Relative morality

[ReapReason]

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.

A thing can be wrong in itself regardless of whether or not people know it. But this does not mean that a person should be held to be guilty for murdering babies, unless it is evident that this is what a person is in fact doing. That which is done in ignorance has no claim over our soul.

So if you are worried about his soul, it would seem a wasted worry. You should be more concerned with whether he is honest in his heart.

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

Dear Sair , your reply …
**
font=Arial]

Sair[/I]

;* 9804953]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?*

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…[/I]

…*** let us discuss the wonders of gods glorious creation dearest friend …***

… my dear friend ,

… there is but one creation and man is meant to be in perfect union with creation as one with it taking and giving with perfect naturalness and in a perfectly natural way that is complimentary and in harmony with creation and to see himself as one with creation ,beauty is the average , perfect beauty is just being perfectly average , do you know creation is infinitely simple and this shows infinite perfection , if it is complex this is a sign of imperfection , just because something seems complicated to man does not mean it is , a common fallacy this idea creation is amazing because of the extraordinary complexity , it is astounding for its infinite simplicity and total perfection – even if a bit damaged at present …

… man needs to see himself as neither superior to or separate from anything else in creation , creation has been ruined by man’s rebellion against god but all is being fixed and will be restored , i see all creation as one big happy family that for now is divided and strife ridden , but the family will be reunited soon and all will be well , creation is one in that all is love and love unites , evil divides , evil has temporarily been introduced into creation hence the sad mess …

… i consider dirt , air , water , planets, gases , atoms and subatomic particles and all creatures to be my family – brothers and sisters and other types of relatives , the whole universe is the garden of eden paradise god gave us and the mass that gave the big bang was like a flower that blossomed when god fertilised it and it bloomed into the beautiful galactic flower we see today , the galaxies are like petals on this wonderful galactic flower and the stars and planets and all in them are like atoms and molecules and all the various things within all contribute to make up the petals , and in this spectacular garden god placed man on the earth and made it abundantly fruitful and man was intended to eventually colonise all planets turning them into earth like paradises ( this will take place when creation is made anew and the new heavenly jerusalem comes down and turns our wonderful world into heaven as well and the galactic flower becomes a type of mystical rose – a name for your blessed mother mary …

more to come >>>

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

…i see all sorts of relationships in creation but human relationships are most important apart from god , creation is one big happy family that is meant to work as one with a perfect equilibrium ensuring all get what they need for each other by providing one for another and all working together as one , and god has may relationships but he is the grandfather with the big mass our grandmother and all that came from that mass are our uncles and aunties and all that split from them our cousins , 2nd cousins etc etc etc …

… and the earth is our holy mother since she gave birth to us with god our father , all living and non - living things on or from earth are our brothers and sisters , the angels are our brothers too , this is just another way to view creation , one can see the sun as a type of jesus and the moon the devil , we look at these and all creation and we know we can’t live without them and it is truly all family relationships of many and oft multiple types …

…,god works through creation to provide all we will ever need and we must love creation , to love creation is to love the creator , the gratitude we should feel for this wonderful gift from god should raise our hearts and minds in the most blessed eternal hymn of praise and so it shall soon and forever and ever , the more man lives in perfect union with creation as one with it the better everything gets , the further man drifts from this the worse it all gets , man is going the wrong way too much and too fast now and we see the horrible consequences …

…man is a part of nature and the environment and when he harms anything in creation he harms himself , creation is like a giant living organism and when anything is unnatural it becomes sick and sicker sadly , man must understand these truths better , love all creation and tell it and show it in all appropriate human ways , something does not only deserve love if it has consciousness o is living , love creation and you’ll be happier ad love more and more for greater happiness , and god will be happier …

… creation is made of love , thought , dream , prayer and music and all these are spiritual , but further more they are also love , love music , thoughts of love , dreams of love, prayer is love and love music , so everything is love and infinitely loveable , i know creation is a mess now but that will be repaired soon …

