Multiculturalism is dead

**The Stranger** · 11-11-2010, 17:54

well hume was aware that radical skeptiscism is highly unpractical, and therefor not useable in day to day life. but were now discussing the absolutes, the foundations of our morals and then i think we should take his skeptiscism into account.

**Sasaki Kojiro** · 11-11-2010, 19:55

Originally Posted by The Stranger

well hume was aware that radical skeptiscism is highly unpractical, and therefor not useable in day to day life. but were now discussing the absolutes, the foundations of our morals and then i think we should take his skeptiscism into account.

In what way aren't we taking it into account?

**Rhyfelwyr** · 11-11-2010, 21:57

Diversity festival to accompany 2-minute silence.

Fury! Outrage! Clash of civilizations! Send them all home!

**The Stranger** · 11-12-2010, 03:04

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

In what way aren't we taking it into account?

i was reffering to this.

Basically lack of absolute certainty is only a problem if only absolute certainty will do

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.

**Sasaki Kojiro** · 11-12-2010, 03:25

Originally Posted by The Stranger

i was reffering to this.

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.

I don't see why you believe that :)

**The Stranger** · 11-12-2010, 03:33

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

I don't see why you believe that :)

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.

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

**Sasaki Kojiro** · 11-12-2010, 03:36

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.

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.

**The Stranger** · 11-12-2010, 03:41

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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.

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.

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.