Punch a relativist. They have already given us their consent; as long as you have a majority vote.
To put it across crudely, relativism is just moral democracy. We select a panel of fickle judges to decide what is permissible, and treat it as a law. It is funny how our laws keep changing when law is defined as “a statement of a relation or sequence of phenomena invariable under the same conditions”.*
Well, I’m already aware of the (possible, if there is one) weakness of the above definition. The conditions have changed… that is what they always claim. It is true. You have got to give it to them. Living conditions have changed, technology has changed, but the human condition has not. Lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy & pride existed in the early centuries and they still do. We have merely become more innovative in our methods of committing them; pride is confidence, lust is abstract art, so on and so forth.
In future, just go ahead and punch a relativist. All the theists will say “Aye!”
*Dictionary.com
the dreaming realist 
Are you advocating absolutism? Then which set of laws becomes absolute, and who gets to decide that, on what authority?
I don’t have a problem with relativism, as long as it applies to everybody. If a majority votes that it’s OK to punch a person, they’re also voting their acquiescence to be punched, and why would they do that? Isn’t it funny how, even in the most lawless circles where”anything could go”, anything generally doesn’t go?
I think Confucius got it right in ~500BC: anything you don’t want done to you, don’t do to others. Simple enough, eh?
Hi Brian, its nice to see you commenting again!
Well, in a way yes. I am advocating absolutism. If the originator of the authority and law is perfect, absolutism would be the only flawless system in the world. Now, all we need to do is to find that originator. Some people call him God, others are still finding.
Well, I would suppose democracy was put in place due to the key issue of accountablity. After all, since one guy tends to screw up, putting four other guys will allow them to watch each other’s backslide. No doubt this would be a rather feasible way of running the country with minimal errors.
However, when it comes to issues of morality, I beg to take the alternative stand. Since one guy is imperfect and have let’s say 20% chance of screwing up, putting 4 other guys will increase the chances to the inevitable. (20% + 20% + 20% + 20% + 20% = 100%) Simple probability.
Now the only question left for us to answer is whether we have more room for error in running a country or running a human. The thought process leading there however, is probability not so simple.
Well, I don’t see ethics* as a zero-sum game, where for one person to win, another has to lose. I also don’t think it has to be anywhere as near as complicated, in its theory and practice, as it’s often made out to be. In my view, too many people submit to top-down absolutism because it’s too complicated to argue against.
As you pointed out: in a democracy, the rules are not absolute; I think that’s right, for the reasons I gave (whose rules become absolute?), plus the idea that laws evolve over time, as people (hopefully!) learn from the past. (Do we freeze the laws as they were in 2000BC? 33AD? 1200AD, and is that Christian or Islamic law? Or 2007AD?)
It’s pragmatism; if you expect perfection, you can expect to be disappointed. So what if the dictionary definition of “law” doesn’t match reality? So much for the dictionary, then. 8)
* (I prefer to call this topic “ethics”, with its implication that everyone has a role to play in creating the rules, rather than “morals”, the term used by “authorities” to describe what they hand down to those “beneath” them. I’ve written blog entries on how I think an ethical model, analogous to that of a professional society such as engineering or medicine, is a good model for society hat avoids the “unjustified absolutism” trap. )
Hi,
What we are actually doing is universalizing liberal morality and criminalizing all that is not in accordance with it tenets. These are crimes against the Ideology. This is why we are in deep trouble. I’ve written about it here: http://millennium-notes.blogspot.com/2007/04/eu-phobia-more-crimes-against-ideology.html
The post pertains to Europe, but actually the more I read about the situation in America in understand the differences are only minor.
God bless and keep us, Cassandra.
I think Confucius got it right in ~500BC: anything you don’t want done to you, don’t do to others. Simple enough, eh?
And I think Jesus got it better,
“Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.” Matthew 7:12
Because the first one keeps us from doing wrong, while the latter encourages us to do the right.
Anyway, back, I only advocate Relativism when taken as the big picture. Because I really believe relativism, as I think it is and it is seen, is composed of many, little absolutisms. Like, for example, when one says saying the truth is relative because sometimes is “bad” to say the truth. But as the Bible says, Everything has its time and we’re not only called to uphold the truth but to be wise enough on not only what to say, but how to say it, when to say it, where to say it and so on.
So if I say the truth in the right time, in the right place, in the right way, it will always be good. Change the place and maybe you have the time or way or both so that it will be good. But if I always says this truth in this particular moment in the right way it will always be good. It’s an absolute. You get away from the picture and you’ll have it “relative”.
And also remember, democracies like the US (I’m not yankee by the way) were created, this in particular, on the Absolute Basis that
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
I think what we have to take on consideration is that Man is faulty and it will always screw up and in many things like democracy there’s always a chance to screw up and in an imperfect world like this we should be prepared for these consequences.
Mmm. just wondering.
don’t you need absolutes to define how relative something is?
Maybe that didn’t come out quite right.
or like
Relativism is kind of (in itself) an absolute?
aagh. no time. haha. I guess I should elaborate but running out of time now. sorry 😛
and the =P emoticon looks weird
Hi Harry and CronoLink!
Perhaps to sum it up, would it be right for me to say that truth is absolute, but the timing to say it is relative?
this is totally irrelevant but my head hurts now… all i can think of are the words absolute, truth, relevant, relative, hahaha … amn i need to be smarter haha…=D
Hey justin.
Haha, perhaps its just us. We need to learn to be less complicated.
Well, let me remind you, Zachary, that C. S. Lewis said that things are by nature complicated and should be dealt thus. Well, not the sort of “devil-spawn physics”, but he said that while things may seem simple at first sight, they are not. He offered the example of “looking at a chair”. A simple task for us; however, ask physicians and ophthalmologists what’s really going on and your mind will be blown away.
I know, I don’t really like it either but that way is how you get a solid foundation. Or perhaps it is just like Einstein said “You don’t really understand physics until you can explain to your grandma”. =P
Harry,
Well, that’s actually what I said, hahaha. Relativism is comprised of many Absolutes.
“To put it across crudely, relativism is just moral democracy.”
Moral relativism is in fact, much more than that.
http://www.moralrelativism.info/index.html