18
comments
|
Friday, April 21, 2006
The conversation is on the upswing. Karen has responded to my previous post on Moral Relativism.
By way of reply Karen says:
For you the ultimate is now, however, “now” will be irrelevant in the distant future. Given the assurance of unavoidable destruction (in your world view), it implies that the burden of prove to demonstrate there is meaning. Saying that meaning is NOW doesn’t seem sufficient.
Accepting Christ as Lord and Savior is the recognition of total (including moral) depravity. It is true that on someone’s deathbed they can call on Christ and be saved. However, the moral principals of Christianity do not sanction immorality, but rather prohibits it. This question also fails to recognize that all immoral actions are paid for. There is always justice in Christianity, but not atheism. One can pay for their moral crimes them themselves, or Jesus can pay for them; it’s a choice, choose wisely.
By way of reply Karen says:
Well, depending on just HOW good or bad I am, and how big my sphere of influence is, there could still be some ripple effect 1000 years form now, I suppose. 100 years is more likely. Ultimately, when the world rips to shreds, it will not matter, and I have absolutely no problem with that. I have no control over what happened before I came to be, or what will happen after I cease to be. All I can really control is what kind of person I am while I am here. Ultimate is NOW.
For you the ultimate is now, however, “now” will be irrelevant in the distant future. Given the assurance of unavoidable destruction (in your world view), it implies that the burden of prove to demonstrate there is meaning. Saying that meaning is NOW doesn’t seem sufficient.
From your perspective, any person good or bad can achieve immortality by simply accepting christ as lord before dying. What kind of morality is that?
Accepting Christ as Lord and Savior is the recognition of total (including moral) depravity. It is true that on someone’s deathbed they can call on Christ and be saved. However, the moral principals of Christianity do not sanction immorality, but rather prohibits it. This question also fails to recognize that all immoral actions are paid for. There is always justice in Christianity, but not atheism. One can pay for their moral crimes them themselves, or Jesus can pay for them; it’s a choice, choose wisely.
Why should anyone be moral?To propel the idea that others too, should be moral. Instinct for survival.
This does not answer the question. You only push the question back one step. Why should others be moral? Give a prescriptive reason for morality.
Instincts within the context of evolution, doesn’t help us much here. Instincts can also be counter moral. For example, someone could claim that rape was instigated by their instinct. Therefore, instinct does not determine what is, or what is not moral. There must be some standard to judge instinct by in order to determine its moral veracity.
Coformity to general rules of society, instinct for survival.
This is far too ambiguous. We all belong to multiple social groups, and the within these groups there is always conflict. These groups are all contained in general society. If the rightness of any individual’s actions is relative to the standard of any particular culture, would that person not have to know which group constitutes their culture? Is a culture defined by geography, race, class, nationality, gender or what?
Secondly, how do we know what a culture thinks about anything? The laws? Do laws equal morality? Inevitably, there will always be moral disagreements within any group. Thus, who's to say which “opinions” are going to define the moral standards of any given culture? Id laws determine morality, there is nothing above law, or society to appeal to and change those laws/values. This is obviously false.
Rather than being prescriptive with morals, as a relativist morality is merely a descriptive statement of morality. You’ll see later how this is flawed.
If good and evil are subjective, then no one is really good or evil, because that changes as conventions change, whether socially, or individually. Good and evil change from one person to another from society to society; there is no standard to judge actions of other societies, cultures and timesExactly. If another society spends all of its time completely naked, can they say we are wrong to need to be clothed?
The problem with making the culture or society the deciding factor is that if slavery becomes acceptable again in the next 200, 300, or 25 years, who is to say if it is right or wrong? We would have a contradictory set of right and wrong regarding the same issue. Thus, it is incoherent.
To be a consistent relativist regarding things such as the treatment of women in Afghanistan, you should say, it is after all just a "cultural" thing and we have no basis to judge the rightness or wrongness of Taliban culture. However, I have yet to see a moral relativist live up to the relative standard.
A "trapped" society may indeed have very little moral "progress". But then it may have all it needs. It is when societies interact that changes occur the most, IMO. You would evaluate, the same as if you were studying a tribe of chimps...objectively, without bringing any of your own moral constructs onto their society
Chimps? Anytime you make a conclusion about monkey or animal morality simply from external behavior, it reduces morality to mere conduct. This completely ignores non-behavioral element of morality.
You can see chimps sharing their food with each other and note that it helps them survive. However, you can’t conclude by the observation that they ought to share their food. Moreover, you couldn’t conclude that the chimp was immoral just because he wouldn’t share his banana. You have to distinguish between act and intent (prescriptive vs. descriptive). Behaviors can be identical, but intents with the same behavior can determine if it is moral/immoral.
If you want to say that morality is relative to culture, you have to specify when morality changes. When does slavery go from the moral standard to the immoral standard? Can someone just wake up one day and say: “Well, I better check the news paper to see what moral values I have today”?
Moreover, when you say that Slavery was the moral norm, you’re taking the opinion of slaveholders. What about the slave’s opinion? When they said it was horrendously wrong (read the book “Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl”) what does their moral position count for within the context of moral relativism?
You are correct, that this is an assertion. I realize this is an absolute statement for which I have no physical evidence. It just seems as plain as the nose on my face: No gods existed till man evolved to make them up. "Lower" animals had no need for gods, and as far as we know, no way to communicate the idea of gods. If you would like to show me proof of any gods being around before man came into existence, I'm all ears
This is a red herring and goes way off topic. Proving the existence of God right now is a completely different trail. However, I will be happy to give reasons for specifics on another occasion. I need not give a dissertation though so satisfy anyone standard of proof at demand.
Moreover, it doesn’t follow that if man does not exist, God does not exist, or if man/animal can not articulate/communicate Gods existence; He does not exist. You will have a difficult time coming up with a logical argument to support that (especially: as plain as the nose on your face).
There was nothing wrong with clubbing your neighbor, except that it lessened the gene pool.
My point was that if morality is imbued by god, then we wouldn't go about clubbing our neighbor naturally.
But of course you bring in the old free will argument for that later
If you want to show how free will is incoherent in reference to the objection. I will be happy to start another thread with your logical propositions against the “old free will argument.”
Secondly, if there are reasonable explanations for the compatibility of “evils” and the existence of God, then your rejection of God on such grounds fail. First, you have to believe that evil is absolute before you can valid a claim un-relative to your culture. Every time you make a claim that some incident in the Bible is “evil”, you contradict moral relativism. Hence, you act as if your cultural determination of morality has anything to do with an ancient culture. Moreover, you act as if your societal standard has any sway over other societal standards.
Internally, Christians can address these issues. However, it’s would be irrelevant to a moral relativist, because it was just their culture after all (no such things as evil for them).
still later, you say,God is not a crutch for morality, but rather a source. Some recognize the intuitive nature of morality, while others avoid it because it requires a source. The source is still there, but the recognition is not.So it's intuitive, but we can ignoore it. If it's intuitive, it could be evolutionarily so---instinctive---at least about killing each other.
Things can be intuitively right or wrong. What is ignored is the conclusion of absolutes. People will assert cultural morals as a standard to avoid the intuitive aspect of absolute morality. There are excuses like differences in culture, opinion, and changes. However, not of these meet that standard of coherence.
Because if we kill everyone, the species doesn't survive
Survival of the fittest mentality gives me permission to kill whom so ever I please. If I can do so without destroying the species, then performing this action within the confinement still tells me nothing of morality.
Saying that action X will detriment the survival of a given species, doesn’t tell anything about the morality of action X.
Everyday life is smoother, more organized, safer.You should care because society is determining what is right and wrong for you as an individual. And if you are uncomfomfortable with it, you should rail against it. Find people who agree with you and work to change what society holds as "right". That's how morals evolve
If society determines what is right and wrong for you, it is impossible to rail against it. Because there is not other standard that one can appeal to.
If I am not right with societies moral standards, that means that society does not determine moral standards. Hence, I have to appeal to something *other* than societal standards in order to change society. Reformers change public opinion by offering reasons and evidence to support their position. If the reasons are relevant to morality, they must appeal to some other source of morality than society, because in reform, society is the perpetrator.
Any rational person would reject an argument in support of torture on the basis that everyone does it. It is a fallacious argument and moral relativism uses it.
One can't really, say another society is wrong
Do you hold yourself to your moral relativist standard here? I doubt it. Moral relativist act as if morality is objective, but deny is with their words. It’s call talking through both sides of your mouth.
By blowing themselves and others up, the Afghan terrorists have said it's OK for other to blow them up. If they don't want to be treated that way, they should stop.
Is there some absolute standard that says if you do X to a person/society it’s okay for someone to do X back to that person or society? Or is this just more of your opinion?
As a moral relativist, you have no basis to require them to stop. How can one society act as if their morals are superior to the others society? There would have to be a standard above societal standards to do so. If a society attempts to interject in other societies functions, they are essentially making “Might” what is “Right.”
Treat others as you would like to be treated
I agree, but I have a basis for this principal. Go to another society who doesn’t follow this principal and your *opinion* is not morally correct. You act as if this is an absolute standard or something.
About the Aztecs, that was their way. I don't agree with it, but if I'm smart, I stay out of their neighborhood. I notice they're not active any more, btw
Thanks for the Aztec update.
The Aztecs are not active anymore; however, if country X decided to take up human sacrifice, the best you could say is: it is after all just a "cultural" thing and we have no basis to judge the rightness or wrongness of X culture and if I am smart I will just stay out of there.
Is this simple as in: This is an absolute standard? Or is this simple in: this is just my subjective opinion; it has no bearing outside my social context?
Since society is your standard, what do you do when your society says treat others horribly even through you don’t want to be treated that way?
Yes, life is short; eat drink and be merry. I think I have read that somewhere…
Who is talking about the supernatural? I’m just questioning moral relativism here. Can you justify moral relativism or not? Is moral relativism sound or not?
Again, treat others as you would like to be treated. Pretty simple
Is this simple as in: This is an absolute standard? Or is this simple in: this is just my subjective opinion; it has no bearing outside my social context?
Since society is your standard, what do you do when your society says treat others horribly even through you don’t want to be treated that way?
