Moral Relativity?
- Thread starter lionrwal
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The easiest counter I see to this pretentious, irritating argument is to start whaling on the guy. When he tries to get you to stop, just claim moral relativity. You know, that he can't impose his morals of 'hitting me is bad' on you, because all morals are relative.
*Sigh* I can't believe I'm taking the bait. Here goes.
Regarding your definition of atheism, you are sorely mistaken. Atheism includes both the lack of a belief in higher powers AND the belief that there are no higher powers. Even if we used only strong atheists or hard atheists, you're warping the definition of a "system" of beliefs. The possession of several beliefs does not constitute a system of beliefs, and it especially does not constitute religious belief, which is defined anyway to be a system of beliefs related to a deity or deities.
Beyond this, religion is rooted in, as you said, belief, while science is rooted in testability, and is itself unconcerned with supernatural beings that cannot be tested. Atheists (any intelligent people, really) only believe in evolution (and gravity, atoms, etc) because that is what testable, falsifiable evidence leads the most credit too.
Beyond THIS, atheists do not "believe that nature is all there is," inherently. Skeptics (and I hate to generalize like you seem to be doing) only reject the idea of strongly believing in something which has no evidence (like gods, unicorns, etc).
Even if what you're suggesting is correct, this is only semantics, and changes nothing about the topic at hand. You're manipulating the English language to define things the way that YOU would like to define things, and while this is fitting with a politician, this is not the tactics used by a person with dignity, honor, etc. "Universal morals," indeed.
We've still no measure with which to pin-point what constitutes "good," let alone evidence of an omniscient creator.
This second-to-last sentence, though, is how I know that you're not simply a victim of Poe's law, but a troll looking to incite others with idiocy and childish debate tactics.
If you were even beyond grade school, you would know that the burden of proof is not on the non-believers. YOU are the one making the assertion that an untouchable being with no physical (or logical) evidence exists, and YOU are the one that must provide proof without looking like a fool. The same is to be said of unicorns, etc. It is all well and possible that unicorns, ghosts, and gods exist, but without evidence, it is asinine (to say the least) to try and say that it is OUR job to convince you that something which already has no evidence does not, in fact, exist. You're free to believe in fairies or whatever else you'd like, but when you are telling other people that these things exist, it is entirely your job to provide proof, and if none is provided, the logical choice of these other people is to deny your claims as unsupported.
You are not a seasoned debater. You know nothing of logical fallacies. If you do know of them, you are choosing to ignore them to make your claim seem more feasible, or at least to place doubt in the realm of science.
By me even answering you, it gives the impression that your "ideas" are on equal footing as mine. It is akin to a geologist speaking to a flat-earther at a live debate, as if the flat-earther is anything but a closed-minded person with no understanding of simple logic, let alone the arguments for morality or the existence of gods.
10/10 because you got such a long goddamn reply from me.
This is useless filler and senseless bragging. Computer science and math do not equate to credentials in debate, and you should know this, if you're as seasoned of a debater as you claim.deepseadiver said:
No problems here.
Replying to this makes you look childish, but doesn't affect your argument. Neither does it support it, but whatever.
Ah, here we go. Let's pick this apart piece-by-piece. For one, even if we accept that there is a "universal moral law," there are millions of religions, each with their own moral codes, making the assertion "universal morality exists" completely useless as a claim. Secondly, the Bible (and the Koran), just to name a random holy book, contradicts itself on claims of morality at several points, with a god that clearly is not unchanging in any sense of the word.
Regarding your definition of atheism, you are sorely mistaken. Atheism includes both the lack of a belief in higher powers AND the belief that there are no higher powers. Even if we used only strong atheists or hard atheists, you're warping the definition of a "system" of beliefs. The possession of several beliefs does not constitute a system of beliefs, and it especially does not constitute religious belief, which is defined anyway to be a system of beliefs related to a deity or deities.
Beyond this, religion is rooted in, as you said, belief, while science is rooted in testability, and is itself unconcerned with supernatural beings that cannot be tested. Atheists (any intelligent people, really) only believe in evolution (and gravity, atoms, etc) because that is what testable, falsifiable evidence leads the most credit too.
Beyond THIS, atheists do not "believe that nature is all there is," inherently. Skeptics (and I hate to generalize like you seem to be doing) only reject the idea of strongly believing in something which has no evidence (like gods, unicorns, etc).
