Moral Relativism

[Betterave]

The opinion is common, as is its rationale. I don’t mind if you reject its truthfulness. I am not here to change your opinion on this matter.

LOL! In other words, “I’m not here to make any kind of intelligent or constructive contribution to the discussion. I’m quite self-satisfied with being irrational and disrespectful.”

[It seems clear to me that options 1 and 2 fit the bill. Instead of 3 (I’m not sure what “absence of evidence” means), I’d go with fallacious appeal to popular attitudes.]

 

[jonfawkes]

jon,
I have to say, I don’t think you’re the most rational guy around, but at least you’re civil, and you try to stay on subject, even though I think many of your remarks are (unwittingly) irrelevant. thanks for that.

Moral absolutism does not state there is only one way to determine morality, i.e., only heterosexual relationships in the context of marriage are moral. Do you know what “i.e.” means? It means “that is.” With that in mind, do you see how your claim doesn’t make sense?

That’s nonsense, jon. You’re very confused here. If relative morality is within the context of a society, then it may well be that the society in question is Saudi Arabia, and within this society what is the status of homosexual acts? “There are many ways to cook the steak”? Of course not.

Okay, whatever. I don’t know why you think that constitutes proof, but here’s the very obvious point you missed: relativism makes a claim just as much as absolutism does. (I hope you understand that. Please think about it if it really never occurred to before - in itself, it’s actually a very obvious point.) So how is the burden of proof on absolutism, rather than relativism? Both make a claim.

(Please answer question, rather than more repetition ad nauseam. )

A moral absolute is the one way to solve a moral problem - There is a question, there is a absolute answer. One way or it wouldn’t be absolute.

There are Amish, Muslims Christians, atheists etc in the USA - we share enough common ground to have a working social morality. If you want to have rules of prohibition that exceed the general agreement as individuals or as a sub set we generally as a society allow for this. e.x. A prohibition on the consumption of Alcohol or caffeine. Others are problematic e.x. the refusal of medical care for minors.

They are both theories of morality. Only Absolute morality claims that there are moral absolutes. The burden of proof that their are moral absolutes and that they are knowable lies with the Absolutist.

So what is your proof of absolutes? and how can we know them? Feel free to use disjunctive syllogism.

 

[davidv]

A moral absolute is the one way to solve a moral problem - There is a question, there is a absolute answer. One way or it wouldn’t be absolute.

Not so. A moral absolute is a principle upon which a moral judgement are based. One of those principles is:

**1750 **The morality of human acts depends on:

• the object chosen;
• the end in view or the intention;
• the circumstances of the action. The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the “sources,” or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.

There are Amish, Muslims Christians, atheists etc in the USA - we share enough common ground to have a working social morality. If you want to have rules of prohibition that exceed the general agreement as individuals or as a sub set we generally as a society allow for this. e.x. A prohibition on the consumption of Alcohol or caffeine. Others are problematic e.x. the refusal of medical care for minors.

They are both theories of morality. Only Absolute morality claims that there are moral absolutes. The burden of proof that their are moral absolutes and that they are knowable lies with the Absolutist.

So what is your proof of absolutes? and how can we know them? Feel free to use disjunctive syllogism.

What would you consider proof?

 

[sidbrown]

Aren’t you missing the fact that everyone also agrees that it was wrong, not just that it is wrong, for the European to enslave the African? Isn’t that an argument against relativism?

N.B.: Absolutism most certainly does not entail that there are no structures of sin and ignorance in real human societies, such that the moral truth is never or rarely obscured.

Why were there Catholic priests who enslaved black Africans in the US South and they were not prohibited from doing so?
Why does the Bible say that slaves should be subject to their masters. Why does not the Bible say that slavery is wrong and that masters should not own slaves? Isn’t it because slavery was thought to be moral at one time?

 

[Betterave]

Why were there Catholic priests who enslaved black Africans in the US South and they were not prohibited from doing so?
Why does the Bible say that slaves should be subject to their masters. Why does not the Bible say that slavery is wrong and that masters should not own slaves? Isn’t it because slavery was thought to be moral at one time?

Did you read post 891?

 

[Betterave]

A moral absolute is the one way to solve a moral problem - There is a question, there is a absolute answer. One way or it wouldn’t be absolute.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. Maybe this analogy will help: if I ask “where is Rome?” there is one correct answer. That does not imply that there is only one way to determine* the correct answer (that there’s “only one road to Rome”). Understand?

*That’s what you said “cooking” signified in your analogy, remember?

There are Amish, Muslims Christians, atheists etc in the USA - we share enough common ground to have a working social morality. If you want to have rules of prohibition that exceed the general agreement as individuals or as a sub set we generally as a society allow for this. e.x. A prohibition on the consumption of Alcohol or caffeine. Others are problematic e.x. the refusal of medical care for minors.

Okay… Relevance?

They are both theories of morality. Only Absolute morality claims that there are moral absolutes. The burden of proof that their are moral absolutes and that they are knowable lies with the Absolutist.

