Moral Relativism

[tonyrey]

tonyrey

You have taken my statement out of its context:

“We are rarely convinced we’re absolutely right but we still have to make decisions. We may never work out **how **we might be wrong! So what? We’re not expected to be infallible but realistic and sincere.”

That is a far cry from “I don’t know murder is wrong”… To decide whether killing a person is murder is not always plain sailing. It is presumptuous to think we always know whether a specific action is wrong.

 

[djeter]

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?

 

[djeter]

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?

Perhaps these two sources may provide some help, online articles on my blog, feel free to copy and paste. The first you have referred to, Reading selections from Peter Kreeft’s A Refutation of Moral Relativism .

Next an excellent article with many examples from a new guy I greatly admire, David Oderberg, on Relativism from his book Moral Theory

Go get 'em team!

dj

 

[jonfawkes]

Are you trying to drag this leviathan back on point?

 

[davidv]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-ethics

Links without explanation are not helpful. Is this more dodging on your part?

 

[jonfawkes]

Links without explanation are not helpful. Is this more dodging on your part?

Is this laziness on your part?

 

[davidv]

Is this laziness on your part?

No

 

[Betterave]

Is this laziness on your part?

That’s rich! Hypocrisy much? LOL! jon, you may not be too bright, but I don’t think you’re that dumb either. It seems to me that you’re just not making a serious effort to use whatever intelligence you do possess. Please do us the courtesy of explaining what you want us to get out of these links. If you want to claim that I have presented a false dilemma, please explain that charge. Your links do not do so.

 

[Betterave]

Hoe can I make a claim using something that I don’t think exists? Is that the Loch Ness monster defense? :clapping::clapping::clapping:

LOL! Okay, smart-guy; so you’ve changed your position? Now you don’t think morality exists? I thought you were attempting to defend the existence of relative morality. You changed your mind?

I haven’t made those statements.

Not that you noticed. But they are implied by statements that you have made. Do you deny those statements?

You assert that there are moral absolutes - prove your assertion. It’s your burden.

You’re just ignoring me here. You really don’t want to understand? Is that it?

 

[jonfawkes]

That’s rich! Hypocrisy much? LOL! jon, you may not be too bright, but I don’t think you’re that dumb either. It seems to me that you’re just not making a serious effort to use whatever intelligence you do possess. Please do us the courtesy of explaining what you want us to get out of these links. If you want to claim that I have presented a false dilemma, please explain that charge. Your links do not do so.

Really!!! LOL - There are more choices than A and B.

Moral absolutism
Moral objectivism
Consequentialism
Relativism
Nihilism
Etc.

You guys are hilarious. GRRRRRRR Hahahaha:takeoff:

 

[Betterave]

It’s not a proof of anything -

A or B
Not A
Therefore B

Isn’t a proof, it’s a choice - it doesn’t affirm any position. Denying one position doesn’t affirm the other.

Santa Claus or Hanukkah Harry
Not Santa Claus (obviously no one can travel the world to every Christian home in one night, not to mention deliver presents. It’s obviously preposterous)
Therefore Hanukkah Harry

Do you really think this affirms Hanukkah Harry? A proof of his existence?

You’re a funny guy (not “ha-ha” funny, but “what is your major malfunction” funny). If you disagree with the premise “A or R”, you should say so and explain why you reject it. Obviously “A or R” is a premise that could be granted some prima facie plausibility. That you seem to think you can equate this with “Santa Claus or Hannukah Harry” is really stupid. Can you see that?

 

[jonfawkes]

You’re a funny guy (not “ha-ha” funny, but “what is your major malfunction” funny). If you disagree with the premise “A or R”, you should say so and explain why you reject it. Obviously “A or R” is a premise that could be granted some prima facie plausibility. That you seem to think you can equate this with “Santa Claus or Hannukah Harry” is really stupid. Can you see that?

You are creating a false dilemma - and you actually think that you can prove a theory by trying to negate another. You are hilarious. Truly. The ha-ha kind. Thank you. LOL!

 

[Betterave]

Really!!! LOL - There are more choices than A and B.

Moral absolutism
Moral objectivism
Consequentialism
Relativism
Nihilism
Etc.

