Anyone have a case for Relativism?

[Elioenai26]

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

Theres a method to the madness....

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.

Ok I grant that.

In fact, since you want to take that route, lets say the judge decides to listen to what you have to say and then convicts the man. He sentences the man to 6 months of community service because it was his first offence. You walk out of the courtroom, and while you are waiting for your attorney to come out, the man who bludgeoned you and robbed you walks out and comes and stands beside you with a smile on his face...

What would your response be?

Or if you want, we can abandon that whole hypothetical and go for one a little more illustrative and non-hypothetical.

Catholic Priests who molest young choir boys. Are you aware that at certain parishes around the world this has happened?

 

[quatona]

Theres a method to the madness....




Ok I grant that.

In fact, since you want to take that route,

What do you mean - "want to take that route"? The question was your route, and I answered to the best of my abilities.

lets say the judge decides to listen to what you have to say and then convicts the man. He sentences the man to 6 months of community service because it was his first offence. You walk out of the courtroom, and while you are waiting for your attorney to come out, the man who bludgeoned you and robbed you walks out and comes and stands beside you with a smile on his face...

What would your response be?

Response to what? In your scenario nobody even has asked me anything, and nothing afforded a behavioural response on my part.
So what is it you want to know?
Are you actually asking what my feelings would be?

 

[Elioenai26]

What do you mean - "want to take that route"? The question was your route, and I answered to the best of my abilities.
Response to what? In your scenario nobody even has asked me anything, and nothing afforded a behavioural response on my part.
So what is it you want to know?
Are you actually asking what my feelings would be?

Forget that.

Some Catholic Priests have molested young choir boys at certain parishes around the world from time to time. Now, according to you, your observations lead you to believe that it is the individual person's subjective judgment that determines what is justified.

So tell me, are the priest justified in molesting young boys?

 

[quatona]

Or if you want, we can abandon that whole hypothetical and go for one a little more illustrative and non-hypothetical.

You are the one trying to prove something (namely that I am inconsistent in being subjective). How you are trying to do that is completely up to you.

Catholic Priests who molest young choir boys. Are you aware that at certain parishes around the world this has happened?

It has been in the news quite often.

 

[quatona]

Forget that.

It seems to me that I am pretty often called to forget about everything you tried.

Some Catholic Priests have molested young choir boys at certain parishes around the world from time to time. Now, according to you, your observations lead you to believe that it is the individual person's subjective judgment that determines what is justified.

If it´s a subjective judgement it doesn´t determine anything.

So tell me, are the priest justified in molesting young boys?

You are asking for my subjective opinion? Why?
Personally, I disapprove strongly of such contacts.

 

[madaz]

Originally Posted by quatona
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.

You appear to be directing attention towards a pointless point to evade acknowledging the essence of the statement here.
Which is as quatona stated. "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."

 

[keith99]

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 I take it that you are totally unable to deal with the situation I alluded to and rather than dealing with it you chose to divert away from it.

But still I'll respond to your situation.

I would do little, well I would consider using the press. Good chance there are some outlets that would eat something like this up. With luck the Judge would end up off the bench. Oh and it is rather unrealistic. A strung out addict that attached me would end up broken in half. That might be different in 10 years or so, but by then I'll be a sympathetic old man and such a trial result would be doubtful.

On a purely situational basis the adicts actions are NOT justified. His troubles are of his own making and give no justification to rob or assault others who have no part in making his problems.

 

[Illuminaughty]

Sounds like Platonism of some sort. The ideal forms of value are hanging out in the archetypal realm awaiting our recognition of them. They exist objectively apart from the actual process of valuing. Outside of the mind of those who value. That idea always sounded fishy to me though.

 

[Elioenai26]

If it´s a subjective judgement it doesn´t determine anything.

Here was 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?

To which you responded:

Until anyone makes a case for anything else that´s the explanation that fits my observations best...