And only Relative morality (I don’t know why you’re capitalizing, but I’ll follow your strange convention ) claims that a) Absolute moral claims are false, and b) morality is Absolutely(!) determined by whatever the ‘cultural consensus’ happens to be in a given ‘culture’ at a given ‘time’ (however it happens to be that “a given culture” and “a given time” get circumscribed in a relevant, non-arbitrary way - any suggestions?), and c) that morality thus determined is knowable. So you gonna put up here? That’s three claims, a triple burden of proof on you, the Relativist, isn’t it?

So what is your proof of absolutes? and how can we know them? Feel free to use disjunctive syllogism.

A=Absolutism
R=Relativism

P1) A or R
P2) not-R (since R is incoherent and is accepted only based on misunderstanding A, as the arguments in this thread show)
C) therefore A

 

[jonfawkes]

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. Maybe this analogy will help: if I ask “where is Rome?” there is one correct answer. That does not imply that there is only one way to determine* the correct answer (that there’s “only one road to Rome”). Understand?

*That’s what you said “cooking” signified in your analogy, remember?

Okay… Relevance?

And only Relative morality (I don’t know why you’re capitalizing, but I’ll follow your strange convention ) claims that a) Absolute moral claims are false, and b) morality is Absolutely(!) determined by whatever the ‘cultural consensus’ happens to be in a given ‘culture’ at a given ‘time’ (however it happens to be that “a given culture” and “a given time” get circumscribed in a relevant, non-arbitrary way - any suggestions?), and c) that morality thus determined is knowable. So you gonna put up here? That’s three claims, a triple burden of proof on you, the Relativist, isn’t it?

A=Absolutism
R=Relativism

P1) A or R
P2) not-R (since R is incoherent and is accepted only based on misunderstanding A, as the arguments in this thread show)
C) therefore A

Not what I’m saying -

Absolutism - there is one answer to one moral question. There is an absolute answer to any given moral question.

“Where is Rome ?” Bad example - The answer is relative to asker, north of here, south of here, west of here, east of here.

I’m pointing out that we are not an isolated homogeneous society in the USA. Even Saudi Arabia is part of the global landscape. The evidence of other moralities is easily accessible.

I don’t claim there are absolutes - Are you asking me to prove a negative? Surely you know better than that. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. You claim absolutes - show them.

Try again - your inclusion subjective qualifiers while cutesy, aren’t valid.

 

[davidv]

Not what I’m saying -

Absolutism - there is one answer to one moral question. There is an absolute answer to any given moral question.

“Where is Rome ?” Bad example - The answer is relative to asker, north of here, south of here, west of here, east of here.

I’m pointing out that we are not an isolated homogeneous society in the USA. Even Saudi Arabia is part of the global landscape. The evidence of other moralities is easily accessible.

I don’t claim there are absolutes - Are you asking me to prove a negative? Surely you know better than that. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. You claim absolutes - show them.

Try again - your inclusion subjective qualifiers while cutesy, aren’t valid.

Please address the proof that was given.

It was presented to you as a formal sologism. In order to refute it you must demonstrate that it used an invalid form or one of the premises is false.

So far you have not refuted anything.

 

[jonfawkes]

Please address the proof that was given.

It was presented to you as a formal sologism. In order to refute it you must demonstrate that it used an invalid form or one of the premises is false.

So far you have not refuted anything.

He hasn’t stated anything -

a or b
not b
therefore a

Doesn’t prove anything - it only demonstrates a choice. The snarky bit isn’t part of the proof, just Betterave acting a fool.

 

[Betterave]

Not what I’m saying -

Absolutism - there is one answer to one moral question. There is an absolute answer to any given moral question.

So now you’re changing the terms of your analogy? “cooking the steak” is now “giving the final answer to a moral question” instead of “determining what is moral”? Okay, whatever. The point you’re missing is that your “cooking the steak” doesn’t apear to be possible for relativists. How do you determine whether your steak is cooked, if you don’t have any standard by which to assess whether or not a steak is cooked? If an Eskimo likes to eat his steak raw, is a relativist going to say that ‘raw’ now means ‘cooked’ - cooked-for-him (and his culture)?

“Where is Rome ?” Bad example - The answer is relative to asker, north of here, south of here, west of here, east of here.

LOL! So does the answer depend on my culture? Anyway, you missed the point: the appropriate answer is indeed relative to where one is; but the fact remains that there is one right answer, such that anyone who gets the right answer ends up in the same place - at Rome, at true morality (or, if you like, the steak is actually cooked, because ‘cooked’ has a definite meaning, it isn’t relative). If there was no “absolute Rome” you couldn’t give anyone directions on how to get there. That’s the problem you face (or in your case, that you ignore) as a relativist.

I’m pointing out that we are not an isolated homogeneous society in the USA. Even Saudi Arabia is part of the global landscape. The evidence of other moralities is easily accessible.

So what??

I don’t claim there are absolutes - Are you asking me to prove a negative? Surely you know better than that. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. [Yeah, duh!] You claim absolutes - show them.

