<p>"Bicker, bicker, bicker...</p>
<p>You're not even trying to make sense."</p>
<p>The fact that you don't understand what I'm saying speaks volumes about your ignorance.</p>
<p>Fact: You falsely accused me of either being a total absolutist or a total relativist through a dichotomoy</p>
<p>Fact: There are different types and degrees of absolutism and relativism</p>
<p>Conclusion: Your dichotomy was false</p>
<p>Baelor:</p>
<p>You know you can make all the assertions you want. But at some point you have to provide examples and evidence to back them up.</p>
<p>Wikipedia is a horrible (in general) yet adequate source of information for this debate, given its nature.</p>
<p>Moral</a> relativism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ethical</a> subjectivism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Moral</a> objectivism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Value</a> pluralism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Cultural</a> relativism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Existentialism</a> - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</p>
<p>See? Many kinds of moral outlooks. Relativism encompasses a wide range of philosophies and epistemological viewpoints. "Total absolutism" and "Total relativism" are opposites, but what about all the beliefs in-between?</p>
<p>A lack of belief in total absolutism does not imply a belief in total relativism.</p>
<p>i want to know what the OP decided to do!</p>
<p>The OP already told us (back on page 4 or something) that he did report it. To someone. It's now out of his hands.</p>
<p>Good for you, OP.</p>
<p>Edit: OP e-mailed the teachers.</p>
<p>Look, buddy, I can see right through you. This is far from a matter of integrity, its a matter of jealousy. </p>
<p>He beat the system, you can't/won't/shouldn't, but I don't think you should take it upon yourself to be the judge, jury, and executioner. </p>
<p>There will come a time when he needs to show if he has the stuff, and if he doesn't, then he'll be the one who pays.</p>
<p>perhaps you all should make a new thread entirely about these morals? I can't believe the passion some have put into this thread.</p>
<p>I'm not going to check all these pages (I'm on vacation) but I will drop by to post new info everyday. There's only
so much I can do on this little iPod.</p>
<p>Two teachers have gotten back...didn't write them. but they said they will contact the other two teachers about it.</p>
<p>I think people get really passionate about things that hit close to home like morals. No one really cares about certain abstract issues far away from us, but cheating? It's a thing all high school students and most adults have to encounter on an almost daily basis. Please keep us posted collegebound2009.</p>
<p>zzzboy, what does it mean to "dgaf" a thread? I've never heard that before. </p>
<p>Baelor, you misread something I want to straighten out. The posts about leading a sheltered life were directed at me, not you. I had posted earlier that I must have led a sheltered life in response to a post from zzzboy. Zzzboy had said that in his school cheating is so rampant that kids will crawl across the floor during tests to just to get answers from a buddy. He also said that in his school, cheating is valued and accepted and the only sin is to "snitch", to use his lovely term. From his earliest posts, we know that "snitching results in vandalism of your home and belongings and puts you in physical danger. These are too great a risk and therefore the OP would be wrong to report the Yalecheater. He implied that since this is how his school is, that is how the world is and therefore my moral scruples, which find the Yalecheater's activities repugnant, are wrong. So I said I led a sheltered life since I find cheating to be the exception, not the rule.</p>
<p>From there, newjack88 concluded I had no credibility on the issue of morals or ethics since, "by my own admission", I have led a sheltered life. I must be Amish or something. Not that Amish people have morals or ethics or anything.</p>
<p>Collegebound09, lost in all of this is that two of the teachers said they hadn't written Yalecheater any recommendations. I assume this means that two of the four teachers Yalecheater claimed as rec writers in fact were not. Does this imply that, in fact, Yalecheater was not kidding when he confessed his cheating to you?</p>
<p>No it doesn't. If the other two teachers said they wrote the recs, since you only need two recs, it doesn't mean the OP cheated.</p>
<p>Oh yeah, I was looking at some past CC threads, yeah I know I'm bored...I found this post on a H vs S vs Y vs P thread on CC:</p>
<p>
[Quote]
I haven't done much research outside of Stanford and Yale but my opinions are...</p>
<p>I really hate the Stanford campus buildings. I'd go mad if I had to go to school there for 4 years.</p>
<p>I heard Yale is a little bubble world. Even though their campus is GORGEOUS, outside it is... dudders, as I've heard.</p>
<p>I haven't even looked at the name Princeton, because Princeton HATES our school. Because 8 years back or something, they accepted a kid from our school, early decision. But he turned out to be a murderer; killed a kid from another school, 'n buried the body, because of something going wrong with his SAT-business (where he takes the SAT for other kids in exchange for money). Something like the kid was gonna rat him out or something. Ther Princeton-accepted murderer is still in jail to this day, without parole. Kind of a shame, really, cause he was really smart; I've seen his school work and they're WOW. But yea, they hate us.</p>
<p>Harvard sounds good, but only because I've done zero look-in on them.</p>
<p>;o That isn't to say I'd wouldn't give a tail and a half to get into any of these. Cause I would.
