Relativism actually don't contradict morality?

[hihiip201]

I just came up with a pro-relativism arguments:

according to richard dawkins morality is evolved, so maybe “right” and “Wrong” in our conscience is just a sense that was also evolved based on the morality that human develop? which is in fact consistent with relativism is that there is no absolute truth. And “right” and “wrong” has always been a definition we given to the morality evolved within humanity?

is this case there will be no point in talking about morally right and wrong as it has been defined and it always is. and it doesn’t collide with relativism. (as morally right and wrong apart from “truth”)

just as an the EM wave with wavelength between 620–750 nm is defined as red. its is meaningless to define well how do you know if that is “red” or asking questions such as what is true “Red” or are there REAL “red”.

following the morality developed(or conscience, or the 'general morality" where we consider genocide and rape as wrong") what to do has always been defined “right”, it is meaningless to define a new “right”, in other word those who ask for a true “right” and “Wrong” or define otherwise are simply being ridiculous. and that there ISN’T really an absolute truth ,yet pro-relativism people can still hold on to values and morality using this argument.

Do we (catholics, which I assume to be pro-absolute truth people) have any counter-arguments against this? I would like to hear some as I can’t think of any yet.

I hope this do not fall under the atheism-ban as a monotheist can also believe in relativism.(no absolute truth).

ps: I know some of you guys might argue that “well right and wrong has always been fluid thru out history”

so then maybe right and wrong is not “defined” but a sense that we get from following/not following actions that we do according to our conscience and that set of morality? and the reason that morality is so fluid is because we all have been trying to follow the morality originally developed by evolution but we were corrupted by religions’s morals teaching?(and of cuz, in an atheistic speaking the origin of religion is because human started to fine spiritual need and “adrenaline” for life).

 

[Abu]

With the evident design and purpose in the world, and the association of all peoples with the idea of a creator God, it is those, like Dawkins, who buck reality and construct fantasies to try to live as though there is no God.

We received the concept of “nature” from Aristotle as: “Nature is a source or cause of being moved and of being at rest in that to which it belongs primarily in virtue of itself and not in virtue of a concomitant attribute.” From this the Scholastic definition: “the nature of a thing is its essence considered as a principle of operation.”

It may be helpful to understand that the concept of “person” is unknown before the Judeo-Christian lineage: Plato and Aristotle dealt only with statisms, and the individual has no significance in Stoic and Hindu thought – despite the awareness of some kind of human spirituality and immortality.

However, man is capable by his own activity of acquiring what is lacking and developing what is already possessed to fulfill his nature. So man can know his incompleteness; he can see what he is now and discover the direction of fulfillment by scrutiny of his own nature in body, mind and spirit – to achieve himself fully. As a free agent, he has an obligation to achieve himself fully, and this bond of obligation is the natural law. All that is knowable about man through psychology, history or any of the sciences is relevant to the natural law, is part of the natural law. The natural law is outside of man’s control because created by God in man’s nature.
[See Fr Paul M Quay, S.J., in *Why Humanae Vitae Was Right, Ignatius 1993, p 21-4]

The natural law means that if you want things to prosper, you have to use them in accord with their nature. If you want to grow good tomatoes, you have to treat tomato plants in accord with their nature. You have to give them sunshine and water and fertilizer and a good soil. It is something that man can discover by the basis of his own reason, if his understanding is not obscured by his culture – which happens to be in turmoil through relativism and selfism.

 

[hihiip201]

With the evident design and purpose in the world, and the association of all peoples with the idea of a creator God, it is those, like Dawkins, who buck reality and construct fantasies to try to live as though there is no God.

We received the concept of “nature” from Aristotle as: “Nature is a source or cause of being moved and of being at rest in that to which it belongs primarily in virtue of itself and not in virtue of a concomitant attribute.” From this the Scholastic definition: “the nature of a thing is its essence considered as a principle of operation.”

It may be helpful to understand that the concept of “person” is unknown before the Judeo-Christian lineage: Plato and Aristotle dealt only with statisms, and the individual has no significance in Stoic and Hindu thought – despite the awareness of some kind of human spirituality and immortality.

