Moral dilemma.

[jonfawkes]

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.

Exactly, there is no way to differentiate the two. They are the same, relative. The “absolute” label is meaningless. It’s just a theoretical concept with no practical application.

 

[Betterave]

jon buddy, this is getting idiotic. You seem to be making the same stupid mistake that I’ve already corrected you on numerous times…

…and it’s actually not funny.

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

What are you talking about? What “answers” am I using that are “relative to the people making the judgment”? And what is that claim - whatever it’s supposed to mean - supposed to prove vis-a-vis the case for relativism vs. absolutism??
[You *seem to be repeatedly forgetting what relativism refers to - it is not an epistemological position.]

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

We must do good and avoid evil is a general moral principle which is absolute. Why? Because anyone who has the least understanding of morality cannot but assent to it because its truth is self-evident. Another one, for similar reasons: thou shalt not murder. Another one: don’t tell lies; and this entails not scorning the truth but instead making genuine efforts to avoid intellectual dishonesty so as to sincerely seek the truth - which in turn entails a duty to presume that the truth exists so that it can be found (which, I hope you will notice, is not the same as presuming that you have found it).

 

[jonfawkes]

jon buddy, this is getting idiotic. You seem to be making the same stupid mistake that I’ve already corrected you on numerous times…

…and it’s actually not funny.

What are you talking about? What “answers” am I using that are “relative to the people making the judgment”? And what is that claim - whatever it’s supposed to mean - supposed to prove vis-a-vis the case for relativism vs. absolutism??
[You *seem

to be repeatedly forgetting what relativism refers to - it is not an epistemological position.]

We must do good and avoid evil is a general moral principle which is absolute. Why? Because anyone who has the least understanding of morality cannot but assent to it because its truth is self-evident. Another one, for similar reasons: thou shalt not murder. Another one: don’t tell lies; and this entails not scorning the truth but instead making genuine efforts to avoid intellectual dishonesty so as to sincerely seek the truth - which in turn entails a duty to presume that the truth exists so that it can be found (which, I hope you will notice, is not the same as presuming that you have found it).

Relative Morality is offered as the antitheses of Absolute morality. In reality it is just another relative position. The relative position it stems from is the Catholic Church.

Doing good and Avoiding evil is morality, not a moral absolute. Who defines the good who defines the evil? Murder - who defines what murder is? Lying - who defines what lying is?

For every case of an absolute there is an exception clause, they are all conditional. - killing in war isn’t murder because it’s war, capital punishment, etc Not telling your kids about adult matters because you are protecting them, or espionage etc

They all are dependent on who is doing the defining - that makes them relative.

Absolutism is a concept, not a realty. It is only a valid concept with in the paradigm that it inhabits, in this case the Catholic Faith. We can look to the Church as a deciding factor only for those with in the Church and have faith in it’s authority and thereby submit to it.

Describing absolutism as the quest for truth is an empty statement as “avoiding evil”. ALL morality, even relative morality ,does that.

 

[Betterave]

Relative Morality is offered as the antitheses of Absolute morality. In reality it is just another relative position. The relative position it stems from is the Catholic Church.

jon, seriously: have you ever taken a moral philosophy course?? This is a ridiculously stupid, naive claim. Very few non-Catholic moral philosophers are relativists.

Doing good and Avoiding evil is morality, not a moral absolute. Who defines the good who defines the evil? Murder - who defines what murder is? Lying - who defines what lying is?

What do you mean “defines”?? Do you really not know the answers to these questions? Maybe someone close to you will be murdered someday (absolutely murdered! - do you get that?) by someone from another culture who “defines” their murderous act as an act of righteousness, and then you’ll realize how stupid your sophomoric objections are.

For every case of an absolute there is an exception clause, they are all conditional. - killing in war isn’t murder because it’s war, capital punishment, etc Not telling your kids about adult matters because you are protecting them, or espionage etc

jon, please, you are getting annoying, but nonetheless I really do want to help you understand. Now please try to think carefully and logically and tell me: what do these so-called “exception clauses” have to do with proving moral relativism???

They all are dependent on who is doing the defining - that makes them relative.

That’s a non sequitur, jon.

Absolutism is a concept, not a realty.

That’s a false dichotomy. Being a concept does not imply NOT being a reality. Please note that relativism is also a concept.

It is only a valid concept with in the paradigm that it inhabits, in this case the Catholic Faith.

That is a false claim based on your ignorance of the reality of moral philosophy.

We can look to the Church as a deciding factor only for those with in the Church and have faith in it’s authority and thereby submit to it.

And that is irrelevant.

Describing absolutism as the quest for truth is an empty statement as “avoiding evil”. ALL morality, even relative morality ,does that.

I never described absolutism thus, so no comment.

