Absolutism, Relativism, Informed Relativism

[dsanthony]

Someone on this forum called me a "moral relativist" today. There's the problem... he meant it as an insult, I took it as a compliment.

A bit of background. Abolutism is defined by MW as "advocacy of a rule by absolute standards or principles." Such absolute standards come from dogmatic belief--whether in revealed religion, or political/social philosphies like democracy or communism. Absolutists believe there is an absolute superior view of the world.

Relativism is "a: a theory that knowledge is relative to the limited nature of the mind and the conditions of knowing b : a view that ethical truths depend on the individuals and groups holding them." This appears to be the opposite of absolutism. Truth is not dispensed by god, or found in the theorems of any "ism", but is contingent upon circumstance.

Before I go on... let me say that most "liberals" are not relativists--though they try to pass themselves off as such. They are as convinced as anyone that their truth is absolute. What passes for relativism is really a political choice to take the part of any group or philosophy which opposes the "eurocentric, patriarchal, judeo-christian" society.

But for me, neither absolutism or relativism is all-encompassing. I reject the idea of a revealed truth--whether from scripture or philosophy. I'm with Emerson who says that nothing is sacred but the integrity of one's mind.

I also reject relativism, the idea that all cultures are valid interpretations and can only be judged by their own standards. That is as evil and idea as absolutism.

I tag my belief as informed relativism. I know that all culture and belief is conditioned. But, I also know that some cultures, values and truths are superior to others.

Thus, I do not have to condemn Hindus as pagans, but I also do not have to accept many of their practices, such as the suicide or forced suicide of widows, or the belief in "untouchables." I can respect honorable muslim beliefs, but I can reject the jihadists (without the apology made by most libs that 'they're at war with us because of our policies'".

In practice, this means that, unlike dogmatic liberals, I can honestly assess cultures and individuals. If I find a culture or belief to be abhorrent or violent, I can reject that belief and criticize those who practice that culture.

[dsanthony]

To stir the pot... Here's a "hierarchy" of cultures. Based upon social standards and economic/technical acheivement. Of course, this is a snapshot of aggregate or the average level of culture. Hollywood drops America below Japan, for instance.

Western Europe
North America
Japan/Korea
Eastern Europe
China & Asia (including India)
Middle East
Africa
Tribal societies

[Rider]

dsanthony, you've gone to so much effort on this thread, I feel compelled to answer. I can't find anything in your piece with which I disagree.

[dsanthony]

thanks...

[Labrocca]

Pretty good post Anthony. Nice to read some of you views.

[AlonzoMourning23]

I tag my belief as informed relativism. I know that all culture and belief is conditioned. But, I also know that some cultures, values and truths are superior to others.

This is the part that doesn't make sense. If you believe all culture and beliefs are conditioned, how can you believe that you can be an honest judge of a certain value, culture or truth is superior to another? By your own words it appears that you believe that your way of seeing the world is the result of social conditioning from your culture, which would in turn paint the way you see other cultures.

You're claiming to use a biased perspective, yet simultaneously claiming to be able to tell which is superior from the use of that biased perspective.

The way you are describing your opinion doesn't make sense.

[dsanthony]

It makes absolutely clear sense. Having insight does not have to lead to being rudderless and impotent. Just because it led you down that path, doesn't mean I have to follow.

To paraphrase Emerson (you know, the Self Reliance guy... you wouldn't like him) I will stand firmly and say loudly what I beleive today, even if it should contradict everything I have said in the past. I am a man. Moreover, I am an intelligent and enlightened man. I have standards that I apply to myself and others.

[dsanthony]

Pretty good post Anthony.Â*Â*Nice to read some of you views.


Thank you.

[AlonzoMourning23]

It makes absolutely clear sense.Â*Â*Having insight does not have to lead to being rudderless and impotent.Â*Â*Just because it led you down that path, doesn't mean I have to follow.

To paraphrase Emerson (you know, the Self Reliance guy... you wouldn't like him) I will stand firmly and say loudly what I beleive today, even if it should contradict everything I have said in the past.Â*Â*I am a man. Moreover, I am an intelligent and enlightened man.Â*Â*I have standards that I apply to myself and others.


Maybe if you could put aside the attacks you could actually answer the question? You just said it makes sense, and then went off on a rant unrelated to it.

