Moral Relativism

[davidv]

They don’t? I have never heard that claim before.

Societies do not establish moral guidelines? I can’t see how that position is true.

Did i say guidelines? I said society does not deem what is moral.

What is moral is what is right vs what is wrong.
What right is defined the the right order for human beings.
This right order is defined by the creator of human beings.

Societies establish norms of behavior through social pressures and laws. Some of these behaviors are moral, some are amoral and some are immoral.

Societies only establish what is acceptable, as they are incapable of deciding what the right order.

 

[davidv]

All I see is one morality trying to judge another. Morality is what is acceptable and what is not.

Why should I accept your definition of morality?

Edit: I can accept your last sentence as true only if the one agreeing to the acceptability is God.

 

[jonfawkes]

Why should I accept your definition of morality?

Edit: I can accept your last sentence as true only if the one agreeing to the acceptability is God.

Conversely, why would anyone accept yours?

 

[davidv]

Conversely, why would anyone accept yours?

They wouldn’t, unless they were after the truth.

 

[jonfawkes]

They wouldn’t, unless they were after the truth.

They already have the truth. Their headhunter god gave it to them.

 

[davidv]

They already have the truth. Their headhunter god gave it to them.

See post #974 point 1.

 

[sidbrown]

What is moral is what is right vs what is wrong.
.

Here are a few simple questions.
Is burning a heretic at the stake moral or not?
Is slavery moral or not?
Is the use of torture to extract confessions moral or not?

 

[jonfawkes]

See post #974 point 1.

They do have the truth, as they see it. Just as you have the truth as you see it.

There is no way to establish who has the “greater” truth.

 

[grannymh]

When one puts relativism aside, one can find an objective reason for morality. This objective reason is that the human person is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.

 

[jonfawkes]

When one puts relativism aside, one can find an objective reason for morality. This objective reason is that the human person is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.

Based on your morality.

 

[grannymh]

Based on your morality.

Nope.

The human person is independent of my morals or your morals or the cat’s morals. All that is relativism which was put aside.

The human person, because she or he is human, is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.

 

[tonyrey]

We are discussing knowledge of the context I had in mind!

You must think I’m a con-man! Seriously, the author of a text must have far better knowledge of his intentions than his readers - unless he is very confused.

It seems clear enough:

It is absurd to expect us to know always what we should do but it is reasonable to expect us to do always what we believe to be right .

So you say, but I don’t know what your point is.

Put very simply, we’re not reasonably expected to be infallible but sincere.

It is absurd to expect us to know it is an absolute principle that we should always do what we believe to be right but it is reasonable to expect us to believe we should always do what we believe to be right!

Otherwise we are assuming we are morally infallible…

So in other words:
IF we claim “to know that it is an absolute principle that we should always do what we believe to be right,” THEN “we are assuming we are morally infallible.”

But I know that that is a non sequitur!

You believe it is a non sequitur but you are mistaken! To claim certainty with regard to an absolute moral principle is to assume moral infallibility unless you qualify your claim with “I may be mistaken.”

An analogy: If I say “I know the moon revolves around the Earth”, it does not follow that I am assuming that I am astronomically infallible.

Your analogy breaks down because ethics is not science.

 

[jonfawkes]

Nope.

The human person is independent of my morals or your morals or the cat’s morals. All that is relativism which was put aside.

The human person, because she or he is human, is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.

Again, according to your morality. - Our human history of wars and murder state otherwise.

What is your reasoning behind the statement? (that is outside the relative dogma of the Catholic Church)

 

[Betterave]

Haha - I know better than to ask - but…

Probably I should know better than to answer - but…

How do think this refutes anything?

sidbrown offered a ‘proof’ for relativism - I pointed out that his proof makes an absurd claim and begs the question. I’m not sure what part of that you missed…?

If society deems something moral, it is in all practicality it is.

“If society deems something moral, it is [sic] in all practicality it is…” what? If a society deems something moral, then a society deems something moral. It is not true that whatever a society deems moral is thereby moral. Moral means right or wrong. Moral does not mean deemed right or wrong by some society.

Headhunting is moral to the headhunter. You may think it’s immoral but the headhunter thinks you can take a flying “F” at a rolling doughnut. He doesn’t accept your judgment or your rational for judgment (your god) any more than you accept his. What you end up with is a “pecker measuring” contest between gods. There is no objective way to determine a winner.

How do you know this? Have you ever overheard me having a moral debate with a headhunter and tried to objectively determine who the winner is?? …Yeah, I didn’t think so.

 

[Betterave]

Really? I would not agree that it is completely irrational or absurd to follow and obey a papal declaration on this = ??]. This is a Catholic board after all and I don’t think that papal declarations are considered to be completely irrational or absurd here.

Please clarify what you’re talking about here.

**

 

[jonfawkes]

Probably I should know better than to answer - but…

sidbrown offered a ‘proof’ for relativism - I pointed out that his proof makes an absurd claim and begs the question. I’m not sure what part of that you missed…?

“If society deems something moral, it is [sic] in all practicality it is…” what? If a society deems something moral, then a society deems something moral. It is not true that whatever a society deems moral is thereby moral. Moral means right or wrong. Moral does not mean deemed right or wrong by some society.

How do you know this? Have you ever overheard me having a moral debate with a headhunter and tried to objectively determine who the winner is?? …Yeah, I didn’t think so.

Heheh yer funny - again - nothing is proven, nothing refuted.

Saying - “nuh huh” is not a counter argument. Society can and does declare things as moral and immoral. Society does declare them right or wrong. We have laws and social norms.

 

[Betterave]

You must think I’m a con-man! Seriously, the author of a text must have far better knowledge of his intentions than his readers - unless he is very confused.

“Context” and “intentions” are very different. You’re conflating the two.

Put very simply, we’re not reasonably expected to be infallible but sincere.

That’s bland, but sure; but I don’t see how that’s relevant to anything here.

You believe it is a non sequitur but you are mistaken! To claim certainty with regard to an absolute moral principle is to assume moral infallibility unless you qualify your claim with “I may be mistaken.”

No more so than if I say “I know the moon revolves around the Earth” - it does not follow in either case that I am assuming that I am somehow infallible.

Your analogy breaks down because ethics is not science.

What is your point? That’s not an argument, just an apparently irrelevant assertion.

 

[grannymh]

Again, according to your morality. - Our human history of wars and murder state otherwise.

What is your reasoning behind the statement? (that is outside the relative dogma of the Catholic Church)

Your claiming anything about anyone’s morality has nothing to do with the fact that you and I are worthy of profound respect. I may be an immoral granny, but you will still be worthy of my profound respect.

We are worthy of profound respect primarily due to our human nature which is peerless among the creatures of earth.

 

[Betterave]

Heheh yer funny - again - nothing is proven, nothing refuted.

Saying - “nuh huh” is not a counter argument. Society can and does declare things as moral and immoral. Society does declare them right or wrong. We have laws and social norms.

Strategy 1.

To remind you, here’s the list:

When someone points out the rational problems with your defense of relativism, do one or more of the following:

1. ignore his argument and make some new claim with no relevance to the issue at hand or repeat some old claim, ignoring the fact that it has already been refuted (be sure never to explain the relevance of your remarks);
2. pretend he has said something funny and roflyao;
3. express outrage and exit the conversation;
4. say something that makes no sense whatsoever, complemented by an appropriate smilie.

 

[sidbrown]

Please clarify what you’re talking about here.

**
I don’t think that most Catholics would consider a papal declaration to be absurd or irrational. For example, consider the papal bull Exsurge Domine of Pope Leo X issued on June 15, 1520.