"Conservatives only use hate & fear while Liberals use logic & reason."

[Whaleboy]

By restraint, I mean that I will discuss with someone what I believe, though I will never use violence to promote my position. I don't think the protests that I do fall under the category of passive, since we do go out in public

I concur entirely, except that when I say passive impedence, I mean, for example, I'm sitting on my chair thus preventing you from sitting on it. Active impedence is you picking me up and throwing me on the floor.

As long as the protest isn't violent, then it is passive impedence to the traffic, and merely influencing (like watching TV, or reading a book) the wider world. If you go and murder a few soldiers, then that is active impedence and crossing a line that I have called the Mill Limit (despite the fact that John Stuart Mill would have disagreed with it... still its his fault for being inconsistent ).

The problem with moral relativism is how do you come out with the presupposition that violence is wrong? That's what I'm not getting. If all points of view are equally valid, why should we restrain the violent? That's why I believe pacifism cannot work under moral relativism.

Its moral relativism to a point. If I am a society that is very libertarian, thus tolerates loads of moral views (Moral Rel.), yet someone has a very eccentric morality that causes him to rape or murder, then relativism ceases, and one will apprehend and rehab/imprison that person. Again, thats the line of the Mill Limit in a society.

"Violence is wrong" is a position shown by the relativisms, where violence is a means of imposing your will on others (active impedence).

In any society, moral relativism for me means "moral relativism, until you break the law".

Its part of a wider notion that all good ideas have their limits.

[Whaleboy]

GePap: To be ultimately relativist, you must recognise that in order to claim one position is more valid than another, you need to judge it. In absense of all that would judge, all subjectives are equally valid. In certain contexts, and even in this (the application of certain logics), some are more valid than others.

Incidentally, every position is to an extent an extension of a given supposition. For example, I say "cultural relativism" as an extension of previous logic which concluded that "violence is bad".

A position by itself as a means to an end doesn't really exist imo, as they are not discreet, rather a mesh of shared, given and conflicting assumptions.

[Ben Kenobi]

moral relativism for me means "moral relativism, until you break the law".

Elijah:

But that's hardly moral relativism. What is the law? You really are a disciple of the law, and not moral relativism if this is your position.

Secondly, if we are talking about society's law, then why do we accept the authority of one society over another?

Gepap:

[Quote]
as whether they are rational extensions of given suppositions,
[Quote]

Again, how do we know something is rational? Does it follow the rules of logic? Supposing this is true, how can we gauge violence to be irrational?

I present this argument:

Killing people for money makes me richer.
Guns help me kill people more quickly.
Getting richer is good.

Therefore, it is good to kill people using guns.

Is this not a logical argument?

[Whaleboy]

But that's hardly moral relativism. What is the law? You really are a disciple of the law, and not moral relativism if this is your position.

The law would be something to maintain a kind of equilibrium, like, but not limited to, the Mill Limit. For example, I'm allowed any morality and allowed to act on it, as long as those actions dont breach the Mill Limit. If my morality allows me to kill, then that is allowed, but actually killing is not. Its a way of maintaining that relativism, that particular equilibrium. The total application of that concept merely results in sheer chaos, in other words, total rights means little liberty.

Again, how do we know something is rational? Does it follow the rules of logic? Supposing this is true, how can we gauge violence to be irrational?

Many philosophers make the mistake imo of assuming that there is one canonical tree of logic from which they can prove that one position is inherently more logical than another. In some cases, violence may well be rational, for example for me, if someone breaches my Mill Limit by hitting me, I am allowed to defend myself. Also, it varies per person. One mans rational is another mans idiocy. Surely this thread is proof of that.

Killing people for money makes me richer.
Guns help me kill people more quickly.
Getting richer is good.

Therefore, it is good to kill people using guns.

Is this not a logical argument?

It is very logical, but what if we introduce the paramaters of "killing means a life sentence" or "killing would violate your humanity (an emotional factor, not logical in its own right)". The logical course of action would be then not to kill.

[Whaleboy]

Gotta hit the sack gentlemen, keep the seat warm for me!

[Ben Kenobi]

"killing means a life sentence" or "killing would violate your humanity (an emotional factor, not logical in its own right)".

