On Nov 11, 2007 5:11 PM, Ian Kluge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dear Gilberto,
>
> RE:
>
> > If you deny that "everything goes" how, from what absolute standpoint can
> > you reject some viewpoints and accept others? After all, any viewpoint can
> > be established from some "specific individual's position."
>
> You write,
>
> "Saying "what is right for me, isn't necessarily the same as what is
> right for you" is very very very different from saying "it is right
> for you to do whatever the hell you want and it is right for me to do
> whatever the hell I want" Actually, both views are mutually exclusive.
> If you think about it, "everything goes" is arguably a universal and
> absolutist moral position."
>
> Yes, I know "everything goes" is an absolutist moral position - but it is
> also self-refuting since 'everything' includes the statement 'Everything
> does not go.'
Ian, I really do think that you've been making straw dog arguments
which is the source of a lot of confusion in this discussion. Or at
the very least, we have very different definitions of relativism and
skepticism which means we are talking about different things. Also,
above it seems like there was a weird shift in terms of what
"everything goes" means. At first I thought we were talking about
moral license, but then in the last paragraph you shifted it to mean
something like "all propositions are true" which is 1) a change 2) an
untenable position and 3) something which no self-identified
Relativist probably believes in.
> We must remember that relativism is more than just saying "what is right for
> me, isn't necessarily the same as what is right for you." Relativism says it
> is impossible to know decisively which one of the two 'rights' is actually
> right, correct or morally acceptable. It says that there is no absolute
> neutral ground or Archidmedean standpoint on which to make a definitive
> judgment.
I think your definition of Relativism is strange and more extreme than
necessary. For examples of other definitions look at:
# the concept that a cultural system can be viewed only in terms of
the principles, background, frame of reference, and history that
characterize it.
# The view that truth is relative and not absolute. It varies from
people to people, time to time.
# The idea that the truth of a matter is dependent on some
circumstance or situation. Relativism takes many forms and can be
applied to many different things. One can be a relativist about
musical tastes, for example, while not being a relativist about
religion.
# There are no absolute truths, only what different groups and
societies hold to be true for them, as exemplified by a diversity of
ethical principles across different cultures.
# Any theory holding that truth or moral value is not universal or
absolute but may differ between individuals or cultures.
# a view that ethical truths depend upon the beliefs of individuals
and groups holding them.
# In ethics, relativism is the opposite of absolutism . Whereas
absolutism insists that there are universal ethical standards that are
inflexible and absolute , relativism asserts that ethical mores vary
from era to era, culture to culture, situation to situation. ...
# (philosophy) the philosophical doctrine that all criteria of
judgment are relative to the individuals and situations involved
# Relativism consists of various theories each of which claims that
some element or aspect of experience or culture is relative to, i.e.,
dependent on, some other element or aspect. .
So I would note that, based on some of the above definitions, the
Bahai faith definitely affirms relativism.
> Hence, if we accept your statement, "what is right for me, isn't necessarily
> the same as what is right for you" then on what grounds can you tell someone
> that he does not have the right to do what he thinks is correct - even
> though that may be repugnant to you? You may reject the other person's
> reasons and justifications, but there is no neutral ground or Archimedean
> standpoint from which to do so?
But looking at the above definitions, it is possible, or at least
conceivable that one can have a sufficiently good understanding of the
other person's frame of reference. I would judge my own actions by my
own community's standards. I would look at the other person's actions
in the light of his or her community's standards.
> You write,
>
> "Or to give another example of how relativism might not lead to
> "everything goes". I once had some extended conversation with a
> believer in Thelema who was explaining to me how everyone had their
> own True Will to which they had to be faithful. So it was relativist
> in that each individual had their own True Will, but it didn't
> collapse into absolute license because each person's True Will was
> still something which required struggle, discipline and willpower to
> achieve."
>
> This is totally off the mark.
>
I think you are totally misreading the point of the example. Perhaps I
wasn't sufficiently clear, but you definitely didn't get the point.
> You are mixing up, confusing and conflating, (a) personal qualities of a
> believer and (b)the truth value of his beliefs. For example, a person may be
> (a) sincere (personal quality) and (b) wrong (the truth value of his belief)
> about his belief that the earth is flat or that his mother hates him. The
> sincerity of the belier does not guarantee the truth of the belief.
>
> Similarly, just because a viewpoint requires "struggle, discipline and
> willpower" does not free it from being relativist. Relativism is about the
> truth value of statements (be they scientific, moral, etc.) not about the
> qualities of the believer.
The point of the example was that followers of Thelema are relativists
in the sense that they believe that each individual has a True Will
which is their unique guiding star for their life, their behavior,
etc. But the philosophy of Thelema does not necessarily imply
"everything goes" because actions which go against True Will would
still be viewed as unacceptable. Relativism without moral anarchy. I'm
not making any of the assumptions you are accusing me of above.
The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments thereto ("e-mail")
is sent by the Johnson County Community College ("JCCC") and is intended to be
confidential and for the use of only the individual or entity named above. The
information may be protected by federal and state privacy and disclosures acts
or other legal rules. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are notified that retention, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail
in error please immediately notify JCCC by email reply and immediately and
permanently delete this e-mail message and any attachments thereto. Thank you.
__________________________________________________
You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe: send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe: send subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe: http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/all_forums/subscribe?name=bahai-st
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
Mail - mailto:[email protected]
Web - http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/?forum=bahai-st
News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st
Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist
Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
