Is Morality Relative?

[hatsoff]

You can’t say something like this or else syntax will come on here and say “but what evidence have you encountered NOT to believe it”…and then once you give him it he will shoot it down and say that it isn’t valid, while he himself cannot give even a shred of evidence to support his claims, he just rebuts your claims.

If he tries to pull that kind of stunt, I’ll respond appropriately. However, I suspect he’ll throw me something a little more challenging.

He has the advantage of formal philosophy training, but even so I am confident in my ability to defend my statements in this thread.

 

[Syntax]

My evidence is that people aren’t in agreement with what is right and what is wrong. This evidence might not be perfect, but it is better than the evidence I have for objective morality…which is none.

But I’ve already shown in another post that this “alleged” evidence cannot support that hypothesis since, to think it **does **support it, is clearly absurd. The absurd epistemic principle for which you lack justification in thinking is true is,

(P) If A and B disagree on moral principle X, then there is no objective fact of the matter about moral principle X.

It is stupid to believe this, as I’ve shown in my example about Bill and Bob’s competing beliefs about the President of the United States. Therefore, you still lack any good reason to believe morality is subjective.

 

[Syntax]

You can’t say something like this or else syntax will come on here and say “but what evidence have you encountered NOT to believe it”…and then once you give him it he will shoot it down and say that it isn’t valid, while he himself cannot give even a shred of evidence to support his claims, he just rebuts your claims.

Again, you don’t understand the context of the discussion between you and me. I have not made any claims that morality is objective in this thread at all. I just lack belief that it is subjective. So I am not making any claims.

So the burden of proof is on you for providing support for your claim that morality is subjective. If you can’t provide this support, then you are behaving irrationally by asserting it. You are not exempt from this task any more than others. So saddle up.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

hellopeople

*If this is true, then obviously God’s natural law is not as strong as cultural influences. Or God’s natural law does not exist. *

God’s law is stronger than cultural influences, but men are free to distort that law for their own evil pleasure. They do so with the help and approval of the devil.

Any woman who has had an abortion will regret it the rest of her life, even though before the abortion she had lied to herself and persuaded herself that it was right to kill her own child. It’s called conscience. Haven’t you ever felt bad about something you did? Not because society disapproved, but because in your heart you knew it was instrinsically wrong.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

hatsoff

Are you majoring in sociology? Sure sounds like it. You judge values by trends? Whew!

*If you think God exists, and has endowed us with some kind of instinct to unwittingly obey his moral commands, then I am open to hearing evidence that you are correct. However, I have thus far encountered no such empirical support. *

I never said unwittingly. We know **wittingly **what is right and what is wrong. It’s common sense, for example, that you don’t kill your own child. You don’t have to look to societal trends to determind that that is evil conduct a woman will regret sooner or later when she has learned how completely she has lied to herself and been taken in by her own lies.

Even abortionists can come to their senses and realize at some point, that they have given themselves to the devil.

“Empirical support”? Exactly what kind of empirical evidence would you accept? If you don’t believe in God, we would have to start a different thread. Right?

 

[Syntax]

The truth value of a statement like “torturing babies is wrong” must be evaluated with respect to some kind of moral code. Without such a code, the word “wrong” is undefined. So, we can think of moral codes as providing definitions for moral terms.

Every ethical philosopher, realist and anti-realist alike, construe “wrong” as meaning “morally impermissible” or “having an obligation to do not-x.” “Right” and “wrong” are semantically basic in a very similar way that “true” and “false” are semantically basic. So “morally permissible” and “morally impermissible” are not necessarily defined by any moral code. But of course, what a culture finds as having intrinsic and relational value may shift and change. And their principles of **what **is right and wrong my vary. But the meanings of “right” and “wrong” themselves don’t vary.

Now, we all know that there are a myriad of diverse moral codes to be found in human societies. Can we find one where torturing babies isn’t wrong? Possibly. One Spanish Christian, Bartolome de las Casas, wrote of Spanish colonists splitting open the heads of infant natives, in imitation of Psalm 137. Perhaps these people did not consider the killing of the uncivilized to be wrong. Personally I think the story was invented by Casas, but if not, then we might say that the moral code of the colonists in question permitted the torture of babies, so long as they were not Christian babies. A colonist might then say (in Spanish of course), that torturing babies is not wrong in many cases—and he might just be correct, if he was talking about his own moral code.

