21-10-2004 06:40									#391
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: This is not like ice cream, for moral systems are supposed to tell you how you ought to act; ice cream and food does not.

So what? If everything can be put into binary logic, so can ice cream preferences, right? So you think that if I say that all ice cream preferences are equal, then I think that vanilla has no value (or taste, if you prefer).

	21-10-2004 06:50									#392
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by loinburger True or false: This statement is false. Or, using a more true-to-life example, True or false: The world record holder of the 100 meter dash is a faster runner than the world record holder of the 400 meter dash.

An ambiguous statement until you define "faster runner". It is like saying: "True or false: Bush is more X than Kerry." You cannot answer the question the question until you define X. All you have shown is an example of the ambiguous nature of everyday speech.

quote: Originally posted by loinburger Like Imran said, that's a broad sweeping generalization that does not apply to all relativists.

It might not apply to all people that call themselves relativists, and perhaps all relativists don't actually evaluate the logical implications of their beliefs (few do). However, it is the logical implication of relativism.

quote: Originally posted by loinburger How do you get from morality telling you how to act to morality being something that "ought" to be imposed on others? Does the one necessarily entail the other?

The point being, that a Relativist has no rational justification for stopping genocide. The people committing it are not doing anything wrong. One might also note that society itself is founded on the principle of imposing certain ethical views on its members.

-Drachasor

	21-10-2004 06:59									#393
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: This is not like ice cream, for moral systems are supposed to tell you how you ought to act; ice cream and food does not. So what? If everything can be put into binary logic, so can ice cream preferences, right? So you think that if I say that all ice cream preferences are equal, then I think that vanilla has no value (or taste, if you prefer).

The point was how ethical systems inherently have reach beyond the subjective into the objective world. Since they are about behavior, saying that no behavior is bad or good and all is allowable is a very different thing compared to saying anyone can have any ice cream preferences they want (or happen to have). The latter is truly of no great consequence, the former is not.

-Drachasor

PS. Anyone know why some of the time I get the embedded quotes and some of the time I have to fill them in manually?

	21-10-2004 07:02									#394
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui So what? If everything can be put into binary logic, so can ice cream preferences, right? So you think that if I say that all ice cream preferences are equal, then I think that vanilla has no value (or taste, if you prefer).

To his defense, ice cream preferences are completely irrational, while moral statements aren't.

	21-10-2004 07:19									#395
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Drachasor All you have shown is an example of the ambiguous nature of everyday speech.

You ignored the first statement, which was unambiguous.

I also fail see how the second statement is ambiguous -- the dictionary defines the verb "run" to mean "Moving or capable of moving with great speed" when used in the context of running. Where's the ambiguity? The term seems pretty concrete to me...

quote: The point being, that a Relativist has no rational justification for stopping genocide. The people committing it are not doing anything wrong.

Why are "rational justifications" a sacred cow here? What's wrong with acting irrationally -- is it morally wrong to act irrationally, or is it a different kind of wrong?

If a relativist is displeased by genocide, then how is he acting irrationally in attempting to stop it? What's irrational about seeking or furthering that which pleases you and avoiding or stopping that which displeases you?

Do you mean to imply that "moral wrongs" are the only kind of wrong? I often try to stop people from acting stupidly, but I wouldn't necessarily assign a moral value to the actions that I'm trying to prevent...

	21-10-2004 07:50									#396
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker [q] Originally posted by Kidicious Only in Kuciverse.[/w] At best all you've proved is that I'm a hypocrite. You haven't managed to actually make ANY arguments against my logic.

No one should care about someone's logic that contradicts itself. That's a complete waste of time. Your logic has already been shown incorrect.

	21-10-2004 07:54									#397
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by loinburger Do you mean to imply that "moral wrongs" are the only kind of wrong? I often try to stop people from acting stupidly, but I wouldn't necessarily assign a moral value to the actions that I'm trying to prevent...

In its absolute sense, wrong can only be a moral term. Else it becomes a practical maxim not intended for universality (such as 'not eating vegetable is a wrong thing to do').

	21-10-2004 08:09									#398
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

BTW, predicates only exist in relation with other predicates - and for this reason, descriptive propositions are as uncertain as prescriptive ones.

	21-10-2004 08:13									#399
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Sorry for small useless posts, but I'm too tired to think of anything extensive and coherent.

Not that anyone missed my presence in this debate anyway.

	21-10-2004 08:37									#400
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Oncle Boris In its absolute sense, wrong can only be a moral term. Else it becomes a practical maxim not intended for universality (such as 'not eating vegetable is a wrong thing to do').

That's a rather cut-and-dried way of looking at things -- I've often seen the word used as an amoral term, e.g., making a wrong turn, giving the wrong answer, using a lightbulb with the wrong wattage... Try substituting "immoral" in any of those usages, e.g., making an immoral turn or using a lightbulb with the immoral wattage, and you're left with nonsense.

	21-10-2004 13:30									#401
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by loinburger If a relativist is displeased by genocide, then how is he acting irrationally in attempting to stop it? What's irrational about seeking or furthering that which pleases you and avoiding or stopping that which displeases you?

Well, I think it is irrational too (hm, for the moment, unless I get a three pages long refutation ). Because in case the relativist thinks that he has objectively no idea if genocide is right or wrong I don't see how he can decide what's more justified: his attempt to stop genocide (because he subjectively does not like it) or the attempt to commit genocide by someone else.

