Moral Relativism

[jonfawkes]

Unless this god is this one:
Its command are not divine, only manmade and of questionable source. It is not a valid source of the determination of right or wrong. Leaving “moral relativism” built on a foundation of sand.

Your god is a jewish god for jews, mine is for headhunters. He wants heads.

 

[jonfawkes]

One thing before I find boots to go outside … Morality should be based on an objective truth which exists beyond disagreements between people. The evidence in something objective is usually that it exists independently – as you say uninfluenced by personal beliefs or feelings. As far as history goes, the fact that human nature is worthy of profound respect has not changed even though people have treated humans in terrible unworthy ways. The human nature of the next baby is still worthy of profound respect.

I don’t see how you can take away from the observer from the equation. It gets into “if a tree falls in the forest…” category. Someone or thing has to be the determining factor, of goodness or badness of the objective thing or act.

Also morality is a value judgment by nature - something is “good” or “evil” ( and shades in between). I don’t see how you get away from value judgments. ( which implies a judge, which is subjective)

An objective statement would be (imo) everything that lives dies. Which is morally neutral. When you get into the “how” the “living something” died is when value judgements come into play.

 

[davidv]

Your god is a jewish god for jews, mine is for headhunters. He wants heads.

 

[sidbrown]

The three cases you presented previously are not “simple” cases.

Why not?

 

[grannymh]

This goes back to the difference between deeply held principles and objective facts. Many would say that someone who commits crimes against humanity isn’t worthy of the same respect as the victims, and so objectivity in the normal sense isn’t demonstrated.

Briefly. I’ve used the signature “The human person is worthy of profound respect.” off and on for some time. One poster complained directly that he was not worthy of profound respect. My point is that even his own evaluation of himself cannot change his humanity. He is objectively worthy of profound respect because all humans, because of the unity of the human species, are worthy of it.

But this does not mean that the criminal deserves respect for his actions. He is responsible for his decisions and actions. Because he is responsible for his actions and because this is a reason why he deserves respect, the criminal usually has a trial. In contrast, my cousin Chilly Chimp could do nasty things like messing up his cage. But usually he is not brought before his peers to determine his guilt and punishment.

Blessings,
granny

John 3: 16-17

 

[John21652]

Not sure why it’s relevant (Are you attempting a hypothetical conversion for our hypothetical headhunter ?) but…

He is the god of my people, we are the people of our god. Just as their are many bodies that walk the earth but only one is yours, such is the relationship of my people to our god. He is the face of the infinite for us.

Conversion of headhunters? No not at all. It’s just that you have a god that wants heads and davidv has another god whom you’ve now identified as being a jewish god for jews. There’s something else. I’m not of your people, or davidv’s people, so your god is not my god and he wants something else. He works miracles, you see and he wants my people to kick arse. In fact, there’s your first miracle - my god showed my people how to spell certain words and beat CAF’s filters.

Now I know my god is on my side, because he shows us stuff. Your god just tells you stuff. Or maybe you have fruit cakes in your tribe that hear voices and just think stuff up. What I want to know is how do you know it’s your god telling you to get heads and not davidv’s god telling you stuff and making you look silly by getting you to collect heads? His god doesn’t want heads and yours does, so obviously your god and his god are in conflict. My god is the cleverest god, because he not only tells us stuff, but he shows us stuff. He made us just like him, so watch out! He reckons heads only have value when they are attached to shoulders. If they aren’t attached to shoulders they can’t think straight. If they can think straight, they can recognise just how good he is at making stuff. If your god wants heads that can’t think straight, maybe it’s a sign he hasn’t got anything to show you. Gee, once you see the stuff our god has to show, you will see the same value in it as we do, because it’s unique and everybody who has seen it sees the same value in it. That sort of universality of meaning means our god has made some pretty objectively identifiably mighty stuff.

 

[grannymh]

I don’t see how you can take away from the observer from the equation. It gets into “if a tree falls in the forest…” category. Someone or thing has to be the determining factor, of goodness or badness of the objective thing or act.

I never said I would take away the observer. I am separating the observer from the observed because normally they are not the same person.

I object to being considered an “objective thing”. I am a human person. I flat out refuse to be a thing.

