:loco:
evolved? evolved?!?!??! thanks for bringing your expertise into this thread. we were lost without you!
http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/natural.html
or you could also go to http://google.com
the assertion of relativism/subjectivism is that no one is ever wrong or right, in consequence this means that no deed can ever be considered wrong or right. according to this you as someone perpetuating this bold but ultimately shortsighted claim, can not be wrong or right either, throwing every form of logical consistency right out the window, begging the question as why i should even bother listening to you.
you can’t rule out the existence of validity within the realm of relativism as relativism validates all ethical beliefs by default and at the same time eradicates any perceived incompatibility between them, meaning the ethics of a racist become compatible with those of an anti-racist, the ethics of a child molester become compatible with those of an anti-child molester, the ethics of a rapist become compatible with those of an anti-rapist etc. sounds great doesn’t it?
utilizing the reductio ad absurdum, this means that should you be molested, raped, tortured, held captive forever, beaten, partially eaten, drugged or stolen from - the perpetrator was neither right nor wrong in doing so, meaning any objections against said actions from you will be pointless as they are just a reflection of your opinions about not wanting to experience any of these things.
the perpetrator can not be judged or held accountable for their actions and you won’t be protected as relativism puts the abused on the same level as the abuser, attesting equal validity to both of their claims, judging neither.
relativism claims to take no ethical stance, while taking an ethical stance.
the core of your reasoning is based on a non sequitur fallacy, as the mere fact that different people will fundamentally differ in their attitudes towards things, can not, by itself, entail that there is no ethical appraisals whatsoever which are more justified than others.
nor can you conclude from this that all ethical reasonings or methods are of equal justification. in order to be consequential with your reasoning you’d have to brush off logic as subjective too, proving you don’t know what science means.
the fact that individuals, cultures, societies do differ also does not mean that there are no universally accepted values, or at least something like a uniformity of disproval of certain actions, at all or that the possibility to further expand on them does not exist.
promise breaking as well as certain acts of cruelty and even homicide are almost universally frowned upon, which is sensible as social cohesion is a necessary condition in order for human societies to survive.
anyway, given a minimal degree of open mindedness and rational discourse, even a disagreement over principles can be resolved.
i don’t get why this even has to be argued when subjectivism is not even a coherent theory to begin with, it’s circular reasoning:
makes so much sense, i’ll go back to eat a steak sandwich. you’ve truly shown me the light, not.
in closing, your claim that moral/ethical issues are only matters of subjective opinion with no other justification begs the question as why i should consider this to be a serious retort to my ethics at all. if it lacks relevance, it can’t serve as counter-argument to anyone who would provide a justification for their ethical stance.
if it’s intended to destroy all ethics but your own, then it becomes its own ethics and thus begs further justification other than “it’s my subjective opinion that all ethical views are subjective”.
moral relativism/ethical subjectivism remains defeatist bullshit that perpetuates oppression while hindering progression. it is little more than a pseudo enlightened cop-out of everything you could be held accountable for. hipster philosophy for sociopaths.
evolved? evolved?!?!??! thanks for bringing your expertise into this thread. we were lost without you!
http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/natural.html
or you could also go to http://google.com
the assertion of relativism/subjectivism is that no one is ever wrong or right, in consequence this means that no deed can ever be considered wrong or right. according to this you as someone perpetuating this bold but ultimately shortsighted claim, can not be wrong or right either, throwing every form of logical consistency right out the window, begging the question as why i should even bother listening to you.
you can’t rule out the existence of validity within the realm of relativism as relativism validates all ethical beliefs by default and at the same time eradicates any perceived incompatibility between them, meaning the ethics of a racist become compatible with those of an anti-racist, the ethics of a child molester become compatible with those of an anti-child molester, the ethics of a rapist become compatible with those of an anti-rapist etc. sounds great doesn’t it?
utilizing the reductio ad absurdum, this means that should you be molested, raped, tortured, held captive forever, beaten, partially eaten, drugged or stolen from - the perpetrator was neither right nor wrong in doing so, meaning any objections against said actions from you will be pointless as they are just a reflection of your opinions about not wanting to experience any of these things.
the perpetrator can not be judged or held accountable for their actions and you won’t be protected as relativism puts the abused on the same level as the abuser, attesting equal validity to both of their claims, judging neither.
relativism claims to take no ethical stance, while taking an ethical stance.
the core of your reasoning is based on a non sequitur fallacy, as the mere fact that different people will fundamentally differ in their attitudes towards things, can not, by itself, entail that there is no ethical appraisals whatsoever which are more justified than others.
nor can you conclude from this that all ethical reasonings or methods are of equal justification. in order to be consequential with your reasoning you’d have to brush off logic as subjective too, proving you don’t know what science means.
the fact that individuals, cultures, societies do differ also does not mean that there are no universally accepted values, or at least something like a uniformity of disproval of certain actions, at all or that the possibility to further expand on them does not exist.
promise breaking as well as certain acts of cruelty and even homicide are almost universally frowned upon, which is sensible as social cohesion is a necessary condition in order for human societies to survive.
anyway, given a minimal degree of open mindedness and rational discourse, even a disagreement over principles can be resolved.
i don’t get why this even has to be argued when subjectivism is not even a coherent theory to begin with, it’s circular reasoning:
i’m right, because i think i’m right.
why is it right?
because i think i’m right. duh.
why is it right?
because i think i’m right. duh.
in closing, your claim that moral/ethical issues are only matters of subjective opinion with no other justification begs the question as why i should consider this to be a serious retort to my ethics at all. if it lacks relevance, it can’t serve as counter-argument to anyone who would provide a justification for their ethical stance.
if it’s intended to destroy all ethics but your own, then it becomes its own ethics and thus begs further justification other than “it’s my subjective opinion that all ethical views are subjective”.
moral relativism/ethical subjectivism remains defeatist bullshit that perpetuates oppression while hindering progression. it is little more than a pseudo enlightened cop-out of everything you could be held accountable for. hipster philosophy for sociopaths.
Comment