Moral Relativism

[jonfawkes]

That was never a premise. That was an example illustrating my claim.

If you act immorally, that does not imply that you are acting *morally *(just according to a ‘new’ or ‘alternate’ morality) - that is utter nonsense. I explained this already. You continue to repeat yourself and to ignore my explanation.

Right, I’m not following my morals - since I am acting immorally. And those are not “his morals” either - let me add to the example that I gave that my boss recognizes the immorality of his action just as well as I do. Also, that we feel contrition about what we did and resolve never to do it again (this is not necessary - I only add it because you are having such a hard time seeing the very basic point here).

You can’t make your failure to read what I wrote and to understand it any clearer! Please make an effort to actually respond to my argument. The point I am making is a very simple one and the arguments for it should be extremely obvious.

Now you are telling me ("…let me add" ) that that the Boss shares your morality. And this is a one time occasion and your really sorry about. ( moving the goal posts )

Your example of

An example: 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.

Doesn’t say the Boss thinks it’s immoral.

So if the Boss also thinks it’s immoral there is no other morality. You share the same one. There is no other morality to supplant it. Your example is meaningless to the premise. There is no other morality in your current example.

Although, an argument could be made that your boss is only giving lip service to your “shared” morality but is actually operating under a different paradigm. Let’s use stealing as an example -

You - “stealing is wrong” ,

Boss “Sure, stealing is wrong but I really need the money”

His morality (moral principle) isn’t “stealing is wrong”, his morality is “stealing is ok if I really need it.” You by going along with it are acting immoral to your morality but not his. So your act gives credence to his morality. You don’t share the same morality.

You are saying yes, “I guess your right, this one time”. You always have the option to say NO, I won’t do what you ask. You may get fired but you are still acting with in your moral principles. You haven’t adopted another morality, no matter how temporary.

 

[ddarko]

I’m dumb enough that if I observe the effect of someone punching me repeatedly on the nose then I observe others must exist.

I am sorry but I ignored the rest of your article because you don’t seem to realize something very important.

How does someone punching you tell you that others exist? Is it not true that in order to come to that conclusion, you used some unproved logical precept? In this case, it might be like “He/She punched me without me thinking about it which means they are REAL”. But as you can see, there is no need to believe that either. Because how do you prove that “He/She punched me without me thinking about it which means they are REAL” is a valid logical deduction by observation?

So no, you don’t seem to understand what i meant by human experience. Therefore you keep arguing that there is no objective morality. I feel that if you understand what i meant by human experience, then you will realize your error.

God Bless

 

[tonyrey]

There are plenty of times that "reasonableness’ is NOT the most important value. There is nothing “absolute” about it. But sure, it is quite valuable and quite universal in importance.

Please give **one example **of when being reasonable is not the most important value.

1. When isn’t there an objective distinction between good and evil in a moral situation?
2. What are the exceptions to the rule that hope, love and courage should be promoted in society and encouraged in every child’s education ?
3. When shouldn’t you do what you are convinced is right?

 

[Betterave]

Now you are telling me ("…let me add" ) that that the Boss shares your morality. And this is a one time occasion and your really sorry about. ( moving the goal posts )

It seems that you also don’t understand what “moving the goal posts” means…

Your example of

An example: 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.

Doesn’t say the Boss thinks it’s immoral.

…It also didn’t say any of the stuff you stipulated! And since it’s my example, I’m free to fill in more details - you are not. The most you can do (while remaining intellectually honest) is to suggest, “what if…”; to which I will probably respond, “that’s not the case I intend” - since obviously I wouldn’t intend for my illustrative example to be corrupted or confused by your stipulation of irrelevant artificial modifications to my example (that’s called a “straw man” argument - please look this term up if you’re not familiar). My adding information in an attempt to forestall your attempts to evade my point does not change any of the information I originally gave in my example; thus it is not “moving the goalposts” - you are the one doing that. Can you see that?? (Please answer this question.)

