Relative morality

  • Thread starter Thread starter ccmnxc
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

ccmnxc

Guest
Hi, I was wondering if I could have some help with refuting relative morality. I was debating with someone on abortion today, and he said people aren’t wrong in killing something they don’t believe is alive, i.e. a fetus. I asked if the Germans were wrong in killing the Jews if they really believed they weren’t human. He said they weren’t wrong. Is it a lost cause after that? He also said we have no right to impose our beliefs on others, which I know is incorrect (laws are beleifs of others, after all), but I couldn’t find a way to combat it in terms of refuting relative morality. I know I can ask, “Is realtive morality relative to you or to everybody,” but I’m not sure how to respond to either answer. If he says it is relative to everybody, that would make relative morality objective. However, whose to say that both subjective and objective morality can’t exist at the same time, just in different cases. Then, if he answers that relative morality is relative to him, how can I say he’s wrong about anything, as everything then becomes an opinion. If anyone could help, that’d be great.
 
Your fighting a lost cause IMO, at this point in time at least, in getting this guy to change his views. The most you can do IMO is plant a seed or 2 as to morality as you see it and hope at some time it eventually takes root.
 
ccmnxc said:
Hi, I was wondering if I could have some help with refuting relative morality. I was debating with someone on abortion today, and he said people aren’t wrong in killing something they don’t believe is alive, i.e. a fetus. I asked if the Germans were wrong in killing the Jews if they really believed they weren’t human. He said they weren’t wrong. Is it a lost cause after that? He also said we have no right to impose our beliefs on others, which I know is incorrect (laws are beleifs of others, after all), but I couldn’t find a way to combat it in terms of refuting relative morality. I know I can ask, “Is realtive morality relative to you or to everybody,” but I’m not sure how to respond to either answer. If he says it is relative to everybody, that would make relative morality objective. However, whose to say that both subjective and objective morality can’t exist at the same time, just in different cases. Then, if he answers that relative morality is relative to him, how can I say he’s wrong about anything, as everything then becomes an opinion. If anyone could help, that’d be great.
Click to expand...
Peter Kreeft’s A Refutation of Moral Relativism is an excellent start for your learning to defend objective morality and punch holes into the false concept of moral relativism.

Ask him how he would feel if his professor failed him in his class just because he’s a relativist or just because he wears glasses or a hat or whatever he happens to be wearing at the time. If he says that it wouldn’t be fair, then he does not truly believe in relativism. If he says that it would be okay, then he likely has some serious mental issues and I would suggest just not talking with him ever again.
 
Here’s a good article that I think will help:

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=9510

There are moral absolutes and there are truths that anyone can grasp, like that’s a human being in the womb, not a blob of tissue. But some people get uncomfortable with facts. They only want their will and their desires to be affirmed.

Peace,
Ed
 
If morality is relative, then you’ll have two outcomes.
First, the idea of morality coming from an objective source is rejected. Secondly, you will see that the relativists will be busy shoving their idea of morality down people’s throats.
 
Alberti_Devoveo said:
Peter Kreeft’s A Refutation of Moral Relativism is an excellent start for your learning to defend objective morality and punch holes into the false concept of moral relativism.

Ask him how he would feel if his professor failed him in his class just because he’s a relativist or just because he wears glasses or a hat or whatever he happens to be wearing at the time. If he says that it wouldn’t be fair, then he does not truly believe in relativism. If he says that it would be okay, then he likely has some serious mental issues and I would suggest just not talking with him ever again.
Click to expand...
I was just about to recommend that book. It’s a personal favorite. Along with the rest of Prof. Kreeft’s books. The funniest philosopher alive, I’d argue. 👍
 
Pretty much a lost cause, I’d say. Peter Kreeft tells the story of two bright feminists in one of his classes, who were strongly pro-abortion-choice. He argued with them that there was no fundamental difference between abortion and infanticide, and eventually they conceded his logic. “So does that mean you no longer support abortion?” he asked. “No,” they replied, “it means we now support infanticide.”

