Moral Relativism

[PRmerger]

Cultures are similar with in proximity,

Not necessarily. The Philippines is in close proximity to China. Do you know what the Chinese were doing in the 5th century compared to what the Philippines was doing?

It’s like comparing Shakespeare with this

http://www.francescaamendolia.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/plea-to-dumbledore.jpg

 

[PRmerger]

between 500-600 years depending on what dates you use.

Huh.

So like the time from the sack of Constantinople to today?

 

[Betterave]

I don’t use the ignore list, it’s easier to just look the other way.

And also easier to call a guy like larkin31 - who seems to mainly make silly peanut-gallery type comments - wise, apparently just because he happens to be stroking your ego by backing up your own irrelevant ad hominem comments??

Due to your particular style, I have to reread your posts until the emotion subsides and your point becomes clear, whereas with most others I just grin at any feigned outrage. Don’t know why, it’s obviously my problem. Then chains of multi-quote posts usually go off at a tangent until both posters become consumed with I-said you-said and the original purpose is lost in a mist, along with me. Again, my problem.

Maybe you just don’t like to be directly confronted with a possible serious confusion in your understanding of an issue which you had been mistakenly professing to understand? (That’s all I did to you, so far as I can make out.) I think this would be an all-too-common, all-too-human foible on your part.

On this thread I think the central issue is different ways of thinking, what I’ve been calling different worldviews. I tend to want all theory to be based on evidence, so theories from holy books or pieces of philosophy don’t cut much ice unless there’s real-world evidence they are going somewhere. I’m kind of an atheistic theist if you like, different in that way to many religious folk I know. So yes I know the difference but my point isn’t to do with universals or whatever, it’s about absolutes relating to the real world.

Sure. And my point has been about the actual topic of this thread moral absolutism vs. moral relativism. If you want to discuss something else, you certainly can; but you have to present it as such. And you *may *know the difference between “universals or whatever” etc., as you claim, but I think you should try to demonstrate that knowledge in future posts by actually making these distinctions, where appropriate, in your arguments.

For example, granny’s claim that “The human person is worthy of profound respect” sounds entirely reasonable. But then some would add “from the moment of conception” to support their case against abortion, or even, depending on their idea of when conception takes place, their case against ABC. Others would add “unless they are suspected terrorists who we want to water-board”. Others “and this also applies to all other species too”. Others “unless their religion differs from mine” and so on. In other words, any absolute claim is open to abuse.

Sure: any ‘absolute claim’ is open to abuse - so is any ‘relative claim’. So what? How does your pointing this out address the issue in this thread?

[As an aside: there has been an awful lot of apparently irrelevant back-and-forth in this thread in the last week.]

Then, looking at the claim, is it actually true that those who commit crimes against humanity are worthy of the profound respect we give their victims? Is the claim even absolute in that sense?

I mean it’s a really neat motto to hang over your desk, but then some have “Practice random acts of kindness and senseless beauty” or “You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars”.

I really can’t see your point here.

If the truly faithful know how to read their given absolutes, the rest of us don’t.

So maybe you should learn to?

I’ll stick by my claims that moral absolutes are extremely difficult to prove to a skeptic (note, not cynic), unnecessary in the real world, and dangerous (open to abuse).

*Anything *is difficult to prove to a skeptic (there are different explanations for why this is, which we can discuss if you want), so that’s not a very interesting point.

Obviously moral absolutes are “unnecessary in the real world” relative to some benchmark or other of ‘necessity’ - but again so what? That doesn’t make relativism a more coherent account of moral reality than absolutism.

And finally, sure “it’s dangerous.” But as pointed out already, that’s irrelevant.

 

[Betterave]

Yes exactly - This is my explanation of your position namely- "If my boss tells me to I have to but I don’t have to like it. "

There is another choice - not doing it. By doing it you are adopting his morality. You give it authority.

That’s nonsense, Jon, it really is. Think about it: If I was adopting his morality, that would mean that I would not endorse the claim that he had told me to do something that was immoral. It would mean that I would recommend that *anyone *in his position act in the same way. There is no reason to think that such assumptions should necessarily, or do typically, hold true.

[To remind you, here was the scenario I gave: “Your boss tells you to do something that you consider immoral. You recognize that your boss has authority over you, so you do what he tells you. You submit to his authority without recognizing the morality of his authority.” Please note: there is nothing about “my starving family” in what I wrote…]

The reason you gave “I can’t loose my job let my family starve” is a justification for adopting the new morality. The “preservation of the family” is the ultimate moral good not “stealing is wrong” - you are saying stealing is ok if I have to feed my family. All well and good - it doesn’t show a case for absolute morality that you claim. You are actually saying the contrary.

See note above. Also please note that you seem to have no reason for thinking that “that reason” (i.e., the one which I didn’t give) would constitute the “adoption of a new morality,” let alone a justified adoption of a new morality.

