Anyone have a case for Relativism?

[JGG]

You then venture to say rape is morally wrong. But that says nothing of whether or not the men were objectively wrong. If you are to remain true to your relativism, then you must see these men's acts as what they prefer, and since as you say, subjective preference is ALL THAT MORALITY IS, then you cannot say these men did anything objectively wrong.

Except if we are objectivists the rapist's acts are still his "preference." In other words, he clearly believes that what he is doing is "okay", and is going to commit the crime anyway. If we are objectivists we still condemn him the same way. If we are objectivists the results are still the same, he is still a rapist, he has still committed a crime, and will hopefully be punished.

So if I say something is subjectively wrong, or I say something is objectively wrong, what difference does it objectively/subjectively make? You say being an objectivist gives you more power, but it is the power to do exactly the same thing, the same way.

Still awaiting your responses to my growing number of questions...

 

[quatona]

Most people claim they believe in relativism until someone steals their car, wallet, etc then suddenly they believe in absolutes

I have been stolen quite a few things but that never caused me to believe in absolutes.
Please explain.

 

[Spunkn]

I have been stolen quite a few things but that never caused me to believe in absolutes.
Please explain.

Are you sure there's no absolutes? How sure? Absolutely sure?

Relativism destroys itself.

But as to my example

Most people think people can believe what they want. "Well you believe what you believe and I'll believe what you believe" But in reality that doesn't work. If someone believes it's okay to steal other people's stuff and does so then what happens?. The person whose stuff got stolen says "No you can't do that, that's wrong!" How can you tell the other person it's wrong? It's all relative.

 

[JGG]

Are you sure there's no absolutes? How sure? Absolutely sure?

Relativism destroys itself.

But as to my example

Most people think people can believe what they want. "Well you believe what you believe and I'll believe what you believe" But in reality that doesn't work. If someone believes it's okay to steal other people's stuff and does so then what happens?. The person whose stuff got stolen says "No you can't do that, that's wrong!" How can you tell the other person it's wrong? It's all relative.

Well if morality is objective, and you believe that stealing is objectively immoral, and the other guy believes that stealing is objectively moral or neutral, how can you tell the other guy it's wrong? He's just as objectively right as you are.

 

[Spunkn]

Well if morality is objective, and you believe that stealing is objectively immoral, and the other guy believes that stealing is objectively moral or neutral, how can you tell the other guy it's wrong? He's just as objectively right as you are.

Because morality is based upon God's absolutes not man.

So yeah, I can tell the other guy he's wrong, because God makes the rules.

He'll say "I don't believe in God, so it doesn't matter" in which case I'll say, even if you don't believe in God, He still exists and He still makes the rules.

Relativism has nothing to stand on. If you believe in absolutes, you can only stand upon God, because He is the absolute standard by which other things are judged.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Why would one need to be certain? It's what the evidence shows. There is no evidence for absolutism. (Or God(s).)

 

[Dave Ellis]

Because morality is based upon God's absolutes not man.

So yeah, I can tell the other guy he's wrong, because God makes the rules.

He'll say "I don't believe in God, so it doesn't matter" in which case I'll say, even if you don't believe in God, He still exists and He still makes the rules.

And how did God determine these rules? You still have not answered that question.

 

[Spunkn]

And how did God determine these rules? You still have not answered that question.

God created the universe, He's allowed to make the rules. But if you really want a technical answer. I'm not God, but I would say that God's own nature determined what rules were made. God's nature of being just, holy, righteous, and so on.

 

[JGG]

Because morality is based upon God's absolutes not man.

That's going to be a problem...

So yeah, I can tell the other guy he's wrong, because God makes the rules.

God makes the rules, or you make the rules?

He'll say "I don't believe in God, so it doesn't matter" in which case I'll say, even if you don't believe in God, He still exists and He still makes the rules.

But that's you stating belief, faith, or hearsay. That's not objective.

Is it also immoral to eat non-kosher?

Relativism has nothing to stand on. If you believe in absolutes, you can only stand upon God, because He is the absolute standard by which other things are judged.

Except which God? Your God? Someone else's? It eventually becomes a subjective question of your god vs. mine...which is not objective. Age old problem.

God created the universe, He's allowed to make the rules. But if you really want a technical answer. I'm not God, but I would say that God's own nature determined what rules were made. God's nature of being just, holy, righteous, and so on.

Objectively speaking, how do we know that stealing is not just, holy, righteous and so on? Is it just/holy/righteous to be selfish, or unselfish? Show your reasoning.

 

[Spunkn]

It's obvious that you just want to argue. I just wanted to post a couple thoughts into this thread, not get sucked into it because most of the time these threads are just about arguing because people want to prove other people wrong, not actually learn anything.

So consider it your victory or whatever you wish to do, it makes no difference to me

 

[Dave Ellis]

God created the universe, He's allowed to make the rules.

If it's true that he exists and created the universe, it's fair to say he makes the rules that governs the universe.

But if you really want a technical answer. I'm not God, but I would say that God's own nature determined what rules were made. God's nature of being just, holy, righteous, and so on.