So if the Boss also thinks it’s immoral there is no other morality. You share the same one. There is no other morality to supplant it. Your example is meaningless to the premise. There is no other morality in your current example.

The ‘premise’ was that not all authority is moral authority. How is my example ‘meaningless’ (I assume you mean irrelevant) to this ‘premise’?

Although, an argument could be made that your boss is only giving lip service to your “shared” morality but is actually operating under a different paradigm. Let’s use stealing as an example -

You - “stealing is wrong” ,

Boss “Sure, stealing is wrong but I really need the money”

His morality (moral principle) isn’t “stealing is wrong”, his morality is “stealing is ok if I really need it.” You by going along with it are acting immoral to your morality but not his. So your act gives credence to his morality. You don’t share the same morality.

You are saying yes, “I guess your right, this one time”. You always have the option to say NO, I won’t do what you ask. You may get fired but you are still acting with in your moral principles. You haven’t adopted another morality, no matter how temporary.

Once again, you’re just repeating yourself and failing to respond to my explanation of why this view is absurd. Once again: acting immorally does not imply “credence” in the morality of my immoral act. Acting immorally once does not imply an admission that the boss is right, this one time. I’m guessing you’re the only person around that can’t see this; it is truly very obvious.

 

[Betterave]

I believe it is a relevant tangent.

This would be an example of an irrelevant tangent: I believe that turnips are the best vegetable! What does everyone else think?

Example of relevant tangents: my other posts that are tangential.

If it is relevant, perhaps you should explain how before pursuing it any further.

 

[jonfawkes]

It seems that you also don’t understand what “moving the goal posts” means…

…It also didn’t say any of the stuff you stipulated! And since it’s my example, I’m free to fill in more details - you are not. The most you can do (while remaining intellectually honest) is to suggest, “what if…”; to which I will probably respond, “that’s not the case I intend” - since obviously I wouldn’t intend for my illustrative example to be corrupted by your stipulation of irrelevant artificial modifications to my example (that’s called a “straw man” argument - please look this term up if you’re not familiar). My adding information in an attempt to forestall your attempts to evade my point does not change any of the information I originally gave in my example. Can you see that?? (Please answer this question.)

The ‘premise,’ as you so inaptly call it, was that not all authority is moral authority. How is my example ‘meaningless’ (I assume you mean irrelevant) to this ‘premise’?

Once again, you’re just repeating yourself and failing to respond to my explanation of why this view is absurd. Once again: acting immorally does not imply “credence” in the morality of my immoral act. Acting immorally once does not imply an admission that the boss is right, this one time. I’m guessing you’re the only person around that can’t see this; it is truly very obvious.

No, I understand what you mean. Yes, you can act immorally, if you are acting as your own agent. If you are not acting as your own agent, submitting the authority of your boss, you are both acting immorally in relation to your own morality and supplanting your morality with his (regardless if says he shares yours - he does not). It’s not an either / or proposition you can do both. You always have the option to say no acting as your own agent. If you abdicate your responsibility you are committing two immoral acts, one the asked for transgression and two supplanting your morality.

 

[inocente]

So when you quote Scripture here on the CAFs, inocente–since you have stated that not everything written in the Bible is theopneustos–how do we know if it’s one of the verses you consider* theopneustos*?

Heh. Again I was having to repeat myself about your apparent obsession with an off-topic question.

So is this theopneustos, inocente, in your opinion?

Yikes, now you’re quoting me from another thread (3rd quote)? Jumping threads? Patience is a virtue, jumping threads and deliberately going off-topic again are not.

Why would I do that?

It would have been courteous and I’d have suggested improvements. I just looked in on your thread - no one has quoted anything from your OP and there’s been no discussion about your OP questions. Until Catholics on the thread show agreement about this discerning business you’re interested in then there’s nothing coherent for me or other non-Catholics to debate.

*Incidentally, you seem rattled that your name is in the OP. Many a thread *has used people’s screennames.