Life is short. Following some rules makes it less complicated and more pleasant. Plus, as you keep saying, if you follow the rules, you can reasonably expect others to follow the rules too. Ther's no need to bring the supernatural into it
Yes, life is short; eat drink and be merry. I think I have read that somewhere…
Who is talking about the supernatural? I’m just questioning moral relativism here. Can you justify moral relativism or not? Is moral relativism sound or not?
Are you saying you live in terror of facing your god in judgement, but at the same time you want nothing less/more? "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Do you think about this a lot?
The manner in which the question was phrased, was to be judged by your *own* actions. That is terrifying. Luckily (for me) I am not judged for how good I am, but my faith in Christ has taken this judgment away. It can for you also. Yes, I think about Gods grace a lot. Better his mercy than his wrath.
I’m not sure if you’re just completely oblivious to this Christian principal, or if you’re just shooting from the hip hoping to hit something.
I cannot define "good" any better than you can. That is why I am a relativist. You are the one making the claim for morality; that some things are "good" while others are not. It follows that you would have a definition for what "good" actually is
How does the circularity of the definition of “good” merit moral relativism?
We intuitively no what is good. Moral relativism denies the intuitive nature if the human. Because the relativist says empathy can be good in one culture and evil in another.
The act of using poison to harm or kill innocents could be called an act of evil, or malicious intent, wanton or reckless harm
Only within a society who deems it “evil.” According to moral relativism, this can be *good* in another society.
Rape infers an act against someone's will, or without permission, so it would be wrong
You’re making an absolute statement about morality at the same time you’re denying absolute morality. You are being incoherent.
An act against someone’s will is only wrong in our societal context (remember?). Unless you’re appealing to some absolute standard. Are you? Slavery is “an act against someone's will, or without permission” however, according to moral relativism this was morally correct at the time.
Is killing babies *sometimes* evil and *sometimes* good? Case-bycase basis.
Does case by case mean that torturing babies for fun is *absolutely* wrong? Or is there a circumstance or a society with an alternate standard that can do this and it be okay?
Smashing a newborn's head against a rock would be wrong. It is an innocent life being taken away.
Absolutely wrong? Or just according to our society? Your opinion?
Can you see how moral relativism starts to get ridiculous? If this just your opinion, someone with the opposite opinion is as equally valid.
Taking a vegetative child off life support is not evil, because there is no point in sustaining a brainless body. Aborting a fetus that is not yet a viable human being is also not evil.
We have been through the abortion issue already. You have failed to substantiate that the unborn are not individual human beings. Secondly, you are appealing to complex moral issues with life support. Start with the clear, or you’re more inclined to confuse the issue:
The Clear: Is there any context where torturing babies for fun is morally permissible? Be honest.
Taking life of any kind is not "good", but can make more sense than allowing life.
The first part of your statement that the taking any kind of life is not “good” is an absolute statement about morality. However, you qualify it with ambiguous exceptions. Lets loose the ambiguity and deal with clear cut cases. When can it make more sense to torture babies rather then not torture babies? I am not denying cases where there is an exception, however, those are determined by intent and motive, not behavior. I know of no motive/intent that justifies torturing babies.
No, animals can't distinguish poison as a TOOL for good or evil, but they can, through evolutionary instinct, recognize which plants, roots, insects, etc., are poisonous to them and avoid them. Comparitively, human children are incapable of intuiting poisons. They don't know about the good and evil aspects of the tools until they are taught.
Because children cannot intuitively grasp weather or not X is moral, doesn’t it follow that X is or is not moral.
Healthy actions may or may not be moral. It can be healthy for someone to take somebody from the bus station and eat them (high protein). However, it is still immoral. Likewise, an unhealthy action can be moral too. It would be a moral action to push a child out of the way of a car, but unhealthy when you fall in the path and are struck.
Thus, healthy and unhealthy are unsupportive for your case.
Nice hypothesis. What follows?
Evolution does not provide a foundation for morality. Why should anyone care about survival? After your dead who cares? If someone doesn’t care about such things, what does the evolutionary theory being promulgated here offer?
It's not so much distinguishing good actions from bad actions, as promoting more healthy actions from unhealthy actions.
Healthy actions may or may not be moral. It can be healthy for someone to take somebody from the bus station and eat them (high protein). However, it is still immoral. Likewise, an unhealthy action can be moral too. It would be a moral action to push a child out of the way of a car, but unhealthy when you fall in the path and are struck.
Thus, healthy and unhealthy are unsupportive for your case.
Back when the cave man was clubbing his neighbor to get the good cave, at some point one of them realized if they worked things out, they could share the cave instead, and have better chances of propagating the species, safety in numbers, cooperation.
Nice hypothesis. What follows?
Evolution does not provide a foundation for morality. Why should anyone care about survival? After your dead who cares? If someone doesn’t care about such things, what does the evolutionary theory being promulgated here offer?
Then they learned that if instead of killing the guy from the next tribe to get his wooden bowl, they could invite him into their tribe, and he could teach them to make bowls.
You’re arguing from effect to cause (backwards). The effect does not identify the original intent. One problem with this is that you’re viewing morality as descriptive; just as a function of the environment utilizing the utility of behavior that promotes the survival of our species.
To say that a given action is natural (species preservation) is not to say that it is “good.”
To say that a given action is natural (species preservation) is not to say that it is “good.”
Rape, having been around since the dawn of man, does not seem to have any evolutionary value. It has, IMO outlived it's evolutionary value, as we are certainly no longer short on human specimans.
You give a lot of opinions to support your position.
If an action is part of an evolutionary “programming” (so to speak) then the action cannot be deemed morally wrong. In order to deem action X wrong there would have to be a standard that transcends evolutionary action. This would seem to count against your position.
By subjective opinion, your conceding that it could be the case that your are wrong in your assessment. I suspect your going against the grain on your intuitive senses to hold to relativism. This is something moral relativists should reflect on more deeply (not that you haven’t, but I suspect your being dishonest).
If an action is part of an evolutionary “programming” (so to speak) then the action cannot be deemed morally wrong. In order to deem action X wrong there would have to be a standard that transcends evolutionary action. This would seem to count against your position.
It is my subjective opinion that Hitler was wrong.
By subjective opinion, your conceding that it could be the case that your are wrong in your assessment. I suspect your going against the grain on your intuitive senses to hold to relativism. This is something moral relativists should reflect on more deeply (not that you haven’t, but I suspect your being dishonest).
My subjective opinion is the general society around Hitler was wrong, and weak, and scared.
What value does a subjective opinion have on such crucial matters? If there was a modern day madman with Hitler’s motif would you just say, well my opinion is that it is wrong, it is after all just a "cultural" thing and we have no basis to judge the rightness or wrongness of X culture.
Rather, you (and I’m sure you will deny it here) would say such actions are absolutely wrong and should cease immediately or be forced to cease.
Rather, you (and I’m sure you will deny it here) would say such actions are absolutely wrong and should cease immediately or be forced to cease.
What about the Christians and all those they killed during the inquisition? What about the witch trials? Were they wrong?
Yes. They were WRONG to do so; absolutely wrong. However, all you can say is: it is after all just a "cultural" thing and we have no basis to judge the rightness or wrongness of the inquisition and witch trials.
What about God killing the first-born male of every household? Was he wrong?
No. He didn’t kill the first born male of “every” household. All the Egyptians had to do was obey, and put lambs blood on the door post. Bu they refused.
Step out of atheism and into theism. All are guilty according to original sin. God, can do what He please to the guilty. He has no obligation for mercy. Besides, if you take a logical approach, God could have saved all the first born that were lost. Either way, you have no grounds as a relativist to say its wrong; it’s just your opinion.
When someone says that they would “rather” feel some one should not do X, they are just asserting. There is no justification that they *ought* not do X.
So, what your saying is I am going to do X because it’s simpler for me. Other people can Do X, Y, and Z because I have no grounds to prohibit it.
So you don’t tell lies because there hard to track and you might get confused. I see; it has nothing to do with whether telling a lie is right or wrong, but what is simpler. This must be that common sense you were talking about.
Then if you steel and you know it’s the case that no one will steel from you—it’s okay.
Also, we shouldn’t steel then because we lose our right to complain. What would we do if we lost that right? ;-)
In effect, you have stated that you don’t steel so you can reserve your right to complain if it happens to you. Excellent! When does morality come into play?
Step out of atheism and into theism. All are guilty according to original sin. God, can do what He please to the guilty. He has no obligation for mercy. Besides, if you take a logical approach, God could have saved all the first born that were lost. Either way, you have no grounds as a relativist to say its wrong; it’s just your opinion.
I told you previously. I'd rather people not generally feel they have a right to kill me, or steal from me, or lie to me, etc.
When someone says that they would “rather” feel some one should not do X, they are just asserting. There is no justification that they *ought* not do X.
Even if they are not going to hold by those principles, I still will, because life is just so much simpler if I do.
So, what your saying is I am going to do X because it’s simpler for me. Other people can Do X, Y, and Z because I have no grounds to prohibit it.
If I tell a lie, I have to keep track of it and possibly tell more lies to cover for it.
So you don’t tell lies because there hard to track and you might get confused. I see; it has nothing to do with whether telling a lie is right or wrong, but what is simpler. This must be that common sense you were talking about.
If I steal, I can't complain if soeone steals from me.
Then if you steel and you know it’s the case that no one will steel from you—it’s okay.
Also, we shouldn’t steel then because we lose our right to complain. What would we do if we lost that right? ;-)
In effect, you have stated that you don’t steel so you can reserve your right to complain if it happens to you. Excellent! When does morality come into play?
If I kill, same thing, and I also have to get rid of the body, and probably get caught and go to jail where I probably won't be able to escape the Bible-thumpers.
Let me takes notes. I can learn a lot about morality from a moral relativist.
Killing is wrong because:
1) I would have to get rid of the body
2) I would probably get caught (mental note: highlight # 2)
3) I could go to jail
4) There are bibles in jail
These have to be the best reasons I have ever heard on why it’s wrong to kill. Now I will never do it! I wish I had that moral relativist “common sense”
Killing is wrong because:
1) I would have to get rid of the body
2) I would probably get caught (mental note: highlight # 2)
3) I could go to jail
4) There are bibles in jail
These have to be the best reasons I have ever heard on why it’s wrong to kill. Now I will never do it! I wish I had that moral relativist “common sense”
Why should I not kill?to not be killed
Therefore, if I can kill and know I wont be killed my self—DO IT! Good answer.
