Anyone have a case for Relativism?

[KCfromNC]

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?

Do you understand what an argument from consequence is? Because you're making one here, and as you might know, they are logical fallacies. Reality doesn't care how uncomfortable it makes you, and your feelings on how it should behave doesn't change how it actually does work.

Not hard to prove at all.

Then what's taking you so long?

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

So you only have to throw out parts of the Bible to maintain a belief that God provides an objective morality?

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."

You seem to be confusing reading a sign with perceiving some sort of ethereal ideal of moral truth. I'm not sure where this confusion is coming from, but it's certainly not from anything I've written.

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.

Yeah, people are going to believe what they're going to believe. Sorry it makes you uncomfortable, but again, reality doesn't care. And again, what does it have to do with my point that not all opinions are created equal. For some reason you can't address that point and want to pretend that everyone's thinking on any matter is equally privileged. Not sure where that's coming from, but you should find someone who's actually claiming that if you want to discuss your disagreement with it.

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.

"I know you are but what am I?" Very mature.

Anyway, I never said that truth (whatever the heck that is) is relative. Stop making things up.

 

[KCfromNC]

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

Numbers 31:7-18?

 

[JGG]

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?

That's not a good enough reason to assault the man, and it is not a good enough reason to steal his money.

However, are you basing your entire argument on just one scenario?

Let me pose this question: Your mother is lying in a hospital suffering from terminal cancer. The cancer has effected her brain and spine and rendered her completely paralyzed except for one arm, her eyes, and her tongue. She is heavily medicated, and slips in and out of consciousness. Even while she is sleeping she hallucinates, and her body quivers with pain, despite the heavy medication, all of the time. During one of her clearer periods she asks you to inform the doctor that she does not wish to live any longer. Is it moral and justifiable to terminate her life at this juncture?

 

[Elioenai26]

Numbers 31:7-18?

Since the above portion of scripture makes no reference to raping children and since you no doubt do not believe that the Bible was actually inspired by God, I will take your response as a "no" to the question I asked.

 

[Elioenai26]

That's not a good enough reason to assault the man, and it is not a good enough reason to steal his money.

However, are you basing your entire argument on just one scenario?

Let me pose this question: Your mother is lying in a hospital suffering from terminal cancer. The cancer has effected her brain and spine and rendered her completely paralyzed except for one arm, her eyes, and her tongue. She is heavily medicated, and slips in and out of consciousness. Even while she is sleeping she hallucinates, and her body quivers with pain, despite the heavy medication, all of the time. During one of her clearer periods she asks you to inform the doctor that she does not wish to live any longer. Is it moral and justifiable to terminate her life at this juncture?

If you could explain to me what that has to do with the ontological explanations for the foundations of morality, I would answer it. Until then, I see no reason to.

But since you are having trouble understanding what I am asking, I will make it simple for you.

Is there ever a realistic circumstance or situation in which it would be good/right/permissible/justifiable for anyone to rape a 15 month old baby girl? Yes or no?

 

[Loudmouth]

In recent discussions, it has become clear that there is a large presence of moral relativists/subjectivists here in this sub-forum. All of them seem to fall under the non-theist category.

Theists make up the vast majority of relativists out there. They believe that morality is relative to the god you believe in.

 

[Loudmouth]

Is there ever a realistic circumstance or situation in which it would be good/right/permissible/justifiable for anyone to rape a 15 month old baby girl? Yes or no?

According to theists, it is good/right/permissible/justifiable for anyone to rape a 15 month old baby girl if their god commands it.

 

[Elioenai26]

According to theists, it is good/right/permissible/justifiable for anyone to rape a 15 month old baby girl if their god commands it.

I do not know of any theist who would say that.

But you have already answered the question, and you said that it is never justifiable for anyone to rape a 15 month old. Thus, in stating this, you affirm that it would be objectively wrong to do so. Which leaves us with only one question: "How can you account for this concept of objective moral duty in a godless universe?"

 

[Loudmouth]

I do not know of any theist who would say that.

You have said it yourself with reference to the genocide of infants as ordered in the Old Testament.

Thus, in stating this, you affirm that it would be objectively wrong to do so. Which leaves us with only one question: "How can you account for this concept of objective moral duty in a godless universe?"

The same way that we justify 2+2=4 in a godless universe. God is never a part of defining an objective morality.

Objective morality is defined by two things: our shared ability to use empathy and reason. We are able to determine what would cause pain and distress in others by using empathy. By using reason we can determine which of our actions will cause those harmful emotions in others. None of this requires a deity.

 

[JGG]

If you could explain to me what that has to do with the ontological explanations for the foundations of morality, I would answer it. Until then, I see no reason to.

But since you are having trouble understanding what I am asking, I will make it simple for you.

Is there ever a realistic circumstance or situation in which it would be good/right/permissible/justifiable for anyone to rape a 15 month old baby girl? Yes or no?