No, as I already said I count it as a great honor, although now the limelight has worn off the number of people who will look at the thread is around 0.00001% of the world population and as my username is totally anonymous anyway why would I care two bits either way?

Anyway, this is the last time I’ll post to you here unless you stay on-topic. But you can now relax a little - for the sake of releasing you from whatever bee is in your bonnet I’ve made another post especially early on your thread. Don’t mention it, your smiling eyes are thanks enough.

 

[inocente]

Here’s one obvious thing that’s wrong with your argument here: From your statement of fact about most people’s treatment of a claim, nothing follows about the truth (or range of applicability) of that claim - unless you have already shown that the truth about the kind of claim in question is determined by how most people regard it; and you certainly haven’t done that, correct? So your argument is clearly a non sequitur.

When thinking about the terrorists who have just committed an atrocity many would dispute “The human person is worthy of profound respect”. Personally for instance, the 9/11, 7/7, and Madrid terrorists are worthy of nothing but utter contempt. We can try to be Christian, but building a shrine to the terrorists wouldn’t respect the victims or their families.

So your argument doesn’t follow either, whereas contradictions and exceptions don’t matter if we use claims as guiding principles rather than absolutes.

Good luck with the orchard, sounds like fun(?).

Thanks, the novelty wears off though - it’s mainly breaking our backs picking up trimmings the tractor didn’t get before we start plowing. Peaceful though, kind of good for the soul, a little like sitting in an art gallery while continually poking a stick in your eye.

 

[inocente]

So no, you don’t seem to understand what i meant by human experience. Therefore you keep arguing that there is no objective morality. I feel that if you understand what i meant by human experience, then you will realize your error.

Not quite sure what you’re getting at, is it that everything I “know” ultimately stems from my faith that I know it? But then how would I know whether invisible pink unicorns exist by experiencing someone telling me they’re real and knowable?

 

[Betterave]

No, I understand what you mean. Yes, you can act immorally, if you are acting as your own agent. If you are not acting as your own agent, submitting the authority of your boss, you are both acting immorally in relation to your own morality and supplanting your morality with his (regardless if says he shares yours - he does not). It’s not an either / or proposition you can do both. You always have the option to say no acting as your own agent. If you abdicate your responsibility you are committing two immoral acts, one the asked for transgression and two supplanting your morality.

I have no idea what your argument is supposed to be now. It made sense before; it just happened to be nonsense. In other words, it had a discernible meaning, but that meaning was purely stipulative and contrary to the ordinary meaning of moral discourse.

Now: What do you mean by “acting as your own agent”? If you want to make weird claims, that’s fine; but please try to explain them so they are at least comprehensible. Don’t just make a bunch of statements that appear to be arbitrary concoctions of normally unproblematic terms and distinctions, as you do above.

[You *appear to be granting now that you were wrong, while trying not to actually admit it: Your prior (obviously false) claims - “By acting in line with his wishes, you are saying that you believe his morality to be superior to yours”; “The act of submitting to his authority means you’ve chosen to adopt his morality” - seem to contradict your last sentence above.]

 

[Betterave]

When thinking about the terrorists who have just committed an atrocity many would dispute “The human person is worthy of profound respect”. Personally for instance, the 9/11, 7/7, and Madrid terrorists are worthy of nothing but utter contempt. We can try to be Christian, but building a shrine to the terrorists wouldn’t respect the victims or their families.

So your argument doesn’t follow either, whereas contradictions and exceptions don’t matter if we use claims as guiding principles rather than absolutes.

What argument of mine doesn’t follow?? And why doesn’t it??

In any case, you’ve just committed the same error here as before. Again:

From your statement of fact about most people’s (or just your) treatment of a claim, nothing follows about the truth (or range of applicability) of that claim - unless you have already shown that the truth about the kind of claim in question is determined by how most people (or by how you personally) regard it; and you certainly haven’t done that, correct? So your argument is clearly a non sequitur.

