PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Current Events
     Relativisim
       why it is stupid

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Wolflord

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Many people today say 'whats true to you, is not true to me,'

The Sheer stupidity in that idea amazes me

your using truth to deny truth

Relativism=Oxymoron
 


Posts: 27 | Posted: 1:37 PM on May 25, 2008 | IP
iangb

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Blatantly false. I say 'that picture looks beautiful', you say 'that picture looks ugly'. Both of us are correct - from our own point of view.

The fact that we then try to persuade each other to share our own point of view does not mean that one opinion, or the other, is ultimately 'true'. It means that 'ultimate truth' does not exist.

It is silly, however, when people use their own 'truths' to try and sway other people without any reasoning beyond 'I like it'.




-------
The truth may be out there, but lies are in your head.
 


Posts: 81 | Posted: 2:53 PM on May 25, 2008 | IP
Wolflord

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I am referring to moral relativism.



If one man says he thinks rape is wrong, while the other says rape is ok, does that mean he can go and rape a girl with no consequences?

No he can't

(Edited by Wolflord 5/25/2008 at 4:46 PM).
 


Posts: 27 | Posted: 3:35 PM on May 25, 2008 | IP
iangb

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So am I. Morality is a human construct, just as is everything else. I say capital punishment is unjustifiable, you say it is justice. It's the same principle.


-------
The truth may be out there, but lies are in your head.
 


Posts: 81 | Posted: 4:46 PM on May 25, 2008 | IP
Wolflord

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

so lets say man #1 says he thinks murder is wrong

man #2 says murder is fine

who is right as only one of them can be right
 


Posts: 27 | Posted: 4:47 PM on May 25, 2008 | IP
iangb

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Technically, neither are 'right', because the concept of 'wrong' is just that: a concept. Without humans such concepts would not exist, so you cannot pin down murder either way.

Pragmatically, however, morals evolve and compete as described by memetics. So the moral held by the consensus - in this case that 'murder is wrong' - is the one upheld and is the most successful to follow.

To quote - 'Each type of government enacts laws that are in its own interest, a democracy democratic laws, a tyranny tyrannical ones and so on; and in enacting these laws they make it quite plain that what is "right" for their subjects is what is in the interest of themselves, the rulers, and if anyone deviates from this he is punished as a lawbreaker and "wrongdoer". That is what I mean when I say that "right" is the same thing in all states, namely the interest of the established government; and government is the strongest element in each state, and so if we argue correctly we see that "right" is always the same, the interest of the stronger party.'
*Thrasymachus*


-------
The truth may be out there, but lies are in your head.
 


Posts: 81 | Posted: 12:45 PM on May 26, 2008 | IP
forfunt1

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

iangb,

The quote you provided is awful. Thrasymachus was as foolish in his time as the scholars that study his words today. Read what he is reported to have said, even in this quote, and you will see he is saying something without meaning; his is philosophizing about 'what could be in the void' -making something of nothing- and confusing the sense that is real with idiot notions of relativism, nihilism, legalism, and modern-day fascism.


-------
-yo
 


Posts: 163 | Posted: 5:05 PM on May 26, 2008 | IP
iangb

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The quote is relevant if you assume a link between 'legal right' and 'moral right'. The fact that 'legal right' is decided by the morals of the strongest power and 'moral right' is decided by the individual is a moot point, given Wolflord's question.

forfunt, I am still waiting for a general description of your worldview (more specifically: what does and does not 'exist' in it). Before I know that, I cannot begin to comment because I have no guarantees that the assumptions I derive from your words are the correct ones.


-------
The truth may be out there, but lies are in your head.
 


Posts: 81 | Posted: 6:32 PM on May 26, 2008 | IP
forfunt1

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I agree, as to your first statement, in so far as one must make certain-assumptions in order to establish a link between the 'legal right' and the 'moral right', and of-course, having done so, one may consider relevant such statements by Thrasymachus. However, I see no difference between 'legal' and 'moral'; to me these ideas are just different names for a long forsaken sense, namely: the sense of law.

I might be able, at this time to explain some parts, in short, of my world view, however I must admit that however hard I try to translate my vision into view, I fail more often then not; that is, my intention is honesty, and my words are often flawed.

My vision does not include detail, e.g. ratios, or relative terms. I am not concerned with, or engaged in any effort of, validating or substantiating the ideas in my head. This endeavor proves difficult to communicate, for, as you may find, conversation is often a mutual effort of refining ideas, resolving the conflicts of interest, or recognizing the moments where/when common concepts reveal point-tangent; by these rules, I am -more often than not- inclined to play the antagonist, or as i prefer, the devil's advocate.

There is no truth in idea, as i see, and so I feel it is necessary for me to explain the faults I find in my view, as sometimes comparable to the faults i point out in other peoples' views. This may sound like a strange way to speak, as you may have noticed that i am outspoken about many issues of conventional debate. I do not wish to sound like i have opinions with reasonable proof; I hope to show other people that they do not have any such thing, and cannot, even though they will it so.

The expression of how I feel, to the best of my ability, is through any means available, is not following any rule, is not part of any order, is not a means to any known end. My world view is simple as this, if you will indulge me; life is simply living as I live.


-------
-yo
 


Posts: 163 | Posted: 8:15 PM on May 29, 2008 | IP
bobby4

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

well if you agree that everyone has a right to their own life and autonomy then murder and rape ARE wrong because it violates those basic human rights

 


Posts: 11 | Posted: 3:17 PM on June 16, 2009 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.