right.' There are also unforeseeable catastrophes that there is not way to prepare for. Neither of these carries any sort of message.

Here are my general observations about things that increase long term probability of survival, though:

• The Universe favors cooperation beyond what it would were the actors being completely independent.
• The Universe favors flexibility over rigidity.
• The Universe favors Life that spreads broadly.
• The Universe is not particularly partial to any subset of Life.

That's all I could come up with off the top of my head. Note that the first and second actually often run directly counter to one another. So there is a balancing act going on between them. For instance, competition is good inasmuch as it increases flexibility. Any time competition is not increasing flexibility, it is bad.

The same goes for rules, except that it is precisely the opposite. They are good when they increase cooperation, bad when they reduce flexibility. Thus, there is a tradeoff on how rigid the rules should be and how rigidly they should be enforced.

The big question, though, is which should win in the tradeoff: cooperation or flexibility? The answer is: it depends on the situation. Both principles are good in the long run. What balance to strike between them depends entirely upon how much they are actually conflicting (because they do not conflict by definition, but to have them both requires coordination, and that is not in infinite supply), and basically what amounts to a cost benefit analysis of the tradeoff.

Sorry, I'd like to continue, but I'm getting tired, so I have to wrap it up here.

So, again, night, all!

BlackGriffen

[nonhuman]

Just to clear things up: people's ideas of what is wrong and what is right are not determined by culture. They just aren't. If you think they are, you are wrong.

Proof? Not everyone within a culture has the same idea of what is wrong and what is right. Example? Abortion. Unless you're going to say that the people who think abortion is ok and the people who think that abortion is wrong belong to a different culture, despite the fact that they may be siblings, this should make it fairly obvious that morality (or ethics or whatever you want to call it) is an individual phenomenon not a cultural one.

[BlackGriffen]

Not determined is true, but heavily influenced just the same. Peer pressure is a powerful force for many people.

Also, your abortion example assumes that the U.S. is a monoculture, and it's not.

BlackGriffen

[私]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Not determined is true, but heavily influenced just the same. Peer pressure is a powerful force for many people.

Also, your abortion example assumes that the U.S. is a monoculture, and it's not.

BlackGriffen

The U.S. may not be a monoculture, but if we can't say that a single household is not a monoculture, then I think this discussion becomes completely irrelevant because there really is no such thing as a culture. There are definitely households that are morally split on issues such as abortion and various other things.

Personal values might be heavily influenced by cultural values, true. But I would submit that the values that a person holds which are not the same as the values their culture holds would be the most import ones, because why else would the person resist the influence of their culture?

-私

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by 私:
The U.S. may not be a monoculture, but if we can't say that a single household is not a monoculture, then I think this discussion becomes completely irrelevant because there really is no such thing as a culture. There are definitely households that are morally split on issues such as abortion and various other things.

Personal values might be heavily influenced by cultural values, true. But I would submit that the values that a person holds which are not the same as the values their culture holds would be the most import ones, because why else would the person resist the influence of their culture?

-私

Isn't this the difference between ethics and morals?

[私]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Isn't this the difference between ethics and morals?

Are you sure there really is a difference and that it's not just an artificial distinction created to avoid answering difficult questions?

-私

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by 私:
Are you sure there really is a difference and that it's not just an artificial distinction created to avoid answering difficult questions?

-私

It may be artificial, but it's the distinction made in nearly every textbook on the subject published in the 20th century, AFAIK.

Language is merely a tool and we can change it to suit our needs. If there were a good reason to abandon the distinction, I'd be agreeable to it.

However, it seems to me that the distinction is useful for describing exactly the situation that you, nonhuman and BG are talking about in the last few posts.

[Macfreak7]

Despite the fact that ethics and morality mean the same thing, when it comes down to academics, they are different. Morality is actually refering to moral standards and norms, while Ethics is the STUDY of those norms. Other than that, both are pretty overlapping, but morality is a broader area.

[私]

Regardless of whether or not the distinction is real, in attempting to create a universal morality, we would still need to take into account that each person has their on indivual set of values. Is the proposition that we only take into account cultural values and ignore the individual, or do we try and reconcile everything?

The second option would probably be impossible, the first would likely seem rather tyranical to the people who's values are contradicted by the new "universal" morality. Of course, if they already don't agree with their culture's values will they really care, and should we care if they do?

-私

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Macfreak7:
Despite the fact that ethics and morality mean the same thing, when it comes down to academics, they are different. Morality is actually refering to moral standards and norms, while Ethics is the STUDY of those norms. Other than that, both are pretty overlapping, but morality is a broader area.

Wouldn't that just mean that both cultural and individual values are instances of morals?

I mean, it seems like, according to this definition, that what we're doing right now is studying ethics by looking at both cultural and individual morality.