America is lost. The West is lost. But God remains.
 
edwest2 said:
Here’s a good article that I think will help:

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=9510

There are moral absolutes and there are truths that anyone can grasp, like that’s a human being in the womb, not a blob of tissue. But some people get uncomfortable with facts. They only want their will and their desires to be affirmed.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
The closest we can get to an objective morality is that which is based upon the ethic of reciprocity - you don’t do to others what you would not wish done to yourself, and you may treat others as you desire to be treated yourself.

This isn’t actually an objective morality, since it depends upon subjective preference. But it also depends upon the capactity of any entity, any being, to form subjective preferences. A first-trimester human foetus does not have any such capacity, so can have no preferences; any preferences involved in the situation are solely those of the parent(s). That is the basis of most existing abortion legislation.

Humans, by virtue of being subjective beings, have preferences. But we are not the only animals that have preferences. If you want to impose thoroughly objective morality, you need a basis upon which to establish said morality, and I’m not sure any morality could exist without subjective preference - if we didn’t care, it wouldn’t matter what anyone did. Theists often propose their God as such a basis for an objective ethical structure, but if this God is a personal being with preferences, then any morality resulting from divine preference is still subjective, and may well be ignorant of the real preferences of real beings.

If you really want anything approximating objective morality, subscribe to a utilitarian ethic - this takes into account the best possible outcome, weighing the preferences of every subjective being in the case.
 
ccmnxc said:
Hi, I was wondering if I could have some help with refuting relative morality. I was debating with someone on abortion today, and he said people aren’t wrong in killing something they don’t believe is alive, i.e. a fetus. I asked if the Germans were wrong in killing the Jews if they really believed they weren’t human. He said they weren’t wrong. Is it a lost cause after that? He also said we have no right to impose our beliefs on others, which I know is incorrect (laws are beleifs of others, after all), but I couldn’t find a way to combat it in terms of refuting relative morality. I know I can ask, “Is realtive morality relative to you or to everybody,” but I’m not sure how to respond to either answer. If he says it is relative to everybody, that would make relative morality objective. However, whose to say that both subjective and objective morality can’t exist at the same time, just in different cases. Then, if he answers that relative morality is relative to him, how can I say he’s wrong about anything, as everything then becomes an opinion. If anyone could help, that’d be great.
Click to expand...
 
snarflemike said:
Pretty much a lost cause, I’d say. Peter Kreeft tells the story of two bright feminists in one of his classes, who were strongly pro-abortion-choice. He argued with them that there was no fundamental difference between abortion and infanticide, and eventually they conceded his logic. “So does that mean you no longer support abortion?” he asked. “No,” they replied, “it means we now support infanticide.”

America is lost. The West is lost. But God remains.
Click to expand...
Were these people really convinced that there is no difference between abortion of a nonsentient foetus and the killing of a sentient newborn baby? That’s a bit like saying there’s no difference between harvesting potatoes and slaughtering the cow to be roasted alongside them.

To be fair, there’s something to be said for the manner of killing - we do, after all, accept the relatively humane killing of young cattle and sheep, for example (who have a greater capacity for suffering than a newborn human, it has to be said) for purposes of human preference for eating certain kinds of flesh. It’s a bit arbitrary to say that human infants are more worthy of consideration than veal or lamb.

And one has to consider, also, the long-term consequences - is it better for a foetus to be aborted than for it to grow into a child that will be ignored at best, or abused, at worst, by its parents? The main problem with what is called “objective” morality is that it apparently seeks to remove the process of rational thought from moral decisions - “so-and-so dictates that this is right, therefore I will do it, without thought for the consequences.”
 
Sair said:
Were these people really convinced that there is no difference between abortion of a nonsentient foetus and the killing of a sentient newborn baby? That’s a bit like saying there’s no difference between harvesting potatoes and slaughtering the cow to be roasted alongside them.
Click to expand...
Can you prove that a child in the womb is non-sentient? Assuming you can, by what process does a child become sentient? When does sentience occur?
 
