Absolutism vs Relativism

[heretic888]

Well, seems one piece of evidence supporting my idea of absolutes has reared its ugly head.

Sure, if you consider your "moral absolutes" to have not existed before 3,000 years ago. No one was talking about the Golden Rule before then.

Of course, I am more inclined to take the apparent universalism of moral principles like the Golden Rule to be moreso evidence of something like a hierarchy of moral reasoning a la Lawrence Kohlberg's developmental theory. The Golden Rule is obviously based in post-conventional moral reasoning. The greatest philosophical elaboration of Kohlberg's theories was perhaps accomplished by Jurgen Habermas, whose work I would highly recommend.

When something is developmentally contingent --- as we see with the theories of Baldwin, Piaget, Kohlberg, Gilligan, Graves, Loevinger, and others --- this necessarily excludes the idea of a "moral absolute". In essence, what may be considered "right" or "wrong" by its very nature changes considerably with each new stage of moral development, not even taking into account the obvious differences that cultural upbringing will have on moral outlook. In fact, an outlook involving absolutistic rules of unvarying moral principles is generally considered to be a lower level of moral development (roughly corresponding with Kohlberg's sociocentric stages) than what we see with the "social contract" and "moral universalism" approaches of the higher levels.

It also doesn't help matters that a relativistic stage of cognitive development is generally held to be a real stage of post-formal development among neo-Piagetian researchers today, like Sinnot, Labouvie-Fief, Blanchards, and others. Relativistic stages also have some role in Grave's model of psychosocial development and Loevinger's model of ego-development.

When there's this much smoke, that's probably a good indication that the fire is actually there.

One could take the elitist route, of course, and claim that the moral standards of the purported "highest" stage of development are the moral absolutes we should all aspire to. But, this is problematic in that a) it necessarily assumes that one's developmental stage is the highest, and b) it involves a rather lopsided and unhealthy view of psychological development. In essence, this would be like demanding someone only capable of doing high school geometry should be living up to the "absolutes" of advanced calculus. Obviously, that's not how it works.

Just some things to ponder.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

No offense fellas, but your debate is ALL relative to your perspective points of view, and there is no absolute to any of it.

Except, of course, the view that there is no absolute to any of it, right?

This is precisely the flaw of the Relativistic Fallacy: it absolutistically claims there are no absolutes, a performative self-contradiction of incredible proportions. American philosopher Ken Wilber has written extensively on this subject in his recent Boomeritis novel, as well as his more academic publications.

Don't get me wrong: I don't buy into the idea that there are a priori absolutes that should be applied to all people in all places at all times. However, relativism is just another form of absolutism, just a bit more cleverly disguised. One need only examine the logical premises it rests upon to observe this fact.

This is why I previously argued for a developmental-evolutionary contextualism, in place of any kind of absolutistic relativism.

Laterz.

 

[Floating Egg]

Semantical arguments aside, I guess you must know better than I my point or reasons for starting this thread. Please guys, I love a good honest discussion, but if you can't make your point without either personal attacks, false assumptions, or trying to say what I'm saying is actually not true and I'm arguing a different subject without my own knowledge of it...maybe we should just abandon this circular thread.

I don't think brushing away the meanings of words and their relationships is a wise decision considering how difficult communication is even when we read and write in the same language. When did I attack you personally, and what was false about my assumptions? In most of my posts, I've actually quoted you, and I certainly haven't changed the wording for my own purposes. It's possible that I didn't understand the meaning of your words, but I have no way of knowing that unless you actually answer my questions.

You have the opportunity to either restate your argument or address my refutations. Both of these would be positive alternatives to abandoning the thread, which I'm not advocating. What I'm suggesting is moving this discussion in a more productive direction.

Again, you have found proof that what I'm saying is a lie and I'm trying to sneak it past your guard in hopes of making you agree to something you think you are not agreeing to (foghorn leghorn style that is) C'mon, honest debate or slightly veiled attempts at turning my posts into something you can actually disprove?

What I found was a contradiction, which does not imply a lie, at least not in this case. You seem to have taken my refutations personally. I have consistently addressed your arguments from the beginning, and my last post was no exception.

Your right, if you can get the readers of this thread (which are probably quite few by now) to believe what you tell them I'm saying instead of what I am saying, you can surely disprove what you say I'm saying
Please see my previous posts for the evidence I have posted.

Oh, I think the readers are more than capable of making a judgment without my use of rhetoric, but it's sometimes beneficial to address the audience, especially when there is an issue of clarity.

