Moral dilemma.

[jonfawkes]

Right. Which doesn’t imply that it is equally recognizable to all persons at all times, or that all persons at all times are equally guilty for acting against that moral truth.

No, it doesn’t mean that. If people don’t understand why kissing frogs is wrong, or if they question whether it is wrong, obviously ‘we’ don’t know all we need to know, and we do have good reason to discuss it.

No, relativism states that the source of our answers to moral questions must be evaluated relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a particular group of people. Absolutism states that properly moral judgments apply universally, they don’t just apply to particular groups. Particular groups have particular traditions, convictions, and practices, and that is fine - but if these do not reflect something universal about the human person as such, then they are not proper to the sphere of morality.

Yes, it does. But if a society had other goals, these would be immoral goals, and torturing children would still be wrong. Therefore relativism is wrong.

So as I have explained, you are wrong about this. You’ve missed the essential difference between absolutism and relativism.

The short answer is even if there are moral absolutes we can’t know if they are absolutes or not. (I think we agree here)

Which doesn’t imply that it is equally recognizable to all persons at all times

Because we can’t know if they absolute, only have faith that they are, in practicality, Catholic Morality functions in the exact same way as other moralities do. We try to find the “correct” position with the best information we have. For Catholics it is the Church. For others it is another authority.

 

[Betterave]

The short answer is even if there are moral absolutes we can’t know if they are absolutes or not. (I think we agree here)

Yes we can know them. We don’t agree here. Where did I ever state we can’t know them? You are not a very careful reader/thinker, I think.

Because we can’t know if they absolute, only have faith that they are, in practicality, Catholic Morality functions in the exact same way as other moralities do. We try to find the “correct” position with the best information we have. For Catholics it is the Church. For others it is another authority.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. First, knowing and having faith are not mutually exclusive. Second, Catholic morality does not function in the exact same way as other moralities, as I have clearly explained. Third, for Catholics it is not just “the Church,” that we appeal to as an authority, in order to know about morality, again, as I have clearly explained.

 

[jonfawkes]

Yes we can know them. We don’t agree here. Where did I ever state we can’t know them? You are not a very careful reader/thinker, I think.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. First, knowing and having faith are not mutually exclusive. Second, Catholic morality does not function in the exact same way as other moralities, as I have clearly explained. Third, for Catholics it is not just “the Church,” that we appeal to as an authority, in order to know about morality, again, as I have clearly explained.

I thought you implying that even though there are absolutes they are

Which doesn’t imply that it is equally recognizable to all persons at all times

Which means they are difficult to know, If we ALL don’t know them. One group can say “x is absolute” and another say, “no it’s conditional.”

As Catholics we discern absolutes though the instruction of the Church. We have to have faith that it is proper instruction. We can only “know” in the context of the Church, and that requires faith in the Church. Someone outside that context doesn’t believe so can’t “know”.

So by saying we “know” what absolutes are, what we are saying is “We believe” these are absolute.

That is what every social moral structure does “we believe this is the best path”.

I don’t think I’m saying anything radical here.

 

[Betterave]

I thought you implying that even though there are absolutes they are

"Which doesn’t imply that it is equally recognizable to all persons at all times "

Which means they are difficult to know, If we ALL don’t know them. One group can say “x is absolute” and another say, “no it’s conditional.”

As Catholics we discern absolutes though the instruction of the Church. We have to have faith that it is proper instruction. We can only “know” in the context of the Church, and that requires faith in the Church. Someone outside that context doesn’t believe so can’t “know”.

So by saying we “know” what absolutes are, what we are saying is “We believe” these are absolute.

That is what every social moral structure does “we believe this is the best path”.

I don’t think I’m saying anything radical here.

No, nothing radical, just confused. That *some *moral absolutes are difficult to know in *some *circumstances does not amount to your claim: that they are unknowable.

We often do discern the truth through the instruction of the Church, and it is *she *who teaches us that human reason is capable of discerning moral truth independently of her instruction.

By saying we know moral absolutes, we are *not *just saying “we believe”; we are saying that these are true moral absolutes that we are justified in believing. When you claim you don’t/can’t know moral absolutes, you are claiming that you don’t believe that you are justified in believing any of the moral propositions which you believe. Do you understand that?

 

[jonfawkes]

No, nothing radical, just confused. That *some *moral absolutes are difficult to know in *some *circumstances does not amount to your claim: that they are unknowable.

We often do discern the truth through the instruction of the Church, and it is *she *who teaches us that human reason is capable of discerning moral truth independently of her instruction.

By saying we know moral absolutes, we are *not *just saying “we believe”; we are saying that these are true moral absolutes that we are justified in believing. When you claim you don’t/can’t know moral absolutes, you are claiming that you don’t believe that you are justified in believing any of the moral propositions which you believe. Do you understand that?

