Anyone have a case for Relativism?

[Dave Ellis]

He has to be if he is a moral relativist.

Eudaimonist is an atheist, and he is not a nihilist. He believes in objective moral values and duties, and so do most theistic and atheistic philosophers.

You sir, are in a quickly vanishing minority.

Of course none of the above means that objective moral values and duties exist, this would be an appeal to authority. But it should give you reason to start thinking about how absurd your position is.

I put forward a challenge to you earlier which you never answered, but would demonstrate an objective nature to morality.

I asked you to demonstrate your case for morality, without relying on an appeal to emotion or general consensus as they are by definition subjective.

In short, demonstrate a moral fact without appealing to a persons subjectivity. If you can do that, that would provide you with some compelling evidence.

 

[Elioenai26]

I put forward a challenge to you earlier which you never answered, but would demonstrate an objective nature to morality.

I asked you to demonstrate your case for morality, without relying on an appeal to emotion or general consensus as they are by definition subjective.

In short, demonstrate a moral fact without appealing to a persons subjectivity. If you can do that, that would provide you with some compelling evidence.

How would I present the argument to you if I did not present the argument to you? Anytime an argument is presented by one person to another person, the person making the presentation of the argument appeals to the recipient's mutually agreed upon views as a foundation for successful argumentation.

Dave, this is FIRST year philosophy. What you are asking me to do is to present to you an argument without presenting the argument to you.

Come on man. Do you have any formal education in philosophy?

 

[Dave Ellis]

How would I present the argument to you if I did not present the argument to you? Anytime an argument is presented by one person to another person, the person making the presentation of the argument appeals to the recipient's mutually agreed upon views as a foundation for successful argumentation.

Dave, this is FIRST year philosophy. What you are asking me to do is to present to you an argument without presenting the argument to you.

Come on man. Do you have any formal education in philosophy?

What you're missing is that the arguments you have been presenting only proves subjective morality.

The fact we agree on the morality of a given situation, does not display objectivity in any sense whatsoever. So, asking my view on a particular situation doesn't speak to the objectivity of anything.

I am asking you to come up with an argument that displays objectivity.

For example, my opinion on 2+2=4 is irrelevant, because you can demonstrate that fact objectively.

Likewise, my view on the fact genocide is immoral is irrelevant to your argument. How do you display objectively that genocide is immoral? You need a demonstration completely independent of opinion on the matter. You have not provided one.

 

[Elioenai26]

Okay, let me explain it again, and use your exact quote. I say YES, child molesting is wrong even if a molestor thinks it is right.

I agree. I hold the same view. This is called moral objectivism.

Now what you've claimed at the moment is that if I think child molestation is okay then I am a horrible, evil person.

Not at all. More like sociopathic, but continue....

But that is using an emotion appeal to illicit the answer you desire. It would be just as objective as saying "If you don't think 2+2=5, I will punch you in the mouth" which is to say, not very. You're using an unrelated consequence of the decision to influence the decision itself. Thus, the fallacy from final consequences. I don't particularly want to be an evil person, so I have to answer no. Answering yes is not an option, even if I could construct a logical justification.

Your logic is not sound. I do not have the time to the enumerate all that is wrong with your statements but I will say this: If someone tells me that molesting children is not objectively wrong, then I would say that that person is very disturbed and void of a conscience or a properly functioning moral intuition. This is not an argument for the existence of objective moral values, it is simply a conclusion gleaned from knowing what child molestation is and what the definition of a sociopath is. Since you do not even know what an appeal to emotion fallacy is, just wikipedia it.

Ask me if I think pre-marital sex is immoral. Or gay marriage. Or gun ownership. Or drinking alcohol. Or getting a tattoo. Or eating pork. There are those who believe these are immoral, but you're going to have a hard time applying that emotional appeal to these. Go ahead, ask, and we'll see if they demonstrate objective morality.

I do not appeal to emotion in my arguments so all of the above is aimed at a strawman.

However, despite all that, it's all a moot point. All I am giving you is my opinion. My opinion is not evidence of objectivity, so I am still saying that I believe child molestation is wrong and justifiably immoral, but I am also not saying that it is objectively wrong.

I keep hearing this over and over, over and over... relativists saying: " it is just my opinion that (x) is wrong even if (y) thinks it's right, as if their sentence is void of an objective truth bearing proposition. No one here has thus far shown that they have even a minimal knowledge of moral philosophical terminology and concepts except Eudaimonist, and he is an ethical naturalist moral realist! Go figure!

