Moral Relativism

[fhansen]

I’m not sure I see what you mean by this. Are you suggesting that, without God, moral values are just personal preferences of human beings, such as we might prefer one color over another? I suppose in a certain sense that really is all they are—though of course we usually care a great deal more about moral issues than color issues. Do you have some kind of argument showing that they must be something more than personal preferences?

If moral values were no more than personal preferences, then could we ever truly justify having moral outrage/righteous indignation? Wouldn’t we be rather silly and illogical for condemning genocide as being less moral than preferring green to red? Or, at least, on what grounds would I claim that one is more morally relevant than the other?

 

[Elijah_Baley]

That’s what I mean about having no universally accepted source. If we can only know who was right when we die then none of us can claim to know moral absolutes while here on Earth.

But you accept the meaningfulness and the existence of moral absolutes? That makes you an absolutist, doesn’t it?

And it isn’t like Baptists and Catholics have a great many differences morally. Catholics are old-school eternal moral absolutes, I know. Where do Baptists disagree?

There are no distinctively Baptist views on specific moral questions. Baptists share in most of the views, as well as the diversity, associated with Christian ethics in general. However, the ways in which Baptists approach moral thought and action reflect their emphasis upon the Bible–and, within the Bible, their emphasis on the New Testament over the Old Testament–as well as their emphasis on individual responsibility.

Huh. Do Baptists disagree?

Humanity has always agreed on these moral absolutes. Mesoamericans found the Aztecs appalling for the same reason Israelites found the Amalekites appalling. In most cultures are the same principles again and again.

 

[The_Exodus]

This argument only works if we add, “but moral values are not personal preferences,” and I don’t see any reason to do that. What is so intolerable about concluding that values are, like all other values, dependent the person doing the valuing? Frankly, I don’t even know what it means to suggest otherwise.

Well, logically there is nothing “intolerable” about it.

But again, if this view is correct, it’s just as “true” or “right” for me to find the system itself tolerable or intolerable.
hats:

The implication here seems to be that since moral values are very important to us, then they cannot reduce merely to subjective preferences. But why can’t we take our own preferences to be important to us? Can we only have weak preferences, but never strong preferences? This seems to me to be an untenable line of argument.

We can, but, then again, we cannot. And there is no reason for taking them as important or not, no reason for going one way or the other, besides personal preference. Hence, your entire point becomes, in the end, a matter of “taste” so to speak.

 

[grannymh]

I haven’t found this to be case - more an attitude of we are an equal part of the world rather than the pinnacle. I found non-theist morality based on the idea of social harmony a la Kant’s categorical imperative.

Can you cite a reference?

Good points.

I am used to generally viewing life as a positive because the non-theists I know are wonderful people. I should have said that non-theists are capable of seeing the human person as worthy of profound respect and they often do so. Non-theist scientists usually see the human living organism as different in degrees from non-human living organisms because a spiritual side of human nature is not considered.

I just deleted the rest of my reply because it didn’t make sense even to me.
I will get back to you later.

Blessings,
granny

John 3: 16-17

 

[hatsoff]

Well, logically there is nothing “intolerable” about it.

But again, if this view is correct, it’s just as “true” or “right” for me to find the system itself tolerable or intolerable.

We can, but, then again, we cannot. And there is no reason for taking them as important or not, no reason for going one way or the other, besides personal preference. Hence, your entire point becomes, in the end, a matter of “taste” so to speak.

So, in other words, it’s not that there must be some kind of transcendence to moral values (whatever that might mean), but rather that if there is not, then morality is a matter of subjective human values. However, the OP seemed interested in actually showing that morality is not merely a matter of subjective values.

 

[The_Exodus]

So, in other words, it’s not that there must be some kind of transcendence to moral values (whatever that might mean), but rather that if there is not, then morality is a matter of subjective human values. However, the OP seemed interested in actually showing that morality is not merely a matter of subjective values.

A few things here.

The OP seemed to me to want to somehow combat his opponent’s claims. My point is to show that his opponents claims regarding morality – or value in general – are no more true than his own, on his opponent’s worldview.

Now, since value is what is in question, what follows from this is that the opponent can give no reason for not believing in God, even if God were thought not to exist. For there is no reason why we “ought not” to believe in something we cannot prove, or something which we may doubt the existence of. Even an appeal to truth – e.g. we ought to believe what we think true – is senseless, if value is left up to personal preference. Why not allow someone to believe in something that may be false?