 

[jonfawkes]

jon, seriously: have you ever taken a moral philosophy course?? This is a ridiculously stupid, naive claim. Very few non-Catholic moral philosophers are relativists.

What do you mean “defines”?? Do you really not know the answers to these questions? Maybe someone close to you will be murdered someday (absolutely murdered! - do you get that?) by someone from another culture who “defines” their murderous act as an act of righteousness, and then you’ll realize how stupid your sophomoric objections are.

jon, please, you are getting annoying, but nonetheless I really do want to help you understand. Now please try to think carefully and logically and tell me: what do these so-called “exception clauses” have to do with proving moral relativism???

That’s a non sequitur, jon.

That’s a false dichotomy. Being a concept does not imply NOT being a reality. Please note that relativism is also a concept. That is a false claim based on your ignorance of the reality of moral philosophy. And that is irrelevant.

I never described absolutism thus, so no comment.

I am concerned with the definitions and the exception clauses because they show the relative and subjective nature of morality.

Like my close friend or relative being killed (murdered implies more than just the physical act) by a person from another culture. I can see it as they were murdered and he as a justified homicide.

We can have strong cases for our views and believe them unshakably, even point to God as justification. The morality of the act comes from the subjective viewpoint of the observer. The morality is relative due to it’s subjective nature.

In war this happens all the time (esp “Holy” wars) - both sides feel justified (moral) in their position. There is nothing , absolute or objective about their viewpoints - they are subjective and relative.

 

[davidv]

Exactly, there is no way to differentiate the two.

Speak for yourself. I can differentiate them.

They are the same, relative.

No they are not.

The “absolute” label is meaningless.

To you, but not others.

It’s just a theoretical concept with no practical application.

Please demonstrate the truthfulness of this statement.

 

[Betterave]

I am concerned with the definitions and the exception clauses because they show the relative and subjective nature of morality.

Maybe you think this kind of claim is careful and logical, but it’s not. HOW do think that the things you refer to show the relative and subjective nature of morality? (Please note: I have a strong suspicion that the only reason you think this is because you don’t understand the position you are attempting to criticize, so please try to explain carefully: clearly state your premises and make it clear how your conclusion follows from those premises.)

Like my close friend or relative being killed (murdered implies more than just the physical act) by a person from another culture. I can see it as they were murdered and he as a justified homicide.

So what? I can look at a ‘sunrise’ and observe the earth rotating on its axis so that my location on it comes to face the sun; someone else can see the sun revolving around the stationary earth. Nonetheless, despite the disagreement, there is good reason to think my way of interpreting the phenomena is objectively better grounded, insofar as it provides an objectively better astronomical model.

We can have strong cases for our views and believe them unshakably, even point to God as justification. The morality of the act comes from the subjective viewpoint of the observer. The morality is relative due to it’s subjective nature.

And why is that? Because you say so?? Your repeating this ad nauseam does nothing to lend plausibility to your claim.

In war this happens all the time (esp “Holy” wars) - both sides feel justified (moral) in their position. There is nothing , absolute or objective about their viewpoints - they are subjective and relative.

So what? If there is nothing absolute or objective about their viewpoints, then neither of their viewpoints has any claim on us, because neither one has any rational foundation. Both sides feeling justified, despite having nothing absolute or objective grounding their viewpoints, doesn’t remotely begin to show that both views are in fact justified - it’s the opposite: neither view is justified.

 

[jonfawkes]

Maybe you think this kind of claim is careful and logical, but it’s not. HOW do think that the things you refer to show the relative and subjective nature of morality? (Please note: I have a strong suspicion that the only reason you think this is because you don’t understand the position you are attempting to criticize, so please try to explain carefully: clearly state your premises and make it clear how your conclusion follows from those premises.)

The previous post was an explanation why - guess I missed the mark.

So what? I can look at a ‘sunrise’ and observe the earth rotating on its axis so that my location on it comes to face the sun; someone else can see the sun revolving around the stationary earth. Nonetheless, despite the disagreement, there is good reason to think my way of interpreting the phenomena is objectively better grounded, insofar as it provides an objectively better astronomical model.

Yes the rotating earth can demonstrated and the effects can be charted. What can be demonstrated to show absolute morality? How can you objectively show a moral absolute?

And why is that? Because you say so?? Your repeating this ad nauseam does nothing to lend plausibility to your claim.

Because there is no way objectively show an absolute - God says so - isn’t objective. It’s subjective to the religion you practice.

So what? If there is nothing absolute or objective about their viewpoints, then neither of their viewpoints has any claim on us, because neither one has any rational foundation. Both sides feeling justified, despite having nothing absolute or objective grounding their viewpoints, doesn’t remotely begin to show that both views are in fact justified - it’s the opposite: neither view is justified.

