Anyone have a case for Relativism?

[Elioenai26]

Tell me, then...

Are you familiar with the supposed "genocidal" God of the Old Testament?

Many atheists here believe that the God of the old testament was genocidal, what is your opinion of this?

 

[Sectio Aureo]

1. They exist subjectively
2. They exist objectively
3. They do not exist at all

Ok, here is my take...

(1) Bears all the earmarks of the most likely possibility.

(2) I cant even begin to understand.

(3) Bears the earmark of a "token" possibility.

 

[Gottservant]

Do you want your cousin for a wife?

No?

Then its not all relative.

 

[quatona]

Well, I think the above serves to prove my point. You say that murder, or the unjustified taking of another life is wrong by definition. That is what I would refer to as a moral value or a moral judgment. In saying that murder is wrong by definition, you are making a judgment and are therefore the one judging or making the consideration that murder is not right but that it is wrong.

No, I´m just pointing out the connotations of a word. "Murder" is a term for "wrongful killing" - so "murder is wrong" is just a tautology. I´m just the messenger here.

Now, people consider certain behaviours right or wrong, and different people consider different behaviours right or wrong. I´ll give you that.
In the same way, people consider certain situations of killing wrong and therefore call it "murder" (wrongful killing), and different people consider different situations of killing "murder" (wrongful killing).

I believe the only question now is: Is murder objectively wrong, or subjectively wrong?

You are still employing a tautology. That´s not the best choice of an example and complicates the discussion.

What I know is: People consider certain forms of killing "murder" (wrongful killing). IOW they consider it wrong. They make their subjective moral judgements. Thus, the case for there being subjective moralities has been made.
Now, go ahead and make your case for the existence of "objective morality" (not without giving a positive definition beforehand, please).

We all make moral judgments, we all act as judges.

Yes, subjective morality is observable and observed.

The question is,
(1)are we all judges equally, in the sense that no person's judgment supervenes over another's, or
(2) is one human being's judgement supervenient over all the rest of humanity,
(3) or is a collective majority of human being's judgement supervenient over humanity,
(4) or is there one outside of and beyond humanity whose judgement's are supervenient over humanity?

ad (4). I don´t know that there is a judge outside and beyond of humanity. If you can demonstrate that there is such a judge, we can start looking at the implications. (In any case, that would be reversing your previous approaches: So far your premise was "objective morality exists (therefore a super-judge must exist)", now your premise would be "a super-judge exists (therefore objective morality exists). It all appears to be very circular, I must say.

Even if there is such a judge, the term "objective" doesn´t apply - it´s still this judge´s subjective morality. We may or may not find it appropriate to submit to this person´s judgement - but that´s a different question altogether.

ad (2). I don´t know what could possibly be the criteria for one person´s judgement superceding that of another.

ad (3). How people deal with the fact that their values differ (e.g. if they decide to let a monarch decide, or if they choose one of the available concepts of letting the majority decide the rules) is a pragmatic issue of handling the fact that people disagree in their subjective values.

(ad 4), however doesn´t preclude any of the other options. Even with there being and outside and beyond judge, the fact that our personal judgements are subjective persists, and it can´t be concluded that any human´s judgement supercedes that of another.

Anyway.
As requested in the OP (and as you have conceded) the case for the existence of moral subjectivity and the fact that morals differ depending on time and place (relativity of morals) has been made.

For the time being (i.e. in the absence of a case being made for there also being an "objective morality") I am merely acknowledging these facts.

Now, will you start making your case for "objective morality" existing along with subjective moralities any time soon, or will you keep beating around the bush?
I´m eagerly awaiting your arguments.
(If an "objective morality" - and what its values are, in particular - could be shown to exist, this surely would come in handy. Thus, in my own best interest, I am wishing you the best of luck with that.)

 

[Sectio Aureo]

Do you want your cousin for a wife?

No?

Then its not all relative.

Do you consider that an example of objective morality?

 

[quatona]

I don't see how anyone can be a consistent moral relativist. You can never say that charity is an objectively good thing or that murder is objectively wrong because it might be beneficial to someone & be harmful to someone else.

That´s why a moral subjectivist won´t say that. However, his subjectivism doesn´t prevent him from giving his personal opinion.

But in the end if it's all about survival of the fittest, what does it matter?

Huh? Where did that come from?

We may as well speed it up before the heat death of the cosmos.

Is that your position, or are you making it up as a strawman?

 

[quatona]

Tell me, then...

Are you familiar with the supposed "genocidal" God of the Old Testament?