However, man is capable by his own activity of acquiring what is lacking and developing what is already possessed to fulfill his nature. So man can know his incompleteness; he can see what he is now and discover the direction of fulfillment by scrutiny of his own nature in body, mind and spirit – to achieve himself fully. As a free agent, he has an obligation to achieve himself fully, and this bond of obligation is the natural law. All that is knowable about man through psychology, history or any of the sciences is relevant to the natural law, is part of the natural law. The natural law is outside of man’s control because created by God in man’s nature.
[See Fr Paul M Quay, S.J., in *Why Humanae Vitae Was Right

, Ignatius 1993, p 21-4]

The natural law means that if you want things to prosper, you have to use them in accord with their nature. If you want to grow good tomatoes, you have to treat tomato plants in accord with their nature. You have to give them sunshine and water and fertilizer and a good soil. It is something that man can discover by the basis of his own reason, if his understanding is not obscured by his culture – which happens to be in turmoil through relativism and selfism.

okay still reading…but I just want to know what is the definition of “right” and “wrong” or how has that been defined thru out historically.

 

[Abu]

From Fides et Ratio, Blessed John Paul II, 1998:
tinyurl.com/46wut

(#4). “Although times change and knowledge increases, it is possible to discern a core of philosophical insight within the history of thought as a whole. Consider, for example, the principles of non-contradiction, finality and causality, as well as the concept of the person as a free and intelligent subject, with the capacity to know God, truth and goodness. Consider as well certain fundamental moral norms which are shared by all. These are among the indications that, beyond different schools of thought, there exists a body of knowledge which may be judged a kind of spiritual heritage of humanity…. Once reason successfully intuits and formulates the first universal principles of being and correctly draws from them conclusions which are coherent both logically and ethically, then it may be called right reason or, as the ancients called it, orthós logos, recta ratio.

(#5). “Complex systems of thought have thus been built, yielding results in the different fields of knowledge and fostering the development of culture and history. Anthropology, logic, the natural sciences, history, linguistics and so forth—the whole universe of knowledge has been involved in one way or another. Yet the positive results achieved must not obscure the fact that reason, in its one-sided concern to investigate human subjectivity, seems to have forgotten that men and women are always called to direct their steps towards a truth which transcends them.

(#9). “The First Vatican Council teaches, then, that the truth attained by philosophy and the truth of Revelation are neither identical nor mutually exclusive: “There exists a twofold order of knowledge, distinct not only as regards their source, but also as regards their object. With regard to the source, because we know in one by natural reason, in the other by divine faith. With regard to the object, because besides those things which natural reason can attain, there are proposed for our belief mysteries hidden in God which, unless they are divinely revealed, cannot be known”.

Morality, whether an action is right or wrong, can be known from reason.

John Finnis writes: “for Aquinas, the way to discover what is morally right (virtue) and wrong (vice) is to ask, not what is in accordance with human nature, but what is reasonable.” So, then, human good is in accord with reason and human evil lies outside the order of reasonableness: “So human virtue, which makes good both the human person and his work, is in accordance with human nature just in so far as it is in accordance with reason; and vice is contrary to human nature just in so far as it is contrary to the order of reasonableness.” (Aquinas, Summa, I-II, qu. 71, art. 2, resp.).

“To ascertain the reasonableness of something, one must examine cause-and-effect relationships, a process that calls for scientific research and study.”
[See Christians For Freedom, Chafuen, Ignatius 1996, p 29-30].
**
Fr.Stephen F. Torraco of EWTN, on 27/6/2008:*
“Conscience is NOT the same as your opinions or feelings. Conscience cannot be identical with your feelings because conscience is the activity of your intellect in judging the rightness or wrongness of your actions or omissions, past, present, or future, while your feelings come from another part of your soul and should be governed by your intellect and will. Conscience is not identical with your opinions because your intellect bases its judgment upon the natural moral law, which is inherent in your human nature….”