Even if what you're suggesting is correct, this is only semantics, and changes nothing about the topic at hand. You're manipulating the English language to define things the way that YOU would like to define things, and while this is fitting with a politician, this is not the tactics used by a person with dignity, honor, etc. "Universal morals," indeed.
Irrelevant.
Luckily, I haven't been involved until just now, so I have nothing to say on the arguments of others.
Wrong. Altruism and cooperation are hard-wired into our DNA. Right/Wrong IS the instinctive firing of neurons, and because working together benefits all members, that is what many animals opt to do. We humans are hardly different.
Yes, that is exactly what some of us have been trying to say. Preferences certainly can shift from society to society, but a different definition of what constitutes "rape" doesn't necessarily mean one society will be more unhappy than another.
Non sequitur...You have no evidence that this "unchanging" being exists, and even if one did exist, this does not in any way imply that objective morality exists. An omniscient being could just as easily be completely amoral, or could itself believe in relative morality. There is also the problem of how an "unchanging" being could create something in the first place, and why an "all-knowing" being would create something, knowing its outcome from the outset.
We've still no measure with which to pin-point what constitutes "good," let alone evidence of an omniscient creator.
Because it's not truth.
This is not the goal of science. Science is concerned with testing nature to discover patterns and to discover how this universe works. It says absolutely nothing about the existence of deities, which are by definition outside of nature and untestable. Not only that, they are unfalsifiable, and are as useless in a conversation as the suggestion that we are living in the Matrix.
Just because the facts are uncomfortable doesn't mean you can just wish them away. Even with relative morality, this does not lead to "anarchy," because, as I've said, altruism is hard-wired into out brains. Not only that, simple logic tells us that acting only selfishly harms both outsiders and oneself. Simply-speaking, even with relative morality, people will generally act nicely to others because life is, in essence, a prisoner's game, where working together harms everyone the least.
Useless filler. Without naming any flaws with evolution and evolutionary theory, it's looking like this author is just a religious nut trying to undermine actual scientific understanding of the world.
If your system is so flawless, how can it be that we're still debating what is "moral" and what isn't after thousands of years?
This second-to-last sentence, though, is how I know that you're not simply a victim of Poe's law, but a troll looking to incite others with idiocy and childish debate tactics.
If you were even beyond grade school, you would know that the burden of proof is not on the non-believers. YOU are the one making the assertion that an untouchable being with no physical (or logical) evidence exists, and YOU are the one that must provide proof without looking like a fool. The same is to be said of unicorns, etc. It is all well and possible that unicorns, ghosts, and gods exist, but without evidence, it is asinine (to say the least) to try and say that it is OUR job to convince you that something which already has no evidence does not, in fact, exist. You're free to believe in fairies or whatever else you'd like, but when you are telling other people that these things exist, it is entirely your job to provide proof, and if none is provided, the logical choice of these other people is to deny your claims as unsupported.
You are not a seasoned debater. You know nothing of logical fallacies. If you do know of them, you are choosing to ignore them to make your claim seem more feasible, or at least to place doubt in the realm of science.
By me even answering you, it gives the impression that your "ideas" are on equal footing as mine. It is akin to a geologist speaking to a flat-earther at a live debate, as if the flat-earther is anything but a closed-minded person with no understanding of simple logic, let alone the arguments for morality or the existence of gods.
10/10 because you got such a long goddamn reply from me.
In a Philosophy class I took 2 terms ago, I learned that Moral Relativity is pretty stupid.
If you follow Moral Relativity, then you can do whatever you want because you want to. Other people can also do whatever they want because they want to, and since you are a Moral Relativist, you can't tell them "don't do this" or "stop doing that". So when someone punches you in the gut, you just have to grin and salute them for doing what they want. When someone burns your house down, you can say "that sucks that my house burned down", but you most certainly cannot say "WHY THE FUCK DID YOU BURN MY HOUSE DOWN!?!?!?!".
So when your friend says he believes in Moral Relativity, punch him as hard as you can in the face and tell him that you punched him because you wanted to, and since he can't put his morals on you, he can't do shit about it. That'll change his stupid mind pretty quickly.
Edit: I tried reading some earlier posts, but most of the ones that are not saying what I am basically saying, are barely checked flame wars =|
If you follow Moral Relativity, then you can do whatever you want because you want to. Other people can also do whatever they want because they want to, and since you are a Moral Relativist, you can't tell them "don't do this" or "stop doing that". So when someone punches you in the gut, you just have to grin and salute them for doing what they want. When someone burns your house down, you can say "that sucks that my house burned down", but you most certainly cannot say "WHY THE FUCK DID YOU BURN MY HOUSE DOWN!?!?!?!".