Also morality is a value judgment by nature - something is “good” or “evil” ( and shades in between). I don’t see how you get away from value judgments. ( which implies a judge, which is subjective)

When one googles morality, there are also kinds of definitions. If one wishes, one can say morality is a judgment of something as "good’ or “evil” – just remember that I flat out refuse to be a something. I am a person with the dignity of being a person.

The judge, herself or himself, is a human person who exists in the external world which makes her or him an object so to speak. The thinking process which a judge uses can be both or either objective thinking or subjective thinking. One can use most ordinary dictionaries or Google to learn the difference.

An objective statement would be (imo) everything that lives dies. Which is morally neutral. When you get into the “how” the “living something” died is when value judgements come into play.

Again, you better differentiate between a “living something” and myself or I will get very cranky (the feminine of snarky). This is because not only the “how” but the objective “what” needs to be evaluated.

Blessings,
granny

 

[jonfawkes]

Conversion of headhunters? No not at all. It’s just that you have a god that wants heads and davidv has another god whom you’ve now identified as being a jewish god for jews. There’s something else. I’m not of your people, or davidv’s people, so your god is not my god and he wants something else. He works miracles, you see and he wants my people to kick arse. In fact, there’s your first miracle - my god showed my people how to spell certain words and beat CAF’s filters.

Now I know my god is on my side, because he shows us stuff. Your god just tells you stuff. Or maybe you have fruit cakes in your tribe that hear voices and just think stuff up. What I want to know is how do you know it’s your god telling you to get heads and not davidv’s god telling you stuff and making you look silly by getting you to collect heads? His god doesn’t want heads and yours does, so obviously your god and his god are in conflict. My god is the cleverest god, because he not only tells us stuff, but he shows us stuff. He made us just like him, so watch out! He reckons heads only have value when they are attached to shoulders. If they aren’t attached to shoulders they can’t think straight. If they can think straight, they can recognise just how good he is at making stuff. If your god wants heads that can’t think straight, maybe it’s a sign he hasn’t got anything to show you. Gee, once you see the stuff our god has to show, you will see the same value in it as we do, because it’s unique and everybody who has seen it sees the same value in it. That sort of universality of meaning means our god has made some pretty objectively identifiably mighty stuff.

Mine has shown my people how to live, David’s his people’s way, yours the way to your people. (We can spell arse too ) My god doesn’t need the approval of men, nor need them to see his great, to be great. Your god is weak.

 

[John21652]

Mine has shown my people how to live, David’s his people’s way, yours the way to your people. (We can spell arse too ) My god doesn’t need the approval of men, nor need them to see his great, to be great. Your god is weak.

Your god has not instructed you and your people correctly. You are not allowing things to be what they should be, so they can work to the good, which is their proper ends. Taking heads means that the heads don’t think right anymore and if things can’t work to their proper ends, then that is badness. As yet, david hasn’t said anything about how he and his people are supposed to live, but from what we can glean, his god doesn’t think taking heads is very good either. Our god doesn’t go around showing us stuff just so we will like him lots. He shows us really cool stuff so we know how stuff works. We inductively knew he was a coold dude because he made such cool stuff. Your dude is just an arrogant jerk who makes you think your head is worth more than someone else’s head. Our God’s strength is in his willingness to share stuff with us.

As for the spelling, you just copied what our god showed us.

 

[grannymh]

That sort of universality of meaning means our god has made some pretty objectively identifiably mighty stuff.

Even though I have had to stand on my head to read your post–you being in Australia–and look up that funny spelled word which begins with a–I do recognize your understanding of universality and objectively. Perhaps that is because your shoulders are attached to your head which according to anthropology makes you identifiably human since you can walk on your feet and most of the time think about mighty stuff.

 

[jonfawkes]

I never said I would take away the observer. I am separating the observer from the observed because normally they are not the same person.

I object to being considered an “objective thing”. I am a human person. I flat out refuse to be a thing.

When one googles morality, there are also kinds of definitions. If one wishes, one can say morality is a judgment of something as "good’ or “evil” – just remember that I flat out refuse to be a something. I am a person with the dignity of being a person.

The judge, herself or himself, is a human person who exists in the external world which makes her or him an object so to speak. The thinking process which a judge uses can be both or either objective thinking or subjective thinking. One can use most ordinary dictionaries or Google to learn the difference.

Again, you better differentiate between a “living something” and myself or I will get very cranky (the feminine of snarky). This is because not only the “how” but the objective “what” needs to be evaluated.