I suggest you read some books on introductory philosophy to help you understand what a sentence is, what a proposition is, what truth-bearers and truth- makers are, and what ways the word objective ans subjective are used in moral discourse.

For instance, you say that terminating your mother's life is objectively the right choice, rather than allowing your mother to suffer. Can you say with 100% certainty that this is indeed the objective moral action?

Can you say with 100% certainty that the external world is real and that you are not a body lying in the matrix and that life as you know it is just a dream?

Okay, that's not what I said. What I have said is that you are attempting to show agreement on an issue as evidence of objective morality. Once we move on to questions where agreement is less frequent, that argument breaks down.

Rephrasing your first strawman argument and then attacking it, does not qualify as a good objection. Two fallacious objections put together, do not make a good objection. It just makes it that much easier to see it is bad logic.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I agree. I hold the same view. This is called moral objectivism.

This is your problem... that is NOT, nor does it demonstrate moral objectivism.

All it means is that you two agree on a particular moral topic, while the sociopath you were referring to does not. Nothing more. You can not get from that starting point to demonstrating that there's anything objective that your subjective opinions are in agreement with.

 

[Elioenai26]

So, asking my view on a particular situation doesn't speak to the objectivity of anything.

Of course it does. When an argument is presented to someone, all that is required for the argument to be successful is for the person to agree with the premises. If you say it is objectively wrong to commit genocide, then you agree that premise (2) of the moral argument is more plausibly true than its denial.

Think about it for a moment. Who are arguments presented to? They are presented to a person(s)? Right?

How does the person receiving the argument make a decision on whether or not the argument is a good argument? They listen to it, they read it, they examine it, they use their reasoning and decision making abilities to weigh evidence and come to conclusions. If I present you with an argument for the shape of the earth, who am I presenting the argument to? To YOU. If I present the argument to you then, how do you determine if it is a good argument? You take your views regarding the shape of the earth and compare them with what the argument says. If there is a disagreement somewhere, we reason together and try to give evidence for our differing views, if there are any. But I am appealing to your views in order to build a common ground from which to argue on. If in an argument, we can agree on somethings, then we do not need to concern ourselves with them. WE BOTH AGREE ON THEM. Good debators always appeal to their opponents views in order to build a common ground on mutually agreed upon ideas.

Therefore, when you say: "You have to appeal to something other than my views for your argument." You are COMPLETELY not understanding the basic and essential nature of argumentation. This appeal to one's commonly held views is a precept in philosophy. It is one of the fundamental "laws" of argumentation. So you are asking me to do something that no philosopher would ever ask someone to do.

 

[Elioenai26]

This is your problem... that is NOT, nor does it demonstrate moral objectivism.

All it means is that you two agree on a particular moral topic, while the sociopath you were referring to does not. Nothing more. You can not get from that starting point to demonstrating that there's anything objective that your subjective opinions are in agreement with.

Maybe I should ask you this. I was assuming you knew, but maybe you do not.

Can you give me an example of a statement that appeals to an objective moral value or duty? Do you know what that even means?

 

[Dave Ellis]

Of course it does. When an argument is presented to someone, all that is required for the argument to be successful is for the person to agree with the premises. If you say it is objectively wrong to commit genocide, then you agree that premise (2) of the moral argument is more plausibly true than its denial.

Agreeing that genocide is wrong, does not mean that I think it is objectively wrong. I don't believe there is an objective standard to appeal to.

Humans for the most part are wired to think the same general way in matters of empathy and morality. Therefore, any mentally healthy person will agree genocide is wrong. However, that is based on our thoughts and feelings about the issue rather than an independent objective standard.

Think about it for a moment. Who are arguments presented to? They are presented to a person(s)? Right?

Correct

How does the person receiving the argument make a decision on whether or not the argument is a good argument? They listen to it, they read it, they examine it, they use their reasoning and decision making abilities to weigh evidence and come to conclusions.

Correct

If I present you with an argument for the shape of the earth, who am I presenting the argument to? To YOU. If I present the argument to you then, how do you determine if it is a good argument? You take your views regarding the shape of the earth and compare them with what the argument says.

Correct

If there is a disagreement somewhere, we reason together and try to give evidence for our differing views, if there are any. But I am appealing to your views in order to build a common ground from which to argue on. If in an argument, we can agree on somethings, then we do not need to concern ourselves with them. WE BOTH AGREE ON THEM. Good debators always appeal to their opponents views in order to build a common ground on mutually agreed upon ideas.

