Moral Relativism

[jonfawkes]

Jon? I didn’t say BIL is trying to be hurtful. He’s simply professing his truth. It’s his path.

By not reacting, you are giving approval to evil.

And you are judging him, are you not? Racism is a negative thing. Not to mention he’s going to deny he’s racist. He’s going to say that he’s just professing his truth.

Sad.

And, immoral.

You watch as someone poisons himself.

No, he is trying to be hurtful. That is the nature of racism, elevating your race at the detriment of another. If he feels the need to profess it to her and me, he’s trying to be hurtful. I can choose to respond or not respond. I choose not to. I don’t think it’s worthy od a response.

He’s just expressing thoughts. He’s not trying to physically harm anyone. I’m not approving evil. He’s just thinking incorrectly in my opinion. You can’t regulate thought. He can be an A-hole. I can choose not to interact with him. It seems like a winning proposition. My life minus one a-hole.

The alcoholic - go to a couple of al-anon meetings and tell me I’m immoral. You can’t force someone to stop drinking. They have to do it.

You sound like you have some control issues.

 

[PRmerger]

No, he is trying to be hurtful. That is the nature of racism, elevating your race at the detriment of another. If he feels the need to profess it to her and me, he’s trying to be hurtful. I can choose to respond or not respond. I choose not to. I don’t think it’s worthy od a response.

Ok. This is how you see it: he’s trying to be hurtful. That’s the truth as you see it, but it’s not the truth as he sees it.

He says he’s not being hurtful.

Now what?

He’s just expressing -]thoughts. /-] beliefs.
He’s not trying to physically harm anyone. I’m not approving evil. He’s just thinking incorrectly in my opinion.

LOL!

Fine. It’s your opinion. It has as much value as your saying you prefer chocolate sauce over your raspberry ice cream.

You can’t regulate thought. He can be an A-hole. I can choose not to interact with him. It seems like a winning proposition. My life minus one a-hole.

Fair enough.

And in doing nothing about it racism wins, eh?

The alcoholic - go to a couple of al-anon meetings and tell me I’m immoral.

I don’t need to go to any al-anon meetings to tell you you’re immoral, jon. Just like I don’t need to go to a dumpster to know that eating out of a dumpster is yucky.

You can’t force someone to stop drinking. They have to do it.

On this we are agreed!

But if you’re just going to sit back and watch someone poison himself…well, that’s immoral.

You sound like you have some control issues.

Oooh! That reminds me of a knock-knock joke!

So you say knock-knock, and then I’ll say who’s there. And then you say control freak, and then I’ll say control-freak who. Ok?

 

[jonfawkes]

I’m not sure what is the point of this whole hypothetical situation is or what point you are trying to make, other than you feel you need to control others behavior to feel like a moral person.

In this hypothetical situation - I can’t control either the BIL’s thoughts nor the alcoholic’s behavior. The only thing I can control is how I react to it. The racist, although objectionable isn’t going to change by me getting in a scuffle with him. He has to come to the realization himself. I can choose not to interact with him. If his racism is limited to though and speech he is only hurting himself -imo. The alcoholic same deal - he is only hurting himself. You can’t make someone not hurt themselves. It is horrible to watch but again they have to come to the realization themselves. They have to change their behavior - I can’t.

This discussion seems silly at this point- Luke 6:42 covers this imo

How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me remove that splinter in your eye,’ when you do not even notice the wooden beam in your own eye? You hypocrite! Remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter in your brother’s eye.

 

[tonyrey]

Either-Or scenarios are a fallacy of logic. They nearly always falsely categorize and limit the complexity of experience into two (and ONLY two) polarized groups. Jesus famously commits this same error when he says, “You are either for me or against me.” Peter, for example, was both, depending on how close to the crowing of that rooster you asked him.

Jesus was right. He was not referring to isolated events in our life but **our basic attitude **towards Him.: acceptance or rejection.