Blessings,
granny

This is a bunch of meaningless poo poo.

You are starting out with a value judgment, (people are superior to “things”) and using the same value judgment to support that statement. (Because we are better than things we should be treated better than things) - circular ca ca

Again a value judgment is subjective not objective. It is “you” as a human declaring the superiority of humans to the other parts of creation.

So to respect your sensibilities - All people who live, die (objective and morally neutral) - how and why are subjective.

 

[jonfawkes]

Your god has not instructed you and your people correctly. You are not allowing things to be what they should be, so they can work to the good, which is their proper ends. Taking heads means that the heads don’t think right anymore and if things can’t work to their proper ends, then that is badness. As yet, david hasn’t said anything about how he and his people are supposed to live, but from what we can glean, his god doesn’t think taking heads is very good either. Our god doesn’t go around showing us stuff just so we will like him lots. He shows us really cool stuff so we know how stuff works. We inductively knew he was a coold dude because he made such cool stuff. Your dude is just an arrogant jerk who makes you think your head is worth more than someone else’s head. Our God’s strength is in his willingness to share stuff with us.

As for the spelling, you just copied what our god showed us.

The heads are the heads of our enemies - it is good that they don’t work. You must come from a stupid people to think that your head isn’t worth more than your enemies. I guess it’s self evident from your statement. Maybe your cold god has frozen your heads. Our god has given us the universe - what else could we want?

 

[grannymh]

This is a bunch of meaningless poo poo.

Is that related to some Australian word which begins with a? In my old neighborhood, our word began with s.

You are starting out with a value judgment, (people are superior to “things”) and using the same value judgment to support that statement. (Because we are better than things we should be treated better than things) - circular ca ca

Never said that people were superior to “things.” My repeated claim was that I flat out refuse to be a “thing”. I neither added superiority or inferiority or authority.

Again a value judgment is subjective not objective. It is “you” as a human declaring the superiority of humans to the other parts of creation.

Never claimed superiority. In fact, today I feel very inferior to a computer. My current word is cranky which begins with a c. Note to self. Check with the Australian fellow about cranky when it turns upside down.

So to respect your sensibilities - All people who live, die (objective and morally neutral) - how and why are subjective.

Maybe I should flat out refuse to be a “subjective” thing at least while I am learning new Australian words. Though women are known for their subjective thinking because they can be so emotional. Being a coward, I don’t want to get into an objective discussion about feminists.

Seriously,in recent posts, I have been trying to use subjective and objective in various ways to illustrate the difference between them. If I messed up somewhere, it was probably because I was laughing too hard.

 

[jonfawkes]

Is that related to some Australian word which begins with a? In my old neighborhood, our word began with s.

Never said that people were superior to “things.” My repeated claim was that I flat out refuse to be a “thing”. I neither added superiority or inferiority or authority.

Never claimed superiority. In fact, today I feel very inferior to a computer. My current word is cranky which begins with a c. Note to self. Check with the Australian fellow about cranky when it turns upside down.

Maybe I should flat out refuse to be a “subjective” thing at least while I am learning new Australian words. Though women are known for their subjective thinking because they can be so emotional. Being a coward, I don’t want to get into an objective discussion about feminists.

Seriously,in recent posts, I have been trying to use subjective and objective in various ways to illustrate the difference between them. If I messed up somewhere, it was probably because I was laughing too hard.

If you refuse to be a thing there must be something undesirable about being a thing. A value judgment (subjective).

How about we start here : Humans are living beings -

 

[grannymh]

If you refuse to be a thing there must be something undesirable about being a thing. A value judgment (subjective).

I have made a value judgment (action of intellect and will) based on what my personal desires (subjective) seek. Because my personal desire is to seek eternal union with God, being a thing is undesirable because a thing does not have a spiritual soul like the human person does.

How about we start here : Humans are living beings -

Yes, human beings are living beings.

 

[jonfawkes]

I have made a value judgment (action of intellect and will) based on what my personal desires (subjective) seek. Because my personal desire is to seek eternal union with God, being a thing is undesirable because a thing does not have a spiritual soul like the human person does.

Yes, human beings are living beings.

Yes, I understand where you are coming from. It is a subjective position based on your faith.