That's impossible, you can't be just or righteous until it is determined what is moral. Both of those attributes are dependent on a pre-existing moral system. Prior to the invention of a moral code, how can you determine who is just? What would you base it on?

So, we know that can not be true.

I would posit that if God indeed created morality, then he must have used logic and reason to do so. He would have devised the system based on how he thinks.

Do you disagree with that suggestion?

 

[JGG]

Awesome! Score one for the "relativists!" In your computer monitor/screen! You can't see it, but I'm doing my victory dance.

Now, would someone attempt to answer my questions?

 

[Elioenai26]

That's impossible, you can't be just or righteous until it is determined what is moral. Both of those attributes are dependent on a pre-existing moral system. Prior to the invention of a moral code, how can you determine who is just? What would you base it on?

So, we know that can not be true.

Your logic is so horrible it borders on the humorous.

If God exists and He created you then your ability to make moral determiniations comes from Him.

You're saying that you have to be able to determine what is moral before God could be righteous. But this is clearly incorrect. GOD EXISTED BEFORE YOU. YOU DID NOT EXIST BEFORE GOD, this is assuming God exists by the way.

 

[Elioenai26]

Is it also immoral to eat non-kosher?

Jesus has spoken to us and has said:

"Whatever is not from faith is sin."

Think about that.

 

[JGG]

Jesus has spoken to us and has said:

"Whatever is not from faith is sin."

Think about that.

Okay...that doesn't answer my question. We have yet to determine that Jesus is authoratative, or objectively moral. You are the one claiming to be objectively morally flawless.

So the question remains: Is it immoral to eat non-kosher?

 

[JGG]

I am still looking for an objectively moral answer to this question by the way.

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?

 

[JGG]

Your logic is so horrible it borders on the humorous.

If God exists and He created you then your ability to make moral determiniations comes from Him.

Premise A: God exists and he created you
Conclusion A: Your ability to make moral determinations comes from Him

Even if I waive Premise A, I do not see how that leads to your conclusion. It seems there should at least be one more premise in there.

You're saying that you have to be able to determine what is moral before God could be righteous. But this is clearly incorrect. GOD EXISTED BEFORE YOU. YOU DID NOT EXIST BEFORE GOD, this is assuming God exists by the way.

So what you're saying is that if being (a) exists before being (b), being (a) gets to determine what is moral? That seems somewhat subjective. Morality depends on who exists first.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Your logic is so horrible it borders on the humorous.

If God exists and He created you then your ability to make moral determiniations comes from Him.

You're saying that you have to be able to determine what is moral before God could be righteous. But this is clearly incorrect. GOD EXISTED BEFORE YOU. YOU DID NOT EXIST BEFORE GOD, this is assuming God exists by the way.

Are you illiterate?

We were discussing how God created his moral code.

His response was God is just and righteous.

My reply was, until his moral code is determined, there is no basis on which to judge anyone or anything as just or righteous, including God.

Therefore, the fact he is just or righteous is nonsensical in answering the question. Being just or righteous implies you act morally.

So, in essence his answer was "He created his moral code based on the fact he follows his moral code perfectly".

You can't follow your moral code perfectly, if you haven't yet invented it. It makes no sense, and therefore could not explain how he created his code.


Next time, try reading and understanding what's being written before you post. You seem to chronically lack that capability.

 

[KCfromNC]

If a woman was placed in front of you, and two strong men began to slap her, rip her clothes off while she was kicking, screaming, crying, and fighting for her life, honor, and dignity, and they began to savagely rape her and perform heinous oral and other sex acts on her, while they laughed with Satanic glee, would that not be a demonstration to you that rape is wrong?

Hey look - another argument showing that morality derives from human opinion on certain actions. I thought you were arguing for it coming from some transcendent law-giver, but I guess I was mistaken - otherwise this story would include a booming voice of god telling everyone involved the correct course of action. Instead, we're left with human judgement and opinion to figure out how to handle this situation.

Thanks for providing more evidence against some sort of transcendent moral absolutes.

 

[quatona]

Are you sure there's no absolutes?

There are absolutes, and I know that there are absolutes. I don´t know that there are moral absolutes. If you want to make a case for there being moral absolutes, go ahead.

Relativism destroys itself.

Not believing that there are moral absolutes doesn´t prevent you from making non-moral absolute statements.

But as to my example

Most people think people can believe what they want.

Yeah, obviously. Do you believe anything you don´t want to believe?

"Well you believe what you believe and I'll believe what you believe"

Is that your maxime, or are you trying to put in the subjectivist´s mouth?
As a subjectivist, I believe what I believe, and not what others believe.

But in reality that doesn't work.

Sure it doesn´t. That´s why nobody would subscribe to the quote that you have made up.

If someone believes it's okay to steal other people's stuff and does so then what happens?. The person whose stuff got stolen says "No you can't do that, that's wrong!"

Well, you as a moral objectivist might say such things. Me, however - not being a moral objectivist - wouldn´t say it.

How can you tell the other person it's wrong? It's all relative.

You could, for example, tell them "It´s wrong" by mentioning the context relative to which it is wrong - e.g. the law of your country, the terms and conditons of a contract the person has signed, the habits and customs within your family, your personal opinion, your imaginary friend´s opinion, etc. etc.