14-12-2001 10:50									#1
	Ethics Tired of ads?

I was in a discussion with my freinds

and discovered that they were all ethical relativists

I am wondering how many are relativists here?

if you have an interesting other please post it

and of course post your thread jackings and discussions

Jon Miller

	14-12-2001 11:21									#2
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

My favourite book is The Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand..... what does that say about me? LOL

	14-12-2001 11:23									#3
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Please tell us...

What is an ethical relativist, and what is an ethical absolutist?

	14-12-2001 11:28									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

If you believe their are absolutes in ethics, then you are an ethical absolutists .

If you believe that ethics are different for different people, societies, etc... then you are a relativist.

	14-12-2001 11:34									#5
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

A friend successfully convinced me that there were no absolutes. (Except that there are no absolutes, and that is a relative statement since there is an exception to it, but is otherwise fairly absolute.)

	14-12-2001 11:37									#6
	Support Apolyton

Ah, but is there an exception to the exception? Deep thoughts

	14-12-2001 12:08									#7
	Inflate your Upload Space

in logical systems there are absolutes, of course.

however, if you do not think that ethics go by logic, then it's easy to see how one can think there are no absolute ethics.

	14-12-2001 12:09									#8
	Increase Your PM Length

If you listen to nothing else, listen to me on this.
Being unethical will slice your own throat.
You absolutely can't go wrong being ethical.

	14-12-2001 12:11									#9
	Increase Your PM Length

I can't remember what arguments my friend used, but I was unable to prove that a single absolute exists... including universal constants, etc. I think he even had an argument to shoot down absolute 0 (and if that 0 doesn't exist as an absolute all 1s and 0s are relative, and logic is relative. I might not have argued in that direction because I know well enough what can be proven with "logic." I did do high school debate after all.)

	14-12-2001 12:15									#10
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

I'm sorry. I thought we were talking in the real world.

	14-12-2001 12:17									#11
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

All debate on absolutism/relativism are highly theoretical anyway. It's quite obvious we can have relative absolutes, since our particular frame of reference is relatively stable.

	14-12-2001 12:19									#12
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: You absolutely can't go wrong being ethical.

Depends on what ethical is... hence the whole poll.

	14-12-2001 12:20									#13
	Increase Your PM Length

You would say that, Imran.

	14-12-2001 12:22									#14
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I'd be intersted in seeing those arguments. It would seem to be kinda hard to prove (presumably using logical arguments) that logical arguments are inconsistent/relative.

	14-12-2001 12:24									#15
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Well, I wouldn't say you could go absolutely wrong with anything

	14-12-2001 12:29									#16
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by SlowwHand You would say that, Imran.

Of course I would, because I have this thing called intelligence. It allows me to analyze things I'm told, rather than accept them blindly.

---

Ethics is, and, has always been a theoretical science, conner. I mean the whole idea that ethics come from logic is theorectical. I reject that idea though. I believe Ethics come from social norms and values, which leads to different Ethical beliefs in different areas. For example, while the death penalty is ethical in the Islamic world and the US, it is unethical in Europe, because of different social starting points.

	14-12-2001 12:30									#17
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

I wish I could remember them all...

But here's a couple things to consider:

-Abstract constructs (like words) are always relative.
-Truth is in the mind of the perciever.
-Different people percieve different things different ways. Some people are "disabled" and percieve some things in "abnormal" ways than normal people because of some "impairment." Thus the "normal" view is actually relative.

His weakest point was probably on universal constants. Though their numerical value is easily relative: consider R = .0821 or 8.31 depending on what your units are. (I might have screwed up by a factor of ten on one of those, but that only goes to further prove my point.)

	14-12-2001 12:31									#18
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

A set of ethics based on logic is cold and realistic. A set based solely on morals is warm, fuzzy, idealistic (, and thus stupid.)

	14-12-2001 12:32									#19
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

What it allows you to be is the biggest taker, liar, and fraud in the forum.
Congrats, dude. You're the best at something.

	14-12-2001 12:39									#20
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Victor, most systems of ethics are based on morals. There are very few, that rely on logic. But even relying on logic have to start with a moral good somewhere, I'd think. Right?

And Slow... as least I'm not a mental midget. You got the market cornered on that.

