Applicable Philosophy

[Graillik Tur]

Oh BOY! Here we are again. Another lesson forum for us free thinkers.

This one begins with a lesson that is very important.

Lesson 1.

In Philosophy it is believed by the majority that there are not 'universal right or wrong' answers. Only answers that are more right or less wrong. Ideas that have fewer holes in them than others. That is all you can ask for in philosophy. No more, no less.

So lets kick it off with a tough one. Based on the above question, what arguments can you bring to the table on "UNIVERSAL" law. You may also use references to "NATURAL" law if you can tie them in.

Begin. (As we debate further an problems arise I will update the lessons. I've found it easier to give these lessons the same way Socratese gave them. Let the students stumble until they hit a barrier, then attempt to give an explination.)

SALUT!

[Ming]

I don't know if I fully understand what you are talking about. But, being a student of philosophy, I'll take a crack at whatever the hell it is you're talking about.

Regardless of whether there are universal "right or wrong answers", there are many universal laws. For example, under no circumstance is murder acceptable. It is important, in this situation, to understand that MURDER is not equal to KILLING. Murder is the act of MALICIOULY killing another, and there are never any grounds for it, whereas there are often times grounds for killing.

The same holds true for rape. Under no circumstance is there a grounds for rape, and as such a universal law comes into being.

If you are further interested, read Kant's "Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals".

Ethically yours,
Ming

[Graillik Tur]

Well...that is interesting. But I didn't ask for an ethical opinion. What your stating isn't a what is known as a "Universal" law. While ethically you can argue your point. Philosophically, your a little off the mark. While I would love to discuss the philosophy of ethics, that'll be next weeks topic.

What I am asking for is a law that applies to everything. While your definition of Murder explains a set of circumstances, it doesn't answer the question of Universal law.

This is a hard one folks, don't get frustrated, it's gonna take some deep thought.

Salut.

[Excel Zero]

Sure I can dig this one.

I like simplicity so here it is. I believe in no universal truths or laws. I explain it as I always have. If the answer is correct for 6'000'000'000 people and it is wrong for me, it isn't universal.

u·ni·ver·sal ( P ) Pronunciation Key (yn-vûrsl)
adj.
Of, relating to, extending to, or affecting the entire world or all within the world; worldwide:

As it says, the entire world or all within. Therefore if I don't believe it, it isn't universal.

Plato used to say that there was a universal truth out there and only a few people were lucky enough to get it. The problem there is Plato was even an empiricist. He just thought up ideas and suddenly they were the truth all over. This is exactly why I can't stand Plato. He was an egotist. He believed he was the smartest guy alive. To me though, without some sorta divine intervention, how does one know all without expirementing? So anywho there ya have my idea now

End of line

Excel

[shadokastur]

Let's get right to this. I can't wait to get both barrels on this one. I'll try this one on for size:

Truth comes from emotion. Understanding comes from thought.

[Tobias]

the answer, if you want my opinion, for what universal truth is, is that there is no natural law, save for the laws that animals abide by, that being survival of the fittest, and defend to the death. But i'll leave my answer at that. Like Socrates in the Euthyphro, im not gonna state i know the answer, due to the fact that i dont know, and therefore, i wish to learn. When the time comes, i'll post my views, and see what you guys think.

[Aindriahhn]

Relativism has only really become popular in modern thought, most Enlightenment and Pre-Enlightenment thought was absolutist.

[Silver Adept]

If you posit the existence of a Supreme Being, creator of the universe, than whatever rules he put in place for the operation of that universe are "universal" laws, complex that they might be.

If you don't posit the existence of a Supreme Being, creator of the universe, then it becomes very unlikely that a universal law will exist, simply because scientific theory is always bounded by conditions under which the theory works. And when I say "scientific theory", I can probably include any "natural" laws, as well as the branches of ethics, philosophy, and other social sciences, since they all rely upon bounds to make fruitful application of their theories.

As those theories are refined, the bounds under which they work become more accurate. Some get larger, others smaller, but there is not yet a theory in existence that can be proven to work across the entirety of the universe, mostly because we can't test it in all corners of the universe yet.

Of course, it may be argued that the mere use of the word "universe" implies a boundless space, and so all theories will not work universally, because all theories require boundaries.

Hopefully that made sense. I'm not claiming it's right, just possible.

[Ming]

[Therin]

A universal truth: There is an exception to every rule.