Yes you do claim there are absolutes! All of these are absolute claims for the relativist: a) Absolute moral claims are false, and b) morality is Absolutely(!) determined by whatever the ‘cultural consensus’ happens to be in a given ‘culture’ at a given ‘time’ (however it happens to be that “a given culture” and “a given time” get circumscribed in a relevant, non-arbitrary way - any suggestions?), and c) that morality thus determined is knowable.

You claim absolutes, as I just showed you - now prove them.
(If you do not make the claims above, the thing to do would be to tell me which you don’t accept and why.)

Try again - your inclusion subjective qualifiers while cutesy, aren’t valid.

“subjective qualifiers”?? What are you talking about?

 

[Betterave]

He hasn’t stated anything -

a or b
not b
therefore a

Doesn’t prove anything - it only demonstrates a choice. The snarky bit isn’t part of the proof, just Betterave acting a fool.

listen smart-guy: You ask me to prove absolutism. I can do this simply by showing that the alternative is incoherent. I don’t have to provide an independent reason to accept absolutism. So once again, there goes your stupid “burden of proof” assertion (I won’t call it an argument, since that would be inaccurate). I’m trying to correct your stupid conception of how the reasoning process works here. So get up off the floor, stop laughing, and try to pay attention.

 

[jonfawkes]

listen smart-guy: You ask me to prove absolutism. I can do this simply by showing that the alternative is incoherent. I don’t have to provide an independent reason to accept absolutism. So once again, there goes your stupid “burden of proof” assertion (I won’t call it an argument, since that would be inaccurate). I’m trying to correct your stupid conception of how the reasoning process works here. So get up off the floor, stop laughing, and try to pay attention.

False dilemma as “proof”

 

[jonfawkes]

Yes you do claim there are absolutes! All of these are absolute claims for the relativist: a) Absolute moral claims are false, and b) morality is Absolutely(!) determined by whatever the ‘cultural consensus’ happens to be in a given ‘culture’ at a given ‘time’ (however it happens to be that “a given culture” and “a given time” get circumscribed in a relevant, non-arbitrary way - any suggestions?), and c) that morality thus determined is knowable.

Hoe can I make a claim using something that I don’t think exists? Is that the Loch Ness monster defense? :clapping::clapping::clapping:

I haven’t made those statements.

You assert that there are moral absolutes - prove your assertion. It’s your burden.

 

[davidv]

Hoe can I make a claim using something that I don’t think exists? Is that the Loch Ness monster defense? :clapping::clapping::clapping:

I haven’t made those statements.

You assert that there are moral absolutes - prove your assertion. It’s your burden.

If you had a real argument you wouldn’t make such off-putting responses. You asked for proof, you got one and now you don’t like it and won’t show why it is wrong except by bare assertion.

This is intellectually dishonest.

 

[jonfawkes]

If you had a real argument you wouldn’t make such off-putting responses. You asked for proof, you got one and now you don’t like it and won’t show why it is wrong except by bare assertion.

This is intellectually dishonest.

WHAT PROOF? :doh2:

 

[davidv]

WHAT PROOF? :doh2:

The one you “hand-waved” away in post #903.

If it is a false dilemma, then you should easily be able to identify the valid options that were not included.

By the way, your dismissive emoticon use is not helpful to you postion.

 

[jonfawkes]

The one you “hand-waved” away in post #903.

If it is a false dilemma, then you should easily be able to identify the valid options that were not included.

By the way, your dismissive emoticon use is not helpful to you postion.

It’s not a proof of anything -

A or B
Not A
Therefore B

Isn’t a proof, it’s a choice - it doesn’t affirm any position. Denying one position doesn’t affirm the other.

Santa Claus or Hanukkah Harry
Not Santa Claus (obviously no one can travel the world to every Christian home in one night, not to mention deliver presents. It’s obviously preposterous)
Therefore Hanukkah Harry

Do you really think this affirms Hanukkah Harry? A proof of his existence?

 

[davidv]

It’s not a proof of anything -

A or B
Not A
Therefore B

Isn’t a proof, it’s a choice - it doesn’t affirm any position. Denying one position doesn’t affirm the other.

Santa Claus or Hanukkah Harry
Not Santa Claus (obviously no one can travel the world to every Christian home in one night, not to mention deliver presents. It’s obviously preposterous)
Therefore Hanukkah Harry

Do you really think this affirms Hanukkah Harry? A proof of his existence?

Apparently the law of non-contradiction doesn’t work in your world.

A is the equivalent of not-B
B and not-B cannot exist at the same time.

So, unless you can identify something other than A or B to choose from, your objection is vacuous.

 

[jonfawkes]

Apparently the law of non-contradiction doesn’t work in your world.

A is the equivalent of not-B
B and not-B cannot exist at the same time.

So, unless you can identify something other than A or B to choose from, your objection is vacuous.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-ethics

 

[jonfawkes]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-ethics

Also en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative_ethics