Absolutes vs. relativism/perception
Posted by flanap 12 years, 4 months ago to Philosophy
An original comment from a prior post to give this some flavor:
I am so thankful that this forum is more inclined toward those that can think vs. emote.
That being said, perhaps we can step up above the tangible solutions and think more about where this behavior starts (the behavior of the taking of innocent blood, then immediate subsequent suicide).
Doesn't it start with the thinking? Why would the perpetrator's thinking be this way? Are we all capable of this, or only those we deem are "insane," or "mentally ill?" Are all those who take innocent blood "mentally ill?"
I will say, and likely will get vehement disagreement, that since we are further and further from believing and acting as though there are absolutes, this type of behavior is entirely possible and accepted.
What do I mean "accepted?" Well, when children are taught more and more that they evolved from primordial stew based on chance time and circumstances, then all we are is a bag of reacting and responding chemicals which means the setting of standards for behavior are societal and cultural and not from an extraneous source such as God.
You cannot have it both ways. Even when Ms. Rand promoted objectivism, she stated the highest ideal is the value of man's ability to think and must always act in consistency with what his thinking lead him to. Well, doesn't that mean that if this perpetrator sought to destroy innocent blood as his highest ideal, isn't that okay? Who is to say that isn't okay, especially if we are just a bag of chemicals.
All in all, you have to either believe there are absolutes, or not and if so, they cannot come from yourself because no one's determination of an absolute from himself can be applied to others since how is one to know what absolute is suitable for another and what is suitable right?
Only absolutes come from God and when you start there and believe that man has the highest living value in this world because he is in God's image and only God, which is the Creator and can legitimately add or remove life, then you can begin to build a society who realizes that taking innocent life, no matter how many and how often, is (and may I be so bold to say it) simply wrong.
I am so thankful that this forum is more inclined toward those that can think vs. emote.
That being said, perhaps we can step up above the tangible solutions and think more about where this behavior starts (the behavior of the taking of innocent blood, then immediate subsequent suicide).
Doesn't it start with the thinking? Why would the perpetrator's thinking be this way? Are we all capable of this, or only those we deem are "insane," or "mentally ill?" Are all those who take innocent blood "mentally ill?"
I will say, and likely will get vehement disagreement, that since we are further and further from believing and acting as though there are absolutes, this type of behavior is entirely possible and accepted.
What do I mean "accepted?" Well, when children are taught more and more that they evolved from primordial stew based on chance time and circumstances, then all we are is a bag of reacting and responding chemicals which means the setting of standards for behavior are societal and cultural and not from an extraneous source such as God.
You cannot have it both ways. Even when Ms. Rand promoted objectivism, she stated the highest ideal is the value of man's ability to think and must always act in consistency with what his thinking lead him to. Well, doesn't that mean that if this perpetrator sought to destroy innocent blood as his highest ideal, isn't that okay? Who is to say that isn't okay, especially if we are just a bag of chemicals.
All in all, you have to either believe there are absolutes, or not and if so, they cannot come from yourself because no one's determination of an absolute from himself can be applied to others since how is one to know what absolute is suitable for another and what is suitable right?
Only absolutes come from God and when you start there and believe that man has the highest living value in this world because he is in God's image and only God, which is the Creator and can legitimately add or remove life, then you can begin to build a society who realizes that taking innocent life, no matter how many and how often, is (and may I be so bold to say it) simply wrong.
The role of government must include such-or you end up in the Trap. Most of the African nations. They are constantly dealing with famine. This is not due drought, lack of resources or even lack of education. This is a lack of property rights. why build a road when someone can come along and destroy it? why farm, why build a medical clinic, why become a doctor? If what you build is not protected from looters, you will eventually stop building or you will never start. I guess some might say, well what about the noble savage? There is no evidence to support such. Look at the two words-they are a contradiction in themselves. you have to suspend one set of assumptions about what a savage is to call him noble. You have to suspend another set of assumptions in order to see a savage as noble. A is A
1 Corithians 2:7, Eccles 1:5
and I can keep going
Let's take your statement that "the whole definition of God is that you can't know Him." Forgive me, but this makes no sense.
Whose definition is that? I go back to my earlier inquiry addressing when did man evolve to the point of thinking of God (assuming evolution is valid).
I completely understand that if I say that God has revealed Himself to us, then you would say..prove it. Well, there is general and special revelation. General - the heavens, earth and the fact that you and I are conscious beings (if you say that God didn't create us, then we are a bag of chemicals from evolutionary means because you cannot avoid the discussion of origins). Special revelation is His Word, the Bible. I know you can ask how do we know those Words in the Bible are what God intended to reveal to us. Well, a study of the Bible shows it is a collection of books, statements, words, etc.... that the ability for man to put together the way it is is a statistical improbability, to put it succinctly.
I would argue that those shutting themselves off from the idea that God may exist (to them...to me God does exist) are taking a weaker philosophical position in any discussion.
Doesn't Objectivism's reasoning have the ability to develop God as a concept and perhaps a reality? Why does man's ability to reason within himself have to restrict his conclusions to only that which is within the realm of man? There are a lot of things that were undiscovered at certain points in history which are outside of man, but now "reason" would claim them because they happen to be discovered now.
Once you enter society, responsibilities accompany those rights. Namely, self-restraint. You might have the right to yell fire in a crowded theater, but that doesn't mean you should.
You're absolutely right. We need a justice system.
Out of curiosity, when you say an organized society needs to protect those rights, are you referring to individuals or to the role of government? Or both? I'm not disputing either, I was just wondering, to better put that in context.
You might have the ability to acquire property, and defend what you see is yours, but without an organized society that protects those rights or has a system to settle disputes you and yours will go through generations of smacking against the Malthusian trap. Exponential increases in knowledge and wealth happen in societies where they organize to address those issues.
Load more comments...