Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cybvax0.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!godot!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Relativism does not imply Nihilism -- Reply to Huybensz
Message-ID: <335@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 30-Jan-85 13:28:36 EST
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.335
Posted: Wed Jan 30 13:28:36 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 3-Feb-85 02:23:41 EST
References: <790@ratex.UUCP>
Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Distribution: net
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 53
Xref: seismo net.philosophy:1486
Summary: 

In article <790@ratex.UUCP> mck@ratex.UUCP (Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan) writes:
>      Let me quote from *Dictionary of Philosophy* 1st ed (the 2nd ed has
> recently become available, but I don't have it) editted by Dagobert D Runes:
> 
>           Absolutism: the opposite of Relativist.
>             [...]
>             3. Axiology: the view that standards of value (moral or
>                asthetic) are absolute, objective, superhuman, eternal.
> 
> Now, please note, the term 'god-given' (which you used) does not appear...

Oops.  Sorry.  I forgot that people take such terms seriously here.  :-)

>      Absolutism holds that ethical rules can be derived from objective
> reality according to objective process; rational Absolutism holds that
> such process must be logical.

Fine.  I can live with this, with the understanding that (like science)
the process is assymptotic (due to our inherent subjective limitations.)
By this definition, I too am an Absolutist, with the usual caveats about
all current systems being approximations.

>      If your definition of 'Relativism' is that it is the doctrine that
> different people should act differently in different situations, then it
> is trivially true; it is also, thus, not the opposite of rational
> Absolutism, which holds that while different people perhaps should act
> differently in different situations, their actions should merely be
> different manifestations of the same rule...

I gave a definition of relativism that (unfortunately) turns out to be
ambiguous.  The dictionary definition I used is "a view that ethical truths
depend on the individuals and groups holding them."  The interpretation I
intended is not that there are different absolute truths for different
individuals and groups, but that what they identify as truths are different
because of who they are.

By that definition, Absolutism and relativism are not incompatable nor
opposite.  And by my former argument, relativism does not lead to nihilism.

>      And, unfortunately, when you tried to correct misimpressions about
> Nihilism, you contributed to misimpressions about Social Darwinism.  If you
> get a chance to read the original writings of the genuine Social
> Darwinists (like Herbert Spencer, its English originator, or William Graham
> Sumner, its primary American exponent), you'll discover that they've been
> thoroughly libelled and slandered....

You're correct.  However, Social Drawinism is a good example of a philosophy
that was vilified unjustly, the same way Nihilism was.  In part because of
outrageous claims by detractors, and in part because of political abuse of
the ideas.
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh