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 3.
How about this?
There is a man and a woman on the earth and only them two (have to have a man and a woman for procreative purposes). If they both agree that murder is wrong, then is that an absolute intrinsically or extrinsically? If you say intrinsically, then you are saying that murder is wrong absolutely because it just is; if you say extrinsically, then you are saying since they both agreed to it, then it is absolute.
I think you would say it is just as absolute either way; however, I would not because who is to say that the next day they change their mind? You cannot; however, assuming God made it wrong and He never changes, then regardless of their decision making, then it is still wrong.
No. Not right.
"We" don't really know. I do. I have a cousin in the FBI.
I agree with jmlesniewski's explanation of why it isn't okay. It goes back to Jefferson's statement, "I have a right to nothing which another has a right to take away." You have the right to life--that is an absolute. Infringing that right, no matter how much thinking one does to explain it, is not okay.
I do believe in God, but your explanation confuses me a bit. Atheists don't necessarily think that people determine absolutes. Just replace the word "God" with "Nature" and you have the same argument.
"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 have created a false dichotomy. The "setting of standards of behavior" is not only done by society/culture or god.
"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?"
No, it's not ok because it takes away another person's ability to think.
"Who is to say that isn't okay, especially if we are just a bag of chemicals."
I say it based on reality. Your second clause is completely unnecessary to your first. Why slide it in there? It makes it seem like you are snidely deriding anyone who opposes you as seeing life as meaningless.
"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."
Absolutes come from reality because there can be no reality without absolutes. A tree is a tree. When it snows, it is snowing. Where did those rules come from? They always were because there could nothing without them,