Relativism

[PapaLandShark]

I do not understand how it is even a philosophy at all, I simply have not done extensive psychological research into the minds of sociopaths.

This is, after all, the Philosophy area. I'm extending you the benifit of the doubt.

However this makes your statements here somewhat groundless. You assert that you have no real knowledge of sociopath's and the inner workings of thier minds and yet you make broad statements about them and thier lack of morality.

I've personally met one person who for years seemed normal, but would be considered a sociopath for the simple reason that he doesn't mind killing in the least. You know how it always goes, it's the people that you least expect thaty turn out to be the sociopaths.

Actually if you look at the case studies of such people, unless they are very young and have no record at all, almost all of them have a history of abuse.

And why? Because they are quite normal in every way except for a lack of consience.

Again this is a statement based on what?

After talking to the person I knew who was a sociopath, after I learned he had killed someone and got sent to prison for it, I visited him. I asked him if he felt anything whatsoever as he commited a cold blooded murder. We were close enough of friends to know that he would not lie to me if I asked him. And he said nope. Not one bit of a feeling of 'this is wrong', only a fear afterwards of getting caught. He said it felt no different to him than watching the TV, or any normal everyday activity.

If he truly had no concience he would have no fear whatsoever. He wouldn't care because he would be completely justified in his own mind. What was the fear based on? Punishment. Punishment for what? Doing something wrong.

If you've seen the Devil's Rejects, it does quite a good job of depicting what some of the more deranged sociopaths are like.

Based on...?

You don't see them repenting at the end of the movie, or realizing what they did wrong, quite the opposite- you see them get killed gunning down a roadblock of cops. Even after they themselves had been tortured nearly to death, they never once questioned why it happened to them or brought morality into it, and never once did they even feel remorse for anyone they killed. (sorry for giving away about the whole plotline )

No problem...I have no intention of filling my mind with more dreck

If they actually repented in the movie they it wouldn't be a horror flick now would it? Sorta takes the sting out of it. It worries me that glorification of this sort is accepted as "normal".

Indeed it does. This is unfortunate that it really is a bigger-dog-gets-the-bone world, I wish it weren't that way, but it is.

I see...so it's all good eh?

We all have our own perceptions

Indeed.

, we all think ours is above everyone else's, and we will fight for what we percieve to be right. In the end, it's really just 2 sides calling each other evil and fighting for what they want.

Sorry...but no. I have no need to fight for what I know is right. The Law is a Schoolmaster that brings the sinner to an understanding of his helplessness before a Just and Holy God. The Gospel stands on it's own. I just have to preach it in faith and truth...God will not have His Word return void.

Believing you are doing right and they are doing wrong is great incentive to fight for your beliefs, that's really the only reason I see us doing it.

Knowing that we are all sinners and bound for damnation without Jesus Christ, and knowing that God's law is written on all of our hearts, and knowing that I've been commanded to preach the Gospel in faith that some may hear and be saved from the wrath to come...Fighting is the last thing I want to do.

John 3:
16. "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
17. "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.
18. "He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19. "This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.
20. "For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.
21. "But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God."

 

[psychedelicist]

An interpretation is not truth, except that it would be true that it is your interpretation. But there would be an absolute truth to the meaning of the image in the painting, and that would be the truth that the ARTIST put into it. What was the artist's reason for the symbolism? Discern that, and you have the truth.

Actually it's my opinion that the universe didn't have a maker, so thatwould have been a way it differed than a painting.

But for the sake of the arguement let's assume the universe has a maker like the painting had an artist. Once the artist finished making the painting, it's still a jumble of molecules, just been rearranged. It still doesn't mean anything in itself. Ownership of preperty seems to be a purely social construct- he, a jumble of atoms, does not truly control that painting, another jumble of atoms, any more than society dictated he did.

And so, the truth of the universe we live in is not determined by our interpretations, but by the intent of the Creator. His truth is absolute truth.

