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.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
Natural rights are those that are inherent in your existence. You exist. You have the right to your existence and you have a right to defend your existence, all that it takes to sustain that existence, and all the production of your existence. Others have the same. They are therefore individual. They are not collective.
“Rights” are a moral concept—the concept that provides a logical transition from principles guiding an individual’s actions to the principles guiding his relationship with others—the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social context—the link between the moral code of man and the legal code of society, between ethics and politics. Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law.” Ayn Rand, TVOS, p.108.
Natural rights do not depend upon any one persons perception they are universal; they are not subject to delusions of impaired persons. They are not dependent upon law, beliefs, or culture. They are independent, universal and inalienable. They are recognized by every rational person, and based on reason and the rights of all, to exist, to life and liberty.
Respectfully,
O.A.
and maybe add in those who believe that we are surrounded by invisible beings that have supernatural powers....
Let's look at what you just quoted from LP. If "there is no nothing," then he at least supports the eternity of something...that is a slippery slope on the way to God, else, how do you account for the eternity of something?
"Faith in the supernatural begins as faith in the superiority of others." *AR
However, when you're talking about something such as rights, you can use the words interchangeably depending on your audience. For example, if I were describing them to you, I would prefer to say God-given rights. When discussing them with an atheist, it would be more efficient to say natural rights.
And I don't mean nature as in pretty trees and waterfalls and all that. I mean... what is, what exists. You would say God. I think someone else referred to "reality." I always like the term "Natural Law." It's hard for me to explain. I'm sorry.
Load more comments...