Even those who tout all-inclusiveness are excluding the worldviews that are exclusive.

You think it's environmental or societal? Those are two different things. You can say you believe it's both, but remember not to blend lines and make them into the same issue. What you're ultimately saying is that it's relative. People make decisions based on their personal influences. But what if relativism leads us to chaos? If every individual did what worked for himself/herself, then there would be no laws. Everything would be up for interpretation. This is where postmodernism has lead us.

This brings us to the most important discussion point: If relativism is what you're bringing, then why should your opinion matter to anyone else but you? Notice how you wrote, "Personally, I would agree...", and "I think..." This indicates you argue solely from your perspective. Again, why should your opinion be imposed on anyone else if all human opinion is equal?

No, I think you make good points. I'm not trying to argue that one is right over another, but rather just lending my personal immediate opinion. I have not even decided on anything concrete related to the issue-as my mind is not even made up. I want to hear the opinions of others, the topic to me in general is a curious one.

To your question "why should your opinion be imposed on anyone else if all human opinion is equal?"

That is a good question. To be honest, I don't believe all human opinion is equal. I believe that morals, opinions, etc. are shaped by the culture, environment, and society of which one grows up in. For example, Americans may have an opinion that goes against that of China's when speaking of bashing the heads in of infants. Some Amercians may have a different opinion and believe it is wrong to cut the hands off of those who try and steal, while in some middle eastern cultures it is considered justice. I think more that along the lines of human innateness, we would find basic survival needs and wants common in all humans. Beyond that, there are some things we could question as being innate or not.

But ultimately why do human opinions matter at all if they are meaningless outside of a relativistic context? Why should you make up your mind on anything at all? Why should others' opinions matter to you if you believe not all human opinions are equal? Are you just searching for views that are similar to your own so that you can somehow validate them through that avenue? If you don't definitively know the parameters on an issue, then how can you say if it is right or wrong?

Notice how you said, "...I don't believe all human opinion is equal." The structure of your sentence here could land you in a very sticky situation. It implies that you are giving more credibility to your opinion b/c it's what you're using to weigh human opinions in general. So why should your opinion be on such a higher level?

Morality. What if cultural, environmental and societal relativism had no bearing on what is ultimately morally right or wrong? What if they were just veils used to confuse? That would usher in discussion about absolutes. After all, how can there be "human rights" in a world where relativism has the day?

Human innateness. But why should we, in a world that is subject to relativism on so many different levels find basic survival needs and wants on any level? After all, the door is wide open for individuals, cultures and societies to define the terms any way they want. It leaves us in a precarious predicament. Which definitions do we use, and which ones are correct?

This is a great discussion, I'm glad we are having it.

You pose a lot of interesting questions here. When talking about human nature/innateness one could perhaps look at a child. Is it innate for a child to want to survive, yes. Children have certain reflexes, for example when you touch the palm of an infants hand, they will automatically grab your finger very tightly and not want to let go. Children cry when they are hungry or uncomfortable as means of survival. Even as children get older and their cognitive abilities are growing, they are not concerned about the opinions of others as they live in a very self-centered world to a great deal at that time. In addition, they are not discriminative of where they live, what clothes someone wears, who their parents are (regardless of race, religion, culture, sexual orientation, etc.). I think that Maslow's heirarchy of needs is a pretty good tool that outlines human needs and in what order we search for them. For example, someone starving is not necessarily going to want a bunch of material things over food.

I like your questions "But ultimately why do human opinions matter at all if they are meaningless outside of a relativistic context? Why should you make up your mind on anything at all?"

Good questions, and they make me wonder why as well. The other day a couple friends of mine were arguing whether or not it is innately in human nature to be competitive. Whether this be part of some sort of survival need, some part of darwinism, or what have you. Perhaps if it is true that innately humans have some need to be competitive, then maybe that lends to humans competiting over what is right and wrong, and aids in the importance of opinions. I don't know, what do you think about it?

As far as morals are concerned, they aren't universal. Math is universal, but opinions on what love is, the death penalty, abortion, arranged marriages, polygamy, etc. aren't universal.

I do also enjoy this debate.

Reflexes. Be careful not to blend lines on issues. Natural bodily reflexes are an issue that's separte and apart form choices that we make as to whether or not others' opinions matter to us.

Maslow's hierarchy. We actually need to break it down further. We need to know on what basis we have needs at all. Even this is subject to relativism. B/c every inidividual has their own definition as to what weight and importance they will give the "needs" represented in Maslow's illustration. One could even say it is simply Maslow's opinion as to which order we place needs in.