Many atheists here believe that the God of the old testament was genocidal, what is your opinion of this?

Derailing your own thread already on page 3?

 

[KCfromNC]

Well, I think the above serves to prove my point. You say that murder, or the unjustified taking of another life is wrong by definition. That is what I would refer to as a moral value or a moral judgment. In saying that murder is wrong by definition, you are making a judgment and are therefore the one judging or making the consideration that murder is not right but that it is wrong.

Nope, he's just saying that he understands that the definition of murder is "the bad kinds of killing". What specific acts fall under that definition change from person to person and culture to culture. For example, the Bible tells us that we are blessed if we dash babies heads against rocks, but modern western secular society would frown on that. Examples like this abound of the changing nature of what is considered good and evil.

We all make moral judgments, we all act as judges. The question is, are we all judges equally, in the sense that no person's judgment supervenes over another's, or is one human being's judgement supervenient over all the rest of humanity, or is a collective majority of human being's judgement supervenient over humanity, or is there one outside of and beyond humanity whose judgement's are supervenient over humanity?

1. The relativist takes the position of the first.

Proof of this claim? Seems that someone can realize that morality is an opinion, but that doesn't mean that everyone's opinion is equal. Opinions backed by fact and solid reasoning would be much more persuasive than ones formed from the message someone read in a bowl of alphabet soup, for example. Both are still subjective, but they are not equally well justified.

 

[Elioenai26]

No, I´m just pointing out the connotations of a word. "Murder" is a term for "wrongful killing" - so "murder is wrong" is just a tautology. I´m just the messenger here.

Ok. So do you think that the unjustified killing of another person is wrong? Do you understand what I am asking?

Now, people consider certain behaviours right or wrong, and different people consider different behaviours right or wrong. I´ll give you that.
In the same way, people consider certain situations of killing wrong and therefore call it "murder" (wrongful killing), and different people consider different situations of killing "murder" (wrongful killing).

Here you are referring to people's perceptions of moral values and duties, not the value or duty itself. Nor are we concerned about applied ethics but about moral ontology.

I am not really concerned about how a person perceives a moral value, but rather, is there an underlying moral value at the bottom of it all that makes a demand on the person, I.e. an obligation.

What I know is: People consider certain forms of killing "murder" (wrongful killing). IOW they consider it wrong. They make their subjective moral judgements. Thus, the case for there being subjective moralities has been made.

Once again, you are talking about a persons perception of moral values. I am concerned not about an individual's perception regarding a moral judgment but rather, the value or judgment itself that lays an obligation on the person.

ad (4). I don´t know that there is a judge outside and beyond of humanity. If you can demonstrate that there is such a judge, we can start looking at the implications. (In any case, that would be reversing your previous approaches: So far your premise was "objective morality exists (therefore a super-judge must exist)", now your premise would be "a super-judge exists (therefore objective morality exists). It all appears to be very circular, I must say.

(4) Is a logical possibility and so it was included in the list.

Even if there is such a judge, the term "objective" doesn´t apply

The term objective is in reference to what is objective for human beings specifically for it is always human beings that raise questions and engage in discussions regarding morality about other human beings.

- it´s still this judge´s subjective morality. We may or may not find it appropriate to submit to this person´s judgement - but that´s a different question altogether.

Yes all of that is getting away from what I want to discuss.

ad (2). I don´t know what could possibly be the criteria for one person´s judgement superceding that of another.

I don't either, so we can eliminate it.

ad (3). How people deal with the fact that their values differ (e.g. if they decide to let a monarch decide, or if they choose one of the available concepts of letting the majority decide the rules) is a pragmatic issue of handling the fact that people disagree in their subjective values.

We are talking about moral ontology not applied ethics.

(ad 4), however doesn´t preclude any of the other options. Even with there being and outside and beyond judge, the fact that our personal judgements are subjective persists, and it can´t be concluded that any human´s judgement supercedes that of another.

But it does not eliminate (4) from being a logically defendable possibility.

 

[Elioenai26]

Nope, he's just saying that he understands that the definition of murder is "the bad kinds of killing".

I know what he is saying, but you, like him, are missing my point.

You use the phrase "bad kinds of killing". What is bad? If morality is subjective, then each person determines what bad is, do you not agree?

What specific acts fall under that definition change from person to person and culture to culture. For example, the Bible tells us that we are blessed if we dash babies heads against rocks,

The remark regarding the bible was misquoted and taken out of context by the way.

modern western secular society would frown on that. Examples like this abound of the changing nature of what is considered good and evil.

