Moral Relativism

[Betterave]

I don’t think that most Catholics would consider a papal declaration to be absurd or irrational. For example, consider the papal bull Exsurge Domine of Pope Leo X issued on June 15, 1520.

lol! Again, dude, please clarify what you’re talking about. Does Exsurge domine treat the question of the source of justification for moral claims? What exactly does it say about it?

 

[jonfawkes]

Strategy 1.

To remind you, here’s the list:

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 or repeat some old claim, ignoring the fact that it has already been refuted (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;
4. say something that makes no sense whatsoever, complemented by an appropriate smilie.

You are saying calling something moral doesn’t make it so. Prove it.

I am saying society can and does set morality as evidenced by laws and social norms. I can see it, I experience it, it is self evident.

 

[tonyrey]

Moral relativism is an obscure term. Relative to whom or what?

Morality is obviously related to persons but we cannot assume that human beings are the only persons in the entire universe. It is also related to other forms of life and even inanimate objects unless you consider them completely valueless. Are we morally justified in polluting the world or destroying things unnecessarily?

But persons are the only moral agents because they alone are responsible for what they do. That does not mean morality is relative to persons in the sense that they created morality. It is evil to cause unnecessary suffering even if no one is aware of the fact. We may not be culpable but we are morally ignorant in that respect!

If we are the authors of morality moral progress cannot exist because there is no objective criterion by which to assess it. The basis of morality is not relative to what we **think **but to what we (and other beings) are. Whether we recognise the fact or not we are immensely valuable - regardless of time, space or any other factor! That is the only solid, immutable and impregnable foundation for morality…

 

[grannymh]

You are saying calling something moral doesn’t make it so. Prove it.

I am saying society can and does set morality as evidenced by laws and social norms. I can see it, I experience it, it is self evident.

Society can do all kinds of things. Goody for it. However, here is one society and there is one society, and society can be everywhere depending on this or that. What remains the same for any old society is the basic concept that the human person is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.

 

[jonfawkes]

Society can do all kinds of things. Goody for it. However, here is one society and there is one society, and society can be everywhere depending on this or that. What remains the same for any old society is the basic concept that the human person is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.

Again, according to whom?

 

[grannymh]

Whether we recognise the fact or not we are immensely valuable - regardless of time, space or any other factor! That is the only solid, immutable and impregnable foundation for morality…

What I interpret this to mean is that the human person is objectively valuable. Being objectively valuable means that she and he are worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception to the moment of death and by extension, the deceased body is also worthy of respect.

 

[davidv]

Again, according to whom?

According to you.
And to prove it, all I’d have do is start poking you with a sharp stick.

 

[Betterave]

You are saying calling something moral doesn’t make it so. Prove it.

As I pointed out, jon:

“It is not true that whatever a society deems moral is thereby moral. Moral means right or wrong. Moral does not mean deemed right or wrong by some society.”

To make this more clear for you:

P1) Moral means right or wrong. Moral does not mean deemed right or wrong by some society. (True by definition.)
P1) It is possible for a given society to be immoral (in some respect). (Self-evident.)
C) Therefore it is not true that whatever a society deems moral is thereby moral.

I am saying society can and does set morality as evidenced by laws and social norms. I can see it, I experience it, it is self evident.

Strategy 1.

(I’ve already explained the absurdity of this ‘self-evident’ claim, jon: laws and social norms are not the same as moral principles. You only ‘see’ what you ‘see’ because your concepts are so crudely articulated and you refuse to accept correction by means of rational arguments - instead it’s right back to “Strategy 1”!)

 

[grannymh]

Again, according to whom?

Being objectively worthy of profound respect, the human person is independent of any whom. Now there may be whoms who believe that she and he deserve respect and there may be whoms who don’t believe in respecting humans. Since there are no “according to”, all the whoms can believe what they want and when they want.

 

[jonfawkes]

As I pointed out, jon:

“It is not true that whatever a society deems moral is thereby moral. Moral means right or wrong. Moral does not mean deemed right or wrong by some society.”

To make this more clear for you:

P1) Moral means right or wrong. Moral does not mean deemed right or wrong by some society. (True by definition.)
P1) It is possible for a given society to be immoral (in some respect). (Self-evident.)
C) Therefore it is not true that whatever a society deems moral is thereby moral.

Strategy 1.