But even some artists concede that their music/artwork does not have a meaning for it's viewers, they want their viewers to create their own meaning for it. As Tool says "[we're] not going to spoonfeed you what our songs mean to us, because it's not what they mean to you. If we simply tell you what the song means for us, and you assume that meaning for yourself, it is simply you emulating my own meaning. By creating your own meaning for our songs, you truly give it, well, meaning."

Not so. Do your words on this discussion board have any meaning? They are simply digital blips, 1s and 0s.

Exactly! I give my post meaning to me, and you give it meaning to you when you interpret it. I claim no 'ownership' of it, since as I said, such a construct is a social illusion, so anyone who read it can take what meaning they want. Cleany, for example, responded to your post by arguing what meaning he took from my post. His explanations will differ from mine because his interpretation differs from mine, but regardless of who posted it, his interpretation, mine, and yours are all equally valid.

But surely you would say that they do have meaning! Materialistically, a painting may be nothing more than paint on canvas, but we have devised certain abstract forms, such as language or visual symbolism, the purpose of which is to impart meaning and truth. These things are simply the tools that we use.

Yes, but the meaning and truth we wish to impart on the viewers of our art are themselves the creator's perceptions. Not any more true than the perceptions of those viewing the artwork.

I can take a drinking glass and use it as a flower pot... but that does not alter the fact that it was made to be a drinking glass. The purpose I give it does not change it's truth.

Perhaps that was the intent of the creator, to create a device to hold water. But once it's been created, what is it? A cylindrical object, that could have any number of uses. Use it for a flower pot, if you wish. It wasn't the creator's intent, but it is yours, which, though it's getting repetitious to mention at this point, is equally valid.

But this perception does not alter the FACT that truth DOES exist! If you have the perception that it doesn't, then you have another truth... that you have not yet perceived truth. You can't escape this. If you say you do not perceive truth, then you yourself have stated a truth (that you don't perceive it), and therefore that truth exists.

But if we have only our subjective perceptions to go on, we will never know if there even is a truth. I conceded that I percieved there to be one truth, that everything simply exists. I will never know if this is a correct opinion since I am of the perception that there are no right or wrong opinions.

What you are talking about here is not truth, but opinion. And even there, it is TRUE that you have a certain opinion.

It's a generally accepted scientific idea that nothing can be known for certain, or a true fact. So this statement would seem obvious enough to the both of us but it's impossible to prove. Since it's simply you interpreting your own perceptions.

If that is the case, can I come and steal your computer? After all, my "truth" or my "perception" might be that it is okay for me to do that. But I feel strongly that you would object! Whose truth is THE truth? Even if we just look to the legal system that says that theft is wrong, doesn't that represent a truth? It is TRUE that it is wrong to steal someone's computer, no matter what the thief might perceive.

Come steal my computer. I will warn you though, I have been robbed at night before, I own a 12 gauge and I'm a shoot first, ask questions later kind of guy. Like I said, ownership of property seems like an illusory construct to me, but in order to have what I percieve to be success in this world, it's one I'll adhere to. I don't think it's 'wrong' to steal someone's stuff, but then I also don't think it 'wrong' for me to shoot the robber with my 12 gauge (which would be legal anyways). Bigger dog gets the bone, after all.

But again, you're only talking about opinion. With the painting, setting aside interpretations of its symbolism, isn't it true that the painting IS a painting?

'Painting' would simply be a label we give to that particular construct of atoms. All it could truly be is a construct of atoms, but even that would simply be a label I gave it. Hopefully a label that better conveys my meaning, but just a label nonetheless.

Absolute truth is not opinion or interpretation. Those may be "personal" truths, but they do nothing to take away from absolute truth.

Absolute truth, though, could not properly be shown to exist if all we have to go on is our subjective perceptions. If an absolute truth does in fact exist, the creator is rather cruel for giving us our subjective perceptions, for now we will never be able to prove, 100%, without any subjective opinions, that an absolute truth exists.

God exists... or He does not exist. He cannot both exist and not exist at the same time, no matter what your perception or mine. The truth (or lack of truth) is not in the perception, but in the reality.