… we not only have the same common grandparents the big mass of the big bang and god the father , like god we are love and we are family of love and we should must behave as such , I did not say what you think at all , I could go on taking more and more about creation , but simply man has a place in creation and a specific role and task as everything else does and we all have rights though they differ , our duty is to discover the truth of these mysteries increasingly and expound them more and more and see how extremely delicate the finely tuned equilibrium in creation is and the importance of living as human beings are intended as part of this one great family – creation ,everything in creation has a purpose and that is many purposes , people must correct their understanding of and appreciation of creation , creation is much more than just beautiful …

… man is creation too , all creation is to work together to fulfil gods will – that is its purpose , the slightest unnaturalness throws the whole equilibrium out and throws creation into chaos , to restore order man must do gods will , all that plagues man such as all sick****ness , illnesses , diseases , death , natural disasters , crime , all evil and sin , all bad problems , all vice and addiction and every negative thing is the result of man’s unnaturalness , the more unnatural man is the more he harms himself , others , all and everything , creation turns in on man to try and force him to do gods will thus afflicting him individually and collectively , ****

---

more to come >>>

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

**even if you don’t know your being unnatural and going against gods will there are serious consequences and they can be very serious , it causes war and money problems too – you name it , man should see himself as a flower in a pot all good and healthy then he tries to drink acid instead of water – the consequences are dire , man must be natural as said , it really is like this … **

… the purpose of man’s life is just to be himself – the human being he is meant to be , this is all the catholic church wants and god established it for this purpose , ultimately – thanks to it creation will be fixed and made better >>> into heaven as well and nothing will ever go wrong again , and this time is soon I think and hope …

… there is tons more could be said but I’ll just post a few bible quotes to show I’m not delving into astrology , zodiacs and other evil occult ideas or practises before finishing …

Gen.1

14] And God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night; and let them be for*** signs*** and for seasons and for days and years,

Gen.15

5] And he brought him outside and said, “Look toward heaven, and number the stars, if you are able to number them.” Then he said to him, “So shall your descendants be.”

Matt.24

29] "Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the** stars** will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken;

Mark.13

25] and the** stars** will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken.

Rev.12

1] And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve** stars**;
4] His tail swept down a third of the** stars** of heaven, and cast them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, that he might devour her child when she brought it forth;

*… this last rev 12 : 1 – it is mary symbolized by the milky way , she is the pure white or milky virgin who shows the waty , she is clothed with the su type of jesus ad the moon under her feet is a type of satan and the crown of twelve stars is the zodiac constellations , although I’m not supporting zodiacs as it is evil occult practices , but just showing my post about creation is valid , the dragon is satan and he is symbolized by the supermassive black hole in the centre of the milky way trying to suck in to hell all the saints symbolized by the stars in the milky way … *

Matt.2

2] “Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we have seen his** star** in the East, and have come to worship him.”
7] Then Herod summoned the wise men secretly and ascertained from them what time the** star** appeared;
9] When they had heard the king they went their way; and lo, the** star** which they had seen in the East went before them, till it came to rest over the place where the child was.
10] When they saw the** star**, they rejoiced exceedingly with great joy;

***… bless you +++ ***

… I am john …

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

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.

As I understand it, the nervous system is partially developed by 10 weeks, three weeks before the second trimester. Further, is sentience the only requirement to be human? A fetus (which, I know your nation was once part of the Commonwealth, but foetus is a hypercorrection to the wrong word, it is truly and undeniably fetus) is still human, is it not? Since the fetus is human, should it not get the same rights as everyone else?

And the difference between any vegetable, such as the carrot, and a human fetus is that, using your definition, the fetus has the chance to be sentient, whereas the vegetable never will be able to do so.

