Is Morality Relative?

[Syntax]

Ok, now that IS pedantic! But the problem is that you are being incorrectly pedantic about my being pedantic.

Actually, I think using “condescending” IS more appropriate because I was criticizing the very logic of the statement. The suggestion was that by performing that very correction “I am not implying I am stooping down to a level I think you are at because I don’t think you are actually at that level.” So I am not so sure you are correct about my lack of intentions here. Sorry, I think your edit was incorrect…

 

[hellopeople]

No. I am showing there is **no sufficient reason **for thinking it doesn’t exist. Those are two different tasks. What I am doing is effectively switching the burden of proof onto you for showing objective morality doesn’t exist.

lol…then you might as well say,

“Since there is no way if knowing which scientific theory is the correct theory of the universe, there might as well be no fact of the matter about the universe for any theory to describe.”

Oh yeah? How so?

You are the one trying to prove something (That there is an objective morality). Thus YOU have to prove it.

Also, is there any way that an objective morality can work if there is no God?

 

[Syntax]

You are the one trying to prove something (That there is an objective morality). Thus YOU have to prove it.

Also, is there any way that an objective morality can work if there is no God?

Did I ever make the claim “objective morality exists”? No.

But you certainly made the positive claim “objective morality does not exist.”

Therefore, because YOU are the one who made the claim in this discussion; you have to “prove” your claim.

I suspend belief until I have sufficient evidence.

Again, I have offered arguments that you have no good reason for thinking objective morality *doesn’t *exist. Therefore, in the context of this discussion, it is completely irrational to hold your belief until you can offer arguments of your own. Do you want to be an irrational person who can’t give reasons for why he believes what he does?

So far, your claim is just as absurd as the claim that the President of the United States does not exist. So I suggest you “saddle-up” and offer arguments because so far your position is complete nonsense, and none of us have any good reasons for thinking it is true. So offer an argument:shrug:

 

[hellopeople]

Did I ever make the claim “objective morality exists”? No.

But you certainly made the positive claim “objective morality does not exist.”

Therefore, because YOU are the one who made the claim in this discussion; you have to “prove” your claim.

I suspend belief until I have sufficient evidence.

Again, I have offered arguments that you have no good reason for thinking objective morality *doesn’t *exist. Therefore, in the context of this discussion, it is completely irrational to hold your belief until you can offer arguments of your own. Do you want to be an irrational person who can’t give reasons for why he believes what he does?

So far, your claim is just as absurd as the claim that the President of the United States does not exist. So I suggest you “saddle-up” and offer arguments because so far your position is complete nonsense, and none of us have any good reasons for thinking it is true. So offer an argument:shrug:

What are you even arguing then? I didn’t say that objective morality doesn’t exist. I said that it might exist and that it might not exist and it is impossible to prove one way or the other.

 

[Syntax]

What are you even arguing then?

That you **lack any reason **for believing morality is subjective, or a just a matter of opinion. Therefore, your belief that morality is “just a matter of opinion” and does not consist of objective moral truths is an irrational belief.

I said that it might exist and that it might not exist and it is impossible to prove one way or the other.

So what? That some objective moral claims may at times be difficult to determine does not logically entail there is no objective fact of the matter about which moral claims are, in fact, true.

By the way, nothing can be “proved,” not even in science. So I suggest you drop that term. No one demands that kind of standard of justification be met by any hypothesis (except for those found in logical and mathematical systems).

I didn’t say that objective morality doesn’t exist.

Yes you did! What do you think “subjective” means? It means no objective moral truths exist. This is a positive claim for which you haven’t provided any reasons for thinking is true. Here:

OK, basically, in terms of morality…is subjective. You can’t deny this. You can’t prove that something is right or wrong, **it is only opinion. **The only way that you can say that there is ONE set of morals that is right is if there is a God and he says so. But, even if this is true, his set of morals is not completely known to us and is speculation anyway. So either way, morality basically is subjective.

So can we have any reason for thinking why your belief is true? So far it is groundless.

 

[hellopeople]

So can we have any reason for thinking why your belief is true? So far it is groundless.

You don’t have an argument. You just say “there is no reason to think that there ISN’T objective morality” and thus you are trying to make me prove that something does not exist…which is impossible. It is up to those arguing for objective morality to make the argument, not those arguing against it.

Do you use this same horrible argument against atheists? “Well, you have no reason NOT to believe God exists.” The burden of proof falls on the people that are trying to prove something exists, not the other way around.

 

[Syntax]

It is up to those arguing for objective morality to make the argument, not those arguing against it.

This is a double standard. So you are telling me that if someone says “Obama exists” he has to make an argument. But when someone says “Obama does not exist” he does not have to make an argument? You’re being irrational again. This is stupid.

 

[hellopeople]

This is a double standard. So you are telling me that if someone says “Obama exists” he has to make an argument. But when someone says “Obama does not exist” he does not have to make an argument? You’re being irrational again. This is stupid.

There is a difference between something that has tangible, physical evidence to prove its existence and something that does not (God and objective morality).

Prove to me a unicorn does not exist. You have no rational reason NOT to believe unicorns exist. Looks like I won the argument.

 

[Syntax]

There is a difference between something that has tangible, physical evidence to prove its existence and something that does not (God and objective morality).

This doesn’t matter. If you have a positive belief that morality is subjective you have to offer reasons. Stop reading those lame websites that tell you the burden is not on you to demonstrate your claims. You are misusing what “burden of proof” means. Even if someone denies that something exists, he still has to provide reasons for that belief, otherwise he is being irrational to believe it. Don’t you see?