Starving individual. Again, you are illustrating relativism: situational relativism. That same individual may go back to his own regular needs hierarchy once he has been given food. Who's to say it woud be permanently changed just b/c on one occasion he was starving.

Competitiveness. A better question would be this: why assume we know anything at all? But Darwinism runs into the same relativism monsters within this context: environmental, cultural, historical, situational and societal. Competitiveness has nothing to do with the debate over morality. The underlying foundation here is simply many people are uncomfortable with the idea of absolutes. They don't want to be told no, so you see multitudes of people deferring to an a la carte or "grocery store" system for morality. In this venue, they get to pick and choose what feels right to them at a particular moment. But this leads us to the question: Are feelings/emotions a good foundation on which to build our morality?

Where morals are concerned. Your statements in this last paragraph assume morals are based on human opinion. Why is that? What happens when two opinions or even worldviews bump up against each other and are diametrically opposed? Can two completely opposite things both be true at the same time?

Math is universal. So are you advocating for selective relativism here? Allow me to clarify. Are you saying everything is relative, except for math? But how can such a contradiction be true? Why expect one element of universalism or absolutism in a world that is relative?

Reflexes. I do agree that they are an issue seperate from whether or not the opinions of others matter to us. The only point I was attempting to make, was that in fact I do NOT believe it is innate in human nature for us to care about the opinions of others. I wanted to touch on innate reflexes exhibited in kids and how you find no natural care for opinions or discrimination, but more-so a need to survive. However, one might argue in someway that the cognitive abilities of infants aren't strong enough yet to even comprehend such things.

Maslow's hierarchy. I can agree with you that individuals may place more weight on needs in a different order, depending on that person. In addition, even with his studies, to my understanding Maslow was even a bit unsure of how to give his hierarchy scientific accredidation. It is a theory, and still a decently good one in truth. I do think perhaps nowaday this hierarchy may be slightly different, again perhaps depending on the person.

To the starving individual, point taken, agreed.

Competitiveness. I can agree that it has nothing to do with morality. However, the idea that it may somehow be innate in humans is an interesting side topic. The question I was wondering was if it is innate in human nature to be competitive, then does that help us form opinions about others on any level?

Morals. In regards to morals, I would assume that yes it has to do with opinion. I say this because on a global context, and even on an individual one, morals differentiate. What is right for one person, may not be right for another. Does that mean two different things could be true for both people? I think they can both be true to those individuals. Laws are based on opinions of what should be right and wrong as well. Laws too are different in other countries. In addition, we could speak of religion. Just because someone is Christian and not Muslim, or vice versa, does that mean one of them is definitely going to hell and the other not? Who is ultimately to decide that? Why should they not both go to heaven?

I assume that math is universal because globally the language of math is the same. One plus one equals two no matter where you are. The definition of love, the ideas of morality, are not found to be the same wherever you go, nor with everyone you talk to. However, there are other things that are absolutes, for example the need for humans to breathe air.

Opinions of others. Let's take a look at this from another angle. Have you ever asked a friend how a shirt looked on you? Even small children will request a parent/loved one to observe a project that they have completed. Recall the exclamation, "Look at this/me, Mommy!" These examples are both evidences that we do have built within us a need for approval from outside sources. And that's not a bad thing. As far as competition goes, one only has to observe young siblings (even infant twins) to see the onset of early sibling rivalry. Infant cognitive abilities. The onset of the "Mine!" frame of mind also appears early on in infants, even if they don't vocalize the specific word.

Maslow's hierarchy x2. Your sentence structures get you into trouble again. You preface a lot of your statements with verbage that indicates you argue solely from your perspective. This will open the door wide for your debate opponents to combat with, "That's just your opinion!" You must be able to use verification outside of what you, yourself, believe to be correct. But that begs the question, Where do we find such a solid foundation on which to build our arguments?

"It is a theory, and still a decently good one in truth." This is a contradictory statement. If something is a theory then it lacks solidarity, something which truth must contain.

Competitive question. Of course, it is innate within us. It's a good thing. It can drive us to solve problems. But we must then ask, why should it be there at all?

Morals. Again, your statments here provide an illustration of relativism. So how can we operate constructively globally, culturally, socially, etc., if there are many views on morality? Can a society function if there are many conflicting views on things like stealing, murder, rape, etc.? Perhaps this illustrates the need for universal or absolute standards? For ex., how long do you think a company would last if it turned a blind eye to people using the five finger discount just b/c the individuals say, "I'm taking these Pampers because I need them for my baby, and don't have enough money to buy it"? Of course, that would cause a snowball effect, and the store wouldn't be open for business very long.

