Misconceptions of Christianity 2

[ephrem]

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…what, god? Are you now suggesting that god is [just] an idea? A relative set of instructions that happen to be succesful? Come on already, this game is boring!
[/quote]

Yes, admittedly, actually thinking through things can be tedious.

I’m not suggesting anything - I am certainly not suggesting anything about God.

The answer is already in the interchange itself. You’ve already said it. In a sense the game is over - I’m just hoping you can see it for yourself.

[/quote]

…aaaww katz, if you never had a point to make just say so, now you’re just shifting the blame on me for not making yours![/quote]

Nice try

I think you see the answer - and I think you know your position.

Listen, I know you well enough to know that you’re highly intelligent; but you are also a very slippery fellow. Too slippery for your own good, in my humble opinion.

So you might say that in asking you to answer the question, I’m looking out for your welfare.

[/quote]

…lol, what utter bullshit, and i say that in the kindest possible way. Look, if you had a point to make then be a man and put it out there, otherwise stop wasting my time, mmmkay?

[haney1]

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…that’s true: they couldn’t imagine why anyone would kill themselves and subsequently couldn’t empathise with Daniel’s pain. Why is that, in this context, important [to you]?
[/quote]

It is interesting to me b\c I am developing some material on the problem of evil\pain. In it I site the buddhist attempts to live with out attachments and in doing so it requires them to lose care, and emotion for fellow Humans.

With in that context as well as the one you provided it seems that the logical conclusion of that type of thought breeds an indifference to suffering. Which leads to an indifference to others suffering.

Which presents a set of problems with in themselves, but I have not had time to sit down and digest what the full implications of that are.

so no real point, just my observations and curiosity
[/quote]

…i’m sorry haney, i’m far from a buddhist but there’s no doubt in my mind that the buddhist path of freeing onesself from suffering does not require you to lose care and emotion for human beings. To the contrary! By becoming aware of the reasons for one’s own suffering, one also becomes acutely aware of why other people suffer. If anything, understanding of why there’s suffering allows for great empathy towards fellow human beings…

…that empathy may not be shown within the confines of our socially accepted norms, but that does not mean indifference to suffering at all. No really haney, you are wrong to think this, and if you are in the process of writing a pamflet or booklet or whatever, please try to find a buddhist center near you and interview monks there if you’re serious about providing well balanced information…
[/quote]

Why would I need to find a buddhist center when I have looked at what the logical conclusions of that path leads someone to. You act as if I read an apologetic against the material and came up with my own conclusion. I am considering the philosophical implications of what they teach, and that is the conclusion. To say otherwise is to all a contradiction with in the system.

I am applying the law of non contradcition to the system.

[katzenjammer]

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…what, god? Are you now suggesting that god is [just] an idea? A relative set of instructions that happen to be succesful? Come on already, this game is boring!
[/quote]

Yes, admittedly, actually thinking through things can be tedious.

I’m not suggesting anything - I am certainly not suggesting anything about God.

The answer is already in the interchange itself. You’ve already said it. In a sense the game is over - I’m just hoping you can see it for yourself.

[/quote]

…aaaww katz, if you never had a point to make just say so, now you’re just shifting the blame on me for not making yours![/quote]

Nice try

I think you see the answer - and I think you know your position.

Listen, I know you well enough to know that you’re highly intelligent; but you are also a very slippery fellow. Too slippery for your own good, in my humble opinion.

So you might say that in asking you to answer the question, I’m looking out for your welfare.

[/quote]

…lol, what utter bullshit, and i say that in the kindest possible way. Look, if you had a point to make then be a man and put it out there, otherwise stop wasting my time, mmmkay?[/quote]

The only bullshit is the way in which you’re pretending not to see what is entirely obvious.

Like I said - you’re slippery, and you play games.

It’s a self-protection thing I think - but it doesn’t do you any good; what it really protects you from is seeing your own chronic self-deception.