Quite true. Reality=true. But if one cannot show anything beyond their own perceptions to exist, one could not prove a truth or reality exists at all. This would lead one to believe there is no truth. This statement is neither proveable nor unproveable like any other statement, so all we can know is our own opinions.I realize I'm treading dangerously close to solipsism here. But bear with me. I don't even know if I'm explaining this stuff in a way that makes sense, I'm very bad at explaining things

 

[Cleany]

It's a generally accepted scientific idea that nothing can be known for certain, or a true fact. So this statement would seem obvious enough to the both of us but it's impossible to prove. Since it's simply you interpreting your own perceptions.

this is worth thinking about ..

what is a fact, or what is true, is only relative to a closed, logical system. relativism calls this system "me" or "a person" - yet ...

in a soap opera one of the characters is pregnant, within this closed system, the soap opera, the woman really IS pregnant. but outside that system, not only is she not pregnant, but the system isnt actually "real".

lets apply it to science. apparently (who know why) the big bang is fact because of some stuff to do with maths. so, within whatever logical mathematic systems scientists use, the big bang is "true". but the big bang isnt true in another sense because you cant prove it, if you take "science" to mean what can be proven by experimentation.

all relativism is saying is that there is a closed system called a person, and for that person stuff can be "true".

so what about the universe. what does faith mean, how can anything be true? let me introduce another system to you - communal experience. perhaps one of the most respected systems that there is. within that system many things are "true", not opinion, not relative to a person, but things actually happen to people. there is a bus trip - for that group they visited miami, that isnt speculation - it happened, and it is true for them, that group of people visited miami - true statement!.

while i agree that relativism is a valid idea, and, in fact, something of a description of the reality, or truth that we live in, it draws an arbitrary line around a "person", for what reason i can only deduce being defence. there are other realities, other units of relativism other than one person.

if you follow the logic of relativism it can, actually, only lead you to deduce that if something is true from the persective of one person, then by logic something can be true to many people. it is less likely, but that simply means that when it happens it means a whole lot more. also, whatever value relativism might place on a person, it must, logically, place more value on many persons having the same truth.

this doesnt mean that the picture analogy doesnt mean anything, it just means that when many people witness the same truth from that picture then that must mean something.

whatever system of logic you use to think, it cannot override the value of people and the inate authority that community has. logic also requires us to be aware of ourselves and our influences, even when it is too complicated for logic to handle, that doesnt mean we dismiss it!

 

[elman]

Yes, but being that he was here on this earth, he wasn't really himself anyway. Yes, God. I see people being unloving to each other, but I have reason to think that is an illusion.



It's a fact of evolution. The human being is too dependent at birth to survive in such a world.



Animals love differently then us. They are probably even smarter than us. I read that someone saw once a gathering of birds who had just witnessed the death of a young one. They were all very upset at this...but after a moment, they began to sing again, for life is still beautiful, and there's no need to focus on death.
All animals have their reasons for what they do. Can you tell me what you mean by a cow taking care of a cow? Why would a cow be worried about a horse that is sick and in pain? Cows know nothing of worry, for that is a human malady. Cows know that they can do nothing for the horse, cannot stop the horses pain, so why worry about it?
Animals cry for each other, animals take care of each other. Animals may not be exactly like humans, but they are not meant to be. That doesn't make them inferior, nor does it make them incapable of love.

I suspect you have not been around animals much.

 

[elman]

Quote

Is Hitler real? Is anything real to you? Are there people who are unloving to each other? That is what evil is.

Says who and what? If there is a PROVEABLY objective source we can go to to find out about what's moral and what isn't, let me know. That 'gut feeling' is no more than evolutionary instinct for survival of the species, we can't rely on that to be objective either.

Do you need something more than you have to know killing six million people at random is wrong?
Maybe your are wrong about the gut feeling being no more than evolutionary instinct. Maybe we can rely on our gut feeling when it tells us killing people at random is wrong.
Quote

Really? Have you seen any cows taking care of strange cows or worried about a horse that is sick and in pain?