Prove to me a unicorn does not exist. You have no rational reason NOT to believe unicorns exist. Looks like I won the argument.

uhh…no. No one said anything about unicorns here. sorry, that doesn’t work.

 

[Eris_Discordia]

There is a difference between something that has tangible, physical evidence to prove its existence and something that does not (God and objective morality).

Prove to me a unicorn does not exist. You have no rational reason NOT to believe unicorns exist. Looks like I won the argument.

Burden of proof, correct? It rests on the person making the claim. So whichever person is making the claim, either for or against, needs to prove it.

 

[hellopeople]

This doesn’t matter. If you have a positive belief that morality is subjective you have to offer reasons. Stop reading those lame websites that tell you the burden is not on you to demonstrate your claims. You are misusing what “burden of proof” means. Even if someone denies that something exists, he still has to provide reasons for that belief, otherwise he is being irrational to believe it. Don’t you see?

uhh…no. No one said anything about unicorns here. sorry, that doesn’t work.

Can you do it though? Prove to me unicorns don’t exist and I will prove that objective morality does not exist.

I have my reasons for believing that objective morality might not exist. Mainly the fact that there are MANY well thought out moral systems that differ from each other. Morality is not something that is completely universal unfortunately.

 

[Syntax]

Can you do it though? Prove to me unicorns don’t exist and I will prove that objective morality does not exist.

We are not talking about unicorns.

I have my reasons for believing that objective morality might not exist. Mainly the fact that there are MANY well thought out moral systems that differ from each other.

Again, mere disagreements does not logically entail there is no fact of the matter about which moral theory is the correct one. For all you know, one of them can be the correct moral system after all.

Morality is not something that is completely universal unfortunately.

No, you still have not provided any good reasons for thinking moral truths do not exist. It simply doesn’t matter if everyone disagrees. Some could be right, some could be wrong, or they could all be wrong. Lack of universal consensus among people does not logically entail objective moral truths do not exist.

 

[hellopeople]

No, you still have not provided any good reasons for thinking moral truths do not exist. It simply doesn’t matter if everyone disagrees. Some could be right, some could be wrong, or they could all be wrong. Lack of universal consensus among people does not logically entail objective moral truths do not exist.

You are right. That is why I think that there is a chance that there is objective morality, and there is a chance that there is not. You have yet to convince me otherwise.

If you can prove that unicorns do not exist I will elaborate further though

 

[Syntax]

You are right. That is why I think that there is a chance that there is objective morality, and there is a chance that there is not. You have yet to convince me otherwise.:

Wait, so morality is not subjective after all? Are you retracting your statement now?

I have not tried to convince you of anything other than that you have no reason for thinking morality is subjective.

If you can prove that unicorns do not exist I will elaborate further though

We are not talking about unicorns. Stick to the OP.

 

[hellopeople]

Wait, so morality is not subjective after all? Are you retracting your statement now?

I have not tried to convince you of anything other than that you have no reason for thinking morality is subjective.

We are not talking about unicorns. Stick to the OP.

I have maintained the position that I do not know if morality is subjective or objective. But I did remark that since there is no way of proving or knowing the objective morality if it does exist, it basically becomes subjective because you cannot prove it one way or the other. So, even if it is objective, we can only speculate on what is true morality.

 

[Syntax]

I have maintained the position that I do not know if morality is subjective or objective. But I did remark that since there is no way of proving or knowing the objective morality if it does exist, it basically ***becomes subjective ***because you cannot prove it one way or the other. So, even if it is objective, we can only speculate on what is true morality.

A kind of agnosticism then? So you believe that morality is subjective, but claim you do not know that it is subjective? Ok.

Then you don’t know morality is subjective. Big deal. So do you accept this on faith then?

Case closed. You have no reason for believing morality is subjective.

 

[hatsoff]

My question for the forum is this: is morality relative? Or can we reason the existence of an objective morality that applies equally to all people, regardless of their circumstances?

Moral judgments depend on a contextual (though often poorly-defined) code of conduct, whether explicitly or implicitly identified. So, I would say that they are relative in that limited sense. These moral codes are varyingly attractive to different people based on personal preferences, and so in that sense they are subjective.

Please note this does not mean there are no common moral tendencies among large numbers of people. There clearly are, I would say, and so in that sense we may consider morality to be objective. It could also be that God exhaustively enforces his own moral code, which we might wish to call absolute.

 

[hellopeople]

It could also be that God exhaustively enforces his own moral code, which we might wish to call absolute.

But, like the existence of God, is impossible to prove.

 

[Syntax]

Moral judgments depend on a contextual (though often poorly-defined) code of conduct, whether explicitly or implicitly identified. So, I would say that they are relative in that limited sense. These moral codes are varyingly attractive to different people based on personal preferences, and so in that sense they are subjective.

Please note this does not mean there are no common moral tendencies among large numbers of people. There clearly are, I would say, and so in that sense we may consider morality to be objective. It could also be that God exhaustively enforces his own moral code, which we might wish to call absolute.

It seems you are proposing contextual objectivity with respect to moral truths–which is really just cultural relativism in disguise. So the question is: how would you propose to address the problem of cross-cultural disagreement?

 

[hellopeople]

It seems you are proposing contextual objectivity with respect to moral truths–which is really just cultural relativism in disguise. So the question is: how would you propose to address the problem of cross-cultural disagreement?

I think that cross cultural disagreement shows that there is not a universal collective conscience. If there is one, it can be trumped by external forces (culture). It seems unlikely though, and I believe that conscience has more to do with one’s upbringing than some common conscience.