# Absolutism vs Relativism



## 7starmantis (Dec 13, 2005)

We are having a discussion in another thread about absolutes and how they can or cannot exist. I would love to continue the discussion here.

Take for example the current discussion of rape. Many say rape cannot be listed as an absolute wrong because it could be accepted by some cultures. To that I ask what do we define as culture? Are we talking about male only culture? By its very meaning, rape is not accepted by both parties. This means one person does not accept it. This means the two people's culture could not accept rape. So by its very existence it is not accepted....how can we then turn a blind eye and say its not wrong because someone might accept it? I propose that the only ones accepting of rape are those committing it, not receiving it. 

From the other thread:


			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> One assumption that seems to be taken by all througout this discussion, is that all humans have equal rights. This is not now, nor ever has been the case.


 Yet we dont agree with this as correct do we? I mean, equal rights should also be one of those absolutes we are discussing. Your correct though, without human rights, the value of rape is moot, its very relative then.



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Throughout all of history, communities would view 'others' as chattel. Was Thomas Jefferson committing rape when he impregnated Sally Hemings? The young Hemings girl was a slave. She had no rights. Could she have cried rape?
> 
> Now, honestly, I don't know what Jefferson and Hemings relationship was like, except that when Jefferson was in France, the Hemings girl was in her early teens. And it is assumed they were intimate at that time. (Is intimate the correct word?).


 Thats a great point, but one we will probably never know the answer to. However, does the answer change how we view rape? If he did commit rape, should we then consider it acceptable? Regardless of his actions or anyone elses, I think rape is absolutely wrong....I dont think there exist in reality a situation where it can be accepted.



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> So, before every decries rape as a universal wrong, I think an examination of the de-humanization that some cultures participate in should be carefully reviewed.
> 
> Haven't armies throughout history dehumanized their enemies? Might the result of that be sexual assault that is not 'rape'? Can you rape a living creature that is less than human?


I think again your using history to decide current questions. Accepting and believing in de-humanization is the only way for that to make a difference in this dicision. There is probably not a better known case of de-humanization than that of the native americans (although the truth is seldom learned). Lets take that example....so its not rape because the NA woman your forcing into sexual acts is not really human. Well, what does she think? Are we to assume that only the male or powerful are worthy of contributing to the belief system or human rights system? Rape isn't wrong because the rapist thinks it is, its wrong because it violates the rights of other human beings.

The military example is good, but fails in that just because the person committing the rape may not view it as rape, doesn't mean its not rape. This is a completely one sided view of it. Because the young native american girl is not viewed as human or worth anything doesn't mean raping her is then ok. Its not a one sided issue, it takes two people to perform a rape, and so both should contribute to the issue.

7sm


----------



## Tgace (Dec 13, 2005)

Inalienable Rights



> The government of the United States is the result of a revolution in thought. It was founded on the principle that all persons have equal rights, and that government is responsible to, and derives its powers from, a free people.



Moral Realtivism is UNAMERICAN.


----------



## AdrenalineJunky (Dec 13, 2005)

This is precisely the kind of question I would be happy to discuss over a scotch. . .but it would be waaaaaay too involved a task to type it.


----------



## Tgace (Dec 13, 2005)

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/#4



> Relativism and Tolerance
> 
> Relativism is sometimes associated with a normative position, usually pertaining to how people ought to regard or behave towards those with whom they morally disagree. The most prominent normative position in this connection concerns tolerance. In recent years, the idea that we should be tolerant has been increasingly accepted in some circles. At the same time, others have challenged this idea, and the philosophical understanding and justification of tolerance has become less obvious. The question here is whether moral relativism has something to contribute to these discussions, in particular, whether DMR or MMR provide support for tolerance. In this context, tolerance does not ordinarily mean indifference or absence of disapproval: It means having a policy of not interfering with the actions of persons that are based on moral judgments we reject, when the disagreement is not or cannot be rationally resolved. The context of discussion is often, but not always, moral disagreements between two societies. *Does moral relativism give us a reason to be tolerant in this sense?
> 
> ...


----------



## arnisador (Dec 13, 2005)

The key issue here, I think, is that the act in question is characterized by being _against someone's will_. So at heart the issue is, When can one justify imposing one's will on another?

I too find this an absolute wrong...but as it is clearly tolerated in some cultures, I don't know how to argue for my position should one question it. There is no universal moral common ground, is there? We either choose to accept that some things are right and others are wrong, or we must agree to disagree (and then abide by the law, which is different).


----------



## Tgace (Dec 13, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> I too find this an absolute wrong...but as it is clearly tolerated in some cultures, I don't know how to argue for my position should one question it. There is no universal moral common ground, is there?



Try raping the other person and see if they think its morally wrong?

:idunno:


----------



## mrhnau (Dec 13, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Try raping the other person and see if they think its morally wrong?
> 
> :idunno:



I'm sure many people on death row find it morally objectable, especially considering their circumstances. Anyone being murdered/assaulted in any fashion is likely to find it morally objectable. I would be more interested in the perception of society as a whole, unless justice is to be served only by the victim.


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 13, 2005)

Exactly my point. We say other _cultures_ accept it. My question is what defines culture? The person being raped certainly doesn't accept it, so are they just not a voice of the culture or what? Rape is only rape if one doesn't accept it. How can a culture (if it includes the voice of females) accept rape when the persons being raped dont accept it?

7sm


----------



## arnisador (Dec 13, 2005)

Ah, now we're judging whole cultures...dangerous territory!


----------



## Tgace (Dec 13, 2005)

At the bottom of it all you have to stand up for what you believe in and **** all the philosophical meandering. The last stop on the line of relativism is impotence and irrelativeness.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 13, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Try raping the other person and see if they think its morally wrong?
> 
> :idunno:


 
It doesn't work that way.  You have to step out of the bounds of our culture and imagine being raised in a culture where rape is the norm and male dominance of women is accepted.  In this culture, if I were to rape someone, there would be nothing wrong with it.


----------



## Tgace (Dec 13, 2005)

You HAVE to do no such thing...in the land of relativism forcing my morality on others is no more "wrong" than anything else.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 13, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> The last stop on the line of relativism is impotence and irrelativeness.


 
The fighting and strife of moral absolutism never ends, because one can never make everyone believe exactly the same thing...


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 13, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Exactly my point. We say other _cultures_ accept it. My question is what defines culture? The person being raped certainly doesn't accept it, so are they just not a voice of the culture or what? Rape is only rape if one doesn't accept it. How can a culture (if it includes the voice of females) accept rape when the persons being raped dont accept it?
> 
> 7sm


 
For a woman living in a male dominated culture where rape is the normal way of forcing submission, rape would be the norm.  

This female, when taken out of her home culture, may expect to be raped by any man and she could learn a different set of cultural norms that says that rape is wrong.  And as long as she lived in that culture, rape would be wrong.

If she ever moved back to her home culture and was raped, there would be absolutely no recourse for her new beliefs on right and wrong.  Essentially, no one would think that what was done to her was wrong.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 13, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> At the bottom of it all you have to stand up for what you believe in and **** all the philosophical meandering. The last stop on the line of relativism is impotence and irrelativeness.



I agree. It's interesting to think about, but the bottom line is that there are things I believe are clearly wrong even if I can't articulate argumenst for those beliefs from first principles. One must stand for something.

But, I think this thread is meant to take a more academic track, no? The Study is now a subforum of www.philosophyforums.com.


----------



## Tgace (Dec 13, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The fighting and strife of moral absolutism never ends, because one can never make everyone believe exactly the same thing...


 
At least they are acting to right something they believe is wrong. They are taking a stand where the relativist has the luxury of philosophically camoflaugeing their cowardice and inability to take a stand on anything.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 13, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> At least they are acting to right something they believe is wrong. They are taking a stand where the relativist has the luxury of philosophically camoflaugeing their cowardice and inability to take a stand on anything.


 
They think respecting others' cultures is important, and are taking a stand on that. I think you're being unduly harsh.


----------



## Ray (Dec 13, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> You HAVE to do no such thing...in the land of relativism forcing my morality on others is no more "wrong" than anything else.


Although I don't live in the land of relativism, I absolutely love this quote.  

In an earlier post, someone mentioned tolerance.  I have lived in the land of manufacturing most of my life; and in the land of manufacturing tolerance is a predefined allowable deviation from the desired {usually a measurement}.  If something is "outside" of tolerance, you either throw it away or change it to be within tolerance.  I wonder if "changing something to be within tolerance" could be likened to "rehabilitation?"


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 13, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> At least they are acting to right something they believe is wrong. They are taking a stand where the relativist has the luxury of philosophically camoflaugeing their cowardice and inability to take a stand on anything.


 
I think there is a middle ground.  I think that contextualism is very important.  Knowing and acknowledging the details of the situation instead of just generalizing it as "evil" will help one make a wiser decision.  We must recognize peoples differences and attempt to be tolerant, however, we need to try and find some common ground.


----------



## Tgace (Dec 13, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> They think respecting others' cultures is important, and are taking a stand on that. I think you're being unduly harsh.


 
Thats your relative opinion....._respecting_ another culture is vastly different from *tolerating* genocide, rape, murder, etc.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 13, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Thats your relative opinion....._respecting_ another culture is vastly different from *tolerating* genocide, rape, murder, etc.


 
I agree. Frankly, there are cultures whose values I simply do not respect. I'd be polite if I was in their country, but I don't respect what they believe and do. The way Saudi Arabia treats women is simply wrong, to my mind.

But that's a value judgment...and those are hard to justify on theoretical grounds.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 13, 2005)

Basically, what is right is that which is agreed upon.  There is no universal standard.  And I think that people across the world can find a lot of stuff that they could agree is right and stuff they could agree is wrong.  

This question of when does one act is a very good one though.  When?  Is going to war to stop genocide justifiable?  I think that in the eyes of the world, most people would agree.  Is going to war to spread democracy justifiable?  I think that it is apparent that the world community is split on this.  In fact, I would wager that it is not something the world community supports.


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 13, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Ah, now we're judging whole cultures...dangerous territory!


No, I offered no judging of anyone. I said its not correct to say _cultures_ accept rape, because then your leaving out the voice of the raped women in your definition of _culture_.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> It doesn't work that way. You have to step out of the bounds of our culture and imagine being raised in a culture where rape is the norm and male dominance of women is accepted. In this culture, if I were to rape someone, there would be nothing wrong with it.


Actually it does. Wait a minute...."male dominance of women is accepted" by whom? Accepted by the dominating men? Accepted by the dominated women? Forced conformity to a system is not acceptance. Just because you rape me every day at 3:26pm doesn't mean I will eventually accept rape as right or correct. 

Normals do not define right or wrong, thats insanity. So, your accepting of rape in these cultures? Your just simply saying who has the biggest muscle makes the rights and wrongs. They may make the laws but since when have you accepted legal doctrine as true and right simply because its "legal"? Thats the problem with relativism, you have to align yourself with whoever is winning to stay right...........I say you can be right regardless of who is in control or what the norms are for raping women. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The fighting and strife of moral absolutism never ends, because one can never make everyone believe exactly the same thing...


 Again, belief isn't needed for truth to exist. Regardless of everyones beliefs, forcing a women to have sex with you against her will is still wrong....even if you disagree. (Not you particualrly...you as the person raping)



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> For a woman living in a male dominated culture where rape is the normal way of forcing submission, rape would be the norm.
> 
> This female, when taken out of her home culture, may expect to be raped by any man and she could learn a different set of cultural norms that says that rape is wrong. And as long as she lived in that culture, rape would be wrong.
> 
> If she ever moved back to her home culture and was raped, there would be absolutely no recourse for her new beliefs on right and wrong. Essentially, no one would think that what was done to her was wrong.


So right and wrong are defined by actions of the masses? Whew, now thats scary doctrine. Her expectation of being raped doesn't deminish or highten the fact that rape is wrong....just because she was raped alot doesn't mean its now ok to rape her....but of course only in her country where rape is the norm. Skewed....I don't understand your reasoning here.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I think there is a middle ground. I think that contextualism is very important. Knowing and acknowledging the details of the situation instead of just generalizing it as "evil" will help one make a wiser decision. We must recognize peoples differences and attempt to be tolerant, however, we need to try and find some common ground.


In what context is robbing a young woman of her virginity and her sexuality by forcing her to have sex with you ok? Thats absurd. No one is generalizing anything as "evil" just wrong because it violates another humans rights....regardless of how you chosse to see that other human. I recognize peoples differences, but rape is still wrong, regardless of whether or not they think so. Contextually you must then sort out arguments of your wife or daughter being raped while in one of these cultures....is that then ok? Rape is wrong....there is no context that makes it ok.

7sm


----------



## arnisador (Dec 13, 2005)

Everyone wants to reach the same conclusion as you...but, where is your argument?



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> I said its not correct to say cultures accept rape, because then your leaving out the voice of the raped women in your definition of culture.



What else could we possibly mean when we speak of culture, which refers generally accepted traditions and beliefs in a _group _of people?

Look at the S.T. Williams execution again. Our culture accepts capital punishment, as reflected in our laws. He was, obviously, opposed to it. It's the same as your example...if you believe it was still OK to execute this person, then you accept the norms of the culture over the voice of a single victim. Or, are you hoping to distinguish between 'innocent victims' and 'guilty victims'? He proclaimed his innocence too...but by our cultural standards, as reflected in our laws, he was judged guilty.



> So right and wrong are defined by actions of the masses?



What else could _majority rule _possibly mean? Yes, that's what happens as a practical matter, whether the philosphers agree with the outcome or no.

As for the Kitty Dukakis question...are we to be ruled by emotion, or reason? If it's emotion, just put a bullet in Saddam Hussein and be done with it. Heck, use two just in case.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 13, 2005)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10453444/



> Man pleads guilty to sexually assaulting spouse


 
Here is an example, while admittedly not as extreme as some of the issues being discussed here, is the same argument.


----------



## Kane (Dec 13, 2005)

This goes back to the abortion . As we can see abortion is a very relative moral issue because there are many ways to look at it. Something like pre-meditated murder on the other hand would be absolute to most people.

But in reality there is no such thing as absolute. Even a serial killer does what he thinks is right in there head. But we have to have the illusion that it is unacceptable otherwise something like murder would have a higher rate.

But I cannot stress how much everything is relative in reality. Not just moral issues, EVERYTHING! Even God himself does not know the absolute if you logically look at it. If there is a God he knows about everything in His universe, right? But how does he know for sure he is the only God? Maybe there is a higher up God that our God does not know about. And then perhaps this higher up God doesn't know about an even higher God. No one knows anything, not even God himself. Therefore anything can be any way we perceive it. But putting this type of relativism on something as serious as murder is dangerous. Our society must turn a few moral issues into absolutes. Otherwise society would crumble.


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 13, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Basically, what is right is that which is agreed upon. There is no universal standard. And I think that people across the world can find a lot of stuff that they could agree is right and stuff they could agree is wrong.


 Thats absurd...so by your deffinition rape is right? See, the problem is you are trying to be "tolerant" and allow other cultures their own beliefs, thus accepting rape while trying to appear "sane" in your own culture while saying rape is wrong. The problem is that rape cannot be both right and wrong at the same time. Either raping a person is wrong, or it is right.

It seems no one wants to answer the tough questions here, just skirt around the serious issues. If rape is right in a culture, why does the victim not agree? If "right" is determined by the masses, then why are prisoners held responsible for their "crimes" in prison, which are "right" by the "culture" of the prisoners? If rape is right in certain cultures, is your wife or daughter getting raped there then ok? Why do we feel we must turn a blind eye to what is wrong just because there are those who believe differently? The young women (and men) who get raped are certainly not accepting of it...why are we? Maybe we are just too far removed, we dont understand the issues that are developed by rape. Having dated several women who have been raped, being married to a woman who has been raped, having worked as a paramedic and seeing first hand the after affects (physically and emotionally) of rape and attempted rape, and having physically stoped two rapes in progress; I can most assuredly tell you I have never seen a victim of rape say, "Its ok, his culture accepts it". Are we to ignore the voice of these victims because they aren't powerful enough to force our attention?



			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> Everyone wants to reach the same conclusion as you...but, where is your argument?


My argument is above. I've seen nothing of evidentiary support for relativism in this issue. Just people saying "It can't be absolute". Again, the problem with relativism is that in order to stay correct, you must align yourself with those who are in power...regardless of who they are or what they stand for. 

If rape is not absolutely wrong, you must allow acceptance of it. That sikens me. Acceptance of rape by anyone, for any reason is wrong, and I'll go as far as saying its an excuse to not spend the effort or mental energy to stand against those who are in power or who "scare you".



			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> What else could we possibly mean when we speak of culture, which refers generally accepted traditions and beliefs in a _group _of people?


 So do you also not believe in individualism? To label everyone in a geographic location with a word like culture is constricting, violating, and narrow minded, in my opinion. I'm not syaing you are these things, just that this method of thinking lends itself to these adjectives. This is another problem with relativism, its denies personal or individual freedom and rights. Its all relative to the masses.



			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> Look at the S.T. Williams execution again. Our culture accepts capital punishment, as reflected in our laws. He was, obviously, opposed to it. It's the same as your example...if you believe it was still OK to execute this person, then you accept the norms of the culture over the voice of a single victim.


 No no, its absolutely not the same. I'm not saying we need to write our laws and "norms" as you put it, on the voice of a single person, but we cannot accept a violation of these rights as correct simply because of the minority of the victims. In the case you mentioned, the victims were were of higher quantity than most. Its a twisted way to look at things, he committed these very crimes we are debating....is he then the victim? Ok, lets leave discussion of his case to the other thread, and move on with this one.



			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> As for the Kitty Dukakis question...are we to be ruled by emotion, or reason? If it's emotion, just put a bullet in Saddam Hussein and be done with it. Heck, use two just in case.


I'm not sure I understand where you are going with this. I'm not talking about emotion, but reason. Reason says we cannot simply ignore the wrongs because the victims are too few in number or power.



			
				Kane said:
			
		

> But in reality there is no such thing as absolute. Even a serial killer does what he thinks is right in there head. But we have to have the illusion that it is unacceptable otherwise something like murder would have a higher rate.


 Again, it seems everyone is having trouble understanding this absolute. Its not absolute in that everyone agrees and believes the same way, but that the act is wrong regardless of belief. If the rapist believes rape to be wrong or right is irrelevant, the act of rape is wrong regardless. 

If rape is not wrong as an absolute, you must be willing to accept one of your loved ones being raped and that being ok and acceptable because they might have been raped by someone from a culture that accepts rape.

7sm


----------



## arnisador (Dec 13, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> To label everyone in a geographic location with a word like culture is constricting, violating, and narrow minded, in my opinion. I'm not syaing you are these things, just that this method of thinking lends itself to these adjectives.



You seem to be denying the existence of culture. I'm trying to use it as a cultural anthropologist, or a sociologist, would. You can take a course in American Culture at many colleges, and many courses in cultural anthropology...they all agree to label the Yanomami of S. America, say, as having a certain culture.



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> I'm not talking about emotion, but reason. Reason says we cannot simply ignore the wrongs because the victims are too few in number or power.



But to say 'wrongs' is to assume the conclusion.

No one wants the conclusion to be anything other than the obvious: Rape is wrong, because _by definition_ it is an act done against someone's will. But the death penalty is also an act (usually) done against someone's will, and we accept that...it's an apparent contradiction, no?



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> ]Again, it seems everyone is having trouble understanding this absolute.



I don't think it's fair to assume that those who disagree with you do so because they do not understand you?


----------



## Floating Egg (Dec 14, 2005)

I consider myself a moral and cultural relativist, and Id like to chime in, but I dont know where to begin. Every time I start to write something, I know that Im heading into essay territory. Its too bad that I didnt read this thread when it was first posted.


----------



## Kane (Dec 14, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Again, it seems everyone is having trouble understanding this absolute. Its not absolute in that everyone agrees and believes the same way, but that the act is wrong regardless of belief. If the rapist believes rape to be wrong or right is irrelevant, the act of rape is wrong regardless.
> 
> If rape is not wrong as an absolute, you must be willing to accept one of your loved ones being raped and that being ok and acceptable because they might have been raped by someone from a culture that accepts rape.
> 
> 7sm



Yes rape is wrong, but it is only wrong to us. Imagine if you did not think the way you did however rational it may be. In reality its your own conscionce mind that decides what is immoral and what is not. Many people world over think that it is very immoral to disobey their husband and that women here are doing a "wrong". They claim this to be absolute but it ain't a fundemental universal moral belief. I agree with you that there are certain things that should be universally considered absolute but the fact remains that morality and what is absolute depends on what we think. Because most of the world believes that rape is a moral wrong it can be declared a universal moral wrong. But imagine living in a world where we thought it wasn't a moral wrong. Then it wouldn't moral. Should it be considered immoral to rape? IMHO it definatley should. But if you were in a different reality where rape was not considered as such then it wouldn't be a big deal. Absolute moral wrongs is for us to decide and if there is a certian wrong we think should be universally accepted then we need to make it known. Rape by default is universally accepted so there is little argument.


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 14, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> You seem to be denying the existence of culture. I'm trying to use it as a cultural anthropologist, or a sociologist, would. You can take a course in American Culture at many colleges, and many courses in cultural anthropology...they all agree to label the Yanomami of S. America, say, as having a certain culture.