A star trek quote comes to mind.

I may agree with your conclusion, but your premisses are flawed. Vulcans, though logical, make certain philosophical presuppositions before they can come to any logical conclusions.

This is what we see here. You are importing the 'Mill limit,' a stricture of Ultilitarianism, not moral relativism in order to argue constraints on violence.

Again, other restraints can be argued, but not before making a value judgment saying that some values must take precedence over others. Why should I value human life over the money I can gain from killing others?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Elijah however has said he can prove that liberals only use logic and reason where as conservatives only use fear and hate to arrive at their mutual view points.

Ok -- so if this is not blantant generalization Elijah, and Boris -- WHAT is?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by MrFun
Ok -- so if this is not blantant generalization Elijah, and Boris -- WHAT is?

Gee, quoting a strawman to justify your own strawman.

What Oerdin posted is absolutely not what elijah claimed. Why not try actually reading what elijah wrote?

[MrFun]

What's the thread's title of Elijah's original statement?

If I cannot locate it there, then yes, I am mistakened -- but the last time I went to that thread awhile ago, I swear I remembered reading such a blantant generalization from one of Elijah's posts.

But what is that thread's title again -- maybe my memory will have betrayed me this time.

[Boris Godunov]

Just read elijah's own words instead of relying on what others say he is saying. Not hard.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by elijah


Thats precisely what I'm not doing. I'm defining those who are intellectual (and you can be highly intelligent and not at all intellectual) as more likely to be liberal.

That latter point of yours is a strawman. Have I not explained that you can have very highly intelligent conservatives? Thats is a complete misunderstanding and misrepresentation of my position . Read my posts.

Hey Elijah -- reading some of your own words.


Ok, so you have not made a generalization that Oerdin or I claimed you made -- we just misinterpreted your original statement that started this all, in the other thread.

[Shi Huangdi]

Well, as a Catholic and a NeoCon I am probably one of the most hardline moral absolutists you will find.

Now I haven't read your posts in depth, but your point is that liberalism, largely defined by a belief in moral relativism. Moral relativism does seem to be the logical conclusion of an athiestic viewpoint, whereas a theistic viewpoint seems to lend itself towards moral absolutism what with it's easy objective source of morality after all.

Now you seem to have a rather narrow definition of intellectual, comprised largely of professional philosophers. I ask you though, shouldn't theologians count as intellectuals? Theology is in a way a rather narrow branch of Philosophy(philosophy of religion) but still one that touches on all of moral philosophy. Most Theologians certainly are not moral relativists or liberals, so then in that case your statement that virtually all intellectuals are liberal would not hold.

[Whaleboy]

A star trek quote comes to mind.

Oh god don't start

I may agree with your conclusion, but your premisses are flawed. Vulcans, though logical, make certain philosophical presuppositions before they can come to any logical conclusions.

As do we. My views are based on some inherent emotional or philosophical disposition, fuelling the logic that backs it up. The difference between the ficticious vulcans and us is that our emotions can get in the way afterwards, for better or for worse.

This is what we see here. You are importing the 'Mill limit,' a stricture of Ultilitarianism, not moral relativism in order to argue constraints on violence.

Mill would have disagreed with the Mill Limit because it serves as a cap on his utilitarianism. Of course, if utility for liberty and not happiness is assumed, then yes its the Mill Limit. In term of the prohibition of violence, the Mill Limit is a moral relativism, saying you cannot actively impose yourself (one subjective) over another (equally valid subjective).

Again, other restraints can be argued, but not before making a value judgment saying that some values must take precedence over others. Why should I value human life over the money I can gain from killing others?

You tell me, if we have differing views then relativism applies . I personally value human life because of relativist/subjectivist logic, as well as an emotional or deep-rooted philosophical love/respect for other living things.

Ok -- so if this is not blantant generalization Elijah, and Boris -- WHAT is?

I never said that. And elijah is with a lower case "e". Its a metaphor for the insignificance of my existence, and my non egocentric world view stemming from it.

What Oerdin posted is absolutely not what elijah claimed. Why not try actually reading what elijah wrote?

It always helps

Just read elijah's own words instead of relying on what others say he is saying. Not hard.

All you need in this debate, including a reasonably well explained treatment of my position, is in this thread.