… my dear friend ,

… if the afterlife interests him at all it begins here and now ad one must choose , you get massive protection from god here but hereafter you experience the full phase of whatever reality you left this world in – heaven , purgatory , a type of limbo or hell , if he believes in god as all do regardless of what they say , although the version of god may vary , tell him you don’t go to heaven or hell for being good or bad , good or evil , doing right or wrong or sin or love or vice or virtue — you go to heaven or hell based on whether you did gods will or not and the state of your soul according to that when the end comes for you …

… as i see it : correct thinking process goes like this : truth is absolute and is based on objective reality and you must learn this and bring your mind and will and all faculties of the soul into perfect conformity with this …

… as i see it : common false thinking process goes like this very common today : truth is relative and is based on the subjective perception of reality according to one’s own interpretation in one’s mind with all the faculties of mind and soul contributing …

… many think this incorrect way , if you are extra mentally ill or out of touch with reality more than you realise as is the case with all here you will be off in fairy land with this second faulty type of thinking – you lose all touch with reality …

… the first type of thinking process works fine if the sources of truth you accept are not just true but long tested and proven to be right and reliable and credible sources , there is tons of junk messing up people’s minds in the world today like never before and one must really think correctly and have the correct thinking if one does not want to end up like the mad hatter in wonderland …

… an open honest pursuit and search for truth is needed …

… to help him try to really get him thinking but at his own pace and in his own time , just prod him and talk when he wants , the secret to changing people is use god and all of heaven of course – prayers and sacrifices – but i’ll tell you a secret trick , = influence what people think and that determines what they believe and that determines who they are and that determines what they do and that determines what they do to everyone and everything , use the supernatural means and the psychological approach and be patient whilst you work at him and gradually see change for the better…

… but the supernatural means are vital – don’t neglect them i suggest dearest friend …

… the only way to understand right from wrong or good and evil is to study man and all creation and divine revelation , as a conscience is purely a punishment and curse given by god because adam and eve wanted to know about good and evil , but ones conscience just forces you to make everything good and evil and as such it is very unreliable when deciding what is gods will as evidenced right thru human history since the fall , this whole world and all other creatures are fallen too – good and evil , if you accept divine revelation from the blessed trinity and catholic church you are very blest because few have this benefit and without it your like a blind man trying to see the light , there is actually no such thing as good and evil but god has altered all this world into a delusional fatasy world of good and evil even altering all the laws of physics so all is good and evil until this mess is fixed , and not just man so without gods help you’ll never know right from wrong according to gods will at all if only a lil at best , it is doing gods will that counts and nothing else does …

… really count your blessings if you know the true god , his will and law , as may are called but few are chosen , don’t squander such an infinite treasure gifted to you by your dad god …
l
… hope this helps and good luck , i’ll pray for you all and you for me please …

… bless you +++ 👍🙂

… i am john …

… p.s … this is my own theories and not official catholic teaching …
 
Alberti_Devoveo said:
Can you prove that a child in the womb is non-sentient? Assuming you can, by what process does a child become sentient? When does sentience occur?
Click to expand...
The ability to experience pain and pleasure - the measure of basic sentience - requires a minimally developed nervous system. A human foetus, before a certain stage of development - before the second trimester - lacks a nervous system with which to process pain or pleasure. Aborting such a foetus causes no more suffering, to the foetus at least, than pulling a carrot from a vegetable patch. If you object to the former, you should object to the latter, for the sake of consistency if nothing else.
 
