RE: Look out for the reality enforcers!
Hey @matbaker, this is an interesting piece that echoes the thoughts of the existentialist philosophers.
I’ll admit that I’m one of those reality enforcers. I’m definitely not a narcissist, though, and it’s not an ego thing for me to defend reality.
”From a human perspective, there is no such thing as a fixed, universal reality.”
Sure there are: 2+2= 4, triangles have only 3 sides, water is wet, people have concepts of good and evil, justice and injustice, etc.
I find such universal absolutes to be reminders to be careful to distinguish reality from preferences and encourage people to be open-minded and to engage in civil debates. As a friend of mine says, “As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.” Good debates help us to understand one another and help us to knock the rough edges off of our own thinking.
You're not defending reality is my point. You're defending your reality. There is nothing wrong with that, and we all do it to some degree, but in my opinion, some are more open to letting in alternative perspectives than others.
I touched on the fact that from a scientific perspective, reality could be argued to be fixed at times. However, 2+2 only equals 4 in decimal counting, and water is wet, but whether that wetness is welcomed, what temperature it is and how it tastes is down to an individual. And water is wet is a very human perspective and distinction. You'll be telling me the sky is blue, next!
People do have concepts of good and evil, and there will be a broad convergence, but there are very few moral absolutes. It's the same for justice and injustice too - these are subjective, often deeply so.
To argue that injustice/justice and good/evil are absolutes means that yes, you are indeed a reality enforcer.
I am all for a good debate, by the way. I write to have my views questioned, and am very happy to re-appraise them. You haven't convinced me to do so yet, though!
I liked this - I'm one for being there are no absolutes in reality. The terrorist can be a saviour and warrior in his home country, the psychopath that experiments on and kills homeless people can also be seen as a revolutionary in modern medicine, and so, so many other things!
There are no absolutes, ever.
I may podcast about this in my matrix podcast :)
Does this make me your muse?
This is all so sudden!
I think there may be a few moral absolutes...although for everything I can come up with, I think I can find an alternate way of viewing it. There must be some though, surely?
Are you absolutely sure?
Well, if you want to home in on this particular aspect of the debate...see the chat below where we are debating this very point...
As I asked previously - can you name a universal absolute? :)
As I answered below: genocide is wrong. The fact that some people have committed it does not change this, Ray. Is there a reasonable ethical or moral argument that can justify genocide? I can't think of one.
The question wasn't aimed at you!
But in reality - genocide is only wrong in the eye of some people; which is subjective also, but it's not absolute.
Ask some white people from the KKK if they think African Americans should be extinct :P
Yes, but Ray, you could make the argument that rape and paedophilia are okay (not that you would think that!) based on that logic! I think we may be having a semantic argument here. What I see as absolute, you don't!
Oh personally I definitely have absolutes. All of my morals are absolute. I'm looking at it in the wider perspective - as if I was a pinprick in a massive haystack (which we are in essence)
Can you name a universal absolute? :)
It is wrong to commit genocide.
I am trying to find an angle where it could be reasonably argued that this is not wrong. I wouldn't have to agree with it (obviously), that's not the point!
Is there a argument to say that genocide might not be wrong?
I believe it's wrong to commit genocide too; although some Africans would disagree. Hitler would too, and many others :P
God would disagree!
God operates on a different system of morality. For the sake of this conversation, he doesn't count.
A moral absolute is not defined as something that no-one would ever do. There have been genocides in human history (as we know), and for the purposes of this exercise, what we need to establish is :
"is there a reasonable moral or ethical argument that could be posited to justify any given action?"
If there is, then it is not a moral absolute.
It is, of course, still subjective. There is no ultimate arbiter. Which kind of goes back (loosely) to the OT!