Challenging Relativism

There is:
Symbiosis vs Predatory/parasitic. This is not Relativistic and can be measured with each behaviour. The second one breeds karma debt to the victims. Very dangerous in today:s economic system where you can enslave people with the economic system and create insanely high debts without even seeing your victims for material wealth.

There is a reason Jesus say:

22But when the young man heard this statement, he went away grieving; for he was one who owned much property. 23And Jesus said to His disciples, "Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.
24"Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

There is an all compassing truth about everything "what is" that is exact that includes all views of "what is". Just because you only have a false view of "what is" that is not the truth do not mean the true state of everything do not exists. Just because you believe you know your view as the truth do not mean your view is correct and true. There are many views but only one single truth encompassing all including everything.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

What about killing someone in self defense?

Personally, I would not do it.

If I was on a jury, deciding such a case? I honestly don't know how I would vote.

originally posted by: adjensen
a reply to: Krazysh0t

What about killing someone in self defense?

Personally, I would not do it.

If I was on a jury, deciding such a case? I honestly don't know how I would vote.

Of course, you're not allowed to vote on a jury based simply on your opinion. It has to relate to the applicable statues. And since most areas require unanimous juries, you would have to make your case, unless everyone already agrees with you.

a reply to: Moresby

I would most likely be recused because of my position regarding the dignity of human life.

See, there's a plus side to a slavish devotion to absolute morality

for me to agree that morality is absolutely relative, then I'd have to imagine a society where the most heinous/horrible action I can imagine is "good"

No one said you have to accept heinous things as good- if they really are heinous that is. Nature has a system of morality for social animals (which we are) and it's to work together for the good of the group. If we just followed nature more we'd be fine with more morals and a better quality of life. If wolves and lions can do it you'd think we could do it.

I would most likely be recused because of my position regarding the dignity of human life.

Does that "dignity" include opposing war, torture, and slave wages by any chance?

originally posted by: smithjustinb

As far as I can tell, challenging relativism requires an absolute reality. The absolute reality must have an absolute purpose.

That is the premise that your conclusions all lie upon, the belief in an absolute reality, that has an absolute purpose.
You haven't convinced me that that exists, so none of the rest has any validity.

What evidence is there for an absolute reality with an absolute purpose?

originally posted by: Moresby

You were making a conditional exception to hate being an absolute bad. That is a relative judgement.

I don't see how that is a relative judgment.

If freedom is the absolute

I didn't say freedom was the absolute. I said freedom was paramount. The absolute is the absolute. The absolute is anything that can be said to be absolute. Math is absolute. Math isn't the only absolute. The universe and its components are absolute. Relative perceptions aren't absolute. But some can be more absolute than others by having the correct perception.

The rest of your argument is manifestly conditional, and so completely relativistic.

If there are any conditions, they are in reference to the absolute, determined by the absolute and so they are absolute.

a reply to: smithjustinb

For your arguments to work, you need to demonstrate that an absolute reality exists - one that is independent of the mind of a subject.

Also, your argument that "just because we don't understand something doesn't mean it does not exist" can be used against you. Just because you do not understand that your beliefs, thought-processes and general mindset are the product of conditioning - not reality manifesting - does not mean that they aren't.

In addition, your views are very human-focused. What about the rights of animals not to be killed and eaten for food by humans when we can survive without doing so? Or the rights of those insects not to be killed by your insecticide just because you find them to be menacing? If justice exists absolutely, then you need to account for non-human situations.

I'll say this:

Relativism exists, but not in its currently defined form. Things aren't always relative to the observer or the interpretation. Morals aren't relative to interpretation. They are relative to something independent of individual observation. There is an absolute good and bad. These are established in reference to something besides interpretation (I don't know what exactly, probably freedom, but idk exactly). The establishing reference of moral absolutes may not be the establishing reference for other relative things, such as taste of food.

a reply to: CB328

No one said you have to accept heinous things as good- if they really are heinous that is.

You're missing my point.

for me to agree that morality is absolutely relative, then I'd have to imagine a society where the most heinous/horrible action I can imagine is "good"

If all morality is relative, then in theory you'd have to be able to imagine a society where the most morally reprehensible act was considered "good" and I'd have to consider that society as "right" because that act was accepted as so by the imagined society.

It's not a matter of anyone asking me, it's what I believe is required to prevent absolute moral relativism from collapsing as a theory.

a reply to: smithjustinb

Problem being, good can and does come out of "bad/evil" actions.
And "bad/evil" can come out of "good" actions.

You can do good for the wrong reasons.
And do bad for good reasons.
"The road to Hell is paved in good intentions." anyone?