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

I don’t think it is ridiculous to define right and wrong since society constantly seeks to condone or excuse new behaviors that were previously thought to be wrong. How are we to live with one another if we can’t define what is good or bad? Even with the presence of faith we can hardly agree on some major topics. It will be chaos when the majority of people embrace relativism…

It is important to define right and wrong if we are going to get along with each other. The alternative is chaos, b/c there are implications to our actions. No one is living in a vacuum. Our choices affect one another. And it’s not so naturally obvious what right and wrong is - or if you prefer - what is more beneficial to our getting along with one another. There are some very important issues in our day: abortion, genocide, homosexuality, pedophilia… People do not agree on these things, and what we decide about these issues will have incredible implications in the future. For instance, is it okay to regulate the population by limiting each family to the birth of only 1 child? Should we force women to abort the forbidden children? Look at China today. How many babies - especially female babies - have been aborted b/c of this law?

If something can be scientifically proven to be harmful to the health of another person or society, would that be reason to call something “bad” or “wrong”? With new information, we know more about the effects of human behavior. But if it’s all relative, who is to say we should call something bad just b/c it is harmful to someone else?

We are intelligent creatures - we know our miserable end. Other creatures simply act on instinct for the most part. Would the ant strive so persistently if he knew his fate?

I believe that as society increasingly embraces relativism, it will become increasingly self-seeking and immoral. It will excuse more and more harmful human behaviors b/c if there is no right or wrong then no one has the authority to stop anyone from doing anything. That might sound ridiculous to you, but that is where the logic leads, and we see this happening today - for instance it won’t be long before pedophilia is an acceptable lifestyle alternative - it’s in the works. I think we are in this pivotal time in the making of history as more and more people challenge our previous morality for “more logical” or more pleasurable alternatives.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

From Fides et Ratio, Blessed John Paul II, 1998:
tinyurl.com/46wut

(#4). “Although times change and knowledge increases, it is possible to discern a core of philosophical insight within the history of thought as a whole. Consider, for example, the principles of non-contradiction, finality and causality, as well as the concept of the person as a free and intelligent subject, with the capacity to know God, truth and goodness. Consider as well certain fundamental moral norms which are shared by all. These are among the indications that, beyond different schools of thought, there exists a body of knowledge which may be judged a kind of spiritual heritage of humanity…. Once reason successfully intuits and formulates the first universal principles of being and correctly draws from them conclusions which are coherent both logically and ethically, then it may be called right reason or, as the ancients called it, orthós logos, recta ratio.

(#5). “Complex systems of thought have thus been built, yielding results in the different fields of knowledge and fostering the development of culture and history. Anthropology, logic, the natural sciences, history, linguistics and so forth—the whole universe of knowledge has been involved in one way or another. Yet the positive results achieved must not obscure the fact that reason, in its one-sided concern to investigate human subjectivity, seems to have forgotten that men and women are always called to direct their steps towards a truth which transcends them.

(#9). “The First Vatican Council teaches, then, that the truth attained by philosophy and the truth of Revelation are neither identical nor mutually exclusive: “There exists a twofold order of knowledge, distinct not only as regards their source, but also as regards their object. With regard to the source, because we know in one by natural reason, in the other by divine faith. With regard to the object, because besides those things which natural reason can attain, there are proposed for our belief mysteries hidden in God which, unless they are divinely revealed, cannot be known”.

Morality, whether an action is right or wrong, can be known from reason.

John Finnis writes: “for Aquinas, the way to discover what is morally right (virtue) and wrong (vice) is to ask, not what is in accordance with human nature, but what is reasonable.” So, then, human good is in accord with reason and human evil lies outside the order of reasonableness: “So human virtue, which makes good both the human person and his work, is in accordance with human nature just in so far as it is in accordance with reason; and vice is contrary to human nature just in so far as it is contrary to the order of reasonableness.” (Aquinas, Summa, I-II, qu. 71, art. 2, resp.).