You, like quatona, continue to talk about people's perceptions of moral values. I am not concerened with people's perceptions, but rather the existence of the values themselves.

Proof of this claim? Seems that someone can realize that morality is an opinion, but that doesn't mean that everyone's opinion is equal. Opinions backed by fact and solid reasoning would be much more persuasive than ones formed from the message someone read in a bowl of alphabet soup, for example. Both are still subjective, but they are not equally well justified.

Both are subjective and it really does not matter what justification one has because that person's justification is just their opinion. Do you understand that? For example, if moral relativism/subjectivism is true, you could say abortion should be legal, and I could say it should be illegal. You back your opinion by solid reasoning, and I back mine by solid reasoning. Who determines which is more persuasive???? We do! LOL I am going to think that my reasoning is more justified than yours, and you are going to think yours is more justified than mine!

So this example fails to be persuasive.

 

[Elioenai26]

Ok, here is my take...

(1) Bears all the earmarks of the most likely possibility.

(2) I cant even begin to understand.

(3) Bears the earmark of a "token" possibility.

With regards to (3), it is the understanding of many evolutionary ethicists that morality has no ontic referrent but rather, our concept of morality is hard-wired into us by the various socio-biological pressures inherent within the evolutionary process. So (3) is more of an indirect hypothesis in a subset of (1), than a stand alone formal category. So we can eliminate it from the list.

So that leaves us with (1) and (2). Now you say you do not understand (2). I have included the following to clear things up a bit:

Robert Adams, a philosopher who taught at Yale, who speaks of a fact being “objective in the sense that whether it obtains or not does not depend on whether any human being thinks it does” (page 105 of The Virtue of Faith).

Also, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy’s entry on the moral argument which speaks of moral properties being “objective in the sense that they hold or not regardless of human opinion.”

As you can see, the idea of objective in this sense is holding regardless of human opinion.

 

[quatona]

Ok. So do you think that the unjustified killing of another person is wrong? Do you understand what I am asking?

Yes, you are asking a tautological question. Of course, if you consider something "unjustified" you consider it "wrong". That´s how these terms are defined. Just like saying something is "negative" is tantamount to saying it is "bad".

Here you are referring to people's perceptions of moral values and duties, not the value or duty itself. Nor are we concerned about applied ethics but about moral ontology.

No, I am just explaining to you most basic facts about language and how it is used.

I am not really concerned about how a person perceives a moral value, but rather, is there an underlying moral value at the bottom of it all that makes a demand on the person, I.e. an obligation.

I know. I don´t know that there is such, and I don´t know what could possibly pose such a demand or obligation. If you think there is such, go ahead and make your case.

Once again, you are talking about a persons perception of moral values. I am concerned not about an individual's perception regarding a moral judgment but rather, the value or judgment itself that lays an obligation on the person.

I know. If you think there is, go ahead and make your case for it.

(4) Is a logical possibility and so it was included in the list.

Sure you can include it in your list. I´m just not seeing
a. how it´s relevant for "objective morality", and
b. I don´t see anything that supports this notion.

The term objective is in reference to what is objective for human beings specifically for it is always human beings that raise questions and engage in discussions regarding morality about other human beings.

So why would I, a human being, consider the subjective opinion of a non-human being "objective" for human beings?

Yes all of that is getting away from what I want to discuss.

Then I suggest you don´t bring it up, in the first place.

We are talking about moral ontology not applied ethics.

If you bring up an issue that is, in my opinion, an issue of applied ethics, I will address it as such. "Applied ethics", as I have mentioned several times now, is what I can observe. If you can make a case for anything other than applied ethics, I´m all ears.

But it does not eliminate (4) from being a logically defendable possibility.

I didn´t criticize its inclusion. I criticized the "or". It´s not mutually exclusive with the other possibilities.
If you think it´s logically defendable, go ahead and defend it logically.

 

[quatona]

You, like quatona, continue to talk about people's perceptions of moral values. I am not concerened with people's perceptions, but rather the existence of the values themselves.

As far as I can tell, people value something. It´s quite presumptious to claim that these values are perceptions of something that exists outside of those people. It´s a premise you haven´t established.

Both are subjective and it really does not matter what justification one has because that person's justification is just their opinion. Do you understand that? For example, if moral relativism/subjectivism is true, you could say abortion should be legal, and I could say it should be illegal. You back your opinion by solid reasoning, and I back mine by solid reasoning. Who determines which is more persuasive???? We do! LOL I am going to think that my reasoning is more justified than yours, and you are going to think yours is more justified than mine!

This scenario resembles reality as observed daily quite accurately.

