Anyone have a case for Relativism?

[Elioenai26]

What force do your remarks have behind them?

If I say, raping children is wrong, then I am saying it is more than just my opinion that it is wrong, I am saying it is wrong for anyone, at anywhere, at anytime, at any place, regardless what the rapist or anyone else may think about it.

That is making an objective, not subjective statement. I am saying it is more than just my opinion. I am saying that regardless of what anyone says, that raping children is wrong.

A relativist/subjectivist cannot say that.

 

[Elioenai26]

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.

Incorrect for one simple reason:

If I say raping children is objectively wrong, then there is no other equally valid opinion. That is the whole point. If something is objectively wrong, then it is wrong REGARDLESS or WITHOUT REGARD to the other competing views.

To prove the point, just ask yourself, what other view when placed along side of the view: "raping children is objectively wrong" is equally valid?

The answer is that there is no other equally valid different view!

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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?



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

Your logical fallacy is strawman

I have already corrected you on this once before. Your depiction of me as some sort of moral relativist who thinks that all opinions are equally justified is a strawman.

You insist that in order for my argument to have any force I must affirm the existence of objective morals. Yet my argument pertains to your inability to consistently affirm genocide as objectively wrong. Your own objective morality is inconsistent, so in what sense can it be called objective? My own personal metaethics simply isn't germane to the point. What is relevant is that you believe that genocide is objectively wrong, and you believe that God is morally perfect, and you believe that if God commanded you commit this action it would be good for you to do so and that it would be in keeping with his morally perfect character, and you think that you can somehow reconcile these beliefs with each other in an objective moral framework.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If I say, raping children is wrong, then I am saying it is more than just my opinion that it is wrong, I am saying it is wrong for anyone, at anywhere, at anytime, at any place, regardless what the rapist or anyone else may think about it.

That is making an objective, not subjective statement. I am saying it is more than just my opinion. I am saying that regardless of what anyone says, that raping children is wrong.

A relativist/subjectivist cannot say that.

Why Moral Subjectivism Doesn’t Imply Moral Relativism « Ockham's Beard

 

[Ana the Ist]

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.

I would say that morals are relative (or subjective if you prefer that term). My case for this would be the fact that you and I don't agree on whether many different actions/behaviors are right or wrong.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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. But in the end if it's all about survival of the fittest, what does it matter? We may as well speed it up before the heat death of the cosmos.

" 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."

Why would a moral relativist want to say anything is "objectively good" or "objectively bad"? We believe in moral relativism.

I think your problem with understanding the relativist's position is you see murder as a thing that happens. It isn't. It's a judgement we ascribe to certain actions...namely killings that occur under certain "relative" circumstances. We do not agree on what "murder" is...so any attempt to claim that we all agree its wrong or right is pointless.

 

[Elioenai26]

Your logical fallacy is strawman

I have already corrected you on this once before. Your depiction of me as some sort of moral relativist who thinks that all opinions are equally justified is a strawman.

You insist that in order for my argument to have any force I must affirm the existence of objective morals. Yet my argument pertains to your inability to consistently affirm genocide as objectively wrong. Your own objective morality is inconsistent, so in what sense can it be called objective? My own personal metaethics simply isn't germane to the point. What is relevant is that you believe that genocide is objectively wrong, and you believe that God is morally perfect, and you believe that if God commanded you commit this action it would be good for you to so do and that it would be in keeping with his morally perfect character, and you think that you can somehow reconcile these beliefs with each other in an objective moral framework.

Why Moral Subjectivism Doesn’t Imply Moral Relativism « Ockham's Beard

So you agree with premise (2) of the moral argument then?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

So you agree with premise (2) of the moral argument then?

What do my personal metaethics have to do with your with your conflicting claims?

 

[JGG]

If I say, raping children is wrong, then I am saying it is more than just my opinion that it is wrong, I am saying it is wrong for anyone, at anywhere, at anytime, at any place, regardless what the rapist or anyone else may think about it.

That's not objectivism, that's universalism, which I tend to agree with by the way.

That is making an objective, not subjective statement.

No...it's making a universalist statement....

I am saying it is more than just my opinion. I am saying that regardless of what anyone says, that raping children is wrong.

A relativist/subjectivist cannot say that.

Again, I am unclear on what the distinction is. Are you suggesting that when you say that raping a child is wrong that from that point on people stop raping children?

And tell us again how genocide is wrong for anyone, at[sic] anywhere, at anytime, at any place[sic], regardless what the killers or anyone else may think about it...unless God says it's okay?