Widespread disagreement about who is the president of the united states is not evidence for the claim that **no one **is the president of the united states.

Similarly, widespread disagreement about whether “torturing innocent babies is wrong” is true is not evidence that there is no fact of the matter that torturing babies is, in fact, wrong.

(P) If A and B disagree on moral principle X, then there is no objective fact of the matter about moral principle X.

I find this epistemic principle to which relativists like yourself are implicitly appealing in your discussion intuitively implausible. You are going to have to defend it.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

The central problem with relativism, whether it be in ethics or metaphysics or politics, is that it cannot prove its own central “truth.” If everything is relative, then relativism is also relative. That is, it is only relative to those who believe in it. Sort of like saying “There is no truth.” That can only be “true” to those who believe there is no truth.

Kind of a ridiculous truth, don’t you think?

 

[Syntax]

The central problem with relativism, whether it be in ethics or metaphysics or politics, is that it cannot prove its own central “truth.” If everything is relative, then relativism is also relative. That is, it is only relative to those who believe in it. Sort of like saying “There is no truth.” That can only be “true” to those who believe there is no truth.

Kind of a ridiculous truth, don’t you think?

Not quite. Moral relativism can go several ways. The big division is here:

(1) No moral statements have a truth value (this is called non-cognitivism), but are just reports about one’s tastes and preferences. This is a thorougly absurd linguistic reduction that is potentially contradictory and fractures the terms “right,” “wrong,” “pleasurable,” “valuable,” “good,” and “bad” into a potential infinity of meanings.

or

(2) Moral statements do have a truth value, but their truth-values are thoroughly dependent on actual cultural norms and practicies of which they are a part. So when the culture changes what it thinks are permissible and impermissible actions, then what are, in fact, permissible and impermissible actions change too.

Take (1):

If someone says “Torturing babies for fun is wrong” he is purportedly saying only that “I don’t like it when people torture babies” or “the thought of torturing is very displeasing to me.”

Take (2):

When Bob says “torturing babies for fun is wrong” he is saying exactly what he means to say, namely, torturing babies is wrong. Further, this is true because Bob and his community believe it is true.

When Bill says “torturing babies for fun is perfectly permissible and ok to do” he is saying exactly what he means to say, namely, tortuing babies is perfectly permissible and ok to do, and this statement is true because Bill and his community* believe *it is true.

These views as they stand are ridiculous. As you can see, **objectively binding **moral principles holding for **all **people don’t exist according to these views. So both have the following very severe problem:

When Hitler thinks it is morally permissible to gas, torture, and perform evil medical experiments on 6 million Jews, according to Hitler and the Nazis, this is morally permissible because they believe that it is. We can critize Hitler all we want from our point of view, but we can’t make any appeal to objective and culturally independent moral principles that killing and torturing people is wrong and that Hitler should stop, because we are merely appealing to our own moral principles, not Hitler’s. We can even try to stop Hitler from performing this mass genocide and torture since **WE **think it is wrong. But Hitler is not obligated to change his actions, nor is he wrong to perform these actions according to HIS context, since there are simply no objectively binding moral principles.

 

[hellopeople]

But I’ve already shown in another post that this “alleged” evidence cannot support that hypothesis since, to think it **does **support it, is clearly absurd. The absurd epistemic principle for which you lack justification in thinking is true is,

(P) If A and B disagree on moral principle X, then there is no objective fact of the matter about moral principle X.

It is stupid to believe this, as I’ve shown in my example about Bill and Bob’s competing beliefs about the President of the United States. Therefore, you still lack any good reason to believe morality is subjective.

Despite this evidence not being great, it is better than the 0 evidence I have for objective morality. So unless you can even give me a scrap of evidence for that, I will think it is more likely for morality to be subjective.

 

[hellopeople]

Again, you don’t understand the context of the discussion between you and me. I have not made any claims that morality is objective in this thread at all. I just lack belief that it is subjective. So I am not making any claims.

So the burden of proof is on you for providing support for your claim that morality is subjective. If you can’t provide this support, then you are behaving irrationally by asserting it. You are not exempt from this task any more than others. So saddle up.

Your round about arguments are irritating and are getting you no where. What are you trying to accomplish? Are you trying to prove to me that morality is objective?

 

[Syntax]

Despite this evidence not being great, it is better than the 0 evidence I have for objective morality. So unless you can even give me a scrap of evidence for that, I will think it is more likely for morality to be subjective.

