Absolutism vs Relativism

[arnisador]

Nope, no Godwin here...you didn't use the N-word or the H-word.

Yours is a very Darwinian point-of-view!

 

[Rich Parsons]

There is only one absolute rule of nature, that applies to all levels of moral and ethical questions....life is conflict at every level. Morals and ethics are nothing more than an attempt to control conflict between individuals, for the purposes of guiding in an effort to compete against what is perceived as a greater threat. From craddle to grave, life is conflict.

Each more advanced level of biological and social life just enters in to a different level of conflict.

I defy anyone to provide an example of any level of life that is not, first and last, in constant conflict. The very debate itself will illustrate my point....that even humans who have evolved beyond physical conflict, are in a constant state of philosophical and intellectual conflict. This room illustrates this point perfectly.



* (Note, I will LAUGH uncontrollably if someone invokes Godwin as a respone to this post)

*** Evoking Power engaged ***

"Godwin"



Seriously, Conflict is there, and to add to your point society even creates laws with punishment in mind to help control that level of conflict in a society.

 

[heretic888]

For some reason, I am suddenly reminded of the First Noble Truth of Buddhism.

Laterz.

 

[7starmantis]

The purported universality or commonality of certain cross-cultural moral ethos in no way, shape, or form constitutes actual proof for the existence of moral absolutes. Indeed, according to your own arguments, moral absolutes exist even if nobody on earth believes and them and, furthermore, even a belief that is universally subscribed to, without exception, does not intrinsically become a moral absolute.

Ergo, the number of people or cultures that subscribes to a given ethos has no direct bearing on its "absolute" status, either in the positive or the negative. This is not proof.

Not to me, no. But it was the proof requested and so I showed it. In keeping with your post there is no way to "prove" either side, so why the big discussion?

Additionally, the claim that a set of universal "human rights" goes all the way back to Dawn Man is, very simply, a false claim. We do not see anything of this sort until the development of what is generally considered "civilization" (i.e., the rise of the city-state), some 5,000 or so years ago, in which societies began to establish criteria for citizenship beyond ethnic and kinship lines. Pre-state humans defined "humanity" only by those that shared their blood.

Actually that is incorrect. Your confusing established "criteria" or rule sets as human rights. Human rights in some form or another have existed since the beginning of our records of time. They haven't all agreed on the same human rights, but some facit of rights have been used.

I would love to see some type of source or proof for the claim that human rights were absent until some 5,000 years ago or the rise of the "city-state". I'm not claiming for absolute acceptance, but the fact that human rights in some manner have been used over the course of history does show the existence of an absolute of human rights according to the definition and rules said "proof" must obey (offered in this thread).

"Some commonality" is not the same thing as "moral absolutes".

Exactly, my point. Oh, by the way, I'm not arguing for moral absolutes, I may not have said that yet.

I was responding to Upnorth's post and quoting his use of "some commonality" being absent, I simply showed his "some commonality" as being present.

7sm

 

[heretic888]

Not to me, no. But it was the proof requested and so I showed it. In keeping with your post there is no way to "prove" either side, so why the big discussion?

Neither absolutism nor relativism can be morally "proven" because they are both constructed worldviews.

Actually that is incorrect. Your confusing established "criteria" or rule sets as human rights. Human rights in some form or another have existed since the beginning of our records of time. They haven't all agreed on the same human rights, but some facit of rights have been used.

If by "human rights", you simply mean cultural ethos of some form or another, then you're certainly right. We are social animals, after all, and much of our "intelligence" evolved to meet the demands of community interactions.

But, even so, that doesn't tell us anything about moral absolutes, since these ethos differ drastically from culture to culture and from epoch to epoch. In essence, it's like saying that cooking in some form or another has existed since the beginning of our records of time.

One's response is, basically, "so what?".

I would love to see some type of source or proof for the claim that human rights were absent until some 5,000 years ago or the rise of the "city-state".

It depends on how you define "human rights".

The organized city-state was the first type of society to actually advocate a non-ethnic view of citizenship, thus its significance.

