You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Is it bad to kill people?
I'm not stating a moral truth. I'm stating my perception on other people's perceptions on what they call "moral truths". 🎊🎉
The fact that I'm talking about morals doesn't imply that I'm morally judging something. I'm evaluating it philosophically.
Posted using Partiko Android
You are correct in saying that "there are no moral truths" could be logically true, but only by admitting that there is absolute truth (outside the realm of morality). What are the absolute truths you believe, and how did you discover them?
I don't usually talk from absolute truth but from the point of view of relativity itself according to which I cannot be certain of any truth. But in this post I talked from only three assumptions: that the scientific description of evolution is accurate, that my knowledge of different cultures is accurate and that there is no God.
If any of those three failed, my arguments would fail as well. However, as they are all likely to be true, I don't worry much about that.
edit: If you are also a relativist, we may agree on much more than you think. The reason for this post and all the recent ones is that I like to debate and antagonise assumptions of absolute truth, and I wanted to write some absurdist texts as a work of art. I can't reveal the title of the work of art but I guess you can appreciate the piece even without it. It starts on the post I made 4 days ago called "how free are we truly?" and it will continue for a few days (until I feel it is almost complete, but I may not be able to post the final piece as it is too controversial)
Moral Relativism could be defended, if it had a foundation of non-moral absolute truths, but without any type of absolute truth it is indefensible. For the record I believe in absolute moral truth, and am not a relativist.
You mentioned your three assumptions, but do you claim any of the three are absolutely true? You defined Relativism in this way "I cannot be certain of any truth" This seems to be a bigger category than moral truth. If you can't be certain of any truth, then what is the point of debate, school, knowledge, science, or philosophy? They are all worthless exercises in futility. You mentioned that you like to debate assumptions of absolute truth. What do you hope to accomplish by this? If there is no truth to appeal to, how could either side of the debate ever win?
The objective is to have fun. I cannot deny that I have a lot of fun debating things and exploring the depths of the human mind and cultural delights. I don't expect to accomplish anything else. I don't think anything can be known except for the fact that I exist, so I decided I would instead explore and have fun.
Are you religious?
That is an interesting answer, I don't think I have ever met someone who debated simply for fun. I can see that you are an intelligent, thoughtful person. I learned a few things in coming up with my comments, so thank you.
A relativist in essence cannot prove relativism, because that would mean there is at least one absolute truth. (the relativism worldview). However, that does not prevent debating anyway.
I am a practicing Roman Catholic.
Well, the only statement I make as a relativist is that I cannot be sure of anything other than the fact that I exist, at least in thought or abstraction. I don't claim that it's impossible to know or that there is no truth, only that I have been unable to ascertain those truths and I've built my life and moral system from that doubt.
Things like being sure that my body exists, my surroundings, norms and even more the dogmas of belief and faith, I can only feel uncertain about them. If I can't be certain of what I can see, I can even be less certain of what I cannot see. Although I do not claim to know any truths beyond my own existence, that truth persists and reverberates in everything I do or say, making all my philosophy be filled with scepticism.
I've been talking with another Roman Catholic very recently. I find that it's a very interesting belief system. It's kind of like the opposite of my mindset so it's really, really hard for me to stand in your shoes and say that I could believe something so specific. I still respect your belief, though. Everybody has their own reasons to believe what they believe.
And thank you too. :) it's always good to have some sober comments from smart people. It's always more fun like that.
Well, if you believe you exist I think that would be an absolute truth. For example, if I told you that you were a unicorn dreaming it was a person, and you told me I was wrong, then "I exist" is an absolute truth. Even one truth is one too many for relativism.
I would agree Catholicism is quite different than relativism. It wasn't easy for me to accept a number of Catholic teachings, and I spent some time as a teen trying to research my way out of it. I only ended up more convinced.
Posted using Partiko Android
I made an article where I talk about what you said.
Cogito, ergo sum — The meaning behind "I think; therefore, I exist"
For me, relativism is about the rest of the truths. I cannot be sure of the absolute existence of other people, of rules, patterns and everything studied by science, of anything I perceive, but I cannot deny that I perceive, or at least I think that I do, and therefore thought exists, and I have an abstract conception of myself, of self-identity (I identify as myself), so I exist, because "I" is just a word that denotes the abstract perception of the self as an individual, which is precisely what I perceive.
As I can only be certain of two things (existence of thought and myself as an abstraction of identity), such a strict definition of relativism where you can't be sure of even one truth isn't very adjusted to reality. If my philosophical views can't be called relativism, then I don't know any other name for them (relativistic solipsism or something like that, perhaps).