Why should I care about society?it makes the rules
Just because something is the case (X is against the law) doesn’t mean it ought to be the case. So this doesn’t help your position.
Why should I care about others? to in turn be cared about
If I know that a good deed will not be returned then I guess I should not to do it. You assume that something can be moral only of there is a return. This is a false presumption.
Why should I care about chaos? you don't have to; some people thrive on it. Sets of rules limit chaos. If you're going to live in a society, it's going to expect you to abide by it's rules. You can conform, or you can fight to change the rules. taht's your choice.
If society determines morality, and someone is going to change the standard moral rules of society, what standard can they appeal to? They would be immoral by default.
WHY SHOULD ANYONE BE MORAL? To survive and thrive. You catch more flies with honey.
Survival acts do not make moral acts. This is why descriptive ethics is limited. Morality starts with intent and motives. Intent and motives can be moral or immoral. If you see a boy trip an old lady how can you tell from the observation whether the action is wrong? You would have to determine the intent of the boy before you can make a decision. The behavior is the same if it was accidental or intentional, but the intent is different.
Now, if you can't prove your god exists, why should I take you seriously?
Not everyone is reasonable. It is not a necessary failure on the part of a Christian if we cannot reach the unreachable.
Your failing to distinguish the reasons for accepting/rejecting moral relativism and the reasons for accepting/rejecting the existence of God. A person is expected to act out morals regardless of their position on divinity. When someone says X is or is not moral there needs to be justification. When someone says God exists or does not exist there are no immediate actions that need to be taken.
If we are talking about something like torturing innocent babies and someone cannot justify why it’s wrong without being arbitrary, then taking them seriously is being too generous.
The fact that you think God’s existence cannot be proven does not follow that God does not exist. It does not follow that there are no good reasons to believe in God’s existence. It follows that you have (for what ever reason) not been persuaded. Since I don’t know what has been presented to you, and you have provided no refutations of known evidences, I’ll just assume your emoting.
If common sense is the primary factory, then most people don’t have it. I said how do you *justify* not know. Most people sitting in jail cells (with some exceptions) have common sense to know what they did is wrong. While they were performing the act, they know it’s wrong. However, they did things for other reasons.
Common sense goes against moral relativism. You shoot yourself in the foot if morality is common sense.
I am talking moral rules here, not whether or not parking meters should charge $3 hour, or $5 hour.
Who cares? There are too many of us anyway. What wrong with just killing one? Can moral relativism provide a sufficient reason?
Your failing to distinguish the reasons for accepting/rejecting moral relativism and the reasons for accepting/rejecting the existence of God. A person is expected to act out morals regardless of their position on divinity. When someone says X is or is not moral there needs to be justification. When someone says God exists or does not exist there are no immediate actions that need to be taken.
If we are talking about something like torturing innocent babies and someone cannot justify why it’s wrong without being arbitrary, then taking them seriously is being too generous.
The fact that you think God’s existence cannot be proven does not follow that God does not exist. It does not follow that there are no good reasons to believe in God’s existence. It follows that you have (for what ever reason) not been persuaded. Since I don’t know what has been presented to you, and you have provided no refutations of known evidences, I’ll just assume your emoting.
How do you justify your rules?
Common sense, mostly.
If common sense is the primary factory, then most people don’t have it. I said how do you *justify* not know. Most people sitting in jail cells (with some exceptions) have common sense to know what they did is wrong. While they were performing the act, they know it’s wrong. However, they did things for other reasons.
Common sense goes against moral relativism. You shoot yourself in the foot if morality is common sense.
The speed limit's faster on highways that have longer, less radical crves and are away from populated areas.
I am talking moral rules here, not whether or not parking meters should charge $3 hour, or $5 hour.
You shouldn't kill a person because s/he is of our species.
Who cares? There are too many of us anyway. What wrong with just killing one? Can moral relativism provide a sufficient reason?
An 18 year old can vote and die for country, but not drink liquor. OOPs, that last one's a bit off.I find this odd too. Are saying that’s wrong? Gasp!
Whoever agres to the rules should follow the rules. If I move to a community that says I must mow my grass "X" number of times, then I must comply. But my neighbor in the back,outside the community property lines, is not held to the same standard.
My neighbor who lives in X society is required to kill 5 innocent children a week. He agreed to the rules of society X therefore he should follow the rules. My neighbor who is outside my community/society is not held to the same standard of “common sense” I am.
I don’t blame him either. However I listed the *you must* statements to show he takes it further—beyond moral relativism. The fact that you didn’t address my deductive propositions in the comment section shows that you cannot refute it.
I believe RA only asks others to do as they say they are going to do, as he does what he says he will do. He behaves in a "morally correct" fashion, while observing others who supposedly have subscribed to both the unwritten rules he lives by and an entire subset, yet they frequently disregard their subset and look with disdain upon him. He finds this irksome. I don't blame him.
I don’t blame him either. However I listed the *you must* statements to show he takes it further—beyond moral relativism. The fact that you didn’t address my deductive propositions in the comment section shows that you cannot refute it.
With moral relativism, how can you justify any “you must” statements?It's difficult. Have to go with laws on record, in the society at hand. But that's why we have such thick law books and things like amendments. Society, morality, law, it's all fluid. Like glass. It's just moving so slowly you can't see it.
Laws do not equal morality. There are groups and subgroups in society that are not fluid. Society as a whole is divided and laws books are boring.
Here is one: Torturing babies for fun is absolutely wrong for all people, all times and all places. this is as clear as 1+1=2.
Just because people/societies have done horrendous act in the past, it doesn’t follow that there are no absolute morals. It’s a Non sequitur.
Something can be wrong for all, but not to all.
If an entire society thought 2+2 was 5 would that mean it equaled 5? No, they had their sum wrong.
Here is what I put on an earlier post about disagreements:
I can think of no absolute foul line standard at the moment. The lines have been moving throughout history whether you like it or not. Can't you see how they've moved?
Here is one: Torturing babies for fun is absolutely wrong for all people, all times and all places. this is as clear as 1+1=2.
Just because people/societies have done horrendous act in the past, it doesn’t follow that there are no absolute morals. It’s a Non sequitur.
Something can be wrong for all, but not to all.
If an entire society thought 2+2 was 5 would that mean it equaled 5? No, they had their sum wrong.
Here is what I put on an earlier post about disagreements:
**********
For example, if people disagree about whether or not the earth is round, it is not proof that the earth has no shape. Moral relativism fails to make the vital distinction between our opinions about morality and morality itself. To perform genuine moral thinking and deliver judgment between alternative points of view, one must make distinctions between our opinions about morality and morality itself, or there simply is no such thing as ethical deliberation.
For example, if people disagree about whether or not the earth is round, it is not proof that the earth has no shape. Moral relativism fails to make the vital distinction between our opinions about morality and morality itself. To perform genuine moral thinking and deliver judgment between alternative points of view, one must make distinctions between our opinions about morality and morality itself, or there simply is no such thing as ethical deliberation.
.
To further examine the case for disagreement, it should be noted that in most cases, disagreements stem from factual discord, rather than having different morals. For example, in abortion, the pro-life position is that fetuses are full and valuable human beings. There is no doubt, that the pro-choice position holds that it is morally wrong to kill innocent persons. Therefore, we are in total agreement on this moral standard. However, where the disagreement stands, is whether or not the fetus is a person. The abortion debate is a debate about facts, not what is moral and what is not.
.
Another clear example of factual dispute, rather than moral dispute is cows in India. Frances Bewitch tells us that many people who live in India do not eat cows because they believe in reincarnation. In their belief, these cows may possess the souls of deceased human beings and ancestors. In the U.S., we do not hold that cows have human souls. For this reason, we eat cows (and their good) — but we do not eat Grandma. It appears on the surface, therefore, that there is a fundamental value difference between Indians and Americans. Beckwith says, “This is a hasty conclusion, however, for both cultures do believe it is wrong to eat Grandma; the Indians, however, believe the cow may be Grandma. Thus it is a factual and not a value difference that divides our culinary habits”
.
**********
I would say that disagreement shows that moral relativism is false. Moral relativism asserts that there is no absolute right and wrong; however, in order to have disagreement you actually have to have at least two opposition positions who actually think their right!. Disagreement requires someone to be right and someone to be wrong. 2+2=5 or 2+2=4. Just because we can argue over our sums, it doesn’t follow there is no correct answer.
**********
I would say that disagreement shows that moral relativism is false. Moral relativism asserts that there is no absolute right and wrong; however, in order to have disagreement you actually have to have at least two opposition positions who actually think their right!. Disagreement requires someone to be right and someone to be wrong. 2+2=5 or 2+2=4. Just because we can argue over our sums, it doesn’t follow there is no correct answer.
I disagree that calling foul is useless. That is how laws get changed. That is how minds get changed. That is how a society ends up not being "trapped". Someone has the courage to say, "Hey,,,wait a minute...!"
You can’t have it both ways here. If society determines morality, then where do reformers get their morality? Society cannot be both the standard of morality and not the standard of morality. There can be no such thing as reform without appealing to a standard above society.
See
Some Q&A on Moral Relativism (Part I)
See
Some Q&A on Moral Relativism (Part I)
Labels: Apologetics, Morality
18 Comments:
BF
You're giving me a headache.
Let's start with this:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
MORAL RELATIVISM
In philosophy, moral relativism takes the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect absolute and universal moral truths but instead are relative to social, cultural, historical or personal references, and that there is no single standard by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth. Relativistic positions often see moral values as applicable only within certain cultural boundaries or the context of individual preferences. An extreme relativist position might suggest that it is meaningless for the moral or ethical judgments or acts of one person or group to be judged by another, though most relativists propound a more limited version of the theory.