So now you are recanting your previous affirmation that a person's subjective determination decides what is justified and what is not.

You are asking for my subjective opinion? Why?
Personally, I disapprove strongly of such contacts.

Several observations:

1. You have negelected in saying whether or not the Priests were justified or not in molesting the young choir boys.

2. You have contradicted yourself once.

3. You say you strongly disapprove of such contacts. Well, I am glad you do! But that says little regarding the Priest. You see, according to you, he can say he thinks its just dandy, and if everyone thought like you do, then they would never be seen as anything other than men who are "doing their own thing".

All of the above should give you reason to look into moral realism which is the majority position held among professional academic philosophers, according to a recent poll. Indeed, among those who have a clear preference, professional philosophers favor moral realism over moral antirealism by two to one.

 

[Gottservant]

do you want your cousin for a wife? No? Then it's not all relative

Do you consider that an example of objective morality?

It's a bad joke designed to show that although it sounds like relativity has thought of everything, actually it hasn't.

Sometimes it doesn't matter how relative something is, you still want to do something different.

Take magnetic force, its all relative to how its is polarized, correct?
Ok but what happens if you make the magetic poles are parallel to each other, they repel, right?
But if its all relative, why don't parallels attract?
They don't because opposites attract, not parallels, right?

So what matters is which frame of reference we are talking about (which relative, your wife or your cousin), moreso than but not without the actual object of relativity.

The object of relativity is more relative than the subject of relativity, the subject of relativity is not relative.

I repeat, the subject of relativity is not relative (it's absolute).

 

[quatona]

Here was 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?

To which you responded:



So now you are recanting your previous affirmation that a person's subjective determination decides what is justified and what is not.

You know, it´s hard to correct your loaded questions any time you ask them again.
To clarify: People determine what they consider justified and what not.
"Is justified" (beyond a person´s opinion) presumes some sort of justification outside of the mind of humans that I see no reason to believe exists. I have made that clear countless times.
Yet, you keep asking me with this and similar wordings time and again, and once I didn´t correct it. My apologies.

Several observations:

1. You have negelected in saying whether or not the Priests were justified or not in molesting the young choir boys.

Indeed. That´s because I don´t believe in objective morality, and because when you say "were justified" you are alluding to something that I have no reason to believe in.
All I have in moral/ethical questions is my subjective opinion. This I can offer to you, and any answer I give to your questions must be understood with this qualification. Whenever you are tempted to see a reference to "objectivity" in my moral/ethical statements - rest assured you have misunderstood it.

2. You have contradicted yourself once.

No. I just once let your continuous attempts to ask leading and begging questions slip. Above I have clarified.
Again, for the record: Nobody determines what is justified.
There is no need for asking this question in every post again. You have my answer, and you have read it numerous times.
Just so we are on the safe side: From now on any time you will ask me a question that contains "is justified", "is wrong" I will simply ignore it due to the fact that you are implying something I have already said I don´t believe in.

3. You say you strongly disapprove of such contacts. Well, I am glad you do! But that says little regarding the Priest.

Well, I can´t speak for the priest, can I? I suspect most of them consider their behaviour a "sin", to tell from the doctrine they adhere to. RCC protagonists tend to be moral objectivists, just like you are.

You see, according to you, he can say he thinks its just dandy,

That´s not "according to me". That´s: unless people´s voice cords aren cut they can say whatever they want. That´s nature, for you.

and if everyone thought like you do,

...i.e. disapproved strongly of their behaviour...

then they would never be seen as anything other than men who are "doing their own thing".

If everyone believed there were gravity, all things would fall down. IOW, this is a fallacious argument from consequence, and while we are at these: things wouldn´t be any different if I claimed my opinion to be objective - as far as I can see your claim (along with the claim of countless others) that it is objectively wrong didn´t prevent them from doing what they did any more than my - admittedly subjective - disapproval did.
Don´t shoot the messenger.
Anyway, I have told you before: I am highly interested in seeing your attempt at making a case for "objective morality". It´s not like I am particularly enthusiastic about subjectivity. Having "objective morality" on my side would surely come in handy.