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>Here's the link:<a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-admissions/134477-post-harvard-stanford-yale-princeton.html?%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-admissions/134477-post-harvard-stanford-yale-princeton.html?</a></p>
<p>Yeah, so I guess violent things can't be completely ruled out. Woeful Cheater+top school+brilliant+ratting out= Murderer??? Note, this was found on CC not randomly somewhere else online.</p>
<p>collegebound2009, Im glad to hear that you emailed the teachers. Youve done the right thing. The teachers now have the opportunity to look into the situation and to take action if your friend did what he said he did and forged any of the letters.</p>
<p>Weird...Well, the kid hasn't killed the OP yet, and the OP I hope will have his anonymity guarded. Thanks for keeping us posted. </p>
<p>"He beat the system, you can't/won't/shouldn't, but I don't think you should take it upon yourself to be the judge, jury, and executioner."</p>
<p>Why not?</p>
<p>I just hope you weren't the only one he told about it to, because if you were, then if he got in trouble, he'd know. But then again, if it was so long ago, he probably wouldn't remember who he even told it to since so many people asked him similar questions.</p>
<p>Baelor:</p>
<p>From one of your sources:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Moral relativists hold that no universal standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth; moral subjectivism is thus the opposite of moral absolutism.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Moral</a> relativism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</p>
<p>
[quote]
"He beat the system, you can't/won't/shouldn't, but I don't think you should take it upon yourself to be the judge, jury, and executioner."</p>
<p>Why not?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You don't mean that.</p>
<p>"From one of your sources:"</p>
<p>Moral relativism AS A WHOLE is the opposite of absolutism. But one can be something OTHER than a TOTAL absolutist or a TOTAL relativist. That's why there's a debate about epistemology at all. Your dichotomy was still completely false, because you took it to erroneous extremes. You also don't understand the articles, apparently.</p>
<p>"You don't mean that."</p>
<p>What's wrong with asking a question?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Moral relativism AS A WHOLE is the opposite of absolutism. But one can be something OTHER than a TOTAL absolutist or a TOTAL relativist. That's why there's a debate about epistemology at all. Your dichotomy was still completely false, because you took it to erroneous extremes. You also don't understand the articles, apparently.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Since you refuse to flesh out your ideas, I'll help you.</p>
<p>Have you been/are you trying to argue that a person can consider some things absolutes while considering other things relative?</p>
<p>youre going to tell on your friend? are you 5 years old? grow up. he got into yale not because of his recs. he earned the college he is in, are you going to ruin his life over something so little.</p>
<p>"Since you refuse to flesh out your ideas, I'll help you."</p>
<p>They are perfectly fleshed out, because they don't require much explanation.</p>
<p>"Have you been/are you trying to argue that a person can consider some things absolutes while considering other things relative?"</p>
<p>No. Read the articles. To what extent is something relative? What factors determine it? Is it the situation itself? Culture? Religion? Motives? Some people consider some aspects of a situation in terms of determining whether something is right while ignoring others.</p>
<p>That's not all: Are actions always wrong or right, but less wrong or right than other decisions that could be made as well? Are some rights more important than others? Are there guiding principles that apply to everyone, but can be interpreted differently?</p>
<p>Absolutism is the antithesis of relativism. But those are incredibly vague terms. You can't say that either one believes everything is always relative or one believes that everything is absolute. There are philosophies and views in between.</p>
<p>And for the record, yes. It wouldn't automatically be inconsistent for someone to believe that some things hold true all the time or almost all the time while others must be considered in context. There are many moral philosophies, utilitarianism is one that I didn't mention. You can shelter them under umbrella terms "absolutist" and "relativist," but those oversimplify the myriad positions one may take. My morals could be determined by what is best for the survival of the human race from a scientific perspective, which may mean that some things always hold true while others don't. Same for someone who believes in a certain religion, or adheres to a certain philosophy.</p>
<p>And, as much as you may like, you will never be able to prove that a particular point of view is correct. Attempting to discredit the opinions of others based on philosophical beliefs reveals both your closed-mindedness and your embrace of logical fallacies. Someone's arching views on morality or opinions on any issue other than the one at hand are not under scrutiny, nor can they be used in this debate at all.</p>
<p>Look up what the original topic of discussion is. You said that relativism cannot be proven. But it can be. The question is whether or not you accept the many arguments that support that idea.</p>
<p>Here is my question:</p>
<p>Any time that you talk about there being a degree, an amount, an extent, etc. don't you have to relate it to something else?</p>
<p>Even in your post you suggest that all philosophies are merely degrees of one another one.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And, as much as you may like, you will never be able to prove that a particular point of view is correct. Attempting to discredit the opinions of others based on philosophical beliefs reveals both your closed-mindedness and your embrace of logical fallacies. Someone's arching views on morality or opinions on any issue other than the one at hand are not under scrutiny, nor can they be used in this debate at all.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You are the person who asserted that relativism cannot be proven. In fact, that assertion of yours is what took us off on this tangent.</p>