Christian and Muslim differences on hell parameters. That will take a while to dissect. Are you sure you have time for it?

1+1=2. But what do we say to those who bring in philosophical assumptions to seemingly simple algorithms such as this one? I know that sounds silly at first, but I can assure you debates regarding this very issue rage on. Again, it has to do with dragging personal philosophical assumptions along for the ride. For instance, there are school districts in operation right now that tell their teachers they are not allowed to tell the students they are wrong if incorrect answers are given. What kind of snowball effect will we have there?

Personal definitions of love, morality, etc., vary where ever you go. But this ushers in chaos. Why? I'm glad you asked that. Allow me to give you some illustrations: Is it love for a person to stalk another individual? Is it love when a husband beats his wife into submission every time she merely voices an oppositional view? You know where I'm going with this. But these are the kind of things that have to come in when we open the door to relativism. Because how do we ultimately know what is morally right or wrong if definitions are left up for individual interpretation? Can we really say one is better than another? If we can, then what if someone throws up the descrimination flag in response?

If you look at history, when the democrats got power again after the Civil War they began creating the welfare state. Having all these citizens dependent upon them to keep money from the middle class flowing insured votes to anyone who was willing to increase it. The Republicans have battled this by talking as close to the Democrats as they can and just plain talking nonsense when their conservative constituances wanted answers and real actions. Now both parties are expanding the "Nanny" state. We have a liberal news that talks only about taking all guns and giving us national heathcare. We have a liberal education system that provides political correctness at a young age all the way through college. Whenever a conservative message comes out they are smeared as a racist, biggot, or some other propaganda term. Georgia still has its state flag intact because the sons of confederate veterans were allowed a debate with the governor and showed just how ignorant liberal teachings are. It is not something that is just inevitable that has created our situation. Social Engineering created our situation and going back to the constitution and getting rid of all the ignorance is the only thing that can save us.

In Liberty,
Jason

Jason, are you sure relying on man-made documents that are obviously now subject to "interpretation" and education are the only things that can save us? After all, we're in this predicament because people relied on humans to be the law-givers and foundations for society. Perhaps it is human nature that is the problem?

Our founding fathers referred to political parties as the factions and said they would be the death of our country. There are problems but the Constitution is not one of them. Yes humans are not perfect and everyone sins in some way or another. That is why we cannot allow centralized control of anything. Bringing power into few hands is one of the most dangerous things to liberty. When the Federal Constitution was created, the states already had their own constitutions. They did not give these up to have the federal constitution, it was only created to compliment the state constitutions and restrict the federal government. Our rights being written on paper is for nothing more than making it harder to take them. When the colonies were controlled by Britan, they had rights but they were not written down. It was a well known fact that uneducated individuals would easily be manipulated into a federal takeover.

I think it was Thomas Jefferson that said he would hate to see the state of this country if it goes 20 years without a revolution. The last revolution failed and we haven't seen another for almost 150 years. The political parties are in control and have created laws to give themselves mob rule and with the help of the media, has propagandized the people into thinking things are complicated when they really are not.

When this country was founded the constitutions were based on God's Laws, The Ten Commandments. This is why they hang over the Federal Supreme Court. This is why they were in all State Supreme Courts. Gods laws are very unoppressing and very free.

There has been an all out attack against the foundations of our country and this is why sexual crimes, pornography, homosexualism, and such are out of control. One instance is when Federal Monies were used to advertise and advocate the use of condoms. Many politicians were participating in this liberal attack against intelligent sexual relations. 200,000 signatures for Abstinence by the middle class were brought to Washington with a protest and not one politician showed up. STD's are spreading faster than ever and disease and disorder are just as huge because of the FDA.

Humans naturally fear the unknown. That is why people train so they will have something to fall back on. In this aspect training comes from learning as much as you can about the founding and working of this country under freedom. Freedom did work! It was just taken from us!

Everyone must remember that this country was founded under Christianity WITH Freedom of Religion. If it wasn't for the great love and understanding of God's Laws you may not have that right! Don't try to take the fact and use it to take the Christian heritage out of this country and government or you will end up with people who don't care to be corrupt because they don't believe God will judge them in the end and they have no Ultimate Moral Code! Although I do advocate that organized religion has been a downfall factor for the world. It was only organized in the beginning of this country to create Hospitals and help people. Don't blindly follow! That is what has gotten us into this situation and allowed the takeover of this country.

Jason, I don't think you got the full flavor of my devil's advocate stew. I agree with you that this country was founded with Christian principles. I was merely trying to come at these issues from a more palatable angle for the one who is toying with relativism.