No question, however you are conflating the mutual acceptance that genocide is wrong with the idea that it's objective. I believe it's wrong because I, and mankind as a whole view it as wrong. There is no observable independent source that we know of that would cause us to think otherwise.

Therefore, when you say: "You have to appeal to something other than my views for your argument." You are COMPLETELY not understanding the basic and essential nature of argumentation. This appeal to one's commonly held views is a precept in philosophy. It is one of the fundamental "laws" of argumentation. So you are asking me to do something that no philosopher would ever ask someone to do.

You are misunderstanding my point.

My point is, asking if I agree genocide is wrong can only be used to demonstrate subjective morals. Opinion is irrelevant to an objective fact.

You need to come up with mutually agreed upon premises that demonstrate the objective source. And asking my subjective opinion on a specific moral issue does not do that.

 

[quatona]

Can you give me an example of a statement that appeals to an objective moral value or duty?

Sure:
"Objectively, it is your duty to stone homosexuals."
Or:
"Objectively, to annihilate religion is a value."

 

[JGG]

I personally get the impression that some people who call themselves moral subjectivists really mean that objective morality, if it exists, is so difficult to discern with certainty that anyone's guesses at objectivity in morality are merely subjective, a guess necessarily being subjective. Is that your view? Am I being fair to your view?

Or are you closer to error theory, which denies objective morality altogether?


eudaimonia,

Mark

I would not consider myself a subjectivist either. You could say I am completely agnostic on the whole debate. But I cannot claim that I accept that there are objective morals. At least, not based on the arguments presented. There is room for objective morals, but just saying "Hey look, we agree that molesting boys is bad." is not solid evidence for it. I do not see that these morals absolutely are derived from somewhere other than my own reasoning, or societal norms.

Your assessment of it seems at least fair.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Maybe I should ask you this. I was assuming you knew, but maybe you do not.

Can you give me an example of a statement that appeals to an objective moral value or duty? Do you know what that even means?

I can give a statement that appeals to many objective things as factually true. For example, 2 + 2 = 4. We know that is objectively true because we can demonstrate it. Likewise, the world is round, and the mid-day sky is blue (on a cloudless day)

I can't do that as far as a moral fact or duty though as I am not aware of any... if I was, I would be a moral objectivist.

It is not just my opinion that the sky is blue... the sky is demonstrably blue.

As far as morality goes, it is my opinion that genocide is wrong. However, there is no objective demonstration of an independent moral law to appeal to.

I'm asking you to demonstrate an independent, external source to humans. That's why asking my views on genocide is irrelevant. I am not the external source.

 

[JGG]

I agree. I hold the same view. This is called moral objectivism.

What is called objectivism?

Not at all. More like sociopathic, but continue....

Your logic is not sound. I do not have the time to the enumerate all that is wrong with your statements but I will say this: If someone tells me that molesting children is not objectively wrong, then I would say that that person is very disturbed and void of a conscience or a properly functioning moral intuition. This is not an argument for the existence of objective moral values, it is simply a conclusion gleaned from knowing what child molestation is and what the definition of a sociopath is. Since you do not even know what an appeal to emotion fallacy is, just wikipedia it.

Right, you're not allowing an answer to the question, you are stating consequences for disagreement. You are stating a consequence if someone chooses an option other than the one you want. That obliterates the validity of the question. Now I am answering based on whether I want to be labelled a sociopath or not, not my genuine answer to the question...do you not see the problem? I'm not saying objective morals don't exist because of this, I'm just saying you're question doesn't demonstrate it.

I do not appeal to emotion in my arguments so all of the above is aimed at a strawman.

Rape and molestation do not appeal to emotion? Saying that someone is a sociopath if they disagree with you does not appeal to emotion?

Does this question work in the same way as your previous ones?

"Is pre-marital sex wrong even if the fornicator thinks it is right?" If you say yes, then you admit that it is objectively wrong, which is all that is required for you to accept a premise in an argument.

I am hoping for the sake of your credibility here, that you will not answer no.

I answer no to this one by the way. Does that make me a sociopath? Work your magic...

I understand what you're saying, that if I push my moral code on to someone else then I'm calling on objective morals. What I'm saying is that I do not see that these morals that I have set out, necessarily come from anywhere other than my own subjective biases.