 No I'm not denying the existence of culture, but accepting the existence of individualistic culture. Culture can't set what is right and wrong, because thats still ignoring the voice of those oppressed. So are we saying slavery was right back when it was in full swing here in america....and quite heavily accepted? Our culture accepted it...so it must have been right. I say slavery was always wrong, regardless of our acceptance of it. 

To quote you here:


			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> Yes, that's what happens as a practical matter, whether the philosphers agree with the outcome or no.


 Courses taught in culture and anthropology are now the deciders of right and wrong? I'm not sayign culture doesn't exist, but to base what is right as far as violating a persons human rights on what the majority thinks is absurd. So I could come beat you up and have my way with you and be right as long as I have a group of people who agree with me? To say rape is relative to the masses ideas of it is to accept the violation of basic humans rights of those victims. Its simply not about belief. I can be tolerant and accept beliefs outsdie of my own, but there must be absolutes at some point. Without absolutes, the study of science is merely childish babble and opinionated discussions. 



			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> But to say 'wrongs' is to assume the conclusion.
> 
> No one wants the conclusion to be anything other than the obvious: Rape is wrong, because _by definition_ it is an act done against someone's will. But the death penalty is also an act (usually) done against someone's will, and we accept that...it's an apparent contradiction, no?


 No. Plain and simple, I see no contradiction. But what is happening is your jumping to another issue because the current one is too hard to finish. This is the problem with these discussions. Also, one is not right based on the correctness of another. They are not connected, rape can be wrong regardless of the issue of the death penalty.



			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> I don't think it's fair to assume that those who disagree with you do so because they do not understand you?


 I didn't make that assumption.



			
				Kane said:
			
		

> Yes rape is wrong, but it is only wrong to us. Imagine if you did not think the way you did however rational it may be. In reality its your own conscionce mind that decides what is immoral and what is not. Many people world over think that it is very immoral to disobey their husband and that women here are doing a "wrong". They claim this to be absolute but it ain't a fundemental universal moral belief. I agree with you that there are certain things that should be universally considered absolute but the fact remains that morality and what is absolute depends on what we think. Because most of the world believes that rape is a moral wrong it can be declared a universal moral wrong. But imagine living in a world where we thought it wasn't a moral wrong. Then it wouldn't moral. Should it be considered immoral to rape? IMHO it definatley should. But if you were in a different reality where rape was not considered as such then it wouldn't be a big deal. Absolute moral wrongs is for us to decide and if there is a certian wrong we think should be universally accepted then we need to make it known. Rape by default is universally accepted so there is little argument.


Again, I'll say that I'm not talking about morals or religion. When I say rape is wrong, its because it violates he human rights of another human. That is wrong, regardless of the belief system of the rapist. Its not the thinking of rape as wrong that makes it wrong.....its the action rape commits.

7sm


----------



## shesulsa (Dec 14, 2005)

It appears to me that some of you are confusing "culture" with legislation and lax enforcement, corruption.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 14, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> No, I offered no judging of anyone. I said its not correct to say _cultures_ accept rape, because then your leaving out the voice of the raped women in your definition of _culture_.


 
What do you think the voice of a raped woman is going to say if she is raped in a society where it is totally accepted and there is no way for her to know anything different?

If you think that she will suddenly be "informed from above" about what is "actually right" then I suggest you take a few cultural anthropology classes.  That doesn't happen.



> Actually it does. Wait a minute...."male dominance of women is accepted" by whom? Accepted by the dominating men? Accepted by the dominated women? Forced conformity to a system is not acceptance. Just because you rape me every day at 3:26pm doesn't mean I will eventually accept rape as right or correct.


 
Again, you need to step our the bounds of your learning and attempt to see this from a different POV.  Imagine yourself in a culture where rape is an accepted practice and one learns nothing different.  As a male, you would learn to rape and you would rape.



> Normals do not define right or wrong, thats insanity. So, your accepting of rape in these cultures? Your just simply saying who has the biggest muscle makes the rights and wrongs. They may make the laws but since when have you accepted legal doctrine as true and right simply because its "legal"? Thats the problem with relativism, you have to align yourself with whoever is winning to stay right...........I say you can be right regardless of who is in control or what the norms are for raping women.


 
That isn't the way it works.  That isn't how cultures work and that isn't how societies work.  There is no universal moral language that humans intuitively understand.  All we have are genes force certain social behaviors.  That these behaviors may randomly choose common aspects of accepted western morality is of no consequence.  There are always successful exceptions.  

Norms are the only thing that define what is right and wrong in a culture.  They can change with popular opinion or through oppressive power, but they are not informed by any absolutes.



> Again, belief isn't needed for truth to exist. Regardless of everyones beliefs, forcing a women to have sex with you against her will is still wrong....even if you disagree. (Not you particualrly...you as the person raping)


 
This implies that you believe in some form of external truth regarding morality and this is a common position for people who accept absolute morality.  However, if there is such a thing, there must be some evidence for it...and thus for there is none...actually there is worse then none for absolute truth.  An analysis of the historical record in any society supports relativism nicely.  

The bottom line is that the environment in which a culture devolops determines everything about its structure...morality included.  After the culture makes contact with another culture, there can be a flow of ideas that change both cultures.  Ideas that best the fit the environment accepted by the culture and others are discarded.  

With that being said, if the idea that woman's suffrage did not in some way alleviate a culture's environment pressures, then it too would be discarded.  

BTW - I do not believe this to be the case.  In fact, as a moral relativist, I would argue that rape no londer has any place in a modernized world environment.  As societies modernize the roles of men and women meld together thus making the oppression of women maladaptive...ie they are less able to compete.  



> So right and wrong are defined by actions of the masses? Whew, now thats scary doctrine. Her expectation of being raped doesn't deminish or highten the fact that rape is wrong....just because she was raped alot doesn't mean its now ok to rape her....but of course only in her country where rape is the norm. Skewed....I don't understand your reasoning here.


 
The norms that you learned in our society will not be the same as the norms that boys and girls learn in a society that oppresses women and accepts rape.  The people in that society will not suddenly see it your way because it is written externally for all to see.  If they do change to accept your views at all it is because the background environment and rules of their culture have changed to become more like us.  In other words, the masses of chosen it.  That is the way it is.



> In what context is robbing a young woman of her virginity and her sexuality by forcing her to have sex with you ok? Thats absurd. No one is generalizing anything as "evil" just wrong because it violates another humans rights....regardless of how you chosse to see that other human. I recognize peoples differences, but rape is still wrong, regardless of whether or not they think so. Contextually you must then sort out arguments of your wife or daughter being raped while in one of these cultures....is that then ok? *Rape is wrong....there is no context that makes it ok.*


 
There is no context in our culture that can make it right, but in other cultures this may not be the case.  Our culture's values do not determine right and wrong for everyone.  They only do so for us and for those we oppress/impress with our values.  People chose in a culture what is right and wrong for themselves and they only things that can make make them change is if they choose to accept certain ideas or if they are overtaken by a culture with more power.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 14, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> No I'm not denying the existence of culture, but accepting the existence of individualistic culture.


 
That's already a contradiction in terms. Check out the definition of culture:


1.
a.The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought. 
b.These patterns, traits, and products considered as the expression of a particular period, class, community, or population: Edwardian culture; Japanese culture; the culture of poverty. 
c.These patterns, traits, and products considered with respect to a particular category, such as a field, subject, or mode of expression: religious culture in the Middle Ages; musical culture; oral culture. 
d.The predominating attitudes and behavior that characterize the functioning of a group or organization.

 
Notice that it is specifically _not_ about individuals but rather about larger groups. (To respond briefly to *shesulsa*, 1.a. "institutions, and all other products of human work and thought" would include a society's laws--the laws reflect the beliefs of the group, unless imposed dictatorially.) There is no, and can be no, "individualistic culture" as such; culture is inherently collective. A single person can no more have his or her own culture than he can have his or her own private language, legal system, etc.

You don't have to like, or agree with, a part of a culture. But whether you get married or not, the institution of marriage is still a part o fthis culture.



> Courses taught in culture and anthropology are now the deciders of right and wrong?


 
No, no one said that. You seem to rephrase things in a way that makes them easy for you to refute. I was pointing out that the word 'culture' has a well-accepted meaning in English. You are using it to mean something else. Looking at those courses would give an idea how the word is actually used and what it means.



> So I could come beat you up and have my way with you and be right as long as I have a group of people who agree with me?


 
Either you believe that there is absolute right and wrong--say, as handed down in the Bible--or not. Isn't that what we're talking about? I don't see that there is absolute right and wrong that can be derived from first principles like the laws of physics. That means there's some arbitrariness. You don't want a group to decide what is or isn't right--I don't want one person to make that decision. Charles Manson thought he was right. Shall I respect his belief, or side with the group that made the laws that say that's wrong?

How can laws and norms of accepted behaviour differ so very much from time to time and place to place if what's right isn't defined locally?



> Plain and simple, I see no contradiction. But what is happening is your jumping to another issue because the current one is too hard to finish.


 
No. I'm using your very logic. It leads to a conclusion you don't like. What you should do is reconsider your reasoning. Instead, you reject the data showing that your reasoning is flawed.

You argue that something is wrong if the person to whom it is happening doesn't like it. But, when that reasoning is applied to a new case, you reject the result. You're trying to have it both ways.



> . When I say rape is wrong, its because it violates he human rights of another human.


 
OK, let's try this again. You've given a reason why it's wrong. Your reason is not specific to this act, but to any that violates another's human rights. Surely killing someone violates their human rights. It is, as you say, not a matter of belief (say, that capital punishment is just) but of the action itself. _Given your logic_, mustn't you conclude that the execution of S.T. Williams was also wrong?

This isn't changing the subject. It's exploring whether your reasoning is sound and complete--a test of it. It's the very basis of philosophical argument.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 14, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Thats absurd...so by your deffinition rape is right?


 
According to the morals that I learned and accept, then it is wrong.  



> The problem is that rape cannot be both right and wrong at the same time.


 
Yes, it can, depending on one's POV and justification.  Take a look at the contradictions _within_ our culture regarding right and wrong. 

In our culture, killing a person is both wrong and right.  In our culture, stealing is both wrong and right.  In our culture poisoning people is both wrong and right.  In our culture, wasting our natural resources is both wrong and right.  Our culture alone is a perfect example of moral relativism.  The definition of wrong and right all depends on who is doing the defining.  If one peddles enough money, influence, and power, one can commit all sorts of "abominations" and make them right.  

With that being said, is it so hard to understand that two different cultures may have two entirely different rules regarding rape?  What makes one cultures definition of right and wrong better then another's?



> It seems no one wants to answer the tough questions here, just skirt around the serious issues. If rape is right in a culture, why does the victim not agree?


 
What is the victim really going to think about rape in a culture that accepts it and in a culture where there is very little inflow of other ideas?  How is she going to be informed that what happened to her is wrong? 



> If "right" is determined by the masses, then why are prisoners held responsible for their "crimes" in prison, which are "right" by the "culture" of the prisoners?


 
Good question.  I guess the answer is "when in Rome do as the Romans do...and if you don't like what the Romans do, don't go to Rome."



> If rape is right in certain cultures, is your wife or daughter getting raped there then ok?


 
It may be wrong in my eyes, but in the eyes of people of the society in which it happened, everything would be fine.  I could attempt to spread my cultural ideas to them and sway their viewpoints and I may or may not be successful.  Or I could run for politics, get elected, and use my nations might to sway their society by force.  Or someone from their culture could do the same to mine and force me to accept it or die.  Either way, its all relative.



> Maybe we are just too far removed, we dont understand the issues that are developed by rape. Having dated several women who have been raped, being married to a woman who has been raped, having worked as a paramedic and seeing first hand the after affects (physically and emotionally) of rape and attempted rape, and having physically stoped two rapes in progress; I can most assuredly tell you I have never seen a victim of rape say, "Its ok, his culture accepts it".


 
It does not surprise me that you cannot find someone who accepts rape within our culture.



> Are we to ignore the voice of these victims because they aren't powerful enough to force our attention?


 
The term "victims" is relative.  



> If rape is not wrong as an absolute, you must be willing to accept one of your loved ones being raped and that being ok and acceptable because they might have been raped by someone from a culture that accepts rape.


 
Rape can be relative and one can still accept a set of values that says that rape is wrong.  If you go to a place where rape is the accepted norm and someone you love is raped, you may be angry because this goes against everything that you believe, but in that place, at that time, what happened was not wrong.  One can work to eventually work to make it wrong, but at the place and time that it happened, in the context of the society, it was not wrong.  

I need to amend my quote from above  "When in Rome do as the Romans do...and if you don't like what the Romans do, don't go to Rome...unless you have an army at your back."


----------



## arnisador (Dec 14, 2005)

An aside, not fully on topic....Peter Singer, the Princeton philospher, is well-known for his belief that we are enslaving animals the way we have enslaved humans and that that is just as wrong. (He has mor ethoughts on non-human animals as well.) He sees most of us as horribly cruel for that. Most people dismiss him. Our culture accepts this treatment of animals. Some cultures revere, say, cows, but otehrwise treat animals as we do. Maybe some day we'll decide that animals should be treated as humans are, and that killing an animal is murder. Cultures change!


----------



## shesulsa (Dec 14, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> There is no context in our culture that can make it right, but in other cultures this may not be the case.


 Is this why women from other cultures receive capitol punishment for standing up against rape, reporting it, talking about it, fighting back against it? Why a scant few in these cultures manage to get out of their country alive?

Just because the voice of the raped is suppressed doesn't mean that rape is tolerated by women, nor does it mean all men in that culture will commit rape.  Sorry, while the majority may, I don't buy the absolutism of some of your statements.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Our culture's values do not determine right and wrong for everyone. They only do so for us and for those we oppress/impress with our values.


 Indeed - just as the war on morals right here within our United States is a wrong and unjust one, yes?



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> People chose in a culture what is right and wrong for themselves and they only things that can make make them change is if they choose to accept certain ideas or if they are overtaken by a culture with more power.


 Africa is an excellent example of where this argument fails.  Women there are raped by AIDS infected men. They fight back, they report the crime, but it still keeps happening. There is abject poverty like we know nothing of here in America. How is any culture without shoes, food, adequate shelter, medical care, safe drinking water supposed to stand up to a government rich with diamonds, arms and white people?  This is complete oppression and while the culture of these people might tolerate and even encourage the rape and mutilation of girls and women, the only other recourse these women have is to commit suicide.  Does this change culture?


----------



## shesulsa (Dec 14, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Cultures change!


Yes, in most conditions cultures can and do develop without outside influence, though there are notorious cultures who have not done so (some tribes found in the 20th century for example) and some in third world nations that, even though near technology and relief, get none.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 14, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Indeed - just as the war on morals right here within our United States is a wrong and unjust one, yes?


 
Wrong or unjust would depend on how many people one has on one's side.  This is readily apparent with gay marriage.  While think that homosexuals should have equal rights, the majority does not think so.  Cultural change still can happen through the avenues of impression/oppression, however.  For instance, education might eventually make a difference by spreading ideas.  Or, the Supreme Court might also rule that homosexuals deserve equal rights and this law would be oppressed upon the majority by the power of the government.



> Africa is an excellent example of where this argument fails. Women there are raped by AIDS infected men. They fight back, they report the crime, but it still keeps happening. There is abject poverty like we know nothing of here in America. How is any culture without shoes, food, adequate shelter, medical care, safe drinking water supposed to stand up to a government rich with diamonds, arms and white people? This is complete oppression and while the culture of these people might tolerate and even encourage the rape and mutilation of girls and women, the only other recourse these women have is to commit suicide. Does this change culture?


 
Yes, because this example highlights another way that cultures can change.  AIDS affected the environment in Africa and people are reacting to that change.  AIDS is like a meteor strike to that continent...a highly destructive external phenomenon.  People are not learning to be different based on any absolute definition of morality.


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 14, 2005)

If you ask me, 'absolutism' and 'relativism' are the same damn thing.

Both ideologies make _a priori_ metaphysical assumptions about reality, that there is some 'bottom line' or 'zero point' that we can finally and ultimately judge all life by. Of course, there is actually no proof that such a 'zero point' actually exists. It's just a philosophical assumption on the part of the individual.

Relativism is bit more tricky than, say, Biblical absolutism, but it still has its own 'zero point' or 'final truth' by which we are to rigidly and dualistically judge everyone and everything by. In essence, it is a form of subtle absolutism dressed up in sheep's clothing.

There is no 'zero point'. Everything, without exception, exists within a context. And that context exists within another, deeper context. And even that context exists in yet another, even deeper context. And.... well, you get the idea. 

As philosopher Ken Wilber put it: "It's turtles all the way down, your highness."

Morals, like all forms of culture, are social constructions. This doesn't mean all moral beliefs or values are equally valid, mind you, but the fact still remains that they're things we made up in order to live with another. They don't exist magically independent of us, in some kind of fantastical _a priori_ cultural vacuum. Nor is there anything outside of such social constructions that we can look to to try and impose the validity of our moral norms as some type of absolute Other.

It's stuff we made up, but it ain't all relative.

Laterz.


----------



## Floating Egg (Dec 14, 2005)

I've noticed quite a few logical fallacies throughout this discussion, so I've included a number of links for those of you that are interested in improving your arguments:

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/index.html
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
​


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 14, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> It's stuff we made up, but it ain't all relative.


 
If its stuff we made up and its NOT relative then what is it?


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 14, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> If its stuff we made up and its NOT relative then what is it?


 
I would argue it is a hierarchically-layered, developmental, dialectical-contextualism.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 14, 2005)

Floating Egg said:
			
		

> I've noticed quite a few logical fallacies throughout this discussion, so I've included a number of links for those of you that are interested in improving your arguments:
> 
> http://www.fallacyfiles.org/
> http://www.logicalfallacies.info/index.html
> http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html


 
:asian: :asian: :asian:


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 14, 2005)

I tend to think of it as environmental/geographic determinism.


----------



## Floating Egg (Dec 14, 2005)

After reviewing this thread, it is clear to me that 7starmantis has made a strawman of moral relativism. In order to stop this degringolade, I think it's important for all parties concerned to recognize that moral relativism is not a single doctrine.


----------



## shesulsa (Dec 14, 2005)

NOTE:  I previously quoted the wrong user in my previous post. I've corrected it. Thanks for pointing that out to me, Adam.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 14, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> NOTE: I previously quoted the wrong user in my previous post. I've corrected it. Thanks for pointing that out to me, Adam.


 
The first quote in post 37 was 7*m.  The rest were me....


----------



## arnisador (Dec 14, 2005)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051214/en_afp/britaineuusjustice_051214180929



> British Prime Minister Tony Blair said he "strongly" opposed the death penalty but warned it was wrong to equate the human rights situtation in the US with that in countries such as China simply on the grounds of the number of executions carried out.
> 
> Answering a weekly session of questions in parliament a day after the controversial execution in California of former gang leader Stanley "Tookie" Williams, Blair said: "There is a difference between Europe and America on this issue.
> 
> "There always has been and always will be as long as the death penalty remains in the USA," he said when asked whether he was aware that 97 percent of the world's executions took place in China, Vietnam, Iran and the United States.



We see the rule of law. Others see us in what we think of as the barbaric company of countries like China. It's all relative.


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 14, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The first quote in post 37 was 7*m.  The rest were me....



Actually, all the quotes were from you, none were written by me.

No worries Geo !! 

7sm


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 14, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Actually, all the quotes were from you, none were written by me.
> 
> No worries Geo !!
> 
> 7sm


 
I stand corrected...

:asian:


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 14, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> What do you think the voice of a raped woman is going to say if she is raped in a society where it is totally accepted and there is no way for her to know anything different?
> 
> If you think that she will suddenly be "informed from above" about what is "actually right" then I suggest you take a few cultural anthropology classes. That doesn't happen.


 I'm not talking about being informed from "above" or below. There is no learning needed to dislike being raped. You can't say a woman living in a culture accepting of rape would know nothing else, thats absolutely false (no pun intended ) and in my opinion a bit disingenuous in this thread. To know nothing else but rape would be to be raped at all times, thats just absurd. Because a woman may be raped alot, doesn't mean she doesn't know she dislikes it. Again, the rapist or the victim's belief of right and wrong are moot, the act is wrong. The problem is you are unwilling to accept anything but your (absolute) deffinition of the words "right" and "wrong". I dont mean wrong becasue its punished, but wrong because its violating the human rights of another person (who is innocent or undeserving). 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Again, you need to step our the bounds of your learning and attempt to see this from a different POV. Imagine yourself in a culture where rape is an accepted practice and one learns nothing different. As a male, you would learn to rape and you would rape.


 I can see it from a different point of view. I'm very willing to accept that other cultures see rape as acceptable. I just dont believe that because of it, they are not wrong in committing rape. I can accept a person who believes rape is ok, but I still say rape is wrong. Lets not attribute religious or moral stigma to the word "wrong". Your saying wrong is defined by if there is punishment, wrong doesn't require any punishment or even recognition. 

It is (again) completely false to say environmental or social norms will 100% predict the outcome and actions of adults. That is not true and will never be so. While social and cultural norms may influence people raised around them, they are in no way predictions of the action of those adult children. That is again a disinginuous argument that is completely false. I think that needs no explination, we all see why that is incorrect. A child raised in a society or culture accepting of rape will no more grow up to rape than a child raised in a fundamentally christian home will grow up to bomb abortion clinics. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> That isn't the way it works. That isn't how cultures work and that isn't how societies work. There is no universal moral language that humans intuitively understand. All we have are genes force certain social behaviors. That these behaviors may randomly choose common aspects of accepted western morality is of no consequence. There are always successful exceptions.