[ephrem]

[quote]Cortes wrote:

If there is a God, like, for real, then you will have to stop looking at things from an atheist’s perspective.[/quote]

…so yeah, that’s a mighty big if [deja-vu!] Cortes. Anyway, discussing morality is more fun, at least that’s about something palpable…

[ephrem]

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…i’m sorry haney, i’m far from a buddhist but there’s no doubt in my mind that the buddhist path of freeing onesself from suffering does not require you to lose care and emotion for human beings. To the contrary! By becoming aware of the reasons for one’s own suffering, one also becomes acutely aware of why other people suffer. If anything, understanding of why there’s suffering allows for great empathy towards fellow human beings…

…that empathy may not be shown within the confines of our socially accepted norms, but that does not mean indifference to suffering at all. No really haney, you are wrong to think this, and if you are in the process of writing a pamflet or booklet or whatever, please try to find a buddhist center near you and interview monks there if you’re serious about providing well balanced information…
[/quote]

Why would I need to find a buddhist center when I have looked at what the logical conclusions of that path leads someone to. You act as if I read an apologetic against the material and came up with my own conclusion. I am considering the philosophical implications of what they teach, and that is the conclusion. To say otherwise is to all a contradiction with in the system.

I am applying the law of non contradcition to the system.

[/quote]

…you conclude something without understanding the philosophy. Do you know about the 8 fold path? If you don’t, please read this excellent explanation: http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/eightfoldpath.html

[haney1]

[quote]ephrem wrote:
[

…i’m sorry haney, i’m far from a buddhist but there’s no doubt in my mind that the buddhist path of freeing onesself from suffering does not require you to lose care and emotion for human beings. To the contrary! By becoming aware of the reasons for one’s own suffering, one also becomes acutely aware of why other people suffer. If anything, understanding of why there’s suffering allows for great empathy towards fellow human beings…

…that empathy may not be shown within the confines of our socially accepted norms, but that does not mean indifference to suffering at all. No really haney, you are wrong to think this, and if you are in the process of writing a pamflet or booklet or whatever, please try to find a buddhist center near you and interview monks there if you’re serious about providing well balanced information…

Why would I need to find a buddhist center when I have looked at what the logical conclusions of that path leads someone to. You act as if I read an apologetic against the material and came up with my own conclusion. I am considering the philosophical implications of what they teach, and that is the conclusion. To say otherwise is to all a contradiction with in the system.

I am applying the law of non contradcition to the system.

…you conclude something without understanding the philosophy. Do you know about the 8 fold path? If you don’t, please read this excellent explanation: http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/eightfoldpath.html[/quote]

I have read the eight fold path. I understand the philosophy. I am basing this off of the four noble truths which are before the eight fold path. Specifically noble truth number 2. You can’t let go of earthly entanglements and still have emotion for others.

It is an either or proposition

[ephrem]

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…lol, what utter bullshit, and i say that in the kindest possible way. Look, if you had a point to make then be a man and put it out there, otherwise stop wasting my time, mmmkay?[/quote]

The only bullshit is the way in which you’re pretending not to see what is entirely obvious.

Like I said - you’re slippery, and you play games.

It’s a self-protection thing I think - but it doesn’t do you any good; what it really protects you from is seeing your own chronic self-deception.

[/quote]

…i’ve been upfront and honest in answering your questions from the get-go. It is you who’s dodging the simple question: what was your point exactly?

…from the onset you had a destination in mind, and somehow you expect me, from the other side of the planet through an anonimous medium, deduce what that destination was. I’m at fault for not being able to do so, and yet better still, it is me who’s playing games and deceiving myself?

…okay katz, i’m dazzled by your logic and now see the light; Hallelluja!! You’ve saved me.

[ephrem]

[quote]haney1 wrote:

I have read the eight fold path. I understand the philosophy. I am basing this off of the four noble truths which are before the eight fold path. Specifically noble truth number 2. You can’t let go of earthly entanglements and still have emotion for others.

It is an either or proposition[/quote]

2. The origin of suffering is attachment.

The origin of suffering is attachment to transient things and the ignorance thereof. Transient things do not only include the physical objects that surround us, but also ideas, and -in a greater sense- all objects of our perception. Ignorance is the lack of understanding of how our mind is attached to impermanent things. The reasons for suffering are desire, passion, ardour, pursuit of wealth and prestige, striving for fame and popularity, or in short: craving and clinging. Because the objects of our attachment are transient, their loss is inevitable, thus suffering will necessarily follow. Objects of attachment also include the idea of a “self” which is a delusion, because there is no abiding self. What we call “self” is just an imagined entity, and we are merely a part of the ceaseless becoming of the universe.

http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/fourtruths.html

…there is some truth in how you’ve perceived it, but it’s not the whole truth. If anything, buddhism is about compassion. That is it’s bedrock, and not the aloof, detached, nihilist way you [presumably] make it out to be…

[katzenjammer]

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…i’d have to take in to account whether they’d pose a threat to my tribe if they became more succesful, but if they were not and open to suggestions, sure why not? I certainly wouldn’t try to convince them of C against their wishes though…
[/quote]

Right, of course, not against their wishes.