Also, you seem to be a bit perturbed with me. Maybe I am misreading you. I am fairly new to this whole debate thing and don't readily recognize red herrings, straw men, and other fallacies. I'm working on it. But if you would rather not talk with me because I'm not up to speed, that's fine with me. I'm just trying to exercise my brain and sort things out and I can do that in other friendlier atmospheres.
Now the way I interpret moral relativism is that we look and learn, pick and choose from the societies and times that came before us and around us. We tinker with our morality. It's relative because it's suited to the time and the environment and culture we happen to be living in at the moment. Fifty years ago, there were differences. Fifty years from now, there will be differences. A continent away there are differences.
In light of this, if you still want me to answer your Part II post, I will. But if you think it is pointless, say so and I will save myself time and effort.
Thanks.
karen
4/21/2006 2:14 PM
Besides, religious people, of whatever kind, are moral relativists themselves...
But let's stick with christianity.
Every christian determines (or is told/instructed) how to interpret the bible. In other words,
they deem some things in it more important than others... they choose, they judge, they decide... and in so doing, they are themselves a good example of moral relativists.
4/21/2006 2:28 PM
Karen,
Wikipedia doesn’t help your case. You obviously not in any position to defend moral relativism. The best you have been doing is just giving your opinion and making assertions. Don’t be upset, I don’t want to be hasty; however, I am not impressed by your, or anyone else’s assertions on moral relativism. I (respectfully) suggest you do some research on the issue (from both sides of the coin).
There have been occasions where I have respectfully bowed out of a conversation, because it became too technical. There is nothing wrong with that. It’s better to go back and hit the books, rather than dig yourself in a hole too deep to get out of.
I’m not perturbed with you (I’m glad you’re willing to engage), it’s only that of your explanations are not as intelligent as you are. If my efforts count for anything, I hope that you would carefully consider your position in the privacy of your own heart. I think you ended up here for a reason.
4/21/2006 2:48 PM
Mr. Monkey,
Don’t be upset if I’m not impressed by your comments. It’s not to ridicule—really. It’s just that you don’t offer anything intellectual to talk about.
4/21/2006 2:49 PM
BF
Hehheh!
I am not upset.
It would help to know your definition of moral relativism.
I will do some more research.
I thought Hairless made a good point.
Don't you really pick and choose which parts of the Bible you will follow and which you will not?
Honestly?
It would have been more impressive if you'd been as gracious with him as you were with me. I know you have a history, but bygones and all that. I saw nothing rancorous in his comment.
Or were you merely being condescending to me?
At any rate, it's been real.
And, no, don't get any fanciful ideas about why I'm here.
Good luck with the kids!
karen
4/21/2006 3:21 PM
Thanks for the dialogue Karen. As far as my obedience to the Bible, I always do my best. I’m still not perfect. Don’t forget to distinguish between OT law, and NT principals. That might clear up any assumptions about animal sacrifices and so fourth.
Monkey makes the same mistake that was refuted in the post. Which goes to show he didn’t read it and just wanted to pop off in the comment section. Otherwise, I would have seen a refutation to my rebuttal against that response. I’ll take him seriously when he wants to seriously engage.
Take care
4/21/2006 3:35 PM
You're right, BF.
All I did was make a valid observation.
4/21/2006 3:39 PM
Too bad it was a Non sequitur
4/21/2006 3:59 PM
BF... actually, no.
But nice of you to go for the cheap shot.
How about adressing it instead?
How is cherry-pickin' your morals(conscious of it or not) from a single book NOT moral relativism?
Some parts will be given (or be perceived as having) more importance than others.
And the individual christian reading the bible chooses his own cherries, so to speak.
4/22/2006 6:39 PM
How is calling you response a non sequitur cheap shot? It was an accurate assessment of your assertion. Had you read the post, you would at least be able to address my response on how “differences” do not equate to the absence of a uniform standard.
Introducing different approaches in hermeneutics does not give moral relativism anymore weight. Frankly, it’s an insipid case on your behalf. Secondly, you have yet to demonstrate a difference in morals. If a person thinks that X is more important than B and another person holds the opposite, it doesn’t follow that X is or is not more important than B. Therefore, it’s a non-sequitur (again). Not every moral standard is going to be clear cut; that is never argued.
So, you can read my posts (part 1 and 2), the comments are informative also (objections are address there) and if you want—address them. If there is something there that is mistaken, go ahead and refute anything I have said. However, I don’t feel like repeating in the comment section what I have already addressed in the post. So, if you have something new to bring to the table that’s fine. Otherwise, I’ll assume that any objections you bring will specifically address what I have stated and demonstrated to be false.
4/22/2006 7:27 PM
I find this passage very revealing:
"If a person thinks that X is more important than B and another person holds the opposite, it doesn’t follow that X is or is not more important than B."
Agreed.
But who says -either-, is, in the end, important?
That's right... a continually translated work (which brings in a great deal of translation-related questions) of writing, put together by no-one-is-certain-who,
condemning certain things while exalting others... written long ago
yet still upheld by some as the only true guide to a just life.
It's like someone asking you
on the street:
"Have you accepted Christ as your Lord and saviour?".
You can't help but offering them
help to get a library card.
4/22/2006 8:08 PM
Hairless,
We have to do the best we can with the information we have. I’ve tried to be logical about my conclusions. Though there are *many* translations they are derived from manuscripts. Since the languish continually changes, we have to keep translating the manuscripts to our current vernacular. However, sometimes translations are conduced the purpose of profit. Nevertheless, the message remains completely intact. If it were Islamic theology, no translation would suffice, because they believe the actual Koran in its grammatical form is the only possible way to read the Koran. Hence, if your read a ‘translation’ your not reading the Koran.
I would recommend reading this short article, it will take you maybe six minuets and has a good textual transition analogy.
4/22/2006 8:49 PM
BF:
Well, guess it's time for me to enter the fray.
The problem with making the culture or society the deciding factor is that if slavery becomes acceptable again in the next 200, 300, or 25 years, who is to say if it is right or wrong? We would have a contradictory set of right and wrong regarding the same issue.
Read your bible. & before you cry 'Red Herring', you opened the door w/this:
Accepting Christ as Lord and Savior is the recognition of total (including moral) depravity.
So it's well w/in boundaries to point it out.
Moreover, you couldn’t conclude that the chimp was immoral just because he wouldn’t share his banana
No, I'd say he was a capitalist. Don't forget, covetousness is a big thing in the US.
When does slavery go from the moral standard to the immoral standard?
See Kohlberg's stages of moral development at http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Kohlberg%27s+stages+of+moral+development&curtab=2222_1&linktext=Kohlberg's%20stages%20of%20moral%20development
Kohlberg's stages show a clear & distinct path of the individual, from moral relativism up to the 5th stage.
Moreover, it doesn’t follow that if man does not exist, God does not exist, or if man/animal can not articulate/communicate Gods existence; He does not exist. You will have a difficult time coming up with a logical argument to support that (especially: as plain as the nose on your face).
As you would have difficulty proving the opposite, I'd imagine.
First, you have to believe that evil is absolute before you can valid a claim un-relative to your culture.
I sure do: it's called sociopathy. Utter lack of empathy.
Things can be intuitively right or wrong.
Sure can. Empathy is the litmus test.
Survival of the fittest mentality gives me permission to kill whom so ever I please.
Only in the jungle. Not in an organized herd, such as a city. At least in the 20th CE.
If society determines what is right and wrong for you, it is impossible to rail against it.
Not so: it takes an evolutionary leap forward. It takes noticing 1 day, that something taken for granted as everyday happenstance is wrong. Whether it's empathy, or assymetry, the intuitive leap happens.
Hence, I have to appeal to something *other* than societal standards in order to change society
You're such an absolutist sometimes. Of course you do. It takes 1 person to change the course. 1 person to recognize that something is wrong. & to speak up about it.
Any rational person would reject an argument in support of torture on the basis that everyone does it.
I do.
Moral relativist act as if morality is objective, but deny is with their words.
Wrong. Morality is subjective. It varies in re: each individual. There are nuances, to be sure.
Is there some absolute standard that says if you do X to a person/society it’s okay for someone to do X back to that person or society?
Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth? Where'd I read that?
As a moral relativist, you have no basis to require them to stop.
Sure do. The old golden '1 liner'. If it's allowed to slip by once, it'll happen again.
How can one society act as if their morals are superior to the others society?
I'd have to say, whichever 1's more evolved, more empathic.
Go to another society who doesn’t follow this principal and your *opinion* is not morally correct.
Well, as an American white male, I'm certainly not going to waltz into a riot in Cairo, & start telling Muslims & Coptics to stop attacking each other, am I? Nor am I going to visit China, & slap a 'Free Tibet' sticker on my car.
Since society is your standard, what do you do when your society says treat others horribly even through you don’t want to be treated that way?
You step up to bat, & say so. The societal standards aren't written in stone: life is fluid, always in flux.
Yes, I think about Gods grace a lot. Better his mercy than his wrath.
Oops. Opened the door. Again.
Because the relativist says empathy can be good in one culture and evil in another.
Which relativist said that?
Only within a society who deems it “evil.” According to moral relativism, this can be *good* in another society.
Again, read your bible.
An act against someone’s will is only wrong in our societal context (remember?).
Only if empathy is subtracted from the equation.
Absolutely wrong? Or just according to our society? Your opinion?
I'm really surprised here, as Karen has consistently drawn examples from your book. Hosea has the dashing an infant's brain out. Pharoah wasn't forewarned about the slaughter of the 1st born: Moses (or Aaron?) instructed the Israelites to paint their doors to avoid being targeted. I'm surprised you missed them.
The Clear: Is there any context where torturing babies for fun is morally permissible? Be honest.
Appeal to emotion.
Because children cannot intuitively grasp weather or not X is moral, doesn’t it follow that X is or is not moral.
Really? I thought we inherited moral absolutes? Why doesn't that show up in infancy? We inherit genetic traits: why not morality?
It can be healthy for someone to take somebody from the bus station and eat them (high protein).
Happens a lot in Africa. Cannabilism is fairly rampant over there.
It would be a moral action to push a child out of the way of a car, but unhealthy when you fall in the path and are struck.
Bing! Evolution strikes again!
Evolution does not provide a foundation for morality.