I'm not claiming for absolute acceptance, but the fact that human rights in some manner have been used over the course of history does show the existence of an absolute of human rights according to the definition and rules said "proof" must obey (offered in this thread).

No, it just means that it may have provided an adaptive advantage in the past. Incest, for example, is virtually universally taboo in every human culture, but this is largely because of evolutionary reasons (i.e., it is maladaptive to mate with those that share your same gene pool).

If something is contingent on evolutionary history, it is not an absolute.

Exactly, my point. Oh, by the way, I'm not arguing for moral absolutes, I may not have said that yet.

Oh, really?? Could have fooled me.

I was responding to Upnorth's post and quoting his use of "some commonality" being absent, I simply showed his "some commonality" as being present.

There is a great deal of commonality and universality among human cultures in regards to many structures, but this still does not constitute proof for or against moral absolutism.

Laterz.

 

[7starmantis]

Neither absolutism nor relativism can be morally "proven" because they are both constructed worldviews.

Of course. It seems you are begining to mirror my own original posts....odd how that happens, no?

If by "human rights", you simply mean cultural ethos of some form or another, then you're certainly right. We are social animals, after all, and much of our "intelligence" evolved to meet the demands of community interactions.

But, even so, that doesn't tell us anything about moral absolutes, since these ethos differ drastically from culture to culture and from epoch to epoch. In essence, it's like saying that cooking in some form or another has existed since the beginning of our records of time.

One's response is, basically, "so what?".

Wow...I guess its easy to defeat your opponent in a debate if you argue what they are not discussing, right? I'm not talking of morally accepted absolutes, or moral absolutes at all. The word "moral" or "morals" means what is generally accepted, I'm speaking of what may not be generally accepted. to answer the question "so what"? We must look at what I was responding to. It was stated that you could not see a line through history of cultures accepting rape as wrong. I showed that you could see both sides of that argument through history, but that neither proved or disproved absolutes or relativism.

The real debate here is how we can accept something like rape simply because others do. How can we deny the absolute misdeed of rape simply because not everyone sees it that way. Rape is an offense against the victim 100% of the time. If thats not absolute, I dont know what is. How can we say then that this offense is: right, condign, appropriate, just, or whatever term you wish to use? That absolute has not changed. The acceptence of that absolute has changed by people other than the victims, but the base absolute has not changed.

It depends on how you define "human rights".

The organized city-state was the first type of society to actually advocate a non-ethnic view of citizenship, thus its significance.

Thats a great source and/or proof for your claim, thank you for supplying it so quickly and easily. :wink:

Why the withholding of requested source or proof?

No, it just means that it may have provided an adaptive advantage in the past. Incest, for example, is virtually universally taboo in every human culture, but this is largely because of evolutionary reasons (i.e., it is maladaptive to mate with those that share your same gene pool).

If something is contingent on evolutionary history, it is not an absolute.

Ok, read my post again. The fact of it providing an adaptive advantage in the past has no bearing....it is still absolute in that it has been seen and "used" throughout history. Human rights has been absolute from the beginning as proved by the definition of "proof" in this thread. I was asked to show an acceptance of an absolute throughout history....I have. Does it really prove waht is or is not absolute, no. It does offer great evidence of absolutes however.

We're not talking incest here, but it is a great example for your point. If we are going to talk specifics, we were discussing rape.

Oh, really?? Could have fooled me.

Which is why you respond in a manner that doesn't directly address my points. Your responding to what you assume I am saying. I've allready addressed the "moral" issue above.

There is a great deal of commonality and universality among human cultures in regards to many structures, but this still does not constitute proof for or against moral absolutism.

Ding Ding Ding...give that man a kubie doll! Thats almost a direct quote of my earlier posts. It doesn't constitute proof for or against moral relativism either.

My main issue here is that actions such as rape are being accepted simply becasue ther are groups of people who accept them and those people in our culture want to seem accepting or tolerant. Its become un-politically correct to say someone is "wrong" but that doesn't change the facts. Its become politically correct to say "well everyone is right" so we dont "offend" anyone, but I propose that rape is quite offensive, if not to anyone else, it is to me.

7sm