Contraversial AC Related Thread (TL;PR)

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What are we even talking about anymore?

[/ QUOTE ]
My "posting habits". You were the one who found it relevant. I am merely defending myself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh ya. Those. I do notice some very real cognitive dissonance when you post, and thought it was worth calling to your attention. But it isn't worth dwelling on or arguing about. It's just my observation. Either you can take it to heart or you can go ahead and ignore it.

I really just don't feel like going back through the thread to defend why I was right that you were wrong. I'll just try to be more clear the first time next time we fight. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

If there's anything related to the subject itself that you want to revisit, I'm open to that.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
I apologize for my use of the word “obvious”.
I may be misusing the word ‘subjective’ since I’m a little fuzzy on its meaning. I’ll try to stick with ‘relative’.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough.

[ QUOTE ]
No, that Picasso is a great painter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, my evidence would probably be from experts who knew a lot more about painting than I did. This isn't to say that one should *automatically* agree with expert analysis, but the fact that most painting experts would say that Picasso is good gives us a prima facie reason to agree.
In any case, the kinds of things that I might imagine constituting 'evidence' of Picasso being a good painter are his interesting subject matter, brush strokes, unique representation, etc. Honestly, I don't know [censored] about painting.

[ QUOTE ]
You are putting forth the challenging problem to me of proving/support why morals are relative. Our “common sense” views of things are very different so this is difficult.

[/ QUOTE ]

I realize that this is a difficult task, but in all honesty it should be, since relativism is a difficult position to justify philosophically. I tend to think that the burden of proof lies with the relativist, since a) they are in the philosophical minority, and b) someone who is not a total relativist but merely an ethical relativist should be able to explain why relativism only infects *some* but not all areas of our knowledge.

[ QUOTE ]
I guess the reason I consider morals relative is, because I simply can’t imagine them being absolute. I can’t think of any reasoning by which they could be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nietzsche made this same argument (essentially, that 'objective good' couldn't exist because it was too "weird"); Plato (preemptively) countered by saying that truth was stranger than fiction, and that reality extended beyond what we were capable of imagining prior to experience.

[ QUOTE ]
I mean how would you go about supporting a statement such as “theft is wrong” as being true?

[/ QUOTE ]

How about:

1. Violating someone's self-ownership is wrong
2. Theft is a violation of someone's self-ownership
3. Therefore, theft is wrong.

Or:

1. One ought to be a virtuous person
2. A virtuous person wouldn't steal
3. Therefore, one ought not steal

Now, you could reply that there are obviously premises here that are equally "subjective" or "relative", and this is true. The problem is that there is no are of knowledge, including the empirical sciences, that are free from this problem. There is no way to "get out" of values and live in a mental realm completed dominated by only empirical fact. (Study the history of the philosophy of science, and you will see that attempts to found science on completely empirical grounds have all failed).

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
I realize that this is a difficult task, but in all honesty it should be, since relativism is a difficult position to justify philosophically. I tend to think that the burden of proof lies with the relativist, since a) they are in the philosophical minority, and b) someone who is not a total relativist but merely an ethical relativist should be able to explain why relativism only infects *some* but not all areas of our knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's easy to think of many a relative basis for a moral decision or principle. I think I've already given an example or two. On the other hand, describing an absolute basis for morality and justifying it rationally and on non-relative grounds is a far more difficult task. If one can do it, fine. But if no one can do so satisfactorily then rationally speaking, morals should be considered relative. So, I disagree, the burden of proof is on the moral absolutist.
Second of all is it fair to say the burden of proof lies with us, because the majority of philosophers disagree with us (I'm not even sure this is true, but assuming it is)? The majority of philosophers used to believe in God, after all and I don't know that you'd want to say the burden of proof was on atheists to disprove God.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I mean how would you go about supporting a statement such as “theft is wrong” as being true?

[/ QUOTE ]

How about:

1. Violating someone's self-ownership is wrong
2. Theft is a violation of someone's self-ownership
3. Therefore, theft is wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]
And how would you support number 1?

[ QUOTE ]

1. One ought to be a virtuous person
2. A virtuous person wouldn't steal
3. Therefore, one ought not steal

[/ QUOTE ]
Both number 1 and number 2 need support here.

[ QUOTE ]
Now, you could reply that there are obviously premises here that are equally "subjective" or "relative", and this is true. The problem is that there is no are of knowledge, including the empirical sciences, that are free from this problem.

[/ QUOTE ]
Empirical sciences have predictive power. "Theft is wrong" does not. That's an important difference.

[foal]

And BTW, are you really suggesting we can just make up premises arbitrarily, because science isn't 100% empirical (I don't know enough about science to know what you're talking about exactly, but assuming you have some sort of point)?

[BluffTHIS!]

foal,

What is the difference between arguing with you on any topic and falling into a vat of glue?

[foal]

arguing with me wont ruin your clothes?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
foal,

What is the difference between arguing with you on any topic and falling into a vat of glue?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ALawPoker]

The vat of glue's feelings don't get hurt when you reflect upon how much the experience sucked.

[foal]

someone custom title me, I like vats of glue [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Moseley]

[ QUOTE ]
Imo, a representative republic is as close as you can get to a perfect system. The hope is that the non-idiots that vote outnumber the idiots that vote in sufficent quantities to elect representative that are less idiotic than the public as a whole. While you are still surrendering to the will of the majority, hopefully it is a better informed majority than "one man one vote" on every individual issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not possible in our political system, as money puts people in office. That's how Bush got there. You have 5 corporations that own 80% of the media and they see a huge profit in having Bush in office and convince the public thru the media.

So, even the non-idiots really don't have a choice, unless they are ultra-rich non-idiots, or can profit from the actions brought about by the ultra-rich thru the people they put in office.

With the CEO of Citicorp having endorsed Hillary, it's quite obvious who is going into the White House in 2009.

Where were all the "non-idiots" on election day in 2000 when Bush was installed into the White House? Why have the "non-idiots" (if they are so intelligent) allowed our political system to become so corrupt?