But you don’t have any evidence that morality is subjective either. So you are irrational to believe it is more likely true than the competing hypothesis. Again, why do think it is more likely? I see no reason to believe this.

 

[Syntax]

Your round about arguments are irritating and are getting you no where. What are you trying to accomplish? Are you trying to prove to me that morality is objective?

That’s your problem, not mine. You simply haven’t provided any evidence or reason to believe morality is more likely subjective. So why should I believe it is more likely?

You simply don’t have a plausible case at all! You don’t have an argument. You don’t evidence. You don’t have any reasons. You have nothing. In a court of law your case would be dismissed on the grounds of lacking sufficient evidence.

 

[hellopeople]

That’s your problem, not mine. You simply haven’t provided any evidence or reason to believe morality is more likely subjective. So why should I believe it is more likely?

You simply don’t have a plausible case at all! You don’t have an argument. You don’t evidence. You don’t have any reasons. You have nothing. In a court of law your case would be dismissed on the grounds of lacking sufficient evidence.

Yes, because people are innocent until proven guilty, and subjective morality is basically innocence and objective morality is guilt.

I believe that subjective morality is more likely because not everyone shares the same morals. Even if this isn’t great evidence, it is better than the 0 evidence I have for objective morality. So a little bit of evidence is better than no evidence. So, in my opinion, it is more likely that morality is subjective.

 

[Syntax]

Yes, because people are innocent until proven guilty, and subjective morality is basically innocence and objective morality is guilt.

hahaha! huh?? That’s just saying you are not obligated to defend your view at all, which is a double standard, buddy. You don’t share the burden any less, and you have no reason to make this distinction. This example is just designed to fit your biases

For I can just easily turn this around and say that objective morality exists is basically innoncence and subjective morality is guilt. So how would you propose to argue that distinction? You couldn’t.

I believe that subjective morality is more likely because not everyone shares the same morals.Even if this isn’t great evidence, it is better than the 0 evidence I have for objective morality. So a little bit of evidence is better than no evidence. So, in my opinion, it is more likely that morality is subjective.

Again, this is not evidence. What are you not understanding? Suppose all of the following deranged individuals believe this.

A believes Pat Buchanan is President.
B believes John Kerry is President.
C believes Bill O’reilly is President.
D believes John McCain is President.
Therefore, it is likely there is no president?

Based on this evidence, any rational person would conclude that it is more likely that the president exists and that each individual is mistaken, than that there is no president at all. So I don’t share your interpretation of the evidence whatsoever.

Further, I want evidence that people disagree more than that they agree on moral principles. For instance, I challenge you to provide me evidence that there are a greater number of people who think

Torturing innocent babies for fun is wrong

is false, than a greater of people who think it is actually true. I simply don’t see this widespread disagreement you are claiming to exist in the world. Most people throughout the world believe the following principles are true. And though there may be variations of the application of these principles, I guarantee you will find most people have almost unanimous agreement that some version of the following principles are correct. You can distill common meanings of these principles across differences in religion, culture, and societies:

(1) Do not gratuitously kill innocent people.
(2) Do not cause gratuitous unneccesary pain or suffering.
(3) Do not cheat or steal.
(4) Keep your promise and honor your contracts.
(5) Do not deprive another person of his or her freedom.
(6) Do justice, treating equals equally and unequals unequally.
(7) Help other people, at least when the cost to oneself is minimal./
(8) Reciprocate (show gratitude for services rendered).
(9) Obey just laws.

Most people have some version of these principles. And those cultures who disagree with one or more of them are actually in the minority. I guarantee this. Take a world poll of all individuals on this planet Earth, and you will find more agreement than disagreement.

 

[hatsoff]

Every ethical philosopher, realist and anti-realist alike, construe “wrong” as meaning “morally impermissible” or “having an obligation to do not-x.” “Right” and “wrong” are semantically basic in a very similar way that “true” and “false” are semantically basic. So “morally permissible” and “morally impermissible” are not necessarily defined by any moral code. But of course, what a culture finds as having intrinsic and relational value may shift and change. And their principles of **what **is right and wrong my vary. But the meanings of “right” and “wrong” themselves don’t vary.

I must not be seeing what you’re trying to get at here, because it’s quite obvious that different people (including trained philosophers) have dramatically different understandings of what moral terms like “right” and “wrong” mean. So, in what sense are you claiming that the meanings don’t vary?