Of course, like always, your assertion ("...never be seen as anything other than men who are "doing their own thing") isn´t even correct. From my perspective they "are seen" as men who do something I strongly disapprove of, I will voice my opinion, and - should I find myself involved in such a scenario - I will do anything to prevent them from doing it that´s to my disposal. (Btw., claiming objectivity for one´s views isn´t an effective tool for that task).
"If everyone thought like me" they´d face strong disapproval and resistance. Practically the same they´d face if everyone thought like you.

All of the above should give you reason to look into moral realism which is the majority position held among professional academic philosophers, according to a recent poll. Indeed, among those who have a clear preference, professional philosophers favor moral realism over moral antirealism by two to one.

I have never found arguments from popularity particularly convincing. I wasn´t aware that in philosophy reasoning has been replaced by pop-quizes, nowadays.
Btw., have you noticed that those leaning towards atheism outnumber those leaning towards theism by roughly 7:1?

 

[KCfromNC]

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?

Yep. That's what the evidence shows.

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

Easy claim to make. It's much harder to prove.

But it's also irrelevant, since in the other thread you've said we have to discard the Bible if we want to believe that the Christian god provides an objective moral truth for people to follow. So maybe my example wasn't out of context, it was just an uncomfortable moral truth that you're happy to ignore when it is inconvenient.

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.

Since we're all people here, all we can talk about is the former.

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.

So you're saying that you feel that opinions backed up by logic and evidence are equal to those randomly pulled from a bag full of scrabble tiles. If you really thought this, why all the involved arguments trying to rationalize your belief? If you really think that all opinions are equally valid no matter what the backing, you wouldn't put so much effort into trying to back up your argument. By discussing things here, and by trying to logically promote your views, you're proving you don't even believe in your own alleged objection to what I wrote.

So add "the ends justify the means" to this alleged objective moral code, I guess. Kind of like how following the alleged objective Christian God's moral code requires us to dispose of the Bible in the process. Talk about a Pyrrhic victory at best.

 

[Elioenai26]

Yep. That's what the evidence shows.

So you are agreeing that each individual person determines what is bad and what is good? I want to make sure this is what you are saying. If so, do you understand the implications of this view?

The implication is that if I determine it is good to discriminate against an atheist because he is an atheist, and decline to give him a job and instead choose to hire a Christian even though the atheist was more qualified, then that choice and that action is good because I determined it was good.

Surely you do not agree with that. Surely you would call that being prejudiced right?

Easy claim to make. It's much harder to prove.

Not hard to prove at all. All I have to do is copy and paste the entire passage that the single verse was taken from.

But it's also irrelevant, since in the other thread you've said we have to discard the Bible if we want to believe that the Christian god provides an objective moral truth for people to follow.

I will need you to supply my quote where you claim I said that. Because I know I did not say that.

So maybe my example wasn't out of context, it was just an uncomfortable moral truth that you're happy to ignore when it is inconvenient.

The passage makes me uncomfortable not one bit.

Since we're all people here, all we can talk about is the former.

That is the same as saying to a police officer who pulls you over for breaking the posted, objective speed limit: "Well sir, since you and I are both people, all we can talk about is what my perception of the speed limit was. I perceived it was 60, even though the sign said 50 and you say it is 50."

Epic Fail, and ticket to pay.

So you're saying that you feel that opinions backed up by logic and evidence are equal to those randomly pulled from a bag full of scrabble tiles.

I am not saying that, you are. If each person determines what is convincing support for their opinions, then each person is going to view their support as most convincing. I do not think that way, YOU do.