So what is the deciding factor when there is disagreement on what is an absolute?

How do we know what is an absolute? We can come to different conclusions (and often do) Person A says that x is an absolute, Person B says that x is conditional.

 

[Betterave]

So what is the deciding factor when there is disagreement on what is an absolute?

The reasons we give: the truth of our premises, the validity of our inferences.

How do we know what is an absolute? We can come to different conclusions (and often do) Person A says that x is an absolute, Person B says that x is conditional.

So we have to critically evaluate how each person justifies his claim.

 

[jonfawkes]

The reasons we give: the truth of our premises, the validity of our inferences.

So we have to critically evaluate how each person justifies his claim.

Riiiiiigggghhhtt!!! It’s relative to our justification

Different societies are going to give credence to different premises. So there is no resolution, only belief.

 

[Betterave]

Riiiiiigggghhhtt!!! It’s relative to our justification

Different societies are going to give credence to different premises. So there is no resolution, only belief.

Wrrrrrrooonnnggg!!! “Relative to rational justification” does not equal “relative to what happens to be accepted in any given culture.” There is “no resolution, only belief” only if our premises are not rationally defensible, but are merely based on the idiosyncracies of my particular culture. In other words, there is “no resolution, only belief” only if relativism is true - but it’s not, and at the very least you should stop assuming that it is.

 

[jonfawkes]

Wrrrrrrooonnnggg!!! “Relative to rational justification” does not equal “relative to what happens to be accepted in any given culture.” There is “no resolution, only belief” only if our premises are not rationally defensible, but are merely based on the idiosyncracies of my particular culture. In other words, there is “no resolution, only belief” only if relativism is true - but it’s not, and at the very least you should stop assuming that it is.

You’ve given no way of determining how an absolute can be determined - The way you offered was

The reasons we give: the truth of our premises, the validity of our inferences.
So we have to critically evaluate how each person justifies his claim.

Which is relativism - the individual / society decides what is “correct”

Who determines truth of premises? validity of our inferences? By what measuring stick do we evaluate the claims?

 

[Betterave]

You’ve given no way of determining how an absolute can be determined - The way you offered was

The reasons we give: the truth of our premises, the validity of our inferences.
So we have to critically evaluate how each person justifies his claim.

Which is relativism - the individual / society decides what is “correct”

Who determines truth of premises? validity of our inferences? By what measuring stick do we evaluate the claims?

“Which is relativism”??? No, that is not relativism! Why on earth would you say that?

And it is also not the case that “the individual / society decides what is “correct””; rather it is the truth can be determined by appealing to universally applicable reasons. There’s nothing there about individual or societal “decisions.” Grasping the truth is not the same as making a decision. Do you get that?

 

[jonfawkes]

“Which is relativism”??? No, that is not relativism! Why on earth would you say that?

And it is also not the case that “the individual / society decides what is “correct””; rather it is the truth can be determined by appealing to universally applicable reasons. There’s nothing there about individual or societal “decisions.” Grasping the truth is not the same as making a decision. Do you get that?

How do(es) We/society/one decide was is an absolute truth rather than a relative one? You keep describing a relative process.

Appealing to reason doesn’t say something is absolute rather it fits with in the paradigm that we live in. Something that I find a reasonable conclusion you may not. So it’s not universal, nor universality applicable. Prostitution seems reasonable to the Dutch and but not the the US. You can say “well they’re wrong” - still doesn’t prove anything absolute about it.

 

[Betterave]

How do(es) We/society/one decide was is an absolute truth rather than a relative one? You keep describing a relative process.

By appealing to absolute reasons, rather than relative ones!

Appealing to reason doesn’t say something is absolute rather it fits with in the paradigm that we live in.

Wrong - false dichotomy.

Something that I find a reasonable conclusion you may not.

So one of us is right and one of us is wrong; or we are not dealing with a subject matter to which absolute categories apply…

So it’s not universal, nor universality applicable.

…so that doesn’t follow - not even close!

Prostitution seems reasonable to the Dutch and but not the the US. You can say “well they’re wrong” - still doesn’t prove anything absolute about it.

They’re not wrong (well, they might be), *you *are. The Dutch find legalized prostitution reasonable. They do not find prostitution itself reasonable or moral. In any case, even if they did, that still wouldn’t prove anything either way.

And obviously a response of “well they’re wrong” doesn’t prove anything absolute about it - that is an irrelevant (dare I say, stupid?) observation for you to make. Obviously, IF something is wrong, it is not wrong because it is wrong. That’s stupid. Why would you suggest such a thing?

 

[jonfawkes]

By appealing to absolute reasons, rather than relative ones!