You haven’t explained why intelligent beings elsewhere in the universe are irrelevant to the nature of morality…

This was your idea. You explain it. You are one weird rhetorician, Tony. You mentioned alien life and now you are asking me to refute an idea that you have not even presented yet in ANY relevance. Please, tell us why you are talking about aliens?

If you don’t even allow for the possibility that there are other persons you beg the question of whether we are the authors of morality. To assume we are the sole forms of rational life that have existed, exist and will exist is unrealistic and unscientific. It is parochial to believe we are necessarily the** sole **beings with intelligence and insight. To do so is to evade the challenge to your preconconceived idea that all values are relative and exist only in the mind of man. Your answers to the following questions will rveal how consistent you are:

1. Is the distinction between good and evil artificial?
2. Does goodness enhance or impoverish life?
3. Does evil promote or destroy harmony in society?
4. Can you specify a case where one should be evil rather than good or destructive rather than creative?
5. Is it positive or negative to reject the need for virtues like faith, hope, love and courage?
6. Should you always do what you are convinced is right?

 

[larkin31]

Jesus was right. He was not referring to isolated events in our life but **our basic attitude **towards Him.: acceptance or rejection.

Our basic attitudes exist along a continuum with many shades of mixture of acceptance and rejection. This is still a false dichotomy. This kind of rhetorical device is a logical error used to motivate people to action.

If you don’t even allow for the possibility that there are other persons you beg the question of whether we are the authors of morality.

When you provide empirical evidence of rational life with morals, then it will be relevant to this discussion. I certainly don’t exclude the possibility, however speculative it might be. Your “God” might also be a total fiction. How many speculative possibilities must we entertain here?

To assume we are the sole forms of rational life that have existed, exist and will exist is unrealistic and unscientific. It is parochial to believe we are necessarily the** sole **beings with intelligence and insight

See above.

To do so is to evade the challenge to your preconconceived idea that all values are relative and exist only in the mind of man. Your answers to the following questions will rveal how consistent you are:

That even two different HUMAN cultures share some of the same values is no testament to these values existing in a realm beyond our discourse.

1. Is the distinction between good and evil artificial?

What do you mean by “artificial”?

1. Does goodness enhance or impoverish life?

Usually enhance.

1. Does evil promote or destroy harmony in society?

Usually disharmony.

1. Can you specify a case where one should be evil rather than good or destructive rather than creative?

“Creative” in what sense? I think you are asking for a logical impossibility. This is asking, “Can you name a case when doing good is doing bad?”

1. Is it positive or negative to reject the need for virtues like faith, hope, love and courage?

What does “reject the need” for these mean? I don’t understand the wording of this question. And, moreover, I do not consider “faith” a “virtue.” Your question is loaded with assumptions that I do not accept.

1. Should you always do what you are convinced is right?

Pretty much, yes. But the “convinced” part is what I object too. When one is “convinced” is easy. But life is often much murkier than this. Just see all the threads here at CA for advice, and how varied the answers are!

 

[inocente]

Then perhaps you can quote from the Koran in arguments here with Christians and present it as inspired text?

As I already said several times, I’ve not read much of it. You’d be way better off discussing your views on the Holy Quran with one of the 1.6 billion Muslims in the world rather than a Baptist. It’s also off-topic. You could always start a thread if you want.

Like I predicted, this is begging the question.

It’s what we’re taught in our church. It’s also off-topic. You could always start a thread if you want.

Not sure what you mean here. Could you elaborate please?

As I said before, the Bible was written by people, not personally dictated by God. It’s also off-topic. You could always start a thread if you want.

*I apologize for questioning your sincerity.

But I’ve shown you that you don’t actually believe the different strokes thing. You only believe “different-strokes-for-things-that-I-believe-as-well for different folks. If I don’t believe it’s ok, then it’s not* different strokes for different folks.”