Isn't he (the relativist) required to say "I don't like genocide, but how can I try to enforce my moral views on others (with another moral system) by an attempt to stop genocide"? I mean an absolutist guy would simply assume that he has an universal truth on his side justifying his action - but the relativist has only his personal preference. And his position is that no moral system is more valid than another, so why should the relativist's subjective POV have any impact on people with another moral system?

Edit: Wouldn't it mean that the relativist is acting like an absolutist now?

	21-10-2004 15:59									#402
	Suffering from ads?

Why do you need absolute certainty to enforce your views of morality on others?

quote: To his defense, ice cream preferences are completely irrational, while moral statements aren't.

Why? Can you find an example to back up your claim?

	21-10-2004 16:01									#403
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: The point was how ethical systems inherently have reach beyond the subjective into the objective world. Since they are about behavior, saying that no behavior is bad or good and all is allowable is a very different thing compared to saying anyone can have any ice cream preferences they want (or happen to have). The latter is truly of no great consequence, the former is not.

Why should the consequence of a logical structure matter any in determining its truth?

	21-10-2004 16:03									#404
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Ramo Why do you need absolute certainty to enforce your views of morality on others?

I don't know if you need it. I don't understand how you can try to enforce a certain moral view when you think it is only a subjective opinion, and as such equally valid to all other subjective opinions (even to those contrary to the POV you want to enforce).

	21-10-2004 16:08									#405
	Inflate your Upload Space

In my (subjective) opinion, I believe that my morality is the best.

	21-10-2004 16:17									#406
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

I know. But that does not answer my question. If you are relativist you must assume (even accept) that others think the same about their moral beliefs, if you personally agree with them or not. But then I don't see how you can enforce your system without acting against the key points of relativism.

	21-10-2004 16:37									#407
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Why?

	21-10-2004 16:46									#408
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Err, sorry? I ask "how you can a relativist do this or that" and you ask me why? No offense, but I'm not going to answer my own questions. If I could answer everything I wouldn't ask

	21-10-2004 16:48									#409
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by BeBro If you are relativist you must assume (even accept) that others think the same about their moral beliefs, if you personally agree with them or not. But then I don't see how you can enforce your system without acting against the key points of relativism.

If a relativist believes that all moral systems objectively have the same value then this would mean that a moral system that forbids imposing one's beliefs onto others is just as valid as a moral system that encourages imposing one's beliefs onto others -- in other words, a relativist moral system doesn't make any moral judgments about the objective validity of imposing one's morality on others, so the subjective validity of such matters is left up to the individual relativist.

Consider, for example, the moral relativist who attempts to impose his "murder is bad" morality on the Nazis. The Nazis might complain that imposing one's morality on others is immoral within their moral system, but the relativist is under no obligation to heed their complaints since he does not adhere to their moral system.

	21-10-2004 16:48									#410
	Remove this text

You implied that enforcing your subjective morality on others goes against the "key points of relativism." You haven't demonstrated why that's the case.

	21-10-2004 17:22									#411
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Oncle Boris To his defense, ice cream preferences are completely irrational, while moral statements aren't.

No they aren't. It would be irrational not to prefer the ice cream that tastes better to you.

Morality, fundamentally, is the same. The only changes in moral beliefs through rational inquiry occur from extrapolation from already held first principles.

	21-10-2004 17:23									#412
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious No one should care about someone's logic that contradicts itself. That's a complete waste of time. Your logic has already been shown incorrect.

It hasn't been shown to be incorrect at all. You've managed to claim that I'm hypocritical in holding it. The logic itself isn't contradictory - all you're saying is that believing in the logic is contradictory, which is not an indictment of the truth of the logic.

	21-10-2004 17:34									#413
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by loinburger If a relativist believes that all moral systems objectively have the same value then this would mean that a moral system that forbids imposing one's beliefs onto others is just as valid as a moral system that encourages imposing one's beliefs onto others -- in other words, a relativist moral system doesn't make any moral judgments about the objective validity of imposing one's morality on others, so the subjective validity of such matters is left up to the individual relativist. Consider, for example, the moral relativist who attempts to impose his "murder is bad" morality on the Nazis. The Nazis might complain that imposing one's morality on others is immoral within their moral system, but the relativist is under no obligation to heed their complaints since he does not adhere to their moral system.

Well, to be honest I'm not sure if I understood you correctly. To your last paragraph - my point is not that one side could complain that it is immoral to impose a certain moral system onto others. My point is if it would make sense within relativism. I understood relativist POVs so that it is a logical error to think one system is more valid than another. But doesn't then automatically follow that is is also an logical error to impose one of those systems onto other people?

I have no problems to accept that the relativist has a certain subjective opinion ("my morality is best"). But doesn't it - in case of the relativist - de facto mean "my morality is best - for me, but not neccessarily for others"? Why would he think that his subjective opinion should affect anyone besides himself if he is a relativist? Maybe I'm just too dumb

	21-10-2004 17:52									#414
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by BeBro I understood relativist POVs so that it is a logical error to think one system is more valid than another. But doesn't then automatically follow that is is also an logical error to impose one of those systems onto other people?

If all moral systems are equally valid then there is no objective harm or benefit to be obtained by imposing one's beliefs on others. However, there could still be subjective harm/benefit to doing so, and the relativist will consider these when attempting to determine whether to impose his beliefs on others. There's no logical error because the statement "all moral systems have the same objective validity" does not logically entail the statement "it is wrong to impose your beliefs on others."

quote: Why would he think that his subjective opinion should affect anyone besides himself if he is a relativist?

Depends on the specifics of the situation and in the relativist's moral system. Perhaps the relativist believes that imposing his moral system on others will benefit society, or will benefit some subset of society, or will benefit the relativist in particular, etc.