Okay, so, you would say to this tribe, “hey, just some friendly advice guys, ‘why don’t you try C. because look at how your quality of life will improve?’”

Assuming** that the tribe is filled with reasonable human beings who care about their own quality of life, they would embrace C. as their principle/value/practice so that their sickness and hunger might be alleviated, reduced or even nearly eliminated.

And given our assumptions, that would make sense, right?

**Along with the potential threat you mentioned, above; let’s grant this assumption and deal with it in a moment, okay?

[/quote]

…right. I see where this is going, but go ahead, my head is on the choppingblock (: So far i have no difficulties with this scenario…[/quote]

LOL…no chopping block. I’m doing this because I like you and find you interesting - not because I’m trying to get you.

Let me ask you this now: why might this interchange demonstrate that you are not a relativist, in either sense you’ve mentioned above?

Care to guess?

[/quote]

…nah, that’s allright. Tell me why you think i’m not a moral relativist based on your little scenario?[/quote]

It’s not that I think you are Eph - you’ve already said as much yourself.

You consistently applied a “yardstick” to assess the relative value of a new idea/principle that you came to via imagination/reason (B.) against the prevailing idea/principle of your own tribe (A.) Finding A. wanting, in accordance with B, you adopted B.

Then you encountered another idea/principle (C.) held by another tribe. You applied that same “yardstick” to assess the relative value of this new idea/principle (C.) against the old idea/principle (B.) So you adopted C.

Then, you enountered yet another tribe (the rest of the world, essentially) who live by an idea/principle (D.) Using your “yardstick” you determined that D. is not only inferior; you also determined that you should tell them about C. on the basis of that “yardstick.” Moreover, you seemed quite sure that - give our two assumptions which we can get to - they would readily embrace C. on the basis of that “yardstick.”

To sum up, you applied a “yardstick” to weigh the relative merit of a series of values/ideas; more importantly, you applied that yardstick to another culture, and expected them to implicitly accept that yardstick.

In other words, you act as if this “yardstick” is not relatively true.

In short, relativists of any flavor - much like yourself - are deceiving themselves; relativism contains its own absolutes, often unconciously and therefore they are unexamined.

After all, even at the very heart of relativism is an implicitly held absolute value: “all values are relative.”

[haney1]

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]haney1 wrote:

I have read the eight fold path. I understand the philosophy. I am basing this off of the four noble truths which are before the eight fold path. Specifically noble truth number 2. You can’t let go of earthly entanglements and still have emotion for others.

It is an either or proposition[/quote]

2. The origin of suffering is attachment.

The origin of suffering is attachment to transient things and the ignorance thereof. Transient things do not only include the physical objects that surround us, but also ideas, and -in a greater sense- all objects of our perception. Ignorance is the lack of understanding of how our mind is attached to impermanent things. The reasons for suffering are desire, passion, ardour, pursuit of wealth and prestige, striving for fame and popularity, or in short: craving and clinging. Because the objects of our attachment are transient, their loss is inevitable, thus suffering will necessarily follow. Objects of attachment also include the idea of a “self” which is a delusion, because there is no abiding self. What we call “self” is just an imagined entity, and we are merely a part of the ceaseless becoming of the universe.

http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/fourtruths.html

…there is some truth in how you’ve perceived it, but it’s not the whole truth. If anything, buddhism is about compassion. That is it’s bedrock, and not the aloof, detached, nihilist way you [presumably] make it out to be…
[/quote]

See here is an interesting thing. I never said most buddhist where not compassionate. I only said that the philosophy when brought to its logical conclusion leads to that. Which is what I am presenting. It is clear that the four noble truths and the eight fold path are at a contradiction with each other. Which is something that I am also presenting.

So no there is not some truth to how I have perceived it. It is just Truth. I am not bashing the buddhist in my presentation. I am only stating what the logical conclusion based off of the four truths are.

Now I have heard it argued that to understand eastern religions one must apply dialectic philosophy vs. “the either or” philosophy, but I would contend that idea is inconsistent.