	14-12-2001 12:40									#21
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

being raised in a rather strict household with liberal leanings, i have come to the conclusion that i am an ethical absolutist in regards to myself, but an ethical relatavist in regards to other people.

in other words, i can't have fun because of my morals, but i can watch other people have fun because i think they have different morals.

	14-12-2001 12:46									#22
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

"Victor, most systems of ethics are based on morals. There are very few, that rely on logic. But even relying on logic have to start with a moral good somewhere, I'd think. Right?"

-I suppose if you define your goals as a moral good yes. A pure logic system would be one that would have certain goals. All acts are judged on how they further those goals. Let's say, I say: I am radically pro environment. Overpopulation is bad, it's a drain on resources and makes reducing pollution harder. Abortion is good, because it reduces population more effectively than mass murder (people tend to get upset about that sort of thing). I suppose you could see the environmental protection agenda as a moral good, but the logic is cold, harsh, brutal, and efficient.

	14-12-2001 12:49									#23
	Support Apolyton

There was this Taliban member that came to America.
Liked everything about it, but absolutely loved Star Trek.
One thing he didn't get, and he asked his buddy from work about it.
"There' are whites, blacks, asians, american indians, and all else. Why are there no Taliban?"
"His buddy says, "That's because it's in the future ".


*edited for offensive content, and it WAS offensive.
If you still find offensive, tough.

Last edited by SlowwHand on 14-12-2001 at 21:38

	14-12-2001 13:00									#24
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Victor, most systems of ethics are based on morals. There are very few, that rely on logic. But even relying on logic have to start with a moral good somewhere, I'd think. Right? And Slow... as least I'm not a mental midget. You got the market cornered on that.

I've always thought of ethical systems being built the same way mathematical formal systems are, with moral axioms (human beings have a right to life, etc.) and logical conclusions based on these axioms.

I wonder if I can construct an ethical equivalent of Godel's Theorem...

	14-12-2001 13:05									#25
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Victor, but, you will admit there is something moral underlying the logic.

KH: You would make ethics into math . On a serious note, yes, there are moral axioms, but that does mean it is based on morals. You can take logic from there, but the underpinnings are a moral something or other.

quote: Don't mess with me, Imran.

Oooh, oh no.. Slow threatened me with a little story about an Arab... What a moron! Wonder if he thinks Pakistanis are Arabs? On the subject of that... guess Hitler was one of your fans. After all, advocating genocide of a group isn't too common these days.

	14-12-2001 16:43									#26
	Tired of ads?

Yea Slowwbrain is only worthwhile when he posts things that are so stupid that they are funny. Most of the time though he is just stupid and dull.

	14-12-2001 16:51									#27
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

"Wonder if he thinks Pakistanis are Arabs?"

Blame it on Fox"news".

	14-12-2001 18:46									#28
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I have always seperated 'logic' from my ethics, I base my ethics on my morals and philosphies. (by definition, that is what ethics are; a set of right and wrongs base on moral/philosophical values) This is not to say that my ethics are illogical, though.

Besides, who am I to decide what logical behaviour is, anyways? That'd be unethical.




I don't understand how anyone could think ethics are absolute. Doesn't the fact that there are debates about ethics, or even this pole where not everyone thinks they are absolute, prove that they are relative?

Or am I misunderstanding what you meant by absolute and relative?

	14-12-2001 18:58									#29
	Remove this text

there might be absolute values at the beginning of an ethical system, like: Do good to others.

Than someone will ask: What is good?

Hitler would say killing all Jews is good.

And if you are relative you might respect his view.

However if you are absolutly sure this is wrong, you will say. Sorry Adolf but this is a No No. You would not want to be killed yourself, how can killing others be good.

That could be another absolute value in your system that should hold true for everyone.

	14-12-2001 19:58									#30
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Roland "Wonder if he thinks Pakistanis are Arabs?" Blame it on Fox"news".

Sikander can get in line to kiss my ass.

As for your brilliant remark, Roland; Pakistan joined the Arab Nations 30 Sept 1947.
There are other member nations that are more surprising, such as Mexico, Thailand, and Scandanavian countries.
No, not from Fox "News".
What highly educated people some of you think you are.