(I’ve already explained the absurdity of this ‘self-evident’ claim, jon: laws and social norms are not the same as moral principles. You only ‘see’ what you ‘see’ because your concepts are so crudely articulated and you refuse to accept correction by means of rational arguments - instead it’s right back to “Strategy 1”!)

P1) is a **** premise - Moral means right or wrong - determined by whom then? Defined by whom?

 

[larkin31]

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?

This is where this thread started.

 

[sidbrown]

P1) Moral means right or wrong.

LOL
This is vacuous and has no meaning unless you can tell me what is right and what is wrong in a few simple cases.
Is slavery morally wrong.
Is it morally wrong to burn a heretic at the stake.
Is it morally wrong to torture someone to extract a confession.

If you cannot answer these simple questions, and decide what is right and what is wrong, then the definition you have given is meaningless.

 

[jonfawkes]

Being objectively worthy of profound respect, the human person is independent of any whom. Now there may be whoms who believe that she and he deserve respect and there may be whoms who don’t believe in respecting humans. Since there are no “according to”, all the whoms can believe what they want and when they want.

You are making a value statement and presenting it as fact. It is not objective because it is a value statement. There is an observer making a value judgment.

“worthy of profound respect” by whom? the Universe?, Other humans?, Animals? God?

 

[davidv]

LOL
This is vacuous and has no meaning unless you can tell me what is right and what is wrong in a few simple cases.
Is slavery morally wrong.
Is it morally wrong to burn a heretic at the stake.
Is it morally wrong to torture someone to extract a confession.

If you cannot answer these simple questions, and decide what is right and what is wrong, then the definition you have given is meaningless.

Bare assertions are also vacuous.
Who defined these questions as the “turing” test of right and wrong.
Your if, then is just a meaningless false dicotomy.

 

[grannymh]

P1) is a **** premise - Moral means right or wrong - determined by whom then? Defined by whom?

Is it possible to attempt to get by the whom? In our current world which is basically based on relativism, there are way too many whoms. Actually, according to relativism, any who can choose to be a whom.

 

[sidbrown]

Bare assertions are also vacuous.
Who defined these questions as the “turing” test of right and wrong.
Your if, then is just a meaningless false dicotomy.

So you cannot tell me what is morally right and what is morally wrong in a few simple cases?

 

[grannymh]

You are making a value statement and presenting it as fact. It is not objective because it is a value statement. There is an observer making a value judgment.

“worthy of profound respect” by whom? the Universe?, Other humans?, Animals? God?

Unfortunately the comment “It is not objective because it is a value statement” is the result of the normal CAF confusion about the meaning of objective; thus it is not accurate.

“Worthy of respect by whom?” is an excellent question. Since this thread is about human morals, we can eliminate the universe. Animals do respect humans in their own way; but they don’t have the status of humans or of God. It has been said that God respects the human person; but God’s relationship with humans is on a different level than human relationships with each other and really belongs in its own thread.

That leaves humans. Humans meet the standards for moral actions. Generally they can think and they can choose. There are always exceptions due to anatomy restrictions or outside force, but these circumstances do not lesson one’s humanity.

Therefore, the human person is worthy of profound respect from all humans.

 

[jonfawkes]

Is it possible to attempt to get by the whom? In our current world which is basically based on relativism, there are way too many whoms. Actually, according to relativism, any who can choose to be a whom.

Usually the society dictates what is moral, rather than the individual. Although sometimes individuals are the catalyst for change. The civil rights movement, is one example of a series of individuals that sparked change but ultimately it needed society on board to make a major change.

 

[davidv]

Usually the society dictates what is moral, rather than the individual. Although sometimes individuals are the catalyst for change. The civil rights movement, is one example of a series of individuals that sparked change but ultimately it needed society on board to make a major change.

Neither society nor the individual has the authority to dictate what is moral. This is one of key messages of the Book of Genesis. This authority was sybolized by the the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. This authority is reserved for God alone. When humans attempt to do this on their own they really mess thing up.

This authority has nothing to do with the civil rights movement, which is off topic and a red herring.

 

[grannymh]

Usually the society dictates what is moral, rather than the individual. Although sometimes individuals are the catalyst for change. The civil rights movement, is one example of a series of individuals that sparked change but ultimately it needed society on board to make a major change.

That is not what I was referring to. In a relativism setting, any individual can dictate his own code of morality.