Relative thinking

"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?"

Mathematically. One slave happiness x total number of slaves > one Pharaoh happiness + total allies happiness.

Because even Pharaohs would not have modern conveniences such as high tech health care, transportation, communications, etc. without liberal trade, manufactering, innovation, and capital markets, they would even be better off under our system.

I understand that some people are not impressed with wealth health and happiness, but these people are generally deviants. Their happiness depends on oppressing others. These are relativists.

"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."

First of all, "freedom" isn't what Africans have now. Their dictators have enslaved them to a much greater degree than their colonial overlords ever did. Second. You cannot "force" people to be free. lol... the very concept is funny. Only a relativist would suggest setting up an authoritarian system in order to "free" a people. No, it would not be "moral" for us to impose our will upon them.

Cultural exchange, in the form of trade, tourism, media, etc. are the best means of teaching Africans more successful cultural techniques. Governmental intervention is almost always counterproductive.

Mathematically. One slave happiness x total number of slaves > one Pharaoh happiness + total allies happiness

The point being, though, that you have decided (on some basis) that it is morally superior for "the many" to do well, rather than "the few." However, that is simply a definition on your part, and not an absolute requirement.

Pharaohs ... would even be better off under our system.

Are you sure? If a pharaoh died old, rich, and happy, by what objective basis would you say that he would have been "better off" in a culture that restricted the means of his success? And even if we grant the idea of "better off," we are not logically compelled to say that Pharaoh was actually "wrong."

The problem here is not "Pharaoh," but rather your tacit a priori assumptions. For example, you are apparently equating "better" (a relative term) with "right" (in objectivist thought assumed to be an absolute concept).

Their happiness depends on oppressing others. These are relativists.

Note that a moral standard based on "not oppressing others" is relativist for the same reasons. Indeed, it may be even more "relativist": Pharaoh's approach depends only on "rational self interest" (to borrow Ayn Rand's "highest moral good"), whereas the opposite approach constrains our self interest relative to that of others.

What's missing from that, however, is any truly objective reason for saying that "oppressing others" is actually a Bad Thing. We could just as easily point to the "rational evidence" available in support of the Theory of Evolution, define a "highest good" based on some variation on "survival of the fittest," and make a rational claim that Social Darwinism is the only way to go.

That's a good idea, for clarity's sake, to differentiate between our consciousness and the idea of a higher consciousness. I was asking about the idea of a higher consciousness. Could it exist without anything else being in existence?

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.

The possibility, I suppose. But it would have to be something other than pure consciousness, wouldn't it? And, separately, is that enough to abandon the further search for rational explanations and just start building on this idea of "there might be a god?"

First of all, "freedom" isn't what Africans have now. Their dictators have enslaved them to a much greater degree than their colonial overlords ever did. Second. You cannot "force" people to be free. lol... the very concept is funny. Only a relativist would suggest setting up an authoritarian system in order to "free" a people. No, it would not be "moral" for us to impose our will upon them.

The part I've bolded is a relativist statement, in that you are saying that stopping actions that we know to be wrong, is itself wrong -- which is something like saying "it's OK for them...." (This strays into the area of moral responsibilities, which we've not been discussing, so I won't go into it any further.)

Your ideas of cultural exchange are fine, so far as they can be applied. However, the approach naively assumes the acquiescence of the tyrants whose will you're trying to bypass. I'm thinking here of North Korea -- where cultural exchanges can only be applied by pushing aside the current regime. The problem there is, though, that we still have not arrived at a non-subjective measure for saying that the actions of the oppressors are actually "wrong."

"What's missing from that, however, is any truly objective reason for saying that "oppressing others" is actually a Bad Thing. We could just as easily point to the "rational evidence" available in support of the Theory of Evolution, define a "highest good" based on some variation on "survival of the fittest," and make a rational claim that Social Darwinism is the only way to go."

Social Darwinism is the practical effect of cultural evolution. It is defacto in effect. My only argument is that relativists cannot recognize the winners, insisting that losers are just as valid.

Sigh. I ordinarily enjoy debating but relativists wear me out with their circular logic. Forgive me if I bow out now.

"However, the approach naively assumes the acquiescence of the tyrants whose will you're trying to bypass. I'm thinking here of North Korea -- where cultural exchanges can only be applied by pushing aside the current regime. The problem there is, though, that we still have not arrived at a non-subjective measure for saying that the actions of the oppressors are actually "wrong."

lol....ok, first, I am not against killing a few tyrants, they are not innocents. Second, most people are hardwired so that they instinctively understand that killing and torturing innocent people, (or animals for that matter) is wrong. Relativists can make the argument that any deviant behavior is acceptable.