 If thats the case, why do all people understand how to lie when born without prior training? There are universals that humans intuitively understand, they are just not as many as some would have you believe. You would have us believe that a child born in a home void of lying would not know how to lie? Thats false as well. 
I agree that there are social behaviors we learn, but why does that social behavior predict right and wrong? If we learn to do right or learn to do wrong, it doesn't change what is or is not wrong. I need some type of source or proof that shows right or wrong changing with societal changes. Problem is that is not possible, niether is proof of absolutes, because we will all believe what we want to. However, its a bit lazy or even cowardly in my opinion to simply refuse to stand against what is wrong, simply because I want to seem tollerant and accepting. I can be both without accepting the wrong acts. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Norms are the only thing that define what is right and wrong in a culture. They can change with popular opinion or through oppressive power, but they are not informed by any absolutes.


 I think its better said, "Norms are the only thing that define what is acceptable or unacceptable in a culture". Wrong is wrong regardless of you belief of it. Rape is wrong regardless of your acceptance of it in other cultures.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> This implies that you believe in some form of external truth regarding morality and this is a common position for people who accept absolute morality. However, if there is such a thing, there must be some evidence for it...and thus for there is none...actually there is worse then none for absolute truth. An analysis of the historical record in any society supports relativism nicely.
> 
> The bottom line is that the environment in which a culture devolops determines everything about its structure...morality included. After the culture makes contact with another culture, there can be a flow of ideas that change both cultures. Ideas that best the fit the environment accepted by the culture and others are discarded.


Your 100% correct, only I'm not using morality and the words "right" or "wrong" together. Morality of a culture is relative, they accept whatever they like, but does that make what they accept right or wrong? No. Right and wrong exists, regardless of the cultures acceptance of it.

There is no evidence on either side of the discussion, thats why this is a philosophical discussion.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> There is no context in our culture that can make it right, but in other cultures this may not be the case. Our culture's values do not determine right and wrong for everyone. They only do so for us and for those we oppress/impress with our values. People chose in a culture what is right and wrong for themselves and they only things that can make make them change is if they choose to accept certain ideas or if they are overtaken by a culture with more power.


Again, using the word "right" to mean morally accepted you are correct. I just happen to believe that rape is wrong regardless of who accepts it or who attempts to push it as right. Morality and what is right are not neccessarily connected. You simply can't allow the mass culture to determine your worth as we are doing with the raped women.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> According to the morals that I learned and accept, then it is wrong.


 Yet you accept others morals and what they learned so then it is right as well. You can't accept relativism and then use words like "wrong". If your saying rape is not 100% wrong absolutely, then you must also accept rape. Thats the way it is.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Yes, it can, depending on one's POV and justification.  Take a look at the contradictions _within_ our culture regarding right and wrong.


 Those are not contradictions. You are ignoring context to try and make your point. Some things are held to context, some things are absolute. your right, our culture is an example of moral relativism, does that means moral relativism is then right? Morals to hang, we are talkig about basic human rights, not accepted morals. Its arrogant in my opinion to say that what you deem as acceptable is then right. You could flip it and say the same about me, except I'm not saying I'm the one making it right or wrong, there needs not be anyone to do that, it is inherantly wrong to rape someone. Thats just the way it is. Gravity exists, we can't change that by raising a culture that doesn't accept gravity...it would still exist. Even people living on the moon would have to accept that gravity exists, it may not affect them as much as it does us on earth, but they can't just shove their heads in the moon sand and say gravity doesn't exist.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> What is the victim really going to think about rape in a culture that accepts it and in a culture where there is very little inflow of other ideas? How is she going to be informed that what happened to her is wrong?


 What the woman gettig raped would sya is probably not, "I think you are committing an act that I believe is wrong", but rather, "Stop raping me, I dont want you to do this to me". Again (for at least the 5th time) her belief of rape being wrong doesn't change that what is happeneing to her is wrong. If she accepted it, it wouldn't be rape. Your tryin to say that in order for soemthing to be wrong, it must be recognized by one party as morally wrong. Thats simply not the case.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Yes, because this example highlights another way that cultures can change. AIDS affected the environment in Africa and people are reacting to that change. AIDS is like a meteor strike to that continent...a highly destructive external phenomenon. People are not learning to be different based on any absolute definition of morality.


 No, your right, people are learning to eb different based on life or death experiences. Morals mean nothing, but what happens to you certainly does. Thats been my point all along, morals only affect those who choose to live by them, actions affect everyone.



			
				Floating Egg said:
			
		

> After reviewing this thread, it is clear to me that 7starmantis has made a strawman of moral relativism. In order to stop this degringolade, I think it's important for all parties concerned to recognize that moral relativism is not a single doctrine.


Um...strawman in order to shift the focus off of what exactly? This entire thread is about Absolutism vs Relitivism....what am I shielding? I dont understand your point. Of course relitivism is not a single doctrine. If your concerned about relitivism's reputation, you are more than welcome to contribute here in this thread. 

7sm


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 14, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> If thats the case, why do all people understand how to lie when born without prior training?


 
They don't.

Lying implies an awareness of the perspective of another, which is not a capacity that newborn human infants possess. It is not developed until somewhat later, between 1.5 to 2 years of age. Prior to this time, a child's thinking is almost completely egocentric.

Laterz.


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 14, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> We see the rule of law. Others see us in what we think of as the barbaric company of countries like China. It's all relative.



Your right, the way we are seen is relative. However, yet again I say that these relatives are not what define right or wrong. 

7sm


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 14, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> They don't.
> 
> Lying implies an awareness of the perspective of another, which is not a capacity that newborn human infants possess. It is not developed until somewhat later, between 1.5 to 2 years of age. Prior to this time, a child's thinking is almost completely egocentric.
> 
> Laterz.


 First lets clearify that the difference between a newborn and the age of 1.5 or 2 years makes no difference in my point. Semantics aside, my point is still valid. 

Second, lets make sure and point out that there is no deffinitive proof to a statement like yours. Its mere "educated" guessing. The facts are now showing much higher intelegence in newborns than we would or have attributed to them. Younger children are learning to communicate with sign language even before speaking.

7sm


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 14, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I'm not talking about being informed from "above" or below.


 
When you say that rape is wrong regardless of what a culture's norms say, then you imply that there is a standard for wrong that exist outside of culture.  In essence, you are claiming that a certain standard is universal.  Therefore, here are my questions...  

1.  Where is this standard?  
2.  Why doesn't everyone follow this standard if it does exist?  
3.  What happens if a culture does not follow this standard of right and wrong?



> There is no learning needed to dislike being raped.


 
Perhaps, but there is learning needed for others to dislike it and when it comes to an "actual" definition of right and wrong...that is all that matters.



> Again, the rapist or the victim's belief of right and wrong are moot, the act is wrong.


 
You keep saying this and you keep implying that there is some greater standard that trumps a culture's norms, but I have yet to see any argument in this thread that actually shows what that standard is.  



> The problem is you are unwilling to accept anything but your (absolute) deffinition of the words "right" and "wrong". I dont mean wrong becasue its punished, but wrong because its violating the human rights of another person (who is innocent or undeserving).


 
Your argument regarding "human rights" as being this standard doesn't work because "human rights" themselves are relative and determined by cultural norms.  Still waiting...



> I can see it from a different point of view. I'm very willing to accept that other cultures see rape as acceptable. I just dont believe that because of it, they are not wrong in committing rape. I can accept a person who believes rape is ok, *but I still say rape is wrong*.


 
This is only your opinion and it is in no way universal.



> Lets not attribute religious or moral stigma to the word "wrong". Your saying wrong is defined by if there is punishment, wrong doesn't require any punishment or even recognition.


 
Unless you can provide some sort of argument for a morality that trumps cultural norms, then "wrong" is wholly defined by a society. 



> A child raised in a society or culture accepting of rape will no more grow up to rape than a child raised in a fundamentally christian home will grow up to bomb abortion clinics.


 
If you think about this comparison, it makes _absolutely_  no sense.  A child that grows up in a society that regularly rapes women will have a much higher propensity to rape then a child that grows up in a different society.  In fact, one could expect most, if not all, to rape and rape again.



> If thats the case, why do all people understand how to lie when born without prior training?


 
This all goes into semiotics as a theory of the mind.  A child must be taught to misrepresent symbols.  They must be taught to initiate a mis-take of a symbol.  Many prominant psychologists have studied this.  Perhaps Heretic888 will elaborate.  He is actually studying this.



> There are universals that humans intuitively understand, they are just not as many as some would have you believe.


 
What are they?  Where are they?  How does one learn them?



> I need some type of source or proof that shows right or wrong changing with societal changes.


 
Take a look at the history of this country from the emancipation proclaimation to the present.  As society modernized, the value of kept slaves and eventually oppression of certain segments of the population dropped...and our morality changed in response.



> Problem is that is not possible, niether is proof of absolutes, because we will all believe what we want to.


 
hmmmm



> However, its a bit lazy or even cowardly in my opinion to simply refuse to stand against what is wrong, simply because I want to seem tollerant and accepting. I can be both without accepting the wrong acts.


 
You have yet to show how an act can be universally wrong. 



> I think its better said, "Norms are the only thing that define what is acceptable or unacceptable in a culture". Wrong is wrong regardless of you belief of it.  *Rape is wrong regardless of your acceptance of it in other cultures*.


 
Why?  Where are the morals that trump the morals laid down by a society?  What are the absolutes?  How is anyone supposed to know what they are?



> There is no evidence on either side of the discussion, thats why this is a philosophical discussion.


 
Oh yes there is.  You could use historical examples to back up your point.  You could use natural laws.  You could make a connection to our biology.  So far, you've thrown nothing but tautologies out and expected people to accept them.



> Again, using the word "right" to mean morally accepted you are correct. I just happen to believe that rape is wrong regardless of who accepts it or who attempts to push it as right. Morality and what is right are not neccessarily connected. You simply can't allow the mass culture to determine your worth as we are doing with the raped women.


 
These are all your own personal beliefs and these beliefs happen to reflect many of the norms of our culture.  You have not made the connection to any universal morality though.



> Yet you accept others morals and what they learned so then it is right as well. You can't accept relativism and then use words like "wrong". If your saying rape is not 100% wrong absolutely, then you must also accept rape. Thats the way it is.


 
If I live in a society, then I must accept its norms.  The penalties for not accepting them can sometimes be rather severe.  Thus, rape is wrong, because that is what I was taught and that is the only reason why I know its wrong.



> Those are not contradictions. You are ignoring context to try and make your point. Some things are held to context, some things are absolute.


 
The context is nothing but justification.  Yet, if there were such a thing as absolute morality, the context wouldn't matter.  



> Your right, our culture is an example of moral relativism, does that means moral relativism is then right? Morals to hang, we are talkig about basic human rights, not accepted morals.


 
Basic human rights are relative.  These reflect the values of a society and these, too, are relative. 



> Its arrogant in my opinion to say that what you deem as acceptable is then right. You could flip it and say the same about me, except I'm not saying I'm the one making it right or wrong, there needs not be anyone to do that, it is inherantly wrong to rape someone. Thats just the way it is. Gravity exists, we can't change that by raising a culture that doesn't accept gravity...it would still exist. Even people living on the moon would have to accept that gravity exists, it may not affect them as much as it does us on earth, but they can't just shove their heads in the moon sand and say gravity doesn't exist.


 
If you can show me how rape is universally wrong in the same way that gravity exists, then I'll concede this debate.  



> What the woman gettig raped would sya is probably not, "I think you are committing an act that I believe is wrong", but rather, "Stop raping me, I dont want you to do this to me". Again (for at least the 5th time) her belief of rape being wrong doesn't change that what is happeneing to her is wrong. If she accepted it, it wouldn't be rape. Your tryin to say that in order for soemthing to be wrong, it must be recognized by one party as morally wrong. Thats simply not the case.


 
Then show me where this universal morality exists.  Show me how this law of what is wrong actually affects humanity.  Tell me how this law trumps the norms of a society.


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 14, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> First lets clearify that the difference between a newborn and the age of 1.5 or 2 years makes no difference in my point. Semantics aside, my point is still valid.


 
The fact that a child's cognitive perspectivism matures and develops over the course of his or lifetime is not "semantics", it is reality. 



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Second, lets make sure and point out that there is no deffinitive proof to a statement like yours. Its mere "educated" guessing.


 
Actually, its the standard line you'll hear in most developmental psychology courses and is generally accepted standard in the psychological community. Much of this rests on the work of Jean Piaget. 



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> The facts are now showing much higher intelegence in newborns than we would or have attributed to them. Younger children are learning to communicate with sign language even before speaking.


 
All of which has nothing to do with perspectivism.

Laterz.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 14, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> It doesn't work that way. You have to step out of the bounds of our culture and imagine being raised in a culture where rape is the norm and male dominance of women is accepted. In this culture, if I were to rape someone, there would be nothing wrong with it.


 And herein lies mistake....the assumption that all cultures are equally right.  That's why this conversation gets absurd, because if you accept the premise that all cultures are 'equally right', then you have to accept the fact that anything is right, given a different context.  However, the absurdity of that conclusion is illustrated well when, in order to accept that position, you're required to conceed that nothing is wrong.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			






I personally believe that morality has evolved with us.  The idea that human life should be revered is a higher social adaptation than the idea that human life is cheap.  The idea that women should be respected is a higher social adaptation than the idea of women as property.  Slavery is a lower social adaptation than the idea that all men are created equal.

Again, there is no requirement for a 'higher source' of morality to come to the conclusion that some ideas and morals are of greater value than others.  Moral relativism is an easy intellectual trap that people some times fall in to, for various reasons.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 14, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> And herein lies mistake....the assumption that all cultures are equally right. That's why this conversation gets absurd, because if you accept the premise that all cultures are 'equally right', then you have to accept the fact that anything is right, given a different context. However, the absurdity of that conclusion is illustrated well when, in order to accept that position, you're required to conceed that nothing is wrong.


 
One cannot accept that everything is equally right or nothing is wrong because one cannot remove themselves from the context of the culture.  As I said above, a society has consequences for those who do not follow the norms.  



> I personally believe that morality has evolved with us. The idea that human life should be revered is a higher social adaptation than the idea that human life is cheap. The idea that women should be respected is a higher social adaptation than the idea of women as property. Slavery is a lower social adaptation than the idea that all men are created equal.


 
The idea that one adaptation is higher or lower in the sense that one idea is more or less moral has no basis.  However, I would agree that certain behaviors are better adapted to current environmental conditions then others.  Slavery, for instance, is no longer an advantage for modern nations and thus it becomes wrong.  This is the same with womens rights, as societies modernize, the distiction between male and female roles diminish.  Societies that treat everyone equally now have a greater advantage because they've increased the number of productive entities within it.



> Again, there is no requirement for a 'higher source' of morality to come to the conclusion that some ideas and morals are of greater value than others. Moral relativism is an easy intellectual trap that people some times fall in to, for various reasons.


 
Pure moral relativism does not fully describe what actually happens.  However, if we say that morality is relative to the environment or to other cultural influences, then we are more accurately describing what is happening in nature.  The bottom line is that there is no pure absolute morality and there is no completely random relative morality.  It has to come from somewhere...


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 14, 2005)

I guess the following would be better put here.  





			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> I've seen people try to develop an ethics out of Darwinism. Other than that, it's all a matter of philosophy, right? Was Thomas Jefferson a good person because he promoted freedoms or a bad person because he owned slaves? Just about every male who has ever lived has been a human rights abuser in terms of denying female suffrage until quite recently...and it's still not hard to find places where it's denied. You couldn't hope to get a universal agreement on human rights that covered enough cases to be worthwhile.


 There is actually a third way to view all this.  Thomas Jefferson was a man of his time (actually, way ahead of his time in many ways).  He held the ironic position of owning slaves...AND believing all men were created equal.  He also seemed to understand that America would suffer for it's continued patronage of the slave system (and he was right).   

I have to believe there are two directions to go, morally, toward greater, more evolved moral beliefs, or we can ratchet step back.  Sometimes a ratchet step back is unavoidable by circumstance, but it should never be confused as a 'moral' step.  I do not believe that all behavior is equall moral.  Some behavior is more moral, some is less.  How do we know a moral direction?  Sometimes only in comparision.
For example, a system that reveres human life is more moral than one that does not.  Why?  Because God says so?  No, because a system that reveres human life is higher evolved, socially.  Our system of morality has evolved along with our culture.  

Lets look at two cultures, and compare which one is the more moral.  One culture views clan membership and loyalty to the clan leader as the ideal.  Another has a highly developed ideal, codified in a constitution, outlining the rights of all peoples, and a system of laws.  Which is more 'moral'?  If you are stuck in intellectual trap of moral relativism, you are forced to say "Well, neither is more 'moral', as there is no such thing as morality".  However, it's obvious, even to them if they are honest, that the second one is more 'moral'.  



			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> It's been said that the whole of the traditional Jewish law is "Do not do unto others that which is hateful to you" and that the whole of the message of the New Testament is to strengthen that to the more active "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Makes sense, but where are the first grounds on which it is built?
> 
> We have to agree on axioms, just as in any other area of intellectual investigation.


 I suggest reading Roberty Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, and then, his book Lila: An Inquiry in to Morals.
In Lila, Pirsig outlines a compelling argument for the evolution of morals.  He breaks up moral debates in to biology versus social patterns, social versus intellectual and dynamic versus static.

Pirsig makes the argument, for example, that in the conflict of Fascism versus Communism, Communism was the more moral system, in theory.  How did he arrive at this?  He argued that Fascism was based on a social pattern of governing, where by loyalty to the state, or to a leader, was the most important element.  

Communism, Pirsig argued, was an intellectual, not a social construct, and was, therefore, morally superior.
We can apply this to the US.  The US was founded on a series of ideas, and it is those ideas, not a social pattern, that holds the US together at it's core.

At any rate, i've gone on far enough on the topic.  I recommend that you pick up a copy of Pirsig's books.  They are a compelling read.  I don't argue that they are the be all and end all of the topic, but they are thought provoking.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Only in the minds of perpetrator and the victims. The winner will determine who was right and who was wrong? Is there any other universal standard?


The irony is that a more moral level has the ability to overcome the level immediately below it.
Take, for example, an ultra-violent, physically powerful, murdering, raping brigand.   He is pursuing a pattern of biological quality.  On a purely biological level, he is completely moral, he's pursuing biological quality.  He can take what he wants, breed with whatever females he wants (whether they agree or not). From that perspective, he is better adapted than his victims.  His genetics will be continued, and his off-spring will carry on the same biological level of quality he will.  
He is fine as long as he is operating a purely biological level, and everyone else is to.
However, at the point at which we start evolving social quality, evolution starts viewing those with social quality as better adapted than the purely biological man.  This man who was formerly king of his domain, is suddenly confronted with a problem.  
Though he can dominate and control any man or beast, one on one or even in small groups he comes in contact with, those who have evolved social quality can overcome him...by power of the group.  They have decided that his biological quality is now a 'crime'.  Why? Because a social level of quality is more moral than a biological level of quality.
As time goes by, social man develops a system of laws and a military to keep biological man in check, because biological man only understands force.  As social man becomes more powerful, biological man finds himself restrained.
Social man is on top of the world.  At some point, however, an intellectual man evolves.  He finds the social system confining.  He sets out to change the social system.  He develops ideas beyond the original purpose of social man.  He develops mathmatics and science.  Philosophy.  Soon, government begins to be about more than simply controlling biological man for the good of the group.  Ideas become an end unto themselves.

Having said all this, some might be wondering 'what does this have to do with moral relativism'?  The answer to moral dispute can be solved by deciding where which side of the argument supports.  At it's core, is it a social versus biological argument, or a social versus intellectual argument, for example.
Take the issue of the death penalty being leveled in another room.  It's a social quality versus biological quality issue (social control versus biological quality criminals).  If we turn it in to an intellectual issue, however, we have to determine who's side we're coming in on.  The mistake is to the thing that intellectual quality can control biological quality.  Intellectual quality is powerless over biological quality, it is social control that stops crime.  
The mistake is to believe that the professor and his research can prevent biological quality from asserting itself as crime.  The reality is, biological quality can only be controlled by the soldier or the policeman, and their gun.  Why? Because police and soldiers are on the line of biological quality, yet they serve the social order, which in turn serves, in a higher evolved society, and ideal.
Intellectual quality, as Pirsig says, makes a mistake when it inserts itself in this social/biological conflict.  The reason it makes that mistake is that it views the social order as oppressive.  However, the mistake is in not understanding that, while the social order oppressing intellectual quality is wrong and absolutely immoral (say, burning books and stiffling dissent), that the social order controlling crime and pursuing criminals (biological behavior) is absolutely moral and right.  
Often, however, those on an intellectual level of quality can't tell the difference, whether it is social/intellectual oppression of social/biological oppression, so intellectuals often take the side of criminals (See Tookie).


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 14, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> One cannot accept that everything is equally right or nothing is wrong because one cannot remove themselves from the context of the culture. As I said above, a society has consequences for those who do not follow the norms.