As for noting the impropriety of building a shrine to honor those who exemplify disrespect for human persons… tell me you see that that doesn’t make sense as an argument for relativism?? (Or, tell me if you don’t see it, and I will explain.)

 

[Elijah_Baley]

This thread is something of a monster, with so many restatements and misstatements and retreads that at this point it’s an exercise in futility to go any further in this vein.

I suggest we hit the big fat reset button. Each person gets one post to state their position from scratch, letting the rest of the thread above serve as merely deep background — it informs what you write, but you can’t explicitly refer to what you or anyone else wrote earlier.

(Or we could start a fresh thread.)

 

[jonfawkes]

I have no idea what your argument is supposed to be now. It made sense before; it just happened to be nonsense. In other words, it had a discernible meaning, but that meaning was purely stipulative and contrary to the ordinary meaning of moral discourse.

Now: What do you mean by “acting as your own agent”? If you want to make weird claims, that’s fine; but please try to explain them so they are at least comprehensible. Don’t just make a bunch of statements that appear to be arbitrary concoctions of normally unproblematic terms and distinctions, as you do above.

[You *appear

to be granting now that you were wrong, while trying not to actually admit it: Your prior (obviously false) claims - “By acting in line with his wishes, you are saying that you believe his morality to be superior to yours”; “The act of submitting to his authority means you’ve chosen to adopt his morality” - seem to contradict your last sentence above.]

If you are acting as your own agent, meaning no one told you do it, there is no shift in morality, you are just acting immoral to your own principles. For example I know that premarital sex is wrong but I choose to engage in it, doesn’t change my morality. I am simply just acting in a immoral way.

If you choose to abdicate responsibly for your actions “my boss made me” - you are acting immorally (relative to your morality) and you are supplanting his morality for your own. You are giving his morality credence and support by **acting **on it. You could always have said no.

Your previous morality becomes conditional on his. He can sway you simply through authority. You have no active morality of your own, with the exception of "respect’ for authority.

You’ve abdicated responsibility. You are no longer acting as an agent of your morality but rather an agent of his. “I had to do it, he’s my boss” Your morality is in the dust bin. It’s no longer an active principle, his morality is. Your morality becomes “whatever the boss tells me to do”. I said that act of abdication is also immoral.

 

[inocente]

What argument of mine doesn’t follow?? And why doesn’t it??

The claim “The human person is worth of profound respect” applies to victims, while the claim “The human person is worth of profound contempt” applies to the terrorists. The claims are contradictory, depending on context to the one making the judgment. In fact the same person can make cogent arguments for either claim depending on whether they are thinking about victims or terrorists.

Hence neither claim can be proved to be universally true either by the number of people who make it or by any other method - if there is a moral absolute here it cannot be detected.

As for noting the impropriety of building a shrine to honor those who exemplify disrespect for human persons… tell me you see that that doesn’t make sense as an argument for relativism?? (Or, tell me if you don’t see it, and I will explain.)

No, I see it all too well. It ties in loosely to your discussion with jonfawkes about bosses. There are deeply worrying aspects of how we all deal with moral authorities.

Have you heard of Milgram and his infamous teacher/learner experiment? “Teachers” recruited off the street were told to give electric shocks whenever “learners” offered a wrong answer. The “teachers” knew the shocks would increase from 150 volts to a dangerous 450 yet most people still administered them when told. The work showed that even with anonymous authority figures giving weak cues most people still override their own conscience, becoming obedient torturers and potential murderers for the sake of some supposed ultimate good.

The “teachers” didn’t know that the “learners” were actors and the “shocks” were faked, but watching this recent rerun (BBC video) may still make you weep: part 1, part 2, part 3.

We all have this capacity inside us, and this is possibly what happens to suicide terrorists. Perhaps we should forgive them, perhaps there but for the grace of God, but it would be impossible for most of us to give them equal status with their victims, and we might well be outraged by anyone who tried.

Outside of a feel-good ivory tower, “the human person is worth of profound respect” is not an absolute.

