Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-19-2019 3:32 AM
28 online now:
Pressie, Tangle, xongsmith (3 members, 25 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,110 Year: 9,146/19,786 Month: 1,568/2,119 Week: 328/576 Day: 3/128 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
67
...
14Next
Author Topic:   A personal morality
joshua221 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 61 of 196 (393170)
04-03-2007 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by crashfrog
04-02-2007 11:07 PM


This is what relativism is:
From Steven Luper in A Guide to Ethics :

quote:
Pluralism-there is more than one true morality
Emotivist relativism-Moral judgements are expressions of emotional reactions that vary across groups
Individual relativism-The standards a person accepts determine what she should do, and these vary across persons
Cultural relativism-Each person's culture's standards determine what he should do, and these vary across cultures

How can relativism be defended so staunchly? No moral philosopher supports moral relativism. Look in any morality book and you will see relativism demolished.

Can one among you truly reason? Have you not read of Socrates decimating the Sophists?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by crashfrog, posted 04-02-2007 11:07 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Chiroptera, posted 04-03-2007 6:39 PM joshua221 has not yet responded
 Message 63 by crashfrog, posted 04-03-2007 6:40 PM joshua221 has responded
 Message 64 by crashfrog, posted 04-03-2007 6:44 PM joshua221 has responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6623
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 62 of 196 (393172)
04-03-2007 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by joshua221
04-03-2007 6:35 PM


Re: This is what relativism is:
quote:
How can relativism be defended so staunchly?

One does not need to defend "moral relativism". All one has to do is point out that an absolute standard for morality does not exist. In fact, an absolute standard is impossible to determine.

-

quote:
Can one among you truly reason?

Well, you certainly haven't shown any ability in this regard.


Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine
This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by joshua221, posted 04-03-2007 6:35 PM joshua221 has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 196 (393173)
04-03-2007 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by joshua221
04-03-2007 6:35 PM


Re: This is what relativism is:
Have you not read of Socrates decimating the Sophists?

I don't need a thousand-years-dead Greek to tell me what to think, I guess.

Why do you have such trouble thinking for yourself?

Can one among you truly reason?

Can you? I've provided the rational basis for my position. You've just asserted, without evidence, that some smart old dead guys agree with you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by joshua221, posted 04-03-2007 6:35 PM joshua221 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by joshua221, posted 04-03-2007 6:46 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 196 (393175)
04-03-2007 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by joshua221
04-03-2007 6:35 PM


Re: This is what relativism is:
No moral philosopher supports moral relativism.

Strauss? Heidegger? Sartre?

Ringing any bells? Hello?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by joshua221, posted 04-03-2007 6:35 PM joshua221 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by joshua221, posted 04-03-2007 6:48 PM crashfrog has responded

  
joshua221 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 65 of 196 (393177)
04-03-2007 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by crashfrog
04-03-2007 6:40 PM


Re: This is what relativism is:
I'm am heading for the library at this very instant to retrieve his words written by Plato.

Your disrespect towards Socrates only further reveals your character as an intellectual juvenile.

You will be soundly thrashed upon my return.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by crashfrog, posted 04-03-2007 6:40 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Chiroptera, posted 04-03-2007 7:37 PM joshua221 has not yet responded

  
joshua221 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 66 of 196 (393178)
04-03-2007 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by crashfrog
04-03-2007 6:44 PM


Re: This is what relativism is:
Gather your sources as I am gathering mine, please.
This Confederacy of Dunces will be toppled.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by crashfrog, posted 04-03-2007 6:44 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by crashfrog, posted 04-03-2007 6:57 PM joshua221 has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 196 (393181)
04-03-2007 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by joshua221
04-03-2007 6:48 PM


Re: This is what relativism is:
Color me quaking in my boots.

Look, I'm not interested in playing philosophical Pokemon with you.("Sartre-mander, I choose you!")