I have seen many examples of packs of dogs taking care of strays, adopting parentless cubs into their pack, etc.

Have you really? Have your see packs of dogs kill other animals for the fun of it? Are you saying packs of dogs can be as loving as a group of hospital workers?

 

[elman]

Appeals to emotion do not an argument make

Who cares whether or not we think Hitler's actions are evil? How does our disapproval of his actions make them absolutely wrong?

Also, would you care to define 'unloving'? That seems to be a rather vague catch-all. Is merely not caring evil? Cause it's not loving.

They are wrong because they are unloving. It is not our disapproval that makes them wrong. It matters not if we approve or disapprove, Hitler and what he did was still evil. That is why it is not relative to what we approve or dissaprove. It is not about emotion. It is about what was done. Yes not caring can be evil as in being able to help someone and not caring. Being unloving is not that vague. It is understand by you and I and almost all occasions could be judged by you and I and it would be the same judgment.

 

[levi501]

Elman.
lol, unloving unloving unloving... to whom?
Is Bush being unloving to Sadam and Iraqies therefor is Bush evil?
Is Bush being unloving to Al Qaeda?
lol, you're being unloving to me because it's irritating to have to read the word "unloving" over and over again.
It's vague and useless this "unloving" mantra you chant ad naseum in every post you make.

You strike me as Christian humanist Elman. Love is a matter of perspective. You punish a child because you love him but the child might not see it as that. So what you see as love someone else might not. That doesn't mean you have some objective knowledge over what's loving/unloving and what's right and wrong.

Take the Israel/palastinian conflict. Who's being unloving there?
I guarantee the Palastinians believe they are doing the right thing by their god and their people. Why else would they sacrifise their lives for it? Israel believes the same thing. So who in this scenario is being the unloving uncuddly grumpy bear?

Try putting a few more details behind your unloving chant.
How about intent to be unloving?
When you consider intent, instead of the result of actions you can see how misguided people can commit rather gross barbarous acts under the assumptions that their doing good.

But then this steps into the realm of relativism... naughty relativsits.

 

[Edx]

I dont believe there are absolute right and wrongs in the universe. Humans however are the way we are because of evolutionary rules. These rules are genetic and sociological. We are social creatures, and we need to get along together. Many members of the same species dont kill each other (or at least not very often), thats becuase its not in their capacity to do so. Of course if you look at animals such as the other apes, they do kill each other.

This may seem like a strange digression but have you ever wondered why we find feces disgusting? I remember a study they did into why and when we develope this disgust. A variety of children of differing ages were given chocolate in the shape of a pile of brown feces. The very young ones didnt care at all that it was shaped like dog extrement. But as you get older they began to be a bit more weary, and then to the point where they wouldnt touch it at all.

Its the same basic thing we have here. You learn what is disgusting, and you learn what is right and wrong. Not all cultures believe the same things are right and wrong as everybody else. But getting back to saying there are no absolutes, there is a certian kind of absolute with humans being the way they are. Not eveything is learned in society, much of our actions are based on our genes. We can be genetically predisposed to many things, and you are all genetically predisposed to being a social animal. Its why we got to where we are today.

So in this sence, there is a certian fundamental concept of "morality" that generally, but not absolutely, goven human societies.

Ed

 

[elman]

I dont believe there are absolute right and wrongs in the universe. Humans however are the way we are because of evolutionary rules. These rules are genetic and sociological. We are social creatures, and we need to get along together. Many members of the same species dont kill each other (or at least not very often), thats becuase its not in their capacity to do so. Of course if you look at animals such as the other apes, they do kill each other.

This may seem like a strange digression but have you ever wondered why we find feces disgusting? I remember a study they did into why and when we develope this disgust. A variety of children of differing ages were given chocolate in the shape of a pile of brown feces. The very young ones didnt care at all that it was shaped like dog extrement. But as you get older they began to be a bit more weary, and then to the point where they wouldnt touch it at all.

