Moral Relativism

[grannymh]

Perhaps …moral relativism is filled with logic since its practice is based on subjective thinking. With some objectivism thrown in to make a better point.

Just kidding since the reality of how moral systems are actually determined is probably
a non-issue.

Blessings for Christmas,
granny

 

[Elijah_Baley]

You’re pretty sharp for a granny.

The above relates to the concept of objective as an adjective in the second definition “Having actual existence or reality” and the third definition “Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices” and as a noun in the first definition “Something that actually exists” American Heritage College Dictionary

I’ve never realized that depth of it before. Thank you much for elucidating absolutism. That’s why I love these discussion boards.

What I am trying to point out is that we need to understand that most of what we think is objective is actually based on someone practicing the theory of relativism.

That’s … less clear.

Furthermore, since so many people think subjectively, it is very difficult to actually put into words an objective truth.

Qualified agreement: That does not preclude the existence of an absolute truth, nor the possibility of us finding close approximations of this truth.

Personally, I do not know how to solve this dilemma. I do know that the Catholic Church uses objective thinking which in my humble opinion is the most logical way to answer life’s more serious questions such as what happens after our anatomy decomposes.

How do you figure the Catholic Church uses objective thinking? You said earlier that “so many people think subjectively.” Does the Church weed out subjective thinkers?

Moral Relativism cannot produce universal, objective answers – not because of what it says, but because of the way it is practiced.

Teach me. What do you mean?

 

[Steadfast_love]

So is there any help to bust his ‘logic’ and help my case?

Nope. Can’t be done. Logic can’t “bust” anyone out of Moral Relativism. Whatever logic you throw on them is based on something. It’s trivialy easy for a Moral Relativist to find and undermine that base and then all your logic crashes down around you ears. And if you’re naive enough to try anyway you’ll just wear yourself out. It’s an no win situation. Going after a moral relativist with logic is seductive, but it’s especialy enticing to somone who takes pride in their strong analytical skills. (Which is a nice way of saying you’re being played for a sucker.)

So here’s how to win: reverse your objective. Instead of trying to bust him out, try to lock him in. You can’t beat him, but he’s stuck having to make the choice between abandoning his moral relativism or being the wierdo who can’t figure out what’s wrong with stoning women to death. One is his defeat, the other is his Pyrrhic victory. You should treat either outcome as your victory.

 

[tonyrey]

Nope. Can’t be done. Logic can’t “bust” anyone out of Moral Relativism. Whatever logic you throw on them is based on something. It’s trivialy easy for a Moral Relativist to find and undermine that base and then all your logic crashes down around you ears. And if you’re naive enough to try anyway you’ll just wear yourself out. It’s an no win situation. Going after a moral relativist with logic is seductive, but it’s especialy enticing to somone who takes pride in their strong analytical skills. (Which is a nice way of saying you’re being played for a sucker.)

So here’s how to win: reverse your objective. Instead of trying to bust him out, try to lock him in. You can’t beat him, but he’s stuck having to make the choice between abandoning his moral relativism or being the wierdo who can’t figure out what’s wrong with stoning women to death. One is his defeat, the other is his Pyrrhic victory. You should treat either outcome as your victory.

Bravo! Very neat for a neophyte…

 

[jdwood983]

Which illogic, exactly? I actually enjoy arguing the logic of relativism. So which “illogic” do you mean?

What it boils down to is the assumptions and contradictions one has to make in moral relativism. My opponent believed in moral evolution using the altruism clause, when I pointed out that altruism is a moral position and not a biological one, he completely ignored the paragraph (fallacy of ignoring evidence).

He also believes that morals are instincts, which I also pointed out was not true and instead of responding to my questions of how he correlates the two, he again came up with ignoring my questions and making his own (fallacy of straw-man)–his new argument was that your wanting to protect your child from being murdered is your natural response to your moral opposition to murder and not the instinct of protecting your young.

But the bigger issue is the contradictions: this whole while he’s been assuming that Relativism really is right and Absolutism really is wrong, something he can’t do as a Relativist because he doesn’t believe in objective truths (at least about morality, he should believe in objective truths as a physicist), so there’s a practicing self-contradiction. But Relativism itself is self-contradictory because it’s supposed to be the opposite of absolute morality, but the opposite of absolute morality is no morality; so it’s not morals to a Relativist, just feelings. This is the heart of the illogic of Relativism, of which I pointed out in the latest exchange (to which he has still not responded).