Here's some links, what say otherwise:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/animals/mammals/explore/altruism.shtml
http://brembs.net/ipd/primats.html
http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/3/3/1.html
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/chimps_babies_want_to_help_10140.html
You’re arguing from effect to cause (backwards).
No, that's an apt & fitting analogy. 'Teach a man to fish...etc.'
You give a lot of opinions to support your position.
Subjectively, so have you.
If an action is part of an evolutionary “programming” (so to speak) then the action cannot be deemed morally wrong.
Only if the action is in stasis. Nothing is in stasis. You're approaching it as if it's an immutable fixture. There's no such thing in the natural world.
What value does a subjective opinion have on such crucial matters?
Hey, you're opinion is just as subjective as hers. Or mine.
Rather, you (and I’m sure you will deny it here) would say such actions are absolutely wrong and should cease immediately or be forced to cease.
Well, I won't. Absolutely wrong. Because they're bereft of empathy. AND antithetical to survival of the species (no, not the fittest: the species. There IS a difference).
However, all you can say is: it is after all just a "cultural" thing and we have no basis to judge the rightness or wrongness of the inquisition and witch trials.
Which was spurred by...?
All the Egyptians had to do was obey, and put lambs blood on the door post. Bu they refused.
You are absolutely, objectively incorrect about that.
When someone says that they would “rather” feel some one should not do X, they are just asserting. There is no justification that they *ought* not do X.
But I can see where at some point, it would apply to me? Or someone I care about? When there's pain involved, on any level? That's usually when someone cries 'foul!'. Or, as in your slavery example, likelihood is that MANY people were against it for some time. Note that Britain banned it long before the US did. When 1 steps outside of Kohlberg's stage 4 to stage 5.
So, what your saying is I am going to do X because it’s simpler for me. Other people can Do X, Y, and Z because I have no grounds to prohibit it.
'An' it harm no one"...etc.
So you don’t tell lies because there hard to track and you might get confused. I see; it has nothing to do with whether telling a lie is right or wrong, but what is simpler
OR: I don't appreciate being lied to. It takes no genius to figure that 1 out.
Then if you steel and you know it’s the case that no one will steel from you—it’s okay.
No, because that's hypocrisy.
These have to be the best reasons I have ever heard on why it’s wrong to kill. Now I will never do it! I wish I had that moral relativist “common sense”
No, because I object to being killed myself. Because I'm not so self-involved, that I think the world's about me, and me only.
Just because something is the case (X is against the law) doesn’t mean it ought to be the case. So this doesn’t help your position.
Au contraire, mon ami. X is contrary to Y (my own self-interest). X is also contrary to Z (my ongoing interactions w/others). Ergo, where X isn't contrary to either Y or Z, X should be in effect.
If I know that a good deed will not be returned then I guess I should not to do it. You assume that something can be moral only of there is a return.
Ah, but there's ALWAYS a return. Maybe not to you, but to someone else. Reciprocal altruism. Androcles & the lion.
If society determines morality, and someone is going to change the standard moral rules of society, what standard can they appeal to?
See proposition X.
Morality starts with intent and motives.
Wow, that's the 1st time I've agreed w/you thus far.
Your failing to distinguish the reasons for accepting/rejecting moral relativism and the reasons for accepting/rejecting the existence of God.
Waitaminnit, I thought this was about moral relativism? Can I holler 'Red herring!' now? Pretty please?
If common sense is the primary factory, then most people don’t have it.
Agreement #2. 'Common sense is not common' - Voltaire.
I am talking moral rules here, not whether or not parking meters should charge $3 hour, or $5 hour.
Hmmm...I sniff a diversionary ruse here of some sort. Karen's example illustrates why rules are put in effect (I think). Since we agree common sense is uncommon, someone's got to sort it out, no?
Can moral relativism provide a sufficient reason?
Obviously not.
My neighbor who lives in X society is required to kill 5 innocent children a week. He agreed to the rules of society X therefore he should follow the rules.
Man, can you PLEASE stop w/the killing/raping/torturing of children examples? You're really starting to creep me out here. Even for a moral relativist.
There are groups and subgroups in society that are not fluid.
???? Like whom?
Torturing babies for fun is absolutely wrong for all people, all times and all places.
Bing! Evolution strikes again! Waitaminnit. Howzabout slaughtering all those nations, & just taking the girl children?
Really, you're creeping me out w/these. Brrrhhh!
You can’t have it both ways here.
You see, you're postulating on a rigid structure/stance here. It's always 'Either/or' with you (IMHO). I'm going to take a stab in the dark here, & correct me if I'm wrong. You adhere to a belief system that is strictly either/or: either choose the guy on high, or plummet into fire. There's no middle ground. This overlaps onto your POV in so many ways, whether you're aware of it or not. You want a fixed constant, not a fluid variable (although constants CAN be variables, in & of themselves). I'd hazard a guess that's why you don't like evolution: it's too fluid for you. Too many global & local variables in flux.
These are but observations, not intended as derogatory or ad hominem, BTW.
Here, I'll give you an absolute, the only 1 I'll posit:
Do no harm.
4/22/2006 10:09 PM
RA,
If it isn’t moral relativism’s night and shining armor.
It’ funny you posit absolutes (empathy, do no harm etc.); however, deny absolutes. It appears you can even reconcile your own moral relativism. Most of your responses do not reflect their contextual meaning toward Karen. Like you plea for red herring when I mention God in response to Karen bringing it up. Nevertheless, let me make a few points.
Read your bible. & before you cry 'Red Herring', you opened the door w/this:
Demonstrate moral relativism in the bible. I dint bring it up Karen did.
So it's well w/in boundaries to point it out.
Point what out?
No, I'd say he was a capitalist. Don't forget, covetousness is a big thing in the US.
I take it that means you couldn’t refute my statement.
See Kohlberg's stages of moral development
He has a lot of gray. One morning you wake up X is immoral, the next morning it’s moral. When does that happen? Do you need to check the news paper every day to what your moral values are?
As you would have difficulty proving the opposite, I'd imagine.
I was never my intent to ‘prove’ the opposite. I showed the how Karen’s statement was false. Your statement shows that I was correct.
I sure do: it's called sociopathy. Utter lack of empathy.
So you are an absolutist.
Sure can. Empathy is the litmus test.
Then empathy is an absolute.
Only in the jungle. Not in an organized herd, such as a city. At least in the 20th CE.
Of course, but It was the logical conclusion. Don’t forget the context.
Not so: it takes an evolutionary leap forward. It takes noticing 1 day, that something taken for granted as everyday happenstance is wrong. Whether it's empathy, or assymetry, the intuitive leap happens.
I see. Your presuming values change toward moral progression. But, if the value that values change is itself unchanging (in progression), then this theory claims as an unchanging value that all values change and progress. Thus, the position contradicts itself
I haven’t seen much progress. It’s not as if the crime rate has been plummeting.
You're such an absolutist sometimes. Of course you do. It takes 1 person to change the course. 1 person to recognize that something is wrong. & to speak up about it.
Thank you, you just conceded another source of morality.
I do.
Then my point stands
Wrong. Morality is subjective. It varies in re: each individual. There are nuances, to be sure.
The standard doesn’t change. The recognition does. You act as if I say that everyone act full knowledge.
Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth? Where'd I read that?
Here’s where you reply out of context (again). My reply to Karen was to show that she made an absolutist statement while denying absolutes. I’ll take the misrepresentation as just a slip on your part.
Sure do. The old golden '1 liner'. If it's allowed to slip by once, it'll happen again.
Another hint of your absolutism?
I'd have to say, whichever 1's more evolved, more empathic.
i) Your trapped in your societal values. Therefore, you have no way of knowing which society is more evolved. If you try to say your society is morally superior your conceding morals cross cultural boundaries and refute yourself.
Well, as an American white male, I'm certainly not going to waltz into a riot in Cairo, & start telling Muslims & Coptics to stop attacking each other, am I? Nor am I going to visit China, & slap a 'Free Tibet' sticker on my car.
Then you have conceded my point within the context of moral relativism. Your societal values has nothing to do with other societal values/
You step up to bat, & say so. The societal standards aren't written in stone: life is fluid, always in flux.
Again you concede that there is another source besides society for morality. Remember, Karen told me “society is determining what is right and wrong for you,” So my responses are in the context of our discussion.
Oops. Opened the door. Again.
Again, you’re misrepresenting me. I am responding not initiation here.
Which relativist said that?
It is the logical conclusion. Morality is contextual remember? All you need is the right context and evil can be good. Unless, it’s absolute, of course.
Again, read your bible.
I do. What are you talking about?
Only if empathy is subtracted from the equation.
Like I have been saying; you guys are closet absolutists.
I'm really surprised here, as Karen has consistently drawn examples from your book Hosea has the dashing an infant's brain out. Pharoah wasn't forewarned about the slaughter of the 1st born: Moses (or Aaron?) instructed the Israelites to paint their doors to avoid being targeted. I'm surprised you missed them.
It’s a typical tactic by the relativist. However, the gross negligence of accurate theology is expected. For enlightenment read Gods Moral Authority.
Appeal to emotion.
I’ll take that means you cant refute the statement. When dealing with morality, sometimes emotions help clear the smoke and let the intuitions settle in.
Really? I thought we inherited moral absolutes? Why doesn't that show up in infancy? We inherit genetic traits: why not morality?
I didn’t say it didn’t show up in infancy. I said “Because children cannot intuitively grasp weather or not X is moral, doesn’t it follow that X is or is not moral.” Children can intuitively grasp basic morality. So it’s about deciphering a situational factor NOT that they have no factor. Lets not put word in my mouth.
Happens a lot in Africa. Cannabilism is fairly rampant over there.
Good my point stands empirically.
Bing! Evolution strikes again!
How does evolution strike here?
Here's some links, what say otherwise:
Well thanks and fully aware if the mass deception.
No, that's an apt & fitting analogy. 'Teach a man to fish...etc.'
I don’t see how your making a point here.
Subjectively, so have you.
Difference being I have been supporting my position with premises and valid conclusions.
Only if the action is in stasis. Nothing is in stasis. You're approaching it as if it's an immutable fixture. There's no such thing in the natural world.