You guys are hilarious. GRRRRRRR Hahahaha:takeoff:

First, those don’t designate commensurate categories that one can simply choose between as independent options. For example, consequentialism is a form of moral absolutism.

Second, supposing those were all simply disjunct categories (they’re not) which abstractly speaking were available as commensurable options beside A and R, why do you think any of them would be relevant in the context of this discussion (where you are pretending to defend R and I am defending A)??

You’re not hilarious; you’re dense (at least you’re being dense). Your show of groundless boundless confidence in your own reasoning abilities is getting embarrassing.

 

[Betterave]

You are creating a false dilemma - and you actually think that you can prove a theory by trying to negate another. You are hilarious. Truly. The ha-ha kind. Thank you. LOL!

So apparently you can’t see it.
Oh well…

 

[jonfawkes]

So apparently you can’t see it.
Oh well…

No, I totally see it and it’s F-u-n-n-y. It’s like saying creationism is “true” if evolution can’t be “proven” - Truly, thank you. I thought you were crass at first, but I didn’t get it - you sir, are a comic genius. Andy Kaufman-esque.

 

[Betterave]

No, I totally see it and it’s F-u-n-n-y. It’s like saying creationism is “true” if evolution can’t be “proven” - Truly, thank you. I thought you were crass at first, but I didn’t get it - you sir, are a comic genius. Andy Kaufman-esque.

No, it’s not at all like that - there is no element of “can’t be proven” in what I said - that’s your ridiculous tactic.

Instead, it’s like saying, in a discussion between Republicans and Democrats:

“The next president will be Republican or Democrat.”

Then jonfawkes jumps in, rolling on the floor laughing his mind off:

“You idiots! You forgot to mention Ralph Nader and Ross Perot! What if those guys run again?! HA HA HA! “R or D” - you guys are HILARIOUS!”

That said, I’m not sure why I’m still attempting to have a rational discussion with you…

 

[Betterave]

You have taken my statement out of its context:

“We are rarely convinced we’re absolutely right but we still have to make decisions. We may never work out **how **we might be wrong! So what? We’re not expected to be infallible but realistic and sincere.”

That is a far cry from “I don’t know murder is wrong”… To decide whether killing a person is murder is not always plain sailing. It is presumptuous to think we always know whether a specific action is wrong.

I think you have taken your statement out of context: Your claim, that we don’t know that we are right, was made in the context of a discussion where the issue is relativism or absolutism. That’s what’s on the table. In context, then, inocente’s question was not about casuistry, but about the establishment of basic moral absolutes, as opposed to an essential cultural indexing of moral norms as such (i.e., all moral norms - do you understand that?). You claim you can’t know which of these is correct? You’re really rarely convinced that you have a grasp of the basic nature of morality, so far as the issue under discussion goes? In context, that’s what your comment suggests.

 

[inocente]

Reading through yesterday’s posts while eating breakfast cereal was not a good idea. Having cleaned off my monitor and keyboard, very comedic thanks but I’m hoping it was light-hearted banter and no one’s forgetting we’re all just pixels here.

 

[tonyrey]

You have taken my statement out of its context:

I think I’m in a far better position to know the context of my statements than anyone else! It was in the context of **one **specific issue:

“It is an absolute principle that we should do what we are convinced is right.”

That’s what’s on the table. In context, then, inocente’s question was not about casuistry, but about the establishment of basic moral absolutes, as opposed to an essential cultural indexing of moral norms as such (i.e., all moral norms - do you understand that?).

Do you understand that my statement is not about **all **moral norms?

You claim you can’t know which of these is correct? You’re really rarely convinced that you have a grasp of the basic nature of morality, so far as the issue under discussion goes? In context, that’s what your comment suggests.

A false conclusion in a false context! There are other basic moral absolutes but I believe it is impossible to consider them all simultaneously. Perhaps you disagree…

 

[larkin31]

Reading through yesterday’s posts while eating breakfast cereal was not a good idea. Having cleaned off my monitor and keyboard, very comedic thanks but I’m hoping it was light-hearted banter and no one’s forgetting we’re all just pixels here.

I can’t rid myself of the image of a bunch of posters trying to drag a leviathan around!