Relavatism to the Moral Test

[lawtonfogle]

This is in the philosphy section since this question arose in a PHIL class.

So, here is my question. Does the use of words such as "higher" or "better" by relavatist result in relavatism failing the test of viability or coherence, or both?

I ask this becuase my professor and I are at ends. I say both, but he states that since relavatist do not realize they are forcing the failing of the moral test by their theory, it cannot be coherence.

I think that a failing of the test of viability automatically results in a failing of the test of coherence, and there by if they fail viability, they fail coherence.

 

[quatona]

This is in the philosphy section since this question arose in a PHIL class.

So, here is my question. Does the use of words such as "higher" or "better" by relavatist result in relavatism failing the test of viability or coherence, or both?

I ask this becuase my professor and I are at ends. I say both, but he states that since relavatist do not realize they are forcing the failing of the moral test by their theory, it cannot be coherence.

I think that a failing of the test of viability automatically results in a failing of the test of coherence, and there by if they fail viability, they fail coherence.

I am assuming you mean "relativism" when saying "relavatism"?
I´d say it fails neither test. Comparatives like "better" or "higher" exactly make statements about the relativity of things to each other.
Where do you see the problem?

 

[variant]

This is in the philosphy section since this question arose in a PHIL class.

So, here is my question. Does the use of words such as "higher" or "better" by relavatist result in relavatism failing the test of viability or coherence, or both?

I ask this becuase my professor and I are at ends. I say both, but he states that since relavatist do not realize they are forcing the failing of the moral test by their theory, it cannot be coherence.

I think that a failing of the test of viability automatically results in a failing of the test of coherence, and there by if they fail viability, they fail coherence.

A relativist can say "higher" or "better" all they want, it just means something different than what a non-relativist would mean.

In fact a moral relativist could have completely coherent view of morality and simply believe that each persons views on morality were different than there own.

Your moral relativist might or might not understand that when they say "better" they have to explain, "Better how" or "better why" from their perspective, or they may not.

Whether or not they believe there is an objective "better" there is always a subjective "better".

 

[daniel777]

common philosophy student tell me what's wrong with this statement.


all truth is relative.

 

[quatona]

common philosophy student tell me what's wrong with this statement.


all truth is relative.

The first thing that´s wrong with this statement is that you have made it up yourself as a convenient strawman.
Show me where someone ever has seriously made this statement, and I will help you telling him what´s wrong with it.

 

[daniel777]

The first thing that´s wrong with this statement is that you have made it up yourself as a convenient strawman.
Show me where someone ever has seriously made this statement, and I will help you telling him what´s wrong with it.

that's just my point. no one SERIOUSLY makes that statement. but that's what relativism is. in relativism all truth is .......relative.

and i didn't make it up. it's very common, you should google it.

and you want me to show you someone.....i'm sure you can find someone on here all by yourself...since i can't actually show you someone in person....find him yourself. you will be surprised i think.

 

[quatona]

that's just my point. no one SERIOUSLY makes that statement. but that's what relativism is. in relativism all truth is .......relative.

These sentences contradict each other.
Left with the two options that you either have no clue what relativism says or misrepresent it on purpose, I´ll give you the benefit of the doubt and stay with the first option.

and i didn't make it up. it's very common, you should google it.

No, I shouldn´t. You make the claim, you support it.

and you want me to show you someone.....i'm sure you can find someone on here all by yourself...since i can't actually show you someone in person....find him yourself. you will be surprised i think.

So you are not willing to substantiate your claim?

 

[lawtonfogle]

I am assuming you mean "relativism" when saying "relavatism"?
I´d say it fails neither test. Comparatives like "better" or "higher" exactly make statements about the relativity of things to each other.
Where do you see the problem?

Sorry, I must apologize for my spelling. I had a sudden case of can't-spell-itis.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Now, back to the original claim.

I was speaking of when a relativist says one culture is better or worse than another, and believes it too be true. In the form of relativism we were discussing involved that while one may hold a set of morals and say based on their morals something is either better or worse.

