Moral Relativism

[sidbrown]

I haven’t taken the time to read all of the posts on this thread (too many of them). Has anybody pointed out the simple fact that moral relativism is logically inconsistant - it is self-contradictory.

For example, the old saying that there is an exception to every rule. This statement is itself a rule, and if there is an exception to every rule there must be an exception to this one also. Therefore there must exist a rule which has no exception. And thus the original statement “there is an exception to every rule” contradicts itself and cannot be true.

Moral Relativism is the same; it bascially says that there are no absolutes and that therefore person A cannot tell person B that he is wrong. Yet in telling person A that he cannot tell person B that he is wrong, you are in fact telling person A that he is wrong which violates the whole premise of moral relativism, i.e. it is self-contradictory and therefore cannot be true.

This relates to the problem in logic of self-referential statements, but does not answer some of the questions that have come up in the area of whether or not there is a relative or subjective element to moral issues. For example, what is the definition of right and wrong? One poster implies that it is intuitively obvious, but is it really? If everyone knows what is right and what is wrong then how come there have been so many disagreements on the issue. Let me give you a few examples, and ask you if these were right or wrong. It doesn’t matter which way you answer, because there are those who will vehemently defend the opposite point of view:
The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Capital punishment today
Torture to extract confessions
Slavery
Abortion in the case of a raped nine year old girl whose life is threatened by the pregnancy.
Burning of heretics at the stake.
Why then, if morality is absolute, and if everyone knows what is right and what is wrong, do we have such a strong disagreement on the morality of these issues?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

sidebrown

*Why then, if morality is absolute, and if everyone knows what is right and what is wrong, do we have such a strong disagreement on the morality of these issues? *

Being torn between two contradictory ways of behavior is not evidence that in every case either way of behaving is right.

That some thought Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified does not mean that those who thought it was unjustified were wrong. Either the act was right or it was wrong. Truman came down on the side of right. Pope Pius XII came down on the side of wrong.

Pius XII was right. You do not, in wartime, rain down destruction and death indiscriminately on whole cities and their tens of thousands of innocent occupants.

In ancient Greece, long before the Catholic Church was established, such warlike behavior as total annihilation was considered more typical of savagesthan of noble warriors.

 

[grannymh]

Why then, if morality is absolute, and if everyone knows what is right and what is wrong, do we have such a strong disagreement on the morality of these issues?

Because morality in itself is not a thing.

 

[John21652]

Your god has tricked you - you seek freedom from the world, my god shows me I am part of the world and belong here. You are destined for misery with promises from your god of something greater later, the gift from our god is here and now.

P.S. how long is your hair? Longer is better, helps get it out of the pot.

I have come to the realisation that you, johnfawkes, are a descendant of a fellow named Guy. Rather than join in a meaningful dialogue by answering directly, you just blow up an argument by sidestepping. In our little headhunter series you lambasted one man’s god as being a Jewish god and then promptly quoted that particular god to prove a point and finished by stateing “this god likes heads too”. You say your tribe inherited a universe, and avoid the argument that it operates and functions in an objective manner. You wrote that your god showed you that you were part of the world and belong here. That, I take it, is headhunter speak for Empiricism? (I bet you don’t tell your tribe about that little concept!) You do not even deny the existence of objective, discernable, universal truths, yet you avoid the argument that the universe your god gave you is held together by, and operates according to, objective laws. Now you want to get measurements of my head so you can cook it in a pot. If it is the case that objective laws do not exist, then not only will you have no means of chopping off my head, you wont even be able to light a fire under the cooking pot. I take it the pot is non-combustible? Another mystery! My head cooking in your pot will be nothing more than a subjective delusion experienced by one of us and it wont be me!

Now I am going to ask you a direct question. Answer carefully, because your future as leader of your headhunting tribe is at stake. You crash and burn and the ‘god’ who burdened you with your subjective reality falls too. There will be gnashing of teeth and your temples will fall. Not to mention the cooking pot falling and cracking.

Is the universe and the world you said you belong in held together with objective laws discoverable through the use of reason?