I'm sorry, this thread is called the case for relativism (the concept of which you admit you don't understand, and thus switched to subjectivism), right? This is my case for subjectivism. To make your case (as you did in the past two threads on the same topic which I assume you've abandoned), you've used very simplistic scenarios with highly agreeable, and predictable responses. I need to see how you actually stand on these more complex scenarios, and how those fit into your "objective morality" stance. So how about it?

That being said, no, I cannot imagine any circumstance in which it would be good, right, permissable or justifiable to rape anyone. Unless I was a bible believer and needed a wife in a hurry.

Now answer my question please, and while your at it, I am still anxiously awaiting your reasoned response to my kosher question on your last two threads.

The reason people are calling you dishonest is that you take over-simplistic questions, find that nobody wants to rape children, and actively work to not respond to counter questions which make other people's cases. You have three threads on the same topic, which are all intellectually dishonest, and then claim victory. Which, really is a case study in faith.

 

[Illuminaughty]

You have to admit that verse is a little shocking to modern sensibilities? It calls for the execution of women and children (I would suggest that the term "murder" would be appropriate here too) and at the very least strongly implies that they were to take the young virgin girls as wives. I can only imagine what a Christian would think if that wasn't a quote from their Scripture but was instead found in say the Quran or a Hindu holy book. It's only being glossed over because it's a part of their book imo. Found in any other source I wouldn't doubt that the same people would label it as horrendous.

"Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." Num 31:17,18 NIV

or

"Now kill every male child and every female who has known a man intimately by sleeping with him. 18 But all the young girls who have not known a man intimately by ,sleeping with him, spare for yourselves." Num 31:17,18 CEB

So God wanted them to kill non- virgin women and male children but to keep the young virgin girls for themselves ?

 

[quatona]

Is there ever a realistic circumstance or situation in which it would be good/right/permissible/justifiable for anyone to rape a 15 month old baby girl? Yes or no?

Of course, for pretty much every action a dilemma is fathomable in which the result of this action is likely to be the lesser evil (in the eye of the person facing the dilemma) than the alternative results - and therefore there will be people (objectivists as well as subjectivists, relativists as well as absolutists) who will defend it as permissible, justifiable and the right action.

 

[quatona]

Is there ever a realistic circumstance or situation in which it would be good/right/permissible/justifiable for anyone to rape a 15 month old baby girl? Yes or no?

In my opinion, no.
However, if there were an objective morality dictated by a supernatural entity whose ways are mysterious and inconceivable to humans, I might well be in for a surprise.

 

[KCfromNC]

Since the above portion of scripture makes no reference to raping children and since you no doubt do not believe that the Bible was actually inspired by God, I will take your response as a "no" to the question I asked.

What do you think God expected his followers to do with all of the young virgins after killing the rest of their families? Even if you don't agree with this approach, it does show that not all cultures agree with your pseudo-rhetorical question. So now we have evidence that even in the most extreme case you could manufacture that morality isn't an absolute. Will you accept this evidence for non-objective morality?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

In recent discussions, it has become clear that there is a large presence of moral relativists/subjectivists here in this sub-forum. All of them seem to fall under the non-theist category.

It is my position that no one in this world can be a consistent moral relativist/subjectivist.

If anyone thinks they are a consistent moral relativist/subjectivist then I would like to show you why you are not.

I also want to state that there are only three possibilities regarding moral values and duties:

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

In defense of (2), it will be shown that moral values and duties exist more probably as being objective rather than relative or not existing at all.

Can one be a consistent moral relativist? I suppose that depends on what you mean by 'relativism'. In the previous thread, you made a number of interesting claims that warrant further examination. You claimed that objective morality stems from your morally perfect God and that certain actions (genocide for example) are objectively wrong. When it was revealed to you that the Biblical God commanded actions such as genocide, you attempted to argue that this objectively evil act could be considered 'good' and in keeping with your God's morally perfect character. I asked you whether you would participate in a genocide at the behest of your deity. Your response seemed to indicate that you would indeed commit atrocious acts in loving obedience to your God.

This poses a number of problems for your line of reasoning thus far. If genocide is objectively wrong, then your God's command to commit genocidal acts indicate that he is not worthy of being praised as morally perfect. If, on the other hand, the wrong-ness of genocide depends on whether or not your God commands it, then in what sense does that constitute an objective moral system? Acting morally is then simply defined by obedience, in which case even the most despicable acts might be deemed 'good' if those committing them believe they are complying with a divine directive. Since you refuse to answer any questions pertaining to how we are able to obtain knowledge about the supernatural, there will always remain uncertainty as to whether any 'divine directive' actually stems from the divine. Moral claims thus become reduced to assertions of "God wills it; therefore it is right." Whose God wills what seems to depend on the individual believer and his religion. Moral claims are thus reduced to religious claims or supernatural claims. Is is it any wonder then that some theists insist that persons who do not typically make religious claims (e.g. atheists) are correspondingly unable to make moral claims also?

This is why I think religion doesn't necessarily make men more moral. It does, however, make them believe they are more moral.