Merry Christmas.

Thanks. Happy New Year.

 

[jonfawkes]

Huh.

So like the time from the sack of Constantinople to today?

The Philippines and China are separated by a sea. China and Korea would be a better example, and their cultures were on par with each other.

This was an agrarian and herder cultures not silicon valley. Change happened very slowly. Europe was in almost a thousand years of cultural stagnation after the fall of Rome. The concept of perceived change in relationship to time is skewed in our “modern” era. I’ve heard we experience more change in one year then our great grandparents did in a lifetime.

You can still find people living a very similar lifestyle in middle east. ( minus the guns and coke-a-cola ) That’s why we may think that some of their cultural mores are so backward. They are operating in a different paradigm.

 

[jonfawkes]

That’s nonsense, Jon, it really is. Think about it: If I was adopting his morality, that would mean that I would not endorse the claim that he had told me to do something that was immoral. It would mean that I would recommend that *anyone *in his position act in the same way. There is no reason to think that such assumptions should necessarily, or do typically, hold true.

[To remind you, here was the scenario I gave: “Your boss tells you to do something that you consider immoral. You recognize that your boss has authority over you, so you do what he tells you. You submit to his authority without recognizing the morality of his authority.” Please note: there is nothing about “my starving family” in what I wrote…]

See note above. Also please note that you seem to have no reason for thinking that “that reason” (i.e., the one which I didn’t give) would constitute the “adoption of a new morality,” let alone a justified adoption of a new morality.

Thanks. Happy New Year.

The act of submitting to his authority means you’ve chosen to adapt his morality. It may not sit well with your conscience (at first) but that’s what you’ve done. Where you may have said “act “x” is always wrong (absolute), I won’t do that, it’s against my morality.” You’ve now decided that act “x” is “ok” under certain circumstances (relative). The circumstance of “my boss told me to”. Your morality has changed. It’s more than what you think, it’s how you act. You do something enough, it becomes the norm.

 

[inocente]

Alright Innocente, you didn’t answer ANY of my questions to you or address my argument.

Sorry.

Do you, or do you not agree that there are something in this world that you consider like the Principle of Contradiction, the Empirical method, that Other Minds and Persons exists as TRUE objectively? Now that is from human experience. You might have misunderstood the term “human experience” as observation. That is incorrect.

Agreed, denying people objectively exist is wacky. To me observation implies objectivity, while experience can also be based in personal subjectivity.

My argument is that Morality is such a truth that is from human experience. Now what is your counter argument?

Any given moral, any given standard of what is right and wrong, exists as something we can act on, dispute, discuss and so on. However take a controversial issue such as use of artificial contraception. There is no killer argument for or against from experience of the real world, the subject is quite complicated.

Perhaps eventually all rational people will agree, in the same way we agree that killing is wrong while needing sub-clauses about self-defense, rules of war and so on. But even in that less controversial case the sub-clauses differ, for instance some folk agree with the death penalty, others not. The truth is we’re quite messy and our morals (and how we arrive at them) are often complicated. Due to all of that, including differences between cultures and times, I’ve never found any simple unchanging truth in morality and conclude they don’t exist outside our heads.

As for truths written in all our hearts, you are again talking about objectivity in the Normative sense. That is not what is meant by objective morality. What objective morality means is that regardless of whether it was written in your heart or not, whether the entire population believes it or not, some actions are MORAL and others are IMMORAL. You do not seem to have understood this according to what you have written above.

By all means let’s have guiding principles (and as Christians we certainly have them), but let’s also allow ourselves the freedom to consider overriding a principle where it may be doing more harm than good.

 

[inocente]

I really can’t see your point here.

It was that as most of us would not apply the claim “The human person is worthy of profound respect” to those who commit crimes against humanity in the same way as we would apply it to their victims, the claim is not absolute.

Welcome back.

 

[inocente]

This is quite good! I’m definitely going to start a thread on this

Posted.

 

[fhansen]

The act of submitting to his authority means you’ve chosen to adapt his morality. It may not sit well with your conscience (at first) but that’s what you’ve done. Where you may have said “act “x” is always wrong (absolute), I won’t do that, it’s against my morality.” You’ve now decided that act “x” is “ok” under certain circumstances (relative). The circumstance of “my boss told me to”. Your morality has changed. It’s more than what you think, it’s how you act. You do something enough, it becomes the norm.

Rather than understanding this situation as merely exchanging one morality for another or modifying ones morality, it can be seen as a person compromising his morality-lowering his standards- in order to gain a perceived good. According to Catholic teaching all sin, including the original sin, stems from this and can be explained this way.

 

[jonfawkes]

Rather than understanding this situation as merely exchanging one morality for another or modifying ones morality, it can be seen as a person compromising his morality-lowering his standards- in order to gain a perceived good. According to Catholic teaching all sin, including the original sin, stems from this and can be explained this way.