And doesn't your own god call upon you to hate sin?
If not the sinner, but still.

a reply to: CB328

Does that "dignity" include opposing war, torture, and slave wages by any chance?

As I said earlier, yes, it does.

This is the statement of the Catholic Church on the dignity of the human person:

The Catholic Church proclaims that human life is sacred and that the dignity of the human person is the foundation of a moral vision for society. This belief is the foundation of all the principles of our social teaching. In our society, human life is under direct attack from abortion and euthanasia. The value of human life is being threatened by cloning, embryonic stem cell research, and the use of the death penalty. The intentional targeting of civilians in war or terrorist attacks is always wrong. Catholic teaching also calls on us to work to avoid war. Nations must protect the right to life by finding increasingly effective ways to prevent conflicts and resolve them by peaceful means. We believe that every person is precious, that people are more important than things, and that the measure of every institution is whether it threatens or enhances the life and dignity of the human person. (Source)

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
a reply to: smithjustinb

Problem being, good can and does come out of "bad/evil" actions.
And "bad/evil" can come out of "good" actions.

You can do good for the wrong reasons.
And do bad for good reasons.
"The road to Hell is paved in good intentions." anyone?

And doesn't your own god call upon you to hate sin?
If not the sinner, but still.

I already addressed this with

Would it be okay to hate a rapist? I think freedom is paramount because reality manifests as it should manifest through free individuals whose rights are not infringed. Anytime someone does something that restricts your freedom, that is restricting reality from manifesting as it would. So when a rapist infringes on the free will of another, it is justified to stop him. In other words, justice can be defined as opposition to the opposition of freely manifesting reality, thereby supporting reality. Therefore, justice is positive.

in the OP.

originally posted by: smithjustinb

I don't see how that is a relative judgment.

Because not everyone may agree with your conditional. Some people may think that NO hate is acceptable and others may think that it is acceptable to hate rapists or other criminals. In order for something to be absolute, the status has to be the same no matter the conditions. Hate is unacceptable. That is an absolute statement. Hate is unacceptable, but it is ok to hate rapists or murderers. That is a relative statement since you have given a condition to the statement. Though by demonstrating that someone can think differently than the first statement, you have just shown that not even the statement, "Hate is unacceptable," is an absolute statement since not everyone agrees with that opinion.

I didn't say freedom was the absolute. I said freedom was paramount. The absolute is the absolute. The absolute is anything that can be said to be absolute. Math is absolute. Math isn't the only absolute. The universe and its components are absolute. Relative perceptions aren't absolute. But some can be more absolute than others by having the correct perception.

But math never materializes in our universe to work out nicely. I mean sometimes it does, but for the most part, we can never measure precisely enough, or there are rounding errors or the division doesn't work out nicely. Have you ever tried to compute a real world example differential equation? Classroom differential equations are hard enough, but real world ones that require series, imaginary numbers, and all sorts of other crazy stuff are WAY worse.

On top of that, as you explore higher levels of math, even classroom math stops being absolute. In algebra, how many numbers can the variable x equal? In calculus how many integrals are there of y=xdx? Statistics and probability don't even pretend to work in absolutes. Ever take linear algebra? That gets even more complex where answers to systems of equations could contain an equation itself among its answers. Really the only time that math is absolute is when you are looking at grade school math (1 + 5 = 6). That is unless you try to compute pi or e.

If there are any conditions, they are in reference to the absolute, determined by the absolute and so they are absolute.

Please give me an example of an absolute.

a reply to: smithjustinb

The very fact that people will agree and disagree with you disproves the absolute. If something was really absolute, it would be absolute in reality. Of course, that has never been the case, and moral absolutes are still a wet dream.

So you infringe on the rapist's freedom because he is infringing on someone's freedom? That isn't justice. That is hypocrisy. There are much better reasons to stop a rapist.

a reply to: Aphorism

Just to play devil's advocate.
I am not so sure it disproves anything.
All it proves is that not everyone believes in absolutes.
Does not directly mean no absolutes exist.

a reply to: smithjustinb

How so?
I am not understanding your thinking is here.

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

Just to play devil's advocate.
I am not so sure it disproves anything.
All it proves is that not everyone believes in absolutes.
Does not directly mean no absolutes exist.

If anything is absolute, by necessity, it would have to be absolute, it would have to be a totality existing in no relative relation. No morality exhibits these qualities.

a reply to: Aphorism

Doesn't mean it will be universally percieved as absolute however.
The mere fact that we do not all agree it is absolute does not make it not absolute.

I am pretty sure there is some sort of fallacy in the argument to boot.
But, I could be mistaken.