Relativism

[32k]

relativism in moral sense, is false as things like murder, rape, violence, deception, etc are Objectively wrong.

"relativism" is immoral

Yet people disagree. Would I not be right in saying that "murder, rape and violence" are only wrong depending on your social structure and/or philosophy?

The fact that you're a Christian and believe the Bible to be God's infallible Word suggests that you would avoid murder, rape, violence etc. However, for those of us who do not subject ourselves to the authority of Scripture; murder, rape, violence etc. may be permissible in some given situations.


To help stimulate discussion more I'll throw in a few claims often associated with Relativism. Feel free to give your thoughts on them:

All truth is relative
There are no absolute truths
What is true for you is not true for me
No one can know anything for sure
We all perceive what we want
We perceive different aspects of the same reality

 

[dysert]

Yet people disagree. Would I not be right in saying that "murder, rape and violence" are only wrong depending on your social structure and/or philosophy?

The fact that you're a Christian and believe the Bible to be God's infallible Word suggests that you would avoid murder, rape, violence etc. However, for those of us who do not subject ourselves to the authority of Scripture; murder, rape, violence etc. may be permissible in some given situations.


To help stimulate discussion more I'll throw in a few claims often associated with Relativism. Feel free to give your thoughts on them:

All truth is relative
There are no absolute truths
What is true for you is not true for me
No one can know anything for sure
We all perceive what we want
We perceive different aspects of the same reality

All truth is relative - False
There are no absolute truths - Self-contradiction
What is true for you is not true for me - False
No one can know anything for sure - Self-contradiction
We all perceive what we want - False
We perceive different aspects of the same reality - True

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Yet people disagree. Would I not be right in saying that "murder, rape and violence" are only wrong depending on your social structure and/or philosophy?

The fact that you're a Christian and believe the Bible to be God's infallible Word suggests that you would avoid murder, rape, violence etc. However, for those of us who do not subject ourselves to the authority of Scripture; murder, rape, violence etc. may be permissible in some given situations.


To help stimulate discussion more I'll throw in a few claims often associated with Relativism. Feel free to give your thoughts on them:

All truth is relative
There are no absolute truths
What is true for you is not true for me
No one can know anything for sure
We all perceive what we want
We perceive different aspects of the same reality

All truth is relative - false
There are no absolute truths - This is like one of those "is the other man a liar" type of puzzles. But IMO, false.
What is true for you is not true for me - depends on the truth (e.g. "I'm happy" vs "this is a fountain pen")
No one can know anything for sure - depends on the certainty of that knowledge.
We all perceive what we want - partly true, mostly false
We perceive different aspects of the same reality - true.

 

[32k]

Couldn't some1 counter by saying..."that is your perspective" or "Your truth"?

 

[dysert]

Couldn't some1 counter by saying..."that is your perspective" or "Your truth"?

Assuming that truth is not relative, then "my truth" = "your truth"

 

[SavedByChrist94]

Yet people disagree. Would I not be right in saying that "murder, rape and violence" are only wrong depending on your social structure and/or philosophy?

The fact that you're a Christian and believe the Bible to be God's infallible Word suggests that you would avoid murder, rape, violence etc. However, for those of us who do not subject ourselves to the authority of Scripture; murder, rape, violence etc. may be permissible in some given situations.

rape, murder, and violence are objectively wrong, regardless of opinion. therefore God has to exist, objecting to that would be to imply that those things could be right, which is false since they can never be.

To help stimulate discussion more I'll throw in a few claims often associated with Relativism. Feel free to give your thoughts on them:

All truth is relative

I exist and God(The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit) exists. that's all I need to know.

There are no absolute truths

Then the statement, "there are no absolute truths" is not absolutely true and we have no reason for believing it which makes the statement false.

Self Referentially refuting.

What is true for you is not true for me

This website.

No one can know anything for sure

Then the idea of not knowing for sure cannot be for sure, which means you have no reason for believing no one can know for sure, Self Referentially Refuting.