 

[bri89]

I don’t think it’s at all self-evident that there are moral absolutes. What are these absolutes? If murder, theft, and lying are absolutely wrong then wouldn’t that mean that the various kinds of murders, lies, and theft, are essentially the same? We criminalize killing and believe it is wrong and yet believe it is perfectly excusable in cases of self-defense, justifiable homicide, justifiable war. Most would agree that there is nothing commendable about lying, and yet we realize that certain lies are worse than others. Criminalized lying like libel and perjury are not comparable to the kind of relatively harmless deceit that goes along with flattery or making up a story to wiggle out of some unimportant obligation. Sometimes lying is even selfless. Lying by taking blame upon yourself for some else’s crime because it seems to you that that the person has had enough misfortune in their life, is heroic. On stealing, Bernie Madoff is obviously a more contemptible thief than a pick-pocket. A woman who was forced by law into a marriage to an abusive husband and commits adultery, is not the same as a woman adulterer who married of her own volition and exchanged vows. Not all murder is the same, not all lying is the same, not all theft is the same, not all adultery is tha same. I think we all realize this on some level. To me, relativism is closer to reality. Ethics is situational.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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.

Basically, when anyone or any society or culture has that attitude, don’t turn your back on them because they can never be tursted.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

If somebody says that the Nazis weren’t wrong in killing the Jews, the battle is lost. It’s like fighting the Joker. Whatever happens you can’t win, because their rules are different.

 

[ccmnxc]

I don’t think it’s at all self-evident that there are moral absolutes. What are these absolutes? If murder, theft, and lying are absolutely wrong then wouldn’t that mean that the various kinds of murders, lies, and theft, are essentially the same? We criminalize killing and believe it is wrong and yet believe it is perfectly excusable in cases of self-defense, justifiable homicide, justifiable war. Most would agree that there is nothing commendable about lying, and yet we realize that certain lies are worse than others. Criminalized lying like libel and perjury are not comparable to the kind of relatively harmless deceit that goes along with flattery or making up a story to wiggle out of some unimportant obligation. Sometimes lying is even selfless. Lying by taking blame upon yourself for some else’s crime because it seems to you that that the person has had enough misfortune in their life, is heroic. On stealing, Bernie Madoff is obviously a more contemptible thief than a pick-pocket. A woman who was forced by law into a marriage to an abusive husband and commits adultery, is not the same as a woman adulterer who married of her own volition and exchanged vows. Not all murder is the same, not all lying is the same, not all theft is the same, not all adultery is tha same. I think we all realize this on some level. To me, relativism is closer to reality. Ethics is situational.

If this doesn’t address your comment, my apologies, it seemed to fit best.

Taken from: philvaz.com/apologetics/p17.htm

"Argument #3

Morality is determined by situations. For example, lying is wrong. But lying to the Nazis where the Jews are is right. Since situations are relative and changing, then morality is relative and changing.

Response: Morality is not determined by situations, but conditioned by it. It determines it partly, not wholly. There are three things that make a moral act good or bad: situation, motive, and the act itself. All this means is that one should apply objective principles to situations. Also, this does not prove moral relativism, but situational relativism. For example, murder is wrong, but one must murder someone for self-defense.

What situation does is making a deed right. Killing for self-defense makes killing not murder. Therefore killing for self-defense is not wrong. Also, lying to the Nazis isn’t lying at all because the Nazis don’t have the right to know where the Jews are. Another point people think is true is that good intentions is enough. It is not. Hitler had good intentions, but his actions were not. A good intention can make a deed good, but a good intention does not make a bad deed good."

 

[thecone137]

If this doesn’t address your comment, my apologies, it seemed to fit best.

Taken from: philvaz.com/apologetics/p17.htm

"Argument #3

Morality is determined by situations. For example, lying is wrong. But lying to the Nazis where the Jews are is right. Since situations are relative and changing, then morality is relative and changing.