“To ascertain the reasonableness of something, one must examine cause-and-effect relationships, a process that calls for scientific research and study.”
[See *Christians For Freedom

, Chafuen, Ignatius 1996, p 29-30].
**
Fr.Stephen F. Torraco of EWTN, on 27/6/2008:**
“Conscience is NOT the same as your opinions or feelings. Conscience cannot be identical with your feelings because conscience is the activity of your intellect in judging the rightness or wrongness of your actions or omissions, past, present, or future, while your feelings come from another part of your soul and should be governed by your intellect and will. Conscience is not identical with your opinions because your intellect bases its judgment upon the natural moral law, which is inherent in your human nature….”

THere are many objections to most of this already in the culture we presently live. We can examine the scientific cause-and-effect relationship of many behaviors today which are acceptable to our culture. If everything is relative, why should cause and effect be a basis for morality? Who could define a favorable effect? Who is to say cause and effect should matter to us?

 

[hihiip201]

I don’t think it is ridiculous to define right and wrong since society constantly seeks to condone or excuse new behaviors that were previously thought to be wrong. How are we to live with one another if we can’t define what is good or bad? Even with the presence of faith we can hardly agree on some major topics. It will be chaos when the majority of people embrace relativism…

It is important to define right and wrong if we are going to get along with each other. The alternative is chaos, b/c there are implications to our actions. No one is living in a vacuum. Our choices affect one another. And it’s not so naturally obvious what right and wrong is - or if you prefer - what is more beneficial to our getting along with one another. There are some very important issues in our day: abortion, genocide, homosexuality, pedophilia… People do not agree on these things, and what we decide about these issues will have incredible implications in the future. For instance, is it okay to regulate the population by limiting each family to the birth of only 1 child? Should we force women to abort the forbidden children? Look at China today. How many babies - especially female babies - have been aborted b/c of this law?

If something can be scientifically proven to be harmful to the health of another person or society, would that be reason to call something “bad” or “wrong”? With new information, we know more about the effects of human behavior. But if it’s all relative, who is to say we should call something bad just b/c it is harmful to someone else?

We are intelligent creatures - we know our miserable end. Other creatures simply act on instinct for the most part. Would the ant strive so persistently if he knew his fate?

I believe that as society increasingly embraces relativism, it will become increasingly self-seeking and immoral. It will excuse more and more harmful human behaviors b/c if there is no right or wrong then no one has the authority to stop anyone from doing anything. That might sound ridiculous to you, but that is where the logic leads, and we see this happening today - for instance it won’t be long before pedophilia is an acceptable lifestyle alternative - it’s in the works. I think we are in this pivotal time in the making of history as more and more people challenge our previous morality for “more logical” or more pleasurable alternatives.

but what if morality itself is a human development and right has always been defined as following this moral? wrong is NOT following it. then wouldn’t it be ridiculous to define right and wrong?(see EM wave and color red in OP)

 

[Samuel63]

I recommend reading the Father Brown series by G.K. Chesterton. It might help.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

but what if morality itself is a human development and right has always been defined as following this moral? wrong is NOT following it. then wouldn’t it be ridiculous to define right and wrong?(see EM wave and color red in OP)

No. Is science ridiculous?

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

but what if morality itself is a human development and right has always been defined as following this moral? wrong is NOT following it. then wouldn’t it be ridiculous to define right and wrong?(see EM wave and color red in OP)

THe difference is we all agree on what is red in that wavelength… You cannot say the same thing about morality.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

THe difference is we all agree on what is red in that wavelength… You cannot say the same thing about morality.

What you actually see and define as “red” may not be what I see and define as “red”, but we all recognize the difference between defined “red” and “white” (I’ve read the God Delusion…). It is the same with “good” and “evil”. It is also the same with “God”. There are many portraits of God, but many have the same attributes; many different names, but we can see and agree on enough to know that it is God (or something like “God”) we are talking about. But the point is that we all recognize something - that something being reality. In this case we speak about morality, but a better terminology would be “reality” or “truth”.

Is reality relative? Is truth an illusion?