Even me, a guy with OCD sees "relativism" is a joke.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

rape, murder, and violence are objectively wrong, regardless of opinion. therefore God has to exist, objecting to that would be to imply that those things could be right, which is false since they can never be.





I exist and God(The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit) exists. that's all I need to know.



Then the statement, "there are no absolute truths" is not absolutely true and we have no reason for believing it which makes the statement false.

Self Referentially refuting.



This website.



Then the idea of not knowing for sure cannot be for sure, which means you have no reason for believing no one can know for sure, Self Referentially Refuting.

Even me, a guy with OCD sees "relativism" is a joke.

You HAVE to be a troll. Nobody can post arguments this horrible with a straight face.

 

[Redac]

rape, murder, and violence are objectively wrong, regardless of opinion. therefore God has to exist, objecting to that would be to imply that those things could be right, which is false since they can never be.





I exist and God(The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit) exists. that's all I need to know.



Then the statement, "there are no absolute truths" is not absolutely true and we have no reason for believing it which makes the statement false.

Self Referentially refuting.



This website.



Then the idea of not knowing for sure cannot be for sure, which means you have no reason for believing no one can know for sure, Self Referentially Refuting.

Even me, a guy with OCD sees "relativism" is a joke.

Lol wut?

 

[Paradoxum]

My question probably wasn´t clear. It was a mere definition question (I am aware that asking for definitions can be annoying, but often they really help me understand better).
What I tried to ask was: In your use of the word "truth" - do you use it as a mere synonym for "fact" (the way things are) or as a synonym for "knowledge" (i.e. us accurately relating to the fact)?
IOW: is the world out there "true", or is an accurate statement about the world out there "true"?
Or, again in other words, when you say "Truth exists", do you mean to say that "things are (objectively) a certain way", or rather "one can be correct about the way things are"?
Or, again differently: Does "truth" signify that to which we relate or the relationship itself? (In the first case "truth" would be there even if we weren´t or would ever have been. In the second case it would require someone to be in hold of this "truth.)

(I am - at least at this point - NOT asking the question to which degree one can possibly be correct).

Perhaps I mean two things in this context. I mean there are objective real facts. But also I don't think we should pretend that we know nothing about those facts. There are facts, and we have a certain probability of different types of 'knowledge' being definitely true (a fact).

I have to admit that I'm not great on epistemology though.

In your response you confuse me even more: "experiencing experience" appears to use "experience" in two entirely different meanings.

I mean, the seeing of the colour blue is an experience. I can 100% know, right now, that I am seeing blue, even if the universe doesn't exist.

 

[DollIsMine]

Morality is relative primarily because of limited knowledge. It's impossible to know every little detail of a situation to such a degree that you could make a 100% Right And Good choice. Further complicating things is that every person responds differently to different situations, so if your moral ideal is to always show love and respect, you'll face the impossible task of knowing how everyone receives love and respect. Some feel it's loving to give them space, while others need to be protected, etc.

 

[quatona]

Perhaps I mean two things in this context. I mean there are objective real facts. But also I don't think we should pretend that we know nothing about those facts. There are facts, and we have a certain probability of different types of 'knowledge' being definitely true (a fact).

So if I understand you correctly you use the word for a description of both: the world out there and our relationship to it.
I find that semantically a little careless, mainly because it disables us to make a distinction that may not be significant to you but to someone else. E.g. I have no doubt whatsoever that there´s objective truth(1)[i.e. that the world is the way it is], but I am utterly skeptical towards the idea that there is a possibility for objective truth(2) [that our relationship to the world can be objective, or even only should be objective].

I mean, the seeing of the colour blue is an experience. I can 100% know, right now, that I am seeing blue, even if the universe doesn't exist.