Its the same basic thing we have here. You learn what is disgusting, and you learn what is right and wrong. Not all cultures believe the same things are right and wrong as everybody else. But getting back to saying there are no absolutes, there is a certian kind of absolute with humans being the way they are. Not eveything is learned in society, much of our actions are based on our genes. We can be genetically predisposed to many things, and you are all genetically predisposed to being a social animal. Its why we got to where we are today.

So in this sence, there are certian fundamental "morality" ideas that that generally, still not absolutely goven human societies.

Ed

It is absolutely wrong to torture a baby to see it suffer. You know and I know and it does not matter if you can find a culture that will accept it, it is still absolutly wrong-and absolutely stupid to eat excrement. It is not relative.

 

[elman]

Elman.
lol, unloving unloving unloving... to whom?
Is Bush being unloving to Sadam and Iraqies therefor is Bush evil?
Is Bush being unloving to Al Qaeda?
lol, you're being unloving to me because it's irritating to have to read the word "unloving" over and over again.
It's vague and useless this "unloving" mantra you chant ad naseum in every post you make.

You strike me as Christian humanist Elman. Love is a matter of perspective. You punish a child because you love him but the child might not see it as that. So what you see as love someone else might not. That doesn't mean you have some objective knowledge over what's loving/unloving and what's right and wrong.

Take the Israel/palastinian conflict. Who's being unloving there?
I guarantee the Palastinians believe they are doing the right thing by their god and their people. Why else would they sacrifise their lives for it? Israel believes the same thing. So who in this scenario is being the unloving uncuddly grumpy bear?

Try putting a few more details behind your unloving chant.
How about intent to be unloving?
When you consider intent, instead of the result of actions you can see how misguided people can commit rather gross barbarous acts under the assumptions that their doing good.

But then this steps into the realm of relativism... naughty relativsits.

maybe you need to study the word loving and unloving more. Love is only a matter of perspective if you have warped your conscience in some way or have a diseased brain. If one can save children from being killed by killing the killer, it is unloving to the killer but it is loving to the child and the child should be the one given prioity. It does not matter what people believe. You can believe it is alright to torture a baby just to hear it cry, but that does not make it right. Perspective is not relavant. Intent cannot be separated from love but intent without wisdom does not create love. It can as you say create the opposite.

 

[Edx]

It is absolutely wrong to torture a baby to see it suffer. You know and I know and it does not matter if you can find a culture that will accept it, it is still absolutly wrong-and absolutely stupid to eat excrement. It is not relative.

Oh joy, you didnt bother to read my post.

 

[elman]

Oh joy, you didnt bother to read my post.

I did read your post. There are somethings that are absolutly wrong. It is not relative and not a matter of perspective or culture.

 

[levi501]

maybe you need to study the word loving and unloving more. Love is only a matter of perspective if you have warped your conscience in some way or have a diseased brain. If one can save children from being killed by killing the killer, it is unloving to the killer but it is loving to the child and the child should be the one given prioity. It does not matter what people believe. You can believe it is alright to torture a baby just to hear it cry, but that does not make it right. Perspective is not relavant. Intent cannot be separated from love but intent without wisdom does not create love. It can as you say create the opposite.

wow, so many assertions in one post...
It's a lost cause debating with you because you're only here to preach.

 

[elman]

wow, so many assertions in one post...
It's a lost cause debating with you because you're only here to preach.

Why would you not debate the issues presented rather than make this statment that has no meaning and no relavance and judges what my intent is for being here? How did you get to be my judge?

 

[Edx]

I did read your post. There are somethings that are absolutly wrong. It is not relative and not a matter of perspective or culture.

Whatever example you could provide, its only "wrong" from our human perspective. Not from the universes perspective which doesnt give a hoot. That doesnt mean there are absolutes.

Ed

 

[elman]

Whatever example you could provide, its only "wrong" from our human perspective. Not from the universes perspective which doesnt give a hoot. That doesnt mean there are absolutes.