[ephrem]

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…nah, that’s allright. Tell me why you think i’m not a moral relativist based on your little scenario?[/quote]

It’s not that I think you are Eph - you’ve already said as much yourself.

You consistently applied a “yardstick” to assess the relative value of a new idea/principle that you came to via imagination/reason (B.) against the prevailing idea/principle of your own tribe (A.) Finding A. wanting, in accordance with B, you adopted B.

Then, when you encountered another idea/principle (C.) held by another tribe. You applied that same “yardstick” to assess the relative value of this new idea/principle (C.) against the old idea/principle (B.) So you adopted C.

Then, you enountered yet another tribe (the rest of the world, essentially) who live by an idea/principle (D.) Using your “yardstick” you determined that D. is not only inferior; you also determined that you should tell them about C. on the basis of that “yardstick.” Moreover, you seemed quite sure that - give our two assumptions which we can get to - they would readily embrace C.

To sum up, you applied a “yardstick” to a weigh the relative merit of a series of values/ideas; more importantly, you applied that yardstick to another culture, and expected them to implicitly accept that yardstick.

In other words, you act as if this “yardstick” is not relatively true.

In short, relativists of any flavor - much like yourself - are deceiving themselves; relativism contains its own absolutes, often unconciously; and therefore they often go unexamined.

After all, even at the very heart of relativism (“all values are relative”) is an implicitly held absolute value. [/quote]

…thank you for this post katz because i couldn’t have reached this conclusion on my own, for it is based on your misconception of what’s relative morality. I gave you this definition to work from:

“Meta-ethical relativism is the meta-ethical position that the truth or falsity of moral judgments, or their justification, is not objective or universal but instead relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a group of people.”

…this means that one society acts in a way they think is moral, while that same act is deemed immoral in another society. That is all. Nowhere during our little game was absolute morality implied, but a set of rules was propagated through the beneficial aspects of those rules within a society. Again, without the use of absolutes. In fact, plan B was better than A but later plan C was even better than B, so B was discarded in favor of C. What was absolute about that set of rules?

…now, set D wasn’t inferior because of C but because the society following D suffered. So the value of D was determined by the succes of it’s society, and not by the inherent value of C. I never claimed that was the case, if you recall. Besides, it’s all in quotes anyway…

…so really katz, you still haven’t shown that relative morality is absolute in any way, only that you don’t understand what it really means. scratches head

[ephrem]

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]haney1 wrote:

I have read the eight fold path. I understand the philosophy. I am basing this off of the four noble truths which are before the eight fold path. Specifically noble truth number 2. You can’t let go of earthly entanglements and still have emotion for others.

It is an either or proposition[/quote]

2. The origin of suffering is attachment.

The origin of suffering is attachment to transient things and the ignorance thereof. Transient things do not only include the physical objects that surround us, but also ideas, and -in a greater sense- all objects of our perception. Ignorance is the lack of understanding of how our mind is attached to impermanent things. The reasons for suffering are desire, passion, ardour, pursuit of wealth and prestige, striving for fame and popularity, or in short: craving and clinging. Because the objects of our attachment are transient, their loss is inevitable, thus suffering will necessarily follow. Objects of attachment also include the idea of a “self” which is a delusion, because there is no abiding self. What we call “self” is just an imagined entity, and we are merely a part of the ceaseless becoming of the universe.

http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/fourtruths.html

…there is some truth in how you’ve perceived it, but it’s not the whole truth. If anything, buddhism is about compassion. That is it’s bedrock, and not the aloof, detached, nihilist way you [presumably] make it out to be…
[/quote]

See here is an interesting thing. I never said most buddhist where not compassionate. I only said that the philosophy when brought to its logical conclusion leads to that. Which is what I am presenting. It is clear that the four noble truths and the eight fold path are at a contradiction with each other. Which is something that I am also presenting.

So no there is not some truth to how I have perceived it. It is just Truth. I am not bashing the buddhist in my presentation. I am only stating what the logical conclusion based off of the four truths are.

Now I have heard it argued that to understand eastern religions one must apply dialectic philosophy vs. “the either or” philosophy, but I would contend that idea is inconsistent.
[/quote]

…okay haney, if you feel this way, then so be it, but to me you seem to want to arrive at a preconceived destination for whatever reason…

[katzenjammer]

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…nah, that’s allright. Tell me why you think i’m not a moral relativist based on your little scenario?[/quote]

It’s not that I think you are Eph - you’ve already said as much yourself.