 

[larkin31]

Nope. Can’t be done. Logic can’t “bust” anyone out of Moral Relativism.

Indeed not.

Whatever logic you throw on them is based on something. It’s trivialy easy for a Moral Relativist to find and undermine that base and then all your logic crashes down around you ears. And if you’re naive enough to try anyway you’ll just wear yourself out. It’s an no win situation. Going after a moral relativist with logic is seductive, but it’s especialy enticing to somone who takes pride in their strong analytical skills. (Which is a nice way of saying you’re being played for a sucker.)

Again, very astute.

So here’s how to win: reverse your objective. Instead of trying to bust him out, try to lock him in. You can’t beat him, but he’s stuck having to make the choice between abandoning his moral relativism or being the wierdo who can’t figure out what’s wrong with stoning women to death. One is his defeat, the other is his Pyrrhic victory. You should treat either outcome as your victory.

Again, true, but this is a tough pill to swallow for those theists who base their faith on the assumption that their belief in moral absolutes is based on an unshakable foundation of logic. I have met them here at CA.

ps: there is no moral absolute against execution (stoning of women). And it is not very difficult to explain how, in certain cultures with certain expectations around capital crime and executions, executions should be handled. Both for women and for men.

 

[larkin31]

What it boils down to is the assumptions and contradictions one has to make in moral relativism. My opponent believed in moral evolution using the altruism clause, when I pointed out that altruism is a moral position and not a biological one, he completely ignored the paragraph (fallacy of ignoring evidence).

He also believes that morals are instincts, which I also pointed out was not true and instead of responding to my questions of how he correlates the two, he again came up with ignoring my questions and making his own (fallacy of straw-man)–his new argument was that your wanting to protect your child from being murdered is your natural response to your moral opposition to murder and not the instinct of protecting your young.

But the bigger issue is the contradictions: this whole while he’s been assuming that Relativism really is right and Absolutism really is wrong, something he can’t do as a Relativist because he doesn’t believe in objective truths (at least about morality, he should believe in objective truths as a physicist), so there’s a practicing self-contradiction. But Relativism itself is self-contradictory because it’s supposed to be the opposite of absolute morality, but the opposite of absolute morality is no morality; so it’s not morals to a Relativist, just feelings. This is the heart of the illogic of Relativism, of which I pointed out in the latest exchange (to which he has still not responded).

It is not logically inconsistent to believe that moral absolutism is wrong.

And the opposite of absolute morality is not “no morality”. You are basing this claim on a definition that ASSUMES an absolute morality to begin with. But you can’t do this. You must ESTABLISH first the actual presence of this thing you call “absolute morality.” And if you base it on “God,” then you had better ESTABLISH the existence of “God” and not simply assume it.

 

[jdwood983]

Nope. Can’t be done. Logic can’t “bust” anyone out of Moral Relativism. Whatever logic you throw on them is based on something. It’s trivialy easy for a Moral Relativist to find and undermine that base and then all your logic crashes down around you ears. And if you’re naive enough to try anyway you’ll just wear yourself out. It’s an no win situation. Going after a moral relativist with logic is seductive, but it’s especialy enticing to somone who takes pride in their strong analytical skills. (Which is a nice way of saying you’re being played for a sucker.)

So here’s how to win: reverse your objective. Instead of trying to bust him out, try to lock him in. You can’t beat him, but he’s stuck having to make the choice between abandoning his moral relativism or being the wierdo who can’t figure out what’s wrong with stoning women to death. One is his defeat, the other is his Pyrrhic victory. You should treat either outcome as your victory.

Wish I had this tid-bit of information a few days ago when I responded. If/When my opponent responds, I’ll try my hand at this one. Thanks!

 

[inocente]

People disagree on how far the terms extend, but they do not disagree with the statement as a whole. Relativism says that “It is right to submit to rightful authority” and “it is right to flip the bird to rightful authority” and “there is no rightful authority” have equal value as moral principles.

Outright anarchism may be one extreme of the spectrum. Perhaps our views are relative to where we live? In Spain, traffic cops expect a group to form around them to debate the rightfulness of booking someone for double-parking. In Southern Europe it’s perfectly normal to protest government decisions seen as unjust, and on occasion even to collectively disobey such decisions.