Widespread disagreement about who is the president of the united states is not evidence for the claim that **no one **is the president of the united states.

Similarly, widespread disagreement about whether “torturing innocent babies is wrong” is true is not evidence that there is no fact of the matter that torturing babies is, in fact, wrong.

I do not recall claiming otherwise. On the contrary, as long as we have a particular and relevant code of conduct in mind when we utter such a statement, that statement may indeed may be a matter of fact.

(P) If A and B disagree on moral principle X, then there is no objective fact of the matter about moral principle X.

I find this epistemic principle to which relativists like yourself are implicitly appealing in your discussion intuitively implausible. You are going to have to defend it.

I cannot defend a position I do not hold.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Syntax

*When Hitler thinks it is morally permissible to gas, torture, and perform evil medical experiments on 6 million Jews, according to Hitler and the Nazis, this is morally permissible because they believe that it is. We can critize Hitler all we want from our point of view, but we can’t make any appeal to objective and culturally independent moral principles that killing and torturing people is wrong and that Hitler should stop, because we are merely appealing to our own moral principles, not Hitler’s. We can even try to stop Hitler from performing this mass genocide and torture since WE think it is wrong. But Hitler is not obligated to change his actions, nor is he wrong to perform these actions according to HIS context, since there are simply no objectively binding moral principles. *

But Hitler was insanely evil (a condition of the purest subjectivity), so how could he be expected to recognize objective morality when he saw it?

In his own mind he was doing good, but his mind was objectively disordered. The only way you could say that it was not disordered would be to agree with the rightness of his fantasies.

 

[hatsoff]

Are you majoring in sociology? Sure sounds like it. You judge values by trends? Whew!

I never suggested we should judge values by trends. I’m saying that the factual content of moral statements often deals with social trends.

I never said unwittingly. We know **wittingly **what is right and what is wrong.

Remember, though, moral terms like “right” and “wrong” only mean anything (to me anyway) in the context of some moral code or family of codes. So, I must ask, to what code(s) are you referring when you claim that we intuitively know right from wrong?

 

[hellopeople]

hahaha! huh?? That’s just saying you are not obligated to defend your view at all, which is a double standard, buddy. You don’t share the burden any less, and you have no reason to make this distinction. This example is just designed to fit your biases

For I can just easily turn this around and say that objective morality exists is basically innoncence and subjective morality is guilt. So how would you propose to argue that distinction? You couldn’t.

Uhh, yes I could. Objective morality is something where as subjective morality is not. Subjective morality is just the absence of objective morality, but objective morality is NOT the absence of subjective morality. Do you see the difference?

As for your explanation of why my evidence is wrong…that is all good and well, but as I said before, it is more evidence than I have for objective morality…which is none.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

hatsoff

*Remember, though, moral terms like “right” and “wrong” only mean anything (to me anyway) in the context of some moral code or family of codes. So, I must ask, to what code(s) are you referring when you claim that we intuitively know right from wrong? *

The code of the natural law codified in the OT and NT.

The law is universal, planted in us by God, but distorted by the lies we tell each other and ourselves.

Even atheists like Ayn Rand can see such a natural objective moral law at work, though they will deny its origin in God.

 

[hellopeople]

hatsoff

*Remember, though, moral terms like “right” and “wrong” only mean anything (to me anyway) in the context of some moral code or family of codes. So, I must ask, to what code(s) are you referring when you claim that we intuitively know right from wrong? *

The code of the natural law codified in the OT and NT.

The law is universal, planted in us by God, but distorted by the lies we tell each other and ourselves.

Even atheists like Ayn Rand can see such a natural objective moral law at work, though they will deny its origin in God.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)#Ethics:_rational_self-interest

That doesn’t sound like the natural objective moral law you are talking about.

“Rand’s explanation of values presents the view that an individual’s primary moral obligation is to achieve his own well-being - it is for his life, and his self-interest in it that an individual ought to adhere to a moral code.[48] Egoism is a corollary of setting man’s life as the moral standard.[49] A corollary to Rand’s endorsement of self-interest is her rejection of the ethical doctrine of altruism—which she defined in the sense of Auguste Comte’s altruism (he coined the term), as a moral obligation to live for the sake of others. Rand did not use the term “selfishness” with the negative connotations that it usually has, but to refer to a form of rational egoism:”