Granting all this, the opponent did not even show or give reason to believe God does not exist in the first place, so my point above is somewhat irrelevant. I only wanted to show that, even if an opponent did show that, it would not follow therefore that one “ought not” to believe in God anyway.

 

[grannymh]

I haven’t found this to be case - more an attitude of we are an equal part of the world rather than the pinnacle. I found non-theist morality based on the idea of social harmony a la Kant’s categorical imperative.

Can you cite a reference?

A reference regarding the pinnacle of creation would be any research project comparing the human species to an animal species like my cousin Chilly Chimp. At the moment, my favorite research paper is “Basic Math in Monkeys and College Students” plosbiology.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0050328

The underlying thought of this research and other similar ones is that humans are different only by degrees from other animals. While the monkeys compared favorably with the college students, common sense would offer that there are humans who are higher on the degree scale when it comes to math used in physics. Music enjoyed in acoustically engineered buildings is higher in degrees than that of alley cats at night. Even though my atheist discussion partner changed alley cats to evening song birds, humans still had the edge in degrees. Thus, some could see humans as the pinnacle of creation based on the degree scale.

It is my observation that many non-theist morality principles are discovered through relativism and subjective thinking. Some seem to merge, e.g., as I understand Utilitarianism, social harmony would be an useful and productive goal. Basically, the various philosophers are considering the needs of the people near at hand. There is nothing wrong with that except when the near at hand clashes with the goal of those afar. Regardless, most people consider their special group of people as worthy of respect.

Now, if one wishes to help the O.P. then a common ground needs to be determined. The common denominator is the human person. When people of any faith or no faith look in the mirror, they still see a human person and not an alley cat or an evening song bird. This is why I consider that the basis for morality is that the human person is worthy of profound respect.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for truth is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

 

[jonfawkes]

A reference regarding the pinnacle of creation would be any research project comparing the human species to an animal species like my cousin Chilly Chimp. At the moment, my favorite research paper is “Basic Math in Monkeys and College Students” plosbiology.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0050328

The underlying thought of this research and other similar ones is that humans are different only by degrees from other animals. While the monkeys compared favorably with the college students, common sense would offer that there are humans who are higher on the degree scale when it comes to math used in physics. Music enjoyed in acoustically engineered buildings is higher in degrees than that of alley cats at night. Even though my atheist discussion partner changed alley cats to evening song birds, humans still had the edge in degrees. Thus, some could see humans as the pinnacle of creation based on the degree scale.

It is my observation that many non-theist morality principles are discovered through relativism and subjective thinking. Some seem to merge, e.g., as I understand Utilitarianism, social harmony would be an useful and productive goal. Basically, the various philosophers are considering the needs of the people near at hand. There is nothing wrong with that except when the near at hand clashes with the goal of those afar. Regardless, most people consider their special group of people as worthy of respect.

Now, if one wishes to help the O.P. then a common ground needs to be determined. The common denominator is the human person. When people of any faith or no faith look in the mirror, they still see a human person and not an alley cat or an evening song bird. This is why I consider that the basis for morality is that the human person is worthy of profound respect.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for truth is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

The examples are of things that we do well. We aren’t the epitome of flying or swimming or a host of other traits. We should value our self. It is relativistic still though. It’s how big yo want to make the sphere. Our species, all species, the earth, etc. or how small all humanity, our race or religion or country or family or just our selves. It’s all still relative.

 

[JDaniel]

This seems to me incredible. On the contrary, all we need is agreement on a principle in order to construct a persuasive argument. The source of that principle can be anything—including, for instance, personal preference. Consider:

(1) We shouldn’t eat fattening foods.
(2) Summer sausage is a fattening food.
(3) Therefore, we shouldn’t eat summer sausage.

Depending on the audience, this argument might play fairly persuasively at Christmas parties, but that doesn’t mean (1) is some kind of transcendent principle of the universe.

Also, please note that we can construct arguments without even simple agreement; only they are unlikely to be persuasive.

