Printable View
i was reffering to this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
i just wanted to say that in the realm that the discussion about morals takes place i believe only absolute certainty will do. in the realm that morals are actually used... its not so neccesary.Quote:
Basically lack of absolute certainty is only a problem if only absolute certainty will do
I don't see why you believe that :)Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
well i believe that objectivity cannot be achieved. but when you say that morals are objective and murder, rape, lying, wearing fur is always wrong no matter how some cultures or some eras have thought about it, then you will need to have absolute certainty because you are talking about absolute and universal values. and if you claim those values are objective no matter what than you gotta prove your claim beyond all reasonable doubt because if you dont it can always be asked How do you know that what you say is the truth and can you prove it to be so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
the problem is that none of the traditional answers hold up if you are really critical.
the culture relavist theory fails but the surface difference theory fails as well because the fact the it happens to be so that all the current cultures and as far as we know also the past cultures only differ on the surface this doesnt mean that a (human/reasonable) culture in which the morals are radically different could not exist
then you have the veneer theory which is at war with the biology/social animal theory etc etc
It's objective whether I'm sitting on a chair or not but I don't need absolute certainty in order to be justified in claiming that I am sitting on a chair. And if I am justified in believing it and it's true then I know that I am sitting on a chair. So clearly I can know things without having absolute, Cartesian certainty. So I can also know that murder is wrong. The possibility of moral knowledge is what's important.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
you are talking about justification while i am talking about truth. ofcourse you are justified to belief something without having absolute certainty but you cannot know the absolute truth if you do not have absolute certainty. so you cannot make the absolute claim that morals are objective as long as you cannot refute humes skeptiscism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
however in your day to day life you do not have to take it into account with everything you do, that would be impossible.
whether you are justified in believing something is something else than whether what you believe is true.
because with the chair i can counter with the following
you see yourself sitting in a chair, (lets agree that this is enough justification to claim that you are sitting in a chair) so you are justified in believing that you sit in a chair, yet actually you are a brain in a vat and a scientist had stimulated you the belief that you are sitting in a chair and has stimulated you the vision that you see yourself sitting in a chair. so even though you are justified in believing that you sit in a chair you dont know that you sit in a chair because you are not sitting in a chair but you are a brain in a vat. and since you can never know for 100% that you are not a brain in a vat (even though its highly unlikely that you are) you can never absolutely know that you sit in a chair.
That's not true TS...absolute certainty is not required for absolute truth. Isn't it absolutely true that the sun is bigger than the earth? I can't I know that the sun is bigger than the earth? But I can't be absolutely certain.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
mind you, "absolute truth" is not a phrase I use often.
how is it absolutely true that the sun is bigger than the earth? it would only be absolutely true if it was the definition of the sun that it was bigger than the earth. and if you know that it is absolutely true than i dont see how you cant be absolutely certain. and if you say that you cant be absolutely certain i dont see how you can know it to be absolutely true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
We started out this thread using absolute truth in the manner of universal truth. Can you define it? Because it seems like a nebulous concept the way you are using it and I don't see what the relevance to morality is...Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
That the sun is big is true relative to the earth, that the sun is bigger than the earth is true absolutely (without being relative to anything). That's how the word makes sense to me.
i dont see how you can prove that it is impossible that all the scientists have been wrong and that in fact the sun is not much bigger than it appears to us. its unlikely, i dont believe it myself, but it is a possibility. and even though it might be absolutely true that the sun is bigger than the earth, you cannot be absolutely certain thus i believe you cannot absolutely know it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
and indeed weve kinda strayed to epistomology and its only indirectly relevant to morals, or better said to the issue if we could ever make an objective claim, which includes the claim of an objective morality.
i think it could best be explained that an absolute truth is a truth which is both universal and eternal. universal truth would mean true for everyone at a given point and eternal truth would be a truth that is always true. and if you would combine such a truth you would get an absolute truth which is always true for everyone.
But I feel like we've moved the yardstick...before we were talking about whether we can know an absolute truth without being absolutely certain, not about "absolutely knowing". Just plain knowing is fine. Like, I can be justified and believing something about the sun. And if it's true I know it, if it isn't I don't. Whether the scientists can prove it or not is not important.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
Well, morals as we are talking about have to do with humans, so I guess we have strayed.Quote:
i think it could best be explained that an absolute truth is a truth which is both universal and eternal. universal truth would mean true for everyone at a given point and eternal truth would be a truth that is always true. and if you would combine such a truth you would get an absolute truth which is always true for everyone.
Although, I am generally cynical about the style of philosophy that focuses on trying to show that we can't know anything, can't prove anything, can't be absolutely certain etc. It just smells like they aren't engaged with any real world problems, or are using it selectively to argue against something they don't like.
it actually is important, because when you think you know something for certain reasons, and it happens to be true for different reasons, than you do not actually know it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
and about the absolute part i think we have been talking on different levels all along. you talk of knowledge of something which happens to be an absolute truth and ive been talking about knowing something to be absolutely true. you can indeed be justified in believing an absolute truth and by the daily definitions of knowing you can also know an absolute truth.
mind you that i'm actually not defending my own point of view, im more a common sense kinda guy but i think that for the sake of clarity and consistency on this philosophical level we should be more rigoruous.Quote:
Well, morals as we are talking about have to do with humans, so I guess we have strayed.