[Athena]

A bit of background. Abolutism is defined by MW as "advocacy of a rule by absolute standards or principles." Such absolute standards come from dogmatic belief--whether in revealed religion, or political/social philosphies like democracy or communism. Absolutists believe there is an absolute superior view of the world.

Relativism is "a: a theory that knowledge is relative to the limited nature of the mind and the conditions of knowing b : a view that ethical truths depend on the individuals and groups holding them." This appears to be the opposite of absolutism. Truth is not dispensed by god, or found in the theorems of any "ism", but is contingent upon circumstance.

You missed something.Â*Â*In democracy, the way to determine absolute truth is through science and debate.Â*Â*At all times, people's understanding of truth is limited by their knowledge, and because democracy is an on going debate, that knowledge can continually increased and the concepts of absolute truth change.Â*Â*

I really want to make a point here.Â*Â*If my reasoning is ever wrong, anyone with better reasoning can prove me wrong.Â*Â*That is what I thought these forums were about.Â*Â*However, attacking me for what I say is not equal to providing better reasoning.Â*Â*Everyone's critisim of me for believing I know truth is exactly correct.Â*Â*What is the point of me saying anything if I didn't believe that?Â*Â*However, I also know I know ever little, and there is a good chance someone who knows more will prove me wrong.Â*Â*Then my absolute truth will change.Â*Â*Hey, that is what democracy is about, and why it is better than religion, where truth is frozen in the past.Â*Â*That is why I was attracted to Democracy Forums.

Unfortunately, that isn't going to happen in these forums, because rarely is anyone informed before making a comment.Â*Â*Instead of addressing the subject, people are making personal attacks and even the owner of the forums does so, and intentionally shoves something a person says is offensive, in that person's face, flaunting it, deliberately irritating the person.Â*Â* This is extremely immature.Â*Â*So beyond being an absolutest or a relativist, there is this element of maturity.Â*Â*The older we get, the easier it is to admit how much we don't know, and therefore, the more likely it is we will try to find out so when we speak we do have a sense of knowing what we are talking about.Â*Â*This is very different from attacking people for what they are saying, but the owner of these forums who makes and enforces the rules, does not understand the difference.Â*Â*What a good example of a tyrant and why the US once stood against this.Â*Â*Today, posters defend the rights of tyrants.Â*Â*

By the way, I notice dsanthony began with a double post. Did you warn him this is a violation of the rules?

[dsanthony]

Well, athena, you need to let that argument go. I've had a long argument with alonzo, and finally decided to just ignore any posts he writes. You should do the same if someone is aggravating you.

As for the rest of your post... you seem to be confusing the meaning of "absolute" truth. An absolute truth cannot change. God wrote the ten commandments, or he didn't. Science does not have absolute truths, so far as theories are always open to being proven untrue.

But, your idea that "science" has anything to do with democracy is a bit idealistic. The two are actually mutually exclusive. Look no further than the evolution debate. The majority of Americans may disagree with evolution, and not want it taught to their children. In a strict democracy, they would vote to ban evolution, or at least allow alternative theories. But science is not democratic, and scientists dictate the cirriculum.

If science is marginally democratic, it is a democracy open to a very select few members. An oligarchy, rather than a democracy.

[tony mitra]

Interesting comments here, about science, evolution, school curriculum, democracy and oligarchy, absolutism and relativism.

I was ready say I disagree, but then changed my mind, relatively speaking. It is possible that above comments are true and the same time false. In other words, what is truce for some sections of an American soceity, regarding its schools, its perceptions about science and religion and about origin of mankind, might not be true for another section of America, or indeed other parts of the world.

So, one might say that nothing is absolute, relatively speaking, including absolutism, except for the cases where it is, indeed, relatively absolute or absolutely relative.:sadly:

And there is "absolutely" no way (except for those exceptions, which are themselves absolutely exceptional), that I would like to get into personal attacks because someone else is more (or less) absolute or relative, than me, even if he or she is my relative.:dizzy:

[preservanation]

So, one might say that nothing is absolute, relatively speaking, including absolutism, except for the cases where it is, indeed, relatively absolute or absolutely relative.Are you trying to give me seizures on purpose?

[David Hume]

I am an absolute relativist.

[preservanation]

That is a definite maybe.