Oftentimes I find that inconvenient myself. That´s why I am so eager to learn about determining "objective morality" and convincing others that my values are "objectively" right.

 

[Elioenai26]

Yes, you are asking a tautological question. Of course, if you consider something "unjustified" you consider it "wrong". That´s how these terms are defined. Just like saying something is "negative" is tantamount to saying it is "bad".

Ok. I do not know if you are intentionally talking around my point or do not see it so I will make it inescapable for you.

Here is my question:

Who determines what is justified? Would you say that it is entirely a person's subjective determination that decides what is justified and what is not?

No, I am just explaining to you most basic facts about language and how it is used.

This is incorrect. I am speaking about what moral values are, you are wanting to talk about how they are perceived and applied. There is a major difference. One deals with ontology, the other with epistemology and applied ethics.

I know. I don´t know that there is such, and I don´t know what could possibly pose such a demand or obligation. If you think there is such, go ahead and make your case.

Words like ought, or should etc. etc. imply one can or can not or one could or could not. These deal with the concept of moral obligation. Do you understand?

 

[Elioenai26]

As far as I can tell, people value something. It´s quite presumptious to claim that these values are perceptions of something that exists outside of those people. It´s a premise you haven´t established.

The way you use the word value in your first sentence and the way you use it in the second sentence is not the same.

In the first sentence you are using it as a verb, in the second you use it as a noun. I am using it in my work univocally as a noun. Therefore your statement above is not coherent.

 

[quatona]

Ok. I do not know if you are intentionally talking around my point or do not see it so I will make it inescapable for you.

I suspect that the problem is rather that you don´t accept my answers.

Here is my question:

Who determines what is justified? Would you say that it is entirely a person's subjective determination that decides what is justified and what is not?

Until anyone makes a case for anything else that´s the explanation that fits my observations best. What I see is people giving their subjective ethical opinions (notwithstanding the fact that some of them claim theirs to be "objective").

This is incorrect. I am speaking about what moral values are, you are wanting to talk about how they are perceived and applied. There is a major difference. One deals with ontology, the other with epistemology and applied ethics.

I see no reason to assume that values are perceived. (Just like I don´t see a reason to conclude from "This tastes good!" that this is a perception of an "objective good taste" that exists outside the person to whom this something tastes good). Again, you are simply either not reading my responses or you ignore them: "Value", as far as I can tell, take place when a person values something. I have never seen a value existing independently of someone who values something.
If you feel there exist values outside of the minds of human beings, go ahead and make your case. I am waiting in increasing anticipation.

Words like ought, or should etc. etc. imply one can or can not or one could or could not. These deal with the concept of moral obligation. Do you understand?

Personally, when I use words like "ought" or "should" (which I do not do very often - because people tend to misunderstand me) I am intending to give my personal opinion and preferences. Naturally I am assuming the same about the people around me. Of course, as soon as someone is willing and able to make a case for his opinion being congruent with some "objective moral facts" I will readily reconsider. The mere claim that a value is "objective" will, however, not do.

 

[quatona]

The way you use the word value in your first sentence and the way you use it in the second sentence is not the same.

In the first sentence you are using it as a verb, in the second you use it as a noun. I am using it in my work univocally as a noun. Therefore your statement above is not coherent.

Sure it isn´t - simply because I was contrasting my observations (first sentence) with your premise (second sentence). Why would you expect a contradiction to be coherent?

As far as I can tell, "valueing" is a process in the human mind. I see no reason to assume that there is an object (that can accurately be covered by a noun). Unfortunately our languages have a bad habit of creating nouns out of nothing (falsely suggesting that there exists an object). E.g. I don´t see any reason to assume that there exists an object "speed". Things move more or less fast, that´s all.

 

[keith99]

When I say that objective moral values exist, I mean that a statement like, "Murder is evil," is making a claim about some objective moral reality in precisely the same way that the statement, "There is a chair in my kitchen," is making a claim about an objective physical reality. In contrast, a moral relativist claims that a statement like, "murder is evil," is a subjective claim about our (or our society's) preference.

Instead of value, you could use the word judgment i.e moral judgements.

Another example to help you understand this concept is:

To say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so. It is to say, for example, that Nazi anti-Semitism was morally wrong, even though the Nazis who carried out the Holocaust thought that it was good; and it would still be wrong even if the Nazis had won World War II and succeeded in exterminating or brainwashing everybody who disagreed with them.

Read more: Our Grasp of Objective Moral Values | Reasonable Faith

Does this clear it up?