Still anxiously awaiting your responses to the cancer riddled mother, and kosher questions as well, by the way...

 

[JGG]

So you agree with premise (2) of the moral argument then?

Premise 2? Isn't that the other thread?

 

[quatona]

If I say [...] is objectively wrong, then there is no other equally valid opinion.

(emphasis added)
So we just have to add "objectively" to what we say, and it becomes objective?

That is the whole point.

I know, and it´s fallacious one.

If [...] is objectively wrong, then it is wrong REGARDLESS or WITHOUT REGARD to the other competing views.

(again: emphasis added)

Take a close look at the bolded parts in the first and second quote and digest the difference.

To prove the point, just ask yourself, what other view when placed along side of the view: "raping children is objectively wrong" is equally valid?

Following your logic so far, it would be "raping children is objectively right".

The answer is that there is no other equally valid different view!

You mean when saying it is "objectively wrong" you are intending to communicate that there is no other equally valid different view. Big difference to "there is no other equally valid different view".

 

[Davian]

If I say, raping children is wrong, then I am saying it is more than just my opinion that it is wrong, I am saying it is wrong for anyone, at anywhere, at anytime, at any place, regardless what the rapist or anyone else may think about it.

That is making an objective, not subjective statement. I am saying it is more than just my opinion. I am saying that regardless of what anyone says, that raping children is wrong.

A relativist/subjectivist cannot say that.

What do you mean by "wrong"?

Do the actions of a child rapist preclude them from entering this "heaven" that your god provides? Hypothetically speaking, of course.

 

[Freodin]

Objective moral values are moral values that are true independent of the belief of human beings. For this reason, philosophers who affirm the existence of objective moral values sometimes speak about them as moral facts. A purported fact can either be true or false, but it is qualitatively different than an opinion, which is a matter of personal preference.

In other words, not subjective to the belief of human beings.

How can any "moral value" be independent of the belief of human beings?

If you consider it, "value" IS a belief of human beings. "Value" only exists when a human being values/evaluates something.

 

[32k]

"You have your way, I have my way. As for the right way, it does not exist."

In short, a 'Case for Relativism' cannot be made within the realms of logic since it isn't based upon logic to begin with.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

God is not good - Part 2 - Genocide, with William Lane Craig - YouTube

 

[KCfromNC]

If I say raping children is objectively wrong, then there is no other equally valid opinion.

If something is objectively wrong

If, if, if. And if a frog had wings... What reason do you have to think that this guess about objective morality existing is correct? Sounds like a giant argument from consequence to me - you're just uncomfortable with there being gray areas in morality, therefore anything which leads to that idea must be wrong. No reason given, just that you wouldn't like it if it were true.

 

[KCfromNC]

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.

I've stated what this was an argument for. And for some reason, you keep avoiding it - instead trying to rationalize kidnapping young girls as spoils of war as somehow being objectively good. Even if you can successfully convince yourself that this was somehow moral behavior, you're not really doing your cause much good in the process.

 

[Elioenai26]

If, if, if. And if a frog had wings... What reason do you have to think that this guess about objective morality existing is correct? Sounds like a giant argument from consequence to me - you're just uncomfortable with there being gray areas in morality, therefore anything which leads to that idea must be wrong. No reason given, just that you wouldn't like it if it were true.

I've stated what this was an argument for. And for some reason, you keep avoiding it - instead trying to rationalize kidnapping young girls as spoils of war as somehow being objectively good. Even if you can successfully convince yourself that this was somehow moral behavior, you're not really doing your cause much good in the process.

Are you an adherent to moral relativism? Yes, no, sometimes?

If so, do you live according to your beliefs? Yes, no, sometimes?

 

[Davian]

God is not good - Part 2 - Genocide, with William Lane Craig - YouTube

Many years ago, my wife and I decorated the baby room with a Noah's ark theme, and being the apatheist I was at the time, thought little of it.

Now, I find myself looking at toys like this, and wondering if it is available with "drowning families" figures...

 

[Elioenai26]

Many years ago, my wife and I decorated the baby room with a Noah's ark theme, and being the apatheist I was at the time, thought little of it.

Now, I find myself looking at toys like this, and wondering if it is available with "drowning families" figures...

If I see someone becoming fatigued in the water, and throw them a life preserver ring from the saftey of a boat and tell them to grab a hold to it and hold on so I can pull them up out of the water and they laugh at me and say you are stupid, you are not going to help me, I can make it to land safely by myself, and they refuse to accept my help, my advice, my warning, then when they die, am I supposed to feel sorry for them?