Although does it really matter what words we use? We could say that individuals have morals and societies have ethics or vice versa, or we could just say that both have systems of values.

[Macfreak7]

nonhuman
What you said is correct. The words are interchangable in a conversation.
However, when it comes down to philosophy, or text books, or academics, or professional studies, the two are seperated and they still overlap one another.

[Macfreak7]

Originally posted by 私:
Regardless of whether or not the distinction is real, in attempting to create a universal morality, we would still need to take into account that each person has their on indivual set of values. Is the proposition that we only take into account cultural values and ignore the individual, or do we try and reconcile everything?

The second option would probably be impossible, the first would likely seem rather tyranical to the people who's values are contradicted by the new "universal" morality. Of course, if they already don't agree with their culture's values will they really care, and should we care if they do?

-私

Everyone has their own beliefs, yes. Nonetheless, not all beliefs are educated, rational or logical. For example, i could believe that a rock has powers and it will deliver me from all monstrosity. But of course that isn't true no matter how strong my belief may be, or no matter how many people share my belief.

So the idea is to rationalize and THEN construct beliefs or have moral values, etc. NOT believe, or create moral standards, and THEN rationalize. That can be VERY tricky, and people often confuse the two.

[deekay1]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
Just to clear things up: people's ideas of what is wrong and what is right are not determined by culture. They just aren't. If you think they are, you are wrong.

i wouldn't necessarily say they are determined, but they are certainly shaped by culture and society.

the truth is that a person's ethics are heavily influenced a) by his/her parents and b) society.

but in the end it is up to the individual to accept whatever they see most appropriate.
maybe this is what one could call "morals".

[deekay1]

another thing that comes to my mind here is a culture's treatment of animals.

in many cases a kind of "cultural" acceptance/ liberal minded card has been played in these cases.

for me personally, cruel tratment of any living being is unacceptable, no matter what the cultural context or cultural heritage might be.

this goes for the issue of whaling (norway and japan), bullfights (spain), elephants (india)...the list could go on forever.

it makes me ill when people claim their cultural heritage to justify cruelty and the possible extinction of a species. if it's a matter of life or death for that culture it's a different thing. but let's kid us not, most of the times, it isn't.

just some thoughts...

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Macfreak7:
Everyone has their own beliefs, yes. Nonetheless, not all beliefs are educated, rational or logical. For example, i could believe that a rock has powers and it will deliver me from all monstrosity. But of course that isn't true no matter how strong my belief may be, or no matter how many people share my belief.

So the idea is to rationalize and THEN construct beliefs or have moral values, etc. NOT believe, or create moral standards, and THEN rationalize. That can be VERY tricky, and people often confuse the two.

I think that is a good advice, but with one caveat. By what standard do we establish what is rational or irrational?

For a mystic, the idea of a magic rock would as rational as the idea of gravity is to physicist.

[Spliff]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I think that is a good advice, but with one caveat. By what standard do we establish what is rational or irrational?

For a mystic, the idea of a magic rock would as rational as the idea of gravity is to physicist.

I think Social Contract Theory can help here. I'm gonna do some reading and then'll post what I find.

[Macfreak7]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I think that is a good advice, but with one caveat. By what standard do we establish what is rational or irrational?

Well that IS the big question. That's where ethical philosophy comes in and many theories have been put forward. Like Spliff suggested, the Social Contract Theory is one such theory mainly propagated by T. Hobbes. Then there's another one based on Utilitarianism, which would probably appeal to deekay1.
The point, and the very reason for this thread, is that everything is NOT relative. Deciding on one theory that everyone agrees with is certainly going to be difficult, but it's not impossible.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Macfreak7:
Well that IS the big question. That's where ethical philosophy comes in and many theories have been put forward. Like Spliff suggested, the Social Contract Theory is one such theory mainly propagated by T. Hobbes. Then there's another one based on Utilitarianism, which would probably appeal to deekay1.
The point, and the very reason for this thread, is that everything is NOT relative. Deciding on one theory that everyone agrees with is certainly going to be difficult, but it's not impossible.

Well, at the risk of repeating yesterday's communication breakdown...this is exactly the point I was on about yesterday.

I agree with you that it's not impossible to get everyone to agree to an ethical framework, but that is, in essence, relativism (the thing I thought you were set against).

Now, we might have different ideas of what relativism means. I think the standard dictionary.com one works for me:

rel�a�tiv�ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rl-t-vzm)
n. Philosophy
A theory, especially in ethics or aesthetics, that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them.

So even a theory agreed to by everyone would be relative because it wouldn't be Absolute (capital A) even if it is effectively an absolute (lower case a) by virtue of applying to everyone who agrees to abide by it.