I was asking about the idea of a higher consciousness. Could it exist without anything else being in existence?

And as I pointed out, that question has no meaning to an objectivist, unless the objectivist wants also to claim that all of this "something" around us, spontaneously came into existence from literally and utterly nothing.

And, separately, is that enough to abandon the further search for rational explanations and just start building on this idea of "there might be a god?"

The problem here, though, is that the possibility does exist, and as such it is not truly "objective" to behave as if it does not. Also, it is improper to imply that "the search for rational explanations" and "there is a God" are mutually exclusive propositions. Indeed, when we're looking at the sphere of objective and/or absolute moral principles, my claim is that there is a logical dependence between the two.

Social Darwinism is the practical effect of cultural evolution. It is defacto in effect.

Social Darwinism is a philiosphy whereby the strong and wealthy are assumed to be superior to those who are weaker and/or poorer. It is essentially a formalization of Might Makes Right, founded on the observable principles of evolution. Among other things, Social Darwinism defends as morally correct many of the the things you have deemed to be wrong. So the question for you is: is Social Darwinism right or wrong? And if wrong, on what basis do you call it wrong?

My only argument is that relativists cannot recognize the winners, insisting that losers are just as valid.

Another strawman. Social Darwinists would say precisely the opposite.

Sigh. I ordinarily enjoy debating but relativists wear me out with their circular logic. Forgive me if I bow out now.

I hate to say it, but you're the one engaged in circular logic -- your "objective proofs" are quite simply not objective. You're claiming that you have access to some absolute moral truths, but have not identified how they can be recognized, outside of some utterly subjective measures.

And that is precisely what I've said is the problem with an objectivist approach that does not recognize the logical necessity for a supernatural agent (of whatever description) by which absolute moral principles are not only defined, but enforced.

Everything having to do with this "God," every bit of information concerning what it is, what it wants, what this means for humans, must come to us via "revelation."

So what? Is not revelation a valid source of knowledge?

Consider: the only way you can know that I hate creamed corn (a true fact) is if I tell you that I hate it. That is a case of revealed knowledge: utterly true, and yet inaccessible to your "research."

You can't rationally research "God,"

Probably correct. However, that is not a particularly meaningful objection, as "rational research" is obviously not the only source of knowledge available to us. We rely on "revealed knowledge" for all sorts of things, including our ideas of what constitutes right and wrong.

or decide what the possible existence of one might mean.

Categorically false. For example, simple logic demands that the existence of moral absolutes is dependent on the exeistence of (a) God Who both defines and enforces them.

So what? Is not revelation a valid source of knowledge?

No, it isn't.

Consider: the only way you can know that I hate creamed corn (a true fact) is if I tell you that I hate it. That is a case of revealed knowledge: utterly true, and yet inaccessible to your "research."

But you could be lying. You could be mistaken (perhaps you've never had creamed corn, only something you THOUGHT was creamed corn.) All I "know" from your statement is that either you THINK you hate creamed corn, or you want ME to think you hate creamed corn.

We rely on "revealed knowledge" for all sorts of things, including our ideas of what constitutes right and wrong.

Only if there is no evidence to the contrary.

Categorically false. For example, simple logic demands that the existence of moral absolutes is dependent on the exeistence of (a) God Who both defines and enforces them.

Simple logic is "that which must follow." I don't see at all why "the possibility of matter that has always existed includes that possibility that some of that matter comprises something we call a God" leads inevitably to "and what it wants must be discovered by revelation and then obeyed."

lol....ok, first, I am not against killing a few tyrants, they are not innocents. Second, most people are hardwired so that they instinctively understand that killing and torturing innocent people, (or animals for that matter) is wrong.

A relativist might ask the following question: If you believe in absolute moral principles, and hold that it's wrong to kill, how is it that it's OK to kill tyrants, when it's not OK for them to do it to others? After all, if killing people is wrong, why is it somehow less wrong to kill them if they're "bad people?"

Your answer is: "because tyrants are not innocent." Which says that there are exceptions to the "absolute" rule -- and thus you've made the relativist argument that deviant behavior is sometimes acceptable.

Relativists can make the argument that any deviant behavior is acceptable.

And again: on what basis are you going to demonstrate that any deviant behavior might not, in some instances, actually be acceptable, or at least not morally unacceptable?

That is the first question one must answer if one is going to claim the existence of moral absolutes.

And the second question is like unto it: if one is able to get away with doing something you hold to be absolutely wrong -- and even prosper as a result of it -- is it really absolutely wrong to do it?

Just to be clear here: I am not defending moral relativism. I am merely showing you that the arguments for moral relativism are vexingly difficult to address without reference to God, or something very much like Him.

