Thursday, June 16, 2011

The absurdity of moral relativism.

We seemed to have a lot of issue and scandals that, depending on who's committing them, are getting different spanks for different ranks. Most of the defenders are using "cultural" defenses, especially when it comes to the jihadi cancer within our mists. I've finally decided to put moral relativism, the very issue that Pope Benedict XVI as stated as being the biggest threat to the survival of humanity currently to the test of logic. This may be one of the complex and long winded entries and I will try to avoid math symbiotic languages keeping to layman's terms as much as possible , but bare with me and Spokes logical conclusion would be moral relativism is one absurd stance to take.

Logic is more dictated by it's structure more than the validity of it's statements. In an logic argument, one must put all the statements in either true or false questions or statements. I.e, I am either wearing a black shirt or I am not. Do I look good in it isn't a statement that can be used in a logical argument. This is where most relativist start to go array already. When we talk about logical in its structure, we mean from a we get b, from b we get c and from c we get d, therefore from a we get d where a, b, c, d are t or f statements. By structure, if these statement are presented within the rules of logic, then the statement is logical. This only means after this that if the premises are true (the statements before the conclusion) then the conclusion MUST be true. I'll give two examples. All triangles by definition have 3 sides. Figure ABC has 3 sides. Therefore Figure ABC is a triangle. Structure within the rules of logic, both premises are true, therefore the conclusion must be true. Logicians call these sound arguments. Now this one. All Elephants are pink, Daisy is an Elephant, therefore Daisy is pink. These arguments are logical in its structure. However, as humans what's the first thing that stands out? Elephants aren't pink, there, since the primary premise is false, the conclusion is false (this isn't always the case, but if the primary, the first premise or any other premise that subsequent premises are based on, the conclusion will have to be false). This is what is called an unsound argument.

So with a basic understanding, let's get to the basis of logical arguments. We're going to deal with just the absolute truths, i.e. the ALL argument. When it comes to absolute truths, one must prove that for ALL members in a group, i.e. for all a's a member of b, that the conclusion will be sound for EVERY SINGLE a. As with the triangle argument, that will be true, by definition, of every single 3 sided geometric figure. So it's in mathematics as an absolute truth. Now a relativist can make the claim in his world it as 4 sides. He'll make a lousy mathematician, but by his reasoning, he's entitled to it. However, all one needs to bust the absolutism is one counter argument, a single case where it's not true and the whole argument becomes unsound. It's why in some cases there are exceptions made like being able to divide in the Real numbers. It's true in every case but zero, so we exempt zero and it becomes an absolute truth (the real argument is it's an absolute truth in the Reals-zero field, but lets not get to math jargon too much here). In a sense division in the Reals (and Rational and Irrational fields as well) is a Relative truth in the sense it's relative to those non-zero members or elements. It's even more relative in the Integers, Whole and Natural numbers in the sense that it can only be done when it divides evenly (4/2 is possible, but 4/3 is not as they're not members of the number group). So take the moral that killing is wrong. It's in the Bible (well, Murder is, not killing completely, but I'll make that argument in a sec) and is supported by every government on earth (except Islam where it's ok to kill infidels, but there own kind, it's considered wrong). It's an argument that Immanual Kant used that if everyone was allowed to kill, we would become exinct so it's immoral, though some animal or environmental worshipers would argue that man's extinction would be a good thing, but I'm going with RATIONAL people. So a relativist will make the argument that execution of a mass murderer is wrong. They actually have a point as the argument killing is wrong is taken as an absolute (we'll get to the abortion, the one they'll accept in a second), you can't execute the mass murderer. If all K is W, then one counter argument is all that needed to disprove that. There is: self defense. Everywhere, and even in the Bible, a person is allowed the right to self defense (again, except infidels in Islamic countries, but hey, this isn't an absolute truth). So since a person is allow to kill to defend themselves, killing is immoral is not an absolute truth. Now take the argument of killing of an innocent, or as defined in legal code and the Bible as murder (and this is what the 7th commandment says: Thu Shall not Murder. Doesn't say shall not kill), then arguments can be made it's an absolute. This is why the abortion issue won't die. The premise that abortion is murder, the killing of an innocent, that is at the heart of the debate because if the unborn is an innocent human, then abortion is immoral. However as the argument shows, anyone that believes all truths are absolute, are extremists and not correct. . . logically.

