Subj : Apple Pie To : JOSEPH VOIGT From : TODD HENSON Date : Mon Nov 06 2000 06:47 pm > Monday November 06 2000 03:16, TODD HENSON wrote to JOSEPH VOIGT: > > >> TH> Well, you DID say that bad is relative, correct? > >> > >> Yes, I did, and I stand by it. > >> > >> TH> So, by your own words, the level of "badness" of her actions is > >> TH> relative, a mere matter of perspective, correct? > >> > >> Correct, within reason. From my, and most rational other person's, > >> perspectives, her flames were bad in that they were untrue. Lies > >> are generally considered bad in a rational society. > > TH> Not if the person in question doesn't think so. It's all relative. > > Then you missed the point. If the person in question doesn't think lies are > generally considered bad in a rational society, then I'd question their > reasoning abilities. Now, go back and read my above again. Nope, you can't have it both ways. You cannot take the consensus and hold it as objective. Bad is still relative. > >> TH> I am neither defending nor condemning her use of that word, but > >> TH> your characterization of "bad" as being relative does have some > >> TH> relevant philosophical implications whenever you personally > >> TH> react to something as being "bad". > >> > >> It does have relevant philosophical implications. Maybe you're > >> finally starting to understand the concept that -bad- is relative. > >> As -bad- is not quantifiable, the best we have is reasoned > >> consensus. Perhaps calling you a name is only bad relative to you, > >> but perhaps to others it is not. You're finally seeing my point, > >> Todd. Now, think about those posts of mine in Matzdobre and see if > >> this is becoming more clear to you. She (and you, IIRC) > > TH> I am not agreeing to the degree of subjectivity as you are, but am > TH> merely advancing the argument and the implications. > > As you are not agreeing only to degree, are you agreeing, nonetheless, with my > above? You didn't dispute anything I said above, so I trust you are coming to > realize that -bad- is a relative concept. You need to re-read what was said. > TH> You've invalidated any claims you may have as to the badness of > TH> other's actions, because it's all relative. > > Not so at all, Todd. You are forgetting about that one little thing called > reason. Nope, you didn't say that bad was reasonably objective, but that it is relative. You can't have it both ways. > >> had labelled me as being -bad- for the nature of my posts there. I > >> think my posts there are good. As my posts there fall within the > >> rules of the echo, and hence ITS societal norm, their being labelled > >> -bad- is certainly relative to one's sensibilities... not the norm > >> of the echo. So, who is is right? Do we simply tally how many people > >> think it's good versus how many think it's bad, and go with the > >> higher number? Not exactly, but close. The consensus of society via > >> -reason- tends always to will out what is good and bad and, in a > >> sense, objectifies it. I maintain that > > TH> That does not objectify anything. > > I said, " ...in a sense, objectifies it". But are you now admitting that there > is no such thing as an absolute bad or good? I have no idea where you got that from. > >> it is through reason alone that the societal good and bad is > >> determined. No appeal to gods required. I trust you think good and > >> bad are -real- objective things with a higher source origin. As you > >> cannot provide any evidence to support that assertion, I'm confident > >> that good and bad are relative mental constructs. > > TH> Then you should never get offended at the actions of others. In their > TH> eyes, they are good. > > And again, you miss the point. But, as you did not dispute that good and bad Again, you miss the poiint. > are relative mental constructs, and did not affirm that good and bad are -real- > objective things per my above, I have to accept that you agreed with my above You don't seem to be able to understand things outside your own little paradigm. And you have a sad tendency to turn everything into an ego contest. Yet again, I have wasted my time. > and that good and bad are relative. The point you missed, though, is that > offense can validly be taken when actions (i.e. lies) are shown to be -bad- via > REASONED consensus. Again, reason is the key here. > TH> It doesn;t make it objective. > > So, you are saying that there is no objective good or evil, then? Thanks for > the admission. What does that say about your absolute truths re your judeoxian > belief system? And this is the perfect illustration. Conversation over. --- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr4 * Origin: BBS Networks @ www.bbsnets.com 808-839-5016 (1:10/345) .