 

[jonfawkes]

I have come to the realisation that you, johnfawkes, are a descendant of a fellow named Guy. Rather than join in a meaningful dialogue by answering directly, you just blow up an argument by sidestepping. In our little headhunter series you lambasted one man’s god as being a Jewish god and then promptly quoted that particular god to prove a point and finished by stateing “this god likes heads too”. You say your tribe inherited a universe, and avoid the argument that it operates and functions in an objective manner. You wrote that your god showed you that you were part of the world and belong here. That, I take it, is headhunter speak for Empiricism? (I bet you don’t tell your tribe about that little concept!) You do not even deny the existence of objective, discernable, universal truths, yet you avoid the argument that the universe your god gave you is held together by, and operates according to, objective laws. Now you want to get measurements of my head so you can cook it in a pot. If it is the case that objective laws do not exist, then not only will you have no means of chopping off my head, you wont even be able to light a fire under the cooking pot. I take it the pot is non-combustible? Another mystery! My head cooking in your pot will be nothing more than a subjective delusion experienced by one of us and it wont be me!

Now I am going to ask you a direct question. Answer carefully, because your future as leader of your headhunting tribe is at stake. You crash and burn and the ‘god’ who burdened you with your subjective reality falls too. There will be gnashing of teeth and your temples will fall. Not to mention the cooking pot falling and cracking.

Is the universe and the world you said you belong in held together with objective laws discoverable through the use of reason?

I am not a leader of the tribe. Is your god the jewish one as well? The divine advocate of beheadings? See my god isn’t the only one that likes heads. Kind of shoots down “the true nature” principle, huh.

Whomever he may be, your god has you very confused.

You confuse empirical evidence with subjective interpretation. We can see there is a fire, the context makes it a tool or a hazard. We are of this world, we know fire can burn.

P.s. do have any piercings - do you want any (or more) they’ll look nice when mounted. We use metal and quartz it sparkles in the fire light.

Remember, Remember…

 

[John21652]

I am not a leader of the tribe. Is your god the jewish one as well? The divine advocate of beheadings? See my god isn’t the only one that likes heads. Kind of shoots down “the true nature” principle, huh.

Whomever he may be, your god has you very confused.

You confuse empirical evidence with subjective interpretation. We can see there is a fire, the context makes it a tool or a hazard. We are of this world, we know fire can burn.

P.s. do have any piercings - do you want any (or more) they’ll look nice when mounted. We use metal and quartz it sparkles in the fire light.

Remember, Remember…

There is but one God and he is my God. Your god has, as I have already pointed out to you, is little more than the rumblings of your stomach, whose omnipotence and veracity varies according to the time of day.

Being of the Ambassador class of my tribe, I shall patiently ignore you interpretations and gross assumptions (the paucity of your historical knowledge in paragraph one and your great leap of logic in paragraph three - your tummy must be rumbling ) and ask the question once again.

Is the universe and the world you said you belong in held together with objective laws discoverable through the use of reason?

And just what is that cooking pot of yours made from? You mentioned metal. If it’s real, what substance is it, where did it come from and how did you fashion it? And the fire under the pot, which you say is real, what makes it burn?

 

[jonfawkes]

There is but one God and he is my God. Your god has, as I have already pointed out to you, is little more than the rumblings of your stomach, whose omnipotence and veracity varies according to the time of day.

Being of the Ambassador class of my tribe, I shall patiently ignore you interpretations and gross assumptions (the paucity of your historical knowledge in paragraph one and your great leap of logic in paragraph three - your tummy must be rumbling ) and ask the question once again.

Is the universe and the world you said you belong in held together with objective laws discoverable through the use of reason?

And just what is that cooking pot of yours made from? You mentioned metal. If it’s real, what substance is it, where did it come from and how did you fashion it? And the fire under the pot, which you say is real, what makes it burn?

I am sorry I can’t hear you over your cultural arrogance and conceit. Does your god teach you this? ( and you think I’m making enemies by killing mine )

Even your god thinks there are other gods

[BIBLEDRB]exodus 34:14 [/BIBLEDRB]

I have answered your question - we know there is fire, whether it is a tool or a hazard depends on context. Metal sits in the rock, until we fashion it. Subjective manipulation of an empirical object.

P.S. Piercings?