Again, semantical tangles and slightly vieled personal attacks still make no point here. I've provided evidence to support my belief, all that is missing now is your evidence to support your belief....Oh wait, you dont have to offer evidence because I'm the one making a claim. Seems to me quite a few people hav made claims about relativism here on this thread...guess I could cry foul and say I'm refraining from posting counterarguments until they produce evidence, but I'm more interested in honest discussion.

It's not an Ad Hominem, if that's what you mean. I haven't attacked your character or your circumstances. You have not posed a strong argument, and you have displayed a lack of understanding concerning the rules of argumentation.

You have not provided evidence to support your belief, though numerous opportunities have been provided for you to do so. If you’re interested in pursuing this, please state your evidence. And you are correct; the burden of proof lies with you because you made the original assertion.

I guess you again get to decide the "default" position eh? In my eyes the "default" position is agaisnt relativism. ITs all a matter of viewpoint.

The default position is skepticism unless you support your assertion.

Listen, bottom line is you have contributed nothing to this thread except attacks on my posts rather than points. If you have some evidence or opinoins/ideas on this subject by all means post them, if not you might consider sitting this one out.

My contribution is the refutation of your argument, which is a perfectly valid strategy.

Lets try and remain focused here on the actual subject. I have provided evidence of why I believe in standards and absolutes in this physical world. Morals we can agree are set by cultures and so moral relativism is not what I'm debating against (contrary to popular opinion ). Relativism below morals, relativism of standards that base what cultures have set their morals on.

What do you mean that standards and absolutes exist in this physical world? Does that mean that they exist despite the presence of human beings or are human beings necessary for them to exist? What is your evidence that they exist beyond your belief?

If you're not debating against moral relativism, how are you using the world relativism in this context? Recall that I posted the definition of relativism in my earlier post if you need to refer back to it.

 

[Floating Egg]

heretic888,

If I accepted claims one through four below, would you consider me a moral relativist?

1. Moral statements have truth values;
2. There are good and bad arguments for the moral positions people take;
3. Nonmoral facts (states of affairs that obtain in the world and that can be described without use of moral terms such as 'ought,' 'good,' and 'right') are relevant to the assessment of the truth value of moral statements;
4. There are moral facts (that may or may not be claimed to be reducible in some way to nonmoral facts);
5. When two moral statements conflict as recommendations to action, only one statement can be true;
6. There is a single true morality.

 

[Makalakumu]

As Floating Egg said, Christianity did not invent the Golden Rule.

Not only is the Golden Rule found in pretty much every organized world religion I can think of, but it was also a mainstay of both Hellenistic and Jewish philosophy of the time. One is reminded of the first century Rabbi Hillel's comment that the Law teaches "to love one's brother as oneself, the rest is commentary". Hell, you don't have to look any farther than Socrates and Plato to see ample precedent for the Golden Rule in Western civilization.

That, and "Jesus Christ" most likely didn't even exist in the first place.

Laterz.

A good test to see if the Golden Rule is an absolute is to look for evidence of the golden rule in civilizations that existed before there was any contect with any civilizations from eurasia.

In eurasia, because it is one big land mass, there are no insurmountable barriers for ideas. Thus, principles from the east and west are commonly shared...including the Golden Rule.

If it were an absolute, then we should be able to see evidence of it in aboriginal Australia and many of the pacific island cultures, as well as the North American cultures, ie the Aztec and Maya cultures.

The bottom line is that before we can call something an absolute, we should be able to see evidence of its existance in all cultures.

 

[Makalakumu]

Your argument is hinging on your opinion or assumption of what people hundreds of years ago "surely could imagine", "could believe" and "would believe". This is a fallacious argument if one has ever existed. Lets be honest, you wouldn't let me get away with a suppositious argument like that, why would you try and pass it by?

I'm sorry, your logic here is quite flawed, you simply cannot put words into the mouths or thoughts into the heads of past societies. What I said was that regardless of their beliefs, the world was indeed round. You seem to ignore that part in order to continue placing assumptions on what they might have done, or should have done in stead of what they actually did.

There is nothing flawed about this assumption. If people today could wonder about the existance of various phenomenon without any viable proof, then people hundreds of years ago could too. A human's brain doesn't evolve that fast.

Seriously, I have posted them in almost every one of my last posts....I'm too tired to repeat myself once again. Please see my previous posts.

The last part of my post was my polite way of saying that you haven't shown a thing that supports your position of absolutes. You've given many tautalogical statements as proof, but those do not constitute as proof. The only peice of actual evidence of an absolute that has been presented thus far is the existance of the Golden Rule in Eurasia...my post above deals with that.

