Would Freud be a relativist?

Wouldnt is id, ego and superego explain how morals developed and therefore there are no moral absolutes, only determined by the superego?

Answer:
As much as you do have a point in that argument, it still doesn't seize to appear anything less than a desperate attempt for justification of leisure behaviour, with the hope of not having to deal with the repercussions and consequences of questionable actions.

You can justify your way out of any situation, be it Freud's id, ego, and superego concept, or, the rationalization of obsessive compulsive behaviour.

However, the fact still remains that your argument is right.

Hope this helps.

EDIT: As an addition, I never implied that a relativist would easily determine morals, on the contrary; I was emphasizing that he can keep justifying away the behaviour that lacks any morals. It would be a way out for anyone who would need an excuse for immoral actions.
I don't think so. He saw absolute cause and effect between behavior tendencies and the reasons for acting on those tendencies.

To me, he was an absolutist, not a relativist.

The answers post by the user, for information only, FunQA.com does not guarantee the right.



More Questions and Answers:
  • Why people tends to change when their living status change?
  • Personality Test?
  • To what extent is the Medical, Psychological, and Social Services become a factor to aid special children?
  • What are the dimensions and procedures of assertion training?
  • Does it annoy you when...?
  • What would you recommend to political Bosses to watch to improve skills?
  • If you had to name the one thing that most frightens you about growing old, what would it be?
  • What are a few important life lessons?
  • Can someone give me a reason why they do what they do ?