I don’t see how this helps moral relativism.
Hey, you're opinion is just as subjective as hers. Or mine.
There is a difference between arbitrary assertions and supporting an argument. In context I was referring to the former.
Well, I won't. Absolutely wrong. Because they're bereft of empathy. AND antithetical to survival of the species (no, not the fittest: the species. There IS a difference).
Closet absolutist. I am glad you came out.
Which was spurred by...?
I’ll take that as your inability to refute the statement in reference.
You are absolutely, objectively incorrect about that.
How?
But I can see where at some point, it would apply to me? Or someone I care about? When there's pain involved, on any level? That's usually when someone cries 'foul!'. Or, as in your slavery example, likelihood is that MANY people were against it for some time. Note that Britain banned it long before the US did. When 1 steps outside of Kohlberg's stage 4 to stage 5.
Subjectively “feeling” somebody should not do X is not a *justification* why someone should not do X
'An' it harm no one"...etc.
The absolutist comes out!
OR: I don't appreciate being lied to. It takes no genius to figure that 1 out.
Lack of appreciation is not *justification* of prohibition. All one needs to say is I don’t care.
No, because that's hypocrisy.
IN CONTEXT—it was the logical conclusion in response to the statement. It’s funny how you like to take stuff out of context to score a point. Besides, it’s not as if hypocrisy is *absolutely* wrong or anything.
No, because I object to being killed myself. Because I'm not so self-involved, that I think the world's about me, and me only.
It’s too bad that when someone kills you all you can say is, “well in my opinion you should not do it.”
Au contraire, mon ami. X is contrary to Y (my own self-interest). X is also contrary to Z (my ongoing interactions w/others). Ergo, where X isn't contrary to either Y or Z, X should be in effect.
Ehhh, huh? What does that have to do with what I said? Just because X is the law it doesn’t mean X *ought* to be the law. Do you think every law we have on the books *ought* to be the law?
Ah, but there's ALWAYS a return. Maybe not to you, but to someone else. Reciprocal altruism. Androcles & the lion.
It is not the case that all good deeds *always* get a return. Moreover, the reference IN CONTEXT is specifically toward the individual. If you expect a return for all your good deeds you’ll be disappointed.
See proposition X.
Yes, proposition X was irrelevant. But I am glad to see modality for a change =)
Wow, that's the 1st time I've agreed w/you thus far.
You might want to reconsider (just to stay consistent). :-)
Waitaminnit, I thought this was about moral relativism? Can I holler 'Red herring!' now? Pretty please?
No, you can’t holler red herring because you’re taking me out of context again. Are you just quote mining? This was a specific response to what KAREN brought up. Can you stop taking my statements out of context—pretty please? Did you even read what I responded to?
Agreement #2. 'Common sense is not common' - Voltaire.
Voltaire must be one of your heroes.
Hmmm...I sniff a diversionary ruse here of some sort. Karen's example illustrates why rules are put in effect (I think). Since we agree common sense is uncommon, someone's got to sort it out, no?
No. Rules not relevant to morality are not bearing, especially if you go back into the comment section and see what it was responding to.
Obviously not.
I agree, moral relativism fails.
Man, can you PLEASE stop w/the killing/raping/torturing of children examples? You're really starting to creep me out here. Even for a moral relativist.
Truth be told ra, if you can refute it, why comment on it?
???? Like whom?
Pro-life, pro-choice, democrat, republican, ethnic groups—Jews, Hispanic, Caucasian, Asian, Blacks, Armenian……………………., Muslim, Christian, Buddhist……, moral relativist, moral absolutist, figure skaters, roller blade’s, suffers, bikers, atheist, theist, heterosexual, homosexual, racists, humanists……………………………………., and on and on and on. We are separated by groups and subgroups over and backwards. Why do you think there is so much controversy all the time?
Bing! Evolution strikes again! Waitaminnit. Howzabout slaughtering all those nations, & just taking the girl children?
Really, you're creeping me out w/these. Brrrhhh!
Evolution must be your answer when you can’t refute anything. I could ask you about a coffee table and if you didn’t know how to respond you would say Bing! Evolution. See the link about Gods morality.
You see, you're postulating on a rigid structure/stance here. It's always 'Either/or' with you (IMHO). I'm going to take a stab in the dark here, & correct me if I'm wrong. You adhere to a belief system that is strictly either/or: either choose the guy on high, or plummet into fire. There's no middle ground. This overlaps onto your POV in so many ways, whether you're aware of it or not. You want a fixed constant, not a fluid variable (although constants CAN be variables, in & of themselves). I'd hazard a guess that's why you don't like evolution: it's too fluid for you. Too many global & local variables in flux.
These are but observations, not intended as derogatory or ad hominem,
Correction time:
Much of morality is in the ??????? (gray) area. The basics are not. We use our basic (universal) knowledge to make moral decisions. When I say there are moral absolutes, I don’t mean that everything is cut and dry.
Let me spew what I gave Karen, apparently you missed it. You will more about my factors of morality below:
Let me generalize first then I will speak to the specific.
i) We have culture X who says [specific action] is morally wrong
ii) We have culture Y who says [specific action] is morally permissible
What we need to ask is what follows from this?
1) It does not logically follow that the [specific action] is neither right nor wrong.
2) It logically follows that there is a disagreement in factors.
****
a) If moral relativism is true, then any [specific action] can be both right and wrong at the same time and in the same sense A = ~A
b) This would violate the law of non contradiction.
c) With moral relativism any cross cultural evaluation would be impossible
d) Culture X can condemn culture Y and vice versa. However, it would me meaningless. Since they are not morally intact with on another.
e) There is no inferior or superior between X and Y [you may thing the one your in the superior; however, it’s only because your in that culture—you have NO WAY of knowing]
f) If every cultural system is valid, then neither is better or worse than any other (there is no non-ethnocentric reason to prefer one to any other).
g) Moral relativism holds as a “cardinal value” that values change. But, if the value that values change is itself unchanging (in progression), then this theory claims as an unchanging value that all values change and progress. Thus, the position contradicts itself.
h) Two cultures with different values cannot resolve anything.
****
My factors in absolutisms:
i) Moral absolutes are compatible with circumstantial or teleological considerations.
ii) You have a person or agent. The agent is the subject of the standard. The agent does not ‘create’ the standard
iii) “ought” may not always imply “can”
iv) To say that there are absolute morals is not to say that every type of action is always wrong, though almost everyone is an absolutist about some actions at some level of description.
v) Intents and motives are always factors in morality. For example, it is morally wrong to lie. However, if you’re lying to save another’s life like what many did to save Jews during Hitler’s executions, then it was morally permissible. The prescriptive matters must be accounted for.
vi) No culture has a monopoly on wisdom
vii) We (culturally) do things certain ways; however, they may not be the best way.
viii) To say that there are absolute values is not to say they are always obvious or recognizable.
ix) Cultures who practice contrary moral actions are primarily due to different factual presuppositions rather than different moral values. When the Greeks sacrificed babies—they didn’t think sacrificing children was a virtue; rather they thought that this was a demand by some deity. So, the “lesser evils” was being chosen.
x) In most cases the differences are not moral differences, but factual differences that drive their actions.
xi) There can be cultures who do not (can not?) recognize some morals. However, it doesn’t follow that whatever they do IS moral. If an entire culture thought 1+1=5 that would not make the addition correct. It would only follow that they had their sum wrong (entirely).
xii) Morality is complex like math. The elementary parts are simple (kindness is a virtue is recognized in all time places and cultures). However, once there are several factors, it’s easy to get their sums wrong. I get moral sums wrong too.
xiii) Moral absolutes does not mean everything is absolutely clear.
xiv) Something can be moral for all, but not too all
BTW. Here, I'll give you an absolute, the only 1 I'll posit: Do no harm.
How it this not contradictory to denying absolutes? I dont get you moral relativists.
Try reading this article
p.s. How’s that war on relativism going with you atheists?
Cheers
4/23/2006 1:58 AM
BF:
If it isn’t moral relativism’s night and shining armor.
You give me too much credit, sir. You should check out Francesthemagnificent. Now HE'S a moral relativist, & better at this debate than I.
It’ funny you posit absolutes (empathy, do no harm etc.); however, deny absolutes. It appears you can even reconcile your own moral relativism. Most of your responses do not reflect their contextual meaning toward Karen. Like you plea for red herring when I mention God in response to Karen bringing it up. Nevertheless, let me make a few points.
Let me check my 'Moral Relativism for Dummies' book, & get back to this.
Demonstrate moral relativism in the bible. I dint bring it up Karen did.
Okay. JC came & changed the laws. Samson slept around w/hookers, disrespectful to his parents. Lot handing out his daughters.
Point what out?
Since you are positing absolute morality, you derive the context from the bible.
I take it that means you couldn’t refute my statement.
Nope. Time for a parade.
He has a lot of gray. One morning you wake up X is immoral, the next morning it’s moral. When does that happen? Do you need to check the news paper every day to what your moral values are?
Of course not. It's an ongoing process, incremental. Sometimes there's the leap of intuition, more often than not it's cumulative. It's in stages, not overnight (not usually).
I was never my intent to ‘prove’ the opposite. I showed the how Karen’s statement was false. Your statement shows that I was correct.
My statement shows that you have no proof.
So you are an absolutist.
Can't find that bloody paragraph. Hold on.
Then empathy is an absolute.
Ah-hah! Here it is. The guidebook says I get 1 absolute per year.
I see. Your presuming values change toward moral progression. But, if the value that values change is itself unchanging (in progression), then this theory claims as an unchanging value that all values change and progress. Thus, the position contradicts itself
Posit the value you speak of.
I haven’t seen much progress. It’s not as if the crime rate has been plummeting.
Depends where you look, I'd guess.
Thank you, you just conceded another source of morality.
That's my subjective opinion.
Then my point stands
That's your subjective opinion.
The standard doesn’t change. The recognition does. You act as if I say that everyone act full knowledge.
Hey, you're the 1 positing an absolute, objective standard, ain't ya?
Here’s where you reply out of context (again). My reply to Karen was to show that she made an absolutist statement while denying absolutes. I’ll take the misrepresentation as just a slip on your part.
