Moral Relativism

[Betterave]

There is no need to defend relativism - different societies and groups have different morals. There is concrete evidence that relative moralities exist. Whether they are valid or not is another question. They seem to be working out without our help, so I’m leaning that way.

There has been no evidence ( we’ve asked ) that absolute morals exist, only the presupposition that they must.

Sounds like a case of “There must be a edge to the Earth, it can’t go on forever.” :takeoff:

Back to strategy 1, jon?
(It’s kind of sad to say this, but thanks!)
(btw, what is this supposed to signify: :takeoff:?)

 

[jonfawkes]

Back to strategy 1, jon?
(It’s kind of sad to say this, but thanks!)
(btw, what is this supposed to signify: :takeoff:?)

Carry on Thin Man. Carry on. :choocho:

 

[Betterave]

So far the general strategies for defending ‘Relativism’ we’ve seen displayed here are:

When someone points out the rational problems with your defense of relativism, do one or more of the following:

1. ignore his argument and make some new claim with no relevance to the issue at hand (be sure never to explain the relevance of your remarks);
2. pretend he has said something funny and roflyao;
3. express outrage and exit the conversation.

I suppose I should add:
4. Say something that makes no sense whatsoever, complemented by an appropriate smilie.

 

[tonyrey]

I think I’m in a far better position to know the context of my statements than anyone else!

Because I know exactly what I had in mind!

It was in the context of **one **

specific issue:
“It is an absolute principle that we should do what we are convinced is right.” So you don’t know if that principle is right?

Here’s the context, to remind you:
The only way to evade the absolute principle that we should do what we are convinced is right is to deny that we should do anything at all!

In other words moral relativism = moral nihilism. But … how do we know we’re right? We don’t!

It should be obvious that** belief** in an absolute principle is not knowledge. All knowledge is based on beliefs (apart from our direct knowledge of our thoughts, feelings, perceptions, decisions and intuitions). Or do you disagree?

It is not an absolute principle that we should know what we should do but that we should **do **what we believe to be right. Or do you disagree?

 

[sidbrown]

I suppose I should add:
4. Say something that makes no sense whatsoever, complemented by an appropriate smilie.

I don’t see the point in that. Could you explain the point and why this would add anything worthwhile to the discussion?

 

[larkin31]

There is no need to defend relativism -

Particularly when the argument goes, “I claim that absolute morality exists…now prove that it doesn’t!”

 

[davidv]

Particularly when the argument goes, “I claim that absolute morality exists…now prove that it doesn’t!”

It appears that you have forgotten or missed post #2. I quote in part:

Morality is the transcendental relation of a human act to a norm of goodness and evil, based upon man’s entire nature. By transcendental relation I mean one that is inherent in the act itself.

 

[Betterave]

I don’t see the point in that. Could you explain the point and why this would add anything worthwhile to the discussion?

Do you understand that I was cataloguing the different types of response offered by defenders of relativism in this thread? You don’t see the point in noting that all of the replies from the defenders of relativism have been completely irrational? What do you think philosophy is about?? The point of philosophy is to seek truth and understanding through an exchange of ideas, and to defend and critique those ideas using rational argument. Pointing out that someone’s responses, in a supposedly philosophical discussion, are irrational is a basic part of that process.

 

[Betterave]

Because I know exactly what I had in mind!

…but “what you had in mind” is not the context - *what is written in this thread *is!

It should be obvious that** belief** in an absolute principle is not knowledge.

That’s obviously not obvious, unless you are defining belief in a narrow sense. As you yourself say: “All knowledge is based on beliefs…” So belief in an absolute principle may well be knowledge, provided that belief is justified.

It is not an absolute principle that we should know what we should do but that we should **do **what we believe to be right. Or do you disagree?

I don’t know what you mean. I doubt it’s worth getting into the details, but here is what I’m picking up on:

inocente: But … how do we know we’re right [implied: *about the supposedly ‘absolute’ moral principles that we embrace]?

tony: We don’t!

In the context, I think that’s what inocente’s question implied. Maybe you disagree?

 

[Betterave]

Particularly when the argument goes, “I claim that absolute morality exists…now prove that it doesn’t!”

Strategy 1, straw man variety.

 

[sidbrown]

You don’t see the point in noting that all of the replies from the defenders of relativism have been completely irrational? .

Not true. It is easily seen that what is or what is not moral is relative to the times and the culture. The morality of burning a heretic alive at the stake is an obvious example of moral relativism. At one time it was declared to be morally correct, but at the present time ir is declared to be wrong.

 

[The_Exodus]

I suppose I should add:
4. Say something that makes no sense whatsoever, complemented by an appropriate smilie.

Odd, isn’t it? They try to show the other side is absurd, which is why they argue, and yet themselves welcome absurdity with open arms.

I would lol at this if it wasn’t so true.

 

[tonyrey]

Because I know exactly what I had in mind!

