Marxist thought, no doubt.
Posted on 11/22/2004 8:11:10 AM PST by AreaMan
Yup, sounds good to me!
Take it beyond that. For life in the universe, or for the universe itself. We might, after all, be an impediment in the bigger scheme and the sooner we are gone the better for earth or the galaxy or the visible and invisible universe. Some take that view, totally selfless of them don't you think.
Yes. It's not simply "moral" relativism that has grown from the relativist movement. It's the view that THERE IS NO objective reality, and yes, there ARE those who are big proponents of such a view. Tim Ingold springs to mind, he's at University of Aberdeen, I believe. I remember four years ago having to read an essay of his about how the Native American view of deer behavior is just as valid as the scientific view (which is recast as "Western.") The Native American view (as he represented it) was that the deer stops running, at some point, and turns and looks back at the hunter. This is the deer's way of offering itself as a sacrifice to the hunter.
Now, never mind that deer have no idea you can hurt them from 50 feet away. Deer don't understand the concept of bullets and arrows. They're accustomed to dealing with fanged predators who have to be on top of you to hurt you. That's just a "Western" construct. And more such balderdash.
It's NOT just a moral relativism issue.
I feel like you haven't actually read Leonard Piekoff's explanation of Objectivist philosophy, you've just heard it synopsized.
Which is simply a utilitarian argument based on results for "the many." However, if you start picking away at the meaning of "based on law," you'll find that unless you appeal to some supernatural agent, you're still going to have to use utilitarian principles to judge between possible approaches. Once you start comparing results, you've rejected the possibility of absolutes.
The reason it works better is that a society working together in cooperation is greater than the sum of it's parts. In no way is that understanding "outside of reason". What could be more objective than that?
It's not objective at all. The fatal question is simply this: "Works better for whom?" Pharaoh did just fine for himself by means of absolute rule. We would consider his laws to be ghastly -- but they worked great for him.
As you can perhaps see, it's not long before the question comes down to a comparison between competing "highest moral goods," which is an explicitly relativist debate.
If we are to insist on moral absolutes, then the definition of the "highest moral good" CANNOT be open to debate. The question is: how could an absolute "highest good" be possible, when we can point to various different options, both in nature and human history?
The logical answer is that the highest good is in some sense imposed upon us. Moreover, the existence of moral absolutes is meaningless unless those moral absolutes are in some manner absolutely enforced. When you think about it, this leads to a logical requirement for a supernatural "agent" of some sort to define and enforce the absolutes.
You responded:
That's a false characterization.
I agree, the Flat Earth Society actually has good arguments. And they're entertaining.
Strawman. Relativists don't hold that position. Rather, they say things like the following, "right and wrong are real ideas, but are ultimately situational."
For example, there are people who say that "freedom works great in the West, but Africans aren't ready for it." A relativist would claim that moral judgements are contingent on "where people are, and where they've come from."
Given the bloody consequences of granting "freedom" in Africa, they may actually have a point: "free" African countries tend to be sh*tholes primarily because they have no cultural background on which to base a civil society.
"What works" for an African country is probably not at all like "what works" for us -- though in time it's possible that they might come closer to what we might call an "optimal society." Then again, they might reach some different "optimal society." On what basis would you call our approach "right," and theirs "wrong," or vice versa?
Surreal? FISH!
I have read Leonard Piekoff's explanation (a good while back, now), and found it shot through with unfounded assumptions. He assumes that the reader agrees with his foundational statements, but there is no logical reason to do so.
I think the only real place to start is with the basic difference between Objectivism and any kind of theological belief. It seems to me that the basic difference is that objectivism holds that existence preceeds consciousness, and theists believe that consciousness preceeds existence. Would you agree?
No. Many (if not all) theists would certainly agree that existence is certainly independent of our own consciousness, which is I think what you're really asking about here. Indeed, the entire point of theism is that there are things that exist independent of our consciousness.
As for the consciousness of God, that's certainly a tough nut to crack. The usual atheist (often objectivist) retort is, "who created God?" However, objectivism actually has nothing to say on the matter, because it assumes that "existence has always existed." (The alternative being a rather ugly situation where existence came into being literally from nothing.) That being the case, the question of "who created God" ceases to be important: the concept of "eternal existence" includes the possibility of an eternal God.
So can Pharaoh's happiness, which is measured by piles of wealth and comfort. You seem to be claiming that Pharaoh's wealth and comfort are less important than those of "the many." On what basis do you make that claim?
I understand that if you ignore that all life is hardwired for survival, and refuse to recognize survival as a positive outcome, then anything, including death, can be argued as a positive outcome and then relativism makes perfect sense. As a living being though I don't understand why you would want to believe that.
It is true that many under Pharaoh's rule were injured or killed on his behalf. Pharaoh, however, survived just fine, as did many of Pharaoh's allies. So it appears that tyranny was a good thing for them. Again: if one is "hardwired for survival," and one finds a way (any way) to survive, how is it that you might call one or more of these ways "bad?"
Please note that I am not claiming that Pharaoh's way was right -- I'm just challenging you to answer the relativist argument in non-relativist terms.
Marxist thought, no doubt.
"Can someone deconstruct this?"
Yes. (One would think this could embarrass relativists like the one who wrote the above article, but it doesn't. That's because they aren't emotionally equipped to be able to get it):
"The first clear statement of relativism comes with the Sophist Protagoras, as quoted by Plato, "The way things appear to me, in that way they exist for me; and the way things appears to you, in that way they exist for you" (Theaetetus 152a).
Thus, however I see things, that is actually true -- for me. If you see things differently, then that is true -- for you.
There is no separate or objective truth apart from how each individual happens to see things.
Consequently, Protagoras says that there is no such thing as falsehood.
Unfortunately, this would make Protagoras's own profession meaningless, since his business is to teach people how to persuade others of their own beliefs.
It would be strange to tell others that what they believe is true but that they should accept what you say nevertheless. ....."
More here: http://www.friesian.com/relative.htm
What would you suggest as an alternative? That's the relativists' whole point: we know that "freedom" in Africa has created sh*tholes, so clearly something other than "freedom" is called for there -- which I presume would mean an authoritarian system that makes up for a lack of cultural moral foundations. But again: that simply means that African morality, as measured by "results," is probably not equivalent to Western morality.
For relativists who enjoy slavery, hunger, and death, I guess African culture is perfect.
Strawman. What about relativists who are opposed to those things (which is probably a more accurate description)?
Given that "free" African countries are currently practicing those things, would it not be "moral" to impose our will upon them to make them stop? And if we were to do so, wouldn't that be an admission that in some cases authoritarianism is better than the alternative?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.