Response: Morality is not determined by situations, but conditioned by it. It determines it partly, not wholly. There are three things that make a moral act good or bad: situation, motive, and the act itself. All this means is that one should apply objective principles to situations. Also, this does not prove moral relativism, but situational relativism. For example, murder is wrong, but one must murder someone for self-defense.

I checked out ethical theory in my intro to philosophy book: Does he mean what makes a situation good or bad is the 1. motive, 2. act, and 3.consequence?

 

[ccmnxc]

That was the impression I received.

 

[Sair]

As I understand it, the nervous system is partially developed by 10 weeks, three weeks before the second trimester. Further, is sentience the only requirement to be human? A fetus (which, I know your nation was once part of the Commonwealth, but foetus is a hypercorrection to the wrong word, it is truly and undeniably fetus) is still human, is it not? Since the fetus is human, should it not get the same rights as everyone else?

And the difference between any vegetable, such as the carrot, and a human fetus is that, using your definition, the fetus has the chance to be sentient, whereas the vegetable never will be able to do so.

No, sentience is the basic requirement for ethical consideration. Your argument here is implying that membership of the human species is the basic requirement. The proper question to be asked is, if the foetus is sentient, is it entitled to have its interests weighed in the moral calculus, and the answer is yes. But that doesn’t automatically guarantee that its interests will outweigh those of others, or longer-term considerations. If it is not sentient, then it has no interests. It doesn’t know or care that it could have a future.

The argument from potentiality is problematic for a couple of reasons - one is that with the current state of biotechnology, pretty much any human cell has the potential to become an adult human, or perhaps be grown into a human organ for transplantation into a person with a serious illness. What value should we then ascribe to the skin cells we scrub off in the shower every day? Furthermore, as I said, the foetus doesn’t know that it has potential, so this argument is put purely from the point of view of those outside the case. And don’t forget that just as any human foetus may have the potential to grow into a Mozart or a Winston Churchill or a Pope John XXIII, it likewise has the same potential to grow into a Hitler, a Pol Pot or a Putin…or a George Dubbya.

And again, the argument from potentiality assumes a value for humans based purely upon membership of the human species. Applied to a different situation, we rob veal calves and lambs of the opportunity to grow to adulthood and to breed when they are slaughtered at 12 months old. But no-one seems to be bewailing the loss of potential here.

 

[Sair]

I don’t think it’s at all self-evident that there are moral absolutes. What are these absolutes? If murder, theft, and lying are absolutely wrong then wouldn’t that mean that the various kinds of murders, lies, and theft, are essentially the same? We criminalize killing and believe it is wrong and yet believe it is perfectly excusable in cases of self-defense, justifiable homicide, justifiable war. Most would agree that there is nothing commendable about lying, and yet we realize that certain lies are worse than others. Criminalized lying like libel and perjury are not comparable to the kind of relatively harmless deceit that goes along with flattery or making up a story to wiggle out of some unimportant obligation. Sometimes lying is even selfless. Lying by taking blame upon yourself for some else’s crime because it seems to you that that the person has had enough misfortune in their life, is heroic. On stealing, Bernie Madoff is obviously a more contemptible thief than a pick-pocket. A woman who was forced by law into a marriage to an abusive husband and commits adultery, is not the same as a woman adulterer who married of her own volition and exchanged vows. Not all murder is the same, not all lying is the same, not all theft is the same, not all adultery is tha same. I think we all realize this on some level. To me, relativism is closer to reality. Ethics is situational.

Great response. I think this is actually the best argument for a consequentialist ethic over an absolutist ethic - what matters is the outcome of an action (and, in some respects, the intended outcome). But what that means is that there has to be a basis upon which to discern a good outcome from a bad outcome, and that, I think, is where there has to be an objective component to morality.

It’s obviously quite possible to have perfectly good and honest intentions, but to be misguided in their application such that negative outcomes result for sentient beings. This seems to me, at least, to be a failure of empathy above all else - which really amounts to a greater concern for the rules than for those to whom the rules are applied.