So when your friend says he believes in Moral Relativity, punch him as hard as you can in the face and tell him that you punched him because you wanted to, and since he can't put his morals on you, he can't do shit about it. That'll change his stupid mind pretty quickly.
Edit: I tried reading some earlier posts, but most of the ones that are not saying what I am basically saying, are barely checked flame wars =|
Ah, you make a few good points.Logiclul said:
First, I meant no rude stereotypism with my previous comment. I just like to lay all my cards down first, so people know where I am coming from. I have responded to "Oh, I'm an athiest, I don't do religion" a thousand too many times. So I thought I would take care of it off the bat. I did not intend to offend any of you fine chaps whatsoever.
Secondly, one cannot believe part of the Bible, and not believe another part. The book was not written like that. I thank you for your acknowledgemnt of it, but I ask: what is the point of taking any morals whatsoever if you are just going to pick and choose?
Next up: Doesn't your answer stem from a belief of a conscience? The satisfaction of doing good could come from no other than a developed conscience. The Bible is the only source I have yet found that gives a reasonable explanation of said in-grown consience: that being, we are made in God's image.
You said that God-given morals don't prove objectivity. Then you talked about some adhering and some not. The issue I take with with this stems from who the morals apply to. Where I live, it is illegal to operate a motorcar while intoxicated, I assume the same applies where you live. Now, just because I go and decide not to live by that rule, does not mean that it 1) does not exist or 2) does not apply to me. It does exist, and it does apply to me, and I, in my ignorance, will get punished for it in the end. That is the whole premise of the Bible.
Mortai said that he wanted me to prove the existance of a God. Well, I ask for someone to prove His inexistance. If He does not exist, it should be relatively easy to prove so, and I will accept any argument in that direction, and will retaliate in like force.
Back to you sir Logiclul, people keep accusing me of attacking Mortai in my earlier post. But I was not. I was simply reccomending to him that he keep his posts limited to attacks on ideas, not people. And to say that I failed to address his points is not quite right. You see, I was never trying to, so I never failed. If I was trying to address his points, I would have done so.
Thank you for your sincerety. It is a refreshing breeze in today's culture. Thank you for responding in a pleasent manner.
Until next time, Cheers!
Could you quickly jot down a comprehensive list of the Bibles' moral code? I would like to see it (and probably will ask for citations for ones I don't think exist) so we can take a look at this objective morality of yours.deepseadiver said:
No need to try to prove the Bibles' existence to me, I'm ready to assume it is true in order to have this debate, as I think that even if God exists we may have a subjective morality.
You cannot apply Law to an argument of Morals. If you have another argument where you don't compare breaking the law to breaking a moral code, then I'll hear it.
I know how you were responding to Mortai, and while I haven't read his posts, it didn't look to me like anything you said was inherently incorrect, and certainly were not attacking Mortais' person.
There are cases where it is impossible to prove something doesn't exist which we know does not. For instance, an invisible, undetectable, floating castle that always is 12 miles above MY head, may go through objects, and is the cause of all weather and knowledge does not exist, however it is impossible to prove it. As such a thing would naturally leave nothing which could implicate its existence.
REGARDLESS, if he isn't going to assume your canon, then just ignore it, because all I care about is seeing what morality we are dealing with if a Christian God exists.
@chadachada
You seem to be too emotionally attached chap. Just remember, this is a discussion. I think we could go in circles for hours and hours on this, because you have your own preconceived ideas just as I have mine. I doubt we will ever see eye to eye on this.
I find that comparing me to a 'gradeschooler' is rather insulting. But then, Richard Dawkins erroneously thinks that all Christians are mentally unfit and as smart as and ass.
I never meant for my accomplishments to mean anything beyond: "Look, this is what I do." I don't claim to be the earth's best debater. And if you truly think that math and computer science have nothing to do with this realm of morals, maybe you should try it... you might find yourself surprised.
I won't respond to your other points, as it would just result in an endless circle of unresolvable debate once again.(this is not an escape) With that my good fellow, I appreciate your input.
Thanks!
You seem to be too emotionally attached chap. Just remember, this is a discussion. I think we could go in circles for hours and hours on this, because you have your own preconceived ideas just as I have mine. I doubt we will ever see eye to eye on this.
I find that comparing me to a 'gradeschooler' is rather insulting. But then, Richard Dawkins erroneously thinks that all Christians are mentally unfit and as smart as and ass.
