2007-07-20 00:32:20 · 13 answers · asked by Link , Padawan of Yoda 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Moral relativism. or Cognitive.
Do you believe the thinking behind them is sound or flawed?
2007-07-20 00:40:23 · update #1
OMFG, OMFG, OMFG,... OMFG!
And how about the religious? How atheism can make a difference?!
OMFG, OMFG, OMFG,... OMFG!
2007-07-20 00:37:00 · answer #1 · answered by Emil Alexandrescu 3 · 0⤊ 5⤋
I regard Relativism as an artificial badge created to group sets of beliefs that do not require an additional umbrella.
Taken literally, the concepts of relativism are proven false by significant and irrefutable exceptions: eg Kepler's Law, Boyles Law and the majority of physics.
The concepts of Relativism can only be applied to information that is necessarily (but not always obviously) judgemental.
This can be contrived to embrace much religious, political and even economic theory as well as any other subject that is not based on empirical evidence.
In short, Relativism is a meaningless grouping of diverse philosophies based on the obvious concept of relative judgement. A rebadging that is more likely to have been the creation of a marketing department than a philosopher.
2007-07-20 01:08:09 · answer #2 · answered by Clive 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The word "relativism" means a lot of different things.
I personally think that ontological relativism (the notion that "we all make our own truths" or "we all have our own realities") is utter nonsense. I also do not agree with moral relativism.
I think that the believers who attack atheists generally believe that atheism implies moral relativism, or at least that the vast majority of atheists are moral relativists. The former is certainly false, and I don't think that the latter is true either.
I also can't help but notice that those same believers are quick to resort to moral relativism when they want to claim that they're being attacked unfairly (saying things like "These are my beliefs - I don't judge you and you shouldn't judge me either").
The standard argument against relativism is essentially
"Some people believe that X is true, some other people believe that X is false, therefore X must be true for some people and false for others".
Somehow the fact that some people are simply wrong is never considered.
2007-07-20 00:38:37 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
I think worshipping your relatives is silly. I don't have any, anyway. So I'm not relativistic.
Moral relativism is similarly foggy. As members of the human species, and theoretically equal, absolute morality should be fixed for all of us. Cultural differences in morality are usually just distortions rather than enhancements.
All morality derives from the basic Golden Rule principle of treating others as though they were a little like yourself. This is instinctive, and actually *defines* objective Good and Bad. Any 'moral' rules that don't implement this, or ignore, pervert, usurp or counter it, are ipso facto immoral.
CD
2007-07-20 00:40:56 · answer #4 · answered by Super Atheist 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Christianity is the suited form of relativism. the full faith is in keeping with God unexpectedly sometime changing his suggestions and installation a sparkling covenant, and until eventually i'm improper, any morally reprehensible element is excusable below the guise of "theory." So, considering which you think of that ethical relativism isn't morality in any respect, and God is the suited relativist, the question is why do not Christians have any morals? Oh, snap! BURN!!!
2016-10-22 03:48:29 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think Ayn Rand was barking mad! Totally moonbats! The only reason for her popularity was her rabid hatred of Communism and her slavish devotion to justifying her Capitalist masters. Imagine a Russian living an immoral lifestyle in California un-investigated as un-American during the height of McCarthyism. Relative morality is both moraly and philosophically bankrupt.
2007-07-20 00:52:05 · answer #6 · answered by ? 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Any belief that brings into doubt the very real table in my very real studio, raises the danger of me striking my very real head into it.
I suppose you could call me a Pragmatist. Certainly the Fallibilistic idea that we exist in a real world of which we have a flawed understanding makes clear sense. It also make tables much safer to use.
The practitioners of Zen have this wonderful saying, "have no unnecessary opinions". This way of thinking not only fits well with my skeptical out look, but puts aside the Gordon Knot of most ideas that have twisted out of Existentialism.
I will believe the world is real until I see a reason to do otherwise.
2007-07-20 04:27:47 · answer #7 · answered by Herodotus 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
emil, take your pills...
morality is not a property of objects, it's a human perception. it's influenced by values which may vary between individuals and groups, so in principle morality is relative but there are many values that we can agree on due to the fact that we're all human. intent and (forseeable) consequences are important.
i hope that's what you were asking about. epistemological relativism seems too silly to take seriously to me.
2007-07-20 00:44:27 · answer #8 · answered by vorenhutz 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
In what context,more info. needed?
All things are relative,theists are as likely to be moral relativists as atheists,they just imagine they live by gods absolute word.
2007-07-20 00:38:15 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
I'm relatively OK with it....geez if you are going to ask a question put some effort into it
2007-07-20 00:44:37 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I have a relative who revealed he was into relativism
relatively speaking it's all relavant to relativity
2007-07-20 00:39:41 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