 Again, this is a mistake to believe that one cannot determine right from wrong beyond cultural context.  Again, this leads to the intellectual error that says that all cultures are equal.  Even though one cannot remove themselves from the context of society, one can, from an intellectual level, examine that which serves social quality versus biological, for example.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The idea that one adaptation is higher or lower in the sense that one idea is more or less moral has no basis. However, I would agree that certain behaviors are better adapted to current environmental conditions then others. Slavery, for instance, is no longer an advantage for modern nations and thus it becomes wrong. This is the same with womens rights, as societies modernize, the distiction between male and female roles diminish. Societies that treat everyone equally now have a greater advantage because they've increased the number of productive entities within it.


 Yes, because they have achieved greater social quality.  The more complex societies get, the more they embrace ideology over social groups.  That we even have nations, outside of familial clans, is evidence of greater social quality.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Pure moral relativism does not fully describe what actually happens. However, if we say that morality is relative to the environment or to other cultural influences, then we are more accurately describing what is happening in nature. The bottom line is that there is no pure absolute morality and there is no completely random relative morality. It has to come from somewhere...


 Again, you make a mistake.  It does come from somewhere.  It is a quality present in human societies.  Name one human society where there are no laws or social rules, even if they somtimes very.  I'll save you time, you can't.  Why?  Because social rules are an inherent quality of ALL societies.  Why are rules necessary?  To overcome biological quality of the individual.  Those who have excessive biological quality must either yield to the group, die, be imprisoned, or (in some primitive groups) fight to the top position.  But, even in those societies, there is only one top position.  As time goes by, even those socieities decide it is advantageous to develop a system of advancement more based on ritual than combat.

What's more, the more advanced a society gets, the more it creates complex rules and social controls for those who exhibit excessive biological quality. 

So, we can say that one universial quality of ALL societies are social rules.  There are more, but this is enough to make my point.  If we accept that obvious truth, we acknowledge that there is a foundation for a universal system of morality, not based on divine truths, but based on the natural progression of human societies.


----------



## Floating Egg (Dec 14, 2005)

7starmantis, 

The debate over how to define culture is ongoing within the Anthropological community. John H. Bodly, in his is textbook Cultural Anthropology, defines culture in the following way:

"Culture involves at least three components: what people think, what they do, and the material products they produce. Thus, mental processes, beliefs, knowledge, and values are parts of culture. Some anthropologists would define culture entirely as mental rules guiding behavior, although often wide divergence exists between the acknowledged rules for correct behavior and what people actually do. Consequently, some researchers pay most attention to human behavior and its material products. Culture also has several properties: it is shared, learned, symbolic, transmitted cross-generationally, adaptive, and integrated."

In the second last paragraph of your first post, you stated that rape is wrong because it violates the rights of human beings. In what context is the violation of rights incorrect? Do you view rights as something that's inherent or granted?

You state that "Normals do not define right or wrong, thats insanity," which is one of your many Appeals to Ridicule. It would be more helpful if you actually refuted the claims being made using reasonable methods, but instead, you go on to ask "So, your accepting of rape in these cultures?" This line of reasoning continues with an apparent attack on relativism. You wrote "Thats the problem with relativism, you have to align yourself with whoever is winning to stay right," which is one of the key strawmans in your argument. You then follow with "I say you can be right regardless of who is in control or what the norms are for raping women," but you have yet to provide reasons for your position. Your entire argument up to this point hinges on your spurious critique of moral relativism.

You've employed a False Dilemma by stating that raping a person is either wrong or right. Now, rape may not be desirable, but you're not discussing the principle of utility. The problem, as I see it, is your reliance on the words right and wrong to determine what humans ought to do, and this is one of the major sources of conflict in this thread.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 14, 2005)

The whole issue of moral relativism is bogus.  We can argue that from a certain perspective, rape may not be wrong.  From a purely biological perspective, rape serves a purpose, it allows the male to reproduce his genetic quality.

However, from a social and intellectual perspective, we can conclude that rape is wrong.

The problem with moral relavism, and the reason it is bogus, is it says that those two positions are equally correct.  That is the mistake.  From a purely biological perspective, rape is not right or wrong.  However, when you put biological quality in conflict with the social order and the intellectual order, they are MORE moral positions.

Again, the idea that both positions are equally right is bogus.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 14, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> The irony is that a more moral level has the ability to overcome the level immediately below it.


 
If you are defining morality as "better adapted" then I agree.  However, this is not moral absolutism and it still is a form of relativism in the sense that because of different contexts, what is right in one society may not be right in another.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 14, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Again, this is a mistake to believe that one cannot determine right from wrong beyond cultural context. Again, this leads to the intellectual error that says that all cultures are equal. Even though one cannot remove themselves from the context of society, one can, from an intellectual level, examine that which serves social quality versus biological, for example.


 
There are numerous problems with this argument.  First off, it is impossible to objectively remove oneself from their cultural context.  Any sociologist will tell you this.  Second, my position in this debate is not that all cultures are equal.  It is that morality is relative to a physical and structural context.  I believe that as circumstances change, ideas go out of date and need an upgrade or the culture won't survive.  This idea explains both why certain moral ideas tend to spread so quickly and why people grow up in different contexts can sometimes believe vastly different things about what is right and wrong.



> Yes, because they have achieved greater social quality. The more complex societies get, the more they embrace ideology over social groups. That we even have nations, outside of familial clans, is evidence of greater social quality.


 
I think our positions in this discussion are very close...for a change 



> Again, you make a mistake. It does come from somewhere. It is a quality present in human societies. Name one human society where there are no laws or social rules, even if they somtimes very. I'll save you time, you can't. Why? Because social rules are an inherent quality of ALL societies.


 
I would never suggest otherwise.  I think that you missed the point I was trying to make. 



> Why are rules necessary? To overcome biological quality of the individual. Those who have excessive biological quality must either yield to the group, die, be imprisoned, or (in some primitive groups) fight to the top position. But, even in those societies, there is only one top position. As time goes by, even those socieities decide it is advantageous to develop a system of advancement more based on ritual than combat.


 
Have you read Sociobiology by EO Wilson?  I think you would be interested in this book.  In it Wilson postulates that social behavior is biology.  There is no separation.  Both evolve together and both change over time in response to environmental changes...which, with social behavior, includes structural changes.



> What's more, the more advanced a society gets, the more it creates complex rules and social controls for those who exhibit excessive biological quality.


 
Just as with biological evolution, cultural evolution has its ornamentations.  Complexity is determined by greater amounts of competion, nothing more.  Environmental pressure forces human behavior to explore every available niche.  This is another tidbit from Sociobiology.



> So, we can say that one universial quality of ALL societies are social rules. There are more, but this is enough to make my point. If we accept that obvious truth, we acknowledge that there is a foundation for a universal system of morality, not based on divine truths, but based on the natural progression of human societies.


 
Social rules are not just a product of human societies.  Animal societies also have them.  Further, the sheer diversity of social rules does not support any general patterns other then that the rules develop in response to environmental pressures.  This DOES NOT provide ANY foundation for universal morality.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 14, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> If you are defining morality as "better adapted" then I agree. However, this is not moral absolutism and it still is a form of relativism in the sense that because of different contexts, what is right in one society may not be right in another.


 What I dispute is the idea that it is impossible to determine what is right and wrong in a given situation.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 14, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> There are numerous problems with this argument. First off, it is impossible to objectively remove oneself from their cultural context. Any sociologist will tell you this. Second, my position in this debate is not that all cultures are equal. It is that morality is relative to a physical and structural context. I believe that as circumstances change, ideas go out of date and need an upgrade or the culture won't survive. This idea explains both why certain moral ideas tend to spread so quickly and why people grow up in different contexts can sometimes believe vastly different things about what is right and wrong.


 Oh, I agree that people in different contexts will believe different things about right and wrong.  What I dispute is the idea that both are equally right or wrong.  I believe it is possible to determine which one is right in a given situation.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I think our positions in this discussion are very close...for a change


 Oh, I don't know.  We aren't always that far off.  I simply make discernments between situations that are biology versus social and intellectual versus social.  I feel you usually take an intellectual position on most things against the social level of quality.  I simply disagree when you take biology's side against the social level.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I would never suggest otherwise. I think that you missed the point I was trying to make.


 No, I get your point.  I simply want to put a very fine point of distinction there.



			
				upnorthykyosa said:
			
		

> Have you read Sociobiology by EO Wilson? I think you would be interested in this book. In it Wilson postulates that social behavior is biology. There is no separation. Both evolve together and both change over time in response to environmental changes...which, with social behavior, includes structural changes.


 That is Pirsigs view as well.  However, he asserts that, as socities first evolve to serve the individual, they eventually developed beyond the individual, as an end unto themselves.  

What's more, intellect was eventually a development of societies.  Eventually, however, we began to pursue intellect as a end to itself.  That's why the first steps to build irrigations to help produce crops, gave way to philosophy.  Each ratchet step up, becomes and end to itself.

Society is biology in the sense that biology is the foundation which it is built on.  Just as biology itself is built on the inorganic.




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Just as with biological evolution, cultural evolution has its ornamentations. Complexity is determined by greater amounts of competion, nothing more. Environmental pressure forces human behavior to explore every available niche. This is another tidbit from Sociobiology.


 This is why i've come to the conclusion that different scientific fields of study only get little pieces of the puzzle.  They're all blind men feeling the elephant, so to speak.  I prefer a holistic interpretation.




			
				upnorthykyosa said:
			
		

> Social rules are not just a product of human societies. Animal societies also have them. Further, the sheer diversity of social rules does not support any general patterns other then that the rules develop in response to environmental pressures. This DOES NOT provide ANY foundation for universal morality.


 Actually, your statement only strengthens my argument...that social rules are a quality of all social groups, including animals, and they develop, initial, for biological reasons.  Eventually, however, they become an end unto themselves.

For example, you can explain to me how, through social biology, a social group develops.  But you can't tell me how a social group develops to produce a constitution.  That requires a much more diverse holistic field of study.  Your problem is that you attempt to interpret, piecemeal, referring to social biology as telling us how this occurs, and referring to anthropology about how that occurs.  Again, however, the reality is that they are only getting small pieces of what is actually occurring.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 14, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> What I dispute is the idea that it is impossible to determine what is right and wrong in a given situation.


 
I would dispute this also, however, I think that the point of distinction between our positions is that I believe it is possible to determine right and wrong within a given context and you believe that it is possible to determine right and wrong in any context.  Before I continue, could you clarify this?


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 14, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Actually, your statement only strengthens my argument...that social rules are a quality of all social groups, including animals, and they develop, initial, for biological reasons. Eventually, however, they become an end unto themselves.


 
This may be true, but it still does not provide any basis for universal morality.  If anything, the diversity of the ends unto themselves argues against an absolute standard.



> For example, you can explain to me how, through social biology, a social group develops. But you can't tell me how a social group develops to produce a constitution.


 
Certain environmental and structural factors interacted and the morality of our constitution became possible.  These structural and environmental factors interactions did not occur in other areas, thus they developed a different morality.  This, again, does not argue for an absolute standard of morality.


----------



## Floating Egg (Dec 14, 2005)

We can conclude that rape is wrong from a social and intellectual perspective, but the point of contention here seems to be whether moral principles are intrinsically valid.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 14, 2005)

Floating Egg said:
			
		

> We can conclude that rape is wrong from a social and intellectual perspective, but the point of contention here seems to be whether moral principles are intrinsically valid.


 Again, that was the argument of Pirsig.  I find his argument compelling, though there are those who disagree.  Not being in the intellectual league with Pirsig, or, indeed, most of the other theorists on this topic, I am a poor substitute.  

However, I feel, even in a cold universe devoid of absolute morality, a construct like Pirsigs theories of evolved hiearchy of morals provides the best framework available for human kind to apply...if it wishes to advance as a species.  I feel it provides a guideline by which we may measure given conflicting moral questions. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics_of_Quality
http://www.ldb.org/pirsig.htm

And, of course, no study of the Pirsig would be complete without William James.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_James


----------



## Floating Egg (Dec 14, 2005)

sgtmac_46,

We seem to be in agreement concerning the utility of a framework, unless I&#8217;ve made a glaring error in my reading of your posts.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 14, 2005)

Floating Egg said:
			
		

> sgtmac_46,
> 
> We seem to be in agreement concerning the utility of a framework, unless Ive made a glaring error in my reading of your posts.


 No, you are correct.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 15, 2005)

I find what *sgtmac_46* has written very interesting. I am familiar with the work of William James but though I know of _Zen and..._, I have never read it. The problem arises, however, that Osama bin Laden is surely confident that he is acting from the highest, most evolved social consciousness, to bring about a better world...how can we agree on what is a more 'evolved' morality? I fear we'll just do what every culture has always done, which is to declare that they are civilized and those who came before were barbarians. As a model of what has happened, I see some value in it, but as a way to decide if we are right and others are wrong...I don't see how it helps. Can it tell me whether we or Europe are right on the death penalty issue?

The sociobiology or evolutionary psychology approach explains why we do what we do, but not whether what we do is 'right' unless one adopts the axiom that what is 'natural' is necessarily moral. (It also sheds some light on the 'are children born knowing how to lie' issue.) I find it very useful when thinking of these issues, but as Richard Dawkins says, we betray our genes' desires every time we use contraception. We can't take evolved instincts and patterns of behaviour as a full guide. What has evolved was adaptive, presumably--or in some cases, a side-effect of some other adaptation--but is adpative the same as right?

I think the key questions were well put here:



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> In essence, you are claiming that a certain standard is universal. Therefore, here are my questions...
> 
> 1. Where is this standard?
> 2. Why doesn't everyone follow this standard if it does exist?
> 3. What happens if a culture does not follow this standard of right and wrong?


----------



## arnisador (Dec 15, 2005)

Floating Egg said:
			
		

> The debate over how to define culture is ongoing within the Anthropological community. John H. Bodly, in his is textbook Cultural Anthropology, defines culture in the following way:
> 
> "Culture involves at least three components: what people think, what they do, and the material products they produce. Thus, mental processes, beliefs, knowledge, and values are parts of culture. Some anthropologists would define culture entirely as mental rules guiding behavior, although often wide divergence exists between the acknowledged rules for correct behavior and what people actually do. Consequently, some researchers pay most attention to human behavior and its material products. Culture also has several properties: it is shared, learned, symbolic, transmitted cross-generationally, adaptive, and integrated."




This was a good post. I want to call attention in particular to the fact that culture is _shared_ and _learned_.





> In the second last paragraph of your first post, you stated that rape is wrong because it violates the rights of human beings. In what context is the violation of rights incorrect? Do you view rights as something that's inherent or granted?




Yes, we speak often of human rights, yet we see that Europe has condemned us for the execution of S.T. Williams. We are seen as human rights abusers in the U.S.! (Let's not even start on the issue of torture of prisoners of war.) Is there an agreed-upon notion of what rights a human has? Compare Sweden the U.S., and Saudi Arabia...we're nowhere close to that, unfortunately.




> You've employed a False Dilemma by stating that raping a person is either wrong or right. Now, rape may not be desirable, but you're not discussing the principle of utility. The problem, as I see it, is your reliance on the words right and wrong to determine what humans ought to do, and this is one of the major sources of conflict in this thread.


 
I concur. The whole issue, who decides what is right and how? Given the wide disagreement over the issue of rights across the globe, whose standard do we use? What makes ours better, other than it's what we grew up with and are used to?

I do think that we have a more evolved level of morals now than we did before. But how to defend such a view? On what rock would such an argument stand?


----------



## arnisador (Dec 15, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> What I dispute is the idea that it is impossible to determine what is right and wrong in a given situation.


 
Can you describe a method for deciding whether or not it was right to exxecute S.T. Williams? Europe and the U.S. disagree. Thinking of William James, whom you mentioned, brings to mind C.S. Peirce...what method would make our ideas clear, and our arguments compelling, in this case?

There must be a method, a set of axioms, a calculus...or how can we decide what is right and what is wrong?


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 15, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> I find what *sgtmac_46* has written very interesting. I am familiar with the work of William James but though I know of _Zen and..._, I have never read it. The problem arises, however, that Osama bin Laden is surely confident that he is acting from the highest, most evolved social consciousness, to bring about a better world...how can we agree on what is a more 'evolved' morality? I fear we'll just do what every culture has always done, which is to declare that they are civilized and those who came before were barbarians. As a model of what has happened, I see some value in it, but as a way to decide if we are right and others are wrong...I don't see how it helps. Can it tell me whether we or Europe are right on the death penalty issue?


 
The biggest problem I have with using this approach is the lack of any explanation as why this framework makes any judgement on right and wrong.  The fact that we are social creatures and that we have common social framework is nothing but a vessel.  Masses of humans still decide what to put in that vessel.  And usually the stuff that goes into the framework is stuff that is better adapted to the context of the environment and surrounding cultural structures.  If one wants to make the argument that things that are better adapted to this context could be classified as good, I'm all ears.



> The sociobiology or evolutionary psychology approach explains why we do what we do, but not whether what we do is 'right' unless one adopts the axiom that what is 'natural' is necessarily moral. (It also sheds some light on the 'are children born knowing how to lie' issue.) I find it very useful when thinking of these issues, but as Richard Dawkins says, we betray our genes' desires every time we use contraception. We can't take evolved instincts and patterns of behaviour as a full guide. What has evolved was adaptive, presumably--or in some cases, a side-effect of some other adaptation--but is adpative the same as right?


 
The biggest difference between biological evolution and cultural is that biological evolution follows Darwinian principles.  Cultural follows Darwinian and Lamarckian principles.  Ideas within a culture that help a culture succeed within its given context grow, while ideas that are maladaptive, die away.  This is not natural selection.


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 15, 2005)

With all due respect to Pirsig, the notion of an evolved hierarchy of morality is hardly new. In fact, this seems to be a generally accepted paradigm in both philosophy and developmental psychology.

James Mark Baldwin, Jean Piaget, Lawrence Kohlberg, Carol Gilligan, Clare Graves, Jean Gebser, and Jurgen Habermas all come to mind.

Furthermore, it is incorrect to postulate that a particular set of moral beliefs or moral values are intrinsically superior to another. Rather, it is the thinking and reasoning that _underlies_ such phenomena that can lay claim to a greater cognitive validity. 

Also, I would argue that both biological and cultural evolution operate by Baldwinian principles, as well.

Laterz.


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 15, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> When you say that rape is wrong regardless of what a culture's norms say, then you imply that there is a standard for wrong that exist outside of culture. In essence, you are claiming that a certain standard is universal. Therefore, here are my questions...
> 
> 1.  Where is this standard?
> 2.  Why doesn't everyone follow this standard if it does exist?
> 3.  What happens if a culture does not follow this standard of right and wrong?


 *1.* It doesn't have to be written down anywhere, it doesn't have to exist anywhere. It is an absolute that doesn't need support of existence to be seen. Where is any absolute? Where is gravity? Is it only absolute because we have labeled it and defined it to our mental capacity? The standard exists in our abilities to evolve and the fact that our species is mutable means that we can change. However, that simple fact no more exludes absolutes as it does relativism. Change does not mean total change. Also, because a society changes doesn't mean what was left behind is either right or wrong. Those are simply not the determining factors. The standard is within our inherant need to evolve. If rape is not ultimately wrong, explain the need to evolve to a point of rejecting rape? On a biological level, it is heavily supported and extremely usefull for evolution of our species. If not raping someone is more usefull in our evolution then it must be wrong and is being evolved out. But that wouldn't fit with a relative view that rape is not wrong and is completely ok and acceptable in simply another culture. Why would we evolve past rape is rape is actually acceptable within a different group of people?

*2.* Are you asking why people committ crimes? You can look through history and find people who have allways followed this standard....you can also find people who have not followed this standard. Does either one prove anything in this discussion? Is right or correct or "good" only so because its followed? Is bad or wrong only so because its shuned? No, slavery was wrong, so we changed....if it was right, why the change? Lets get back to the victims rights. The victim of rape certainly does not accept the rape, so how do we progress and ignore her (or his) voice? The argument about the death penalty is moot here as it is an understanding of violating human rights for a specific reason and with cause and a purpose. Right or wrong is not the question here, the question is about murder. The one being put to death would have violated the human rights of an individual and thus according to our societal laws, we are then going to violate their's. I dont think anyone who supports the death penalty looks at is as not killing. If we were to really embrace relativism, our culture accepts capital punishment, so its has to be right.

*3.* Nothing happens. I'm not saying its wrong because the wrong action is follwed by something...or anything. Its simply wrong, regardless of follwing action, belief, or acceptance. Wrong isn't simply "wrong" because it contains punishment. Consequence doesnt determined the correctness or usefulness of action. Are crimes only cirmes when followed by punishment? Are people only criminals when caught and tried and found guilty? Or is committing the crime still wrong regardless of them "getting away with it"?



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Perhaps, but there is learning needed for others to dislike it and when it comes to an "actual" definition of right and wrong...that is all that matters.


So all that makes things wrong is the learning others need to see it as so? Does a mother need to learn to feed her baby? Is feeding your baby wrong is some peple do not feed their babys? Your saying rape can be ok if a culure accepts it, and its only wrong because of our learned disgust for it....following that logic, wouldnt it only be right in the other culture because of their learned acceptance of it? So learned behavior is all that seperates right from wrong, good from bad, ok from not ok? Understanding only affects the one doing the understanding, it doesn't change the truth. Either rape is wrong or rape is right. The ability or purposefull following of said right or wrong doesn't change the truth of it. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Unless you can provide some sort of argument for a morality that trumps cultural norms, then "wrong" is wholly defined by a society.