Ok, so you have not made a generalization that Oerdin or I claimed you made -- we just misinterpreted your original statement that started this all, in the other thread.

Thats ok, relatively easy mistake to make. I suppose in such a heated debate, its not hard to get swept up in things.

Now you seem to have a rather narrow definition of intellectual, comprised largely of professional philosophers. I ask you though, shouldn't theologians count as intellectuals? Theology is in a way a rather narrow branch of Philosophy(philosophy of religion) but still one that touches on all of moral philosophy. Most Theologians certainly are not moral relativists or liberals, so then in that case your statement that virtually all intellectuals are liberal would not hold.

While its against my argument, its probably the best argument against me ever leveed! Yes, I count theologians as intellectuals. I have a wider definition than you think, a post a little way up shows that, but its more flexible than that. Would you not argue that where a theologians guiding philosophy (his religion) does not dictate otherwise, he is still more likely to side with liberal views? It also serves as no logical barrier to cultural relativism, if not moral, and indeed, in that latter case, its possible to disapprove but not wish to act to impede upon it, which is still a relativism.

Perhaps my position appears somewhat oblique, that is my fault. An "intellectual" with no presupposed views on areas of liberalism, say an inherent religion, is inclined to side with liberalism, were it not for a higher default view that prevents him from doing so. It would be like high tide drowning the British Isles.

Incidentally, while I know no self-proclaimed theologians, I have been brought up in a family of liberal Jews (in both respects), and studious and very religious Jews are still able to maintain liberalism, moral and cultural relativism. Religion is no necessary barrier to liberalism. Great point though .

[GePap]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Again, how do we know something is rational? Does it follow the rules of logic? Supposing this is true, how can we gauge violence to be irrational?

I present this argument:

Killing people for money makes me richer.
Guns help me kill people more quickly.
Getting richer is good.

Therefore, it is good to kill people using guns.

Is this not a logical argument?

As far as that arguement goes, given that very small set of parameters and arguements, yes, yes it is.

Of course, you could either question the assumptions, or realize that using a set of such simplified assumptions is in itself illogical (Oh, and there is a minor probem: your arguement really goes:
Its good to kill people with guns when hired to kill them (after all, you only become rich by killing if hired o do so, and thus this must be part of yourt line of thought at the end).

[DinoDoc]

I'm still curious how an avowed moral relativist can speak of law with a straight face.

[GePap]

Because law does not need moral absolutism to exist, only the acknowledgement of a certain entity backed by cohersive power having the local and temporary authority to define a set of allowed behaviors and acts.

[The Andy-Man]

logic is ilogical.

[Whaleboy]

logic is ilogical

No it isn't (in context)

I'm still curious how an avowed moral relativist can speak of law with a straight face.

What GePap said .

The law is merely the framework for a society, in the case of the Mill Limit, it is merely the apex of relativism, other societies would allow less. It follows on from the notion that without laws there is no freedom. All I can say with these concepts is "use with care".

[Imran Siddiqui]

True, but there are certain aspects of liberalism that strands have in common... the use of relativism to various degrees being one of the most important. Again, I'm talking about moral and cultural

Well, If I'm looking at my own county (indulge me please ), the 'liberals' in the university don't seem to be any more relativists than the 'conservatives'. They do believe in moral absolutes.

I'm still curious how an avowed moral relativist can speak of law with a straight face.

Again, what GePap said . Also, I'd add that under one idea of moral relativism, might makes right. Those that have the might can impliment their morality, or law, and that is just the way it is.

[Whaleboy]

Well, If I'm looking at my own county (indulge me please ), the 'liberals' in the university don't seem to be any more relativists than the 'conservatives'. They do believe in moral absolutes.

Well that sucks doesn't it!

My branch of liberalism is more European and conceptual. Like I said, liberal can mean any number of thing, you can be liberal in some respects, neo/theo con in others.

I have a bit of a problem with the concept of American liberal, for the same reason that theologians may have a problem with liberalism. Other pseudo-religious objectives can get in the way of liberalism, in this case, patriotism or a certain way of life etc. See prev. post.