John_Russell_Jr said:
… my dear friend ,

… if the afterlife interests him at all it begins here and now ad one must choose , you get massive protection from god here but hereafter you experience the full phase of whatever reality you left this world in – heaven , purgatory , a type of limbo or hell , if he believes in god as all do regardless of what they say , although the version of god may vary , tell him you don’t go to heaven or hell for being good or bad , good or evil , doing right or wrong or sin or love or vice or virtue — you go to heaven or hell based on whether you did gods will or not and the state of your soul according to that when the end comes for you …

I’d like to point out, first, that you do a disservice to those who declare they don’t believe in God, by assuming they believe in God. This is not the case, particularly if by “God” you mean the God of Classical Theism. I do not believe this kind of being exists.

What you seem to be claiming is that anything goes in this life, because all that matters is the next life. That is a problem, since we exist in this life and must conduct our affairs accordingly.

You also seem to subscribe to the notion that whatever your God dictates is what must be done; what is “right”, broadly speaking. That is also a problem - what if your God told you to fly a plane into a skyscraper, or detonate a bomb in a crowded marketplace? Would that be acceptable to you, because your God told you to do it? The “divine command” theory of morality is littered with problems, from the point of view of the practicalities of real life…
Click to expand...
 
Sair said:
The ability to experience pain and pleasure - the measure of basic sentience - requires a minimally developed nervous system. A human foetus, before a certain stage of development - before the second trimester - lacks a nervous system with which to process pain or pleasure. Aborting such a foetus causes no more suffering, to the foetus at least, than pulling a carrot from a vegetable patch. If you object to the former, you should object to the latter, for the sake of consistency if nothing else.
Click to expand...
… my dear friend ,

… your logic and reasoning are wrong , the criteria is you must do what is natural , that is how you settle all questions be they moral or ethical or more importantly gods will or not , everything in creation has the right to be treated in the natural way it is intended to be naturally treated according to its nature — natural , natural , natural – the 3 big ones that must guide man , gods will is basically this that man is to do what he is naturally meant to do , when man deviates from this all trouble ensues …

… all bad problems and evils in this world are caused by demons and men not doing gods will – the whole lot , so it is important to learn gods will and do it , much of it can be figured out but some needs revelation – hence god has revealed what we need to know and do , man now fallen has lost the knowledge and ability to live and be and do all as he ought so god has and still does through his church help man know what to do in this messed up state he’s in in this crazy world …
**** … i hope this makes sense to you , whether something has no consciousness or very ****
little or can feel pain or choose for itself does not deprive it of it’s rights according to its nature and certainly does not give anyone the right to take away its rights , this thinking*** is a pandorah’s box on steroids , can i ask you to rethink your thoughts here dear friend ??? …***********
… bless you +++ 👍🙂****
… i am john …****
 
John_Russell_Jr said:
… my dear friend ,

… your logic and reasoning are wrong , the criteria is you must do what is natural , that is how you settle all questions be they moral or ethical or more importantly gods will or not , everything in creation has the right to be treated in the natural way it is intended to be naturally treated according to its nature — natural , natural , natural – the 3 big ones that must guide man , gods will is basically this that man is to do what he is naturally meant to do , when man deviates from this all trouble ensues …

… all bad problems and evils in this world are caused by demons and men not doing gods will – the whole lot , so it is important to learn gods will and do it , much of it can be figured out but some needs revelation – hence god has revealed what we need to know and do , man now fallen has lost the knowledge and ability to live and be and do all as he ought so god has and still does through his church help man know what to do in this messed up state he’s in in this crazy world …
**** … i hope this makes sense to you , whether something has no consciousness or very ****
little or can feel pain or choose for itself does not deprive it of it’s rights according to its nature and certainly does not give anyone the right to take away its rights , this thinking*** is a pandorah’s box on steroids , can i ask you to rethink your thoughts here dear friend ??? …***********
Click to expand...
Are you saying that carrots and other vegetables - that is, wild plants as well as deliberately cultivated ones - are naturally designed or intended to be eaten? Or that all natural entities have but one purpose and any other use or behaviour is deviant?

Otherwise, I’m not sure what you’re saying.