I never meant for my accomplishments to mean anything beyond: "Look, this is what I do." I don't claim to be the earth's best debater. And if you truly think that math and computer science have nothing to do with this realm of morals, maybe you should try it... you might find yourself surprised.
I won't respond to your other points, as it would just result in an endless circle of unresolvable debate once again.(this is not an escape) With that my good fellow, I appreciate your input.
Thanks!
*Whistles* That's quite the statement. I'm a Bible-believing Christian as well, which is why I opposed the idea of subjective morality in the first place. By the way, I appreciate the implication that I'm not yet in grade school.chadachada123 said:
I've always seen the evidence of God's existence as self-evident. Look out a window and you'll see trees, grass growing, various facets of nature. His creation declares his existence, because something created implies a creator. I do not believe that the big bang theory is an adequate explanation for what we behold today in nature simply because you cannot have absolute nothingness produce something. Physical impossibility in it's most basic form.
The only logical conclusion a person can make is that you need something that never had a beginning.
While some of what chadachada said was irrelevant for the purpose of the debate, I don't think that it is erroneous. He brought up many interesting things which in combination would seem to deteriorate the backing of your post (independent of the burden of proof aspect).
Depseadiver, in my opinion post 198 is nothing more than ad hominem, and is in fact an escape of sorts, not an attempt to resolve a personal problem.
Please do not stoop to such levels, I would expect more from one with your background.
Depseadiver, in my opinion post 198 is nothing more than ad hominem, and is in fact an escape of sorts, not an attempt to resolve a personal problem.
Please do not stoop to such levels, I would expect more from one with your background.
I apologize. In hindsight I realize I may have let my emotions run rampant. @chadachada. I hope you will forgive my thoughtless jab at you and your views. While I maintain that we will never agree, I will try to be more cordial (and realistic) in future.Logiclul said:
@Mortai
This is a link to a well-written (in my opinion, maybe not in yours) paper by Ken Ham on the existance of God. As for His attributes, you'll find them in there too. The rules He created, well, I made Logiclul a list, but you can find them anywhere in the Bible.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/pdf/radio/reallyagod.pdf
Thanks fellow!
Cheers.
This is a link to a well-written (in my opinion, maybe not in yours) paper by Ken Ham on the existance of God. As for His attributes, you'll find them in there too. The rules He created, well, I made Logiclul a list, but you can find them anywhere in the Bible.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/pdf/radio/reallyagod.pdf
Thanks fellow!
Cheers.
Well the guy really makes my sister happy. And I don't really know if her judgment is wrong or not, I just know that in my opinion it likely is. Also if I'm defending her rights, shouldn't I be allowing her the right to make her own decisions (she is 18 and an adult, after all). He has made others girls happy before and still turned rotten though.
It seems like subjectively I should intervene, but objectively I should not.
It seems like subjectively I should intervene, but objectively I should not.
Here's the thing - everything you've said is true, except that what you're describing isn't objective morality. It's the way a good (not 'morally good', but 'this pie is good') society functions. People construct a society that promotes 'the common good', but this ISN'T because they have the Big Book of GOOD and EVIL, which tells them what to do, and they do it 'Because that's the way things are' - which, by the way, is what moral objectivists do, to some extent or another - rather, society is constructed to work towards the common good because it's in everyone's best interest.Jarimir said:
Knowingly harming an innocent isn't bad because there is a law of the universe, in the same way that there is a law of gravity, that IT IS BAD - it's just STUPID. Most people don't want a society where that can happen, and as such things are in a state that you're going to get the law to come down on you, and there's no real damn point to what you're doing in the first place. Note that the key factor here is that all of these judgements are being made BY PEOPLE - and before anyone goes there, no, the law cannot be defined as objective morality, I've already explained why.
I honestly see some views of objective morality as a sort of later-life ideological handholding - people can't realize that doing good is something they should want to do, so the 'objective morality' idea keeps them in line until they throw it away and replace it with something better, like, I don't know, REASON.
Or, to provide another form of argument, I'm invoking Occam's Razor. If 'moral behaviour' can be entirely explained by people acting with some common sense, tacking on a wishy-washy system of judgements that you say are ALWAYS ALWAYS TRUE, FOR ALL TIME, is superfluous, contrived, and laughable.
It sounds like you are just trying to be a good bro (which is what I would do). While you may say that my point will sound like i'm advocating subjectivity, just hear me out.Logiclul said:
What I would do is discuss it with her, tell her your thoughts, your concerns, your reasonings, and ask her to not go with him. At this point you have done all in your respective power to defend her, but the choice is ultimately with her. While you have obeyed a moral law, you need not be concered how it turns out (in respect to obedience. as a brother you should be very concerned.)