As I see it your argument is black and white exist. That is fine. My problem is that then many go on to argue shades of gray do not exist.

Lying is wrong. Yes or no.

Answer no and then I am free to lie to you. Answer yes and I suggest you read the post I'm replying to. An obvious exception comes to mind.

Heck reread your post and see if you can come up with an exception to Murder is evil. A small hint. Hans Oster agrees with me and included the willingness to pull a fast one on pretty much everyone.

 

[Elioenai26]

I suspect that the problem is rather that you don´t accept my answers.


Until anyone makes a case for anything else that´s the explanation that fits my observations best. What I see is people giving their subjective ethical opinions (notwithstanding the fact that some of them claim theirs to be "objective").




I see no reason to assume that values are perceived. (Just like I don´t see a reason to conclude from "This tastes good!" that this is a perception of an "objective good taste" that exists outside the person to whom this something tastes good). Again, you are simply either not reading my responses or you ignore them: "Value", as far as I can tell, take place when a person values something. I have never seen a value existing independently of someone who values something.
If you feel there exist values outside of the minds of human beings, go ahead and make your case. I am waiting in increasing anticipation.





Personally, when I use words like "ought" or "should" (which I do not do very often - because people tend to misunderstand me) I am intending to give my personal opinion and preferences. Naturally I am assuming the same about the people around me. Of course, as soon as someone is willing and able to make a case for his opinion being congruent with some "objective moral facts" I will readily reconsider. The mere claim that a value is "objective" will, however, not do.

Sure it isn´t - simply because I was contrasting my observations (first sentence) with your premise (second sentence). Why would you expect a contradiction to be coherent?

As far as I can tell, "valueing" is a process in the human mind. I see no reason to assume that there is an object (that can accurately be covered by a noun). Unfortunately our languages have a bad habit of creating nouns out of nothing (falsely suggesting that there exists an object). E.g. I don´t see any reason to assume that there exists an object "speed". Things move more or less fast, that´s all.

As I see it your argument is black and white exist. That is fine. My problem is that then many go on to argue shades of gray do not exist.

Lying is wrong. Yes or no.

Answer no and then I am free to lie to you. Answer yes and I suggest you read the post I'm replying to. An obvious exception comes to mind.

Heck reread your post and see if you can come up with an exception to Murder is evil. A small hint. Hans Oster agrees with me and included the willingness to pull a fast one on pretty much everyone.

I now want to provide a case to demonstrate why even though you say that subjectivism best fits your observations, why you cannot live as a moral subjectivist. Keith99, you can respond to this realistic and probable scenario too if you like.

You are walking down the street and someone snatches your umbrella out of your hand and proceeds to assault you with it. They relieve you of your wallet, your shoes, and your watch and leave you lying bloody and crying for help on the sidewalk. Your injuries cause you to miss several weeks worth of work, and several hundred dollars in medical bills, not to mention the severe swelling and permanent lazy eye that resulted from being struck in the eye by your own umbrella. The perpetrator escaped only later to be caught. At trial, the perpetrator's defense attorney argues that his client was addicted to heroin at the time and was suffering from painful withdrawal symptoms when he robbed you. He argues that his client was justified in doing what he did because if he had not robbed you and then later pawned your watch, he would not have been able to afford to buy more drugs to satisfy his physiological cravings.

What would your response be?

 

[quatona]

I now want to provide a case to demonstrate why even though you say that subjectivism best fits your observations, why you cannot live as a moral subjectivist. Keith99, you can respond to this realistic and probable scenario too if you like.

You are walking down the street and someone snatches your umbrella out of your hand and proceeds to assault you with it. They relieve you of your wallet, your shoes, and your watch and leave you lying bloody and crying for help on the sidewalk. Your injuries cause you to miss several weeks worth of work, and several hundred dollars in medical bills, not to mention the severe swelling and permanent lazy eye that resulted from being struck in the eye by your own umbrella. The perpetrator escaped only later to be caught. At trial, the perpetrator's defense attorney argues that his client was addicted to heroin at the time and was suffering from painful withdrawal symptoms when he robbed you. He argues that his client was justified in doing what he did because if he had not robbed you and then later pawned your watch, he would not have been able to afford to buy more drugs to satisfy his physiological cravings.

What would your response be?

So you are abandoning the approach that you have put so much effort in, in favour of starting something new? Ok, noted.

Assuming for a moment that I am given the opportunity for a response (which, I think, is not provisioned for in such a trial) I would point out that the attorney´s reasonings do not conform with the laws of the country in which the trial is held (which - presumably - is the one I live in). Which is all that counts in a trial.