It wouldn't be Absolute in the Ahistorical, Immutable sence that most people who call themselves Absolutists would use the word.

I honestly hope you get what I'm trying to communicate here. This is what I was trying to communicate yesterday when things really broke down.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Macfreak7:
Everyone has their own beliefs, yes. Nonetheless, not all beliefs are educated, rational or logical. For example, i could believe that a rock has powers and it will deliver me from all monstrosity. But of course that isn't true no matter how strong my belief may be, or no matter how many people share my belief.

So the idea is to rationalize and THEN construct beliefs or have moral values, etc. NOT believe, or create moral standards, and THEN rationalize. That can be VERY tricky, and people often confuse the two.

So you're of the view that rational though is inherently better than irrations (emotional) thought?

Personally, I think our emotions can be usefull sometimes. They can alert us to things that our concious mind didn't notice or recognize.

This isn't to say that emotions are necessary, but emotions and irrationality can be a good thing sometimes.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
This isn't to say that emotions are necessary, but emotions and irrationality can be a good thing sometimes.

Absolutely. My love of Prokofiev is completely irrational.

[Macfreak7]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
*snip*
I honestly hope you get what I'm trying to communicate here. This is what I was trying to communicate yesterday when things really broke down.

That's because you're being constantly redundant and not opening your thoughts enough. Why did you define relativism? Right from my first post we've been talking about cultural relativism. By repeating everything you're just confusing yourself and frustrating me!

Ok i'll try one more time. Consider a hypothetical situation where everyone has infact decided on a set of axioms based upon which acts will be deemed moral or immoral. This creates a reference point along which there could be an entire scale of different values, within limits set by those very axioms.

Imagine this. There is a large field with two (for simplicity) poles dug into the ground, pole A and pole B. On each of these poles there is a horse tied by a rope of X meters. Now the horse can only stray within a circle of X meters with the pole at the center of the circle.
Now think of the pole as the set of axioms. Everything within the circle formed by one circle is relative to that circles pole. You cannot compare the content present in circle B to that of circle A for obvious reasons. HOWEVER, if you had ONE pole, two (again for simplicity) horses tied by a rope that is 5 and 10 meters long respectively, you will be able to compare the motion of the horses because they are within the same circle, and there is only ONE reference point (pole).

I know that analogy wasn't perfect, but i think it should help you get the point.

Cultural Relativism allows multiple reference points which vary according to each culture. This could create limitless reference points. I mean why stop at 10, or 20, or whatever? So the 'universal axioms' wouldn't be completely deterministic, they would involve A RANGE or degrees of variation, WITHIN itself. These variations could be based on differences in the environment or maybe wealth of the nation or other such factors.

[Macfreak7]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
So you're of the view that rational though is inherently better than irrations (emotional) thought?

Personally, I think our emotions can be usefull sometimes. They can alert us to things that our concious mind didn't notice or recognize.

This isn't to say that emotions are necessary, but emotions and irrationality can be a good thing sometimes.

That's interesting. I had an argument with my english teacher who insists that emotions are king. She insists that you act, and THEN rationalize. Animals act on pure instinct (emotion). They do not rationalize later because they arguably do not have the ability. (Now of course one could argue that your dog is smarter than a frog, but none of them has the level of rationality that man does). Often you might want to act on instinct or experience, but 8 times out of 10, you want to rationlize, think of the factors involved, think of the consequences AND THEN act. So i'm not asking you to go with my view per se, because it's *MY* view, but only because it is more logical than allowing your emotions to control your acts without a hint of reasoning.

[thunderous_funker]

Once again its clear to me that we are talkikng past each other because we are using words in very different ways. That's why I keep telling you how I am using words. I'm repeating it because I don't feel you are seeing my point, just as you feel I continuously miss yours.

I don't think I am missing your point. In fact, I think I've understood your point from the first.

What I seem to be unable to convey to you is that some philosphers who consider themselves Relativists would completely agree with what you are saying. Others would not. There is considerable diversity in the Relativist camp.

Some relativists say "because everyone sees things differently, no one way of seeing things is inherently better than any other."

This is the position you are against, as I read you. You want to say that some ways of looking at things are inherently better than other ways. Not only that, but you also seem to believe that people are capable of discovering what those better ways are. Furthermore, It seems to me that you would argue that rationality is a better tool for discovering those better ways of looking at things.

What I'm saying to you is that some Relativists would agree with you, including myself.

Some ways of looking at things are indeed better than other ways at looking at things. I agree 100%.

Where it gets dodgy is agreeing on what makes one way of looking at things better than another and how do we know.

[thunderous_funker]

I just happened upon a terrificly well written bit on exactly the kind of relativism I am talking about.

The Truth in Ethical Relativism