Ed

You did not read my post. I gave an example, torturing Babies to hear them cry. Wrong is always from the human perspective. It could not be from the perspective of a rock or a bird as both are incapable of doing wrong.

 

[Edx]

You did not read my post. I gave an example, torturing Babies to hear them cry.

You also said it is "absolutely stupid to eat excrement". Well, it is stupid, but you havnet considered why. Whats the reason its stupid to eat excrement? Whats the reason most people think "torturing babies to hear them cry" is wrong? Theres objective reasons why humans find these things disgusting, stupid and "wrong". But none of the reasons suggest there is a absolute cosmic right and wrong.

Wrong is always from the human perspective.

Correct.

It could not be from the perspective of a rock or a bird as both are incapable of doing wrong.

You have it backwards. The reason animals do the things they do is because of their genes and their upbringing and "society". You think humans are special.

Ed

 

[elman]

You also said it is "absolutely stupid to eat excrement". Well, it is stupid, but you havnet considered why. Whats the reason its stupid to eat excrement? Whats the reason most people think "torturing babies to hear them cry" is wrong? Theres objective reasons why humans find these things disgusting, stupid and "wrong". But none of the reasons suggest there is a absolute cosmic right and wrong.


Correct.

You have it backwards. The reason animals do the things they do is because of their genes and their upbringing and "society". You think humans are special.

Ed

You don't think humans are different from animals? Humans chose to love each other or not when they see a human who is a stranger to them in trouble. Can animals do that? Do you see them making those choices? Do you really need objective reasons for it being wrong to torture a baby to hear it cry?

 

[Edx]

You don't think humans are different from animals?

According to your profile you believe in theistic evolution, so presumably you accept science. We are by definition "animals", we are also mammals, we are also eukaryotes, we are also alive.

Humans chose to love each other or not when they see a human who is a stranger to them in trouble. Can animals do that? Do you see them making those choices?

Do animals have emotions? Certianly! They may not be as advanced as some of ours, but they most certianly do exibite emotions like fear, grieving, anger and love. And if you dont like the word love, then replace it with the word caring.

You seemm to be saying that an early car like this one...

... isnt actually a car, because it doesnt have a cd player, fuel injection system, a gasoline-electric powered hybrid engine, air conditioning, can drive faster than 90 miles or a GPS system.

Likewise, just because we may have a more highly developed brain and have developed a sence of self doesnt make us any less an animal, or an ape.

Do you really need objective reasons for it being wrong to torture a baby to hear it cry?

Im not saying we need objective reasons, Im saying there ARE objective reasons why its wrong to torture a baby to hear it cry and why its stupid to eat feces.

Ed

 

[elman]

Quote
Originally Posted by: elman

You don't think humans are different from animals?

According to your profile you believe in theistic evolution, so presumably you accept science. We are by definition "animals", we are also mammals, we are also eukaryotes, we are also alive.

Yes we are animals and if we are loving we are also humans. If we are not loving, we are only animals.

Quote

Humans chose to love each other or not when they see a human who is a stranger to them in trouble. Can animals do that? Do you see them making those choices?

Do animals have emotions? Certianly! They may not be as advanced as some of ours, but they most certianly do exibite emotions like fear, grieving, anger and love. And if you dont like the word love, then replace it with the word caring.

I like the word love and the issue is not can a mother bear love its young. The issue is can a bear care for the world around them and be concerned with the welfare of the creatures around them as a human can?

You seemm to be saying that an early car like this one...
... isnt actually a car, because it doesnt have a cd player, fuel injection system, a gasoline-electric powered hybrid engine, air conditioning, can drive faster than 90 miles or a GPS system.

Likewise, just because we may have a more highly developed brain and have developed a sence of self doesnt make us any less an animal, or an ape.

No but it does mean the ape is not human and if we love each other, we are more than and superior to the ape in that respect.


Quote

Do you really need objective reasons for it being wrong to torture a baby to hear it cry?

Im not saying we need objective reasons, Im saying there ARE objective reasons why its wrong to torture a baby to hear it cry and why its stupid to eat feces.

We agree then.