Cray vs Cultural Relativist

Was in a chat debate with some dude on another site, thought this was kind of interesting and it reminded me of the chatbox philosophical discussion Nyte and DT had in the chatbox once. The debate was on gun control but turned all philosophical. lwl

my words are in black, his words in red. Please post your thoughts.

wow wow wow
What the hell is a TRUE crime? The only reason why hiring hitmen is forbidden and thus a crime is because it says so in the law book.
if you're gonna get into some moral absolutism argument you're gonna be facing a whole lotta problems such as ethical subjectivism/cultural relativism etc. etc.

Yeah. I don't think that because something was written in a law book that it becomes sacred. I believe people should use rationality and reason to arrive at conclusions and not blindly follow commands by authority. If the law book says it is legal to murder children, would that be alright? What if its part of someone else's culture? What if its part of the majority of people's culture? There has to be a line somewhere.

yeah to what lol? You didn't answer my question.
What is a true crime?

I would argue that a true crime is one in which a victim exists. By victim I mean someone that was aggressed upon or defrauded. That's where I think the line should be drawn. I don't think that because some state legislator writes on its law book that  owning or carrying a  certain plant is a crime, that it is a real crime. I don't think owning a firearm in of itself is a crime.  But more importantly than what I think. What do YOU think a crime is? Is it just whatever was written on the law books? Do you think there exist unjust laws and just laws?

You used a subjective description to somehow make one seem worse than the other. Imo I don't think there's such a thing as a "true" crimes. A crime is only that what is listed as something you shouldn't do in the law book. That's like, literally the definition of a crime.
"Crime - An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction."
So you see one crime cannot be truer than the other.
You seem to be talking about morals, and about something being bad in itself. If you don't think a crime is that what's listed in a lawbook, because that's literally what's listed in it.
But sure, I'll humour you - I'm a cultural relativist/ethical subjectivist/somewhere in between there.
I hold that either
a) there is nothing absolutely good
b) we cannot know if our moral set of values is absolutely good
Why do I say this? Because of values differing massively between cultures. What you find good, may not be found good by someone else. As an extreme example, I cannot say the holocaust was absolutely bad. While I do view the holocaust as a horrible thing to happen, I cannot say it is in an absolute sense, because that perception of that act may entirely be generated by the fact that I come from a western developed country, which was on the side of the Allied. Now say if the Nazi's would have won the war and are currently living in the age we live in. Obviously their perception of the holocaust would differ massively from ours, and they would regard people who say that it was a bad thing to happen with extreme contempt, just like we look at someone like he's sick in the head when he says the reverse in our society. The point being, our beliefs of what is good and right are heavily affected by what culture we grew up in, and to say that whatever that particular culture endorses is right seems wrong to me.
Thus I subscribe to descriptive ethics. I cannot say what you should do, I can only describe what people do and possibly why they do it.

This is why i asked you what you think a crime is and where you draw the line. After reading your post I can assume you draw the line, nowhere. So you have no point in ever arguing for any change in law or no reason to attempt to make the world better since you have no idea what is preferable. If the government decides to murder all homosexuals in society then you have no way to argue whether or not this is the right policy, since you can't know if it's right or wrong.
I will agree that values are subjective. However I would argue that people over time discover that certain actions over time benefit them. Every human acts with a purpose, that purpose is to attain satisfaction. So I could use a value-laden expression like "you should not murder" because I find it distasteful ( my personal preference) or I can keep in mind that "you should not murder, if you want to attain happiness in life" in trying to persuade people that committing murder will, in the long run, make it harder to achieve satisfaction.   I think what it comes down to is persuasion.

Nor can they argue that it is a good thing in itself. Seeing as I come from my culture, I will act mostly according to that culture's belief and fight for what I believe in. I just can't prove that it is a good thing or a bad thing. I won't ponder about what to do, I will merely do.
thus my final form of ethics is a combination of egoism, nihilism, and relativism.
What you say sounds a lot like what Aristotle would say, with regards to telos and eudaimonia. However you would have to prove that "achieving or getting near satisfaction" is inherently good.