 

[Makalakumu]

One could take the elitist route, of course, and claim that the moral standards of the purported "highest" stage of development are the moral absolutes we should all aspire to. But, this is problematic in that a) it necessarily assumes that one's developmental stage is the highest, and b) it involves a rather lopsided and unhealthy view of psychological development. In essence, this would be like demanding someone only capable of doing high school geometry should be living up to the "absolutes" of advanced calculus. Obviously, that's not how it works.

I don't ever think this highest level will ever be attainable by anyone as long people remain separate and there is a limited the flow of ideas.

I personally favor the idea that our morality springs from coincidence...ei environmental and geographical factors. Societies develop rules to help them survive and change them when circumstances change. I do not think there is any hierarchy of development. That whole concept screams of elitism....ie my morals are more developed and thus "better" then yours.

 

[7starmantis]

This is precisely the flaw of the Relativistic Fallacy: it absolutistically claims there are no absolutes, a performative self-contradiction of incredible proportions. American philosopher Ken Wilber has written extensively on this subject in his recent Boomeritis novel, as well as his more academic publications.

Imagine that, we find ourselves agreeing :wink: I've been saying this throughout the entire thread.

You have not provided evidence to support your belief, though numerous opportunities have been provided for you to do so. If you’re interested in pursuing this, please state your evidence. And you are correct; the burden of proof lies with you because you made the original assertion.

Please see my previous posts for evidence. I guess you could say I made the original assertion, unless you take into account the original assertion for relativism that lead to me making this thread. The truth is that regardless of the "rules of engagement" regarding argumentative debate, the sure way to disprove anothers idea or prove your own is to offer evidence, which you have yet to do for your belief system regarding absolutes and relativism. Attacking my supposed understanding of the rules of argumentation or playing a semantical trap game simply isn't supporting your claims of relativism. Bottom line. See, even if you could show me to be an illogical unintellegent person, you have not supported your own claim thus allowing those who disagree with you no proof of anything but my own flawed intelect.

The default position is skepticism unless you support your assertion.

Your default position, not the default position.

My contribution is the refutation of your argument, which is a perfectly valid strategy.

Correct, except it is lacking in any support of your own claims.

Ok, back to the actual topic.

The bottom line is that before we can call something an absolute, we should be able to see evidence of its existance in all cultures.

Why? Because if an absolute exists everyone will see it, understand it, and agree with it? Thats a huge false premise and you have yet to offer proof that we should accept that kind of reasoning. If a standard can be proven or disproven by simply counting people that agree with it, you should offer some type of proof to support that claim.

There is nothing flawed about this assumption. If people today could wonder about the existance of various phenomenon without any viable proof, then people hundreds of years ago could too. A human's brain doesn't evolve that fast.

Actually there is a great deal. The problem is that when dealing with history, it is not wise to accept suppositions about what these past peoples "could" or "would" have done. We can only look at actual history and see what they actually did do. Your providing as evidence, the fact that historical figures "would have" or "should have" is trite and non-verifiable and thus your own opinion....not really evidence of anything except that your willing to accept relativism as absolute liken to dogma or faith, regardless of the evidence to support it.

The last part of my post was my polite way of saying that you haven't shown a thing that supports your position of absolutes. You've given many tautalogical statements as proof, but those do not constitute as proof. The only peice of actual evidence of an absolute that has been presented thus far is the existance of the Golden Rule in Eurasia...my post above deals with that.

Of course, because anything you refuse to address or ignore is thus not presented, right? :wink: This is getting tiresome. Are we seriously going to change each others minds here? Again, please see my previous posts for my evidence such as shared human rights. See the problem is your looking for absolute acceptance to prove absolutes exist. I'm offering that acceptance has nothing to do with the existance of anything...the flat earth example. The fact that you agree absolutes exist outside of accepted morals is exactly what I'm saying...we agree. I dont believe an absolute exists that is accepted by everyone in their own morals....but that doesn't change the fact that absolutes do exist. I'm simply countering your "All is relative" statements. Absolutistic relativism is proof in and of itself of absolutes. We are simply arguing on different ideas. Your are trying to change absolutism into accepted absolutism which is not existent. I'm showing that absolutes exist, outside of culture, and outside of morals. Show me one idea that everyone has ever agreed on...there isn't one. Does that means nothing has ever been absolute? Of course not...thats a huge assumption your asking people to make simply to agree with your posts. This is a common argument made by people who hold something as a belief system and yet do not have the evidence to support it. It states that the opposite side can't prove their point, so mine must be right. Flawed, horrible flawed. :wink:

7sm

 

[Makalakumu]

Actually there is a great deal. The problem is that when dealing with history, it is not wise to accept suppositions about what these past peoples "could" or "would" have done. We can only look at actual history and see what they actually did do. Your providing as evidence, the fact that historical figures "would have" or "should have" is trite and non-verifiable and thus your own opinion....not really evidence of anything except that your willing to accept relativism as absolute liken to dogma or faith, regardless of the evidence to support it.