Yes, that is my point - there is no way to objectively judge, only subjective ways. Even if someone claims an absolute value doesn’t make it so, it is only with in the context of that religion is it valid. In this scenario of a Holy war both claim that their way is Absolute and God directed. There is no way objectively to choose between two differing “absolutes” only subjective ways in the context of the religion supporting that view.

 

[Betterave]

The previous post was an explanation why - guess I missed the mark.

Yes, you did miss the mark! Care to try again, this time with clearly indicated premises and a conclusion that follows from those premises?

Yes the rotating earth can demonstrated and the effects can be charted.

Sure, and within an alternate frame of reference, the stationary earth can also be demonstrated and its effects can also be charted.

What can be demonstrated to show absolute morality? How can you objectively show a moral absolute?

Can you answer this question: how can you objectively show that morality is determined by culturally specific features? How can you objectively show that the moral views of one culture cannot be objectively criticized in light of the moral views of another culture? You answer these questions first, then I’ll answer yours.

Because there is no way objectively show an absolute - God says so - isn’t objective. It’s subjective to the religion you practice.

Why this stupid red herring again?? Most moral philosophers reject relativism and they certainly do not argue for absolutism by saying “God says so.” Please try to listen to what I’m telling you and to stop repeatedly making the same dumb arguments.

Yes, that is my point - there is no way to objectively judge, only subjective ways. Even if someone claims an absolute value doesn’t make it so, it is only with in the context of that religion is it valid. In this scenario of a Holy war both claim that their way is Absolute and God directed. There is no way objectively to choose between two differing “absolutes” only subjective ways in the context of the religion supporting that view.

No, that was not your point! You’re just pretending that my “if A, then B” statement is equivalent to your “if A, then B; always A; therefore, always B” argument. And your premise that A is always the case (that, quite generally, “there is nothing absolute or objective about -]their/-] anyone’s [moral] viewpoints”) is pure groundless assertion. How do you propose to make that claim plausible?

And again, do you seriously think there are absolutist moral philosophers who offer “God said so” as the justification for their moral claims?? Can you name one for me??

[A suggestion: Maybe you should pick up a book on critical thinking and read it - *and do the exercises, and check your answers to make sure you’re getting them right.]

 

[jonfawkes]

Can you answer this question: how can you objectively show that morality is determined by culturally specific features? How can you objectively show that the moral views of one culture cannot be objectively criticized in light of the moral views of another culture? You answer these questions first, then I’ll answer yours.

It’s self evident in the laws that we make. The approval of Gay Marriage in Massachusetts. A state that is 68% christian (44% catholic) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts. Contrary to Catholic (and Christian) teaching the law was passed.

The religion, ( and culture of ) Catholic and Christian, subjectively criticize/condemn homosexuality, based on the Holy Text of the religion. (God dictated morality). Leviticus 18:22

The population of Massachusetts rejects that premise and allows gays to marry. The morality of the people of state is that people can have consensual same sex relationships. It’s not immoral to be gay in the eyes of Massachusetts.

Any objections are subjective, they are based on Religious texts and the culture that stems from them. There is no way to prove or demonstrate objectively that the act of homosexual is inherently immoral except in the context of religion. You have to have faith in the text to give it moral authority.

For example - Christians aren’t beholden to Hindu texts. You aren’t immoral for eating a cheese burger in a Christian context.

Ok, yer go

 

[Betterave]

It’s self evident in the laws that we make.

Seriously? That’s your argument?

What would you say if I tried to use the same argument?

 

[Betterave]

Any objections are subjective, they are based on Religious texts and the culture that stems from them. There is no way to prove or demonstrate objectively that the act of homosexual is inherently immoral except in the context of religion. You have to have faith in the text to give it moral authority.

By the way, why do you keep ignoring me when I tell you this is irrelevant, a red herring? Moral philosophers, including Catholic ones, do not oppose gay marriage or homosexual acts based on simplistic appeals to religious texts. THEY DON’T. SO STOP IMPLYING THAT THEY DO! Thanks in advance (not that I think you’re going to listen to me).

 

[jonfawkes]

By the way, why do you keep ignoring me when I tell you this is irrelevant, a red herring? Moral philosophers, including Catholic ones, do not oppose gay marriage or homosexual acts based on simplistic appeals to religious texts. THEY DON’T. SO STOP IMPLYING THAT THEY DO! Thanks in advance (not that I think you’re going to listen to me).

That is the starting point and then “support” follows. There is no argument against homosexuality as a “moral evil” that isn’t religious based at the core.

We chose to govern ourselves using a republic, this system of government is at odds with Christianity which is a monarchy. (God at the Top Governing) We feel, as a people, we can make the best decisions for ourselves. We aren’t a theocracy either. We don’t defer to the Church or any church to govern ourselves.

It is self evident.