 

[Elioenai26]

What do you think God expected his followers to do with all of the young virgins after killing the rest of their families?

Several things to note*

1. God never ordered that the virgins be kept alive, it was Moses who gave the order after realizing the Israelites had kept them alive.

2. God would have expected His people to treat the women as they would themselves want to be treated, for it is written:

"This same standard (the apoditic laws) applies both to native-born Israelites and to the foreigners living among you. I am the LORD your God." Leviticus 24:22

and again it is written:

"For the assembly, there shall be one statute for you and for the stranger who sojourns with you, a statute forever throughout your generations. You and the sojourner shall be alike before the LORD." Numbers 15:15

and again it is written:

"There shall be one law for the native and for the stranger who sojourns among you.” Exodus 12:49

and it is written:

"You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God." Leviticus 19:34

Therefore it is clear from the above scriptures that God would have held His people responsible for treating the Midianite women with respect and making sure they were afforded every right that they themselves were afforded under the Mosaic Law.

4. And even if God had commanded them to take the virgins, which He did not, there is nothing in this passage of scripture that indicates that these women were raped.

5. You certainly do not sound like an atheist when you ask questions about what God expects and so forth and so on, as if He really exists.

6. Unless you are using this as an argument for the taking of the virgins to be objectively wrong, then it is just your opinion that it was unjustifiable. And unless you claim it was objectively wrong, then your argument loses its force. It was simply their opinion against yours.

Even if you don't agree with this approach, it does show that not all cultures agree with your pseudo-rhetorical question. So now we have evidence that even in the most extreme case you could manufacture that morality isn't an absolute. Will you accept this evidence for non-objective morality?

You still have not answered the question I asked you. Is there ever a circumstance or situation in which it would be right for anyone to rape a 15 month old baby girl? Yes or no?

 

[quatona]

5. You certainly do not sound like an atheist when you ask questions about what God expects and so forth and so on, as if He really exists.

If you wish we can base this discussion on the premise that your God doesn´t exist. Any time. Just let us know.
However, I was under the impression that you would like us to entertain the idea that the God of the bible exists.
You can´t have it both ways.

 

[Elioenai26]

Can one be a consistent moral relativist? I suppose that depends on what you mean by 'relativism'. In the previous thread, you made a number of interesting claims that warrant further examination. You claimed that objective morality stems from your morally perfect God and that certain actions (genocide for example) are objectively wrong. When it was revealed to you that the Biblical God commanded actions such as genocide, you attempted to argue that this objectively evil act could be considered 'good' and in keeping with your God's morally perfect character. I asked you whether you would participate in a genocide at the behest of your deity. Your response seemed to indicate that you would indeed commit atrocious acts in loving obedience to your God.

When you say atrocious, you mean that is just your opinion right? I mean, if it is not objectively wrong for people to commit genocide, then your opinion is just one out of several regarding genocide. One may say, ehh...well I don't see anything wrong with it as long as there is a reason for it. Some like you, may say it is atrocious, but that really is no different than saying chocolate ice cream is atrocious, but vanilla is heavenly! Some might say genocide is good, some might say it is useful, some might say it isnt. Without appealing to an objective moral standard, your argument, your indignant remarks regarding genocide have absolutely no force behind them. Its just your opinion......

Unless.......

Unless you want to say it is objectively wrong to commit genocide? Is this what you want to say?

This poses a number of problems for your line of reasoning thus far. If genocide is objectively wrong, then your God's command to commit genocidal acts indicate that he is not worthy of being praised as morally perfect. If, on the other hand, the wrong-ness of genocide depends on whether or not your God commands it, then in what sense does that constitute an objective moral system? Acting morally is then simply defined by obedience, in which case even the most despicable acts might be deemed 'good' if those committing them believe they are complying with a divine directive. Since you refuse to answer any questions pertaining to how we are able to obtain knowledge about the supernatural, there will always remain uncertainty as to whether any 'divine directive' actually stems from the divine. Moral claims thus become reduced to assertions of "God wills it; therefore it is right." Whose God wills what seems to depend on the individual believer and his religion. Moral claims are thus reduced to religious claims or supernatural claims. Is is it any wonder then that some theists insist that persons who do not typically make religious claims (e.g. atheists) are correspondingly unable to make moral claims also?

This is why I think religion doesn't necessarily make men more moral. It does, however, make them believe that they are more moral.

Until you admit that you believe it is objectively wrong to commit genocide, your argument is just one opinion of several equally valid opinions.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Without appealing to an objective moral standard, your argument, your indignant remarks regarding genocide have absolutely no force behind them. Its just your opinion......

What force do your remarks have behind them?

 

[quatona]

Until you admit that you believe it is objectively wrong to commit genocide, your argument is just one opinion of several equally valid opinions.

Even if you believe that something is objectively wrong this will still be just one opinion of several equally valid opinions.
It takes a little more for your opinion to be accepted as objectively correct than to simply claim you believe it is.