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

What you actually see and define as “red” may not be what I see and define as “red”, but we all recognize the difference between defined “red” and “white” (I’ve read the God Delusion…). It is the same with “good” and “evil”. It is also the same with “God”. There are many portraits of God, but many have the same attributes; many different names, but we can see and agree on enough to know that it is God (or something like “God”) we are talking about. But the point is that we all recognize something - that something being reality. In this case we speak about morality, but a better terminology would be “reality” or “truth”.

Is reality relative? Is truth an illusion?

What we define as red and white are unalterable. We do not care to call them something other than what they are b/c it is pointless. With morality it is not pointless. Calling pedophilia minor-attractedness might make it seem less heinous but in reality it is just as heinous. The difference is that what we define as red and white does not give us pleasure or pain. We are content with the definition. But put selfish, pleasure-seeking human nature into the equation and if pain and pleasure were involved in the definition of red and white you would have people left and right arguing about the definition.

 

[hihiip201]

So…you would say the argument against relativism " one who holds relativism don’t have the right to judge what is “right” or “wrong”" still valid?

I mean, i was thinking the only way to break the validity of this statement would be to say that morality and right and wrong has always been natural and a defined by human itself

“the general morality has always been the morality which human evolved and right has always been to follow this moral.” Let’s say if this is true, does this collide with relativism?

 

[CatholicTrekkie]

So…you would say the argument against relativism " one who holds relativism don’t have the right to judge what is “right” or “wrong”" still valid?

I mean, i was thinking the only way to break the validity of this statement would be to say that morality and right and wrong has always been natural and a defined by human itself

“the general morality has always been the morality which human evolved and right has always been to follow this moral.” Let’s say if this is true, does this collide with relativism?

It’s much more simple than that. Relativism ultimately collapses unto itself. It says “There is no absolute truth”. If this is true, what makes you believe that your statement is true? If there is no absolute, intrinsic truth, then what makes your statement true? If you say “There is no absolute truth, except this truth”, then that’s absurd. You’re simultaneously saying “There is no truth” and “There is truth.” and that’s just illogical. It’s really as simple as that.

 

[hihiip201]

It’s much more simple than that. Relativism ultimately collapses unto itself. It says “There is no absolute truth”. If this is true, what makes you believe that your statement is true? If there is no absolute, intrinsic truth, then what makes your statement true? If you say “There is no absolute truth, except this truth”, then that’s absurd. You’re simultaneously saying “There is no truth” and “There is truth.” and that’s just illogical. It’s really as simple as that.

im quoting wikipedia:

Responses

Contradictions such as "all beliefs are equally worthless" are nonsensical, as they constitute arguing from the premise. Once you have said if the X is absolute (e.g. "all beliefs are equally worthless") you have presupposed relativism is false. And one cannot prove a statement using that statement as a premise. There is a contradiction, but the contradiction is between relativism and the presuppositions of absoluteness in the ordinary logic used. Nothing has been proven wrong and nothing has been proven in and of itself, only the known incompatibility has been restated inefficiently.[citation needed]

A very different approach explicates the rhetorical production of supposedly 'bottom-line' arguments against relativism. Edwards et al.’s influential and controversial "Death and Furniture"[39] paper takes this line in its staunch defense of relativism. Part of the rhetoric discussed here involves the portrayal of relativists who say (for example), "torture is not an absolute evil", as saying, in effect, "we don't disapprove of torture as strongly as you do". Relativists argue that this is a rhetorical trick, akin to claiming "you can't throw out the bath water without throwing out the baby too": denying absolute truths still leaves relativists free to be utterly and passionately opposed to torture. Further cultural relativism only implies that differing cultural contexts have to be taken into account when making judgements about what is good or bad relative to that culture. It does not limit one's ability to disagree with a cultural norm.