In this case, we have a written record of what people thought at the time. As a student of the philosophy of science, I've read some of it. People like Gallileo have clearly demonstrated their ability to speculate. And that is really what we are arguing...whether or not people in the past speculated...

Again, please see my previous posts for my evidence such as shared human rights.

You have not been able to show that there is such a thing as universal human rights. All we have are your tautalogical explanations that they are shared.

See the problem is your looking for absolute acceptance to prove absolutes exist. I'm offering that acceptance has nothing to do with the existance of anything...the flat earth example. The fact that you agree absolutes exist outside of accepted morals is exactly what I'm saying...we agree. I dont believe an absolute exists that is accepted by everyone in their own morals....but that doesn't change the fact that absolutes do exist.

You believe that absolutes exists. This belief has not been demonstrated as reality.

I'm simply countering your "All is relative" statements. Absolutistic relativism is proof in and of itself of absolutes.

I'm not arguing absolutistic relativism in regards to morality. In fact, my position is deterministic...ie morality is determined by circumstance...this is not pure relativism.

We are simply arguing on different ideas. Your are trying to change absolutism into accepted absolutism which is not existent. I'm showing that absolutes exist, outside of culture, and outside of morals. Show me one idea that everyone has ever agreed on...there isn't one. Does that means nothing has ever been absolute? Of course not...thats a huge assumption your asking people to make simply to agree with your posts.

How is anyone supposed to know about these absolutes? How could anyone find anything about them? If we can't look to ideas in culture and attempt to find some commonality in order to show that absolutes exist, then how is anyone going to show that they exist at all? Even your point about share human rights falls short here. If no culture really shares a universal notion of human rights, how is anyone supposed to know what that notion is supposed to be?

This is a common argument made by people who hold something as a belief system and yet do not have the evidence to support it. It states that the opposite side can't prove their point, so mine must be right. Flawed, horrible flawed. :wink:

Ditto.

 

[Floating Egg]

Please see my previous posts for evidence.

I see only repetition of your original claim in different words. Once again, you have the opportunity to restate your evidence.

The truth is that regardless of the "rules of engagement" regarding argumentative debate, the sure way to disprove anothers idea or prove your own is to offer evidence, which you have yet to do for your belief system regarding absolutes and relativism.

If I can demonstrate that your argument is not valid, there is no need for me to support my position. I didn't make any truth claims, so the onus is not on me. Even if I was undecided regarding this issue, I would still be engaged in refutation.

Attacking my supposed understanding of the rules of argumentation or playing a semantical trap game simply isn't supporting your claims of relativism. Bottom line. See, even if you could show me to be an illogical unintellegent person, you have not supported your own claim thus allowing those who disagree with you no proof of anything but my own flawed intelect.

I have adopted the position of a skeptic, not a moral relativist. If I supported the absolutist position, your argument would still be invalid.

Your default position, not the default position.

The alternative is irrational.

Correct, except it is lacking in any support of your own claims.

I have made two claims of relevence:
1. I am a moral relativist.
2. Moral relativism is not a single doctrine.

Regarding the first claim, how do you intend to challenge my belief that I am a moral relativist? You don't require support for my second claim because you agreed with me earlier in the thread.

 

[heretic888]

heretic888,

If I accepted claims one through four below, would you consider me a moral relativist?

1. Moral statements have truth values;
2. There are good and bad arguments for the moral positions people take;
3. Nonmoral facts (states of affairs that obtain in the world and that can be described without use of moral terms such as 'ought,' 'good,' and 'right') are relevant to the assessment of the truth value of moral statements;
4. There are moral facts (that may or may not be claimed to be reducible in some way to nonmoral facts);
5. When two moral statements conflict as recommendations to action, only one statement can be true;
6. There is a single true morality.

No, I wouldn't.

 

[heretic888]

A good test to see if the Golden Rule is an absolute is to look for evidence of the golden rule in civilizations that existed before there was any contect with any civilizations from eurasia.