Hello, Hatsoff:

But that isn’t necessarily true. Take the specter of abortion. In the US, I have seen numbers that indicate that the pros and cons are either 50 - 50, or, slightly in favor of the cons. If the latter is the case - and, even if the former is the case - simple agreement is clearly insufficient.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

This argument only works if we add, “but moral values are not personal preferences,” and I don’t see any reason to do that. What is so intolerable about concluding that values are, like all other values, dependent the person doing the valuing? Frankly, I don’t even know what it means to suggest otherwise.

The implication here seems to be that since moral values are very important to us, then they cannot reduce merely to subjective preferences. But why can’t we take our own preferences to be important to us? Can we only have weak preferences, but never strong preferences? This seems to me to be an untenable line of argument.

Hatsoff:

I have a sneaking suspicion that Hitler’s thought process was identical.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Good points.

I am used to generally viewing life as a positive because the non-theists I know are wonderful people. I should have said that non-theists are capable of seeing the human person as worthy of profound respect and they often do so. Non-theist scientists usually see the human living organism as different in degrees from non-human living organisms because a spiritual side of human nature is not considered.
I just deleted the rest of my reply because it didn’t make sense even to me.
I will get back to you later.

Blessings,
granny

John 3: 16-17

Grannymh!

I’m not sure if the bolded and greened words make sense! Could you please re-word?

God bless,
jd

 

[hatsoff]

But that isn’t necessarily true. Take the specter of abortion. In the US, I have seen numbers that indicate that the pros and cons are either 50 - 50, or, slightly in favor of the cons. If the latter is the case - and, even if the former is the case - simple agreement is clearly insufficient.

I don’t see how you have concluded that agreement on premisses is sufficient to make a valid argument persuasive. I suppose there might be some folks out there who can’t quite grasp basic rules of deductive inference, but what has abortion got to do with it?

I have a sneaking suspicion that Hitler’s thought process was identical.

The only reason I can imagine for thinking this is that you are under the impression that moral relativism is some kind of slippery slope to moral evil. It is not—and even if it were, that would not change the fact that morality derives in large part from our subjective values.

 

[Elijah_Baley]

I have a sneaking suspicion that Hitler’s thought process was identical.

Not quite a Hitler quote, but close:

Everything I have said and done is these last years is relativism, by intuition. From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology, and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable. If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories, and men who claim to be the bearers of an objective immortal truth, then there is nothing more relativistic than fascism.

— Benito Mussolini​

From Kreeft’s Refutation.

 

[inocente]

There’s a school of thought that says anyone using reductio ad Hitler should automatically lose any debate as per Godwin’s Law of Nazi Analogies.

 

[inocente]

Music enjoyed in acoustically engineered buildings is higher in degrees than that of alley cats at night. Even though my atheist discussion partner changed alley cats to evening song birds, humans still had the edge in degrees.

This Baptist/atheist discussion partner didn’t mention wolves or whales then, both species producing hauntingly beautiful improvisations without recourse to scales or tempos? Granted, they don’t appreciate Bach as their jazz has moved beyond the rules that confine human music, having achieved pinnacle-ness (pinnaclity?) on their own terms.

The common denominator is the human person. When people of any faith or no faith look in the mirror, they still see a human person and not an alley cat or an evening song bird. This is why I consider that the basis for morality is that the human person is worthy of profound respect.

Agreed, if respecting humans then engenders respect for other creatures and the world, otherwise it seems like a recipe for paving over the planet with Starbucks.

 

[inocente]

Huh. Do Baptists disagree?

We each make up our own mind - the Baptist creed is rather minimal, being little more than the terse “Jesus is Lord”.

In Romans 2:14-15 Paul says, in an aside, that we each work things out for ourselves using the law written on our hearts. The law is compassion, Jesus majors on compassion not on rule-books. We have this built-in process for determining what is good, our thoughts sometimes accusing us and at other times defending us. We are not isolated in this process, we draw on each other and on Christ (and the Bible in total, not by picking at verses out of context). We try to come to agreement, but we are allowed and indeed required not to blindly follow the herd (shades of Rom 14 – “everything that does not come from faith is sin”). God then judges us not with a tick list but on how well we form and use our conscience.

I know some theologians read Rom 2:14-15 very differently and construct a towering edifice of moral absolutes on top of it, but I then ask why did God give us a conscience and why does Jesus go out of His way to not give us a rule-book, e.g. in Luke 10:25-37.