You consistently applied a “yardstick” to assess the relative value of a new idea/principle that you came to via imagination/reason (B.) against the prevailing idea/principle of your own tribe (A.) Finding A. wanting, in accordance with B, you adopted B.

Then, when you encountered another idea/principle (C.) held by another tribe. You applied that same “yardstick” to assess the relative value of this new idea/principle (C.) against the old idea/principle (B.) So you adopted C.

Then, you enountered yet another tribe (the rest of the world, essentially) who live by an idea/principle (D.) Using your “yardstick” you determined that D. is not only inferior; you also determined that you should tell them about C. on the basis of that “yardstick.” Moreover, you seemed quite sure that - give our two assumptions which we can get to - they would readily embrace C.

To sum up, you applied a “yardstick” to a weigh the relative merit of a series of values/ideas; more importantly, you applied that yardstick to another culture, and expected them to implicitly accept that yardstick.

In other words, you act as if this “yardstick” is not relatively true.

In short, relativists of any flavor - much like yourself - are deceiving themselves; relativism contains its own absolutes, often unconciously; and therefore they often go unexamined.

After all, even at the very heart of relativism (“all values are relative”) is an implicitly held absolute value. [/quote]

…thank you for this post katz because i couldn’t have reached this conclusion on my own, for it is based on your misconception of what’s relative morality. I gave you this definition to work from:

“Meta-ethical relativism is the meta-ethical position that the truth or falsity of moral judgments, or their justification, is not objective or universal but instead relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a group of people.”

…this means that one society acts in a way they think is moral, while that same act is deemed immoral in another society. That is all. Nowhere during our little game was absolute morality implied, but a set of rules was propagated through the beneficial aspects of those rules within a society. Again, without the use of absolutes. In fact, plan B was better than A but later plan C was even better than B, so B was discarded in favor of C. What was absolute about that set of rules?

…now, set D wasn’t inferior because of C but because the society following D suffered. So the value of D was determined by the succes of it’s society, and not by the inherent value of C. I never claimed that was the case, if you recall. Besides, it’s all in quotes anyway…

…so really katz, you still haven’t shown that relative morality is absolute in any way, only that you don’t understand what it really means. scratches head[/quote]

Wow, the deception continues - whether intentionally or not; which is why I asked you to interpret the interchange.

I never said that you absolutized A, B., C. or D.

Please tell me where I did.

Throughout you used an absolute measure - across and between ideas; and across and between cultures. We already defined it. Go back and look and stop being such a coward.

[haney1]

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]haney1 wrote:

I have read the eight fold path. I understand the philosophy. I am basing this off of the four noble truths which are before the eight fold path. Specifically noble truth number 2. You can’t let go of earthly entanglements and still have emotion for others.

It is an either or proposition[/quote]

2. The origin of suffering is attachment.

The origin of suffering is attachment to transient things and the ignorance thereof. Transient things do not only include the physical objects that surround us, but also ideas, and -in a greater sense- all objects of our perception. Ignorance is the lack of understanding of how our mind is attached to impermanent things. The reasons for suffering are desire, passion, ardour, pursuit of wealth and prestige, striving for fame and popularity, or in short: craving and clinging. Because the objects of our attachment are transient, their loss is inevitable, thus suffering will necessarily follow. Objects of attachment also include the idea of a “self” which is a delusion, because there is no abiding self. What we call “self” is just an imagined entity, and we are merely a part of the ceaseless becoming of the universe.

http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/fourtruths.html

…there is some truth in how you’ve perceived it, but it’s not the whole truth. If anything, buddhism is about compassion. That is it’s bedrock, and not the aloof, detached, nihilist way you [presumably] make it out to be…
[/quote]

See here is an interesting thing. I never said most buddhist where not compassionate. I only said that the philosophy when brought to its logical conclusion leads to that. Which is what I am presenting. It is clear that the four noble truths and the eight fold path are at a contradiction with each other. Which is something that I am also presenting.

So no there is not some truth to how I have perceived it. It is just Truth. I am not bashing the buddhist in my presentation. I am only stating what the logical conclusion based off of the four truths are.