Thanks for trying to clarify, but sorry: didn´t help.
Maybe you can help me by answering this question: You used the expression "experiencing experience".
Is there a difference between "experiencing" and "experiencing experience", in your use of language?
[Or can we take it even further and talk about the experience of experiencing experience?
(You know, I am unexperienced in the experience of experiencing experience ).]

 

[32k]

What is true for you is not true for me - depends on the truth (e.g. "I'm happy" vs "this is a fountain pen")

As per the "fountain pen"...Are you referring to the Law of Identity??

ex.

A=A

rape, murder, and violence are objectively wrong, regardless of opinion. therefore God has to exist, objecting to that would be to imply that those things could be right, which is false since they can never be.

Oh yeah?! I sure would like to see your evidence for such a claim that these things are objectively wrong.

Then the statement, "there are no absolute truths" is not absolutely true and we have no reason for believing it which makes the statement false.

In your perspective maybe?

For one who claims there is no absolute truths, they could simply follow-up by saying: "In my perspective there are no absolute truths. I didn't claim there weren't any for you, however, even if I did it would still be relative to my perspective."

Not that I agree with them, but for the sake of further stimulating discussion...

Then the idea of not knowing for sure cannot be for sure, which means you have no reason for believing no one can know for sure, Self Referentially Refuting.

It's only self-defeating if it is absolutely true.

 

[quatona]

There are no absolute truths - Self-contradiction

I have never found this argument particularly convincing.
Anyway, the problem can easily be solved by clarifying "There are no absolute truths about the world." (Which wouldn´t lead to a paradox, since the statement is not about the world but about truths about the world).
Even more simple: "There are no truths except this one."

And when it comes to the statement "there are no absolute moral truths" there isn´t a self-contradiction, in the first place.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

As per the "fountain pen"...Are you referring to the Law of Identity??

ex.

A=A

Partly, but mostly I meant that on the one hand you have statements that have a static subject and object, and which describe objective variables - as a (better) example, "this is a red fountain pen" (well, as objective as colour can be, anyway).

On the other hand, you have statements where the subject and object are dynamic (e.g. they depend on who is saying them, the context, etc.) or which describe subjective variables.

I'm not sure if this is actually defensible as a solid philosophical point, or whether it's going to collapse like a house of cards the minute someone questions it.

 

[renewed21]

In a way, hedonism is already the basis of all human action.

I would have to disagree sir in the use of the word all. But IMO it is the basis for over 99% of humans.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

I would have to disagree sir in the use of the word all. But IMO it is the basis for over 99% of humans.

Can you provide a counter-example?

 

[renewed21]

Can you provide a counter-example?

the standard ones. One who use their life in service.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

the standard ones. One who use their life in service.

I propose to you that they do so mostly because they find some kind of enjoyment from such. Whether it's from the gratitude they get, or from the joy of the job itself, or because it assuages their guilt. I.e. they do what they do because it makes them feel better than if they didn't.

 

[renewed21]

I propose to you that they do so mostly because they find some kind of enjoyment from such. Whether it's from the gratitude they get, or from the joy of the job itself, or because it assuages their guilt. I.e. they do what they do because it makes them feel better than if they didn't.

I understand what you are saying, but there are many true Christian who serve the Lord out of righteous, unselfish love

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I am a moral relativist but an objectivist which IIRC accorsding to scholary opinion is a contradiction in terms. What I mean is that people have different interests due to their different natures (and you cant look into the same mirror twice which I call Heracletan anthropology), but that these interests are promoted objectively according to objective rules, and exist objectively too. I am not a moral relativist in terms of aquiescing in an "All interests are relative and therefore equal" stance. To say all are therefore equal is a non sequitir. I think that action in the interests of more morally enlightened, humane, philosophically correct people are by definition closer to justice to the human spirit than those of some would be murderer for example. I am just willing to sacrifice the murderer's "true welfare" - that of the self realised corrupt spirit - for the sake of my own and that of others which is still I believe in all honesty a relative good, but also a higher good...