A strong epistemological relativist could theoretically argue that it does not matter that his theory is only relative according to itself. As long as it remains "true" according to a relative framework, then it is just as true as any apparently "absolute" truth that an absolutist would postulate. The dispute lies in the distinction between whether the framework is relative or absolute, but if an absolutist could be persuaded it was relative, then the relativist theory could exist logically within that framework, albeit accepting that its "truth" is relative. Strong epistemological relativist must remove their own notions of universal truth if they are to embrace their theory fully, they must accept some form of truth to validate their theory logically, and this truth, by definition, must be relative. So if the initial framework is relativistic and something is true within its context arguments that it is not true outside its context have no value.[citation needed]

 

[hihiip201]

im quoting wikipedia:

Responses

Contradictions such as "all beliefs are equally worthless" are nonsensical, as they constitute arguing from the premise. Once you have said if the X is absolute (e.g. "all beliefs are equally worthless") you have presupposed relativism is false. And one cannot prove a statement using that statement as a premise. There is a contradiction, but the contradiction is between relativism and the presuppositions of absoluteness in the ordinary logic used. Nothing has been proven wrong and nothing has been proven in and of itself, only the known incompatibility has been restated inefficiently.[citation needed]

A very different approach explicates the rhetorical production of supposedly 'bottom-line' arguments against relativism. Edwards et al.’s influential and controversial "Death and Furniture"[39] paper takes this line in its staunch defense of relativism. Part of the rhetoric discussed here involves the portrayal of relativists who say (for example), "torture is not an absolute evil", as saying, in effect, "we don't disapprove of torture as strongly as you do". Relativists argue that this is a rhetorical trick, akin to claiming "you can't throw out the bath water without throwing out the baby too": denying absolute truths still leaves relativists free to be utterly and passionately opposed to torture. Further cultural relativism only implies that differing cultural contexts have to be taken into account when making judgements about what is good or bad relative to that culture. It does not limit one's ability to disagree with a cultural norm.

A strong epistemological relativist could theoretically argue that it does not matter that his theory is only relative according to itself. As long as it remains "true" according to a relative framework, then it is just as true as any apparently "absolute" truth that an absolutist would postulate. The dispute lies in the distinction between whether the framework is relative or absolute, but if an absolutist could be persuaded it was relative, then the relativist theory could exist logically within that framework, albeit accepting that its "truth" is relative. Strong epistemological relativist must remove their own notions of universal truth if they are to embrace their theory fully, they must accept some form of truth to validate their theory logically, and this truth, by definition, must be relative. So if the initial framework is relativistic and something is true within its context arguments that it is not true outside its context have no value.[citation needed]

I don’t intend to attack the logic of relativism itself as i imagine it can be logically valid if the “truth” in relativism is referring to a moral truth.

but i see more of a contradiction within someone who holds relativism as true and claim that they have morality.

 

[promethius]

according to richard dawkins morality is evolved, so maybe “right” and “Wrong” in our conscience is just a sense that was also evolved based on the morality that human develop? which is in fact consistent with relativism is that there is no absolute truth. And “right” and “wrong” has always been a definition we given to the morality evolved within humanity?

Richard Dawkins’ arguements are garbage… he’s nothing more than a fundamentalist evolutionist. No different than the fundamentalist Christian who asserts that all knowable truth is explained by the Bible and that the Bible is therefore exclusive towards science.

What I mean to say is that moral developement and understanding has NOTHING to do with evolution whatsoever. Dawkins is using evolution outside of its own asserted scope… and outside the scope of the science, the assertion means little or nothing.

just as an the EM wave with wavelength between 620–750 nm is defined as red. its is meaningless to define well how do you know if that is “red” or asking questions such as what is true “Red” or are there REAL “red”.

following the morality developed(or conscience, or the 'general morality" where we consider genocide and rape as wrong") what to do has always been defined “right”, it is meaningless to define a new “right”, in other word those who ask for a true “right” and “Wrong” or define otherwise are simply being ridiculous. and that there ISN’T really an absolute truth ,yet pro-relativism people can still hold on to values and morality using this argument.

The first and the second here are disjointed. That is to say that understanding what is red is simply a matter of definition. We could just as easily lump that definition in with something else and define the EMs in that wavelength as elephant… but two things, it’s harder to say that the rainbow is “elephant, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet”, and it wouldn’t change ANYTHING to do so.