Now I have heard it argued that to understand eastern religions one must apply dialectic philosophy vs. “the either or” philosophy, but I would contend that idea is inconsistent.
[/quote]

…okay haney, if you feel this way, then so be it, but to me you seem to want to arrive at a preconceived destination for whatever reason…
[/quote]

How am I arriving at a preconceived destination when I am just following the logic of it.

[ephrem]

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…nah, that’s allright. Tell me why you think i’m not a moral relativist based on your little scenario?[/quote]

It’s not that I think you are Eph - you’ve already said as much yourself.

You consistently applied a “yardstick” to assess the relative value of a new idea/principle that you came to via imagination/reason (B.) against the prevailing idea/principle of your own tribe (A.) Finding A. wanting, in accordance with B, you adopted B.

Then, when you encountered another idea/principle (C.) held by another tribe. You applied that same “yardstick” to assess the relative value of this new idea/principle (C.) against the old idea/principle (B.) So you adopted C.

Then, you enountered yet another tribe (the rest of the world, essentially) who live by an idea/principle (D.) Using your “yardstick” you determined that D. is not only inferior; you also determined that you should tell them about C. on the basis of that “yardstick.” Moreover, you seemed quite sure that - give our two assumptions which we can get to - they would readily embrace C.

To sum up, you applied a “yardstick” to a weigh the relative merit of a series of values/ideas; more importantly, you applied that yardstick to another culture, and expected them to implicitly accept that yardstick.

In other words, you act as if this “yardstick” is not relatively true.

In short, relativists of any flavor - much like yourself - are deceiving themselves; relativism contains its own absolutes, often unconciously; and therefore they often go unexamined.

After all, even at the very heart of relativism (“all values are relative”) is an implicitly held absolute value. [/quote]

…thank you for this post katz because i couldn’t have reached this conclusion on my own, for it is based on your misconception of what’s relative morality. I gave you this definition to work from:

“Meta-ethical relativism is the meta-ethical position that the truth or falsity of moral judgments, or their justification, is not objective or universal but instead relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a group of people.”

…this means that one society acts in a way they think is moral, while that same act is deemed immoral in another society. That is all. Nowhere during our little game was absolute morality implied, but a set of rules was propagated through the beneficial aspects of those rules within a society. Again, without the use of absolutes. In fact, plan B was better than A but later plan C was even better than B, so B was discarded in favor of C. What was absolute about that set of rules?

…now, set D wasn’t inferior because of C but because the society following D suffered. So the value of D was determined by the succes of it’s society, and not by the inherent value of C. I never claimed that was the case, if you recall. Besides, it’s all in quotes anyway…

…so really katz, you still haven’t shown that relative morality is absolute in any way, only that you don’t understand what it really means. scratches head[/quote]

Wow, the deception continues - whether intentionally or not; which is why I asked you to interpret the interchange.

I never said that you absolutized A, B., C. or D.

Please tell me where I did.

Throughout you used an absolute measure - across and between ideas; and across and between cultures. We already defined it. Go back and look and stop being such a coward.
[/quote]

…shut up already: the measure was the measure of succes a set of rules had on society. If that is an absolute, okay; succes is an absolute, but that has nothing to do with morality…

[katzenjammer]

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…nah, that’s allright. Tell me why you think i’m not a moral relativist based on your little scenario?[/quote]

It’s not that I think you are Eph - you’ve already said as much yourself.

You consistently applied a “yardstick” to assess the relative value of a new idea/principle that you came to via imagination/reason (B.) against the prevailing idea/principle of your own tribe (A.) Finding A. wanting, in accordance with B, you adopted B.

Then, when you encountered another idea/principle (C.) held by another tribe. You applied that same “yardstick” to assess the relative value of this new idea/principle (C.) against the old idea/principle (B.) So you adopted C.

Then, you enountered yet another tribe (the rest of the world, essentially) who live by an idea/principle (D.) Using your “yardstick” you determined that D. is not only inferior; you also determined that you should tell them about C. on the basis of that “yardstick.” Moreover, you seemed quite sure that - give our two assumptions which we can get to - they would readily embrace C.

To sum up, you applied a “yardstick” to a weigh the relative merit of a series of values/ideas; more importantly, you applied that yardstick to another culture, and expected them to implicitly accept that yardstick.

In other words, you act as if this “yardstick” is not relatively true.

In short, relativists of any flavor - much like yourself - are deceiving themselves; relativism contains its own absolutes, often unconciously; and therefore they often go unexamined.