If we had moral absolutes written on our hearts then, for example, all Christians would have exactly the same view on contraception, when in reality not even sincere Catholics agree. To take another example, some say it’s absolutely wrong to kill but then exempt soldiers killing according to rules of war, or even exempt executioners in some states. In the real world there are no knowable moral absolutes, even though much morality is common across cultures because of what is written on all healthy hearts.

 

[hatsoff]

Not quite a Hitler quote, but close:

Everything I have said and done is these last years is relativism, by intuition. From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology, and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable. If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories, and men who claim to be the bearers of an objective immortal truth, then there is nothing more relativistic than fascism.

— Benito Mussolini​

From Kreeft’s Refutation.

I wouldn’t be surprised if that quote turned out to be spurious. I can find no citation from either Kreeft or Google. But let’s go ahead and suppose that it is authentic. Okay. What does it have to do with the present discussion? Clearly Mussolini’s relativism, which regards “all ideologies” as “mere fictions;” which declares boldly that all people have the right to “enforce” their pet ideologies as far as they are able; for which Italian fascism is apparently an ideal model; is nothing like the moral relativism espoused today by skeptics such as myself. If you think that my own position resembles in any of these ways the position of that infamous dictator, then it means only that you have not taken the time to understand my position, and therefore have no ability of speaking to its truth or falsity, appropriateness or inappropriateness, usefulness or non-usefulness, etc.

 

[jdwood983]

I wouldn’t be surprised if that quote turned out to be spurious. I can find no citation from either Kreeft or Google. But let’s go ahead and suppose that it is authentic. Okay. What does it have to do with the present discussion? Clearly Mussolini’s relativism, which regards “all ideologies” as “mere fictions;” which declares boldly that all people have the right to “enforce” their pet ideologies as far as they are able; for which Italian fascism is apparently an ideal model; is nothing like the moral relativism espoused today by skeptics such as myself. If you think that my own position resembles in any of these ways the position of that infamous dictator, then it means only that you have not taken the time to understand my position, and therefore have no ability of speaking to its truth or falsity, appropriateness or inappropriateness, usefulness or non-usefulness, etc.

I did a Google search of the first line of the quote and it pops up on wiki quote, indicating that Mussolini was quoted: Diuturna [The Lasting] (1921) as quoted in Rational Man : A Modern Interpretation of Aristotelian Ethics (1962) by H. B. Veatch. Not sure about your Google search, but I didn’t come up empty.

Mussolini’s relativism is the same as modern relativism. To a relativist, there is no moral truth and that all belief systems are of equal value (that is, are equally worthless) and that is exactly what Mussolini says. The difference between Mussolini and you (plural) is that he tried to actually practice what he preached, rather than not practicing what he preached.

 

[gentle_atheist]

There’s a school of thought that says anyone using reductio ad Hitler should automatically lose any debate as per Godwin’s Law of Nazi Analogies.

An excellent post that deserves to be re-posted!

 

[hatsoff]

I did a Google search of the first line of the quote and it pops up on wiki quote, indicating that Mussolini was quoted: Diuturna [The Lasting] (1921) as quoted in Rational Man : A Modern Interpretation of Aristotelian Ethics (1962) by H. B. Veatch. Not sure about your Google search, but I didn’t come up empty.

Thanks for the citation, but of course we can’t stop there. The next step is to actually check this Diuturna.

Mussolini’s relativism is the same as modern relativism. To a relativist, there is no moral truth and that all belief systems are of equal value (that is, are equally worthless) and that is exactly what Mussolini says. The difference between Mussolini and you (plural) is that he tried to actually practice what he preached, rather than not practicing what he preached.

Moral relativism says nothing about the equal or unequal value of belief systems, nor any of the positions described in the Mussolini quote. Even if it did, then I would only be guilty of using the wrong label to describe myself—for clearly I vehemently disagree with Mussolini’s position. My own position is essentially that, firstly, moral values, like all values, depend on the people doing the valuing; and secondly, that moral codes are standards which are not universal, nor ultimately true or false, but that like all standards, moral codes are either attractive or unattractive, useful or not useful, popular or unpopular, etc.

Under the circumstances, it may be beneficial for you to have a look at this page.