[Whaleboy]

Again, what GePap said . Also, I'd add that under one idea of moral relativism, might makes right. Those that have the might can impliment their morality, or law, and that is just the way it is

Care to enlighten us on that oxymoronic proposal?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Care to enlighten us on that oxymoronic proposal?

Why is it oxymoronic? Think about it for a second. If all morality is equal, then it really doesn't matter which one impliments the law, does it? Because, in the end, someone has to. I'd prefer that the morality that is shared by most of the people be encapsulated by law, but since it is all equal, why should I care if the mighty impliment their own morality (unless it is contrary to my own personal morality).

[GePap]

Originally posted by elijah


Care to enlighten us on that oxymoronic proposal?

You forgot about the pictures in color!!

[Ben Kenobi]

I personally value human life because of relativist/subjectivist logic, as well as an emotional or deep-rooted philosophical love/respect for other living things.

Sorry for messing up your name elijah. Usually when I type that name it comes capitalised.

Okay. So why should I also value these things, if I am a relativist? If all values are personal and subjective, the only conclusion I can draw is that it is perfectly okay for you to value these things, and perfectly okay for me to value killing others. There can be no moral absolutes under relativism.

GePap

(after all, you only become rich by killing if hired o do so, and thus this must be part of yourt line of thought at the end).

No, honkey, I mug them.

[GePap]

If they have no money on them, then your assumption is incorrect, and thus the whole arguement given ilogical.

See how it works?

[Whaleboy]

Imran: It is oxymoronic for one subjective to impose itself on another and call itself relativist. Obviously, you need a bit of that with the law, thats why there is a limit to relativism, in order to preserve it.

If all morality is equal, then it really doesn't matter which one impliments the law, does it?

You are assuming that relativism has to be subjectivist, which it does not. It is illogical for one subjective point of view, be that a society, a nation or an individual, to impose itself on another. It is like swapping the conclusions of two different arguments.. it just doesnt work.

Put another way, if all morality is equal, what right does one morality have to impose on the other? Logical validity is not granted objectively because it is bigger and badder. That is only valid for that subjective, not in a context where there is more than one.

In that given context, there has to be one objective (for that context, so pseudo-objective) to judge. In the case of two individuals fighting, it may be the law. In the case of two warring nations, it should (ideally) be the UN (or its conceptual equivalent that actually works ).

Now whether, in a society, that pseudo obj. is determined by democracy or competence is another matter, one assumes that it is valid. Otherwise, the criminals become the police.

Imran: Your position is not relativist. "I dont care who impliments morality, as long as its mine" is unsatisfactory.

[Whaleboy]

You forgot about the pictures in color!!

Sorry! But sometimes you can use so much coloured paint that the painting falls off the hook and smashes on the floor!

Sorry for messing up your name elijah. Usually when I type that name it comes capitalised

Thats quite alright!

Okay. So why should I also value these things, if I am a relativist? If all values are personal and subjective, the only conclusion I can draw is that it is perfectly okay for you to value these things, and perfectly okay for me to value killing others. There can be no moral absolutes under relativism.

You dont have to. As a moral relativist, I see no reason why lucipher himself is less valid than me. Its just that in a society, there are certain things you cant act upon, in order to maintain liberty and relativism.

[Verres]

[Imran Siddiqui]

It is oxymoronic for one subjective to impose itself on another and call itself relativist.

Why? How come one can't say that their views are no better than others, but would like to impose them as law anyway according to their own personal beliefs? It is an acceptance that although they have the power, it doesn't follow that their views are naturally better.

Put another way, if all morality is equal, what right does one morality have to impose on the other?

Exactly right, that is ANOTHER way. The other way is saying if all morality is equal, who cares which morality wins out in the struggle?

Your position is not relativist. "I dont care who impliments morality, as long as its mine" is unsatisfactory.

It also isn't relativist to take someone's position and misrepresent it . And people were made that Oerdin misrepresented your views.

My position is that since all morality is relativist, whichever wins out in the end is no better or worse than any other. However, I would prefer my personal morality to win out, obviously, but if it doesn't, I understand.

[Ned]

US Liberals speak like this:

"Conservatives want to kill babies because they want to cut the budget for the environment."

"Conservatives are again talking about repealing Social Security."

Ah, the logic and reason of American liberals.