Hey, that's not out of context at all. It comes from the source you draw on.
Another hint of your absolutism?
Hey, I get 1 a year.
i) Your trapped in your societal values. Therefore, you have no way of knowing which society is more evolved. If you try to say your society is morally superior your conceding morals cross cultural boundaries and refute yourself.
That's a pretty good point. I'd have to go w/my subjective opinion then.
Then you have conceded my point within the context of moral relativism. Your societal values has nothing to do with other societal values/
No, I'm saying, I'm not going to be foolish about it.
Again you concede that there is another source besides society for morality. Remember, Karen told me “society is determining what is right and wrong for you,” So my responses are in the context of our discussion.
Sure. The individual. The minority. Everyone gets a say. At least in this country.
Again, you’re misrepresenting me. I am responding not initiation here.
Response is a form of initiation.
It is the logical conclusion. Morality is contextual remember? All you need is the right context and evil can be good. Unless, it’s absolute, of course.
Maybe you can show me a modern society that is completely void of empathy altogether? Then we'll address that point.
I do. What are you talking about?
Only that anyone who follows the OT to the letter, would be considered sociopathic in today's society.
Like I have been saying; you guys are closet absolutists.
Hey, who says I can't have 1 absolute?
It’s a typical tactic by the relativist. However, the gross negligence of accurate theology is expected. For enlightenment read Gods Moral Authority.
'Gross negligence'? 'Accurate theology'? Same old, same old. Common tactic by the theist. 'You just don't understand!' I forget which fallacy that is. It's all in YOUR source. 'God's Moral Authority'.
I’ll take that means you cant refute the statement. When dealing with morality, sometimes emotions help clear the smoke and let the intuitions settle in.
No, you can take that as an accusation to elicit a knee-jerk emotional response.
I didn’t say it didn’t show up in infancy. I said “Because children cannot intuitively grasp weather or not X is moral, doesn’t it follow that X is or is not moral.” Children can intuitively grasp basic morality. So it’s about deciphering a situational factor NOT that they have no factor. Lets not put word in my mouth.
Sorry, wasn't trying to gainsay you. I was referring to the 'instinctive worship' modal Chesterton referred to. As to kids grasping basic morality? Ever hear the saying, 'children can be so cruel?'
Good my point stands empirically.
Which point, exactly?
How does evolution strike here?
Protecting the offspring, thereby insuring the survival of the species.
Well thanks and fully aware if the mass deception.
Says you. Hinting at the conspiracy theory, or something? Did you even look at the links? Poisoning the well.
I don’t see how your making a point here.
Reciprocal altruism.
Difference being I have been supporting my position with premises and valid conclusions.
Another subjective opinion.
I don’t see how this helps moral relativism.
It seems as if you want everything locked into place. I'm pointing out, there's very little that's 'written in stone'.
There is a difference between arbitrary assertions and supporting an argument. In context I was referring to the former.
Well, I can't see the difference.
Closet absolutist. I am glad you came out.
Hey, keep repeating that mantra.
I’ll take that as your inability to refute the statement in reference.
I'll take that as you turning a blind eye to the ramifications of your source.
How?
Oops, my bad. Moses did indeed inform everyone. Never mind.
Subjectively “feeling” somebody should not do X is not a *justification* why someone should not do X
We're talking cause & effect here, not just a 'feeling'.
The absolutist comes out!
Geez, you're a broken record, ya know that?
Lack of appreciation is not *justification* of prohibition. All one needs to say is I don’t care.
It's not esthetics, not completely. Apathy does occur, but not all individuals are apathetic. It's 1 thing entirely to not care whether someone parks wrong, it's another to walk away from murder & rape.
IN CONTEXT—it was the logical conclusion in response to the statement. It’s funny how you like to take stuff out of context to score a point. Besides, it’s not as if hypocrisy is *absolutely* wrong or anything.
Well, in my subjective opinion, it is. An opinion shared by others around me.
It’s too bad that when someone kills you all you can say is, “well in my opinion you should not do it.”
Again, an opinion that's shared by others. If not, than I'm in the wrong society.
Ehhh, huh? What does that have to do with what I said? Just because X is the law it doesn’t mean X *ought* to be the law. Do you think every law we have on the books *ought* to be the law?
Go re-read that. So if X is the law, but it's contrary to Y & Z, then I'm going to ask/demand/what have you that the law be repealed. Boolean logic.
It is not the case that all good deeds *always* get a return. Moreover, the reference IN CONTEXT is specifically toward the individual. If you expect a return for all your good deeds you’ll be disappointed.
Okay, I'll retract the ALWAYS. Let's substitute USUALLY. That's better anyways. I don't always expect a personal return from my good deeds: I can always hope that it'll be passed onto the next person.
Yes, proposition X was irrelevant. But I am glad to see modality for a change =)
No, prop X was relevant.
You might want to reconsider (just to stay consistent). :-)
Why? I'm flexible. Moral relativism, & all that. I'm not a big proponent of 'us vs. them', like you absolutists are. ;) Besides: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson
No, you can’t holler red herring because you’re taking me out of context again. Are you just quote mining? This was a specific response to what KAREN brought up. Can you stop taking my statements out of context—pretty please? Did you even read what I responded to?
I was kidding, fer cryin' out loud. Keep forgetting those pesky emoticons.
Voltaire must be one of your heroes.
What gave you that idea?;)
No. Rules not relevant to morality are not bearing, especially if you go back into the comment section and see what it was responding to.
Okay. I can let that go.
I agree, moral relativism fails.
Depends on which version. You do know there's more to it than the term? I meant to say, not for you. Oh well.
Truth be told ra, if you can refute it, why comment on it?
Actually, that was a personal observation. You're overusing it and...well, I get tired of appeals to emotion. Especially when they get worn out by overuse. It's starting to sound like you're hung up on these examples, is all. Apologies if I'm off.
Pro-life, pro-choice, democrat, republican, ethnic groups—Jews, Hispanic, Caucasian, Asian, Blacks, Armenian……………………., Muslim, Christian, Buddhist……, moral relativist, moral absolutist, figure skaters, roller blade’s, suffers, bikers, atheist, theist, heterosexual, homosexual, racists, humanists……………………………………., and on and on and on. We are separated by groups and subgroups over and backwards. Why do you think there is so much controversy all the time?
Sorry, didn't qualify that properly. How are they not fluid?
Evolution must be your answer when you can’t refute anything. I could ask you about a coffee table and if you didn’t know how to respond you would say Bing! Evolution. See the link about Gods morality.
No, I'd only use it for living organisms. Torturing babies is (brrrhhh!) obviously NOT in anyone's best interest. Completely devoid of empathy, completely feral, complete antipathy for species survival, the pack, the herd, what have you. It runs contrary to the evolutionary modal in every way. Hell, show me a society that does that.
I bypassed your commentary: while I find it most interesting, I'll need to do some more research.
Truthfully, my position is ad hoc, as I haven't really approached the subject w/a lot of flourish or interest. I'm fairly certain I'm a moral creature, as I'm extremely empathic by nature. Good w/kids, animals, I treat my ladies well when they're w/me, I'm a generous person. I just don't believe I received these qualities from on high. So I'm unclear as to which camp I belong to. Rosseau, (not Rand, I can tell ya that), descriptive, metaethical, emotivism, logical positivist (gah, philosophy's like Baskin Robbins' 131 flavors: so much to chose from!).
I find the Kohlberg's stages of moral development particularly interesting, because it seems to me that it speaks well to moral relativism as a tool for the individual to step upwards. I think I'm at stage 5, but a little backsliding is to be expected. I will be re-postulating my stand. But thanks for the natter: it's helped me flesh a few things out.
How it this not contradictory to denying absolutes? I dont get you moral relativists.
Hey, it's my subjective opinion: I'm gonna allow myself 1 absolute, if that's all right w/you. ;)
p.s. How’s that war on relativism going with you atheists?
Hey, I'm no part of that. You might want to check out Hellbound Alleee and Francois Tremblay: they're the generals in that war. BTW, it's their contention that xtians are the moral relativists. You might wanna take that up w/them.
That is, unless they're assigned to someone else. ;)
4/23/2006 12:35 PM
RA,
You give me too much credit, sir. You should check out Francesthemagnificent. Now HE'S a moral relativist, & better at this debate than I.
I don’t find his approach on morality impressive. For someone who says it’s okay to kill a baby at full term pregnancy, even conceding all attributes of humanity and personhood, just because it is “owned” is repulsive. Your (slightly) more sane than he is.
Let me check my 'Moral Relativism for Dummies' book, & get back to this.
Do you own the copyright on that? (kidding) ;-)
Okay. JC came & changed the laws. Samson slept around w/hookers, disrespectful to his parents. Lot handing out his daughters.
Actually, Jesus said, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the Prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.” (Mat. 5:17). Samson’s actions were immoral. Just because a certain character is the Bible does something, it doesn’t follow that is moral (to the contrary on many cases).
Since you are positing absolute morality, you derive the context from the bible.
I do, but I don’t need the Bible to critique moral relativism. And I wasn’t using it.
Nope. Time for a parade.
Oh, good.
Of course not. It's an ongoing process, incremental. Sometimes there's the leap of intuition, more often than not it's cumulative. It's in stages, not overnight (not usually).
There has to be a changing point sometime. Somewhere along the line a moral goes from A>>>B. You’re also assuming a continual progression to superior morality. However, if your morality is based on contextual factors, you can’t know about morality in a different set of contextual factors. (your locked in to your own context).
My statement shows that you have no proof.
Your statement was irrelevant to my point. I wonder if you had even read the entire thing.
Can't find that bloody paragraph. Hold on.
This is good backpedaling tactics (I’m taking notes)
Ah-hah! Here it is. The guidebook says I get 1 absolute per year.
One per year? Then you have more absolutes than I do! Christians would get bashed for this kind of stuff on the atheist playground.
Posit the value you speak of.
Morality is progression and becoming superior
Depends where you look, I'd guess.
Anything t the contrary?
That's my subjective opinion.
Again, Christians get their behind handed to them for their “opinions.”
That's your subjective opinion.