Yet, we are speaking in the case where a relativist says better in a more universal sense, as when a relativist believes that there is such a thing as morale progress, not by their own standards, but by a more general standards.

Now please note, both the test of viability and coherence is done on a person by person bases, and therefore if it fails the test for one person, it do not fail the test for all people, so this is not an attempt to bash relativism, and I wish it not to become one either.

 

[The Nihilist]

Now, back to the original claim.

I was speaking of when a relativist says one culture is better or worse than another, and believes it too be true. In the form of relativism we were discussing involved that while one may hold a set of morals and say based on their morals something is either better or worse.

Yet, we are speaking in the case where a relativist says better in a more universal sense, as when a relativist believes that there is such a thing as morale progress, not by their own standards, but by a more general standards.

Now please note, both the test of viability and coherence is done on a person by person bases, and therefore if it fails the test for one person, it do not fail the test for all people, so this is not an attempt to bash relativism, and I wish it not to become one either.

A relativist may certainly say that one society is better than another, so long as he understands that he's selecting the values that make that true. For example, say that what makes one society better than another is a good quality of life. This is perfectly reasonable. But then the Huns wander in, beat us all up, and tell us that what makes one society better than another is the ability to beat up other societies. This is still perfectly reasonable. The fact is, no data will make one of these systems of values better than another.

Also, your professor is probably right, just because I've known philosophy professors and I've known freshmen.

 

[quatona]

Sorry, I must apologize for my spelling. I had a sudden case of can't-spell-itis.

No need whatsoever to apologize. I wouldn´t even have asked hadn´t I felt it was possible that it was a term unknown to me. I am not a native speaker, you know.

 

[quatona]

I was speaking of when a relativist says one culture is better or worse than another, and believes it too be true. In the form of relativism we were discussing involved that while one may hold a set of morals and say based on their morals something is either better or worse.

No coherence problem.

Yet, we are speaking in the case where a relativist says better in a more universal sense, as when a relativist believes that there is such a thing as morale progress, not by their own standards, but by a more general standards.

Depends on a couple of things, I say.
Which sort of "more general standard"? If thinking of, say, the UN Charta, the Geneva Convention or International Law (and if mentioning this standard), no problem.
In any case he would have to mention the standard in regards to which he considers one better than the other.
On another note, as long as he concedes that this standard (no matter how supposedly universal) is just one standard of many others possible - like the standards of other gods believed in by others - and doesn´t claim the standard he bases his consideration upon to be superiour to other standards, I see no problem.
Like, being a relativist and a non-believer I could compare things on basis of the alleged universal, objective and absolute standards that are ascribed to biblegod, without being incoherent.

 

[lawtonfogle]

A relativist may certainly say that one society is better than another, so long as he understands that he's selecting the values that make that true. For example, say that what makes one society better than another is a good quality of life. This is perfectly reasonable. But then the Huns wander in, beat us all up, and tell us that what makes one society better than another is the ability to beat up other societies. This is still perfectly reasonable. The fact is, no data will make one of these systems of values better than another.

Also, your professor is probably right, just because I've known philosophy professors and I've known freshmen.

I know the point I hold, and it is logical based on what I have been given. I think I understand his point, and I am agreeing with it in the aspect that viability fails (and to others, we are not talking does viability fail, but given a case where it does). The problem comes is that from the information I have, I state it reasons that a failure of viability is the result of a failure of coherence.

My professor did not outright say it was wrong, and it was only after another ten minutes of discussing it did he create a reason it is wrong, which is that a failure of coherence requires a realization of the failure, a quality viability lacks. Now my problem is this, how does the realization of the failure of coherence have any bearing if the values inherent in the moral theory cohere with your own?

As far as which professor being right just because they are most of the time, I see a inductive reasoning, and a weak one at that, since I have numerous cases where that is not true. I have learned that everyone is wrong sometimes, but that is a different story.