Alot of people seem to think that all truth is relative, meaning that there is no absolute truth. There are some problems with that.
<b>Number one</b> : If there is no absolute truth, then relativism is not true.<b>Number two</b> : As (to a relativist) crimes are not truly wrong, it promotes crime and evil.<b>Number three</b> : Relativism is merely a way to try to escape from truth.<b>Number four</b> : Any relativist's games are not truly good. [;)]If anyone can find fault with these, please have a nice, long, philosophical/theological debate.
Jabberwock… yeah, I guess I got some ideas kinda mixed there… but I personally believe no action anyone can take is wrong. I kinda meant it's wrong if you're not thinking on a more universal scale.
—Not that the universe goes back to normal eventually, though. Killing, say, somebody who would eventually find a cure for cancer would cause a huge chain… one that could only be stopped if the earth were destroyed… and that too would cause a huge chain… so thus the only time that the chains are rendered void of good and evil is when and if the universe ends… —But truly, everything is just matter… so killing somebody is just part of an immense chain reaction that started when the universe was created. People will accuse the killer of being "evil". Again, part of the chain reaction. We're just material with quite complex properties.—- Sincerely, James EastmanThe problem with absolutism is that it holds that all situations have a clear right and wrong, a pure black and white. Anyone who knows anything about paintshop knows that 2 color mode makes for a terrible picture and doesn't begin to acurately represent reality. In order to understand reality and human nature, one must realize that things are relative. For example: In WWII, we firebombed German cities, killing thousands of innocent children in the process. However, that bombing bled the nazis of the resources that they needed to continue the war and hastened thier defeat. What is right and wrong with that case? Bombing children, or allowing Nazis to stay in power longer and therefore gas more children?
I think there's a right and wrong for every situation, but it's certainly not always clear. Sure, there's some wiggle room. I won't say that the act of killing is 100% evil in itself; it depends on the situation. Same with nearly everything. But there's still a such thing as right and wrong, it's just very complicated. But your Paintshop analogy is faulty.
But the whole idea of moral absolutism is that there is always an absolute right and wrong, with no room in between. That's what aboslute means. Saying that there is any wiggle wiggle room at all is relativism. However, taking that to the extreme where there is no right and wrong and all actions are ok relative to something else is just dumb. Using the dumb theory, I can justify the abortion of 100% of all poor babies becuase it's better to kill them as fetuses than to kill them as fully grown people.
Yaywalter - I think you are having trouble thinking things out when they are on a large scale. I ask you, if Adolf Hitler killed your family and sent you to a prison camp, would he be evil? (of course he would) would what he did be evil 1000000 years from now? Yes, it would. If the universe was wiped clean and started over again, would he STILL have been evil? YES.
If Florence Nightengale tended to your wounds (don't tease me about time frames, this is an example), would what she did be good. (Yes) Would it still have been good 10000000000 years from now? Yes. Would it have been good if the world was wiped clean and started over again? YES. Would it have made a difference? Only God knows.Jabberwock - You are correct that there is a right and wrong, and it is not always clear. However, most of the time, it quickly becomes clear what is right and what is wrong. If you can name one person who never had a conscience, I will be completely surprised.Shork - You can normally, by breaking apart something into little pieces, find whether each part is right or wrong. If you look closely at the monitor (VERY VERY VERY… closely), you will find separate red, green, and blue pixels. each one is letting photons through. Each photon has a single energy value, and it is either there, or not there. If you look at a B&W printout, you will find hundreds of little paint dots. if you look still closer, you will find BILLIONS of molecules, each there, or not there. Each descision made is either good, or bad. together, all of them make an interesting picture.Well, Gamer3D, my logic is this: A human is matter. So if a ball(matter) rolls off a shelf(matter) and smashes a vase(matter), then it is as significant as if a guy(matter) went into a school(matter) with a SMG(matter) and just started blasting all the students(matter). That is, in my opinion, the largest scale.
Yaywalter, I ask you, is a ball or vase sentient? Would you consider it better to die than to let a vase be smashed? Are you of no more value than a vase? Humans are the most sentient beings (except supernatural beings) on the planet. I also gather, by what you say, that you are an atheist. Your largest scale seems, to me, to be rather small when compared to the spiritual scale. When you meet God, how will you explain your actions? The excuse that they were nothing compared to your "largest scale" will not be sufficient.
one: true
if there was no absolute truth, then nothing could be itselve, and nothing can be anything other than itself. ie. id==id would not be aloud to be absulute truth, which is one. and id!=id can never be true.two:truecrimes are not truly wrongIt is not neccesarily wrong to kill, steal, or destroy anyone, or anything. It will not create wholes or gaps in space or time. It will not disobey the laws of physics. It may, disobey human laws, which may have been set by the same physics.also, no one will acually care that they're dead once they are dead, because they cannot think, speak, move, or sense.since humans aren't ment to think like that, we invented hevean, the other, and to keep the world populated, god.three: true…four: truekilling… many people always die-ing (?)global warming… everyone suddenly die-ing (?) (like thirty years for everyone to die, very short for our billions)_Player_, it would seem you have missunderstood me on point #2. I did not say crimes are not wrong. To quote myself, "Number two : As (to a relativist) crimes are not truly wrong, it promotes crime and evil." Murder is wrong in that it breaks the rules by which we live. I also ask you, if God, heaven, and the devil are all invented by man, why are they a universal constant? Why, after all this time, would every culture (except those populated by atheists), have not only a concept of "God" or "gods" and a "devil" and also a reward concept (heaven).
_Player_, One last point for you to ponder: if there is no God, where did energy come from (by the laws of physics, it cannot be created or destroyed), and if you answer that it has always been there, please think hard about why you cannot accept God. I think the answer will often be that you cannot accept Him because it will create a standard that is not one you want, but still one you must follow.