I don’t see that relativism necessarily relieves anyone of the responsibility of epistemic justification. So the “any one person’s opinion is just as good as anyone else’s” kind of reasoning fails. But the appropriate standards for justification may be quite circumstantial.
That truth, and morality, may be relative to circumstance does not render them meaningless; nor does it render an ill-considered, or self-contradictory, opinion as valid as any other. It just means that they may be subject to an “all things considered” analysis—rather than the absolutism of a “nothing else considered” claim (such as the commands of a god).
There may be some claims that require an “all things considered” analysis, and some that are amenable to a “nothing else considered” criterion of some sort. A claim that the choice is necessarily between a wholesale “absolute” relativism on the one hand, and wholesale absolutism on the other, seems to me to be a false dichotomy.
_______________________________________
NOTE: I am loosely, and from (perhaps faulty) memory, following Lawrence Becker’s A New Stoicism here.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkHowever, a relativist perspective is not necessarily internally inconsistent and you need to show that it is in order to consistently be able to argue what you did in the post I responded to.
But from a position of relatavism his view cannot be any more correct than mine. So from his point of view this entire debate is pointless and waste of time.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkA brute fact is one which does not involve interpretation. The sentence: "I saw Peter going to the shop." is a fact, but contains an interpretation, the brute fact is "I saw Peter walking towards the shop.". The first form, "going to the shops", requires additional information Peter's habits - that he had no likely reason other than wanting cigarettes to be walking towards that particular shop. That I can explain this by "He probably wanted to buy cigarettes." doesn't prevent it from being a brute fact.
A brute fact apparently has no explanation, I think the explanation for absolute truth or universal truth is God.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkBUMP for Fetchmyjunk
Some see it as 'just' others see it as 'ghastly vengeful'. It's all a matter of perspective.
I have asked you repeatedly what moral lessons can imperfect humanity draw from your so-called "perfect justice" to make the application of justice by humanity better and of course you have dodged it every time because what you claim is "justice" has basically nothing to do with justice. There is no lesson to be learned.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkYes, it may well be that debating your notions of morality and justice are "pointless and waste of time" because they are things that you simply imagine for which you have no concrete evidence whatsoever, and you can't provide arguments in favour of their virtue or validity and have, instead, to stoop to distorting the conventional meaning of words in order to talk about them,
But from a position of relatavism his view cannot be any more correct than mine. So from his point of view this entire debate is pointless and waste of time.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkOoh look, you're suggesting that your subjective views on morality and justice are the "universally correct standard" again.
Yes and I clearly explained to you that your position of relativism doesn't make sense, since form your perspective none of our views can be incorrect since according to you there is no universally correct standard. So this entire debate would only make sense if one of our perspectives was incorrect.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkNot only "wrong", but also preposterous. Every act and thought is equally evil? All wrongdoing deserves the same punishment ~ torture for eternity? Oh, unless there is "undeserved mercy. This is "perfect justice"? If your notion were to be put into practice, I'd say it would unquestionably be evil. "Real" justice? "Universally correct"? It's morally incoherent and you have delusions of grandeur. It's like a deranged parody of the ideas we are discussing. Yes, I would say your perspective is... wrong.
So would you say one of our perspectives is wrong?
Originally posted by FMFI have already answered your question. Now maybe you should tell me what moral lessons humanity can learn from the supposed fact that there is no universally correct justice system and no absolute moral standard. All morals are based on the subjective opinions of those in power. That all actions are permissible under certain conditions. That you can get away with anything as long as you are not caught. And if you are caught the worst thing that could happen to you for murdering millions of people is your life can be taken. And that justice in essence is simply an illusion. I am all ears.
BUMP for Fetchmyjunk
I have asked you repeatedly what moral lessons can imperfect humanity draw from your so-called "perfect justice" to make the application of justice by humanity better and of course you have dodged it every time because what you claim is "justice" has basically nothing to do with justice. There is no lesson to be learned.
Originally posted by FMFI am arguing from the position that a "universally correct standard" does exist. So from my perspective it is possible for one of us to be right and one of us to be wrong. From your perpective none of us can be right anyway.
Ooh look, you're suggesting that your subjective views on morality and justice are the "universally correct standard" again.
Originally posted by FMFActually the only thing that is really preposterous to you is that if God created us he is the one that decides how to judge us.
Not only "wrong", but also preposterous. Every act and thought is equally evil? All wrongdoing deserves the same punishment ~ torture for eternity? Oh, unless there is "undeserved mercy. This is "perfect justice"? If your notion were to be put into practice, I'd say it would unquestionably be evil. "Real" justice? "Universally correct"? It's morally incoherent ...[text shortened]... a deranged parody of the ideas we are discussing. Yes, I would say your perspective is... wrong.
1 edit
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkThey can learn that there is no universally correct justice system and no absolute moral standard, even if an internet poster called Fetchmyjunk thinks that his hodgepodge of ancient Hebrew mythology and convoluted superstitions has got him thinking that there is a universally correct justice system and an absolute moral standard and it's exactly the one he thinks is "perfect". And "universal". And "correct". Moral codes are developed by humanity to govern their interactions and therefore vary with culture and down through history.
Now maybe you should tell me what moral lessons humanity can learn from the supposed fact that there is no universally correct justice system and no absolute moral standard.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI have lost count of how many times I have addressed all these points.
I have already answered your question. Now maybe you should tell me what moral lessons humanity can learn from the supposed fact that there is no universally correct justice system and no absolute moral standard. All morals are based on the subjective opinions of those in power. That all actions are permissible under certain conditions. That you can get ...[text shortened]... ple is your life can be taken. And that justice in essence is simply an illusion. I am all ears.