Moral Relativism

[Betterave]

How has my position changed?

Before you were offering (bad) arguments which were apparently intended to support the cogency of relativism. Your current claims (i.e., post 752) no longer *appear *to have such a purpose (I don’t know if this was intentional or not).

 

[jonfawkes]

Before you were offering (bad) arguments which were apparently intended to support the cogency of relativism. Your current claims no longer *appear *to have such a purpose (I don’t know if this is intentional or not).

I still am saying that morality is conditional and is shaped by the time and culture that it serves. It’s not absolute.

I think the premise that you had a problem with was by submitting to authority you give that morality credence. You claimed that you could submit without giving credence, with your “I’m following my bosses orders” example. We had A few back and forths And that brings us here My position hasn’t changed.

 

[Betterave]

I still am saying that morality is conditional and is shaped by the time and culture that it serves. It’s not absolute.

And you still have not given an argument in favor of relativism or against absolutism. Obviously since morality exists in particular historical conditions, in a sense it is true that “morality is conditional and is shaped by the time and culture that it serves.” There is no moral absolutist that would deny this. I suspect you don’t understand that. Your observation is obvious and does not imply the falseness of absolutism or the truth of relativism.

I think the premise that you had a problem with was by submitting to authority you give that morality credence. You claimed that you could submit without giving credence, with your “I’m following my bosses orders” example. We had A few back and forths And that brings us here My position hasn’t changed.

You’ve been contradicting yourself all along then? Maybe in your mind. One thing that hasn’t changed is that you still seem very confused. I’ll try again to explain this with reference to the following quote:

“You’ve abdicated responsibility. You are no longer acting as an agent of your morality but rather an agent of his. “I had to do it, he’s my boss” Your morality is in the dust bin. It’s no longer an active principle, his morality is. Your morality becomes “whatever the boss tells me to do”. I said that act of abdication is also immoral.”

Before you claimed you adopt your bosses morality when you act immorally according to his request. This means that your morality changes. According to your new morality, your action is no longer immoral. Then you contradict yourself, claiming that, no, it would still be immoral and that it is immoral to “abdicate” (i.e., modify) your own morality. Your position, as you have expressed it thus far, seems completely incoherent. If you want to continue to defend it, I request that you follow Elijah’s suggestion and give us a “reset” of whatever it is that you’re trying to say.

 

[jonfawkes]

And you still have not given an argument in favor of relativism or against absolutism. Obviously since morality exists in particular historical conditions, in a sense it is true that “morality is conditional and is shaped by the time and culture that it serves.” There is no moral absolutist that would deny this. I suspect you don’t understand that. Your observation is obvious and does not imply the falseness of absolutism or the truth of relativism.

You’ve been contradicting yourself all along then? Maybe in your mind. One thing that hasn’t changed is that you still seem very confused. I’ll try again to explain this with reference to the following quote:

“You’ve abdicated responsibility. You are no longer acting as an agent of your morality but rather an agent of his. “I had to do it, he’s my boss” Your morality is in the dust bin. It’s no longer an active principle, his morality is. Your morality becomes “whatever the boss tells me to do”. I said that act of abdication is also immoral.”

Before you claimed you adopt your bosses morality when you act immorally according to his request. This means that your morality changes. According to your new morality, your action is no longer immoral. Then you contradict yourself, claiming that, no, it would still be immoral and that it is immoral to “abdicate” (i.e., modify) your own morality. Your position, as you have expressed it thus far, seems completely incoherent. If you want to continue to defend it, I request that you follow Elijah’s suggestion and give us a “reset” of whatever it is that you’re trying to say.

The immoral act is in relation to your old morality. Both the transgression and the abdication. With your new morality there is no conflict. The morality is relative from position that you are looking at it.

Previously, You said that with in that paradigm, the act of adopting a new morality now renders you unable to be immoral. I disagree.

You still have the new moral tenet " stealing is ok if I really need it". You can break that rule by acting outside it as your own agent, e.x. stealing when you don’t really need it. Not because your boss told you to but rather because you chose to. You can act immorally within the new tenet.

If you are deferring every moral decision to your boss, I would say that you are amoral. You are no longer acting as your own agent, you are no longer exercising your free will. You can still be held accountable because you chose to become amoral.

 

[Betterave]

The immoral act is in relation to your old morality. Both the transgression and the abdication. With your new morality there is no conflict. The morality is relative from position that you are looking at it.

Is that what you mean by relativism?? That it is possible for there to be conflicting evaluations of the moral status of a given act? That’s not what anybody else means by relativism (except for those who, like you, are just really confused). Please reset. Tell us: what do you think ‘relativism’ means?