If you really thought this, why all the involved arguments trying to rationalize your belief? If you really think that all opinions are equally valid no matter what the backing, you wouldn't put so much effort into trying to back up your argument. By discussing things here, and by trying to logically promote your views, you're proving you don't even believe in your own alleged objection to what I wrote.

That is not the way I think. I do not think everything is relative the way you do. YOU are the one who believes every person determines what is good and what is bad, what is true and what is not.

 

[Elioenai26]

You know, it´s hard to correct your loaded questions any time you ask them again.
To clarify: People determine what they consider justified and what not.
"Is justified" (beyond a person´s opinion) presumes some sort of justification outside of the mind of humans that I see no reason to believe exists. I have made that clear countless times.
Yet, you keep asking me with this and similar wordings time and again, and once I didn´t correct it. My apologies.

You've just demonstrated to me, and everyone here, the logical outworkings of someone who cannot admit that somethings are objectively wrong.

So what is raping a child? Can you answer that question?

Or if someone were to rape you? What would you say to them? According to you you could not say that it is wrong, or that it is right, or that it is unjustified, or that it is justified.

Maybe you would just look at the man who ravished you and smile?

I guess you would just keep your mouth shut?

This is why I told you earlier that the moral argument would be unpersuasive to you because the more I talk with you, the more I am convinced that either you are lying, or that you are morally deficient and borderline mentally ill.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The implication is that if I determine it is good to discriminate against an atheist because he is an atheist, and decline to give him a job and instead choose to hire a Christian even though the atheist was more qualified, then that choice and that action is good because I determined it was good.

Surely you do not agree with that. Surely you would call that being prejudiced right?

You would determine it was good, by your own internal subjective moralitometer. I would call it prejudiced, referring to my own internal subjective moralitometer. Is this so hard to understand?

"then that choice and that action is good "

No. If there is no such thing as objective good and bad, then it is not the case that that choice and that action just is good, without reference to the subjective person making that determination. Two people may have different subjective moral opinions about the matter. And would in your example.

 

[Elioenai26]

You would determine it was good, by your own internal subjective moralitometer. I would call it prejudiced, referring to my own internal subjective moralitometer. Is this so hard to understand?

"then that choice and that action is good "

No. If there is no such thing as objective good and bad, then it is not the case that that choice and that action just is good, without reference to the subjective person making that determination. Two people may have different subjective moral opinions about the matter. And would in your example.

You say that here, on this forum, but you do not live that way.

There is never a time that we affirm objective moral values more as in the times in which we are wronged ourselves.

If what you were saying was true, and if everyone thought that way, then the Holocaust would not have been seen as evil and wrong, but it was and it is.

Unless of course, you want to say that becaue the Nazis thought that exterminating millions of Jews because they were Jews was right, that it was actually right?

You do not want to say that do you? If you disagree, as I hope you do, then you affirm that at least one objective moral value exists, namely that genocide is wrong regardless of people's subjective opinions regarding the matter.

 

[essentialsaltes]

You say that here, on this forum, but you do not live that way.

What do you mean? You correctly surmise that I would consider you prejudiced in the case you outlined. I agreed. I am living exactly as both you and I say I do.

My personal subjective stand against prejudice does not somehow require me to believe that morality is objective.

If what you were saying was true, and if everyone thought that way, then the Holocaust would not have been seen as evil and wrong, but it was and it is.

People would consult their internal moralitometers, and some would say one thing, and some would say the other. This is precisely what we should expect if morality is a subjective determination.

Unless of course, you want to say that becaue the Nazis thought that exterminating millions of Jews because they were Jews was right, that it was actually right?

You fail once again. If, as I maintain, there is no "actually right", your sentence is meaningless. I would not want to say that.

then you affirm that at least one objective moral value exists, namely that genocide is wrong regardless of people's subjective opinions regarding the matter.

No, I don't. I maintain that it is my subjective opinion that genocide is wrong. Other people may have different opinions, but they have not convinced me to subscribe to their subjective opinion on the matter. So my subjective opinion holds for me. In my opinion, Beethoven is better than Brahms, regardless of other people's opinions. This does not make my aesthetic judgment objective.