Wrong - false dichotomy. So one of us is right and one of us is wrong; or we are not dealing with a subject matter to which absolute categories apply… …so that doesn’t follow - not even close!

They’re not wrong (well, they might be), *you *are. The Dutch find legalized prostitution reasonable. They do not find prostitution itself reasonable or moral. In any case, even if they did, that still wouldn’t prove anything either way.

And obviously a response of “well they’re wrong” doesn’t prove anything absolute about it - that is an irrelevant (dare I say, stupid?) observation for you to make. Obviously, IF something is wrong, it is not wrong because it is wrong. That’s stupid. Why would you suggest such a thing?

You are still using answers that are relative to the people making the judgment.

Lets try this, how can we know something is unequivocally Absolute - give me an absolute and show why unequivocally it is absolute.

 

[davidv]

You are still using answers that are relative to the people making the judgment.

Lets try this, how can we know something is unequivocally Absolute - give me an absolute and show why unequivocally it is absolute.

There is one God.

How do I know this? He revealed this truth to mankind, first to Moses at the burning bush. This truth came to me via the Church that God’s son established.

This is absolute. His existance and His oneness is true, independent of yours, or anyone elses, belief to the contrary.

 

[jonfawkes]

There is one God.

How do I know this? He revealed this truth to mankind, first to Moses at the burning bush. This truth came to me via the Church that God’s son established.

This is absolute. His existance and His oneness is true, independent of yours, or anyone elses, belief to the contrary.

How is that a moral truth?

Also your statement is a statement of faith, which is relative to you and your religion. Not universally applicable - a Buddhist or Hindu can have an equal faith and convictions in another truth. Neither are “provable” to the other as “truth” except in the context of faith.

 

[davidv]

How is that a moral truth?

Please define what you mean by “moral truth”. I have a feeling that your definition is different than the common understanding of the words.

Edit: And besides you asked for an absolute, so why are you moving the goal posts with the “moral” question.

Also your statement is a statement of faith, which is relative to you and your religion.

Can you prove this statement is true?

Not universally applicable - a Buddhist or Hindu can have an equal faith and convictions in another truth.

It doesn’t matter what the Buddhist or Hundu believe, it is still true.

Neither are “provable” to the other as “truth” except in the context of faith.

How is the ability to prove it relevant?

 

[jonfawkes]

Please define what you mean by “moral truth”. I have a feeling that your definition is different than the common understanding of the words.

Edit: And besides you asked for an absolute, so why are you moving the goal posts with the “moral” question.

Can you prove this statement is true?

It doesn’t matter what the Buddhist or Hundu believe, it is still true.

How is the ability to prove it relevant?

This whole discussion has been in the context of morality.



First you ask me to prove it and then ask why proof is necessary. :whacky:

 

[davidv]

This whole discussion has been in the context of morality.

Your laughter adds nothing to the credibility of your response. Particularly when you didn’t address any of the points made.

First you ask me to prove it and then ask why proof is necessary. :whacky:

Exactly. What goes around comes around. This clearly shows the absurdly contradictory nature of relativism.

 

[jonfawkes]

Your laughter adds nothing to the credibility of your response. Particularly when you didn’t address any of the points made.

Exactly. What goes around comes around. This clearly shows the absurdly contradictory nature of relativism.

No, you aren’t addressing the conversation at all. The point I’m making is that absolute truths in the context of morality are not provable. They are only applicable in the context of faith. Faith is relative to the religion that is practiced. Each religion believes itself to be true. So as a practical matter, moral absolutes are relative, they are relative to the religion. Moral absolutes are theoretical entity, not a practical one. All morality functions on the same precept, “we are using the best knowledge available”, this knowledge is judged by the people making the decision. Which makes all morality relative.

 

[davidv]

No, you aren’t addressing the conversation at all. The point I’m making is that absolute truths in the context of morality are not provable. They are only applicable in the context of faith**(1). Faith is relative to the religion that is practiced. Each religion believes itself to be true. So as a practical matter, moral absolutes are relative, they are relative to the religion.(2)** Moral absolutes are theoretical entity, not a practical one.(1) All morality functions on the same precept, “we are using the best knowledge available”, this knowledge is judged by the people making the decision.(3) Which makes all morality relative.(4)

Apparently I have not been very clear.

Please explain how proveability is the determining factor in what is absolute truth. I say is it a meaningless criteria as it cannot separate absolute from relative.

Based on this I reject your conclusion because is it based on a false premises.

There are several other errors that don’t support your conclusion see numbers (referring to preceding phase) above:
(1) Unsubstantiated assertion
(2) non sequiteur
(3) Strawman
(4) Unsound, based on false premise (3)