You have given no evidence how can determine that there are moral absolutes and how we can identify them. Just that my argument is spurious. It is the equivalent of “nuh uhhhh” The only thing thing that you are doing is demonstrating that moral absolutes are indefensible.

 

[Betterave]

That is the starting point and then “support” follows. There is no argument against homosexuality as a “moral evil” that isn’t religious based at the core.

Okay, so give me the name of one moral philosopher who has an argument for some absolute tenet of morality that fits this pattern and tell me what his or her argument is.

We chose to govern ourselves using a republic, this system of government is at odds with Christianity which is a monarchy. (God at the Top Governing) We feel, as a people, we can make the best decisions for ourselves. We aren’t a theocracy either. We don’t defer to the Church or any church to govern ourselves.

Is this supposed to be relevant somehow??

It is self evident.

LOL! Not to me (or to the great majority of people, including moral philosophers who dedicate their lives to thinking about such issues)!

So tell me: in the face of all this counter-evidence, how can you objectively prove that it’s self-evident??

You have given no evidence how can determine that there are moral absolutes and how we can identify them. Just that my argument is spurious. It is the equivalent of “nuh uhhhh” The only thing thing that you are doing is demonstrating that moral absolutes are indefensible.

Have you given any “evidence” for your position? What do you mean by “evidence”? What kind of “evidence” are you looking for? - do you even know??

Maybe you should actually answer my question this time, then you’d start to see how stupid your position is:

What would you say if I tried to use the same argument (namely: “my position is correct, and yours is not, because mine is self-evident”)?

 

[jonfawkes]

Okay, so give me the name of one moral philosopher who has an argument for some absolute tenet of morality that fits this pattern and tell me what his or her argument is.

Is this supposed to be relevant somehow??

LOL! Not to me (or to the great majority of people, including moral philosophers who dedicate their lives to thinking about such issues)!

So tell me: in the face of all this counter-evidence, how can you objectively prove that it’s self-evident??

Have you given any “evidence” for your position? What do you mean by “evidence”? What kind of “evidence” are you looking for? - do you even know??

Maybe you should actually answer my question this time, then you’d start to see how stupid your position is:

What would you say if I tried to use the same argument (namely: “my position is correct, and yours is not, because mine is self-evident”)?

How we can determine that there are moral absolutes?
How we can identify them?

The rest of what you say is “nuh uuuhhhh” - it’s playground, not a debate.

Please show your work.

 

[davidv]

How we can determine that there are moral absolutes?
How we can identify them?

The rest of what you say is “nuh uuuhhhh” - it’s playground, not a debate.

Please show your work.

Does anything exist absolutely?
Does anything exist objectively?

If you answer yes to either of these, please supply an example and explain why the reason it is so cannot be applied to morality.

By the way. You post above is your own equivalent of “nuh uuuhhhh” as it did not address any of the points expressed.

 

[jonfawkes]

Does anything exist absolutely?
Does anything exist objectively?

If you answer yes to either of these, please supply an example and explain why the reason it is so cannot be applied to morality.

By the way. You post above is your own equivalent of “nuh uuuhhhh” as it did not address any of the points expressed.

In morality no.

He’s not making any points - there is no need to address them.

 

[davidv]

In morality no.

He’s not making any points - there is no need to address them.

So, your real answer is “nuh uuuhhhh”, correct?

 

[jonfawkes]

Show me a point he’s made and I’ll address it

But things like

Okay, so give me the name of one moral philosopher who has an argument for some absolute tenet of morality that fits this pattern and tell me what his or her argument is.

Isn’t a response to the premise that moral arguments against Homosexualty are religious based. It is a distraction and deflection. How about offering a argument that isn’t religious based?

He’s offered no counter to relativism other than to mock it and discount it out of hand. He’s really not interested in a conversation but rather just attempting to dismiss things that he has no answer for.

Care to take a stab at it Dave?

How we can determine that there are moral absolutes?
How we can identify them as absolutes?

 

[davidv]

Show me a point he’s made and I’ll address it

But things like

Isn’t a response to the premise that moral arguments against Homosexualty are religious based. It is a distraction and deflection. How about offering a argument that isn’t religious based?

He’s offered no counter to relativism other than to mock it and discount it out of hand. He’s really not interested in a conversation but rather just attempting to dismiss things that he has no answer for.

Care to take a stab at it Dave?

How we can determine that there are moral absolutes?

By admitting there is a God who is the ultimate absolute, and discovering the true purpose of man.

CCC:

1762 The human person is ordered to beatitude by his deliberate acts: the passions or feelings he experiences can dispose him to it and contribute to it.

How we can identify them as absolutes?

By applying reason to the assessment of whether acts or potential acts contribute to ones goodness or not. And then determining if this assessment holds for all time and all circumstance.