Could that be paraphrased as “I’m sorry for saying you’re insincere, which gives me the excuse to repeat that you’re insincere”?

 

[inocente]

You don’t know?

“Men are managers of the affairs of women because Allah has made the one superior to the other.”–Sura 4:34

Now where have I seen that before?

*To the woman he said, “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” - Genesis 3:16

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. - 1 Timothy 2:11-12*

Here’s a few more from my large collection of selective scripture quotes that hopefully even adamant absolutists ignore these days:

*Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you.” … When they reached the place God had told him about, Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it. He bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. - Genesis 22:2-9

You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me - Exodus 20:5

“Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. - Exodus 21:17

“Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property. - Exodus 21:21-22

“If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. - Exodus 21:7-8

If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. - Deuteronomy 13:6-10

However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. - Deuteronomy 20:16

And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD: “If you give the Ammonites into my hands, whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the LORD’s, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.” … After the two months, she returned to her father, and he did to her as he had vowed. And she was a virgin. - Judges 11:30-39

So Gad went to David and said to him, “This is what the LORD says: ‘Take your choice: three years of famine, three months of being swept away before your enemies, with their swords overtaking you, or three days of the sword of the LORD—days of plague in the land, with the angel of the LORD ravaging every part of Israel.’ Now then, decide how I should answer the one who sent me.” – 1 Chronicles 21:11-12

The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open.” - Hosea 13:16*

 

[PRmerger]

Now where have I seen that before?

*To the woman he said, “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” - Genesis 3:16

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. - 1 Timothy 2:11-12*

Here’s a few more from my large collection of selective scripture quotes that hopefully even adamant absolutists ignore these days:

*Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you.” … When they reached the place God had told him about, Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it. He bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. - Genesis 22:2-9

You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me - Exodus 20:5

“Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. - Exodus 21:17

“Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property. - Exodus 21:21-22

“If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. - Exodus 21:7-8

If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. - Deuteronomy 13:6-10

However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. - Deuteronomy 20:16

And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD: “If you give the Ammonites into my hands, whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the LORD’s, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.” … After the two months, she returned to her father, and he did to her as he had vowed. And she was a virgin. - Judges 11:30-39

So Gad went to David and said to him, “This is what the LORD says: ‘Take your choice: three years of famine, three months of being swept away before your enemies, with their swords overtaking you, or three days of the sword of the LORD—days of plague in the land, with the angel of the LORD ravaging every part of Israel.’ Now then, decide how I should answer the one who sent me.” – 1 Chronicles 21:11-12

The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open.” - Hosea 13:16*

inocente, I defy you to show me any Scripture (which, BTW, you acknowledge when you quote it as being discerned by the CC to be Scripture ) that declares that a Man is SUPERIOR to a woman.

Yet this is what the Koran says.

Yet you’re still unsure if the Koran is theopneustos?

 

[jonfawkes]

inocente, I defy you to show me any Scripture (which, BTW, you acknowledge when you quote it as being discerned by the CC to be Scripture ) that declares that a Man is SUPERIOR to a woman.

Yet this is what the Koran says.

Yet you’re still unsure if the Koran is theopneustos?

How 'bout - Ephesians 5: 22-24

22 Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of his wife just as Christ is head of the church, he himself the savior of the body. 24 As the church is subordinate to Christ, so wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything.

One who is subordinate has a superior. You believe Christ to be our superior don’t you?

 

[inocente]

inocente, I defy you to show me any Scripture (which, BTW, you acknowledge when you quote it as being discerned by the CC to be Scripture ) that declares that a Man is SUPERIOR to a woman.

Yet this is what the Koran says.

Yet you’re still unsure if the Koran is theopneustos?

In just the quotes from post #606 we find subjugation of women, mental torture of our own offspring, guilt by association, killing children for talking back, slavery, severe beatings of slaves, sexual slavery, gross religious intolerance, ethnic cleansing, genocide, human sacrifice and slaughter of the innocent.

