Relativism in Colleges

[Ahimsa]

BlindSheep:

Not necessarily, though.

True.

So why are you at a secular instead of a religious university?

 

[BlindSheep]

Ahimsa:

True.

So why are you at a secular instead of a religious university?

Because I am not allowed to leave the county with my kids, for one thing.

 

[steveandersen]

BlindSheep:

I’m sorry, but I have to say you’re wrong…

how so?

BlindSheep:

The act of killing someone is intrinsically evil.

I know. I did not say it wasn’t.

BlindSheep:

…I assume you’re talking about the lessening of culpability when a person is not acting with full knowledge or consent. This does not, however, mean the act itself is any less objectively evil; it means the person is less to blame for that evil.

Yes I know. Similarly in Civil law there are various level of crime; the distinction between murder and manslaughter and the various “degrees” thereof. We make a distinction between crimes of passion and cold blooded murder.

BlindSheep:

Was it wrong, or not wrong?

It was wrong (which of course is problematic when you consider serfs on Church owned land)

BlindSheep:

Relativism would say it was right in the past, and wrong now.
This is not the same thing as diminished culpability, which acknowledges that the act itself is always wrong.
Consider these situations:…

• The Relativist position would be that all of the abortions were neither objectiviely good nor objectively evil…not only would they not say “this woman is not responsible” they would not say “this should not have been allowed to happen”.

then we must have a very different concept of relativism. What you are describing is completely irrational while relativism (as I understand it and as described in the OP) is based on the rational application of standards such as in the above example

I can imagine someone trying to describe an abortion by saying something like “culpability is lessened because of rape, economic situation, medical necessity, etc etc” but I don’t think I’ve ever heard even the most strident abortion rights proponent claim that the mother is not responsible for her decision. I thought their whole rationale was the issue of individual “choice” which clearly carries with it individual responsibility.

 

[BlindSheep]

steveandersen:

then we must have a very different concept of relativism. What you are describing is completely irrational while relativism (as I understand it and as described in the OP) is based on the rational application of standards such as in the above example

I can imagine someone trying to describe an abortion by saying something like “culpability is lessened because of rape, economic situation, medical necessity, etc etc” but I don’t think I’ve ever heard even the most strident abortion rights proponent claim that the mother is not responsible for her decision. I thought their whole rationale was the issue of individual “choice” which clearly carries with it individual responsibility.

The OP was mine. I wasn’t aware I had a different concept of relativism than I did two days ago.

In philosophy, moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect absolute and universal moral truths but instead are relative to social, cultural,historical or personal references, and that there is no single standard by which to assess an ethical proposition’s truth. Relativistic positions often see moral values as applicable only within certain cultural boundaries or the context of individual preferences.

Moral relativism is not the same as moral pluralism, or value pluralism, which acknowledges the co-existence of opposing ideas and practices, but does not require that they be equally valid. Moral relativism, in contrast, contends that opposing moral positions have no truth value, and that there is no preferred standard of reference by which to judge them.

If you say “abortion is wrong”, this reflects an absolute and universal moral truth. If you add “but this woman didn’t have an abortion on purpose, and therefore she is not to blame” this does not make the statement “abortion is wrong” any less an absolute and universal moral truth. The abortion was still wrong, though the woman is not culpable.
Similarly, if you say “killing is wrong” this is absolute. If you then add “but taking an action to protect innocent lives which also has the effect of killing an attacker is not wrong”, you have not denied that killing is absolutely wrong, since it is allowed in this case but not intended. A complex moral absolute is not relativism. Relativism denies that abortion or murder is wrong, not because of circumstances, but because of conflicting opinions. Felativism holds that there ARE no absolute moral truths, while the above scenarios assume that there are absolute moral truths and seek to apply these to real life situations.

 

[steveandersen]

BlindSheep:

The OP was mine. I wasn’t aware I had a different concept of relativism than I did two days ago…

I meant, of course, the quote from Berger that I originally responded to

I don’t deny what you 're saying. It is just that what you define as relativism is not what comes to my mind when I here the term.

I’ve never met anyone who denies that there are no absolutes but there are plenty of people who will quibble no end over the details of culpability.

 

[BlindSheep]

steveandersen:

I meant, of course, the quote from Berger that I originally responded to

I don’t deny what you 're saying. It is just that what you define as relativism is not what comes to my mind when I here the term.

I’ve never met anyone who denies that there are no absolutes but there are plenty of people who will quibble no end over the details of culpability.

You’ve never met anyone who** denies** there are no absolutes?
Well, you just did - :tiphat:

 

[steveandersen]

not “no absolutes”
not absolutes…NOT absolutes!

pesky keyboard… the “t” keeps sicking

 

[BlindSheep]

steveandersen:

not “no absolutes”
not absolutes…NOT absolutes!

pesky keyboard… the “t” keeps sicking

Wouldn’t that mean the same thing?
“I don’t know anyone who denies that there are not absolutes”
I deny that there are not absolutes.
I believe that there are absolutes.
If you meant the opposite, well, in my neck of the woods almost everybody believes there are no absolutes. It’s trendy.

 

[steveandersen]

BlindSheep:

… It’s trendy.

and so are hip huggers, rap, and body piercings
I wouldn’t recommend those either

“I’ve never met anyone who denies that there are not absolutes…”
seems like a perfectly good sentence construction to me. I’m not sure what your problem is.

then again, I talk funny

Q:Are there not absolutes?
A: Yes, there are absolutes

See, you didn’t deny that there are not absolutes

 

[BlindSheep]

steveandersen:

and so are hip huggers, rap, and body piercings
I wouldn’t recommend those either

“I’ve never met anyone who denies that there are not absolutes…”
seems like a perfectly good sentence construction to me. I’m not sure what your problem is.

then again, I talk funny

Q:Are there not absolutes?
A: Yes, there are absolutes

See, you didn’t deny that there are not absolutes

Maybe. I read it like this:
Deny (the statement that) “there are absolutes”-there are no absolutes.
Deny (the statement that) “there are not absolutes”= there are absolutes.