 

[inocente]

This thread is something of a monster, with so many restatements and misstatements and retreads that at this point it’s an exercise in futility to go any further in this vein.

I suggest we hit the big fat reset button. Each person gets one post to state their position from scratch, letting the rest of the thread above serve as merely deep background — it informs what you write, but you can’t explicitly refer to what you or anyone else wrote earlier.

(Or we could start a fresh thread.)

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo … can we all have time off for good behavior first?

 

[inocente]

This thread is something of a monster, with so many restatements and misstatements and retreads that at this point it’s an exercise in futility to go any further in this vein.

I suggest we hit the big fat reset button. Each person gets one post to state their position from scratch, letting the rest of the thread above serve as merely deep background — it informs what you write, but you can’t explicitly refer to what you or anyone else wrote earlier.

(Or we could start a fresh thread.)

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo … can we all (most of us ) have time off for good behavior first?

 

[Betterave]

If you are acting as your own agent, meaning no one told you do it, there is no shift in morality, you are just acting immoral to your own principles. For example I know that premarital sex is wrong but I choose to engage in it, doesn’t change my morality. I am simply just acting in a immoral way.

If you choose to abdicate responsibly for your actions “my boss made me” - you are acting immorally (relative to your morality) and you are supplanting his morality for your own. You are giving his morality credence and support by **acting **on it. You could always have said no.

Your previous morality becomes conditional on his. He can sway you simply through authority. You have no active morality of your own, with the exception of "respect’ for authority.

You’ve abdicated responsibility. You are no longer acting as an agent of your morality but rather an agent of his. “I had to do it, he’s my boss” Your morality is in the dust bin. It’s no longer an active principle, his morality is. Your morality becomes “whatever the boss tells me to do”. I said that act of abdication is also immoral.

So what’s the upshot? You still defending relativism somehow??

 

[Elijah_Baley]

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo … can we all (most of us ) have time off for good behavior first?

I’m no mod, you know. Just an impartial observer.

 

[Betterave]

So I ask:

What argument of mine doesn’t follow?? And why doesn’t it??

And you reply:

The claim “The human person is worth of profound respect” applies to victims, while the claim “The human person is worth of profound contempt” applies to the terrorists.

Now please note: that is not an argument, nor is it a non sequitur. It’s also not something I said… so I’m at a bit of a loss. Care to explain yourself?

The claims are contradictory, depending on context to the one making the judgment. In fact the same person can make cogent arguments for either claim depending on whether they are thinking about victims or terrorists.

I don’t know what “cogent arguments” you’re referring to here, but in any case, you seem not to understand contradictions. “P1 is X” and “P2 is not-X” are not contradictory statements (where P1 and P2 specify different contexts, as you pointed out); only “P1 is X and not-X (in the same respect, at the same time, in the same context, etc.)” is problematic.

Hence neither claim can be proved to be universally true either by the number of people who make it or by any other method - if there is a moral absolute here it cannot be detected.

Hence your conclusion here appears to be based on unjustified premises (which are also “straw men”) and to appeal to a nonsensical notion of ‘contradiction’.

Have you heard of Milgram and his infamous teacher/learner experiment? “Teachers” recruited off the street were told to give electric shocks…

Yes, I’m familiar with the Milgram experiments. What do you think they show in the context of this discussion?

We all have this capacity inside us, and this is possibly what happens to suicide terrorists. Perhaps we should forgive them, perhaps there but for the grace of God, but it would be impossible for most of us to give them equal status with their victims, and we might well be outraged by anyone who tried.

I object to what you claim here, but since you haven’t explained the relevance of your claims, I’ll ask you to do so before saying anything more.

Outside of a feel-good ivory tower, “the human person is worth of profound respect” is not an absolute.

This is pure assertion, no? How does it follow from anything that you’ve said?

 

[jonfawkes]

So what’s the upshot? You still defending relativism somehow??

How has my position changed?