However, we have an objective reality when we say murder is wrong… murder isn’t wrong simply because I choose to THINK murder is wrong… and changing the definition of what is right and wrong has a real consequence associated with it.

The other area where Dawkin’s relativism falls short is this: morality as we understand it is in direct contradiction to evolution. Compassion for strangers is completely unexplainable in terms of survival of our genetic material. If I see someone else’s child trapped in a burning building, why do I care? They are being eliminated from the competitive pool of resources and my genes will have less competition to survive. So if I’ve evolved a sense of morality which meets the criteria of evolution, then my morality exists under the principle that it makes me stronger as a survival species… and I would NEVER risk my life to save a total stranger who has no benefit in store for my survival. Evolution is the fear of DOING such an act… what has evolved in me is the part that DOESN’T want to enter the burning building. What is objective morality and which is given to me through grace is the understanding of compassion for the stranger and the courage to OVERCOME the evolutionary relativism of a morality that is only good for me.

Do we (catholics, which I assume to be pro-absolute truth people) have any counter-arguments against this? I would like to hear some as I can’t think of any yet.

I think I jumped the gun and already provided my arguements…

ps: I know some of you guys might argue that “well right and wrong has always been fluid thru out history”

so then maybe right and wrong is not “defined” but a sense that we get from following/not following actions that we do according to our conscience and that set of morality? and the reason that morality is so fluid is because we all have been trying to follow the morality originally developed by evolution but we were corrupted by religions’s morals teaching?(and of cuz, in an atheistic speaking the origin of religion is because human started to fine spiritual need and “adrenaline” for life).

Morality, though, has NOT changed from the beginning of time. It is wrong to unjustly do murder and always has been. It is wrong to own another human being (in the modern sense of slavery) and always has been.

What has changed, however, is the definition of what constitutes these acts. Slavery used to be how PRISONERS OF WAR were incarcerated… not race based, not permanent, so on and so forth. Modern slavery in no way resembled the practice of slavery in Israel. An analogy would be if we called the red wavelength elephant in the past… and now the defnition has changed, we’ve redefined elephant as a big gray animal with a trunk. We would be LUDICROUS and STUPID to look back at historical writings and think that the early people were ignorant because they thought that rainbows contained big gray animals with trunks.

Objective morality has not changed, it is merely our understanding of particular vernacular definitions which has shifted.

 

[hihiip201]

Richard Dawkins’ arguements are garbage… he’s nothing more than a fundamentalist evolutionist. No different than the fundamentalist Christian who asserts that all knowable truth is explained by the Bible and that the Bible is therefore exclusive towards science.

What I mean to say is that moral developement and understanding has NOTHING to do with evolution whatsoever. Dawkins is using evolution outside of its own asserted scope… and outside the scope of the science, the assertion means little or nothing.

The first and the second here are disjointed. That is to say that understanding what is red is simply a matter of definition. We could just as easily lump that definition in with something else and define the EMs in that wavelength as elephant… but two things, it’s harder to say that the rainbow is “elephant, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet”, and it wouldn’t change ANYTHING to do so.

However, we have an objective reality when we say murder is wrong… murder isn’t wrong simply because I choose to THINK murder is wrong… and changing the definition of what is right and wrong has a real consequence associated with it.

The other area where Dawkin’s relativism falls short is this: morality as we understand it is in direct contradiction to evolution. Compassion for strangers is completely unexplainable in terms of survival of our genetic material. If I see someone else’s child trapped in a burning building, why do I care? They are being eliminated from the competitive pool of resources and my genes will have less competition to survive. So if I’ve evolved a sense of morality which meets the criteria of evolution, then my morality exists under the principle that it makes me stronger as a survival species… and I would NEVER risk my life to save a total stranger who has no benefit in store for my survival. Evolution is the fear of DOING such an act… what has evolved in me is the part that DOESN’T want to enter the burning building. What is objective morality and which is given to me through grace is the understanding of compassion for the stranger and the courage to OVERCOME the evolutionary relativism of a morality that is only good for me.