I would argue that what is good or bad depends on the context. If my goal is to build muscle then lifting weights is good. I don't see how proving that achieving satisfaction is inherently good is necessary, I just need to state what my ends are-to reach satisfaction. And then from there, find what actions are suitable to reach satisfaction.
Theft isn't considered bad because some philosophers sat down and imagined a better world without theft, but is considered bad because people came to the realization that widespread theft makes it difficult to satisfy their ends. So if your goal is not to increase suffering but rather to increase satisfaction, then you must formulate a theory or plan on how to reach your desired ends. I have mine, which is that the best way to increase satisfaction overall is to allow for as much voluntary interpersonal actions as possible.
So if the government policy is to kill all homosexuals, I will be against that policy, because not only do I have a value-laden distaste for it, but I also hold that this is the wrong policy of trying to achieve our ends (satisfaction or happiness). Because if they can murder the homosexuals, they can potentially murder all red heads or all people with green eyes, they can potentially justify murdering me or someone I care about. To the murderer that gets satisfaction out of killing i would argue still has to pay a price, he has to weigh the consequences because people push back (i.e. the Nazi's reign didn't last very long). Which all goes back to, where should the line be drawn? Now if your goal is instead to achieve suffering, then what is considered good or bad will differ. But can you argue that you don't act to achieve an end?

Anyway, this is probably getting way beyond the scope of the topic.
I'll fight for the "right to own firearms" so as long as the killers of government are in exist.

if you cannot prove achieving satisfaction is absolutely good, that's merely that.
Obviously things are "good FOR". Kicking a ball is good for moving it, because one causes the other.
however your theory suffers from the same thing as mine does in the sense you can't judge others's opinions in an absolute sense. You would have to argue against someone who, despite having utilized the same thinking method as you, somehow came to different conclusions.

when you argue with someone, and you got em backed into a cornier and they refuse to change their position, they argue definitions and philosophies in an attempt to still "win" the argument. When you cant prove your point you argue the meaning of the words in the argument....kinda like what kyte does lawlz

I think ol boy hit it on the head. What if all guns were outlawed. No one would die from guns. Doesnt mean their wouldnt be death anymore just not by the hands of guns. No more cars means no more drunk driving... Do you believe in the death penalty? Or does "justified death" work for you. If some idiot rapes and murders a close loved one but then gets busted, would you fight for him to not be killed. One could argue collateral damage is justified, whether it is or not....

Truth is in the eye of the beholder...

was this basically about what contitutes a crime and who decides what an actual crime is? just so im on the right page

What site is this cray? Link?

.02 cents wrote:I think ol boy hit it on the head. What if all guns were outlawed. No one would die from guns. Doesnt mean their wouldnt be death anymore just not by the hands of guns. No more cars means no more drunk driving... Do you believe in the death penalty? Or does "justified death" work for you. If some idiot rapes and murders a close loved one but then gets busted, would you fight for him to not be killed. One could argue collateral damage is justified, whether it is or not....

Truth is in the eye of the beholder...

yak.yak wrote:was this basically about what contitutes a crime and who decides what an actual crime is? just so im on the right page

I had made (maybe) a sloppy comment on the difference between a "true crime" and a crime that is just a crime because it was written in a rule book. The person took issue with my statement, saying a crime is just whatever breaks the law.
It also turned into a debate on whether good or bad actually exist. His argument is that it is all relative to someone's culture. As you can see, he even went as far as to say he cannot really say whether or not the Nazi's were right or wrong/good or bad.

Day Ryda wrote:What site is this cray? Link?

bodybuilding forum..lol

The thread long since died though.

RC wrote:

yak.yak wrote:was this basically about what contitutes a crime and who decides what an actual crime is? just so im on the right page

I had made (maybe) a sloppy comment on the difference between a "true crime" and a crime that is just a crime because it was written in a rule book. The person took issue with my statement, saying a crime is just whatever breaks the law.
It also turned into a debate on whether good or bad actually exist. His argument is that it is all relative to someone's culture. As you can see, he even went as far as to say he cannot really say whether or not the Nazi's were right or wrong/good or bad.

u made some good points its seems like that guy was trying to hard to b smart. it would come down to personal opinion about good and bad. i believe murder is bad but someone else can belive murder is good. the law doesnt dictate what is good or bad the law is in effect to pretty much provide a safe environment for ppl to live. laws prevent ppl from going around tearin shit up.