Previously, You said that with in that paradigm, the act of adopting a new morality now renders you unable to be immoral. I disagree.

…because you aren’t thinking clearly!

You still have the new moral tenet " stealing is ok if I really need it". You can break that rule by acting outside it as your own agent, e.x. stealing when you don’t really need it. Not because your boss told you to but rather because you chose to. You can act immorally within the new tenet.

…if you act outside the new moral tenet (of morality2), this will be just like acting outside the old moral tenet (of morality1): it too will constitute the adoption of another new morality (morality3) - won’t it? If not, why did the original immoral1/moral2 act constitute such an adoption?

If you are deferring every moral decision to your boss, I would say that you are amoral. You are no longer acting as your own agent, you are no longer exercising your free will. You can still be held accountable because you chose to become amoral.

Why can’t you *freely *defer to the moral authority of your boss? If you can do this once (as you clearly must believe is possible), why not every time? What would it mean to say that you “unfreely” defer to his moral authority?

 

[jonfawkes]

Is that what you mean by relativism?? That it is possible for there to be conflicting evaluations of the moral status of a given act? That’s not what anybody else means by relativism (except for those who, like you, are just really confused). Please reset. Tell us: what do you think ‘relativism’ means?

…because you aren’t thinking clearly!

…if you act outside the new moral tenet (of morality2), this will be just like acting outside the old moral tenet (of morality1): it too will constitute the adoption of another new morality (morality3) - won’t it? If not, why did the original immoral1/moral2 act constitute such an adoption?

Why can’t you *freely *defer to the moral authority of your boss? If you can do this once (as you clearly must believe is possible), why not every time? What would it mean to say that you “unfreely” defer to his moral authority?

Just because I used the world relative? No my position is Meta-ethical relativism.

Meta-ethical relativism…is the meta-ethical position that the truth or falsity of moral judgments, or their justification, is not objective or universal but instead relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a group of people

No, it is the act of deferment that is the adaptation of the new morality. You chose to defer that is a free act. You could say no.

You are the one putting forth that you have to defer to authority. You are putting his authority above your own morality. So you are adapting his morality.

Pacifist / Conscientious objectors that go to jail rather then serve in a combat military unit are staying within their morality. They’ve said “no” to the new morality. Killing is always wrong.

If they choose to serve in a combat unit they are deferring to the new morality. Killing is justified under certain conditions. They are going along to get along.

They can be immoral in a couple of ways. If they serve and don’t attempt to kill they are being immoral to the new paradigm. They are putting their fellow soldiers at risk and possibly killed, and not doing the duty they chose rather than go to jail. Or at the other end of the spectrum they kill for unjustified reasons like killing a non-combatant.

 

[Elijah_Baley]

Please reset.

Same here.

 

[inocente]

Now please note: that is not an argument, nor is it a non sequitur. It’s also not something I said… so I’m at a bit of a loss. Care to explain yourself?

For every claim of a supposed moral absolute there’s a counter claim, with no rational means of choosing. No one here has managed to find even one absolute that can’t be contradicted, doesn’t require a subjective context, or doesn’t need a list of ifs and buts.

Yes, I’m familiar with the Milgram experiments. What do you think they show in the context of this discussion?

First, from the arguments presented on this thread, moral absolutism relies on special glasses, a mystical metaphysics of transcendental baloneyism - either no truths can be divined (but really they must exist ‘cause someone said so) or truths are only in the eye of the beholder (if I really believe and hold my breath then it must be true).

Second that in the real word, a world inhabited by messy human beings, morality is complicated and depends on personal and cultural context, where absolutes are no more use than angels on pinheads.

You’ll twig that I done lost my energy. Imho all of us are now so polarized that reasserting positions won’t help. It’s been interesting indeed but without new blood at this point there’ll be no meeting of minds. I enjoyed our sparring, so see you around?

 

[davidv]

For every claim of a supposed moral absolute there’s a counter claim, with no rational means of choosing. No one here has managed to find even one absolute that can’t be contradicted, doesn’t require a subjective context, or doesn’t need a list of ifs and buts.

All claims can be contradicted. The key question is, is the contradiction valid and sound. It seems to me that those who hold to relativism have no basis to declare whether a claim or its counter is true.

First, from the arguments presented on this thread, moral absolutism relies on special glasses, a mystical metaphysics of transcendental baloneyism - either no truths can be divined (but really they must exist ‘cause someone said so) or truths are only in the eye of the beholder (if I really believe and hold my breath then it must be true).

I believe this is a strawman. God has revealed objective truth to man in a form that can understood by man. No divination is required.

