 |
| |
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:30
|
|
quote:
By restraint, I mean that I will discuss with someone what I believe, though I will never use violence to promote my position. I don't think the protests that I do fall under the category of passive, since we do go out in public
|
I concur entirely, except that when I say passive impedence, I mean, for example, I'm sitting on my chair thus preventing you from sitting on it. Active impedence is you picking me up and throwing me on the floor.
As long as the protest isn't violent, then it is passive impedence to the traffic, and merely influencing (like watching TV, or reading a book) the wider world. If you go and murder a few soldiers, then that is active impedence and crossing a line that I have called the Mill Limit (despite the fact that John Stuart Mill would have disagreed with it... still its his fault for being inconsistent  ).
quote:
The problem with moral relativism is how do you come out with the presupposition that violence is wrong? That's what I'm not getting. If all points of view are equally valid, why should we restrain the violent? That's why I believe pacifism cannot work under moral relativism.
|
Its moral relativism to a point. If I am a society that is very libertarian, thus tolerates loads of moral views (Moral Rel.), yet someone has a very eccentric morality that causes him to rape or murder, then relativism ceases, and one will apprehend and rehab/imprison that person. Again, thats the line of the Mill Limit in a society.
"Violence is wrong" is a position shown by the relativisms, where violence is a means of imposing your will on others (active impedence).
In any society, moral relativism for me means "moral relativism, until you break the law".
Its part of a wider notion that all good ideas have their limits.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:30
|
|
GePap: To be ultimately relativist, you must recognise that in order to claim one position is more valid than another, you need to judge it. In absense of all that would judge, all subjectives are equally valid. In certain contexts, and even in this (the application of certain logics), some are more valid than others.
Incidentally, every position is to an extent an extension of a given supposition. For example, I say "cultural relativism" as an extension of previous logic which concluded that "violence is bad".
A position by itself as a means to an end doesn't really exist imo, as they are not discreet, rather a mesh of shared, given and conflicting assumptions.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:30
|
|
quote:
But that's hardly moral relativism. What is the law? You really are a disciple of the law, and not moral relativism if this is your position.
|
The law would be something to maintain a kind of equilibrium, like, but not limited to, the Mill Limit. For example, I'm allowed any morality and allowed to act on it, as long as those actions dont breach the Mill Limit. If my morality allows me to kill, then that is allowed, but actually killing is not. Its a way of maintaining that relativism, that particular equilibrium. The total application of that concept merely results in sheer chaos, in other words, total rights means little liberty.
quote:
Again, how do we know something is rational? Does it follow the rules of logic? Supposing this is true, how can we gauge violence to be irrational?
|
Many philosophers make the mistake imo of assuming that there is one canonical tree of logic from which they can prove that one position is inherently more logical than another. In some cases, violence may well be rational, for example for me, if someone breaches my Mill Limit by hitting me, I am allowed to defend myself. Also, it varies per person. One mans rational is another mans idiocy. Surely this thread is proof of that.
quote:
Killing people for money makes me richer.
Guns help me kill people more quickly.
Getting richer is good.
Therefore, it is good to kill people using guns.
Is this not a logical argument?
|
It is very logical, but what if we introduce the paramaters of "killing means a life sentence" or "killing would violate your humanity (an emotional factor, not logical in its own right)". The logical course of action would be then not to kill.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:30
|
|
quote:
A star trek quote comes to mind.
|
Oh god don't start 
quote:
I may agree with your conclusion, but your premisses are flawed. Vulcans, though logical, make certain philosophical presuppositions before they can come to any logical conclusions.
|
As do we. My views are based on some inherent emotional or philosophical disposition, fuelling the logic that backs it up. The difference between the ficticious vulcans and us is that our emotions can get in the way afterwards, for better or for worse.
quote:
This is what we see here. You are importing the 'Mill limit,' a stricture of Ultilitarianism, not moral relativism in order to argue constraints on violence.
|
Mill would have disagreed with the Mill Limit  because it serves as a cap on his utilitarianism. Of course, if utility for liberty and not happiness is assumed, then yes its the Mill Limit. In term of the prohibition of violence, the Mill Limit is a moral relativism, saying you cannot actively impose yourself (one subjective) over another (equally valid subjective).
quote:
Again, other restraints can be argued, but not before making a value judgment saying that some values must take precedence over others. Why should I value human life over the money I can gain from killing others?
|
You tell me, if we have differing views then relativism applies  . I personally value human life because of relativist/subjectivist logic, as well as an emotional or deep-rooted philosophical love/respect for other living things.
quote:
Ok -- so if this is not blantant generalization Elijah, and Boris -- WHAT is?
|
I never said that. And elijah is with a lower case "e". Its a metaphor for the insignificance of my existence, and my non egocentric world view stemming from it.