 

[inocente]

If we have absolute trust in Christ’s example and His** teaching** it enables us to make all our moral decisions because He is the Model and on His principles we base our decisions.

Agreed but we’re looking at this as Christians. To a non-Christian we might as well say, along with Homer Simpson, you must trust in Jebus. It just doesn’t say anything to them because they don’t have all the good stuff in their heads.

All these refinements of the basic commands of Christ are covered by the absolute principle that we should choose the greater good or the lesser evil in the context of loving others.

Again, some non-Christians work on the basis of least harm rather than least evil, and may leave out the context of loving others completely. They may come to exactly the same conclusion in some cases, but via a very different route that starts from another set of principles.

 

[inocente]

Let’s start with an easier question: Are you not sure whether it applies here?? (You seem to be acting as if it doesn’t.)

Your failure to understand me is my fault, I apologize for apparently repeating myself in trying to discuss this. I did my best but with Christmas coming up let’s move on a pace. I may miss some of your points as I’m trying to juggle my responsibilities to CAF with helping my wife prepare for Christmas and she’s no longer accepting my attempts to hoist moral absolutes on her.

*normative *relativism is opposed to absolutism? *Descriptive *relativism is not, so it is at best tangentially relevant to our purposes here.]

I don’t see what that has to do with the price of bread - I’m arguing that it’s extremely hard to prove the presence of objective absolutes, and that it’s of little use or counter-productive when discussing real-world morality with those who are not in our particular choir.

That sound like another nonsense claim to me.

If we grew up in India we might believe Krishna is the true god. I have no objective means to say that any given person’s belief is the true belief. I can only do so via my own belief, which is circular.

That doesn’t make sense. The juridical split that happens after we die is based on the moral split that happens before we die. If it wasn’t, it would be arbitrary and unjust.

Given the basic tenet of most religions that all humanity is one, everyone is our brother and sister, we all start equal before God. The split of the sheep and goats is not based on our personal beliefs but on how we have behaved toward each other. I think that’s basically the teaching of the Church in that God is available to other religions as well as Catholics. I don’t see how it doesn’t make sense when I say that God is on everyone’s side, that he doesn’t give up on anyone, surely that’s fundamental?

I know that eating the flesh of other creatures is not intrinsically immoral; this *means *that it wasn’t in the past, isn’t now, and won’t be in the future.

And that’s not a subjective opinion? For the purposes of discussion, pretend I’m a Buddhist vegetarian.

There’s your “get-out clause” again, but I still don’t know what you’re talking about. Are you just blatantly begging the question?? “If morality is made up of absolutes, then we require a ‘get-out clause,’ since those absolutes will no longer hold in the future or didn’t hold in the past.” That’s a terrible argument, if that’s what you’re trying to say.

The historical evidence is that morality varies across cultures and changes over time, so to say that any given morality or principle is absolutely true requires a get-out clause of the type “I know God exists and I know the mind of God”. For the purposes of discussion, pretend I’m an atheist.

But we’re not talking about any of those systems of morality so that’s a red herring! We’re talking about moral absolutism vs. moral relativism. Moral absolutism does not entail that we have chosen one particular system for explaining moral justification and have put all our eggs in that basket! Do you understand that?

Different systems of morality reach differing conclusions. For example, the Aquinas natural law concludes that condoms are evil because he incorporates procreation in his catalog of goods. Other natural law philosophers don’t include procreation and reach a different conclusion. There is no universally acclaimed robust logic to say which is correct. We can inspect the reasoning in different systems, including holy books (our own is inconclusive here) to inform our personal decision about the morality of condoms, along with the effects that condoms have on society and so on, but then the general lack of agreement along with changes over time and between societies implies an absence of any absolute. You may have a strong opinion on something based on your faith, but that doesn’t demonstrate the presence of an absolute.

This is not about differing worldviews. It is about your fallacious reasoning and erroneous use of terms.

Imho this thread is exactly about differing worldviews. We may think condoms are eternally evil, or eternally good, or sometimes one and sometimes the other, or have no view, but we do so on the basis of our own judgment and our faith. Convincing those who are not of our faith of our correctness is accomplished by discussing the reasoning behind our judgment. We could instead try converting them all to our faith but that may take a little time. Once they’re all converted they may then believe in our absolutes, but meanwhile arguing absolutes with them is completely unproductive, which may or may not tell us something about whether absolutes really exist.