You seem to be implying that it’s possible for us to discern, somehow, the “true” purpose or nature of an entity through discovering its utility in relation to ourselves. That might work if you assume the existence of an anthropomorphic God who designed the world for the benefit of humans, but otherwise it’s a view that blinds us, potentially, to the amazing beauty and complexity of nature…
 
quote=Sair;9804837]I’d like to point out, first, that you do a disservice to those who declare they don’t believe in God, by assuming they believe in God. This is not the case, particularly if by “God” you mean the God of Classical Theism. I do not believe this kind of being exists.

… my dear friend ,

… it is the most natural thing in the world for man to believe in god , if he does not believe in the blessed trinity he believes in other god / s , man is religion and believes all on the basis of faith bar one little thing , i did some thinking a while ago and found all human beings whatever religion or beliefs atheists satanists etc all had the same common traits that they express in their religiosity but the catholic faith is the true one , man has a common religiosity enshrined in his very nature and it is impossible for man to not believe i god / s – it’s just a q which one is right and this creates great division but it is just a problem to solve nothing more – all people should just try to learn and solve all problems , people will die defending a truth they hold dear even if it’s wrong and they don’t want to know , we should just seek the truth with all our might and not be afraid of what that truth ends up being , almost 0 people care about finding the truth , they just want to argue , debate and talk forever and no probs ever get solved , people think totally wrong here in this messed up world , whatever man puts above god is his god , men often make themselves god and most have numerous gods , I’m just stating fact maybe you could think more and try and understand me , i dig deep deep below the surface to understand and i try and step outside all to see what’s really going on , i have some success too – learn a lot id i !!! …

What you seem to be claiming is that anything goes in this life, because all that matters is the next life. That is a problem, since we exist in this life and must conduct our affairs accordingly.

… have you heard of heaven and hell – you cannot just do what you like here – no way , one must do gods will perfectly or try your hardest , and heaven and hell and purgatory and a sort of limbo exist here already and all people are in them now and there is no time here , we only have a concept of time because we can measure change but change is an illusion of necessity as we cannot experience our whole eternity all at once – it must gradually unfold for us and all of necessity , but we are in eternity right now , but massively protected from the afterlife util we leave this world – then we get the full experience of the eternity we have chosen , we are in eternity from conception ,people oft exp lil bits of the afterlife here – it is quite true you cannot do what you like , if your too evil you go to hell straight away here but god protects you to give you a chance to repent and amend before it is too late for you , i really think you’ve misunderstood me dear friend …

You also seem to subscribe to the notion that whatever your God dictates is what must be done; what is “right”, broadly speaking. That is also a problem - what if your God told you to fly a plane into a skyscraper, or detonate a bomb in a crowded marketplace? Would that be acceptable to you, because your God told you to do it? The “divine command” theory of morality is littered with problems, from the point of view of the practicalities of real life…

… i might do it , if god said to i would hope i would be of sound enough mind to consult priests , psychiatrists and doctors , god can do anything here as we are outside reality in a delusional fantasy world of good and evil whilst god fixes this mess , if god really said to do that ad similar things have happened before are you greater and wiser than god , what makes you think your opinion is right , you have formed your conscience based on all the influences in your life , what makes you thik your versions of right and wrong are correct ???, are yours right and gods wrong , think hard about it hey , noe of this hell here is real and god is fixing it and then all will be sheer bliss forever , until then it’s not so great here , people judge god based on criteria in their own head , god is so unknowable it’s not funny , i could tell you so much about god that would just confuse you to the point of forgetting to try and know or understand or appreciate god , it’s too much and too much for any human being to even try to start to understand a little , best just to trust god , if you can’t trust god who can you trust ??? , no one , i’ve had a long and arduous journey in my time with god and very few know him better than me and all i can see is just have blind faith and trust in god and do his will always – always , and all will be well soon , god is fixing everything , and i mean the lot , thx for your q’s dear friend …

… bless you +++ 👍🙂

… i am john …
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top