 Yet again, I'm not talking about morality. Morality is the accepted set of rules by which a group chooses to live. Morailty changes with culture. However, truth does not. Regardless of the groups acceptance of rape, or its label of "moral" or "immoral" the act of raping another human being is bad...wrong. Step outside your own box of understanding and usage of the word "wrong" Not wrong as in looked upon with disgust from other members of the society, but bad in that it should not be performed. There is a universal standard, that that is human rights. These are not relative as you say for that would mean slavery was never wrong. In which case Ray Jenkins was just out of his mind with the reparations argument eh? Or maybe we could discredit him by saying he was an absolutist :wink: 
Slavery was either wrong then and still wrong, or right then and still right. If its wrong now, why was it not wrong then? If it wasn't wrong then, why has it been destroyed? One person can't just think up something, convince others to agree, and then that suddenly becomes right or wrong. Why is it we think we are so important or powerful to make what is right and wrong. We didn't make gravity, we just simply found it. I dont see anything to prove otherwise with these human rights issues. Do you honestly believe we have created human rights out of our own collective intelect? Why do (almost) newborn twins cry when the other is spanked or removed, or fed, or held? Their cognitive reasoning comes from somewhere and they haven't been trained to know that the other baby may get something I wont get, its inherant. In fact I think its as inherant and biological as thinking. Why do we think? We didn't learn to think or reason, we learn to use those tools, but not to learn how to actually do it. To deny inherancy altogether is to deny personality. We each have our own personality which is a collection of experiences, but is also unique when we are born. This goes to show that all is not learned, so absolutes must exist at some level, what level is the discussion at hand.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> If you think about this comparison, it makes _absolutely_  no sense. A child that grows up in a society that regularly rapes women will have a much higher propensity to rape then a child that grows up in a different society. In fact, one could expect most, if not all, to rape and rape again.


I'm sorry, that is completely false. I agreed that a child growing up in any social group has a tendancy towards that behavior, but to say one should expect one if not all to perform said action is completely absurd and in my opinion a bit bigoted. Do we expect children from the inner city, say 5th ward in Houston to kill people and do drugs again and again? No, absolutely not, we simply cannot *expect* such things of people...thats called labeling and discrimination. Do children growing up in those surroundings see those actions and sometimes follow those actions, yes. Does every child, or "all" follow that course, most assuredly no. Research some of the most respected people in our history and society and see where they came from, you might be surprised.

However, even so, what in the world does it have to do with their actions being right or wrong? You offer no proof of right and wrong changing with the thoughts of a societies members.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> This all goes into semiotics as a theory of the mind. A child must be taught to misrepresent symbols. They must be taught to initiate a mis-take of a symbol. Many prominant psychologists have studied this. Perhaps Heretic888 will elaborate. He is actually studying this.


 Again, this is not true. A child does not have to be taught to misrepresent symbols. Your right, many prominant psychologist have studied this, they seem to agree now as well.

The bottom line is that the definition of right and wrong while using reactions is faulty. Everyone will react differently to one action because of their cultural and social experiences. What I'm asking is how that makes one action ok and also not ok. What does the reaction by a society have to do with whether the action should or should not be performed? No one has really touched the rape issue in this way. Why is rape ok when done in a geographic location that normally accepts rape, but not ok when done in a geographical location that normally doesn't accept rape? What has changed apart from a willingness to accept said action? So then a willingness to accept action makes the rights and wrongs of our species? Its not a good idea to eat lots of poisonous plants, I need not be willing to accept that knowledge to die from the poison. I also need not accept the idea that rape violates a womans rights to refrain from raping or rape. No one has yet explained how simple acceptance makes the stealing of a young womans virginity against her very own will and forcing a sexual act...ok. That may be an emotional argument, but its not incorrect or faulty...emotional or not, its a serious situation and one that has yet to be explained as right.

7sm


----------



## arnisador (Dec 15, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> *1.* It doesn't have to be written down anywhere, it doesn't have to exist anywhere. It is an absolute


 
Why?

Your belief in it appears to be absolute. But it isn't clear why this is absolutely wrong. You keep _asserting_ that it's an absolute. When asked to justify this claim, however, you turn the question back on the questioner (e.g., "If rape is not ultimately wrong, explain[...]"). That's no argument.

Those who say it's relative have an easier position to defend. You're asserting the existence of an absolute, whereas they assert the apparent lack of one. You need to be able to demonstrate your absolute by starting with "Look, we all agree that there are other sentient beings on this planet, with feelings more-or-less like or own, right?" and building an argument up from there. Just repeating that it's an absolute is not an argument. To say that the victim doesn't want to be assaulted is redundant--unwillingness to engage in the act is inherent in the very definition of rape. Saying it adds nothing to the discussion.

Animals commit acts that we could describe as rape. This may be anthropomorphic, but viewing just the act certainly makes it seem like this is what's happening. Are they doing something wrong? Yes, because the act is wrong? No, because they don't know right from wrong? If it's absolute, how broadly does it apply?

You say, in essence, that there's an absolute right not to be made a victim of an assault perpretrated by another. I agree that such an act is wrong...but not that it's wrong on grounds other than my electing to such a position axiomatically (or by applying reasoning like the Golden Rule or the Categorical Imperative, all equally axiomatic).

You still need to answer the question: Why is this an absolute right? Who grants these rights? If no one, where are they written (in the sense of made evident)? Gravity is evident in every falling rock. Where is this right made evident?


----------



## arnisador (Dec 15, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> *2.* Are you asking why people committ crimes?


 
The question is, If this is a self-evident truth...why is it that so many have failed to act on it? Why do so many fail to see what is so obvious to you? Are they blind...or is the situation more complicated than you allow?

If it's an absolute, wouldn't you expect it to be more widely followed? The current state of affairs is consistent with relativism...less so with your position. That's the point.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 15, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> 1. It doesn't have to be written down anywhere, it doesn't have to exist anywhere. It is an absolute that doesn't need support of existence to be seen.


 
If one claims that something is absolute and external to the structures of society and structure, then one is saying that something exists.  If something exists then there must be proof of its existence...otherwise its just another myth or social construction.



> Where is any absolute? Where is gravity?


 
Well, lets see, we can measure gravity directly and we can write down a set of laws that will describe gravity everywhere in the universe.  If absolute morality exists in the same way that gravity does, then one should be able to test it and write down a set of laws and show that it exists everywhere in the universe.  Thus far, everywhere in the universe that we can see, one can see gravity working.  This is not the case in regards to universal morality.  In fact, the opposite is true.  



> The standard exists in our abilities to evolve and the fact that our species is mutable means that we can change. However, that simple fact no more exludes absolutes as it does relativism. Change does not mean total change.


 
Actually, the fact that our species changes and that our societies change and that our ideas change exclude any posability of an absolute.  The change is directionless in any sense of moral quality.  The changes we are talking about are reactionary to the environment.



> Also, because a society changes doesn't mean what was left behind is either right or wrong. Those are simply not the determining factors. The standard is within our inherant need to evolve.


 
There is no such thing as a need to evolve.  Evolution is reactionary to environmental changes.  Evolution happens or it doesn't...and then extinction happens. 



> If rape is not ultimately wrong, explain the need to evolve to a point of rejecting rape? On a biological level, it is heavily supported and extremely usefull for evolution of our species. If not raping someone is more usefull in our evolution then it must be wrong and is being evolved out. But that wouldn't fit with a relative view that rape is not wrong and is completely ok and acceptable in simply another culture. Why would we evolve past rape is rape is actually acceptable within a different group of people?


 
Firstly, the so-called biological level that you are talking about is loaded with assumptions...number one being that the biologic level means that people are swinging in the trees and grunting.  However, _any_ society is a biologic level.  There is no separation.  With that being said, depending on the circumstances presented by the environment and local cultural structure, can be very advantagous for males to dominate women.  Rape is but one tool that a male would use to make a female submit.  In this society, rape is not wrong.  This is applicable in many agrarian societies.

Secondly, physical and structural circumstances can change and thus make rape maladaptive.  In modern societies, the value of a man's strength is diminished and the roles of men and women meld.  Thus, treating women equally becomes more advantagous. Societies that treat their women equally will be more productive...better able to compete.  

This process is not determined by any greater sense of right or wrong.  It is simply a matter of circumstance.



> 2. Are you asking why people committ crimes?


 
No, I am wondering why, if an absolute morality exists beyond the bounds of culture, why all cultures do not subscribe to this morality.  The fact that they don't indicates that absolute morality does not exist.



> You can look through history and find people who have allways followed this standard....


 
No you can't.  One can see that cultures are evolving, but there is no moral direction to this evolution.  



> you can also find people who have not followed this standard. Does either one prove anything in this discussion?


 
Yes, but you don't want to see it.



> Is right or correct or "good" only so because its followed? Is bad or wrong only so because its shuned?


 
The answer is yes to both questions unless you can somehow show that absolute morality exists.



> No, slavery was wrong, so we changed....if it was right, why the change?


 
Slavery still exists in parts of the world where it provides advantages in a society.  Slavery in this part of the world became "wrong" after it no longer was advantageous for our society to hold slaves.  In other parts of the world it is right, in our corner of the world it is wrong.



> Lets get back to the victims rights. The victim of rape certainly does not accept the rape, so how do we progress and ignore her (or his) voice? The argument about the death penalty is moot here as it is an understanding of violating human rights for a specific reason and with cause and a purpose. Right or wrong is not the question here, the question is about murder. The one being put to death would have violated the human rights of an individual and thus according to our societal laws, we are then going to violate their's. I dont think anyone who supports the death penalty looks at is as not killing.


 
Wow, just wow.  You just contradicted and refuted yourself...again.



> If we were to really embrace relativism, our culture accepts capital punishment, so its has to be right.


 
It doesn't have to be right at all.  Culture's change.  Ours will too.  The disagreement over the "morality" of the death penalty is evidence of a lack of any real standard.



> 3. Nothing happens. I'm not saying its wrong because the wrong action is follwed by something...or anything. Its simply wrong, regardless of follwing action, belief, or acceptance.  Wrong isn't simply "wrong" because it contains punishment. Consequence doesnt determined the correctness or usefulness of action. Are crimes only cirmes when followed by punishment? Are people only criminals when caught and tried and found guilty? Or is committing the crime still wrong regardless of them "getting away with it"?


 
The only thing that determines what is "right" and "wrong" are the rules of the society.  You have done nothing to show how something can be wrong outside of those rules.  Further, you have not shown how this wrong could apply everywhere and to anyone.  That is the bar if you are going to claim that there is such a thing as absolute morality.  



> So all that makes things wrong is the learning others need to see it as so?


 
Yes.



> Does a mother need to learn to feed her baby?


 
As a father of two children and a husband of a woman who breastfed both children, I can catagorically say that a woman must learn how to feed her baby.  There is much more involved then simply putting the boob in the babies mouth...



> Is feeding your baby wrong is some peple do not feed their babys? Your saying rape can be ok if a culure accepts it, and its only wrong because of our learned disgust for it....following that logic, wouldnt it only be right in the other culture because of their learned acceptance of it?


 
Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.



> So learned behavior is all that seperates right from wrong, good from bad, ok from not ok? Understanding only affects the one doing the understanding, it doesn't change the truth. Either rape is wrong or rape is right. The ability or purposefull following of said right or wrong doesn't change the truth of it.


 
What is this truth that you are talking about?  Is this another word for absolute morality?  Are you claiming that rape is universally wrong?  Just because you dress it up in another word doesn't mean that you can somehow slip by any standards of proof.  If you claim that this is truth and that it is wrong regardless of culture, then you have got somehow who how it is wrong regardless of culture and you've got to be able to demonstrate in every culture how it is wrong regardless of culture.  Any exceptions disprove your hypothesis.



> Yet again, I'm not talking about morality.


 
Yes you are.  If you say something is right or wrong, that is morality.



> Morality is the accepted set of rules by which a group chooses to live. Morailty changes with culture. However, *truth* does not. Regardless of the groups acceptance of rape, or its label of "moral" or "immoral" the act of raping another human being is bad...wrong.


 
If truth does not change, then please show how it does not change.



> Step outside your own box of understanding and usage of the word "wrong" Not wrong as in looked upon with disgust from other members of the society, but bad in that it should not be performed.


 
In some cultures, rape _should_ be performed.  It is expected and it is part of the social framework.  It evolved as a structure of that culture and other peices of that culture depend on its performance.  



> There is a universal standard, that that is human rights. These are not relative as you say for that would mean slavery was never wrong. In which case Ray Jenkins was just out of his mind with the reparations argument eh? Or maybe we could discredit him by saying he was an absolutist.


 
Human rights are relative.  Look at what is defined as human rights between the US and Saudi Arabia.  Who is more right?



> Slavery was either wrong then and still wrong, or right then and still right.  If its wrong now, why was it not wrong then? If it wasn't wrong then, why has it been destroyed?


 
Slavery can be both right and wrong at any given time.  The only thing that determines whether it is wrong is the rules of the society...which are based on the physical and structural circumstances.  BTW - slavery has not been destroyed.  Not in this country and not throughout the world.  If it is advantagous for a society to own slaves then it will not be wrong to do so.



> One person can't just think up something, convince others to agree, and then that suddenly becomes right or wrong.


 
Why not?  People do it all of the time.



> Why is it we think we are so important or powerful to make what is right and wrong.


 
What else is there besides us?



> We didn't make gravity, we just simply found it. I dont see anything to prove otherwise with these human rights issues. Do you honestly believe we have created human rights out of our own collective intelect? Why do (almost) newborn twins cry when the other is spanked or removed, or fed, or held? Their cognitive reasoning comes from somewhere and they haven't been trained to know that the other baby may get something I wont get, its inherant. In fact I think its as inherant and biological as thinking. Why do we think? We didn't learn to think or reason, we learn to use those tools, but not to learn how to actually do it. To deny inherancy altogether is to deny personality. We each have our own personality which is a collection of experiences, but is also unique when we are born. This goes to show that all is not learned, so absolutes must exist at some level, what level is the discussion at hand.


 
No, it does not show that absolutes exist on any level.  No adaptive trait is absolute.  Everything is mutable.  Everything changes.  Even gravity and protons decay.  Even if morality was genetic, which it isn't, mutations would change morality and thus negate any absolute standards.



> I'm sorry, that is completely false. I agreed that a child growing up in any social group has a tendancy towards that behavior, but to say one should expect one if not all to perform said action is completely absurd and in my opinion a bit bigoted. Do we expect children from the inner city, say 5th ward in Houston to kill people and do drugs again and again? No, absolutely not, we simply cannot *expect* such things of people...thats called labeling and discrimination. Do children growing up in those surroundings see those actions and sometimes follow those actions, yes. Does every child, or "all" follow that course, most assuredly no. Research some of the most respected people in our history and society and see where they came from, you might be surprised.


 
Raping and murdering and killing in the 5th ward in Houston is not the norm. It is by and large the exception.  However, in some cultures, rape is the norm.  In those cultures, every male would learn to do it and it would be totally accepted.  NOT doing it probably would be considered wrong.



> However, even so, what in the world does it have to do with their actions being right or wrong? You offer no proof of right and wrong changing with the thoughts of a societies members.


 
Dude, open a history book.  Read.



> Again, this is not true. A child does not have to be taught to misrepresent symbols. Your right, many prominant psychologist have studied this, they seem to agree now as well.


 
Have you ever read any developmental psychology?  Children need to be taught to lie.



> The bottom line is that the definition of right and wrong while using reactions is faulty. Everyone will react differently to one action because of their cultural and social experiences.


 
If this is true, then why do societies exist at all?  Most people react exactly as their societies dictate.  If they don't...well that is why societies build prisons.


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 15, 2005)

Floating Egg said:
			
		

> 7starmantis,
> 
> The debate over how to define culture is ongoing within the Anthropological community. John H. Bodly, in his is textbook Cultural Anthropology, defines culture in the following way:



I think you misunderstand my argument. The definition of culture is really of no consequence in my point. See, I'm saying that culture, regardless of its definition isn't what decides right or wrong. There are inherent human rights that aren't removed by a certain culture's acceptance of them.



			
				Floating Egg said:
			
		

> In the second last paragraph of your first post, you stated that rape is wrong because it violates the rights of human beings. In what context is the violation of rights incorrect? Do you view rights as something that's inherent or granted?



 In the context of forced desire, or forced belief, or forced acceptance of another's will, belief system, or simply actions. I dont see anything that deters me from believing human rights to be inherant and inalienable.



			
				Floating Egg said:
			
		

> You state that "Normals do not define right or wrong, thats insanity," which is one of your many Appeals to Ridicule. It would be more helpful if you actually refuted the claims being made using reasonable methods,



Actually I'm not basing my point on the absurdity of the post. Simply posting your belief of an arguments absurdity is not a logical fallacy. Lets address strawman, which is what you originally accused me of. That would require a false or misrepresentation of relativism by me. I've done nothing of the kind, I'm simply discussion the fact that simply because its popular doesn't means its right.
If we want to play the fallacy game, the idea that rights and wrong are determined by acceptance by groups of people is basically just a bandwagon fallacy. Its a Red Herring fallacy that says:
Idea X is popular
Therefore, idea X is correct.
Its basically Argumentum ad populum or Argumentum ad numerum. And its a fallacious argument. 



			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> Your belief in it appears to be absolute. But it isn't clear why this is absolutely wrong. You keep _asserting_ that it's an absolute. When asked to justify this claim, however, you turn the question back on the questioner (e.g., "If rape is not ultimately wrong, explain[...]"). That's no argument.


 Yet your more than willing to turn it on me, eh? :wink:
I have said my reasoning for why I believe it to be wrong. I believe there are inherent rights that are wrong to violate. I do agree that many things are relative and context does apply, but there are also some things that context only shadows or makes appear different. Rape is one of them. If there were only one man and one woman alone on the face of the earth (considering no humans live on any other planets) rape might seem acceptable to continue the human race. I think that is simply clouded judgement by the close danger of being wiped out. The context makes it seem ok, but I still think violating someones rights in that manner is wrong. I addressed the purposeful violating of rights as a punishment allready. Why is it wrong? I dont know that I can answer that, must the answer be accesable to make it truth? Must we know why gravity exists to understand its truth? I believe its wrong because it violates anothers rights...thats the bottom line.

7sm


----------



## arnisador (Dec 15, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I dont know that I can answer that, must the answer be accesable to make it truth?



Well, philosophical positions are to be argued, not merely stated ("Answers without explanations are magic, not mathematics" as we say). Merely stating that something is right or wrong is more akin to religion. No one is disputing your right to hold that belief--just questioning the justification for such a strong and absolute claim. If your belief in its absoluteness--that all right-minded people should think like you in this regard--does not come from a source like the Bible, I think it's reasonable to ask why you say it's absolutely right, rather than just your own moral belief?

Anyway, we all agree on what the outcome should be as far as right vs. wrong here...it's just a matter of whether we attempt to justify that belief (remember this is a spin-off of the Saddam Hussein trial thread and the justification for international law), or not. As to only one man and one woman left on the planet, I have avoided such "philosopher's box" situations because I too don't think they'd be helpful here.


----------



## Floating Egg (Dec 15, 2005)

> I think you misunderstand my argument. The definition of culture is really of no consequence in my point. See, I'm saying that culture, regardless of its definition isn't what decides right or wrong. There are inherent human rights that aren't removed by a certain culture's acceptance of them. In the context of forced desire, or forced belief, or forced acceptance of another's will, belief system, or simply actions. I dont see anything that deters me from believing human rights to be inherant and inalienable.



I think the definition of culture is very important if you want to have a serious discussion about moral relativism. You have made many assertions in this thread, but since the burden lies with you, we're waiting patiently for your supporting evidence; it's not up to us to convince you that human rights are acquired. 



> Actually I'm not basing my point on the absurdity of the post.Simply posting your belief of an arguments absurdity is not a logical fallacy.



Yes it is, because your mockery is irrelevant. It is up to you to show that the argument is not valid by presenting your own non-fallacious argument.



> Lets address strawman, which is what you originally accused me of. That would require a false or misrepresentation of relativism by me. I've done nothing of the kind, I'm simply discussion the fact that simply because its popular doesn't means its right.



You stated the following: "Thats the problem with relativism, you have to align yourself with whoever is winning to stay right." That is a straw man because you've misrepresented moral relativism so you can easily attack it. 



> If we want to play the fallacy game, the idea that rights and wrong are determined by acceptance by groups of people is basically just a bandwagon fallacy. Its a Red Herring fallacy that says:
> Idea X is popular
> Therefore, idea X is correct.
> Its basically Argumentum ad populum or Argumentum ad numerum. And its a fallacious argument.



That is not correct; ad populum occurs when an argument is presented that is based on the irrelevant appeal to its popularity. Suggesting that morality is a function of culture is most certainly not fallacious.


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 15, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> If one claims that something is absolute and external to the structures of society and structure, then one is saying that something exists. If something exists then there must be proof of its existence...otherwise its just another myth or social construction.