quote:
What Oerdin posted is absolutely not what elijah claimed. Why not try actually reading what elijah wrote?
|
 It always helps
quote:
Just read elijah's own words instead of relying on what others say he is saying. Not hard.
|
All you need in this debate, including a reasonably well explained treatment of my position, is in this thread.
quote:
Ok, so you have not made a generalization that Oerdin or I claimed you made -- we just misinterpreted your original statement that started this all, in the other thread.
|
Thats ok, relatively easy mistake to make. I suppose in such a heated debate, its not hard to get swept up in things.
quote:
Now you seem to have a rather narrow definition of intellectual, comprised largely of professional philosophers. I ask you though, shouldn't theologians count as intellectuals? Theology is in a way a rather narrow branch of Philosophy(philosophy of religion) but still one that touches on all of moral philosophy. Most Theologians certainly are not moral relativists or liberals, so then in that case your statement that virtually all intellectuals are liberal would not hold.
|
 While its against my argument, its probably the best argument against me ever leveed! Yes, I count theologians as intellectuals. I have a wider definition than you think, a post a little way up shows that, but its more flexible than that. Would you not argue that where a theologians guiding philosophy (his religion) does not dictate otherwise, he is still more likely to side with liberal views? It also serves as no logical barrier to cultural relativism, if not moral, and indeed, in that latter case, its possible to disapprove but not wish to act to impede upon it, which is still a relativism.
Perhaps my position appears somewhat oblique, that is my fault. An "intellectual" with no presupposed views on areas of liberalism, say an inherent religion, is inclined to side with liberalism, were it not for a higher default view that prevents him from doing so. It would be like high tide drowning the British Isles.
Incidentally, while I know no self-proclaimed theologians, I have been brought up in a family of liberal Jews (in both respects), and studious and very religious Jews are still able to maintain liberalism, moral and cultural relativism. Religion is no necessary barrier to liberalism. Great point though .
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by obiwan18
Again, how do we know something is rational? Does it follow the rules of logic? Supposing this is true, how can we gauge violence to be irrational?
I present this argument:
Killing people for money makes me richer.
Guns help me kill people more quickly.
Getting richer is good.
Therefore, it is good to kill people using guns.
Is this not a logical argument? |
As far as that arguement goes, given that very small set of parameters and arguements, yes, yes it is.
Of course, you could either question the assumptions, or realize that using a set of such simplified assumptions is in itself illogical (Oh, and there is a minor probem: your arguement really goes:
Its good to kill people with guns when hired to kill them (after all, you only become rich by killing if hired o do so, and thus this must be part of yourt line of thought at the end).
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:30
|
|
Imran: It is oxymoronic for one subjective to impose itself on another and call itself relativist. Obviously, you need a bit of that with the law, thats why there is a limit to relativism, in order to preserve it.
quote:
If all morality is equal, then it really doesn't matter which one impliments the law, does it?
|
You are assuming that relativism has to be subjectivist, which it does not. It is illogical for one subjective point of view, be that a society, a nation or an individual, to impose itself on another. It is like swapping the conclusions of two different arguments.. it just doesnt work.
Put another way, if all morality is equal, what right does one morality have to impose on the other? Logical validity is not granted objectively because it is bigger and badder. That is only valid for that subjective, not in a context where there is more than one.
In that given context, there has to be one objective (for that context, so pseudo-objective) to judge. In the case of two individuals fighting, it may be the law. In the case of two warring nations, it should (ideally) be the UN (or its conceptual equivalent that actually works  ).
Now whether, in a society, that pseudo obj. is determined by democracy or competence is another matter, one assumes that it is valid. Otherwise, the criminals become the police.
Imran: Your position is not relativist. "I dont care who impliments morality, as long as its mine" is unsatisfactory.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:30
|
|
quote:
It is oxymoronic for one subjective to impose itself on another and call itself relativist. |
Why? How come one can't say that their views are no better than others, but would like to impose them as law anyway according to their own personal beliefs? It is an acceptance that although they have the power, it doesn't follow that their views are naturally better.
quote:
Put another way, if all morality is equal, what right does one morality have to impose on the other? |
Exactly right, that is ANOTHER way. The other way is saying if all morality is equal, who cares which morality wins out in the struggle?
quote:
Your position is not relativist. "I dont care who impliments morality, as long as its mine" is unsatisfactory. |
It also isn't relativist to take someone's position and misrepresent it . And people were made that Oerdin misrepresented your views.
My position is that since all morality is relativist, whichever wins out in the end is no better or worse than any other. However, I would prefer my personal morality to win out, obviously, but if it doesn't, I understand.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30.
Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
03-09-2003 06:58
. Read my posts. 
|