 |
| |
|
|
Kidicious
|
 |
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kuciwalker
That was absolute nonsense.
Every individual happens to act in his or her perceived self-interest, that is, towards the end with which they are happiest/most content. We, rather arbitrarily, divide self-interest into two categories: selfishness and altruism. The division tends to be something like this: selfishness contains all acts that are in one's self-interest without regard to others' self-interests, and altruism contains all acts that are in one's self-interest without regard to one's own self-interest (that is, based wholly on how it will benefit others). We also have a third category, enlightened self-interest, that contains all actions that are partially based upon others' self-interests (for example, buying something from someone as opposed to stealing from them). We tend to look at this category as something of a gradiant; there are some actions more "enlightened" and others less "enlightened" (a company donating money to cancer research, with the main goal to help cancer victims, but with a limited desire to gain popularity, would be more enlighted, while someone who pays a prostitute for sex rather than raping here would be less enlightened). An individual's morality is generally thought of as the rules governing his altruistic acts, whereas an individual's preferences are generally thought of as the rules governing his selfish acts, with a mix of the two governing his enlightened self-interest. However, these are arbitrary definitions, and when relativism states that there is no absolute morality, it also states that there are no absolute preferences. It doesn't prevent an individual from acting on his morality OR his preferences.
EDIT: btw, when I talk about "better for another person", I mean "what the individual thinks is better for that person". |
Oh God Skywalker. Can you give me the point of this. I actually read it all, even though I could tell it was absolute rubbish from the first few sentences.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
 |
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
quote:
The point is that those statements ARE absolute, because they aren't the words, they're the meaning behind the words. x = x is absolutely true, because it isn't the string "x = x", it's what I meant by that statement, and what I meant by that statement happens to be a tautology. When someone makes a moral statement, they aren't |
Let's suppose that you are correct.
I'll say "killing is immoral." What I really mean is "using my moral basis, assuming standard logic, killing is immoral." That is true. Therefore, "killing is immoral" is an absolutely true statement. Therefore, morality is absolute.
See, your logic is contradictory. |
Given what you mean by those statements, then what you say is completely consistent with relativism.
When most people say "killing is immoral", they don't mean it the same way.
There are two types of statements, analytic and synthetic. Analytic statements are true because they state a relation between two concepts that is contained in the meaning of the concept; it is absurd to dispute them. For instance, "green things are green" is analytic, because the relation is true based only on the two concepts. Synthetic statements aren't absurd to dispute. "Lightning is electricity" is a synthetic statement (assuming you're talking about lightning as "the bright stuff that hits the ground from the clouds"). We can only establish the truth of that statement with outside information, called experience. We can do an experiment to determine that lightning and electricity are, in fact, the same phenomenon. However, prior to that experiment, it is perfectly reasonable to assert that they are, in fact, different phenomena.
When most people make moral statements, such as "Killing is wrong", they are making a synthetic statement. They are making a connection between the concepts of killing and wrong that are not inherent in the meaning of the individual concepts, and they are applying it universally. Given that experience obviously cannot provide a foundation for a moral statement, they have no foundation for their claim; it is dogmatic.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
|
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
Oh God Skywalker. Can you give me the point of this. I actually read it all, even though I could tell it was absolute rubbish from the first few sentences. |
You claimed that if "you don't believe in bad or good you are just a pleasure seeker", i.e. belief in moral relativism implies that one acts purely selfishly. My point was (in a roundabout way) that, since relativism clearly applies equally to preference (in fact, no one disputes this; no one thinks that chocolate ice cream is absolutely better tasting, they understand how good or bad it tastes is subjective) as morality, that a moral relativist would act in the same way regarding his preferences as regarding his morality. Either he wouldn't act by his preferences or his morality, and just sit and twitch, or he would act by both. Actually, everyone acts by both, because one's morals and preferences are (as I am using them; I hope I made my meaning clear) the rules by which one decides on a course of action. So a moral relativist wouldn't be purely selfish unless the relativist had no morals in the first place.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kidicious
|
|
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Do you believe that, say, "chocolate ice cream is the best" is true or false? |
Ok, false. That isn't a moral jusdgement, and even if it were what I think doesn't really matter, because you can't tell if my bias is getting in the way or not. If my bias didn't get in the way, my response would be an absolute truth, assuming I percieved the problem correctly.
Last edited by Kidicious on 20-10-2004 at 03:41
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20.
Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
20-10-2004 03:06
|