 So without proof of existance, said idea or "thing" doesn't exist. Ok, so by that logic when the majority believed the earth was flat, it truly was flat, and when we proved it as round, it suddenly mutated and become round. C'mon, I've read much better arguments from you than that! :wink:



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Well, lets see, we can measure gravity directly and we can write down a set of laws that will describe gravity everywhere in the universe. If absolute morality exists in the same way that gravity does, then one should be able to test it and write down a set of laws and show that it exists everywhere in the universe. Thus far, everywhere in the universe that we can see, one can see gravity working. This is not the case in regards to universal morality. In fact, the opposite is true.


 I'm not saying absolute morality exists in the same way as gravity. Dont twist my post to that extreme. What I'm saying is that the act of writing down or understanding isn't what makes existance. Things exist way before we learn them. Did fire only exist when man learned to "create" it? Before that time there was no fire? Again, it seems your grasping at straws. Prove me wrong, dont play aorund with me. If absolutes do not exist there must be some verifiable proof. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Actually, the fact that our species changes and that our societies change and that our ideas change exclude any posability of an absolute. The change is directionless in any sense of moral quality. The changes we are talking about are reactionary to the environment.


 Again, I can't say it enough, I'm not talking about morality. Changes in society do not dictate existance. There are things which exist outside of our ability to prove them. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Firstly, the so-called biological level that you are talking about is loaded with assumptions...number one being that the biologic level means that people are swinging in the trees and grunting. However, _any_ society is a biologic level. There is no separation. With that being said, depending on the circumstances presented by the environment and local cultural structure, can be very advantagous for males to dominate women. Rape is but one tool that a male would use to make a female submit. In this society, rape is not wrong. This is applicable in many agrarian societies.


 Not at all, I think you read that assumption into my post. Advantageousness of an action or idea still does not imply correctness or being "right". I think the problem is your deffinition or "right" being what is accepted, while mine being regardless of whats excepted a standard that is correct. I also think I disagree that rape would be an effective tool for making women submit, forced aubmission is not always what it seems. That however is a different discussion. Regardless of its usefullness or advantageousness, the action may still violate the rights of someone and would then be universally wrong....even if not viewed as wrong by any human on the face of the earth. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Secondly, physical and structural circumstances can change and thus make rape maladaptive. In modern societies, the value of a man's strength is diminished and the roles of men and women meld. Thus, treating women equally becomes more advantagous. Societies that treat their women equally will be more productive...better able to compete.


 Again, maladaptive doesn't mean wrong and advantageous doesnt mean right. Maybe being better able to compete is good, but does that mean that the violation of women before was good simply because it created an adventageous situation for those violating them?



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> No, I am wondering why, if an absolute morality exists beyond the bounds of culture, why all cultures do not subscribe to this morality. The fact that they don't indicates that absolute morality does not exist.


 How can that be answered, or what does the answer prove? The fact that they dont subscribe to it only indicates that not everyone agrees. Agreement is also not a factor of existence. Everyone will never act the same way, regardless of right and wrong. Your question could be applied to criminals of our society as well. Why would they not subscribe to our laws? Is it because the laws are relative to their acceptance of them? They are still going to be punished which is what you have lain out as the evidence of "right" or "wrong". 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> No you can't. One can see that cultures are evolving, but there is no moral direction to this evolution.


 You seriously telling me history does not contain cultures that have adheared to rape being wrong? Through the course of history, you can't find a line of cultures who refused rape as wrong? C'mon, maybe your the one who needs to do some reading in the history books. Moral direction isn't the point, evolving out of disadvantageous actions is. Wrong could be classified as having a characteristic which allows for your extinction, so evolving past it would be proof of its "wrongness". However, reagardless of proof violating a womans right to intimacy is wrong, regardless of the evolution surrounding it. If its not, why is there no evidence to prove it?



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Yes, but you don't want to see it.


 Instead of assuming my intent before your posting of material, try posting it and just seeing what happens. If you have some answer to what the history of pepole following the ideas of rape as wrong or right prove to what is right or wrong, please post it. Or are you just attmepting to get some reactionary postings?



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The answer is yes to both questions unless you can somehow show that absolute morality exists.


 What does absolute morality have to do with right being so because its followed and wrong being so because its shuned?



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Slavery still exists in parts of the world where it provides advantages in a society. Slavery in this part of the world became "wrong" after it no longer was advantageous for our society to hold slaves. In other parts of the world it is right, in our corner of the world it is wrong.


 So slavery, the violation of people rights, was right when america followed that trend? And it is still right today as long as your outside america looking in? Explain how salvery was no longer advantageous. Its still very adventageous even in our culture....so that makes it right again, yes? The problem is your offering absolute relativism....which in itself is a contradiction. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Wow, just wow.  You just contradicted and refuted yourself...again.


 Care to explain how I contradictied myself or are you still just trying to make your point by shock and initial reactions?



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> It doesn't have to be right at all. Culture's change. Ours will too. The disagreement over the "morality" of the death penalty is evidence of a lack of any real standard.


 Its evidence of nothing except individualism. Which is something you can't accept as it would flaw your "majority makes the rights" argument. How does the disagreement of any idea prove that a standard doesn't exist? So because you and I disagree about how to best defend agaisnt a knife attack that means there is no standard of how not to get cut? Strip away all the different techniques, and there exists a standard of what is bottom line as far as right or wrong. Morals have nothin to do with it.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The only thing that determines what is "right" and "wrong" are the rules of the society. You have done nothing to show how something can be wrong outside of those rules. Further, you have not shown how this wrong could apply everywhere and to anyone. That is the bar if you are going to claim that there is such a thing as absolute morality.


  Nope, I didn't claim that so that bar can be proven by someone else.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> As a father of two children and a husband of a woman who breastfed both children, I can catagorically say that a woman must learn how to feed her baby. There is much more involved then simply putting the boob in the babies mouth...


 My point was not learning _how_ to feed but _if_ to feed. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.


 So if our culture accepts it as wrong, its wrong. If at the same time another culture accepts is as right, its right. If I then move from another seperate culture can I travel between the two and rape at will without being right or wrong? Those are the kinds of issue you must deal with if relativism is absolute as you have offered.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> If truth does not change, then please show how it does not change.


 Well that means we must look at what "show" means...proof. 
As I see it there are a few questions to ask about the existence of something:
Does it really exist or not? "To be or  not to be, that is the question."
If it does exist, do we know that it  exists? A thing can obviously exist without  our knowing it.
If we know that it exists, can we be certain of this knowledge? Our knowledge might be true but uncertain; it might be "right opinion."
If it is certain, is there a logical proof, a demonstration of why we have a right to be certain? There may be some certainties that are not logically demonstrable (e.g. my own existence, or the law of non-contradiction).
If there is a proof, is it a scientific one in the modern sense of 'scientific'? Is it publicly verifiable by formal logic and/or empirical observation? There may be other valid kinds of proof besides proofs by the scientific method.
I think the 5th point is important when addressing right or wrong. I think it depends on what kinds of proof you will accept. It cannot be proved like a theorem in Euclidean geometry; nor can it be observed, like a virus. For the existence of truth or "right" is not on the one hand a logical tautology: its contradiction does not entail a contradiction, as a Euclidean theorem does. On the other hand, it cannot be empirically proved or disproved (at least outside of some culture) simply because our deffinitoins are comprised of our own beliefs.

If right or wrong cannot be proved scientifically, is it then intellectually irresponsible to accept it? Only if you assume that it is intellectually irresponsible to accept anything that cannot be proved scientifically. But that premise is self-contradictory (and therefore intellectually irresponsible)! You cannot scientifically prove that the only acceptable proofs are scientific proofs. You cannot prove logically or empirically that only logical or empirical proofs are acceptable as proofs. You cannot prove it logically because its contradiction does not entail a contradiction, and you cannot prove it empirically because neither a proof nor the criterion of acceptability are empirical entities. Thus scientism (the premise that only scientific proofs count as proofs) is not scientific; it is a dogma of faith, a religion. So what proof do you seek? What conclusive evidence exists to disprove this absolute aside from a lack of evidence for said idea?



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> In some cultures, rape _should_ be performed. It is expected and it is part of the social framework. It evolved as a structure of that culture and other peices of that culture depend on its performance.


 Could you show us what cultures these are?



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Human rights are relative. Look at what is defined as human rights between the US and Saudi Arabia. Who is more right?


 Who cares, does whoever is more right make the other one more wrong? Wrong or right is not dependant on who accepts it or who accepts more of it. I'm not trying to determine which culture is right, but show that regardless of who does what, right and wrong do exist.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Slavery can be both right and wrong at any given time. The only thing that determines whether it is wrong is the rules of the society...which are based on the physical and structural circumstances. BTW - slavery has not been destroyed. Not in this country and not throughout the world. If it is advantagous for a society to own slaves then it will not be wrong to do so.


 Tell that to the families of former black or native american slaves. They might not agree.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Why not? People do it all of the time.


 The fact that people accept soemthig as right becasue they want to doesn't prove that right is actually relative to what they want it to be.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Raping and murdering and killing in the 5th ward in Houston is not the norm. It is by and large the exception. However, in some cultures, rape is the norm. In those cultures, every male would learn to do it and it would be totally accepted. NOT doing it probably would be considered wrong.


 Um, not when I lived there. Your posts drip of absolutism while you support relativism. In a culture where rape is the norm every male (first absolute) would learn to do it and it would be totally acceptable (second absolute). Your attacking my absolutes with absolutes of your own....:idunno:



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Dude, open a history book.  Read.


 This is your proof? I've had better. :wink:



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> If this is true, then why do societies exist at all? Most people react exactly as their societies dictate. If they don't...well that is why societies build prisons.


 What? Are you and I in the same society? How then could we be reacting so differently?

7sm

PS: This is a great discussion.


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 15, 2005)

Floating Egg said:
			
		

> You have made many assertions in this thread, but since the burden lies with you, we're waiting patiently for your supporting evidence; it's not up to us to convince you that human rights are acquired.
> 
> Yes it is, because your mockery is irrelevant. It is up to you to show that the argument is not valid by presenting your own non-fallacious argument.
> 
> You stated the following: "Thats the problem with relativism, you have to align yourself with whoever is winning to stay right." That is a straw man because you've misrepresented moral relativism so you can easily attack it.


In my opinion this is the lazy appraoch. Its really not up to me either. This is a discussion, those who want to sit back and read are welcome to, but those who want to discuss should do so honestly. If there is no proof thats ok, but dont just sit back and say I have to be the one to provide proof. 

As a note, I have not mocked anything nor have I misrepresented anything. I have simply replyed to the relativism posted here. Again, if you have somethi other than attacking my posts rather than my points, I'm more than willing to read it. 

7sm


----------



## Floating Egg (Dec 15, 2005)

> So without proof of existance, said idea or "thing" doesn't exist. Ok, so by that logic when the majority believed the earth was flat, it truly was flat, and when we proved it as round, it suddenly mutated and become round. C'mon, I've read much better arguments from you than that!


 
If there is no evidence for a given belief, why should I believe it? Are you suggesting that we should accept the truth of your proposition until we can prove otherwise? 



> I'm not saying absolute morality exists in the same way as gravity. Dont twist my post to that extreme. What I'm saying is that the act of writing down or understanding isn't what makes existance. Things exist way before we learn them. Did fire only exist when man learned to "create" it? Before that time there was no fire? Again, it seems your grasping at straws. Prove me wrong, dont play aorund with me. If absolutes do not exist there must be some verifiable proof.


 
While there may be a valid argument for absolutism, you are not presenting it. Your claims are spurious, and your only recourse is to shift the burden of proof.


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 15, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> If one claims that something is absolute and external to the structures of society and structure, then one is saying that something exists. If something exists then there must be proof of its existence...otherwise its just another myth or social construction.


 
Indeed. In philosophy, this is referred to as an Appeal To Belief. 

The basic idea here is that one does not _need_ to provide evidence or proof for one's position, because one's very belief in said position is taken to adequate proof in and of itself. This is, of course, fallacious reasoning in that it essentially bases its premises on circular logic.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Well, lets see, we can measure gravity directly and we can write down a set of laws that will describe gravity everywhere in the universe.


 
Actually, there is considerable debate among physicists as to whether gravity is an actual physical law or not. In any event, gravity is not an 'absolute' in the same way that moral absolutism is being used here, as even the existence of physical laws are dependent on a set of parameters inherent to the physical cosmos. 

I am inclined to believe that both moral absolutism and empirical absolutism rest heavily on the Myth of the Given.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Actually, the fact that our species changes and that our societies change and that our ideas change exclude any posability of an absolute. The change is directionless in any sense of moral quality. The changes we are talking about are reactionary to the environment.


 
I would argue against the idea that evolutionary change (whether biological or cultural) is entirely nondirectional. Please reference the citations to Baldwinian (and, sometimes, neo-Lamarckian) evolutionary principles that I have made in previous discussions. The principal issue being, of course, that the relation between organism and environment is _not_ a one-way system --- the environment doesn't dump information onto a population without any kind of reaction on the population's part. Rather, it is a two-way system, a reciprocal exchange between environment and population, so that the two mutually change with one another. Nowhere is this more evident than with human beings (re: the Flynn Effect).

Thus, the importance of learning in the course of a population's evolution.

Outside of evolutionary theory, of course, a number of philosophers and psychologists also argue against the idea of random, nondirectional progression as pertains to our species, especially in regards to moral development. Philosophers such as George Hegel, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Sri Aurobindo, Jean Gebser, Jurgen Habermas, and Ken Wilber suddenly come to mind. And, in psychology, we have James Mark Baldwin, Jean Piaget, Lawrence Kohlberg, Carol Gilligan, Clare Graves, Jane Loevinger, Susanne Cook-Greuter, and Howard Gardner, among others.

Put bluntly, the notion that our cognitive, ego, or moral development is entirely nondirectional is simply not accepted by the bulk of developmental psychologists today.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> No, I am wondering why, if an absolute morality exists beyond the bounds of culture, why all cultures do not subscribe to this morality. The fact that they don't indicates that absolute morality does not exist.


 
I would argue that pretty much all forms of moral absolutism are subtle attempts to make the standards and values of one's culture (or subculture) into some sort of universal standard. It is a veiled form of ethnocentrism.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Have you ever read any developmental psychology? Children need to be taught to lie.


 
Correct. 

Willingly manipulating the perceptions of another necessarily requires that one possesses a modicum of non-egoic perspectivism, which is most assuredly not present in any strong form until about age 2 or so. 

While this is somewhat of a universal development to all healthy children, it would be incorrect to say they are 'born' with such abilities. Rather, they develop naturally over time (within a species-typical environment, that is), as do many of our later and more advanced cognitive abilities.

Laterz.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 15, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> I find what *sgtmac_46* has written very interesting. I am familiar with the work of William James but though I know of _Zen and..._, I have never read it. The problem arises, however, that Osama bin Laden is surely confident that he is acting from the highest, most evolved social consciousness, to bring about a better world...how can we agree on what is a more 'evolved' morality? I fear we'll just do what every culture has always done, which is to declare that they are civilized and those who came before were barbarians. As a model of what has happened, I see some value in it, but as a way to decide if we are right and others are wrong...I don't see how it helps. Can it tell me whether we or Europe are right on the death penalty issue?
> 
> The sociobiology or evolutionary psychology approach explains why we do what we do, but not whether what we do is 'right' unless one adopts the axiom that what is 'natural' is necessarily moral. (It also sheds some light on the 'are children born knowing how to lie' issue.) I find it very useful when thinking of these issues, but as Richard Dawkins says, we betray our genes' desires every time we use contraception. We can't take evolved instincts and patterns of behaviour as a full guide. What has evolved was adaptive, presumably--or in some cases, a side-effect of some other adaptation--but is adapative the same as right?
> 
> I think the key questions were well put here:


 Yes, that is correct.  Osama Bin Laden is serving a social ideal, that is, he is seeking to uphold the social laws of Islam.  However, as he is in conflict with what is an intellectual level of government, i.e. representative democracy, constitutional government, secularism, etc, he represents the less moral position.  bin Laden's position IS moral in conflict with biological quality, but is LESS moral in conflict with intellectual quality.



			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> Can you describe a method for deciding whether or not it was right to exxecute S.T. Williams? Europe and the U.S. disagree. Thinking of William James, whom you mentioned, brings to mind C.S. Peirce...what method would make our ideas clear, and our arguments compelling, in this case?
> 
> There must be a method, a set of axioms, a calculus...or how can we decide what is right and what is wrong?


 Well, in the interest of intellectual honesty, I believe that executing Mr. Williams was justified in the interest of maintaining social order against biological quality (which Tookie certainly represented).

Pirsig argued, rather compellingly, that upholding law and order was a moral right.  As incarceration, at least, is necessary to control biological quality, it is a necessary good.  However, he argued that the death penalty, as it extinguishes intellectual quality (extinquishing Tookies contribution to the intellectual discourse, for example) it falls under the Social quality versus Intellectual quality issue, and hence, is immoral.  

So, from that perspective, the Europeans are correct that the death penalty may be immoral, from an intellectual quality versus social quality debate.  What we have to do, however, is decide if it is truly intellectual quality versus social, or social versus biological.  

I would say that incarceration is social versus biological, death penalty is social versus intellectual (though, I still cling to the notion that I support the death penalty, I may be morally wrong on this issue).

That is Pirsig's position, and he may be, in effect, correct.....though, I still am no sorry that Tookie is no longer with us.

I also might note another area where this would yield some in put.  In the nature of free speech.  Social quality seeks to restrict individual freedoms in the name of maintaining the social order.  The natural inclination of the representatives of social order is to squelch free speech they find dangerous to the social order.  For example, persecuting those who espouse contrary political views.  

This falls under the Intellectual quality versus Social quality, intellectual quality (i.e. intellectual debate) is of greater moral quality, so the social orders attempt to forcefully stiffle dissent by social forces is immoral.  Therefore, free speech is an absolute moral good, no matter how 'dangerous' the argued intellectual idea is.

However, many try to apply this to pornography, for example.  Pornography represents biological quality.  As such it does not represent intellectual quality.  Therefore, society has a moral right to repress biological quality for societies good.  Though we may decide most pornography is allowable because it is harmless, it is not inviolate as intellectual quality and is, therefore, not immune to social control is society so deems.  

Often, those defending intellectual quality don't make a distinction between causes that represent intellectual quality and those that represent biological quality.  That is why they find themselve in the dubious distinction of defending criminals against social forces, because they are unable to see the distinction.


----------



## Floating Egg (Dec 15, 2005)

> In my opinion this is the lazy appraoch. Its really not up to me either.


 
How is it a lazy approach?



> This is a discussion, those who want to sit back and read are welcome to, but those who want to discuss should do so honestly.



What is dishonest about my approach to this discussion?



> If there is no proof thats ok, but dont just sit back and say I have to be the one to provide proof.


Testing arguments for validity is an important strategy in argumentation. In this case, I am refuting your claims on logical grounds. 


> As a note, I have not mocked anything nor have I misrepresented anything. I have simply replyed to the relativism posted here. Again, if you have somethi other than attacking my posts rather than my points, I'm more than willing to read it.


 
You don't consider your use of the word _insanity_ in reference to an opposing argument a form of mockery? You took upnorthkyosa's argument for a cultural basis of morality and drew the conclusion that relativists align themselves with whoever is winning to stay right. You would not define that as a straw man?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 15, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The biggest problem I have with using this approach is the lack of any explanation as why this framework makes any judgement on right and wrong. The fact that we are social creatures and that we have common social framework is nothing but a vessel. Masses of humans still decide what to put in that vessel. And usually the stuff that goes into the framework is stuff that is better adapted to the context of the environment and surrounding cultural structures. If one wants to make the argument that things that are better adapted to this context could be classified as good, I'm all ears.


 Just as an individual is nothing but a vessel for a mass of cells.  But you will agree that we have become far more than just a mass of individual cells.  At some point a construct takes on a purpose of it's own.  Individual cells evolved in to complex organisms, first, for an adaptive purpose.  However, eventually that complex organism became an end unto itself.  Complex organisms evolved societies to help gain an individual advantage.  Societies, however, eventually evolved beyond those original ends to become an end unto themselves.  We developed complex intellectual ideas, first and foremost, to gain an advantage in the environment.  However, what started as only a means to gain a tangible immediate advantage, evolved in to intellectual quality as a means in itself.

Though, there will be countless attempts to explain this, it is irrefutable that those things that we have evolved, originally, as adaptations, have taken on a meaning and purpose far beyond themselves.  We did not evolve science, originally, to explore the beginnings of the universe.  There were for more mundane and practical purposes.  But even you will conceed that this has become an important purpose of science.  Why?  Because you know, instinctively, that this is a greater moral good, even if you don't label it that.


Scientists may try to say that no system is any moral than another, but by the scientists very actions he conceeds that he believes that intellectual quality is a more moral phenomenon.  As Pirsig put it, If he tries to say that his belief in the matter is irrelavent, and he tries to seperate his moral views from the equation he is committing a form of intellectual schizophrenia by seperating himself from the subject.  

He acknowledges, by his actions, that he believes that intellectual quality is a greater good.  He pursues intellectual quality over social and biological quality and asserts, even if he doesn't label it such, that he represents the GREATER good.  If not, he would not be pursuing those ends.  If he tries to dodge the issue by saying that he is simply following his social conditioning, he is, in effect, being dishonest, as he STILL acknowledges that his social conditioning is a greater good.