 

[William2415]

This relates to the problem in logic of self-referential statements, but does not answer some of the questions that have come up in the area of whether or not there is a relative or subjective element to moral issues. For example, what is the definition of right and wrong? One poster implies that it is intuitively obvious, but is it really? If everyone knows what is right and what is wrong then how come there have been so many disagreements on the issue. Let me give you a few examples, and ask you if these were right or wrong. It doesn’t matter which way you answer, because there are those who will vehemently defend the opposite point of view:
The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Capital punishment today
Torture to extract confessions
Slavery
Abortion in the case of a raped nine year old girl whose life is threatened by the pregnancy.
Burning of heretics at the stake.
Why then, if morality is absolute, and if everyone knows what is right and what is wrong, do we have such a strong disagreement on the morality of these issues?

I realize that there are disagreements in practice as to what is right and what is wrong. I was merely pointing out that it is easy to get past the idea that there are no absolutes. There are moral absolutes; thus you can now actually address the question of what is the correct moral position rather than endlessly debating whether or not there is a correct position. Some people use moral relativism as a red herring to sidetrack real debate about right and wrong, and many people unknowingly fall into this trap. I just wanted to let people avoid this particular trap.
I never said that “everyone knows what is right and what is wrong”. Some people are truly just ignorant of either the facts or the moral principles and just need to be educated, others have a poorly formed conscience and some people unfornately operate out of self interest or greed or whatever. Such is the state of our fallen nature.

 

[jonfawkes]

There are moral absolutes

Wonderful - Please show them, and how we know that they are absolute.

 

[John21652]

I am sorry I can’t hear you over your cultural arrogance and conceit. Does your god teach you this? ( and you think I’m making enemies by killing mine )

Even your god thinks there are other gods

[bibledrb]exodus 34:14 [/bibledrb]

I have answered your question - we know there is fire, whether it is a tool or a hazard depends on context. Metal sits in the rock, until we fashion it. Subjective manipulation of an empirical object.

P.S. Piercings?

Hmmmm. The disapprobation you espouse is a common reaction my tribe experiences when others are confronted by realities which frighten and confuse them when we meet. However, do not fear, for the truth is enlightening. All you have to fear is the rest of your tribe lined up behind you with raised spears wondering why their spokesman wont answer a few basic questions.

Quoting a god you denounced is no defense of your position. It sort of makes your tribe wonder about your information sources.

One of your members is really concerned about your description of the making of your cooking pot as being “subjective manipulation of an empirical object”. After all, you sent him to school because those metal cooking pots had to be made a certain way. You wouldn’t let him make one his way. You told him he had to understand certain things so he could make cooking pots out of metal. If it is subjective manipulation, he wants to know, why did he have to do it your way?

Anyway, they wish to know why you wont, or can’t, answer this quaestion -

“Is the universe and the world you said you belong in held together with objective laws discoverable through the use of reason?”

PS: No earings. Piercing of the body is mutilation. We will try and talk you out of that disgusting habit.

 

[jonfawkes]

Hmmmm. The disapprobation you espouse is a common reaction my tribe experiences when others are confronted by realities which frighten and confuse them when we meet. However, do not fear, for the truth is enlightening. All you have to fear is the rest of your tribe lined up behind you with raised spears wondering why their spokesman wont answer a few basic questions.

Quoting a god you denounced is no defense of your position. It sort of makes your tribe wonder about your information sources.

One of your members is really concerned about your description of the making of your cooking pot as being “subjective manipulation of an empirical object”. After all, you sent him to school because those metal cooking pots had to be made a certain way. You wouldn’t let him make one his way. You told him he had to understand certain things so he could make cooking pots out of metal. If it is subjective manipulation, he wants to know, why did he have to do it your way?

Anyway, they wish to know why you wont, or can’t, answer this quaestion -

“Is the universe and the world you said you belong in held together with objective laws discoverable through the use of reason?”

PS: No earings. Piercing of the body is mutilation. We will try and talk you out of that disgusting habit.

Projecting your confusion isn’t healthy. It makes men with spears laugh. Especially when “the one god” talks of other gods.

