« Are humans capable of fully comprehending the cosmos? | Main | "We each belong to the energy of the moment" -- Jack Haas »

June 18, 2012

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

My mother said she cried for two days upon the birth of my sister Sophia. She wanted to be excited about a baby girl after having given birth to three boys. Sophia looked exactly like a monkey, and she had a beard (sic!). The doctors chalked it up to a transient hormonal imbalance involving an overload of testosterone, which accounted for all the hair. She was a tomboy-ish sort, and grew to be a passably pleasant looking specimen of the gender. She is a Lesbian. Gee - I wonder why?

One of my own sons is gay, but you would never know it. He is intensely private about his life. But then again, I have another son who is 32 and has never been on a date with a female (or a male). And yet another son who goes through women the way grass goes through a goose.

And then there's little old me. I became profoundly disinterested in sex years ago. And not by choice, either. I have no desire to seek a solution for something that is not a problem for me - I enjoy the neutrality and live a like of ease in that respect. People who know me are bereft when I explain that sex for me is a "been there, done that" activity.

Bottom line is - I couldn't care less what people do with each other's bodies. That's moral relativism or indifference - take your pick.

Is not Moral relativism analogous to lawful anarchy?

Frank, I'm not familiar with the term "lawful anarchy." Wikipedia pointed me in a certain direction:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_law

If this is what you're referring to, it isn't really what I'm talking about. I'm not promoting an "anything goes" morality, but rather a "whatever works" morality.

Meaning, I see relativism not as floating free from reality -- quite the opposite. Morality is how we humans best relate to each other, relative to our needs, goals, desire for happiness, etc.

Absolutist moral codes tend to ignore this. They root morality in some ethereal other-worldly place, like a revelation from on high.

Moral relativism looks at ethics and such by relating a hypothesis such as "gays should be able to marry" to the facts of human flourishing, such as "treating people as equally as possible is good for both individuals and society."

---found this piece awhile back.....sorry, I don't have the author's name

We can make a clear distinction between Subjectivity and Relativity: Subjectivity focuses on experience, which is private to the individual, without necessarily making an account on metaphysical things; Relativity focuses on the claim that there is nothing in the thing, which is (metaphysically) Absolute, e.g. Truth, regardless of the method/s used to arrive at such claim.

When it comes to truths of belief systems, we start by saying that the truth of a particular thing is either subjective or objective, and not as either absolute or relative (because relativity and Absoluteness deal not with particulars as they deal not with experience; they rather deal with the universals). Examples of subjective truths are those of opinions (as opinions are dependent solely on our subjective experiences), e.g. “Chocolate flavored ice cream is more delicious than vanilla flavored ice cream”. Recognition of the subjectivity of taste could lead to a conclusion that ‘Taste is relative’. The statement “This table is red” could also be a subjective truth (depending on theories) if we are to say that the red-ness is recognized as an appearance of a thing and is grasped through our subjective experience of the table. However, if we are to say that color is a primary quality of a thing (as opposed to Locke’s claim), then the statement is not a subjective truth as it rests not on our subjective experience of the table but on the table itself. The issue on this statement needs further investigation but we cannot speak of it as of this moment. There is a need for another essay to discuss this issue.

Examples of objective truths are the logical truths, e.g. A = A, A ≠ ~A, etc. There is no question when it comes to objectivity of these logical truths, so let me focus on the ‘considered objective truths’ or those that we can get from Science.

The claims, “Biology is the study of living things”, “Salt is Sodium Chloride (NaCl)” and “The amount of Force can be obtained by multiplying the mass with acceleration” are said to be objective truths. The first one is true by virtue of definition. It is analytic and could be lined up in the list of logically true propositions (because of analyticity). The second one is true as concluded through observation. The third one is true by virtue of being a Scientific law (second law of motion), and as a result of calculations and derivations from other pre-established laws. The objectivity of the second and third claims is still questionable. First, because they are not analytic and so we cannot say that they are true a priori. Second, they are products of empirical observation and any other observation of a fact contradictory to them could lead to their falsity.

In this case, scientific claims cannot actually claim objectivity. Through the want of scientists to arrive at objective truths or an Absolute Truth, they tried to institutionalize scientific claims, which actually made Science Relative. The Truth of Science is Relative in the sense that its claims are relative or relational to the scientific community; anything that they accept is scientific, anything that they reject is unscientific. If the previous examples (second and third Scientific claims in the previous paragraph) are falsified through experimentation, observation and Mathematical calculations, they will be devoid of being called as Scientific claims. The objectivity of Science is not really objective because it is not possible for us to be extremely loyal to the object; we cannot speak of anything that we did not experience in the object. In science, scientists can only have an account of their subjective experiences (through experimentation and observation) of objects. Through their want to claim these subjective experiences as objective truths, they institutionalize their claims, which actually makes Scientific claims Relative. Science merely purports to be objective in its being Relative.

[1] Let me use significant relation to mean the relation of something to another something without which that another something, something would not exist.
[2] With ‘methods’ that lead to a relativistic claim, I am referring to either subjective experience of an individual or conventional claims of a community.
[3] “Salt is NaCl” can be falsified if someone happens to discover that salt is actually composed of (let’s say) two atoms of Sodium per Chlorine. In this case, the statement is wrong and must be replaced with “Salt is Na2Cl”.
“The amount of Force can be obtained by multiplying the mass with acceleration” can be falsified if any scientific proposition that is contradictory with it will be considered as true or if through calculations, it were disproved.

I don't know who said this ...
"Sex is like air, it's not important unless you aren't getting any."


A sex-addict said it.

I don't know who would repeat it ...

Dear Tara,

I endorse your opinion.

Robert Paul Howard

Dear Tara,

I deplore your opinion


Richard Lionel Rupert Asquith Worcester

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Welcome


  • Welcome to the Church of the Churchless. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.
  • HinesSight
    Visit my other weblog, HinesSight, for a broader view of what's happening in the world of your Church unpastor, his wife, and dog.
  • BrianHines.com
    Take a look at my web site, which contains information about a subject of great interest to me: me.
  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • I Hate Church of the Churchless
    Can't stand this blog? Believe the guy behind it is an idiot? Rant away on our anti-site.