/lit/ - Literature

>>16793964
Absolutism. Relativism destabilizes society and results in chaos.

>>16793964
Absolutism. Believing something, even if it's bullshit, is preferable to believing nothing.

>>16793964
neither

>>16793964
To found either you need to refer to objective truth. How you'd get moral relativism from objective truth would be interesting to see but I don't think it's possible without contradicting absolute truth.

>>16793964
You don’t need to choose since every philosopher worth his salt proclaims Moral absolutes as objective fact

>>16793964
Absolutism

IT IS NOT A PROBLEM OF CHOICE, BUT, RATHER, OF RECOGNITION OF THE TRUTH.

RELATIVISM OF ANY TYPE IS ERRONEOUS & PERVERSE.

The problem with moral absolutism is that it's always defined by a subjective perspective which becomes a trap that perpetuates false morality

>>16793964
Evil is evil. Lesser, greater, middling, it's all the same. Proportions are negotiated, boundaries blurred. ... But if I'm to choose between one evil and another, then I prefer not to choose at all.

>>16794113
>subjective
>exists separately or foundationally to the objective
Filtered

>>16794106
Truth is relative tho

>>16794122
Are you sure?

>>16794121
Missed my point completely, but I'm not surprised.

>>16794122
Truth can exist, that doesn't automatically make any truth claims synonymous with ontological truth. One day Catholicism is the universal truth, another it's racism, another it's post humanism. These are perspectives, but they're not actually truth itself. Sometimes truth claims can serve a utilitarian purpose, other times they get out of hand like an engulfing fire. Being able to challenge truth claims is an important defense mechanism against existential totalitarianism

>>16794122


IF YOU BELIEVE THAT THE TRUTH IS RELATIVE YOU IGNORE THE TRUTH, AND LACK THE FACULTY TO RECOGNIZE IT.

>>16793964
Absolutism. As if there were ever a choice.

>>16794298
Truth zealots are always victims of a mental parasite

>>16793990
>relativism is believing nothing
calm down jordan

>>16794353
Truth is a sickness? Surely the mark of a sick mind is one that dabbles in lies

>>16794353
For those who believe there is no absolute truth, there is no chance of repair or correction.

>>16794152
Referring to objective truth is defined by a framework in reality which can be tested. Any individual formulating it is tangential

>>16793975
>>16793964
>>16793990
>>16794074
>>16794086
>>16794106
>>16794422
>>16794433
Hmm, a lot of you guys seem to be repeating the message of the Gathas, which is the only part of the Zend-Avesta which goes back to Zoroaster. In the modern West, the Gathas tend to be ignored during world religion classes, probably due to either political purposes or simply ignorance. Regardless, the Gathas is foundational in its distinction between asha (truth, order) and druj (lie, chaos), and it promotes privileging the path of asha over druj. It argues a "sick mind is one that dabbles in lies" and also implies "relativism destabilizes society and results in chaos". The Gathas contrasts Mahayana Buddhism and Vedanta in that it does not argue that truth and lie exist in a complementary dynamic.

>>16794422
>>16794433
Truth is not monopolized, it simply is

>>16793964
The fact that not everybody ITT is a moral relativist (the only correct position) makes me worry for the state of the board.

Moral relativism

>>16794653
And they're proud about it, too.

>>16793964
moral isn't real

>>16793964
im a positive moralists

>>16794580
I deny falsities

>>16794885
>>16794699
>>16794676
>>16794653
How do you prove morality is relative w objective truth?

>>16794653
Moral relativism is for the mentally weak and those lacking in conviction. Its a good notion for those frozen by inaction, destined to die forgotten by their own immediate children.

>>16794653
The state of this board has been shit for a long time. Moral objectivists often become hysterical, look at /pol/ for an example of people perpetuating subjective morals as objective truth

>>16794902
That wouldnt make objectivism true, only useful.

>>16794885
based

>>16794885
>..ly not real

>>16793964
Absolutism if it was a reality aka God Exists
If nto, then relativism

>>16794897
>If der ain't no truth then how you gonna say it AIN'T true that m'uh moral system ain't based?

>>16794897
You just demonstrate it that two people hold mutually contradictory moral systems, duh.

People mistake what "moral relativism" means, just like they do with "cultural relativism". Moral relativism is just an objective fact about the universe. Muslims think fucking nine year olds is okay; Christians suck on negro toes; Jews think non-Jews are vermin. The fact that the adherents of these religions think that these things are moral is just the way the world is. Don't like it? Too bad. There's nothing in the acceptance of this simple fact that means that you can't enforce your own (ultimately relative) morality on other people, however. I think fucking nine year olds is bad. I totally accept that Muslims think it's okay. I disagree and will work to punish them for it.

RELATIVE ABSOLUTISM

>>16793964
>Relatively moral

I think the question has already presupposed the answer
Absolutism though, i believe

>>16795397
xplane

Absolutism but the absolute principle is relativization

>>16794433
only a sith deals in absolutes

>>16793964
ABSOLUTE MORAL RELATIVISM

>>16795002
But, I'm a pragmatist (philosophically)

>>16794897
The Is-Ought distinction, facts about the universe don't tell you anything about how the Universe ought to be like. Statements of judgement are the results of the values of individuals. Although you can objectively judge a value or proposition relative to another value, you can't judge base values in relation each other. ie. Wealth Redistribution would be 'good' if you hold Equality as an absolute value and 'bad' if you take Liberty to be an absolute value. But you can't judge the base values, liberty or equality, relative to each other without recourse to a more fundamental value. Then it just needs to be mentioned that values are created by one's environment and one's genes (Religiosity and Political affiliation is around .4 heritable). In addition its impossible for people to choose their fundamental values because without any values, there will be no point in choosing any value over another because you don't have anything to judge them relative to. This leads to a situation where individuals can have two different opinions and both be correct (according to their values).

>>16793964
I choose either depending on the time, place and mood. Changing views as long as it helps me survive and cope effectively is not an issue. I do it all the time because I'm an incredibly simple man.

>>16795397
Ex-plur-nashun?