Our craftsmen learn what makes a pot strong, the rest is artistic interpretation. We’re no tyrants here. Call out the metal pot police :bluelite:

The world can be known - we know it. We live in it. We are part of it.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

jonfawkes

*Wonderful - Please show them, and how we know that they are absolute. *

Here is one moral absolute:

It is wrong to torture people for our pleasure.

Please cite an instance in which it may be right, and explain how you know it is right.

Remember, you present yourself as a Catholic, so you can’t use cat logic here.

 

[davidv]

Wonderful - Please show them, and how we know that they are absolute.

To quote granny,

“The human person is worthy of profound respect.”

This is an absolute as no relationship to others nor relationship to time or space affects the worth of the human person.

 

[larkin31]

To quote granny,

“The human person is worthy of profound respect.”

This is an absolute as no relationship to others nor relationship to time or space affects the worth of the human person.

This was not true before homo sapiens existed, nor did it have the same meaning before English was spoken.

I like it, though. And I agree with the general import of it. It is an excellent value!

 

[davidv]

This was not true before homo sapiens existed, nor did it have the same meaning before English was spoken.

I like it, though. And I agree with the general import of it. It is an excellent value!

Even if spoken of in the future, or in another language it is still true.

 

[John21652]

Projecting your confusion isn’t healthy. It makes men with spears laugh. Especially when “the one god” talks of other gods.

Our craftsmen learn what makes a pot strong, the rest is artistic interpretation. We’re no tyrants here. Call out the metal pot police :bluelite:

The world can be known - we know it. We live in it. We are part of it.

As King of the subjective tribe, your position is in danger of being lost to you. You can’t, or wont explain, why it is that pot making is more than “subjective interpretation”.

You made the statement that “The world can be known. We know it.”

In light of that statement you should not have any problem answering my original question, which is -

“Is the universe and the world you said you belong in held together with objective laws discoverable through the use of reason?”

Can you answer that question?

 

[Betterave]

I realize that there are disagreements in practice as to what is right and what is wrong. I was merely pointing out that it is easy to get past the idea that there are no absolutes. There are moral absolutes; thus you can now actually address the question of what is the correct moral position rather than endlessly debating whether or not there is a correct position. Some people use moral relativism as a red herring to sidetrack real debate about right and wrong, and many people unknowingly fall into this trap. I just wanted to let people avoid this particular trap.
I never said that “everyone knows what is right and what is wrong”. Some people are truly just ignorant of either the facts or the moral principles and just need to be educated, others have a poorly formed conscience and some people unfornately operate out of self interest or greed or whatever. Such is the state of our fallen nature.

It’s a good point, but indeed, we have reviewed the obvious non sequitur you allude to:

We don’t know everything about X; therefore no real X exists (just arbitrary social constructs that fill the role of X).
or
Some people don’t know X; therefore X isn’t true (it’s just opinion or social convention).

inocente, jonfawkes, and sidbrown seem to not grasp that these are silly arguments, no matter how many times it is pointed out to them.

 

[Betterave]

If they are abstract they have no meaning.

Non sequitur.

If they are understood by all competent language users there must be a working definition.

Obviously!

What is “right” and what “wrong” is subjective to the values of the speaker.

Begging the question.

They are qualitative terms. So it matters who is defining “right” and “wrong”.

Another non sequitur.

 

[Betterave]

When one goes back to the origin of humanity in order to understand our own human nature, we find that God is the Someone Who defined the right way and wrong way Adam needed to act.

When one does that… But how does one do that? Unless you have some details to fill in, this doesn’t seem like very helpful advice.

 

[jonfawkes]

As King of the subjective tribe, your position is in danger of being lost to you. You can’t, or wont explain, why it is that pot making is more than “subjective interpretation”.

You made the statement that “The world can be known. We know it.”

In light of that statement you should not have any problem answering my original question, which is -

“Is the universe and the world you said you belong in held together with objective laws discoverable through the use of reason?”

Can you answer that question?

I guess your god has you so confused that you can’t recognize an answer when it’s given.

The world can be known through reason. Our understanding grows as our knowledge grows. We are in progress. Change is the only constant.

Let me ask you a question - if your god is so into the inherent worth of the individual, why is individual interpretation so threatening?