I thought that we could agree on a objective statement ( which I think we have ) and you could start from there.

human beings are living beings - so how can you show that they are “worthy of profound respect”? (outside a faith context, hopefully objectively )

 

[John21652]

The heads are the heads of our enemies - it is good that they don’t work. You must come from a stupid people to think that your head isn’t worth more than your enemies. I guess it’s self evident from your statement. Maybe your cold god has frozen your heads. Our god has given us the universe - what else could we want?

You think he has given you the universe and in a sense he has, but your god hasn’t shown you how it works and so you don’t understand it. That’s what makes your god so weak, you see. My people are so clever that we don’t have enemies and so we don’t have to go around chopping off heads. If a people tried to chop off our heads, we would ask them to desist and if they refused, then we would chop off their heads. However, we would still not conclude that the chooped off heads were inferior, only that the chopped off heads were not as good as us at chopping off heads and they should have known that beforehand. We value all heads equally, you see, because our god showed us their value. He gave us a value system that isn’t whimsical like the one your god gave you. Your god left it up to you and so you have concluded that your heads are superior and other heads sit atop enemy shoulders. That’s a result of the subjectivity your god left you floundering with. Our god showed us an objectively identifiable value system that makes us all powerful and powerful enough to understand the universe and our place in it. Our god is not cold, he’s cool headed, reasonable, and he showed us how to be too. Hot heads, left floundering by their weak god, chop off heads.

 

[jonfawkes]

You think he has given you the universe and in a sense he has, but your god hasn’t shown you how it works and so you don’t understand it. That’s what makes your god so weak, you see. My people are so clever that we don’t have enemies and so we don’t have to go around chopping off heads. If a people tried to chop off our heads, we would ask them to desist and if they refused, then we would chop off their heads. However, we would still not conclude that the chooped off heads were inferior, only that the chopped off heads were not as good as us at chopping off heads and they should have known that beforehand. We value all heads equally, you see, because our god showed us their value. He gave us a value system that isn’t whimsical like the one your god gave you. Your god left it up to you and so you have concluded that your heads are superior and other heads sit atop enemy shoulders. That’s a result of the subjectivity your god left you floundering with. Our god showed us an objectively identifiable value system that makes us all powerful and powerful enough to understand the universe and our place in it. Our god is not cold, he’s cool headed, reasonable, and he showed us how to be too. Hot heads, left floundering by their weak god, chop off heads.

We know our place in the world - life comes from death, death comes from life. We kill our enemy because we respect him. We know he is a worthy enemy. We value life that is why we kill, to protect our own. We expect the same from our enemy.

Your god would rather see talk and die. your god is weak, he makes you weak.

 

[grannymh]

Yes, I understand where you are coming from. It is a subjective position based on your faith.

I thought that we could agree on a objective statement ( which I think we have ) and you could start from there.

human beings are living beings - so how can you show that they are “worthy of profound respect”? (outside a faith context, hopefully objectively )

To objectively show that a human person is worthy of profound respect is to state what human nature is–as it is in the external world. Human nature is an unique unification of the rational/corporeal, non-material/material. This is what you and I are.

As a demonstration (mentioned way back) consider a chair in a furniture store. Its value is stated on a price tag by the manager. I may disagree with that value and negotiate a discounted price. Did the chair itself change when its monetary value dropped?

Some of the reasons I may buy the chair are: it has a soothing color. It brings back memories of my childhood. I checked the manufacturer’s description and found that its material does not contain wool to which I am allergic. My friend, who is with me, reminds me that the chair’s soothing color will clash with the rug. Do I really want to go back to my childhood? And that velvet does not repel dirt like other materials. Of all these statements, which would be considered subjective because they proceed from a person’s mind rather than from the external world? Which statements would be considered objective because they pertain to the physical chair? Which statement can be considered both subjective and objective?

To be more accurate, I need to say that the proposition-- Each human person is worthy of profound respect is an objective truth. This objective truth is the foundation for a morality system because it concerns human persons who live in the external world and it does not proceed from or depend on a person’s internal mental activities or personal decisions and actions.

Blessings,
granny

“Amen, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.”
Luke 23: 33-43

 

[sidbrown]

The three cases you presented previously are not “simple” cases.

I guess that for you they are not simple cases according because they tend to show that morality is relative to the culture.
If morality were absolute, you would be able to tell me if these actions were morally right or morally wrong. But apparently you cannot do so. Isn’t this simply because these cases illustrate clearly the truth of moral relativism.