Relativism

[anomaly]

Is relativism a valid viewpoint in your opinion?

Relativism is essentially the idea that any 'thing', whether it is politics, philosophy, or culture, is 'just as good' as any other 'thing' of the same category. For example, a cultural relativist would say that Middle Eastern culture is 'just as good' as Western European culture. A political relativist would say that a conservative outlook is just as good as a communist outlook.

Personally, I think relativism of any kind is a crock of shit, to put it in laymen's terms. As communists, I think it is very important that we stand up and say that opposing views are wrong, and that we're right. We should not 'bow down' to reactionary ideas 'out of kindness', or 'out of' anything for that matter. We are right, and reactionaries are wrong. Just the same, progressive culture is better than reactionary culture.

[Xanthus]

Yup, just a giant stew of shit.

But that's mostly what passes for philosophy these days, it's becoming more and more openly reactionary. If nothing's better then anything else, no need to strive for a better world, eh?

[Epoche]

Is relativism a valid viewpoint in your opinion?

The problem with relativism in the arena of philosophical debate is that it is eventually self-refuting. But this is not to say that the concepts of "right" and "wrong" can ever be called "objective" because they are subjective evaluations to begin with-- they are not statements about the world itself, but rather the use of things in the world. It is a bit of a tangle which requires a follow through of ontology in order to fix the epistemological problems which result from the "language game" in which relativism occurs. This is a heavy exercise that will lead to Kantian models of reality and require a distinction between the emprical and the rational. Unless a moral notion can be proven to exist absolutely and universally, it cannot be said that concepts of "right" and "wrong" actually exist outside of the preferences of the individual holding the concept in mind. As clearly this is not the case, or rather, if it were, there is no way to "step out of the human mind" to affirm this truth, what must ground morals as universal is the existence of an external "law maker," such as "God." But again, this cannot be known either.

Inevitably morality is subject to consequentialism, which means that nothing can be considered morally "right" or "wrong" without the consequences in mind. For example, a murder is not "wrong" in itself because one cannot prove that outside of the human context there can be any judgement-- it begets itself. What I believe is that morals can be forced objectively through the dominance of power and political control. In other words, the one who holds the power distributes the consequences for moral acts and therefore practices moral and ethical regulation.

To put it metaphorically: we cannot look up into the clouds for an answer to our moral questions, but we can most certainly suffer the consequences rendered by someone who has the power to enforce a reward/punishment system.

My idea here was basically put forth by Nietzsche a century ago, in his "Genealogy of Morals." What was considered "good" or "bad" were those acts which the ruling class determined to be consistent with their power of government. The previous paradigm of dualism, which has its origins in Plato and later Descartes, sought to establish moral truths by appealing to the "other-worldy" manifestations of moral rule-- the laws set by God, or the laws concluded through the Rational, which according to each would provide a route to the "meta-ethical" truths of morals.

I do not believe that this can be done successfully and I think it simply puts us back to the original problems concerning the differences between what is "subjective" and what is "objective." Through Spinoza I think that this dichotomy can be absolved and existence can be understood in terms of immanent processes which work in a sort of "self-adjusting equilibrium." What I do espouse in all possible circumstances is the pleasure-principle which I would think can determine effective and progressive morals as they dictate the evolution of the species in general, and here I would make an appeal to pragmatism and utilitarianism-- the most pleasure for the most people.

The only possible political and economic system I think can achieve this is a classless society that practices large degrees of stoicism, aseticism, and conservation. It is, after all, the material conflicts which arise in competing society that originate moral coercion and affliction, though many make the contrary claim-- that it is the abolishment of the inherent right to exploit that leads to suffering and dissonance. To this I say bullshit. Capitalism, which is the system that leads to the highest degree of moral competition, creates the very false dilemmas which it then uses, post hoc, as an excuse to justify its process of letting individual powers reign over the collective society itself.

Whether or not morals are "relative" is in fact irrelevent, because one could never prove this true or false either way. What can be proven, however, is that the more material consumption is regulated and equalized among people, the less conflicts will arise.

[LSD]

Relativism is, of course, utter nonsense.

As materialists we have no patience for this subjectivist post-modern garbage. The notion that objective normative judgements cannot be made is bizarrely anti-consequentialist and even borders on the flatly solipsistic.

There is no such thing as an objective "good" or "evil", but there certainly is an objective reality and real actions have real consequences. Muslim values are not "evil", but they are objectively harmful and oppressive in and of themselves, and the fact that they constitute part of a "culture" is entirely irrelevent.

That's not to say that morality is somehow "universal", mind you. Moral absolutism is complete nonsense as morality is a fundamentaly subjective entity. But then materialism is not a moral discipline. Laws should not be "moral", they should be rational.

Communism is not "morally good", it's materially good, and that's a whole lot more important.

[Storming Heaven]

Hmmm...

When contemplating whether to jump off a 50 foot cliff or not, I wonder if is 'just as good' to assume that I may survive completely unharmed as it is to assume that I may die?

[Epoche]

Excellent post, LSD!

[whistles loudly]