20-04-2005 19:26									#31
	Can Benedict XVI restore Catholicism to Britain? Inflate your Upload Space

You Brits have been out of the Catholic fold long enough! I mean, at least Luther had a pretty good argument prepared with a list of compelling reasons for leaving the church. Henry VIII's reason - he needed an annulment and the pope wouldnt grant it! On Monday, Benedictus warned against "a dictatorship of relativism, which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one's own ego and one's own desires." Right. So considering that your church was borne out of a lecherous Tudor king's ego, this is a warning to stop your misbehaving and come back to R.C. church! Else Benedict XVI will put the smack down on ya!

	20-04-2005 19:42									#32
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Tragic in that we have to choose between beautiful illusion and naked reality.

Ah yes... sorry, skimmed over that part. And I agree with the last sentance (everything after the 'we can argue' part).

	20-04-2005 19:48									#33
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin I don't know anyone who believes all moral values are equal. I've never heard anyone advocate that idea either other then one far out poster here at poly. I think what he's rail against is everyone who doesn't agree with his values.

*sigh*

Relativism is the statement - the blindingly obvious statement - that there's no way to establish any particular moral code as "true". Clearly you cannot perform an experiment to measure morality, and just as obviously there is no reason to assume that any particular set of moral axioms are correct a priori.

	20-04-2005 19:52									#34
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Dracon II A relativistic society, in the absence of an overriding principle or constitution, would resemble Thraymachus' conception of justice; being that justice is the "will of the strongest".

That's ALWAYS true. "Justice" is the will of the strongest. In our case, the liberals (in a broad sense) are the strongest, and that is why our society is a liberal democracy.

	20-04-2005 19:55									#35
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Agathon But relativism doesn't yield tolerance either. Under moral relativism "tolerance" becomes just another one of the relative values. Relativism only helps conservatives. How ironic.

Good. I'm liking this pope more and more. That's all.

	20-04-2005 19:56									#36
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Agathon But relativism doesn't yield tolerance either. Under moral relativism "tolerance" becomes just another one of the relative values. Relativism only helps conservatives. How ironic.

Good. I'm liking this pope more and more. That's all.

	20-04-2005 23:00									#37
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Relativism is the statement - the blindingly obvious statement - that there's no way to establish any particular moral code as "true". Clearly you cannot perform an experiment to measure morality, and just as obviously there is no reason to assume that any particular set of moral axioms are correct a priori.

No it isn't. That's moral scepticism. Scepticism could be true and yet a single moral code could exist -- it's just that we wouldn't know it. Relativism is different: it specifies that the acceptability of a moral code is relative to a person or a group.

Why do you assume that moral truths have to be a priori? In fact why do you believe in the a priori at all? That's so old fashioned.

quote: That's ALWAYS true. "Justice" is the will of the strongest. In our case, the liberals (in a broad sense) are the strongest, and that is why our society is a liberal democracy.

Here you are just confused. Justice need not be identified with the will of the strongest -- what they do may well be unjust, even if they call it "justice".

You are making a version of Euthyphro's mistake about piety. In other words: is what is just, (1) just because it is enforced by those in power; or (2) is what is just enforced by those in power because they believe it is just.

Your original statement is ambiguous between (1) and (2). If (2) is true then it allows for those who rule to be persuaded by reason, since it is a matter of beliefs, not of arbitrary power. In fact that is the case in our society: morality is not determined by force alone, but by reason giving. You generally don't have to threaten to beat the crap out of someone to get them to do the right thing -- you just explain to them why it is the right thing to do -- works 99 times out of 100 and no force required.


Hence you get an F on this paper.

You should take some basic philosophy to remedy your ignorance on these matters.

	21-04-2005 02:20									#38
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker That's ALWAYS true. "Justice" is the will of the strongest. In our case, the liberals (in a broad sense) are the strongest, and that is why our society is a liberal democracy.

Yeah... later in the post I concede that your point can be made. Personally I believe it... it's just a dangerous thing to believe.
That's why I say pure relativism is an abstract concept... not necessarily because it is essentially so, but because it must be. We can hold a belief in pure relativism at an academic level, but in real life we must accept that society needs a governing principle, and that this principle must be made legitimate, in order for society to function properly.
It could be argued however, that given the objective conditions that exist in society, there are better and more prudent organising principles than others.

	21-04-2005 02:22									#39
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Actually, after reading Agathon's argument, I see his point. Justice can become a power in itself if legitimated, and can thus be used to critique power....

	21-04-2005 02:28									#40
	Suffering from ads?

I'll prevent myself from indulging once again in this "beautiful" debate, I'll just state my point of view:

Relativism isn't just a wrong idea, it's a bad idea.

	21-04-2005 02:57									#41
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Relativism is a truth and is something that people will eventually need to realize.

It's not a bad idea when it's a useful tool to understand any civilization.

It's not a bad idea when you put into focus that someone doesn't have to be harmed if they do not think they can be harmed because of the way civilization had taught them.

Just beause it's a new idea doesn't mean it's automatically wrong because it goes against human nature. Plus, things that go against human nature generally are true.

	21-04-2005 03:01									#42
	Remove this text

quote: Relativism is a truth and is something that people will eventually need to realize.

Do you realize how funny this sounds?

	21-04-2005 03:07									#43
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Just beause it's a new idea

It's not a new idea, really.

	21-04-2005 03:31									#44
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker Clearly you cannot perform an experiment to measure morality, and just as obviously there is no reason to assume that any particular set of moral axioms are correct a priori.