In any event, arguing for objective absolutes is essentially the same as debating how many angels fit on a pinhead in that it doesn’t get the job done in the real world.

 

[inocente]

Now, when it comes to the universal objective truth that the human person is worthy of profound respect, one should dig deeper regarding human nature. When one does that, one can find out that the human person has the ability to love all creatures along with the ability to choose how to act toward all of creation including responsible stewardship.

That’s a real neat formula which most people can probably agree on. I particularly like that it doesn’t mention God and therefore no group can claim ownership. Two minor points to avoid unnecessary objections: stewardship implies an agency gave us responsibility, maybe guardianship instead? And, of course, “principle” instead of “universal objective truth” .

 

[inocente]

Who in the world is arguing to the contrary on this point?

Oh, you must have met them - the guys who quote scripture or tradition without stopping to think that it’s meaningless to non-Christians, and then just repeat it louder as if.

A religious faith is not required to discern that we are obligated to do good and avoid evil.

Fully agree on your sentiment, but it’s relative to who gets to decide what we call good and what we call evil.

Huh? Who’s proposing that calling others names is a good way to convince atheists and Buddhists about the Truths of Christianity?

Not me for sure. But look around at Christians who award others badges on websites, forums, and so on - secularist, relativist, materialist, nihilist, socialist, etc. That works against convincing the average atheist or Buddhist. As you say, gentleness and respect works, and it would be useful if we all followed your example.

 

[larkin31]

Your failure to understand me is my fault, I apologize for apparently repeating myself in trying to discuss this. I did my best but with Christmas coming up let’s move on a pace. I may miss some of your points as I’m trying to juggle my responsibilities to CAF with helping my wife prepare for Christmas and she’s no longer accepting my attempts to hoist moral absolutes on her.

I don’t see what that has to do with the price of bread - I’m arguing that it’s extremely hard to prove the presence of objective absolutes, and that it’s of little use or counter-productive when discussing real-world morality with those who are not in our particular choir.

If we grew up in India we might believe Krishna is the true god. I have no objective means to say that any given person’s belief is the true belief. I can only do so via my own belief, which is circular.

Given the basic tenet of most religions that all humanity is one, everyone is our brother and sister, we all start equal before God. The split of the sheep and goats is not based on our personal beliefs but on how we have behaved toward each other. I think that’s basically the teaching of the Church in that God is available to other religions as well as Catholics. I don’t see how it doesn’t make sense when I say that God is on everyone’s side, that he doesn’t give up on anyone, surely that’s fundamental?

And that’s not a subjective opinion? For the purposes of discussion, pretend I’m a Buddhist vegetarian.

The historical evidence is that morality varies across cultures and changes over time, so to say that any given morality or principle is absolutely true requires a get-out clause of the type “I know God exists and I know the mind of God”. For the purposes of discussion, pretend I’m an atheist.

Different systems of morality reach differing conclusions. For example, the Aquinas natural law concludes that condoms are evil because he incorporates procreation in his catalog of goods. Other natural law philosophers don’t include procreation and reach a different conclusion. There is no universally acclaimed robust logic to say which is correct. We can inspect the reasoning in different systems, including holy books (our own is inconclusive here) to inform our personal decision about the morality of condoms, along with the effects that condoms have on society and so on, but then the general lack of agreement along with changes over time and between societies implies an absence of any absolute. You may have a strong opinion on something based on your faith, but that doesn’t demonstrate the presence of an absolute.

Imho this thread is exactly about differing worldviews. We may think condoms are eternally evil, or eternally good, or sometimes one and sometimes the other, or have no view, but we do so on the basis of our own judgment and our faith. Convincing those who are not of our faith of our correctness is accomplished by discussing the reasoning behind our judgment. We could instead try converting them all to our faith but that may take a little time. Once they’re all converted they may then believe in our absolutes, but meanwhile arguing absolutes with them is completely unproductive, which may or may not tell us something about whether absolutes really exist.

In any event, arguing for objective absolutes is essentially the same as debating how many angels fit on a pinhead in that it doesn’t get the job done in the real world.

Thank you for this wise post.

 

[PRmerger]

Oh, you must have met them - the guys who quote scripture or tradition without stopping to think that it’s meaningless to non-Christians, and then just repeat it louder as if.

This is really irrelevant to the discussion, though, eh? No need to bring in “the guys who quote Scripture or Tradition.” No one here is countenancing this tactic.