If you have a response to my arguments, let's hear it. Rebut my reasoning with your arguments, not dusty books. If I want to know what Kant and Hume think, I'll read their books. I don't need you to read them to me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by joshua221, posted 04-03-2007 6:48 PM joshua221 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by joshua221, posted 04-03-2007 11:51 PM crashfrog has responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6623
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 68 of 196 (393184)
04-03-2007 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by joshua221
04-03-2007 6:46 PM


Here is my prediction.
Ugh. I suspect that you will be plagiarizing copying a lot of material that you don't really understand yourself.

I hope that I am wrong, and that you will be posting arguments in your own words.


Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine
This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by joshua221, posted 04-03-2007 6:46 PM joshua221 has not yet responded

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4014 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 69 of 196 (393204)
04-03-2007 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Neutralmind
04-03-2007 4:59 PM


Re: you are correct...
I really don't want this topic to go down this way.

Which way are you looking for it to go?

So much for neutrality...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Neutralmind, posted 04-03-2007 4:59 PM Neutralmind has not yet responded

    
joshua221 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 70 of 196 (393219)
04-03-2007 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by crashfrog
04-03-2007 6:57 PM


"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." -Jonathan Swift

I told crashfrog why relativism is bunk. He said "Who cares what Socrates said! You haven't proven anything". I also noted that moral relativism is not supported by one moral philosopher. He said there are. Heidegger, Sartre and someone else of little significance. Then I asked him to support his claim as I promised I would read Socrates's words to back up mine. He then tried and failed to turn philosophy into a perversion based on what he knows best: video games. crashfrog doesn't want to support his assertion. His names he offered to me are probably crudely based from an internet website. There is no need to dwell on such perversion.

I wish to tell you a story that Socrates told me within Protagoras

Socrates dealt with Protagoras, a sophist him and his friend went to see. Socrates sensed that Protagorous would no longer continue in the argument as he had questioned him into disproving one of his own convictions. Holy is holiness. Justice is just. Everything has one opposite Protagorous thought. But holiness is just. Socrates had called P. out on this but P. responded with what is known as "rhetoric" or what is also known as "fluff" or eloquent bullshit. Socrates thus called P. out on this and P. became agitated to the point where there was no hope for further discussion. As Socrates was leaving, the men there pulled him back over saying that it would be wrong if Socrates left without completing the argument. After much deliberation and details that are important but aren't central for my message for you all, Socrates was able to reengage Protagoras.

My point in all this has to do with the suggestions of the men to aid in getting the argument going once more. It was suggested that there be a chairman or referee to make sure that the argument was kept under control. The long drawn out speeches of Pythagoras would be kept on eye and the question and answer style of Socrates i.e. the Socratic method would be monitored. Socrates rejected this approach because he reasoned that there was noone there that was greater than Protagoras and that having someone who is lesser than the participants in the argument referee would ruin the argument. The people there were all inferior to Socrates and P. This was generally accepted. The moderators here are similar. They keep watchful eye over the discussion and whenever it drifts, often above their heads, they pounce upon the person. Most of the time admittedly, the moderation works because there is noone here of any type of merit. When a person like me surfaces it is a different story. I am not an average joe who views knowledge as competition or some game as this character crashfrog obviously does. I am at the pinnacle of human reasoning and therefore, I would never survive here. I wanted to help you people but I think this post is like Moses preaching to the people. If you can't believe now, a miracle couldn't help you. Thank God for freedom of thought. I hold no grudge against all of you and your inadequacies. I hope I do not hurt the feelings of any of you. If one among you hears me than this is all worth it. I know this is not the case. This confederacy of dunces so to speak would never be able to begin to fathom the complexities of higher thought. Although what I am presenting here is rather plain, it is higher thought. Thank God for freedom of thought. The good can't get dragged down in the murky waters on the floor of this Godforsaken cave.

Thank you for your time. Crashfrog I feel sorry for you and the people that buy your less than sophomoric thoughts if I dare call such drivel that. At least you'll never be consumed by this game called life.