The underlying problem with an atheistic approach to moral absolutes is that it cannot explain why the world seems to work in ways counter to the generally agreed-upon set of "correct moral principles." For example, tyrants often prosper, and all too many criminals "get away with it". In the face of that, wouldn't the rational, objective thinker conclude that "crime is OK if you don't get caught?"

Of course, you and I both reject that: we would both say that armed robbery is wrong, whether or not the robber gets away with his crime.

But again: a rational, non-theistic explanation of right and wrong cannot call robbery "absolutely wrong" unless it can explain away the fact that some people can and do get away with it. The objective evidence does not support the idea that robbery is absolutely wrong, because we cannot point to any inevitable "bad consequences" for committing it.

A theistic approach, OTOH, couples the definition of right and wrong, with the enforcement of the definitions -- there is no "getting away with it."

It is, nevertheless, a true fact that I hate it. It is also a true fact that I love the color blue. The problem is, these are true facts that you cannot get except by my telling you so.

Simple logic is "that which must follow."

Correct.

I don't see at all why "the possibility of matter that has always existed includes that possibility that some of that matter comprises something we call a God" leads inevitably to "and what it wants must be discovered by revelation and then obeyed."

The claim was that reason, applied to "objective reality" (a vague term) cannot arrive at moral absolutes, without reference to a supernatural source, and a supernatural enforcement, of those absolutes.

If we exclude God from our moral considerations, and rely only on the evidence of our rational observations, then we are logically required to conclude that many -- perhaps even all -- of those things you and I consider to be "moral absolutes" are not absolute after all. We can see many, many examples where violating those absolute principles has in fact improved the lot of the one who committed the crime, and no observable (much less objective) negative consequences.

"Just to be clear here: I am not defending moral relativism. I am merely showing you that the arguments for moral relativism are vexingly difficult to address without reference to God, or something very much like Him."

Only to a moron or social deviant. If a person doesn't belong to either of those classes it is simple for them to understand that if they harm others, they cannot expect not to be harmed in return. Self interest directs peoples morality.

It is much more effective in the long run than a fear in God simply because rewards (or punishments) are payable in this life, not in the next. Understand, I believe in God, but I disagree that God is necessary for morality.

Egalitarian societies are demonstrably more successful than non.

The Roman Empire wasn't egalitarian, and yet it was demonstrably successful. The fall of Rome was not caused by its non-egalitarian roots; rather, it was caused primarily by a decadence among Roman citizens, resulting from an excess of comfort that resulted from Rome's success.

Ancient Greek cultures were also not egalitarian, and were nevertheless demonstrably successful. One might plausibly conclude by reading Thucydides that "egalitarianism" (in the form of unguided democracy) was probably the cause of the fall of Athens.

No doubt there will be even more successful societies in the future, but western technological culture is on top right now.

Well, yes -- just as the British Empire, or Ghengis Khan's Mongol Empire, were on top of the world at other stages of the game.

And yet none of the empires mentioned above was egalitarian -- they explicitly subjugated others, and maintained their cultural superiority so long as they maintained a clear-eyed devotion to the principles and practices that brought them to power. They fell, not because they lacked equal rights, but because the population deviated from those principles and practices.

It is, nevertheless, a true fact that I hate it. It is also a true fact that I love the color blue. The problem is, these are true facts that you cannot get except by my telling you so.

I have no way of knowing that you are telling the truth. This is the problem with "revelation." It is further compounded, in the case of religion, by the fact that most of what has been "revealed" was "revealed" only to a few people. Thus we are in the position of someone telling me that you told them that you like blue and hate creamed corn. (Which leads to an interesting conundrum... if I put some blue dye into some creamed corn... never mind. That's just too ghastly.)

The claim was that reason, applied to "objective reality" (a vague term)...

"God" is a pretty vague term too, from what I can tell.

...cannot arrive at moral absolutes, without reference to a supernatural source, and a supernatural enforcement, of those absolutes.

Well, I think it gives someone a feeling of authority to refer to some supernatural source, and a justification to say, "I will not back up beyond this line and if you try and force me we will stop talking and start fighting." (Everybody needs some variant of this stance but it doesn't have to be a supernatural entity. It could be the Constitution.)

Moreover, as far as I can tell, there is no supernatural enforcement of the absolutes. Lightning doesn't strike dead the heretics.

We can see many, many examples where violating those absolute principles has in fact improved the lot of the one who committed the crime, and no observable (much less objective) negative consequences.

We see that with those who violate absolutes attributed to a supernatural entity too. But I've never seen anyone go to Hell. And please, try to resist the urge to say, "Oh, you will." ;^)

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.