After all, even at the very heart of relativism (“all values are relative”) is an implicitly held absolute value. [/quote]

…thank you for this post katz because i couldn’t have reached this conclusion on my own, for it is based on your misconception of what’s relative morality. I gave you this definition to work from:

“Meta-ethical relativism is the meta-ethical position that the truth or falsity of moral judgments, or their justification, is not objective or universal but instead relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a group of people.”

…this means that one society acts in a way they think is moral, while that same act is deemed immoral in another society. That is all. Nowhere during our little game was absolute morality implied, but a set of rules was propagated through the beneficial aspects of those rules within a society. Again, without the use of absolutes. In fact, plan B was better than A but later plan C was even better than B, so B was discarded in favor of C. What was absolute about that set of rules?

…now, set D wasn’t inferior because of C but because the society following D suffered. So the value of D was determined by the succes of it’s society, and not by the inherent value of C. I never claimed that was the case, if you recall. Besides, it’s all in quotes anyway…

…so really katz, you still haven’t shown that relative morality is absolute in any way, only that you don’t understand what it really means. scratches head[/quote]

Wow, the deception continues - whether intentionally or not; which is why I asked you to interpret the interchange.

I never said that you absolutized A, B., C. or D.

Please tell me where I did.

Throughout you used an absolute measure - across and between ideas; and across and between cultures. We already defined it. Go back and look and stop being such a coward.
[/quote]

…shut up already: the measure was the measure of succes a set of rules had on society. If that is an absolute, okay; succes is an absolute, but that has nothing to do with morality…
[/quote]

1. You expressed a value;

2. We both agreed to define it as your “yardstick”;

3. You applied that value to assess the relative merit of ideas/principles;

4. You applied that value to another culture;

5. You introduced changes into the culture on the basis of that value;

6. You expected that culture to accept those changes on the basis of that value;

7. Therefore, you proceeded as if that value is not relative.

Now, do you want to talk about the two assumptions we put aside?

[dmaddox]

Come on guys lets give Ephrem some breathing room. He has been honest in his answers, and we need to respect that.

Unless Ephrem you are ok with all the questions then I will just shut up and stay out of this.

[Tiribulus]

[quote]ephrem wrote:
<<<…this means that one society acts in a way they think is moral, while that same act is deemed immoral in another society. That is all. >>><<<

<<< …now, set D wasn’t inferior because of C but because the society following D suffered. So the value of D was determined by the success of it’s society, >>>[/quote]You really don’t see that this entire line of reasoning is mortally dependent on presupposed content for terms such as “suffering” and “success”? That as soon as you deny the absolute nature of that content you by that very intellectual act also deny any real substance to “C” and “D”? You honestly do not recognize this?

[ephrem]

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

1. You expressed a value;[/quote]

…will a new set of rules benefit society?

2. We both agreed to define it as your “yardstick”;

…the yardstick is the subsequent succes of the new set…

3. You applied that value to assess the relative merit of ideas/principles;

…was there a benefit, or not? That was the assessment…

4. You applied that value to another culture;

…“i see you’re suffering. Try this, perhaps you’ll do better”…

5. You introduced changes into the culture on the basis of that value;

…“hey, it’s working! Stick with it, i’d say”…

6. You expected that culture to accept those changes on the basis of that value;

…no, it was up to them if they wanted to remain succesful or not. It wasn’t my call…

7. Therefore, you proceeded as if that value is not relative.

…no, the only value the set of new rules had was its succes, not my opinion of its value…

Now, do you want to talk about the two assumptions we put aside?

…i don’t know katz, it seems you have trouble keeping track of what we’re actually discussing, and you go off on your own tangents expecting me to follow suit. Play fair, and i play along, otherwise i’m out…

[ephrem]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
<<<…this means that one society acts in a way they think is moral, while that same act is deemed immoral in another society. That is all. >>><<<

<<< …now, set D wasn’t inferior because of C but because the society following D suffered. So the value of D was determined by the success of it’s society, >>>[/quote]You really don’t see that this entire line of reasoning is mortally dependent on presupposed content for terms such as “suffering” and “success”? That as soon as you deny the absolute nature of that content you by that very intellectual act also deny any real substance to “C” and “D”? You honestly do not recognize this?[/quote]

…what has that to do with morality? We might disagree what a succesful society constitutes and what a failing society constitutes, but in- and of itself this has nothing to do with morality…