Second that in the real word, a world inhabited by messy human beings, morality is complicated and depends on personal and cultural context, where absolutes are no more use than angels on pinheads.

I would submit that the basic morality is not that complicated. It is summed up in the great command, love God and neighbor. Complications can arise in its application to messy humans.

You’ll twig that I done lost my energy. Imho all of us are now so polarized that reasserting positions won’t help. It’s been interesting indeed but without new blood at this point there’ll be no meeting of minds. I enjoyed our sparring, so see you around?

Enjoy.

 

[inocente]

All claims can be contradicted. The key question is, is the contradiction valid and sound. It seems to me that those who hold to relativism have no basis to declare whether a claim or its counter is true.

Was that absolutist speed-reading, skipping the bit where I said “with no rational means of choosing”?

I believe this is a strawman. God has revealed objective truth to man in a form that can understood by man. No divination is required.

Available now on wikileaks.com. Well no, actually it says “Sorry! this site is not currently available” and you have to use an IP address instead.

I’d love to hear some of these truths, but “objective” implies a methodology by which they can be discovered and their truth demonstrated. If an atheist, Hindu, etc., doesn’t find sufficient cause then I’m inclined to join them, on the basis that it’s better to find firm common ground than obstinately each stick to our guns on sandy soil.

I would submit that the basic morality is not that complicated. It is summed up in the great command, love God and neighbor. Complications can arise in its application to messy humans.

Which is fine unless our neighbor is intent on a little ethnic cleansing, when we may need to love them with our air force.

But I note your switch to “basic morality”, as in please let’s not talk about artificial contraception, or whether it’s always a sin to download music for free, or whether it’s OK to burn every last drop of oil, because obviously absolutes only apply to things we happen to agree on anyway.

Enjoy.

Well I did a bit, but no, stop, please release me. It’s absolutely the right thing to do.

 

[davidv]

Was that absolutist speed-reading, skipping the bit where I said “with no rational means of choosing”?

Available now on wikileaks.com. Well no, actually it says “Sorry! this site is not currently available” and you have to use an IP address instead.

I’d love to hear some of these truths, but “objective” implies a methodology by which they can be discovered and their truth demonstrated. If an atheist, Hindu, etc., doesn’t find sufficient cause then I’m inclined to join them, on the basis that it’s better to find firm common ground than obstinately each stick to our guns on sandy soil.

Which is fine unless our neighbor is intent on a little ethnic cleansing, when we may need to love them with our air force.

But I note your switch to “basic morality”, as in please let’s not talk about artificial contraception, or whether it’s always a sin to download music for free, or whether it’s OK to burn every last drop of oil, because obviously absolutes only apply to things we happen to agree on anyway.

Well I did a bit, but no, stop, please release me. It’s absolutely the right thing to do.

I will release you with this last thought. God wrote ten objective truths on stone tablets that He presented to Moses. He also sent all of objective Truth in the form of His son Jesus.

 

[Elijah_Baley]

I will release you with this last thought. God wrote ten objective truths on stone tablets that He presented to Moses. He also sent all of objective Truth in the form of His son Jesus.

God *represented *ten objective truths. I guarantee that you do not hold holy the Sabbath, but rather the Lord’s Day.

 

[davidv]

God *represented *ten objective truths. I guarantee that you do not hold holy the Sabbath, but rather the Lord’s Day.

Agreed. Whether doctrinal or disciplinary, they were objective.

 

[Betterave]

Just because I used the world relative? No my position is Meta-ethical relativism.

No. Because I’m trying to make out what you could possibly mean, so far as an argument about relativism goes, with the all of the contradictory and nonsensical claims you have been making. Anyway, thanks for this:

Meta-ethical relativism…is the meta-ethical position that the truth or falsity of moral judgments, or their justification, is not objective or universal but instead relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a group of people

Now tell me: what is your argument in support of this position?

 

[Betterave]

No, it is the act of deferment that is the adaptation of the new morality. You chose to defer that is a free act. You could say no.

You are the one putting forth that you have to defer to authority. You are putting his authority above your own morality. So you are adapting his morality.

Pacifist / Conscientious objectors that go to jail rather then serve in a combat military unit are staying within their morality. They’ve said “no” to the new morality. Killing is always wrong.

If they choose to serve in a combat unit they are deferring to the new morality. Killing is justified under certain conditions. They are going along to get along.

They can be immoral in a couple of ways. If they serve and don’t attempt to kill they are being immoral to the new paradigm. They are putting their fellow soldiers at risk and possibly killed, and not doing the duty they chose rather than go to jail. Or at the other end of the spectrum they kill for unjustified reasons like killing a non-combatant.

