Absolutism vs Relativism

[Floating Egg]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Floating Egg]

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]

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

 

[Makalakumu]

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]

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]

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]

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

No worries Geo !!

7sm

I stand corrected...

:asian:

 

[7starmantis]

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

I guess the following would be better put here.

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'.

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.

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).