 

[quatona]

Elioenai,
I must say that I find your habit of ignoring large explanatory portions of my post, quoting a small snippet, and then ask a question that I have answered multiple times in the large portions you ignored very troublesome.

You've just demonstrated to me, and everyone here, the logical outworkings of someone who cannot admit that somethings are objectively wrong.

Yes, so you finally admit that I am consistent in my subjectivism - or are you going to make an argument instead of posting emotionalisms such as the one above?

So what is raping a child? Can you answer that question?

No. What is it you are asking for? A technical definition, a description, or my subjective opinion about it?

Or if someone were to rape you? What would you say to them?

I would give them my opinion, in no mistakable terms. Possibly I wouldn´t even talk but simply take actions to defend myself.

According to you you could not say that it is wrong, or that it is right, or that it is unjustified, or that it is justified.

Yes, that´s what I have been telling you all the time. How often do you want me to repeat that?

Maybe you would just look at the man who ravished you and smile?

No, why would I smile? I would have an extremely negative subjective opinion about his behaviour - not exactly the condition to make me smile. I have never been in that situation - it´s possible that I would simply smash my fist in his teeth. (Definitely a more promising approach to making him reconsider his ways than starting to ramble about "objective morality".)

I guess you would just keep your mouth shut?

No, I would voice my opinion. I´m not sure, though, that talk is very effective in that situation - no matter whether I talk from subjectivity or claim to talk from objectivity. I´m pretty sure that if the former doesn´t impress him, the latter won´t do either.

This is why I told you earlier that the moral argument would be unpersuasive to you because the more I talk with you, the more I am convinced that either you are lying, or that you are morally deficient and borderline mentally ill.

So you have run out of arguments, you are unable to make your case, and in your desperation you make an attempt of pathologizing your discussion partner. (In my subjective opinion) that´s incredibly low. I´m sure that this won´t keep you from doing it, but then again claiming that it´s objectively low wouldn´t change your behaviour anymore than giving you my subjective opinion.

We are done here. Your intellectual dishonesty and your disingenious debate tactics are too much for me to endure any further. It´s even more repulsive to me when you do it in the name of a supposedly "objective morality".

 

[quatona]

The funny thing: Eli has been unable to demonstrate anything a moral subjectivst cannot do that a moral objecivist can do (except for saying "this is objectively wrong"). No behaviour is precluded by the mere fact that someone is a subjectivist (and that includes cursing, hurting or even killing the person the subjectivist feels wronged by, not to mention preventing them from doing it).
So all Elioenai can do (of course without substantiating it), and which I can´t do is:
Use one particular wording ("objectively unjustified/wrong/bad/evil/good/right/justified...").
That´s quite a weapon he has there to make the world a better place. I´m sure everyone whose behaviour he disapproves of are trembling in fear once he pulls the word "objectively". :rollleyes:

 

[Elioenai26]

What do you mean? You correctly surmise that I would consider you prejudiced in the case you outlined. I agreed. I am living exactly as both you and I say I do.

My personal subjective stand against prejudice does not somehow require me to believe that morality is objective.



People would consult their internal moralitometers, and some would say one thing, and some would say the other. This is precisely what we should expect if morality is a subjective determination.



You fail once again. If, as I maintain, there is no "actually right", your sentence is meaningless. I would not want to say that.



No, I don't. I maintain that it is my subjective opinion that genocide is wrong. Other people may have different opinions, but they have not convinced me to subscribe to their subjective opinion on the matter. So my subjective opinion holds for me. In my opinion, Beethoven is better than Brahms, regardless of other people's opinions. This does not make my aesthetic judgment objective.

Is there ever a realistic circumstance or situation where it would be good/justifiable/permissible/acceptable to rape a young child?

Yes or no?