Challenging Relativism

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

The mere fact that we do not all agree it is absolute does not make it not absolute.

Actually, that's exactly what it means. If something isn't regarded as universally valid, it is not absolute. Even declaring something absolute is a declaration dependent on other criteria, and are relative value judgements made by human beings. Only the absolute could declare something absolute, and until it does so, it is all relative.

a reply to: Aphorism

Actually, that's exactly what it means. If something isn't regarded as universally valid, it is not absolute.

Though I'm beginning to feel a little shaky on absolutes, I don't think I'm following you here. "Regarded as universally valid" by who? Am I mistaken in thinking that the existence of things that are true, but that aren't universally recognized as such, invalidates your statement? Or am I completely missing the point you're trying to make?

a reply to: Aphorism

No, you are confusing perception with reality.
There is a disconnect.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: smithjustinb

I don't see how that is a relative judgment.

Because not everyone may agree with your conditional. Some people may think that NO hate is acceptable and others may think that it is acceptable to hate rapists or other criminals.

Just because someone disagrees with it, doesn't make it relative. It means they might just be wrong.

In order for something to be absolute, the status has to be the same no matter the conditions. Hate is unacceptable. That is an absolute statement. Hate is unacceptable, but it is ok to hate rapists or murderers. That is a relative statement since you have given a condition to the statement.

Hate is defined as negative relative to something other than perception. Hate may not always be negative, but there is no perceptual debate about when hate is good and when hate is bad. For some things, hate is always bad, and for other things, it is always good. It doesn't vary between individual perceptions. So, hate isn't absolutely negative, but it is absolutely negative or absolutely positive depending on the situation.

Rape, is absolutely negative. Even though the rapist might think it is a good idea, the rapist is objectively wrong. Even if a child is conceived during the rape and the child goes on to save the world, it is a good thing that the child is there, but the child was born from a negative event.

Just because someone believes something doesn't make it true, or even true for them.

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: smithjustinb

The very fact that people will agree and disagree with you disproves the absolute.

No it doesn't.

If something was really absolute, it would be absolute in reality.

Someone can be absolutely wrong about the subject that they disagree on.

a reply to: Aphorism

No...something can be an absolute truth, and yet not be recognized universally as true. People can be in error and that will not effect whether a truth is a truth.

2.0+2.0=4.0

This is an absolute truth, and yet not everyone in the world would necessarily agree. Would that make those who do not know that wrong, or would it affect the truth of 2+2=4?

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
a reply to: smithjustinb

Problem being, good can and does come out of "bad/evil" actions.
And "bad/evil" can come out of "good" actions.

You can do good for the wrong reasons.
And do bad for good reasons.
"The road to Hell is paved in good intentions." anyone?

And doesn't your own god call upon you to hate sin?
If not the sinner, but still.

Defining positives and negatives can be complicated. Due to the complexity, a lot of people default into relativism. They don't know the answer, so since they can't determine the absolute, they say there isn't one.

Good can lead to bad and bad can lead to good. True. But bad leading to good doesn't make the bad good. What's good about it is good about it and what's bad about it is bad about it. A rapist can't say, "well my son, conceived from the rape, went on to save the world, so it was a good thing that I raped". No. What happened, in and of itself, was absolutely a bad thing. Good things that come from bad things are good for their own reasons and, therefore, give no merit to bad things that might have caused them. You can't credit a rapist for the good things that the conceived came to do. You can only credit the conceived because the good things were done through the conceived's own free will. No credit is given to the rapist for the effects of his action. Defining an action is based on the action itself defined by an absolute constant.

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
a reply to: smithjustinb
If justice exists absolutely, then you need to account for non-human situations.

Yes I do. You are correct.

In addition, your views are very human-focused. What about the rights of animals not to be killed and eaten for food by humans when we can survive without doing so?

There is an absolute constant which the subject of killing for food is defined relatively to.

originally posted by: Bluesma

originally posted by: smithjustinb

As far as I can tell, challenging relativism requires an absolute reality. The absolute reality must have an absolute purpose.

That is the premise that your conclusions all lie upon, the belief in an absolute reality, that has an absolute purpose.
You haven't convinced me that that exists, so none of the rest has any validity.

What evidence is there for an absolute reality with an absolute purpose?