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The biggest difference between biological evolution and cultural is that biological evolution follows Darwinian principles. Cultural follows Darwinian and Lamarckian principles. Ideas within a culture that help a culture succeed within its given context grow, while ideas that are maladaptive, die away. This is not natural selection.


 No, it is not natural selection in the Darwinian sense.  Complex systems contributing to ever greater complex systems (for example, the individual cells within our bodies contributing to ever greater complex systems, resulting in a whole organism capable of contemplating it's existence, contributing to even greater groups of complex systems debating the meaning of developed theories of complex organisms) create different levels of rules.  That is my point, as best as I can make it.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 15, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> The question is, If this is a self-evident truth...why is it that so many have failed to act on it? Why do so many fail to see what is so obvious to you? Are they blind...or is the situation more complicated than you allow?
> 
> If it's an absolute, wouldn't you expect it to be more widely followed? The current state of affairs is consistent with relativism...less so with your position. That's the point.


 Using the MOQ application of moral decisions, we would conclude that crime, per se, is an expression of biological quality.  Those who commit crime are said to be displaying biological quality over social quality.  As an individual biological being, expressing biological quality, there is nothing wrong with doing anything in a larger system to gain an advantage.  Lying, stealing, raping, assaulting, murdering, are all tools of gaining an advantage in a biological system.  

The ultimate good of a biological system is survival and reproduction, anything that gives an advantage in that competition is considered absolutely good.

However, when a more moral system comes along, a social system for example, the biological becomes immoral when in conflict with a more moral system.  The social good becomes the absolute good.

As to why more people don't follow, that is because we are always in a state of transition.  I would be willing to claim that more people follow the social order than at any time in the past.  More and more we are becoming creatures of social and intellectual quality, and less biological quality.  

However, as Pirsig put it (and yes, he is not the first to observe this) a social system that persecutes a Tookie Williams is moral, but one that persecutes a Galileo is immoral.  Why?  Both can be a threat to the social order.  In fact, Galileo could be considered a GREATER threat to the social order.  

But, Tookie, representing biological quality, is immoral in that competition.  Galileo, representing intellectual quality, is a GREATER good.  In fact, even if Galileo's conflict with the social order destroys the social order and replaces it with another, it is still a GREATER good.


This is why our conflict with Islamic fundamentalism is a moral conflict.  We represent an intellectual system, a western secular constitutional democracy, versus a representative of social quality (even though it was at one time a moral good).  In that conflict, Islamic fundamentalism is less moral.

In our former conflict with Communism, both ourselves and communism were two competing intellectual systems, therefore, the conflict was more morally complex.  As communism, however, was applied using greater social controls over intellectual quality, it was ultimately less moral.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 15, 2005)

_http://robertpirsig.org/Intro.htm_

_&#8220;The hardest thing for me to deal with since the publication of Lila has been the complete disbelief of many that quality is or can be anything real&#8230; The solution to this cultural resistance to the MOQ may come from the Orient where quality is a central reality. But there the problem is reversed. A famous Japanese Zen Master [Dainin Kategiri Roshi] who read ZMM told me he thought it was a nice book but he didn&#8217;t see anything unusual in it. He was quite puzzled at its success. Another Japanese tourist to America said, &#8216;This book is not interesting to Japanese people because we already know all of this.&#8217; Schopenhauer said that truth is that short interval between the time an idea is a heresy and the time it is a platitude, but the MOQ has managed to be both a heresy and a platitude simultaneously, depending on which culture you view it from.&#8221;_ (Letter to Anthony McWatt, December 24th 1995)

Those interested in further research should read Robert Pirsigs two books, both in paperback, 

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance and Lila: An Inquiry in to Morals.

I promise, agree or disagree with his conclusions, you won't be disappointed in reading these two books.  ZAMM provides a groundwork, but the MOQ discussed in this morality discussion is mostly held within the pages of Lila.  I'm amazed at how few people I find who have read ZAMM, and almost noone has read Lila.  Check it out.

"He sees Western rationality as the primary cause of a contemporary mass nightmare of confusion and suffering for two reasons; one, Western philosophy has defined itself as the only means of understanding such things as the good, and two &#8211; at the same time this philosophical tradition, dominated by dualistic subject-object metaphysics, has failed to offer any satisfactory or useful conception of the good because it has always been forced to conclude that the good must be subjective and unreal. Thus, for Pirsig, Western rationalism has denied the individual's access to the good in their own experience, and furthermore, its own definitions, of the good are trivialising - the effect of this having been to create a huge vacuum in the individual's life."

http://robertpirsig.org/Pragmatism.htm


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 15, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> > So without proof of existance, said idea or "thing" doesn't exist. Ok, so by that logic when the majority believed the earth was flat, it truly was flat, and when we proved it as round, it suddenly mutated and become round. C'mon, I've read much better arguments from you than that! :wink:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 15, 2005)

sgtmac_46

Here is a different view on how our intellect developed.  I am pursuaded by his arguments.

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/m/miller-mating.html

Sexual selection probably created our minds...in essence they are our peacocks tail.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 15, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> sgtmac_46
> 
> Here is a different view on how our intellect developed. I am pursuaded by his arguments.
> 
> ...



The theory discussed is why biological entities developed the first aspects of intellect.  Social pressures further pushed the development of intellect, which are the pressures I illustrated for what became modern intellect.  What this theory addresses is the first biological developments of what became intellect. 

As such, it is Interesting theory.  However, it doesn't lend much to the discussion at hand, except as a further indicator that social and intellectual quality were originally developed to improve biological quality (as I asserted).  So, in essence, this isn't a different view at all.  It does nothing to assail the assertion that social and intellectual quality have become an end unto themselves.  

For example, how does the study of the origins of the universe assist in reproduction.  If anything, it stands in the way.  Therefore, intellect has evolved BEYOND mating.  In fact, intellectual quality often comes in conflict with biological quality (mating).  The pursuit of intellectual quality, viewed biologically, is an impediment to biological quality.  Therefore, there must be some purpose for which it has become an end unto itself.

So those that utilize a biological level intellectual ability (i.e. a rockstar) get far 'more action' than those who operate on an intellectual level.  That is beyond dispute, and fairly well contradicts the idea that, because something began as a development for a certain purpose, it remains such. 

More importantly, how much 'action' did this study help the scientist get who conducted it?  I'd venture a guess he'd have found more 'action' if he had gotten a guitar and played at a local club.  So he disputes, in his behavior, his own findings ultimate applicability to understanding of what intellect BECAME (as opposed to what it was).  

So, therefore, the reseacher acknowledges that intellectual quality is far more important biological quality.  

Just as the original purpose of multi-celled organisms being different than as an end unto themselves, our minds have become an end, rather than a means to an end.  As such, the original intent is an interesting study are relavent as a contrast of how original intent evolved as a mean unto itself.   

I often find myself preferring the philosophers broad lens, to the scientists microscope.  One gives knowledge, the other truth.  Both are necessary, but only one grants perspective.


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 15, 2005)

After reading through stmac_46's posts, something dawned on me.

It's becoming increasingly apparent that what Pirsig labels as 'biological', 'social', and 'intellectual' levels of quality is more or less synonymous with the pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional levels of moral reasoning found in Kohlberg's developmental theory. 

Or, if you prefer: egocentric, sociocentric, and worldcentric.

In that regard, I am in general agreement with both Pirsig and sgtmac_46, but I tend to find the explanations and elucidations given by developmental psychologists (such as Piaget, Kohlberg, or Graves) to be a bit more cogent and viable. That being said, I have read _Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance_ but have yet to read _Lila_.

As for the theory that human intelligence and language evolved as a form of sexual selection, there may indeed be some truth to this claim. However, it is problematic in that there lacks empirical proof to support such a claim, as well as the fact that there are several alternative theories that are being debated in evolutionary psychology. Perhaps the most popular of these, for example, is that intelligence and language evolved as _social_ adaptations (in order to more efficaciously organize and coordinate interactions among large bodies of people), rather than pure sexual selections.

Laterz.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 15, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> After reading through stmac_46's posts, something dawned on me.
> 
> It's becoming increasingly apparent that what Pirsig labels as 'biological', 'social', and 'intellectual' levels of quality is more or less synonymous with the pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional levels of moral reasoning found in Kohlberg's developmental theory.
> 
> ...


 My guess would be that all those explainations are correct, pieces of the puzzle if you will.  That intellect developed initally, at least partially, on the biological level, to aid in mating, is not that far fetched.  

That it further developed, because it granted those who successfully used it, an adaptive advantage, further drove it's development in the direction of giving social forces an advantage, also makes perfect sense.  

That the two theories are, of necessity, contradictory, or that one is right, is only an indication of how different fields of scientific research tend to compartmentalize, as if THEIR field of research has a patent on understanding.  That is a natural occurance of specialized areas of research.  The more we specialize, the harder it is for us to understand the general.

Again, this is the problem with piece-meal research.  I assert that it only grants snippets of truth.  Given sciences continuing quest to create an even finer, specialized study of minutae, it takes someone other than a scientist to make ultimate meaning of scientific research.

For example, what does the fact intellect may have initially served the purpose of gaining a mating advantage really mean?  Ultimately, nothing taking as an individual fact.  However, when examined with the perspective of diverse fields of research, we can arrive at a sort of truth based on that knowledge.


That is why people come along, every so often, who lack advanced degrees in given fields, but with a general knowledge of a great many fields, and are able to give a perspective and insight that is well beyond the ability of someone who is extremly knowledgeable in a given field.  It is also why those with an advanced background in a given field, someone who has spent their life researching that 'one part of the elephant' resents and ridicules anyone who suggests that what they are feeling is a part, not a whole.  It offends their belief that the truth is found in a narrower and finer examination of the details.


Also, heretic, the reason Kohlberg may seem so similar to Pirsig's theory is that they were both influenced by the work of John Dewey, and other pragmatists, such as William James, Charles Peirce, and others (as well as the works of Jean Piaget), And though Kohlberg put a finer and narrower point on it, as natural given his initial focus in the realm of psychology, a specialized rather than generalized area of study (which is the reason it appears more cogent and viable), they both are exploring aspects of an evident 'truth'.


It appears, as a general rule heretic, that you and I are in general agreement on the subject.  Any disagreement would likely be the result of differences in your tendency toward specialized, detailed views of the researcher versus my more holistic interpretation, preferring as I do the generalized perspective of the philosophical.


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 15, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Evidence was discovered that the earth was round, that is why it changed. Thus far, no evidence has been offered to support your belief that something can be right outside of the realm of cultural structures. Thus, your belief has no basis in reality.


 Your ignoring the facts here. By your own logic, the earth must have been flat before said evidence was discovered. If it was indeed round, even before we discovered said evidence, then your argument falls apart.
Ok, I'll accept that, but the same can be said about your belief that there are no absolutes.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Then why did you compare it to gravity. You're backpeddling...


 No, I'm clarifying. I didn't change what I said, I made it more clear so your misunderstanding of it could be fixed. Again, why must my ways of discussion prove my incorrectness? Oh, because no one has evidence to do that for them. :wink:



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> One cannot prove a negative. One can only provide support for a positive assertion. I've provided support for my assertion that beliefs are relative and based on cultural structure, but you have not shown how something could transcend cultural structure to be universally wrong or universally right.


 Actually, negatives are quite easily proven. However, your "support" is lacking in that it doesn't provide evidence that your belief is more true or "right" than mine. As a point of fact, if its all relative, than I am actually correct about absolutes and you are correct about relativism. Hmm, guess we have nothing further to discuss, eh?



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> If you are talking about right or wrong, then you are talking about morality.


 Only in accordance with your absolute deffinition and usage of the words. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Like what? Why should be believe in something if there is no evidence for it?


 We can see that those who believed the earth was flat were wrong no?



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> You have not shown how violating the rights of someone is universally wrong.


 How is it not universally wrong? Violating someones rights is absolutely allways rejected by the victim. The person whose rights are being violated allways or universally disagrees with the person violating them. Its a forced violation which makes it wrong.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Most people obey most of the laws in society, do they not? If they didn't society wouldn't exist.


 Again, jumping over my point. I'll post it again....


			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Your question could be applied to criminals of our society as well. Why would they not subscribe to our laws? Is it because the laws are relative to their acceptance of them?





			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Nope. I'm saying that along side those cultures, other cultures had much more lax ideas regarding rape.


 Um...thats exactly what I said that you disagreed with. Speaking of contradicting and backpeddling. I said that cultures have allways agreed that rape was wrong and cultures have allways agreed that rape was right....you disagreed. Now your agreeing? :idunno:




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> This is an appeal to belief...


 How so? Why is it when asked for proof that effectively shows my beliefs as wrong, you only find semantic disagreements? Again, if all is relative we are both correct.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> It shows that there is no absolute morality.


 What? Would you care to explain how the idea that wrong is only so because its shuned; proves there are no absolutes?



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Yes, the people who owned slaves considered it perfectly legal and moral. They even justified it with their Chrisitan faith.


 Again, a skirting of the issue. I didn't ask if the people owningslaves thought it to be right...thats painfully obvious. I asked if it was right or wrong to own another human being? See, not right or wrong by todays standards or yesterdays standards, but right ever. Is it ever ok to own a human being....answer is no. Is it ever ok or right to rape a person...no. If you can show me evidentiary support of rape being ok or right, we will be done and I will concede.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Actually, its not advantageous for the same reasons its not advantageous to make women slaves. The bottom line is that slaves have no money to buy crap and have no power to participate. A large slave population would just be a drag on our society.


 Actually by your own admission there are still slave owners today and its very adventageous for them. Which is it? 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> If you are talking about things that are right and wrong beyond the structures of a society, then morals have everything to do with it. If this standard exists, why is there so much disagreement?


 And I'm appealing to belief? Disagreement disproves standards? How so?



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Yes, you claimed that very thing. You keep saying that somethings are wrong no matter what a societies rules are. This implies a universal moral standard...thus the bar is set.


 Nope, again read my post more carefully. I am not speaking of moral absolutes. Morality is mutable nad does change with society as you have said. Morality aside, there are still things that span time being ok and not ok. Rape is not ok by its very nature and deffinition. By your logic anything can be ok or right then yes?




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> People deal with that sort of thing all of the time. It's called a tax shelter. On a more serious note, pedastery may be illegal in the US, but there are some countries where one can travel and pedaster all one wants. If that isn't an example of moral relativism, then I don't know what is...


Again, what does that have to do with whether pedastery is right or wrong as a standard? Your right here, it is an example or moral relativism, but moral relativism is not what I'm discussing.
I feel like the boss on Joe Vs the Volcano, "I'm not arguing that with you". 
I'm saying the standard exists outside of morality. Morality is created nad changed by the masses, human rights are not. The perception of how much human rights is acceptable may, but how can we say that the idea of human rights changes? Why is it throughout history cultures have allways shared to some degree human rights?




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> This is true in hindsight, but until evidence is provided for something, no one should believe in that thing. Skepticism is a cure for charlatenry. If you claim that there is such a thing as a moral absolute, then there should be evidence for it...or no one should believe that such a thing exists.


 So Columbus was intelectually irresponsible for believing in a round earth without said evidence? Skepticism is a tool of both sides here. No one should have believed the earth to be round either....but the absolute exists that they were wrong. Thats just how it is.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> This is a circular argument if I've ever seen one. This argument assumes that scientific proofs are beliefs. They are not.


 Actually no, the argument does not. It simply shows that scientific proof is not the "end all be all" of existence. All I said was that scientism is not scientific and thus more liken to dogma or beliefs. Its actually quite accurate as shown by your respone to it.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Ours.


 Really? This discribes our culture:


			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> In some cultures, rape _should_ be performed. It is expected and it is part of the social framework. It evolved as a structure of that culture and other peices of that culture depend on its performance.


 So in our culture rape should be performed? Does your wife agree with you on this?



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> And you claim that you aren't talking about morality...


 Nope. Morality is what is accepted. I'm talking about what we base our morality on. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I'm sure they wouldn't, but they are part of our culture are they not? They learned our cultural structures did they not? The fact that they do not agree does not provide any evidence toward a moral absolute, it only shows that they accept the popular view held by the masses of the society in which they belong.


 Actually I was talking about those families in Africa, or in reservations which would most deffinitely not be in our culture. So the answer to your questions here is, No. It only shows that the popular view of the societies they belong to also somehow came to the same conclusion we did. Odd, eh? Why is that exactly? 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Norms are not absolutes. Norms are based on numbers. Most people in this society follow most of the rules, or a society wouldn't exist. It is then perfectly reasonable to expect that most people in a society where rape is a norm would take part in that act.


 Wow, another skirting of my point. I lived in 5th ward, I worked as a paramedic in that area as well...I can tell you that the "norm" in some areas there is most assuredly rape and murder. You just want to jump to a larger population to avoid my point. 
You continue expecting people in cultures of crime to continue with lives of crime. I'll accept those who do not. 



			
				Floating Egg said:
			
		

> How is it a lazy approach?
> 
> What is dishonest about my approach to this discussion?


  Lets stay on a discussion relatively close to the topic at hand. 



			
				Floating Egg said:
			
		

> You don't consider your use of the word _insanity_ in reference to an opposing argument a form of mockery? You took upnorthkyosa's argument for a cultural basis of morality and drew the conclusion that relativists align themselves with whoever is winning to stay right. You would not define that as a straw man?


 Nope. I didn't draw that conclusion, I stated my point and was not refuted. Again, nope.

 7sm


----------



## arnisador (Dec 15, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> So without proof of existance, said idea or "thing" doesn't exist. Ok, so by that logic when the majority believed the earth was flat, it truly was flat, and when we proved it as round, it suddenly mutated and become round.



This is confusing metaphysics and ethics, I think, as someone else did earlier. They're different things, as you point out below.



> I'm not saying absolute morality exists in the same way as gravity.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Floating Egg (Dec 16, 2005)

I came across a series of questions that were introduced near the end of an ethical debate, and I thought I might post them here with the hope of steering this discussion in a more productive direction:

Are there methods for proving moral principles? 
Are there rational methods for settling moral disputes? 
Are there criteria that will limit the range or number of acceptable moral principles or moral systems? 
Is there anything that we can call moral knowledge without gratuitously changing the meaning of the word 'knowledge'?


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 16, 2005)

We are going around and around and I'm not sure we are getting anywhere.  Here are two things that I think would help the discussion if you could explain in detail...



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Morality is what is accepted. I'm talking about what we base our morality on.


 
This is the dicussion that heretic888, sgtmac_46, and I have been having.  What do you think this standard is?​ 


			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> I'm saying the standard exists outside of morality..


 
Where is it?  How does one find it?  Where does it come from?  If something exists, we should be able to answer the Whats, Wheres, and Hows about it.



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> If you can show me evidentiary support of rape being ok or right, we will be done and I will concede..


 
Arnisador brought up the Yanomani, but I would like to point out that at one time, rape was one of the unwritten rules used to make women submit in our culture.  Both of these are examples of rape being ok.


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 16, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> This is confusing metaphysics and ethics, I think, as someone else did earlier. They're different things, as you point out below.


 I agree, it is confusing as is the discussion of absolutes or relativism. My analogy was not to show that the two ideas were similar, but to show that the logic being presented was flawed. What I have been seeing presented here as relativism is a system of beliefs that box reality into what a group of people accept or believe. This would mean reality changes by culture and I dont believe that to be the case. Its a percieved reality and what has been presented is that is all that matters. What I was attempting (probably rather poorly) to show is that reality exists outside of our understanding of it or acceptance of it. If thats true, then we cannot disprove absolutes simply because there happen to be people who do not agree.



			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> In which case, every individual would have his or her own sense of right or wrong?


 Exactly. However, does that simple fact (that people have their own sense of right and wrong) in and of itself rule out the existence of an absolute? If individualism does exist, then how can we say that the masses set right and wrong? If acceptance is what is needed for right or wrong to exist (as has been posted here many times during this thread) then the fact that individuals can have their own sense of right and wrong disporves that very idea.

The problem with Relativism as being addressed in this thread is that its being presented as absolute. "All is relative", "Everything is relative". These statements are absolutes. If "all" is actualy relative, then "all" cannot be relative. As confusing as it sounds we can see it contradicting itself. Again, if relativism is true, then we are both correct and I am right as well as you being right. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> What do you think this standard is?​



I've said it several times. I believe its based on inherant human rights. The right of protecting oneself....is that only available to you because you live in a culture that accepts it? Could you not defend yourself in a culture that does not accept it? You still could, regardless of consequences, yes? So where did that "right" come from? You could say that is an individual right that you have decided for yourself, but then why would every person have that same right? 

Lets go back to the knife fighting scenario. One group of people may teach that grabbing the edges of a knife is the right way to protect against being cut. They train in it, they teach it, and before long they have a student base that believes it. However, reality is that while as accepted and believed as that theory is, they will still get cut trying it. You could call that wrong, bad, not ok, not true, not right, or whatever term you like, but it shows the existance of absolutes. These may be physical laws, but they are absolute are they not? Can you take a knife and jam it between your ribs and not get injured or cut? Evne if its accepted that you will not? There are religious groups that believe in healing by faith. They ignore doctors and modern medicine in a firm and "absolute" belief that they will be healed by their faith. In their "culture" being healed by faith is right and going to a doctor is wrong. If your correct we can't call them wrong, but they will still die just as my youth pastor as a child did. He died from a simply infection that antibiotics could have cured in a week. He left a wife nad two children to fend for themselves. Now, can we call him wrong? Not in his culture, but the absolute still exists that he died, regardless of his "faith".​ 


			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Where is it? How does one find it? Where does it come from? If something exists, we should be able to answer the Whats, Wheres, and Hows about it.