Read a good book,
Ignatius J. Reilly

Edited by Ignatius, : No reason given.

Edited by Ignatius, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by crashfrog, posted 04-03-2007 6:57 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by crashfrog, posted 04-04-2007 12:23 AM joshua221 has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 196 (393232)
04-04-2007 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by joshua221
04-03-2007 11:51 PM


He said there are. Heidegger, Sartre and someone else of little significance.

Strauss. Leo Strauss is of "little significance?"

You're an idiot, Prophex. Living proof that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by joshua221, posted 04-03-2007 11:51 PM joshua221 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by working out eating chips, posted 04-04-2007 12:36 AM crashfrog has responded
 Message 77 by ethics, posted 04-04-2007 9:38 AM crashfrog has responded

  
working out eating chips
Member (Idle past 1703 days)
Posts: 1623
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 72 of 196 (393237)
04-04-2007 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by crashfrog
04-04-2007 12:23 AM


Leo Strauss is of little significance compared to Socrates and Sartre and Heidegger. I intentionally wrote it that way.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by crashfrog, posted 04-04-2007 12:23 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by crashfrog, posted 04-04-2007 12:41 AM working out eating chips has not yet responded
 Message 76 by AdminAsgara, posted 04-04-2007 8:11 AM working out eating chips has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 196 (393238)
04-04-2007 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by working out eating chips
04-04-2007 12:36 AM


Yeah. That's pretty idiotic.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by working out eating chips, posted 04-04-2007 12:36 AM working out eating chips has not yet responded

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4014 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 74 of 196 (393241)
04-04-2007 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Chiroptera
04-03-2007 4:29 PM


Absolute morality...
Chiroptera:
I just checked each page, and no one has been speaking about whether or not there are "absolutes" (whatever that means).

Can we please discuss this with some civility and good sense?

That is what this whole subject is about: Is morality personal (subjective / relative)? Or is it universal (objective / absolute)?

I can't believe how many people actually ask 'whether or not there are absolutes'?

It is clear to see, that in either case, there is.

If absolutes are absolute, then no logical problem.

But if relativism is absolute, then nonsense!

There is unquestionably an absolute of some kind...

This whole excersise about relative morality is rather silly when you think about it.

If you disagree, then you point to another absolute by implication with which to measure the opposing statement as false.

When we talk of morality... it either exists or it does not. There is no middle ground. Either you agree with me, or not.

Once again (because I know some of you are having difficulty with this...), if you disagree, then you prove that there is such a thing as a real wrong.

And the reason it is wrong and not simply incorrect (as some would lead us to believe), is because the implications of getting these things right, is what wars are fought over.

People will revolt and kill over getting mere sums wrong... They will do the same with more vigor and emotion over moral convictions.

People will fight with the most irrational vigor, before they admit they are in the wrong. That is how little truth means to them.

That is the essence of immorality and rebellion: the inability to just finally acknowledge wrongdoing.

It is crucifying the truth, to protect one's own name in spite of falsehood and deception.

'What falsehood and deception?', they say.

We are soooo intent on maintaining our good name, that we will kill to keep the truth hidden.

Reality and sound thinking came... And He embodied the virtues. He calls our bluff, and forces us to either kill Him, or bend our knee. We may want all truth to be relative, but He forces us to deal with Him one way or another.

John 3:19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.

Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Edited by Rob, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Chiroptera, posted 04-03-2007 4:29 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Chiroptera, posted 04-04-2007 10:21 AM Rob has responded

    
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4014 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 75 of 196 (393246)
04-04-2007 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Neutralmind
04-02-2007 8:57 PM


You must decide for yourself... don't let me or anyone else push. Your a good thinker... so think.

www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=32&t=84&m=74#74 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=32&t=84&m=74#74">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=32&t=84&m=74#74


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Neutralmind, posted 04-02-2007 8:57 PM Neutralmind has not yet responded

    
Prev1234
5
67
...
14Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019