I think I jumped the gun and already provided my arguements…

Morality, though, has NOT changed from the beginning of time. It is wrong to unjustly do murder and always has been. It is wrong to own another human being (in the modern sense of slavery) and always has been.

What has changed, however, is the definition of what constitutes these acts. Slavery used to be how PRISONERS OF WAR were incarcerated… not race based, not permanent, so on and so forth. Modern slavery in no way resembled the practice of slavery in Israel. An analogy would be if we called the red wavelength elephant in the past… and now the defnition has changed, we’ve redefined elephant as a big gray animal with a trunk. We would be LUDICROUS and STUPID to look back at historical writings and think that the early people were ignorant because they thought that rainbows contained big gray animals with trunks.

Objective morality has not changed, it is merely our understanding of particular vernacular definitions which has shifted.

ah…just the answer I was looking for, thank you! I think this thread is answered.

 

[thenobes]

im quoting wikipedia:

Responses

Contradictions such as "all beliefs are equally worthless" are nonsensical, as they constitute arguing from the premise. Once you have said if the X is absolute (e.g. "all beliefs are equally worthless") you have presupposed relativism is false. And one cannot prove a statement using that statement as a premise. There is a contradiction, but the contradiction is between relativism and the presuppositions of absoluteness in the ordinary logic used. Nothing has been proven wrong and nothing has been proven in and of itself, only the known incompatibility has been restated inefficiently.[citation needed]

A very different approach explicates the rhetorical production of supposedly 'bottom-line' arguments against relativism. Edwards et al.’s influential and controversial "Death and Furniture"[39] paper takes this line in its staunch defense of relativism. Part of the rhetoric discussed here involves the portrayal of relativists who say (for example), "torture is not an absolute evil", as saying, in effect, "we don't disapprove of torture as strongly as you do". Relativists argue that this is a rhetorical trick, akin to claiming "you can't throw out the bath water without throwing out the baby too": denying absolute truths still leaves relativists free to be utterly and passionately opposed to torture."

And their standards can be shown to be as logical (or illogical) as anyone else’s (see below).

Further cultural relativism only implies that differing cultural contexts have to be taken into account when making judgements about what is good or bad relative to that culture. It does not limit one’s ability to disagree with a cultural norm.

A strong epistemological relativist could theoretically argue that it does not matter that his theory is only relative according to itself. As long as it remains "true" according to a relative framework, then it is just as true as any apparently "absolute" truth that an absolutist would postulate.

A morality is more than a truth. It is a standard that ***ought ***to be enforced.

The dispute lies in the distinction between whether the framework is relative or absolute, but if an absolutist could be persuaded it was relative, then the relativist theory could exist logically within that framework, albeit accepting that its “truth” is relative. Strong epistemological relativist must remove their own notions of universal truth if they are to embrace their theory fully, they must accept some form of truth to validate their theory logically, and this truth, by definition, must be relative. So if the initial framework is relativistic and something is true within its context arguments that it is not true outside its context have no value.[citation needed]

Value, hah!

Morality implies a standard that is worth enforcing. This implies another standard of worthiness of the value of that standard, and thus another standard of worthiness of that value. And so on ad infinitum.

Unless you believe there is a God who is the ultimate source of a standard. Then we have an end (sort of like “first cause”).

Otherwise, your guess of worthiness, ie, your standard, is as good as, and as frightening sine Deo, as my own.

peace
steve

 

[hihiip201]

And their standards can be shown to be as logical (or illogical) as anyone else’s (see below).

A morality is more than a truth. It is a standard that ***ought ***to be enforced.

Value, hah!

Morality implies a standard that is worth enforcing. This implies another standard of worthiness of the value of that standard, and thus another standard of worthiness of that value. And so on ad infinitum.

Unless you believe there is a God who is the ultimate source of a standard. Then we have an end (sort of like “first cause”).

Otherwise, your guess of worthiness, ie, your standard, is as good as, and as frightening sine Deo, as my own.

peace
steve

but couldn’t they argue that the ultimate source of a standard exist independently and eternal? just like some people argue that the universe is eternal itself?