These statements are both only partially true. Science CAN measure moral reasoning, and moral reasoning falls within a hierarchy of moral reasoning stages that everyone goes through. No one relapses from a higher stage of moral reasoning to a lower one, hence the higher stages of moral reasoning are "better" in that they solve more moral dilemmas. See the works of Kohlberg et al for examples of this.

So, while no specific set of moral axioms is "correct" specific sets of moral reasoning axioms are "more correct' than others, in that they solve more moral dilemmas and are discovered later in the development of the personality.

	21-04-2005 03:34									#45
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Bill3000 Relativism is a truth and is something that people will eventually need to realize.

Actually is means there is no truth.

	21-04-2005 03:37									#46
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Dracon II Actually, after reading Agathon's argument, I see his point. Justice can become a power in itself if legitimated, and can thus be used to critique power....

Yay! Moral relativism really makes no sense at all.

	21-04-2005 03:39									#47
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Actually is means there is no truth.

So what happens if the statement "there is no truth" is true?

	21-04-2005 03:42									#48
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker "Justice" is the will of the strongest.

Even the strongest sometimes know when they are being unjust. Claiming to be just doesn't mean that you are being just or that you even believe that you are. Likewise saying that something is true or not does not make it either one.

	21-04-2005 03:44									#49
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Immortal Wombat So what happens if the statement "there is no truth" is true?

kidding?

	21-04-2005 03:48									#50
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I have to ask when people are kidding in this thread, because moral relativists will say the most ridiculous things.

	21-04-2005 03:49									#51
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Yes. Moral relativism isn't a moral position, its a theory of morality. So "there is no absolute moral truth" doesn't exclude moral relativity from being correct as a theory.

	21-04-2005 03:51									#52
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by molly bloom Like the Catholic Church deliberately shielding fugitives from justice after WWII- and setting them up with retirement homes in French monasteries. Or concealing the crimes of child-sex abusers from the civil authorities, and worse- allowing them to move from one parish to another and continue to molest children. And hiding those wanted in connection with war crimes and crimes against humanity in Rwanda and Burundi. Because of course, Holy Mother Church knows best- paedophilia and genocide and torture are all relative, when the perpetrators are members of the Croatian Ustasha, Vichy Regime, Nazi Party or Rwandan priests and nuns.

	21-04-2005 03:55									#53
	Re: Can Benedict XVI restore Catholicism to Britain? Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by bfg9000 You Brits have been out of the Catholic fold long enough! I mean, at least Luther had a pretty good argument prepared with a list of compelling reasons for leaving the church. Henry VIII's reason - he needed an annulment and the pope wouldnt grant it! On Monday, Benedictus warned against "a dictatorship of relativism, which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one's own ego and one's own desires." Right. So considering that your church was borne out of a lecherous Tudor king's ego, this is a warning to stop your misbehaving and come back to R.C. church! Else Benedict XVI will put the smack down on ya!

While Henry declared himself the head of the Church in England and removed anyone who said otherwise, the formal rupture between Rome and the Church of England did not come until Elizabeth's reign, when the Pope excommunicated it. By this time it had become apparent that the English really preferred a protestant church over the Roman church. So the C of E wasn't born out of Henry's need to sire a male heir in order to avoid another disasterous round of dynastic wars, but instead was born of English insistance upon practicing their faith in the manner they felt proper.
Besides, in the 1960s the Pope declared the Church of England a "sister church" and gave the Archbishop of Canterbury a cardinal's ring. Obviously it's a non-voting ring though.

	21-04-2005 03:55									#54
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Immortal Wombat Yes. Moral relativism isn't a moral position, its a theory of morality. So "there is no absolute moral truth" doesn't exclude moral relativity from being correct as a theory.

You're still not making sense. Go back to the original context of my post and ask the question again.

	21-04-2005 04:01									#55
	Suffering from ads?

IIRC the original idea of moral relativism was not that there was no absolute moral truth, but instead that moral truths often have to be modified to fit the situation. Given it's original definition I don't think that there is anyone who isn't a moral relativist to some extent.

Killing someone is bad, most people would agree to that. How many would object to a sniper picking off a guy with an Uzi thjreatening to kill a bunch of kids held hostage in a school bus?

	21-04-2005 04:06									#56
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious You're still not making sense. Go back to the original context of my post and ask the question again.

Bill said: Relativism is a truth.
You said: [Relativism] means there is no truth.
I said: The two are not mutually exclusive, since the two uses of the word "truth" apply to different things.

They must do, or the whole thing would be paradoxical.

	21-04-2005 04:09									#57
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Besides, in the 1960s the Pope declared the Church of England a "sister church" and gave the Archbishop of Canterbury a cardinal's ring. Obviously it's a non-voting ring though.

Very interesting... I had no idea. I guess it makes sense because the Anglican Church is basically set up like the Catholic Church before the Papal Revolution of 1100s.

	21-04-2005 05:08									#58
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Immortal Wombat Bill said: Relativism is a truth. You said: [Relativism] means there is no truth. I said: The two are not mutually exclusive, since the two uses of the word "truth" apply to different things. They must do, or the whole thing would be paradoxical.

Neither uses applies to objective truth though. It seems to me that the reasoning behind moral relativism is that there is no objective way to know the truth. Do you apply this everywhere? Is there no such thing as truth that is not objectively true?

	21-04-2005 05:47									#59
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Is there no such thing as truth that is not objectively true?

If course there is. "I love Sue" is a truth that is only subjectively true.

	21-04-2005 05:48									#60
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: If course there is. "I love Sue" is a truth that is only subjectively true.

No. If someone else says it and you deny it, it might still be true. You might secretly be in love with her.