Yet this is what the Bible says?

To put it another way selective quoting is exactly the kind of thing that some others do to bad-mouth Christianity.

To put it another way you’re kidding, right?

 

[ddarko]

When you provide empirical evidence of rational life with morals, then it will be relevant to this discussion. I certainly don’t exclude the possibility, however speculative it might be. Your “God” might also be a total fiction. How many speculative possibilities must we entertain here?

You speak of logical fallacies in your post but you can’t even see the one staring you in the face.

You already made the presumption that EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE of morals is what is the only think that makes it relevant.

Now not to say that there is no empirical evidence (nearly every culture holds basic values like murder, rape wrong. Or at the least, it holds the moral that anyone who does not agree with their social system must be ostracized.) BUT lets just play along and say there isn’t.

Your issue and that of most atheist is that you rely SOLELY on empirical evidence. This is a logical fallacy.

How about you first answer the question, IS IT POSSIBLE TO PROVE THAT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE IS REQUIRED IN ALL CASES TO ACCEPT A PROPOSITION AS TRUE?
If your answer is NO, then good you are enlightened and admit that you made a mistake in the previous post.
If your answer is YES, then you just contradicted yourself (unless you decided to support it with empirical evidence it self in which case… CIRCULAR LOGIC).

So before you utter things like you are totally smart, at least take the time to see if you are logically sound.

God Bless

 

[larkin31]

You speak of logical fallacies in your post but you can’t even see the one staring you in the face.

You already made the presumption that EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE of morals is what is the only think that makes it relevant…

Wait, isn’t this a thread about whether morality exists “objectively” outside human discourse? Just show me that it does, and I will concede your point.

Honestly, this all comes down to faith in a truth beyond. And that you can never prove. One just believes, or not.

Oh, and I did not commit a logical fallacy by stating that you must demonstrate the truth of your premises and/or assumptions.

 

[larkin31]

So before you utter things like you are totally smart, at least take the time to see if you are logically sound.

God Bless

I never uttered any such thing. You’re taking this personally, it seems.

 

[Sonny69]

I imagine this has been done to death on this sub-forum, but bear with me for a few.

I (a physics PhD candidate) have been debating with another graduate student (also in physics) about the nature/origin or morality. I, being Catholic, adhere to Absolutism while my classmate adheres to Relativism.

As a proof for absolutism, I stated (using Kreeft’s Refuation… as a guide) that because we have a structure for moral arguments we require a higher level for morality (that is, we require an absolute morality) because otherwise we’d be saying “Blue is a better color than green!” when we say, “Abortion is bad!” His response was,

He gave two more examples, but they had the same form as above. It seems to me, at first, that he’s agreeing with me (that a higher level needs to be there to have an argument) but is disagreeing with the semantics. Then it seems that he doesn’t understand the difference between a principle and a situation (as Kreeft uses the terms) as all three of his examples start with situations and have no principles.

So is there any help to bust his ‘logic’ and help my case?

Hi JDWood,

Let’s put it this way; if people are able to love, and people are created, then the creator has to be of a moral character to be able to produce a creature that can love.

Put it another way; if truth is relative, then is what you just said relative? It is always a self defeating argument for there has to be absolute truth and only one absolute truth.

The reason for the attack of the God of Scripture is that if what He says is true, then what He has said about moral laws is also true and if that is true, then they are to be heald accountabe and they LOVE their sin. All of science points to an intelligent and personal creator and many do not dispute this anymore, a true scientist will not, but they don’t want the God of the Bible.

I can recommend a book and 2 sermons, just send me a PM, that will destroy this man’s arguments alonf with the like’s of Richard Dawkins and others. but it is not a matter of destroying an argument as it is converting a soul that is perishing. This is why we are only commanded to give the gospel to the unregenerate soul and allow the Holy Spirit to do the rest. At the end of life all relative moralist will know the truth…right!

