Could you please specify the contradictions you are referring to?

Dennis

Dennis Mazur

On ethical subjectivism, all moral standards or truths are dependent only upon the opinions and feelings (not fact) of the utterer making the subjective moral judgment. So Bob believes that torturing children is wrong, while Frank believes that torturing children is right. On cultural relativism, moral or ethical systems, which vary from culture to culture, are all equally valid and no one system is really “better” than any other. So culture A repudiates female genital mutilation, while culture B embraces female genital mutilation. It seems that both ethical subjectivism and cultural relativism have no way to adjudicate which of two contradictories is true or even better.

I'm still having difficulty with the term "contradiction".  Which of the references below best captures your use of the term:

1.  Meaning, Contradiction and Paradox - Kent Academic Repository

https://kar.kent.ac.uk/1197/1/barber_russells_paradox_catch_22_etc.pdf

Full text document (pdf). Copyright & reuse. Content in the ... to lead their lives in the neighbourhood of a contradiction' (Wittgenstein 1978: App. III-17; III-81).

2.  Finding Contradictions in Text - Stanford NLP Group

https://nlp.stanford.edu/pubs/contradiction-acl08.pdfcO2008

Association for

Computational Linguistics. Finding Contradictions in Text . Marie-Catherine de Marneffe,. Linguistics Department. Stanford University.

3.  What is a Contradiction? - Patrick Grim

http://www.pgrim.org/articles/contradictionweb2.pdf

The Law of Non-Contradiction: New Philosophical Essays,. Clarendon ... The notion of contradiction is far from simple, it turns out, and the search for clarification.

Dennis

Dennis Mazur

The contradiction between subjectivism and relativism with positivism or pragmatism is clearer to me.

• Moral values and ethical principles exist because they guide our individual and group behavior. There are norms, rules and laws that express it in tangible form by means of writings or standard texts.
• Regarding the contradiction between Pragmatism (against idealism) or Scientific Positivism (objective experimental evidence and subject to measurement) Vs Subjectivism, are more evident, since they correspond to different perspectives of human knowledge that are identified and measured with different methods and instruments .

regards

Jose Luis

La contradicción entre subjetivismo y relativismo con el positivismo o pragmatismo me queda más claro.

• Los valores morales y principios éticos existen porque guían nuestra conducta individual y de grupo. Hay normas, reglas y leyes que lo expresan en forma tangible por medio de escritos o textos tipo.
• En cuanto a la contradicción entre Pragmatismo (contra el idealismo) o Positivismo Científico (evidencias experimentales objetivas y sujetas a medición) Vs el Subjetivismo, son más evidentes, pues corresponden a diferentes perspectivas del conocimiento humano que se identifican y miden con diferentes métodos e instrumentos.

Saludos

José Luis

By following the facts

subjectivist : I think this lead to the events and hence are true

relativist : circumstantial and evidence based

Contradiction : is when we can't convince ourselves :)

Kirk, didn't you miss one category here, the "absolutists"? Not my field, by any means, so this is just my guess. Subjectivists think ethics/morality is whatever they make it, relativists think morality is defined by their society or culture, and absolutists think there's some higher framework at play, so we have to make our moral codes fit that "absolute truth."

Don't know about "contradictions," but for sure there are bound to be inconsistencies. It would be a miracle if there weren't.

In my opinion, these three options can be compared objectively, for their usefulness to a society.

Subjectivism seems the most fragile. A society would have a tough time being even slightly cohesive, if everyone could invent his or her own moral code. Plus, it's the perfect recipe for "self-serving morality." People invent whatever moral code best suits their particular preferences and prejudices, whatever the consequences on society as a whole. It's a way to justify one's own quirks.

Absolutists cling to some absolute moral code taught to them. At least, this would lead to a more cohesive culture, which leads to more peaceful coexistence among those who share your idea of absolute truth. Regrettably, that absolute moral code will usually involve fiction. It may be a relic that needs updating badly, and no one willing to stick his neck out to initiate the process. And too, importantly, it's a recipe for disaster when cultures have to learn to coexist.

Relativism seems to get a bad name in some circles, but it's in fact what we mostly have lived with, throughout history. At least, what successful societies have lived with. Relativism accepts that a cohesive moral code is needed, but it allows the moral code to evolve, without causing undue anxiety. You know, women can actually get the vote, without society collapsing. That sort of thing.

The proof is in the pudding. Whatever people might argue, you simply point out the results, throughout history. What are the most successful and advanced cultures? What are most stagnant or dysfunctional ones? These questions can be answered fairly objectively. It's not all that difficult. If relativism has managed to survive for millennia, and it has, then it must be false to assert that relativism leads to ruin. It's equally demonstrable that the world has not remained as stagnant as absolutists might prefer to believe. We don't even live by Old Testament morality anymore, let alone practice human sacrifice to the gods. Cultures that have remained that stuck in time are either totally isolated or defunct. Proof in the pudding.

Dear

I think that for every problem there is a source and reasons and there are solutions and can be asked for help and may be a reason for beneficial change

Best regards