Well, if you can’t demonstrate how it false, then I’ll take it as a dodge.
Hey, you're the 1 positing an absolute, objective standard, ain't ya?
Yes, but people are relative not he standard. Something’s are black and white while others are not. An absolute standard doesn’t mean absolute obedience.
Hey, that's not out of context at all. It comes from the source you draw on.
1. Go back and read Karen’s original statement. 2. Read my reply. 3. Read your response. 4. Repeat steps 1-3 until the light bulb comes on.
Hey, I get 1 a year.
Oh snap. I forgot you guys don’t have to be consistent!
That's a pretty good point. I'd have to go w/my subjective opinion then.
Isn’t that what you base your world view on? =)
No, I'm saying, I'm not going to be foolish about it.
I’m not asking anyone to be foolish here. I just want some consistency. How am I supposed to understand someone who keeps changing their position? You guys are killing me!
Sure. The individual. The minority. Everyone gets a say. At least in this country.
Yeah in the US of A we have free speech. However, we don’t let rapists and murders(individuals and minorities) have a vote on those laws.
Response is a form of initiation.
That was a week side step. Were talking about a subject—Karen brought it up; therefore, she initiated it.
Maybe you can show me a modern society that is completely void of empathy altogether? Then we'll address that point.
This is why relativism is incoherent. The logical conclusion of the view is absurd. Empathy is a self evident absolute value. If you want to show how the conclusion from aforementioned statement is logically false go ahead.
Only that anyone who follows the OT to the letter, would be considered sociopathic in today's society.
The Jews would love to start sacrificing today if the could. There are many theonomists you know. I haven’t looked into their reasons, but I can get you a link by some well known supporters. Anyway, were not under the law anymore.
Hey, who says I can't have 1 absolute?
You guys are the ones denying moral absolutes not me. Talk to your relativist friends about that one.
'Gross negligence'? 'Accurate theology'? Same old, same old. Common tactic by the theist. 'You just don't understand!' I forget which fallacy that is. It's all in YOUR source. 'God's Moral Authority'.
Well, you called me on my source (i.e. the Bible) then I give you a link that shows in the source (i.e. the Bible) how there is consistency. If you don’t want an explanation don’t ask.
No, you can take that as an accusation to elicit a knee-jerk emotional response.
If you can’t handle clear cut real moral cases then stay out of the kitchen. Moral issues come up when morals are the subject.
Sorry, wasn't trying to gainsay you. I was referring to the 'instinctive worship' modal Chesterton referred to. As to kids grasping basic morality? Ever hear the saying, 'children can be so cruel?'
You’ve read Chesterton? Cool. Yes children can be cruel it’s part of their sin nature. They can also be delightfully excellent on moral principals too. I speak with authority on that one.
Which point, exactly?
Oh you missed it? 1. Go back and read Karen’s original statement. 2. Read my reply. 3. Read your response. 4. Repeat steps 1-3 until the light bulb comes on.
Protecting the offspring, thereby insuring the survival of the species.
Oh, people don’t wan their kids to die. Therefore, evolution is true. Got it!!!
Says you. Hinting at the conspiracy theory, or something? Did you even look at the links? Poisoning the well.
Conspiracy theory? No, just confusion and (self deception). Of course I looked at the links.
Reciprocal altruism.
My point was about descriptive vs. prescriptive moral actions. The prescriptive is essential to know the descriptive. So I think you misread.
Another subjective opinion.
If I said 2+3 was 5 and you dint know you would just say that’s my subjective opinion. This is your fall back when your not really sure about something. If not, you can stop accusing me of being subjective and show where any of my conclusions are not supported.
It seems as if you want everything locked into place. I'm pointing out, there's very little that's 'written in stone'.
I’m not saying “everything” is locked into place. Just the basics. I expanded on that previously.
Well, I can't see the difference.
How convenient.
Hey, keep repeating that mantra.
I’m only obliged to point it out. I see that I am correct.
I'll take that as you turning a blind eye to the ramifications of your source.
A little knee jerk there RA?
Oops, my bad. Moses did indeed inform everyone. Never mind.
I wrote it off when you said it ;-)
We're talking cause & effect here, not just a 'feeling'.
Again, “feeling” is a quote from Karen. Context is they key here.
Geez, you're a broken record, ya know that?
Well, the record repair store is closed. Have you gone to the consistency repair shop?
It's not esthetics, not completely. Apathy does occur, but not all individuals are apathetic. It's 1 thing entirely to not care whether someone parks wrong, it's another to walk away from murder & rape.
I agree and it supports my statement about how appreciation is insufficient about justification. The absolute elements must come into factor when it comes to justifications.
Well, in my subjective opinion, it is. An opinion shared by others around me.
Which year did you adopt that absolute standard? Your book doesn’t have a limit?
Again, an opinion that's shared by others. If not, than I'm in the wrong society.
The problem is that it’s not *just* an opinion. The term opinion is thrown around in defense of relativism. But check out a popular atheist blog (I’m sure you know many) where the topic is not moral relativism and most are relativists and see if they are absolutists. Pay close attention to the moral language.
Go re-read that. So if X is the law, but it's contrary to Y & Z, then I'm going to ask/demand/what have you that the law be repealed. Boolean logic.
1. Go back and read Karen’s original statement. 2. Read my reply. 3. Read your response. 4. Repeat steps 1-3 until the light bulb comes on.
Okay, I'll retract the ALWAYS. Let's substitute USUALLY. That's better anyways. I don't always expect a personal return from my good deeds: I can always hope that it'll be passed onto the next person.
That’s what my point was. A moral action cannot be exclusively placed on whether or not the action will have a return.
No, prop X was relevant.
This might be a good exercise for you: 1. Go back and read Karen’s original statement. 2. Read my reply. 3. Read your response. 4. Repeat steps 1-3 until the light bulb comes on.
Why? I'm flexible. Moral relativism, & all that. I'm not a big proponent of 'us vs. them', like you absolutists are. ;) Besides: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" – Emerson
I’m not a proponent of us vs them. Rather, truth vs. falsity. Also, I am not a fan of Emerson.
I was kidding, fer cryin' out loud. Keep forgetting those pesky emoticons.
Oh, for crying out loud!
What gave you that idea?;)
Ooohh, just a hunch.
Okay. I can let that go.
Your so gracious.
I agree, moral relativism fails.
Depends on which version. You do know there's more to it than the term? I meant to say, not for you. Oh well.
Oh well
Actually, that was a personal observation. You're overusing it and...well, I get tired of appeals to emotion. Especially when they get worn out by overuse. It's starting to sound like you're hung up on these examples, is all. Apologies if I'm off.
You’re off. Discussions of morality require discussions of moral issues. If you resort to parking meter illustrations you defraud your moral senses.
Sorry, didn't qualify that properly. How are they not fluid?
Some internal groups have fluidity; however, the groups conflict (sometimes venomously) with other groups. So if society is a collection of individuals to which can be composed if different groups and those groups can’t agree on anything; then society is divided. Therefore, a general term like “society” is unhelpful to use as a source of morality.
No, I'd only use it for living organisms. Torturing babies is (brrrhhh!) obviously NOT in anyone's best interest. Completely devoid of empathy, completely feral, complete antipathy for species survival, the pack, the herd, what have you. It runs contrary to the evolutionary modal in every way. Hell, show me a society that does that.
There is no society that tortures babies for fun. There is a transcendent/universal standard right there for you.
I bypassed your commentary: while I find it most interesting, I'll need to do some more research.
I hope “most interesting” isn’t being used pejoratively. Anyway, I try to take the premises of the moral relativist and take it to it’s logical conclusion to see if it’s coherent (reductio ad absurdum)
Truthfully, my position is ad hoc,
Well, I could have told you that. But last time you banned me from using the word ;-)
as I haven't really approached the subject w/a lot of flourish or interest.
Well, you do seem very adamant about the position.
I'm fairly certain I'm a moral creature, as I'm extremely empathic by nature.
I am certain you are too. I undoubtedly don’t deny it.
Good w/kids, animals, I treat my ladies well when they're w/me, I'm a generous person.
Hey, a ladies maaaan. Cool! Wine em and dine em (that’s what they like anyway).
I just don't believe I received these qualities from on high.
Well I am not asking for an alter call here. If you start to realize that moral relativism is incoherent (which is in your own studies and own terms) then you need to entertain other possibilities of morality. It’s not like I have been beating you over the head with a Bible.
So I'm unclear as to which camp I belong to.
You might be in the “I’m looking into it, but not sure” camp.
Rosseau, (not Rand, I can tell ya that), descriptive, metaethical, emotivism, logical positivist (gah, philosophy's like Baskin Robbins' 131 flavors: so much to chose from!).
Stay away from randiods; you may never survive the experience =)
I find the Kohlberg's stages of moral development particularly interesting, because it seems to me that it speaks well to moral relativism as a tool for the individual to step upwards. I think I'm at stage 5, but a little backsliding is to be expected. I will be re-postulating my stand. But thanks for the natter: it's helped me flesh a few things out.
I’m sure there are secular critiques of Kohlberg. I think he just formalizes relativism more; however, it’s just the same thing underneath the stages.
Hey, it's my subjective opinion: I'm gonna allow myself 1 absolute, if that's all right w/you. ;)
It’s alight with me. But you might want to drop the “there are no absolutes” phenomenology.
Hey, I'm no part of that. You might want to check out Hellbound Alleee and Francois Tremblay: they're the generals in that war. BTW, it's their contention that xtians are the moral relativists. You might wanna take that up w/them.
Tremblay is a militant/staunch atheist. I’ve dealt with him before. He hates Christians, and he hates anyone who doesn’t agree with him. Just check out how he will slam other atheists. I think he has been in the hot seat for this in the blogshere before. He doesn’t care who you are—he will cut you down.
4/23/2006 4:17 PM
BF,
(this is off topic)
your post is oh so long and your comments are too. =) anyways, there's some sort of code for the header. email me (silveraven[at]gmail[dot]com)and i'll tell you the steps to delete the marron header and replace it with something you like. =D
4/25/2006 3:17 AM
Will do. Thanks S.Raven.
4/25/2006 9:39 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home