God bless you! S69

 

[jonfawkes]

Hi JDWood,

Let’s put it this way; if people are able to love, and people are created, then the creator has to be of a moral character to be able to produce a creature that can love.

How is this a causal relationship? Can you demonstrate the “why” of “has to be a moral character” ?

 

[PRmerger]

I’m not sure what is the point of this whole hypothetical situation is or what point you are trying to make, other than you feel you need to control others behavior to feel like a moral person.

What some might call “control” others might call standing up for what’s right.

I don’t mean to sound sarcastic, jon, but you just sit back on your tush and let evil prosper given your immoral paradigm: “It’s just not my business. I can’t control others.”

If his racism is limited to though and speech he is only hurting himself -imo.

This is such a peculiar word coming from a relativist. Racism is a judgment; it’s negative. And it’s wrong. All concepts that are so contrary to your worldview.

So, as I’ve stated over and over, there really are no relativists. There’s only, “It’s ok until I think it’s wrong.”

 

[PRmerger]

You’d be way better off discussing your views on the Holy Quran with one of the 1.6 billion Muslims in the world rather than a Baptist.

How peculiar! Here again you are affirming that you consider the Sacred Scriptures theopneustos, when you proclaim your Baptist faith.

And how is it that Baptists know that the Bible is inspired? Because the CC discerned which ancient Christian texts were theopneustos and which were not.

Again, by saying you’re a Baptist you are giving tacit approval to the authority of the Catholic Church.

Now, if you want to proclaim that the Koran is inspired, go ahead and see how far you get here in discussions.

If you want to proclaim that the Gnostic texts (which ones?) are inspired, then tell us how you discern them to be–what criteria do you use?

 

[PRmerger]

It’s what we’re taught in our church. It’s also off-topic. You could always start a thread if you want.

You were taught in your church? Do you submit to the authority of your pastor on this issue?

As for starting another thread, will you promise to join me there or is this your evasion?

As I said before, the Bible was written by people, not personally dictated by God.

This is very Catholic of you to say!

Could that be paraphrased as “I’m sorry for saying you’re insincere, which gives me the excuse to repeat that you’re insincere”?

Not at all.

Actually, I retract my apology. I don’t think I ever said you were insincere.

I’m simply pointing out that logic shows you cannot hold the belief “Different strokes for different folks” unless you want to say that someone who professes that Jesus died for only white folks is just another different stroke. You’ve already admitted that you don’t believe that.

Logic has ruled here.

 

[PRmerger]

How 'bout - Ephesians 5: 22-24

You have taken the Fundamentalist’s interpretation of Ephesians, jon. Not the Catholic one.

No Scripture verse professes that men are superior to women. Nuh-uh. No way. Not a chance.

 

[jonfawkes]

What some might call “control” others might call standing up for what’s right.

I don’t mean to sound sarcastic, jon, but you just sit back on your tush and let evil prosper given your immoral paradigm: “It’s just not my business. I can’t control others.”

This is such a peculiar word coming from a relativist. Racism is a judgment; it’s negative. And it’s wrong. All concepts that are so contrary to your worldview.

So, as I’ve stated over and over, there really are no relativists. There’s only, “It’s ok until I think it’s wrong.”

No you are trying to control thought. I don’t think it’s possible. I can stop an action that I think harms another, but not thought. You feel the need to control in order to feel moral yourself. Your morality is based on controlling others, rather than yourself.

It is my opinion that these things are wrong, I can say why I think they are wrong, but I can’t say that they are absolutely, universally, wrong.

I don’t see the preservation of a “race” as a desired thing for society that I live in as whole. Some do, and racism stems partially from that.

The Jewish religion is based partially on that, preservation of the “chosen people”. If there are no Jewish people then there is no Jesus.

So I can’t say that it’s an absolute evil. Racism made the Messiah possible. I just don’t think it’s applicable in the time or society that I live in. It’s still conditional to the time and society that I live in.