We are discussing **knowledge **of the context I had in mind!

It is not an absolute principle that we should **know **

what we should do but that we should** do** what we believe to be right. Or do you disagree?I don’t know what you mean.

It seems clear enough:

It is absurd to expect us to **know **always what we should do but it is reasonable to expect us to do always what we believe to be right .

inocente: But … how do we know we’re right [implied: about the supposedly ‘absolute’ moral principles that we embrace]?

tony: We don’t!

In the context, I think that’s what inocente’s question implied. Maybe you disagree?

I do! But it makes no difference:

It is absurd to expect us to **know **it is an absolute principle that we should always do what we believe to be right but it is reasonable to expect us to believe we should always do what we believe to be right!

Otherwise we are assuming we are morally infallible…

(Even though this is a Catholic forum it is a philosophy forum.

 

[Betterave]

Not true. It is easily seen that what is or what is not moral is relative to the times and the culture. The morality of burning a heretic alive at the stake is an obvious example of moral relativism. At one time it was declared to be morally correct, but at the present time ir is declared to be wrong.

But a **declaration that X is moral **does not make it true that X is moral! You’re pretending that it does is completely irrational, both insofar as it is an absurd claim in itself, and insofar as it begs the question against absolutism.

This point has already been addressed, so your strategy here is strategy 1, slightly modified :

1. ignore his argument, and make some new claim with no relevance to the issue at hand or repeat some old claim, ignoring the fact that it has already been refuted

 

[Betterave]

We are discussing **knowledge **of the context I had in mind!

Not me - I’m discussing the con-text of the text that is publicly available to all of us - I’m not interested in arguing about the private contents of your mind.

It seems clear enough:

It is absurd to expect us to **know **always what we should do but it is reasonable to expect us to do always what we believe to be right .

So you say, but I don’t know what your point is.

I do! But it makes no difference:

It is absurd to expect us to **know **it is an absolute principle that we should always do what we believe to be right but it is reasonable to expect us to believe we should always do what we believe to be right!

Otherwise we are assuming we are morally infallible…

So in other words:
IF we claim “to **know **that it is an absolute principle that we should always do what we believe to be right,” THEN “we are assuming we are morally infallible.”

But I know that that is a non sequitur!

An analogy: If I say “I know the moon revolves around the Earth”, it does not follow that I am assuming that I am astronomically infallible.

 

[jonfawkes]

But a **declaration that X is moral **does not make it true that X is moral! You’re pretending that it does is completely irrational, both insofar as it is an absurd claim in itself, and insofar as it begs the question against absolutism.

This point has already been addressed, so your strategy here is strategy 1, slightly modified :

1. ignore his argument, and make some new claim with no relevance to the issue at hand or repeat some old claim, ignoring the fact that it has already been refuted

Haha - I know better than to ask - but…

How do think this refutes anything?

If society deems something moral, it is in all practicality it is. Headhunting is moral to the headhunter. You may think it’s immoral but the headhunter thinks you can take a flying “F” at a rolling doughnut. He doesn’t accept your judgment or your rational for judgment (your god) any more than you accept his. What you end up with is a “pecker measuring” contest between gods. There is no objective way to determine a winner.

 

[davidv]

Haha - I know better than to ask - but…

How do think this refutes anything?

If society deems something moral, it is in all practicality it is. Headhunting is moral to the headhunter. You may think it’s immoral but the headhunter thinks you can take a flying “F” at a rolling doughnut. He doesn’t accept your judgment or your rational for judgment (your god) any more than you accept his. What you end up with is a “pecker measuring” contest between gods. There is no objective way to determine a winner.

Your objection is groundless.

Societies do not deem things moral, they deem things acceptable. Please consult a dictionary to determine the difference. What societies deem acceptabe are not always moral.

Moral: of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong;
Dictionary.com

You inability to find the objectives on which morals are based is only your problem. Your refusal to see them does not make them cease to exist.

 

[larkin31]

Your objection is groundless.

Societies do not deem things moral…

They don’t? I have never heard that claim before.

Societies do not establish moral guidelines? I can’t see how that position is true.

 

[sidbrown]

But a **declaration that X is moral **does not make it true that X is moral! You’re pretending that it does is completely irrational, both insofar as it is an absurd claim in itself, and insofar as it begs the question against absolutism.

Really? I would not agree that it is completely irrational or absurd to follow and obey a papal declaration on this. This is a Catholic board after all and I don’t think that papal declarations are considered to be completely irrational or absurd here.

 

[jonfawkes]

Your objection is groundless.

Societies do not deem things moral, they deem things acceptable. Please consult a dictionary to determine the difference. What societies deem acceptabe are not always moral.

You inability to find the objectives on which morals are based is only your problem. Your refusal to see them does not make them cease to exist.

All I see is one morality trying to judge another. Morality is what is acceptable and what is not.