I never “put forth” that “you have to defer to authority.”

It is very difficult to have a reasonable conversation with people like you and inocente, who seem to arbitrarily misrepresent your dialogue partner’s position whenever you feel like it. Could you please try really really hard to stop doing this? I’m feeling like I’m wasting my time discussing this with you, given the way you keep ignoring what I have said and instead making straw man arguments.

 

[jonfawkes]

No. Because I’m trying to make out what you could possibly mean, so far as an argument about relativism goes, with the all of the contradictory and nonsensical claims you have been making. Anyway, thanks for this:

Meta-ethical relativism…is the meta-ethical position that the truth or falsity of moral judgments, or their justification, is not objective or universal but instead relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a group of people

Now tell me: what is your argument in support of this position?

By being an active member of society (non-dissident) you are giving credence and support of the that societies morality.

 

[jonfawkes]

I never “put forth” that “you have to defer to authority.”

It is very difficult to have a reasonable conversation with people like you and inocente, who seem to arbitrarily misrepresent your dialogue partner’s position whenever you feel like it. Could you please try really really hard to stop doing this? I’m feeling like I’m wasting my time discussing this with you, given the way you keep ignoring what I have said and instead making straw man arguments.

It’s a weird place for you to dig in but…

In you example “my boss told me” - you don’t acknowledge that there is the option to say “no” to him. If you say “no” you are not differing to his morality but staying true to your own. It’s not really relevant to the argument though, it’s the act of deferral that’s important.

By not saying “no” you are deferring to his morality. You’ve decided that his authority is a more powerful force than your morality. etc …

 

[In_Spiration]

I’d think someone’s already brought these up in one of the previous pages, but if not, here are a few examples of undeniable moral absolutes for man:

One ought to do good and avoid evil.

A man should love his neighbor as himself.

One ought to love and worship God with all his heart.

I submit that in the grand scheme of things, all ethical/moral principles are going to be inexplicably relative to the one and only “absolute absolute” (God), so if you’re looking for a principle pertaining specifically to a contingent creature which isn’t fundamentally rooted in some per se non-absolute relation, then, uh, well I guess “you got us!” I mean, I’m not going to deny that you’re capable of analyzing every principle into God’s essentially free choice of creative design for contingent beings and then pressing us to show how ethics wouldn’t be different in detail had God given us radically different natures. (Then again, we’d still be obliged by the first and last of the principles above…)

 

[Elijah_Baley]

I submit that in the grand scheme of things, all ethical/moral principles are going to be inexplicably relative to the one and only “absolute absolute” (God), so if you’re looking for a principle pertaining specifically to a contingent creature which isn’t fundamentally rooted in some per se non-absolute relation, then, uh, well I guess “you got us!”

Exactly. And that is not relativism.

 

[Betterave]

For every claim of a supposed moral absolute there’s a counter claim, with no rational means of choosing. No one here has managed to find even one absolute that can’t be contradicted, doesn’t require a subjective context, or doesn’t need a list of ifs and buts.

Why do you think there is “no rational means of choosing”? - for example, between “do good and avoid evil” and “do not do good and avoid evil”?

First, from the arguments presented on this thread, moral absolutism relies on special glasses, a mystical metaphysics of transcendental baloneyism - either no truths can be divined (but really they must exist ‘cause someone said so) or truths are only in the eye of the beholder (if I really believe and hold my breath then it must be true).

From what arguments presented on this thread?? Your claim here is straw man baloney, certainly so far as what I have presented goes. This kind of argument is dishonest. Such dishonesty is immoral, no ifs or buts about it.

Second that in the real word, a world inhabited by messy human beings, morality is complicated and depends on personal and cultural context, where absolutes are no more use than angels on pinheads.

So morality is complicated, and it depends on personal and cultural context, at least from a descriptive perspective. But it does not follow that absolutes are no more use than angels on pinheads. That’s not even an argument. You’re just repeatedly asserting this. Maybe that’s all you’re capable of doing, and that’s why you want to reduce the difference between us to a brute difference in point of view, which is rationally intractable. But all problems are rationally intractable insofar as the person addressing a given problem refuses to be rational. The problem is mainlypeople who refuse to be rational about morality, not the irrationality of morality.

You’ll twig that I done lost my energy. Imho all of us are now so polarized that reasserting positions won’t help. It’s been interesting indeed but without new blood at this point there’ll be no meeting of minds. I enjoyed our sparring, so see you around?

So yes, reasserting positions quite possibly won’t help, but perhaps that is only because you plan to continue to refuse to engage the problem here in an open-minded rational way.