But what you are describing as compromise (verb) is an act of concession, which is admission that one takes takes a superior position over the other. He is not lowering standards but trading one for another.

 

[PRmerger]

Posted.

Your bluff was called.

You requested I start a thread as my questions were off topic.

I did as requested, here.

There is no reason the questions can’t be answered, inocente.

You professed that not all that’s written in Scripture is theopneustos. Yet you quote Scripture quite readily here on the CAFs.

I’d like to know, when you quote Scripture verses, are those the ones you consider theopneustos? If so, how do you know?

 

[PRmerger]

The Philippines and China are separated by a sea.

If a desert isn’t a barrier, why should a sea be?

At any rate, by the time Islam developed, Christianity’s center was Europe, not the Middle East.

And don’t forget about that 500-600 year gap in history.

That’s like saying that a writing from the sack of Constantinople somehow influenced a major political ideology today. As if.

 

[ddarko]

Sorry.

No worries.

Agreed, denying people objectively exist is wacky. To me observation implies objectivity, while experience can also be based in personal subjectivity.

Actually I don’t understand what you are saying here. How do you observe that other persons and minds objectively exist by observation?

Any given moral, any given standard of what is right and wrong, exists as something we can act on, dispute, discuss and so on. However take a controversial issue such as use of artificial contraception. There is no killer argument for or against from experience of the real world, the subject is quite complicated.

I don’t think you realize that the goal here is NOT to prove that Artificial Contraception is objectively moral. Rather, the only thing I am concerned in proving is that there is an objective morality. What this objective morality might be is actually different question.

The idea of objective morals are essential for a Mono-Theistic christian God. But there is no requirement to defend that this Objective Morality as being specific to something. What this objective morality in fact is comes from a different argument.

So I think you might have confused the two?

God Bless

 

[jonfawkes]

If a desert isn’t a barrier, why should a sea be?

At any rate, by the time Islam developed, Christianity’s center was Europe, not the Middle East.

And don’t forget about that 500-600 year gap in history.

That’s like saying that a writing from the sack of Constantinople somehow influenced a major political ideology today. As if.

Because there were major trade routes through the territories. Cultural influences were shared along the route.

My point is that Christianity stemmed from the Jewish people, a once nomadic desert tribe. Islam stemmed from a nomadic desert tribe. They are similar cultures with similar mores. They have similar views on women. The verses aren’t in conflict.

Of course the fall of Constantinople resonates today in the conflict between the Arab and Western worlds.

 

[davidv]

Because there were major trade routes through the territories. Cultural influences were shared along the route.

My point is that Christianity stemmed from the Jewish people, a once nomadic desert tribe. Islam stemmed from a nomadic desert tribe. They are similar cultures with similar mores. They have similar views on women. The verses aren’t in conflict.

Of course the fall of Constantinople resonates today in the conflict between the Arab and Western worlds.

It appears we are off on a major tangent here. How does any of this relate to the OP?

 

[jonfawkes]

It appears we are off on a major tangent here. How does any of this relate to the OP?

It stemmed from a comparison of a verse from the Koran and the Ephesians as the role of woman to their husbands. Which was a tangent about the nature of divinely inspired texts, why that was relevant I’m not sure. Ask PRmerger - she seems to think it’s important.

 

[PRmerger]

It stemmed from a comparison of a verse from the Koran and the Ephesians as the role of woman to their husbands. Which was a tangent about the nature of divinely inspired texts, why that was relevant I’m not sure. Ask PRmerger - she seems to think it’s important.

Yes, I rather like going on tangents in a discussion here. It mimics real life dialogue, don’t you think?

I mean, really, who, when sitting around drinking a beer and chatting about religion, actually stays on the original topic? Natural discussion progresses into tangents and more interesting ideas.

Not to mention, whenever any question that can’t be answered by my opponent appears, it always suddenly becomes “off topic.”

 

[jonfawkes]

Not to mention, whenever any question that can’t be answered by my opponent appears, it always suddenly becomes “off topic.”

Awww c’mon I always answer.

 

[PRmerger]

The Philippines and China are separated by a sea.

Because there were major trade routes through the territories.

Huh.

How do you respond to this: trade routes from China to the Philippines.

My point is that Christianity stemmed from the Jewish people, a once nomadic desert tribe. Islam stemmed from a nomadic desert tribe. They are similar cultures with similar mores. They have similar views on women. The verses aren’t in conflict.

It was the nomadic desert tribal culture which devalued women. And it was Christianity which elevated us.

Of course the fall of Constantinople resonates today in the conflict between the Arab and Western worlds.

Is there a text from the time of the sack of Constantinople that influenced a major political Western ideology today? Source, please!