 I dont agree. This is why I used my example of the flat earth idea. Those who believed it answered those questions about its "flatness". Those who believed it round could not answer those questions. No one could answer those questions about fire when it was first discovered. Maybe the first man/woman to discover it had this same discussion with his buddies trying to convince them fire existed. I dont agree that for something to exist, we must be able to answer those questions. Thats another absolute that you are presenting in your case of relativism. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Arnisador brought up the Yanomani, but I would like to point out that at one time, rape was one of the unwritten rules used to make women submit in our culture. Both of these are examples of rape being ok.


I agree, what I dont believe is that because rape was accepted that actually makes it "right" or "wrong", "ok" or "not ok". I see the evidence of absolutes based on human rights that do not change to fit our wants and desires, regardless of how advantageous it would be or how accepted it would be to rape someone. Rape is "ok" in your example based on the sample you are testing. Why is it we are so sure (absolute) that our own acceptance or belief of something makes or destroys its existance?

7sm


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 16, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> *What I was attempting (probably rather poorly) to show is that reality exists outside of our understanding of it or acceptance of it.*




I want to highlight this quote because it is important for the questions below.  The underscored word is expecially important.



> Exactly. However, does that simple fact (that people have their own sense of right and wrong) in and of itself rule out the existence of an absolute? If individualism does exist, then how can we say that the masses set right and wrong? If acceptance is what is needed for right or wrong to exist (as has been posted here many times during this thread) then the fact that individuals can have their own sense of right and wrong disproves that very idea.


 
Individualism means that one can choose to follow a societies rules or not (and pay the consequences).  People are not making choices to follow any universal moral standard though.  They do it (or not do it) for other reasons.



> The problem with Relativism as being addressed in this thread is that its being presented as absolute. "All is relative", "Everything is relative". These statements are absolutes. If "all" is actualy relative, then "all" cannot be relative. As confusing as it sounds we can see it contradicting itself. Again, if relativism is true, then we are both correct and I am right as well as you being right.


 
There is order to the universe, just not moral order.  A statement that "everything is relative" only applies to our morality.

​


> I've said it several times. I believe it's (a universal standard) based on inherant human rights.


 
Ok.  How do you know this...especially since their are so many exceptions?  How are you able to define what these human rights are?  Are you looking at how you feel about this...what you believe, or are you looking an actual thing that exists in reality?



> I dont agree. This is why I used my example of the flat earth idea. Those who believed it answered those questions about its "flatness". Those who believed it round could not answer those questions. No one could answer those questions about fire when it was first discovered. Maybe the first man/woman to discover it had this same discussion with his buddies trying to convince them fire existed. I dont agree that for something to exist, we must be able to answer those questions. Thats another absolute that you are presenting in your case of relativism.


 
If you are claiming that something is real then it is only logical that there be some evidence for it...otherwise, how would be know that it is real?  If you can't provide evidence for something, then there is no reason why anyone should believe it is real.  Lets take your flat earth idea, for example.  If people believe the world is flat and some prophet claims that it is round and says that that is just the way it is, why would anyone accept that?  This, in essence, is what you are doing...until you provide some evidence that this universal standard exists, no one will have any reason to believe that it does.



> I agree, what I dont believe is that because rape was accepted that actually makes it "right" or "wrong", "ok" or "not ok". I see the evidence of absolutes based on human rights that do not change to fit our wants and desires, regardless of how advantageous it would be or how accepted it would be to rape someone.


 
Then post it.  If this evidence can show how every person in every culture in every place knows rape is wrong even though their culture says its fine, then you've supported your position.


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 16, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Individualism means that one can choose to follow a societies rules or not (and pay the consequences). People are not making choices to follow any universal moral standard though. They do it (or not do it) for other reasons.


 Your asking my to believe they are not choosing a standard but "other reasons" just because you say so. How is it you can define the reasons people do things? Our choices do not affect the existence of standards and you can't say why people chose things just becasue it fits your argument.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> There is order to the universe, just not moral order. A statement that "everything is relative" only applies to our morality.


 Finally, I get to say it again! 
I'm not discussing moral order, or moral absolutes. 
"Everything is realtive" is still an absolute statement regardless of what it applies to. If order does exist in the universe, that is your proof of absolutes. Our understanding or acceptanec of said order doesnt change or affect either way the existence of that order or absolute. That is my point.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Ok. How do you know this...especially since their are so many exceptions? How are you able to define what these human rights are? Are you looking at how you feel about this...what you believe, or are you looking an actual thing that exists in reality?


 I dont see any exceptions, would you mind listing the ones you are refering to. I'm looking not at how I feel but at the existence of the standard. The standard is proven by history as we can see that cultures have allways shared an absolute of human rights, ragardelss of their acceptance, or level of accuracy with our current human rights. These differences dont negate the existence of a standard as you say, but serve to show the individualism could in fact also be considered an absolute. However, no level of individualism disproves a standard anymore than us disagreeing diproves the existence of communication. What does our disagreeing have to do with the existence of anything? Why do you feel so strongly that disagreement proves standards dont exist?

Your right, the hard part is defining these standards, but my motive was to show standards and absolutes do exist, which has been done in this thread. What standard or absolute is right is a different discussion. Like the one we have been having about rape. But regardless of the issue the standard doesn't change. Your offering no proof of relativism except that absolutism has no grounds in reality. Thats trying to disprove absolutes while ignoring the needed evidentiary support for relativism. :wink:



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> If you are claiming that something is real then it is only logical that there be some evidence for it...otherwise, how would be know that it is real? If you can't provide evidence for something, then there is no reason why anyone should believe it is real. Lets take your flat earth idea, for example. If people believe the world is flat and some prophet claims that it is round and says that that is just the way it is, why would anyone accept that? This, in essence, is what you are doing...until you provide some evidence that this universal standard exists, no one will have any reason to believe that it does.


 Ok, so having no reason to believe in absolutes means there are no absolutes? Not quite. In fact, you haev helped me make my point, with the flat earth scenario. People actually had no reason to believe this "prophet" that the earth was round and yet we see that had nothing to do with the existence of a round earth. So their understanding or acceptance however unsupported or heavily supported had no effect on the absolute.

I have shown that absolutes exist, but even so, your hinging your argument on the fact that the opposing side has no proof of their argument. That offers nothing to prove your belief in relativeness. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Then post it. If this evidence can show how every person in every culture in every place knows rape is wrong even though their culture says its fine, then you've supported your position.


I have been. However, your looking for something I'm not defending. I have never once...not once said I thought "every person in every culture in every place knows rape is wrong even though their culture says its fine".
Thats just a twisting of my posts to make my argument seem illogical. The fact is I have said many times that peopel do not agree, but that lack of agreement does not affect the existance of absolutes or standards.

What I can say is that every person in every culture that has ever been raped knows rape is not acceptable evne though their culture may accept it. That by itself shows my point.

I dont think either of us can produce evidence to prove either side here, its a belief system on both sides and if your correct we are both right. :wink:

7sm


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 16, 2005)

We both agree that standards for right and wrong are relative in culture.  The evidence is pretty clear on this and we both see it.  We do not agree that there is a universal standard for right and wrong above what a societies rules.  This is something that you claim.  I would like to see some evidence for this claim...otherwise all we have is the relative morality set forth by the cultures...the flat earth example.  

btw - your human rights example simply doesn't cut it.  The differences in human rights between the US and Saudi Arabia are striking enough to show that even that is relative.  Unless you can somehow show that a universal standard for human rights exists, no one should believe in it...again, the flat earth example.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Dec 16, 2005)

Standards for some rights and wrongs are relative.
You keep using rape-murder and so on as examples but I think that you will see that in almost all countries that they are seen as wrong. 

Name a country where you can go and kill one of their children and they will just say its OK. Thou shall not kill goes way back.

If its OK to do it to somebody else but not OK to have it done to you than I dont think that you can say that right wrong is relative onlt that some people like to do onto others but think its morally wrong to have it done to them.


----------



## Floating Egg (Dec 16, 2005)

> Name a country where you can go and kill one of their children and they will just say its OK.



The Yanamamo practice of preferential female infanticide and the Inca Capacoca ritual.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Dec 16, 2005)

So you could just walk into one of their villages and kill one of their kids and it would have been OK?


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 16, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> We both agree that standards for right and wrong are relative in culture. The evidence is pretty clear on this and we both see it. We do not agree that there is a universal standard for right and wrong above what a societies rules. This is something that you claim. I would like to see some evidence for this claim...otherwise all we have is the relative morality set forth by the cultures...the flat earth example.
> 
> btw - your human rights example simply doesn't cut it. The differences in human rights between the US and Saudi Arabia are striking enough to show that even that is relative. Unless you can somehow show that a universal standard for human rights exists, no one should believe in it...again, the flat earth example.


Exactly! Your really liking my "flat earth" example, but dont seem to see that its supporting my position. You say it shows we shouldn't believe things without proof, but it also shows that regardless of proof, beliefs can be wrong. And a standard exists regardless of our beliefs or our evidence of proof.

However, I have provided evidence, you just dont want to see it :wink:



			
				Floating Egg said:
			
		

> The Yanamamo practice of preferential female infanticide and the Inca Capacoca ritual.


 Thats not really what he asked for now is it. In fact your example falls in line with his "do yourself" but dont "get done to me" idea.

7sm


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Dec 16, 2005)

As you can tell from my typing and spelling Im no literary genius. But I do think that some things are well just wrong. 

Trying to make rape, murder OK as long as we are not judging someone else is a dangerous precident. What else are we supposed to accept???


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 16, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Exactly! Your really liking my "flat earth" example, but dont seem to see that its supporting my position. You say it shows we shouldn't believe things without proof, but it also shows that regardless of proof, beliefs can be wrong. And a standard exists regardless of our beliefs or our evidence of proof.


 
There is a big difference between could exist and does exist.  People who believed the earth was flat surely could imagine that the world was round and they could believe that it might be possible, but until they see evidence, then there is no way that they would believe that it is possible.



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> However, I have provided evidence, you just dont want to see it :wink:


 
Ok.  Please provide some examples of evidence.  Maybe I missed it.  We'll recap.


----------



## Floating Egg (Dec 16, 2005)

The title of this thread is Absolutism vs. Relativism. There are many different kinds of absolutism and relativism, but in ethics, which seems to be the subject of this discussion, absolutism usually implies "universal ethical standards which are inflexible and absolute". In contrast, relativism "asserts that ethical mores vary from era to era, culture to culture, situation to situation."

Source: Apologetics.org

The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines absolutism and relativism as the following:

Main Entry: ab&#8226;so&#8226;lut&#8226;ism 
Pronunciation: 'ab-s&-"l&#252;-"ti-z&m
Function: noun
1 a : a political theory that absolute power should be vested in one or more rulers b : government by an absolute ruler or authority : DESPOTISM
2 : advocacy of a rule by absolute standards or principles
3 : an absolute standard or principle
- ab&#8226;so&#8226;lut&#8226;ist  /-"l&#252;-tist/ noun or adjective
- ab&#8226;so&#8226;lu&#8226;tis&#8226;tic  /"ab-s&-(")l&#252;-'tis-tik/ adjective 

Main Entry: rel&#8226;a&#8226;tiv&#8226;ism 
Pronunciation: 're-l&-ti-"vi-z&m
Function: noun
1 a : a theory that knowledge is relative to the limited nature of the mind and the conditions of knowing b : a view that ethical truths depend on the individuals and groups holding them
2 : RELATIVITY
- rel&#8226;a&#8226;tiv&#8226;ist  /-vist/ noun 

The reason I&#8217;ve pointed out these definitions is because 7starmantis wrote "I'm not discussing moral order, or moral absolutes" and I think it&#8217;s important to be clear about the subject of discussion. We seem to be using ethics and morality interchangeably, but many students of philosophy would disagree with this. Since we've gotten this far without quibbling about the difference, I think it would do more harm to differentiate the two, but it might be interesting to note that morals are usually associated with standards and modes of conduct, while ethics refers to the study of said standards and modes of conduct.

7starmantis started this discussion in response to another thread, where there was an apparent dispute over whether or not absolutes can or cannot exist. In a reply to michaeledward, 7starmantis directly addresses the issue of equal rights and connects absolutes to it with the word _should_. He goes on to ask if we should consider rape acceptable. He writes "I think rape is absolutely wrong....I dont think there exist in reality a situation where it can be accepted."

My reasons for reviewing 7starmantis's first post is because I want to make it clear that I have good reasons for believing that when 7starmantis talks about absolutism and relativism, he's talking about morality. Here are some of 7starmantis's claims in order of appearance:

"...rape is absolutely wrong"

"The problem is that rape cannot be both right and wrong at the same time. Either raping a person is wrong, or it is right."

"I can be tolerant and accept beliefs outsdie of my own, but there must be absolutes at some point. Without absolutes, the study of science is merely childish babble and opinionated discussions."

"Right and wrong exists, regardless of the cultures acceptance of it."

Have you noticed a pattern? He makes a lot of claims about what is right and wrong, and most importantly, what is absolute. It's quite clear to me that he is discussing absolutism as it relates to morality, and though I despise repeating myself, he has not provided any evidence for his claims. In fact, he actually goes on to write "There is no evidence on either side of the discussion, thats why this is a philosophical discussion."

The goal of refutation is to show how an argument fails. Now, I could provide counterarguments, which 7starmantis would prefer, but I don't think my role in this discussion is to repeat what others have already said. I also prefer arguing with an opponent that has a strong argument and at least partially understands the rules of argumentation. 

This brings me to the burden of proof, which exists for a reason. It's not just an arbitrary rule invented by philosophers that study argumentation. Proof in the case of informal arguments such as this one, can usually be softened to support, but that doesn't remove responsibility from the claimant.

It is fallacious to shift the burden when your assertion has not been supported, which is one of the reasons why this discussion keeps going in circles. Until 7starmantis provides support for his argument, the default position of disbelief is justified.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Dec 16, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Thats not really what he asked for now is it. In fact your example falls in line with his "do yourself" but dont "get done to me" idea.
> 
> 7sm



Thats why I think that Christs "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" philosophy was so important and that it changed the world. Because people started to see that if I didnt want it done to me than it was wrong to do it to others. And if others were doing things to people that I wouldnt want done to me that was wrong too.


----------



## Floating Egg (Dec 16, 2005)

A character in a book did not invent the Golden Rule and Christianity cannot claim ownership. Furthermore, it is a thought-terminating clich&#233;, certainly not universal, and I would argue, not practiced by Christians themselves.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Dec 16, 2005)

Believe what you want.


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 16, 2005)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> Thats why I think that Christs "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" philosophy was so important and that it changed the world. Because people started to see that if I didnt want it done to me than it was wrong to do it to others. And if others were doing things to people that I wouldnt want done to me that was wrong too.


 
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.


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 17, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> There is a big difference between could exist and does exist. People who believed the earth was flat surely could imagine that the world was round and they could believe that it might be possible, but until they see evidence, then there is no way that they would believe that it is possible.


 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.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Ok. Please provide some examples of evidence. Maybe I missed it. We'll recap.


 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.



			
				Floating Egg said:
			
		

> The reason Ive pointed out these definitions is because 7starmantis wrote "I'm not discussing moral order, or moral absolutes" and I think its important to be clear about the subject of discussion. We seem to be using ethics and morality interchangeably, but many students of philosophy would disagree with this. Since we've gotten this far without quibbling about the difference, I think it would do more harm to differentiate the two, but it might be interesting to note that morals are usually associated with standards and modes of conduct, while ethics refers to the study of said standards and modes of conduct.


 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. 



			
				Floating Egg said:
			
		

> 7starmantis started this discussion in response to another thread, where there was an apparent dispute over whether or not absolutes can or cannot exist. In a reply to michaeledward, 7starmantis directly addresses the issue of equal rights and connects absolutes to it with the word _should_. He goes on to ask if we should consider rape acceptable. He writes "I think rape is absolutely wrong....I dont think there exist in reality a situation where it can be accepted."
> 
> My reasons for reviewing 7starmantis's first post is because I want to make it clear that I have good reasons for believing that when 7starmantis talks about absolutism and relativism, he's talking about morality. Here are some of 7starmantis's claims in order of appearance:


 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?

Tin hats on fellas! :supcool:



			
				Floating Egg said:
			
		

> Have you noticed a pattern? He makes a lot of claims about what is right and wrong, and most importantly, what is absolute. It's quite clear to me that he is discussing absolutism as it relates to morality, and though I despise repeating myself, he has not provided any evidence for his claims. In fact, he actually goes on to write "There is no evidence on either side of the discussion, thats why this is a philosophical discussion."


 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 :wink:

Please see my previous posts for the evidence I have posted.



			
				Floating Egg said:
			
		

> The goal of refutation is to show how an argument fails. Now, I could provide counterarguments, which 7starmantis would prefer, but I don't think my role in this discussion is to repeat what others have already said. I also prefer arguing with an opponent that has a strong argument and at least partially understands the rules of argumentation.


 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.



			
				Floating Egg said:
			
		

> This brings me to the burden of proof, which exists for a reason. It's not just an arbitrary rule invented by philosophers that study argumentation. Proof in the case of informal arguments such as this one, can usually be softened to support, but that doesn't remove responsibility from the claimant.
> 
> It is fallacious to shift the burden when your assertion has not been supported, which is one of the reasons why this discussion keeps going in circles. Until 7starmantis provides support for his argument, the default position of disbelief is justified.


 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.

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. 

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 :wink: ). Relativism below morals, relativism of standards that base what cultures have set their morals on.

Now that I have provided my evidence, lets play Perry Mason and have you provide your evidence....then we can discuss them both or just nod and leave.

respectfully :asian:
 7sm



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> 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.


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


----------



## Henderson (Dec 17, 2005)

No offense fellas, but your debate is ALL relative to your perspective points of view, and there is no absolute to any of it. It just seems like an awful lot of time & typing wasted arguing points that are irrelevant. To be honest, it sounds like a "gotta-have-the-last-word" argument.

No disrespect intended,

Frank


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 17, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> 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 (Dec 17, 2005)

Henderson said:
			
		

> 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 (Dec 17, 2005)

> 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&#8217;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 (Dec 17, 2005)

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 (Dec 17, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> ...


 
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 (Dec 17, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> 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.  



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> 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 (Dec 17, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> 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 (Dec 17, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				Floating Egg said:
			
		

> 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. 



			
				Floating Egg said:
			
		

> The default position is skepticism unless you support your assertion.


  Your default position, not _the_ default position.



			
				Floating Egg said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 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. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 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 (Dec 17, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> 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 (Dec 17, 2005)

> 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 (Dec 17, 2005)

Floating Egg said:
			
		

> heretic888,
> 
> If I accepted claims one through four below, would you consider me a moral relativist?
> 
> ...


 
No, I wouldn't.


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 17, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> ...


 
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 (Dec 17, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 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. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 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 (Dec 17, 2005)

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 (Dec 18, 2005)

Floating Egg said:
			
		

> 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 (Dec 18, 2005)

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 (Dec 18, 2005)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> You guys are getting way to deep for me.


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



			
				Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> 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 (Dec 19, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 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). 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 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 (Dec 19, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> 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. 



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> 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 (Dec 20, 2005)

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)


----------



## arnisador (Dec 20, 2005)

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

Yours is a very Darwinian point-of-view!


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 20, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> ...


 

*** Evoking Power engaged ***

*"Godwin"*



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


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 20, 2005)

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

Laterz.


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 20, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> The purported universality or commonality of certain cross-cultural moral ethos in no way, shape, or form constitutes actual _proof_ for the existence of moral absolutes. Indeed, according to your own arguments, moral absolutes exist even if nobody on earth believes and them and, furthermore, even a belief that is universally subscribed to, without exception, does not intrinsically become a moral absolute.
> 
> Ergo, the number of people or cultures that subscribes to a given ethos has no direct bearing on its "absolute" status, either in the positive or the negative. This is not proof.


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



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

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


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

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



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

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


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

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

7sm


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 20, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

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


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



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

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


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

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

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



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

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


 
It depends on how you define "human rights".

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



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

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


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

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



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

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


 
Oh, really?? Could have fooled me.



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

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


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

Laterz.


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 20, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

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


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



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> If by "human rights", you simply mean cultural ethos of some form or another, then you're certainly right. We are social animals, after all, and much of our "intelligence" evolved to meet the demands of community interactions.
> 
> But, even so, that doesn't tell us anything about moral absolutes, since these ethos differ drastically from culture to culture and from epoch to epoch. In essence, it's like saying that cooking in some form or another has existed since the beginning of our records of time.
> 
> One's response is, basically, "so what?".


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

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



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> It depends on how you define "human rights".
> 
> The organized city-state was the first type of society to actually advocate a non-ethnic view of citizenship, thus its significance.


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

Why the withholding of requested source or proof?



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> No, it just means that it may have provided an adaptive advantage in the past. Incest, for example, is virtually universally taboo in every human culture, but this is largely because of evolutionary reasons (i.e., it is maladaptive to mate with those that share your same gene pool).
> 
> If something is contingent on evolutionary history, it is not an absolute.


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

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



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Oh, really?? Could have fooled me.


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



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

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


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

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

7sm


----------