Fully agree on your sentiment, but it’s relative to who gets to decide what we call good and what we call evil.

You are now contradicting yourself. If one does not need a religious faith in order to discern what’s right and wrong then it presupposes that there is an objective moral truth that’s available (and discernible) to all. Objective. That which can be discerned by an objective (irrelegious) onlooker.

Not me for sure. But look around at Christians who award others badges on websites, forums, and so on - secularist, relativist, materialist, nihilist, socialist, etc. That works against convincing the average atheist or Buddhist. As you say, gentleness and respect works, and it would be useful if we all followed your example.

Again, irrelevant, inocente.

Bringing up these arguments is as productive as my saying, “People who worship the devil are not Christians!”. Ok. No one was proposing that they were. And, presumably, there are devil-worshippers who like to parade themselves as Christians. But so what?

 

[grannymh]

It is not logically inconsistent to believe that moral absolutism is wrong.

And the opposite of absolute morality is not “no morality”. You are basing this claim on a definition that ASSUMES an absolute morality to begin with. But you can’t do this. You must ESTABLISH first the actual presence of this thing you call “absolute morality.” And if you base it on “God,” then you had better ESTABLISH the existence of “God” and not simply assume it.

This is exactly why the human person is worthy of profound respect is the basis for morality because the presence of human nature has already been established.

 

[Elijah_Baley]

That hostility is going to ruin your life, you know.

ps: there is no moral absolute against execution (stoning of women). And it is not very difficult to explain how, in certain cultures with certain expectations around capital crime and executions, executions should be handled. Both for women and for men.

Of course not. That is an opinion conflating a extreme, twisted definitions of terms of several absolute moral principles:

• Criminals should be held to account.
• We should dress decently. (Presumably.)
• &c.

And these days it also involves an extreme opinion or ignores at least one other:

• Execution is valid when, if the subject is guilty and should continue to live, the community would be in serious danger.

Your viewpoint does not seem to understand the question, friend.

It is not logically inconsistent to believe that moral absolutism is wrong.

In practice, it is; it is ludicrous. By presuming that moral relativism is better than other ways to look at morality, you undermine the claim of relativism — that there is no best way to look at things, that all claims are valid. To rely on relativism for your own philosophy will undermine your ability to quarrel, a universal common trait of people which by existing also presupposes moral absolutes.

And the opposite of absolute morality is not “no morality”. You are basing this claim on a definition that ASSUMES an absolute morality to begin with. But you can’t do this. You must ESTABLISH first the actual presence of this thing you call “absolute morality.” And if you base it on “God,” then you had better ESTABLISH the existence of “God” and not simply assume it.

Maybe you’ve missed, but most people on this thread do believe in God, and so they can easily fit in the narrow gate to absolutism. God is the Axiom, and has already been established, His existence not being something questioned by either side of the debate.

If moral absolutes existed, there would be certain symptoms of these moral absolutes, right? Like those old canards: Moral law is written on the hearts of men, moral philosophies differ only in the definition of terms of absolute principles and an understanding how how far they extend, &c.

I challenge you: Name symptoms which should exist but don’t.

 

[jonfawkes]

Morality is self preservation for the “in-group” - How far you extend “in-ness” is the question. “don’t kill” we don’t want people running around killing each other, it makes our group weak. but we do want to kill in war, because they are “other”.

Everything is this way - Don’t have premarital sex, you may have a baby and don’t have the support in place to care for it, (spouse and extended family) you and your child will drain community resources. You are damaging your self and the group.

Etc and so forth.

 

[PRmerger]

Morality is self preservation for the “in-group”

Nope.

Catholics profess that morality is that which moves us toward the good and avoiding that which moves us toward the bad. That is, that which is in concert with the Divine Will, moves us towards the good and is therefore moral.

 

[jonfawkes]

Nope.

Catholics profess that morality is that which moves us toward the good and avoiding that which moves us toward the bad. That is, that which is in concert with the Divine Will, moves us towards the good and is therefore moral.

It’s very nice to spout dogma but it doesn’t speak to those to don’t share the faith, which is where I thought the direction of the discussion was in. No need to preach to the choir.

Try it - take something that is “moral” and see how it relates to self preservation of the “in-group” -

This means it could be a morality of one or the whole human race or the world entire. It’s depends on how big do you see your group.