In eurasia, because it is one big land mass, there are no insurmountable barriers for ideas. Thus, principles from the east and west are commonly shared...including the Golden Rule.

If it were an absolute, then we should be able to see evidence of it in aboriginal Australia and many of the pacific island cultures, as well as the North American cultures, ie the Aztec and Maya cultures.

The bottom line is that before we can call something an absolute, we should be able to see evidence of its existance in all cultures.

Not necessarily.

The basic claim behind moral absolutism, as far as I can tell, is that these absolutes exist somewhat like Platonic Forms. They are a priori structures that exist "outside" of day-to-day life, and are supposedly eternal and unchanging in nature.

Observing that certain moral principles exist cross-culturally would not necessarily provide evidence for the moral absolutist one way or the other. It could very well be that these absolutes exist, but most (maybe even all) human cultures simply don't know about them. By the same token, the absolutist could also claim that a moral principle that seems to exist cross-culturally is, in fact, not a moral absolute at all.

In other words, the cultural universality of a given moral precept has no bearing on the absolutist's position whatsoever, either in the positive or the negative. However, this then brings up the issue of what reason is there to believe such moral absolutes exist in the first place. Thus far, we have been given nothing outside of fallacious Appeals To Belief.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

I don't ever think this highest level will ever be attainable by anyone as long people remain separate and there is a limited the flow of ideas.

This "highest level" was a touch of rhetoric on my part, in that it assumes that the developmental hierarchy is a "closed system". We have no compelling reason to believe this to be the case. This would essentially be claiming that, at some point, evolution would just give up and close shop. I find such a proposal to be absurd.

I personally favor the idea that our morality springs from coincidence...ei environmental and geographical factors. Societies develop rules to help them survive and change them when circumstances change. I do not think there is any hierarchy of development. That whole concept screams of elitism....ie my morals are more developed and thus "better" then yours.

One is free to "think" and "feel" as one wishes, of course, but I prefer scientific fallibilism to Appeals To Belief.

As you stated before, I'm the one that is studying this subject matter. Trust me when I say that Jean Piaget's theory of developmental-structuralism is probably the most well-grounded, well-supported, and generally accepted explanation we have concerning human development. That doesn't mean it's perfect, mind you, or that Piaget made mistakes in some of his estimations (he tended to underestimate the capacities of infants, for example, and didn't seem to have a solid grasp of the domain-specific nature of hierarchical development). However, the fact remains that it is an extremely well-supported model and virtually all modern models of human development rest on his insights to some degree.

One of this insights, simply enough, is that cognitive development occurs via a hierarchy of semi-discrete "stages" or "levels": the familiar sensori-motor, pre-operational, concrete-operational, and formal-operational. A number of neo-Piagetian researchers have also been increasingly bringing forth studies and data that indicates the existence of one or more post-formal stages of cognitive reasoning, which typically involve a lower stage of relativistic thought and a higher stage of dialectical thought.

Piaget isn't the only developmentalist to advocate a hierarchical model of development. Clare Graves' psychosocial model, Jane Loevinger's ego-maturity model, Lawrence Kohlberg's moral reasoning model, and even Howard Gardner's multiple intelligences model (which proposes the existence of universal "stages" across domains) could all be mentioned here.

You seem to be championing Vygotsky's model of social learning. This is an interesting and important position, of course, but more than one psychologist has commented that simply telling us that human development depends on your culture doesn't actually tell us much about human development at all, nor can we make testable hypotheses on such a pronouncement.

Most developmental psychologists today tend to use a combination of Vygotsky's domain-specificity and Piaget's universal-stages approaches to come to a sort of moderate balance. One popular example is Gardner's multiple intelligences theory, which proposes there are both specific domains of development that are heavily conditioned by sociocultural context and universal stages or levels that run across those semi-independent domains.

So, in summation, there is a hiearchy. Sort of.

Laterz.

 

[Floating Egg]

heretic888,

I pulled that list from a book called Moral Relativity. The author, David B. Wong, believes that a relativist can accept claims one through four. I haven't read the book, but Wong is one of moral relativism's most ardent defenders. Of course, one could argue that Wong doesn't advocate a form of pure moral relativism.

 

[heretic888]

heretic888,

I pulled that list from a book called Moral Relativity. The author, David B. Wong, believes that a relativist can accept claims one through four. I haven't read the book, but Wong is one of moral relativism's most ardent defenders. Of course, one could argue that Wong doesn't advocate a form of pure moral relativism.

