Help with debating a Nominalist

[Odell]

How do you respond to his last charge? I think I have done well up to this point.

---

racism which today is considered absolutely an anathema was once the norm. Morals and values ARE relative because they originated with human societies, probably as a form of social cohesion.

---

No opinons change but essences do not. Racism is always wrong even if the majority believes it not so, or society makes it ok. Opinions may change but principles do not. Racism is always racism regardless of the situation. Racism is always wrong regardless of the situation.

If racism is relative from one generation to the next how is that you call them both racism? You have racism that is the norm and racism that is anathema, but they’re both racism. How else is it that you call it racism in the past and racism now?? And just as racism is always wrong there are other objective and bad morals as there are objective good values.

See the contradiction? When you say racism in the past is different from racism today you utter a misstatement and a contradiction in terms for how can you call them both racism?

Likewise, when you say all morals are different and relative you also have a contradiction in terms. If all morals are different how is it you call them all morals?

You see the contradiction?

---

Odell:

“Likewise, when you say all morals are different and relative you also have a contradiction in terms”

No, you don’t. You are simply making a statement about the nature of morality which DOES vary in different cultures and at different times.

“If racism is relative from one generation to the next how is that you call them both racism?”

I hate to be rude Odell but what the **** are you talking about? Racism is a relatively new term and would not have even been in the lexicon 100 years ago. How can you possibly be unaware of that? It was pretty much a given until very recently that those of other races were inherently inferior.

“See the contradiction?”

Nope, I see someone who simply has her head in the sand and is refusing to face reality.

“If all morals are different how is it you call them all morals?’

---

Seriously Odell? That’s as fatuous as saying if all birds, or cats, are different why do you call them birds and cats? You are confusing, either deliberately as a dishonest ploy, or because you haven’t thought about it coherently, the fact that we group things together in categories and give those categories names with some kind of reality about those categories that goes beyond human perception. It’s not entirely unlike the argument which raged in the Middle Ages about Nominalism.

 

[MPat]

How do you respond to his last charge? I think I have done well up to this point.

Perhaps it would be best to ask him (explicitly) if he actually accepts Nominalism. His last sentence might mean that he rejects Nominalism at least partially.

Then it would be a good idea to ask him what exactly does he mean by “relative”.

 

[dmar198]

How do you respond to his last charge? I think I have done well up to this point.

---

---

No opinons change but essences do not. Racism is always wrong even if the majority believes it not so, or society makes it ok. Opinions may change but principles do not. Racism is always racism regardless of the situation. Racism is always wrong regardless of the situation.

If racism is relative from one generation to the next how is that you call them both racism? You have racism that is the norm and racism that is anathema, but they’re both racism. How else is it that you call it racism in the past and racism now?? And just as racism is always wrong there are other objective and bad morals as there are objective good values.

See the contradiction? When you say racism in the past is different from racism today you utter a misstatement and a contradiction in terms for how can you call them both racism?

Likewise, when you say all morals are different and relative you also have a contradiction in terms. If all morals are different how is it you call them all morals?

You see the contradiction?

---

Ask him if he thinks it’s okay to do something as long as it’s not bad. This will help you find out if he really believes morality is relative. If he asks what you mean, say something like picking a favorite ice cream flavor: is it okay to do that since it isn’t bad? If he says yeah, then ask him if it’s okay to kill Jews to “purge” your nation of an “impure race” if you think it’s a good thing. Then you’ll find out if he really believes in relativism. If he says that’s not okay even if the person doing it think it is a good thing, then he doesn’t believe in relativism. If he says that is okay, then try to explain to him why it isn’t. But I doubt you’ll have to – everyone knows that killing Jews for the given reason is wrong.

 

[Odell]

He said before

The fact that those who believe in a fair society are passionate about that does absolutely nothing to alter the fact that morality is relative. I believe in a fair society (feel free to curl your lip in arrogant contempt at this point) but, because I’m NOT an arrogant conservative bigot I recognise that this is, however passionately I might feel about it, an opinion. And there lies the difference between liberals and conservatives. The essential arrogance and self regard which informs the conservative mindset compels them to imagine that their opinions are timeless truths and that what they THINK is right is some kind of universal moral absolute. Throw in their fondness for archaic religious dogma and the notion that these absolutes have been handed down to us by their Divine Imaginary Friend and it’s not surprising they are so wedded to the notion of moral absolutes.

Alo I was thinking of an analogy. He said racism hadn’t always existed but the concept certainly has. People have been persecuted for race since the beginning of time. Money hasn’t always existed but currency has.

Any other analogies along this line that can show him the essence of things?

 

[Odell]

Also who’s the arrogant bigot? The one who believes in the nature of things or the one who denies the natures of things but still decides to push his personal relative views passionately onto others?

 

[Rhubarb]

How do you respond to his last charge? I think I have done well up to this point.

---

---

No opinons change but essences do not. Racism is always wrong even if the majority believes it not so, or society makes it ok. Opinions may change but principles do not. Racism is always racism regardless of the situation. Racism is always wrong regardless of the situation.

If racism is relative from one generation to the next how is that you call them both racism? You have racism that is the norm and racism that is anathema, but they’re both racism. How else is it that you call it racism in the past and racism now?? And just as racism is always wrong there are other objective and bad morals as there are objective good values.

See the contradiction? When you say racism in the past is different from racism today you utter a misstatement and a contradiction in terms for how can you call them both racism?

Likewise, when you say all morals are different and relative you also have a contradiction in terms. If all morals are different how is it you call them all morals?

You see the contradiction?

---

I’m not sure exactly who is saying what, or what points you’re trying to refute. I had written about 3 paragraphs of general musings on what I think would help you - but I can’t tell what you really need. Maybe you can re-focus what you are saying, and what you want to refute that your interlocutor is saying?

 

[lmelahn]

How do you respond to his last charge? I think I have done well up to this point.

---

---

No opinons change but essences do not. Racism is always wrong even if the majority believes it not so, or society makes it ok. Opinions may change but principles do not. Racism is always racism regardless of the situation. Racism is always wrong regardless of the situation.

If racism is relative from one generation to the next how is that you call them both racism? You have racism that is the norm and racism that is anathema, but they’re both racism. How else is it that you call it racism in the past and racism now?? And just as racism is always wrong there are other objective and bad morals as there are objective good values.

See the contradiction? When you say racism in the past is different from racism today you utter a misstatement and a contradiction in terms for how can you call them both racism?

Likewise, when you say all morals are different and relative you also have a contradiction in terms. If all morals are different how is it you call them all morals?

You see the contradiction?

---

I actually agree with your friend that the statement “all moral norms are relative” (presumably relative to the culture) is not a contradiction. It is simply a false statement, and we need to demonstrate that it is false.

Although racism is wrong, it is true that it took a long time for us to figure that out. So I suggest leaving racism for last. It is also true that the term “racism” is relatively recent, even though the fact or racism is as old as human nature. (It is also true that it reached particularly vicious forms beginning with the African slave trade, and then culminating with the Holocaust.)

With morality, it is best to begin with the things that everyone agrees on, and then work to the difficult problems. What about murder? Can your friend think of a culture that seriously considered murder a virtuous act? (Note that whenever a society permits a type of murder, the victims are invariably de-humanized, or else the act of murder is somehow sanitized.)

If all cultures in all times fundamentally agree that murder is wrong (which they do), then we have demonstrated that there is at least one universal moral norm.