What I'm driving at is this: Whether or not she decides to go with the "jerk" or not, if you have done everything in your power (that is, not having gone to the point where you have to force her) to defend by informing her then you have lived by that objective standard. Regardless of what happens next, you still did it. And therefore it can vary on a case by case basis, but the requirement is still to obey the moral law.
Hey deepseadiver, I noticed earlier that you have a way of explaining yourself clearly and not getting off topic. Thanks for keeping this discussion readable, because ethics is a fantastic topic and fun to argue about. I've only read the first page, your posts and those responding to your posts, because I can't understand most of the other arguments being made. I'd like to throw a couple of points into this discussion and as you put it, give it a little more meat. I'm not too skilled at making clear points, so I copied some words from a philosopher that I believe makes a pretty strong argument against moral relativism. I know it's not your position, but Logiclul if you want to address it or if someone else wants to address it, please do.deepseadiver said:
[quote:]The moral relativist believes that ethical truths are relative to groups smaller than humanity as a whole. Moral relativism is the view that what determines the truth or falsity of moral beliefs is just what is endorsed by the prevailing culture. According to moral relativism, moral truths are made by the dominant view in a society, not merely propagated by the dominant culture.
To allow just one fundamental universal ethical truth that is independent of the say so of individuals or groups is to abandon relativism in favor of a realist view of ethical truth.
Sometimes our view about the moral status of some practice changes. A person might, for instance, think that eating meat is morally unproblematic at one time and then become convinced that animals deserve some kind of moral regard that speaks against eating meat. When a person?s moral views change in this fashion, they do not merely drop one moral belief in favor of another. Typically, they also hold that their previous moral view was mistaken. They take themselves to have discovered something new about what is morally right. Likewise, then the prevalent moral belief in a society undergoes a significant change, as in the civil rights movement, we are inclined to see this as a change for the better. But the relativist cannot account for changes in our moral beliefs being changes for the better. This is because the relativist recognizes no independent standard of goodness against which the new prevalent moral beliefs can be judged to be better than the old prevalent moral beliefs.
A closely related problem for moral relativism is the moral reformer's dilemma. We recognize a few remarkable individuals as moral reformers, people who, we think, improved the moral condition of their society in some way. Common examples might include, Buddha, Jesus, Ghandi or Martin Luther King. While the relativist can allow that these individuals changed the moral views of their societies, none can be said to have changed their societies for the better according to the relativist. Again, this is because the societal moral relativist recognizes no standard of moral goodness independent of what is accepted in a society according to which a society that has changed can be judged to have changed for the better. A relativist that takes ethical truth to be relative to the dominant view in a society seems to be committed to taking institutionalized racism to be morally right relative to per-civil rights American society and wrong relative to post civil rights American society. But since standards of goodness are determined by the prevalent views in a society, there is no standard goodness to appeal to in judging that the change our society underwent in the civil rights movement is a change for the better. According to societal moral relativism, anyone who takes Martin Luther King to have improved American society by leading it to reject institutionalized racism is just mistaken about the nature of ethical truth. [/quote]
http://personal.bellevuecollege.edu/wpayne/Moral%20Relativism.htm
Do moral relativists believe that no society can change for the better? Are we just as moral now as we were in slavery days or when we were living in tribes? Are the Nazis morally justified? I believe not. Happy MLK day everybody!
Edit: A lot of people are arguing for individual moral relativism. I would then ask, is it possible to grow as an individual and become a better person? Why should one work harder or improve the lives of those around him if it is equally moral not to? If one always chooses to do the right thing from somewhere within himself, what is the source of that preference, and is it common among men?
Hey there.Glass Joe said:
Just wanted to say I think you made an excellent point which I had never even considered before.
Basically, the concept of society bettering itself is non-existent to a moral relativist. And I'm willing to bet they don't realize that...
Cheers.
@Glass Joe. Well chap, I am truly honored. Thanks for the encouragement. You make some very good points. I wish I could state them better, but, alas, I cannot.
To all you other gents out there. I need to go, but when I get back I hope to continue.
Thanks all for a jolly good talk!
Hopefully I can rejoin soon.
Cheers!
To all you other gents out there. I need to go, but when I get back I hope to continue.
Thanks all for a jolly good talk!
Hopefully I can rejoin soon.
Cheers!