Pardon the long intro, but was need to make the case against relativism. The moral relativism argument goes down in flames quick and very simply. The relativist make a fatal mistake in set theory: entropic erosion. That's the foundation that a group can become too big. Ok, no math jargon, sorry. Here goes. Moral relativists believe all truths are relative. There are no black and white, just shades of grey. I.e., All T's are R. All I have to do is come up with one counter argument and this argument is proven to be unsound. To be relative, by definition, is to be dependent on some circumstances or cultural or personal belief. Murder is wrong for one person, can be OK for an another if they don't have the same faith as they do. They're both shades of grey. However, the very statement All T's are R is by definition an Absolute truth. By the structure of this statement, it's going be false no matter what T's you're using, as the statement All Truths are Relative will have to be false because to believe all truths are relative is an absolute truth. This is what is known as a contradiction. The most basic contradiction is the P and Not P argument. No matter what P is, it's going to leave to a false statement. This is the main flaw with relativism, they want to have it both ways having P and Not P be a truth or true statement. By the rules of logic, it can't This is where a group can become too large and become entropic. If you have elements where P is an element of the group and Not P is also an element, then you got a big problem. However, with the division by zero, the relativist will state that's the only one. Well, now, unlike the division argument where the rest of the premises (all the other a's in the Reals) are true, this one will have another contradiction as we now have TWO absolute truths. All T's are R's and All T's are R's is the ONLY absolute truth. Uh ho. This is getting bad. Now you'll have to make an exception to that one, but now you'll have yet another absolute truth that will contradict the previous relative statement. This can go infinitely. I won't get into the details but this a textbook example of a proof by induction disproving the original assumption: all truths are Relative. A similar one is used to prove the properties and existence of the Natural numbers, but again no more math lessons. This demonstrates that the very premise that moralist use is flawed and completely unsound logic. To accept such a premise is to accept 2+2=5, triangles have less than or greater than 3 sides, the sun rises in the West and sets on the East, etc. Oh wait, they do.

This is why relativist believe is so many stupid, contradictory and downright insane things. They believe they can have it both ways. That P and Not P can be made a true statement by saying that it is. This is why the life of a mass murderer is revered, but the unborn is not, why we spend more and more on education while the children learn less and less for what's knowledge if you can change the meaning? Why Judeo-Christian values are evil, and jihadi Islam is good, why the productive is disdained while the parasite is cherished, while capitalism is a failure, and Marxism is successful, Gay marriage is being sanctified, while tradition marriage is becoming archaic (seems contradictory, if it's not for procreation for which it was designed to protect, rearing of potential children created by the union, but it's enhances its true meaning. Ouch my head!), New age is the modern faith, Jews and Christians are living in the past, America is evil, the third world is her vitreous but oppressed victims, charity is victimizing while theft from the unproductive is merited, Libya, Iran, and Saudi Arabia on the counsel for Women Rights and Cuba, Egypt and Syria on the Human Rights Counsel makes sense while Western Nations don't, Taxing to prosperity works while growing an economy doesn't, Health care being a right while having what you earn isn't, fighting terrorism is wrong while defending Israel's right to exist isn't, Tea party is racist while baton threatening Black Panthers aren't, Global warming is a proven science while global temperatures are on the decline, ignorance is bliss while knowledge is evil (just ask the next two people), Mao Tse-Tung and Pol Pot weren't revolutionaries and America's founding fathers were evil racists that only cared for the white man, Bush is evil incarnate while Obama is our savior (though both have done the same thing with exception to Court nominees. BO has just accelerated Bush's policies), Jehovah isn't real, but Allah is, the Koran is scared, but the Bible is oppressive, sexist and evil, the constitution is outdated, but the new world order promotes peace, white promote hate speech, while minorities and jihadis are expressing free speech, morals are judgmental while having a mind so open that your brains fall out judging that morals are too judgmental is justice, right is wrong and wrong is right, good is evil and evil is good, and finally all morals are relative except those of my enemies who are always wrong.