Although, I am generally cynical about the style of philosophy that focuses on trying to show that we can't know anything, can't prove anything, can't be absolutely certain etc. It just smells like they aren't engaged with any real world problems, or are using it selectively to argue against something they don't like.
and the entire problem of not being able to know anything beyond all doubt has to do with the prerequisite of truth in order for someone to know it. ive been trying to develop a notion of knowing which only involves justification because we can also know things which are not true (even though you could just read that as a negative statement of a positive fact). its a tough challenge.
I don't mean to revive a semi old thread for kicks, but I figured this article I read would be a nice revival of conversation about the subject and by posting here maintain a continuity that would be broken if I just made a new thread about it.
French interior minister says that not all civilizations are equal.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe...625127900.html
You disagree with that then? Of course some civilisations are inferior to others.
No, I don't disagree at all. I think interactions between civilizations is important so that good ideas can be shared and bad ideas identified, but I don't particularly care for leniency towards bad ideas from other cultures to promote harmony.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Fragony is correct and it can be easily proved.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
After all isn't the society of today in most countries better then it was a hundred years ago in that same country. Longer lifespan, higher education, more freedoms, greater range of foodstuffs, less infant mortalities.
So whilst it might be impolite to compare societies on a spatial level, it is ok to compare our own society over time.
There are no metrics that would be agreed by everyone from all times, and no weighting of metrics. It is better based on what you have described, but there might be those who would think it worse by other measurements.
~:smoking:
That.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Ask a capitalist about it and then go and ask a greenpeace activist.
It depends on what equality you want to test for.
Most civilizations aren't equal in most aspects but if you can weigh up military prowess with environmental protection, some bushmen may be right up there with the US culture.
Could you even say the US has/have (is it one state or 50?) one culture or is it multicultural?
Lol. Ask evangelical christians whether gay marriage was good, and then ask gay people! They won't agree! How significant!Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
WHAT METRIC COULD WE POSSIBLE USE
Amount of colonies?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Question: What does it matter if people don't agree on a metric to measure by?
There is a whole range of metrics as we are looking at the span of human life. The most easiest to measure is life span.
Like any scientific measurement you have a +/- range attached and in some countries that data is going to be more fuzzy... And probably a correlation to how dangerous that country is as not even birth records are viable.
Greenpeace can whine until they choke on their on anti scientific hubris. 3% of the worlds energy budget goes into fixing nitrogen into the worlds soils. The science of agriculture and chemistry have allowed a true green revolution that has tripled our ability to feed people. Greenpeace is blocking as much of this as possible in the GMO sphere.
Anyhow lots of data for human life can be used. Main thing is to look at the trends and vectors. Human lifespan has doubled for most people in the last hundred years.
You loose. :tongue:Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
No, wait...we all loose. :skull:
That everybody will see a different culture as superior?Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Back to the roots people will think the culture of indians living with nature iss superior to all others.
Most people would probably think the USA ahave the best culture as the USA are rich and powerful.
Other people would believe that that's a horrible culture full of pressure and stress and that a more relaxed culture is far superior.
what if two countries have a similar lifespan but a completely different culture? Does that make these countries equal? And what about countries where people are sick all the time but held alive by chemistry and machines, does that sound like a great culture to everyone?Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Does that mean culture has improved or science has made progress? Is scientific progress the measure for the value of a culture?Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
And yes Vladimir, we all lose, British culture is the best because it conquered the most other cultures, thus showing it's superiority.
As a single value lifespan is potentially the most accurate and telling rule of thumb. Then you can add other measurements to get a much better grasp.
I'm sure a ranking of countries lifespan and freedoms would have a high correlation.
Also I think comparison of countries is fine. If all countries are equal then refugees have no legitimate claim.
he is right.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
not much, the fact that it is difficult (for reasons mentioned above), does nothing to dissuade me from the principle of weighing merits of different cultures.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Imho you can absolutely do that. it's just an equation of benefits to conclude that western civilisation is superior to others.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Yes, of course, it's easy to take my own values and then judge everybody else by them, and then what's the point?
They can judge me by their values and then we bash eachother's heads in or discuss it until the end of times?
Sure not all cultures are equal, but he might have just as well said the sky is blue and everybody would agree.
Not all cultures are equal the same as not all viewpoints are equal.
You certainly have the right to live in a certain culture or hold a certain view but thats the height of it.
go on Dara explain it for everyone (some cursing)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHVVKAKWXcg
Does there have to be a point to a mere observation? Who is really making a point with cultural relativation, it simply isn't true that cultures are equal we are in various degrees of development. Had he said that that cultures CAN'T be equal it would have been something different entirely. The outrage over this is absurd although I don't intend to have a beer to the people he said it toQuote:
Originally Posted by Husar
I have a few absolute truths