A question for relativists: Upon what logic do you base your ethics?

There are many people in the world today who say that all (ethical)values are relative. What is right and wrong is subjective oft the product of psychological or sociological input from without ourselves. In which case can anything actually be called wrong?

For example, playing devil's advocate, many people disagreed with the Iraq War (I was one of them, though I now believe that we should clean up the mess we made before we get up from the table) but why? Why is it wrong to start a war?

Many people said the the Iraq War was about oil. I won't get into that debate but say hypothetically that were true. How would that make the war wrong? If the governments of America and Britain foresaw an energy crisis, rising prices etc. why would it be wrong for them not to invade another country and take the required resources to make life easier for their citizens? Because that involves killing people? So what...? Why is killing people wrong anyway?

Looking forward to your feedback

__________________
"On that day you will know that I am in my Father and you in me and I in you."--John 14:20

Ethics are perceptive based on your value system they aren't much more than that.

__________________
You are not where you have been and you are not where you are going you are only here.

A,

So are you saying that what is right and wrong is actually no more than personal opinion?

“	Originally Posted By: Sleeping Turtle So are you saying that what is right and wrong is actually no more than personal opinion?	”

That is correct, nothing more than personal/sociological opinion/perspective.
What is wrong to some people/societies is not wrong to others.

__________________
Oh THAT'S how that works!

'What is wrong to some people/societies is not wrong to others.'

So *nothing* is absolutely wrong? What about (out of many examples) genocide? There have been people and societies which saw the extermination of certain minorities as a good thing - like the Third Reich (or whichever of the many examples you prefer).

Do you really think that?

Aq, would you agree?

T

Ethical values are a function of the environment. Good values are ones which promote a positive response from the environment - physical and social. Bad ones are ones which promote a negative response from the environment - physical and social.

At first glance this seems to condone genocide, mass murder, any other device that lowers population but these will provoke negative responses in the form of resistence, revenge, etc... it becomes a fairly subtle system, when it isn't being hijacked by the tree huggers.

At least, that was the direction the philosophy department was headed when I last paid any attention to these things..

__________________
Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you
High mountains are a feeling
I don't need to sell my soul, he's already in me

“	Originally Posted By: Sleeping Turtle 'What is wrong to some people/societies is not wrong to others.' So *nothing* is absolutely wrong? What about (out of many examples) genocide? There have been people and societies which saw the extermination of certain minorities as a good thing - like the Third Reich (or whichever of the many examples you prefer). Do you really think that? Aq, would you agree? T	”

But again, one sees that wrong the other does not, so while it is horrible and yes I agree wrong, it is not completely wrong in the eyes of the beholder.

There are tribes in Africa who force their women to committ genital mutilation to be excepted by the tribe and so they can marry, which has been medically proven to cause a myriad of probelms for women who have done this to themselves.
We view such as wrong and barbaric, they find it exceptable and part of their culture, who is wrong, who is right?

__________________
Oh THAT'S how that works!

“	who is wrong, who is right?	”

We are right, they are wrong. This is the kind of question that gets beards set alight

__________________
Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you
High mountains are a feeling
I don't need to sell my soul, he's already in me

“	Originally Posted By: john100 We are right, they are wrong.	”

yeahhh...

it's Them or Us...

and we'll defend what's good...



Chief108

__________________

“	Question Authority. Question Society. Question Reality. Question Yourself. Question your conclusions, your judgments, your answers. Question this. If you question everything thoroughly enough, the truth will eventually hit you upside the head and you will know. But here’s a warning: It won’t be what you imagined. It won’t be even close.	”

all hail Martyr Fakka

The genocide comes from the value we place just like thinning a heard, or removing pests or eliminating non-believers even faiths have heavenly genocide by sending the non-redeemed to hell. Noah’s arc is all about genocide so it’s all a point of view.

__________________
You are not where you have been and you are not where you are going you are only here.

'But again, one sees that wrong the other does not, so while it is horrible and yes I agree wrong, it is not completely wrong in the eyes of the beholder.'

MH OK, I know that different cultures view things differntly. That's my point.
But you do think genocide is always wrong, don't you? And let's keep it focussed on one issue at the moment as that clarifies the discussion - genocide will do. Once we start talking about female circumcision it becomes fuzzier.

Aquira, is it wrong or right to seek to destroy a people group - let's say Jews - because we consider them subhuman?

T

“	Originally Posted By: chief108 yeahhh... it's Them or Us... and we'll defend what's good... Chief108	”

where did you get a picture of me at, chief?

“	Originally Posted By: Sleeping Turtle MH OK, I know that different cultures view things differntly. That's my point. But you do think genocide is always wrong, don't you?	”

Personally, yes I think it's wrong, but others might not.

“	And let's keep it focussed on one issue at the moment as that clarifies the discussion - genocide will do. Once we start talking about female circumcision it becomes fuzzier.	”

It is on one issue, the logic that is applied to a system of ethics, what is logically incorrect and wrong to one may not be to another, so again it is right or wrong depending on their logic base.

__________________
Oh THAT'S how that works!

It’s just like the story of the Lustainia. The Germans fired on the ship a passenger ship sinking it killing over 1000 civilians. The world thought how horrible the Germans are killing innocent civilians.
But A German mother answered the critics saying on that ship was carrying in her storgae over one million rounds of ammunition. If all those bullets made their way to the soldiers they would have fired them at German soldiers. If only 10% hit their mark there could be 100,000 dead German sons husbands and fathers we think it was a blessing that ship sank.

One of the revelations of our Temple states “ The universe does not hold positive or negative as valid”

Nature does nat recognize those concepts they are man made and based on the point of view. So in answer to the question the view is determined by the value we place on anything.

__________________
You are not where you have been and you are not where you are going you are only here.

“	Originally Posted By: john100 Ethical values are a function of the environment. Good values are ones which promote a positive response from the environment - physical and social. Bad ones are ones which promote a negative response from the environment - physical and social. At first glance this seems to condone genocide, mass murder, any other device that lowers population but these will provoke negative responses in the form of resistence, revenge, etc... it becomes a fairly subtle system, when it isn't being hijacked by the tree huggers. At least, that was the direction the philosophy department was headed when I last paid any attention to these things..	”

So lets see a thing is wrong if it is protested against? On two counts this view seems to lack cohesiveness. Principally, and I'll play the Nihilist in order to argue my case, that statement cannot be proved. If I hold a differing opinion than you do you have no means to get me to accept your reasoning. I view your values as meanginless and you view mine as relative, looks like we'd be at loggerheads for quite awhile unless of course we have recourse to the second part of your arguement? Power.

The whole sum of ethics you say depends upon resistence? Well what if the force with which something is being resisted is overweighed by the force with which it is being enforced and vice versa. I see picketers I have tanks, planes, an air force and some concentration camps. Who wins? It seems according to your answer that it is perfectly licit to kill anyone you want to at whatever number you wish so long as you are able to crush the resistence that stands before you. Your argument basically says that since the people have the power to overturn what they dislike they can do so. But what if the people dont have that power? Then surely that means a sadistic autocrat has every right to rule however he wishes so long as he maintains his power?

The great Freidrich Nietczhe was the first to notice the silliness of modern ethical debates and with him the philosophical discipline of ethics died and became mere language games. If you're a relativist then anything really is licit so long as you have the power to enforce it. Nobody can tell you you're wrong because there are no objective values and nobody's ontology is any different than yours. Hence, if you are an ubermensh and your will to power is great enough you have the right as an 'extraordinary man' to do what you want.

PS) If nothing is wrong why resist in the first place?

__________________
"On that day you will know that I am in my Father and you in me and I in you."--John 14:20