Absolutism vs Relativism

[arnisador]

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.

How about in the same sense as Justice? Plato saw it as an ideal, with a sort of existence of its own. This led to the question, If Justice exists, where does it exist? That's the context of asking where the absolute is.

Its evidence of nothing except individualism.

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

It cannot be proved like a theorem in Euclidean geometry; nor can it be observed, like a virus.

But...surely, then, we agree that it's just your belief, not a universal?

 

[Floating Egg]

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]

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...

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?​

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.

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]

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.

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.

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".
​

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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:

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[7starmantis]

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:

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]

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]

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.

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]

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•so•lut•ism
Pronunciation: 'ab-s&-"lü-"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•so•lut•ist /-"lü-tist/ noun or adjective
- ab•so•lu•tis•tic /"ab-s&-(")lü-'tis-tik/ adjective

Main Entry: rel•a•tiv•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•a•tiv•ist /-vist/ noun

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.

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]

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]

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

 

[Blotan Hunka]

Believe what you want.

 

[heretic888]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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

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]

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