The evidence for an absolute reality, I think, is a world that can be defined objectively through math and science. At this time, I don't have any evidence for an absolute purpose, nor do I think there is any evidence against it. So for the sake of my argument, I am operating under the assumption that there is one. And it supports my argument well enough that the assumption is logical.

a reply to: smithjustinb

Not really logical.
In order for you to successfully refute relativism you'd need to prove that there is no case in which it applies.
You have not.

And, really, whether or not an argument is logical has no bearing on whether or not an argument is correct.
I've seen it called "the art of failing with style".

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

If anything is absolute, by necessity, it would have to be absolute, it would have to be a totality existing in no relative relation. No morality exhibits these qualities.

Although morality is defined as absolute relative to something, morality is not relative. It is absolute because what defines it as absolute is a constant for all definitions. What's good is absolutely good and what's bad is absolutely bad. There aren't multiple, conflicting reasons that can make any one subject have multiple definitions. Morality is defined as absolute because it is defined relative to an absolute reason.

a reply to: bbracken677

No...something can be an absolute truth, and yet not be recognized universally as true. People can be in error and that will not effect whether a truth is a truth.

2.0+2.0=4.0

This is an absolute truth, and yet not everyone in the world would necessarily agree. Would that make those who do not know that wrong, or would it affect the truth of 2+2=4?

Yes something can be considered an absolute truth if it is agreed upon by a speech community. "Absolute truth" is an honorific term, but only after we decide on which ideas deserve it. If a speech community is the absolute authority over human understanding, we'd never change our views.

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
a reply to: smithjustinb

Not really logical.
In order for you to successfully refute relativism you'd need to prove that there is no case in which it applies.
You have not.

I'm not trying to completely refute relativism. I'm trying to say that not everything is defined relative to perception. Different things get defined as absolute relative to different things. But, what they are defined as absolute by is a supreme constant. So, I'm saying that things are defined relative to other things. But, I'm saying that what they are defined relative to, that is the only thing they are defined relative to, and are absolute in that sense.

a reply to: smithjustinb

One good argument against absolutism is the natural kingdom and what animals do.

a reply to: Aphorism

More devil's advocate here.....
But.....

appeal to authority

You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.

It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence. However it is, entirely possible that the opinion of a person or institution of authority is wrong; therefore the authority that such a person or institution holds does not have any intrinsic bearing upon whether their claims are true or not.

Example: Not able to defend his position that evolution 'isn't true' Bob says that he knows a scientist who also questions evolution (and presumably isn't a primate).

Your logical fallacy

originally posted by: smithjustinb
Just because someone disagrees with it, doesn't make it relative. It means they might just be wrong.

Well who knows what is correct or not? The only one I could think of that would know that answer is god. But if you want to argue from that perspective, you'll have to prove god first. Until then, I just see relative opinions.

Hate is defined as negative relative to something other than perception. Hate may not always be negative, but there is no perceptual debate about when hate is good and when hate is bad. For some things, hate is always bad, and for other things, it is always good. It doesn't vary between individual perceptions. So, hate isn't absolutely negative, but it is absolutely negative or absolutely positive depending on the situation.

Would you consider a mild racist who just spews racist hate speech on the regular, but never acts on it the same level of hate as a racist who spews the hate speech AND acts on that by attacking races other than his own? I can't say that that is the same level of hate. Therefore even hate is relative.

Rape, is absolutely negative. Even though the rapist might think it is a good idea, the rapist is objectively wrong. Even if a child is conceived during the rape and the child goes on to save the world, it is a good thing that the child is there, but the child was born from a negative event.

Rape is an action. Kind of like eating. It just is. But the stigma behind it (that rape is wrong) IS a relative judgment. Just because our society (and most societies) agree that rape is wrong, doesn't mean that all societies feel that way. Back in the day, rape used to be an acceptable part of war. It was just something that happened and everyone not only was ok with it, they celebrated it.

Just because someone believes something doesn't make it true, or even true for them.

Correct. But we, as a species, do not know any absolute truths about the universe, so it is impossible to say for sure on anything. One most maintain a relative outlook on the universe to look at things as unbiased as possible. Though keep in mind, just because one looks at things relatively, doesn't mean they don't have a sense of right or wrong (just putting that out there).