Well, as you said, there is more than one form of moral relativism.

Ultimately, to make any analysis of Mr. Wong's statements I would have to know the particular context in which he voices his position. I have a feeling that what he is calling relativism is more properly described as contextualism or situationalism, which I myself have some sympathy to.

Laterz.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

You guys are getting way to deep for me.

The way I see it, if I didnt want something awful like rape or murder to happen to me or someone I loved, I wouldnt want anybody else to be able to do it to somebody else either and Id do what it took to stop them.

 

[heretic888]

You guys are getting way to deep for me.

"Deep" subjects by their very nature involve correspondingly "deep" discussions.

The way I see it, if I didnt want something awful like rape or murder to happen to me or someone I loved, I wouldnt want anybody else to be able to do it to somebody else either and Id do what it took to stop them.

Which is nice and all, but not particularly relevant to the discussion of moral absolutism versus moral relativism.

Laterz.

 

[7starmantis]

In this case, we have a written record of what people thought at the time. As a student of the philosophy of science, I've read some of it. People like Gallileo have clearly demonstrated their ability to speculate. And that is really what we are arguing...whether or not people in the past speculated...

Your steering around my point. I'm not arguing the ability of past historical societies to speculate, I'm arguing your speculation written off as history because you try to put your words in the mouths of historical societies. The ability of past societies to speculate has no bearing on what they actually did speculate, we have records of this, and its not a present speculation but past speculations. These said historical societies do not still contain the ability to speculate. You were using them as so.

You have not been able to show that there is such a thing as universal human rights. All we have are your tautalogical explanations that they are shared.

Wait, universal human rights and shared human rights are different. All that is needed to see the absolut of human rights is to look back across the timeline of history. Since the beginning of time cultures have "accepted", "believed" and even "shared" basic human rights. This exists is an extremely long line of evidence of human rights as an absolute. Now, which human rights are more right than others is another discussion, you simply asked for evidence of absolutes. This is one, as is your own admission of absolutes outside of socially accepted actions. Remember, I'm not debating (contrary to popular opinion) moral absolutes, that would require all cultures to accept and act the same way....never happened, never will happen. However, this in and of itself is not proof of the void of absolutes or relativism. Outside of accepted actions there exist absolutes, you have agreed with me here. So why is it so hard to see that these accepted absolutes contain absolutes that cultures have based their morals on? You can see with the one simple example of human rights. They have been around since the beginning of time (or the beginning of recorded time).

How is anyone supposed to know about these absolutes? How could anyone find anything about them? If we can't look to ideas in culture and attempt to find some commonality in order to show that absolutes exist, then how is anyone going to show that they exist at all? Even your point about share human rights falls short here. If no culture really shares a universal notion of human rights, how is anyone supposed to know what that notion is supposed to be?

Well now thats another issue alltogether. We were discussing the existence of absolutes, not how peoples and cultures learn them. We actually can look to ideas in culture and see the existence of absolutes. Look back through time, you will not only find basic human rights but a large string of cultures who share the same basic human rights such as rape, murder, etc. This is evidentiary proof of "some commonality". Your asking for absolutistic commonality, this is impossible evidence you are requiring. Never will the entirety of human beings agree, that doesn't prove or disprove absolutes, it only shows individualism. What your doing is requiring impossible and nonexistant standards for proof of something you simply do not believe. Proof of existance is simply not resting on the whole of the earth's population agreeing.


7sm

 

[heretic888]

All that is needed to see the absolut of human rights is to look back across the timeline of history. Since the beginning of time cultures have "accepted", "believed" and even "shared" basic human rights. This exists is an extremely long line of evidence of human rights as an absolute.

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.

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.

We actually can look to ideas in culture and see the existence of absolutes. Look back through time, you will not only find basic human rights but a large string of cultures who share the same basic human rights such as rape, murder, etc. This is evidentiary proof of "some commonality".

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

Commonality can be historically or culturally contingent. The evolutionary theory of reciprocal altruism can be mentioned here, as can Baldwinian organic selection. Both of these explanations are far more parsimonious than the assumption that there are a priori metaphysical Ideals that exist outside of time, space, and human culture.

This would, in essence, by like claiming that our bipedal posture is a biological "absolute" of the human condition. However, it does not necessarly follow that something that is universally shared possess an absolutistic metaphysical status. And, in the case of bipedal posture, this is most assuredly the case. It is contingent on our evolutionary history (and environment), among other things.

Laterz.

 

[sgtmac_46]

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)