 

[Elioenai26]

I can give a statement that appeals to many objective things as factually true. For example, 2 + 2 = 4. We know that is objectively true because we can demonstrate it. Likewise, the world is round, and the mid-day sky is blue (on a cloudless day)

I can't do that as far as a moral fact or duty though as I am not aware of any... if I was, I would be a moral objectivist.

It is not just my opinion that the sky is blue... the sky is demonstrably blue.

As far as morality goes, it is my opinion that genocide is wrong. However, there is no objective demonstration of an independent moral law to appeal to.

I'm asking you to demonstrate an independent, external source to humans. That's why asking my views on genocide is irrelevant. I am not the external source.

So... basically committing genocide is like eating ice cream, some people like it, some don't. Is this what you're saying?

 

[Elioenai26]

"Is pre-marital sex wrong even if the fornicator thinks it is right?" If you say yes, then you admit that it is objectively wrong, which is all that is required for you to accept a premise in an argument.

Of course it is wrong.

"I answer no to this one by the way. Does that make me a sociopath? Work your magic...

No, I do not believe that necessarily makes you a sociopath. Rape and premarital sex are two very different acts.

 

[quatona]

So... basically committing genocide is like eating ice cream, some people like it, some don't. Is this what you're saying?

No, it´s clearly not what he was saying. He was merely pointing out one communality of those two issues (to be more precise: about one communality of the value judgements about those issues), not saying anything about them being the same in any other respect.

 

[Elioenai26]

No, it´s clearly not what he was saying. He was merely pointing out one communality of those two issues (to be more precise: about one communality of the value judgements about those issues), not saying anything about them being the same in any other respect.

Why are they not the same?

They are both preferences are they not? If they are not both subjective preferences, then what makes them different and how?

 

[JGG]

[/I]

Of course it is wrong.



No, I do not believe that necessarily makes you a sociopath. Rape and premarital sex are two very different acts.

Okay, but as you claim they're both objectively wrong, so the reasoning should be exactly the same. Afterall, ice cream is a frozen desert, and genocide is an act of violence, but you claim that they are equivelant. Surely, if I believe that pre-marital sex is permissable, I am a sociopath based on your previous reasoning. The reasoning itself is the same, as I merely copied and pasted your previous argument. The same reasoning should lead to me being a sociopath, correct?

Demonstrate how you are objectively right, and I am objectively wrong.

 

[quatona]

Why are they not the same?

From Merriam Webster:

Definition of ICE CREAM

: a sweet flavored frozen food containing cream or butterfat and usually eggs

Definition of GENOCIDE

: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

I´m sure you´ll once again blame it on the fact that I´m not a native English speaker - but these two definitions do not look like pointing to "the same" to me.

 

[Elioenai26]

From Merriam Webster:

Definition of ICE CREAM

: a sweet flavored frozen food containing cream or butterfat and usually eggs

Definition of GENOCIDE

: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

I´m sure you´ll once again blame it on the fact that I´m not a native English speaker - but these two definitions do not look like pointing to "the same" to me.

yes I will.

I did not ask you what the definitions of the words were.

I will even repeat what I asked you in the post:

They are both preferences are they not? If they are not both subjective preferences, then what makes them different and how?

Islamic terrorists are of the subjective opinion that blowing people up is good.

Some people are of the subjective opinion that ice cream is good.

They are both opinions are they not?

 

[quatona]

yes I will.

I did not ask you what the definitions of the words were.

You asked for the differences between ice cream and genocide. These differences are quite clear if we look at the definitions:
Ice cream, per definition, is not "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group",
and
Genocide, per definition, is not "a sweet flavored frozen food containing cream or butterfat and usually eggs".

I will even repeat what I asked you in the post:

When I responded to your post, you hadn´t yet edited it, and this part hadn´t been there. Don´t blame me for that.

They are both preferences are they not?

No. As the definitions show, they are different issues, and nothing in their definitions says anything about preferences.

If they are not both subjective preferences, then what makes them different and how?

The fact that (per definition) one is a sweetie and the other is a human act leaves no doubt that there are differences between ice cream and genocide.
Just to name one (it´s sort of ridiculous that you request such explanations, but oh well):
You cannot eat genocide, and ice cream is not an act.

Islamic terrorists are of the subjective opinion that blowing people up is good.

Yes.

Some people are of the subjective opinion that ice cream is good.

Yes.

They are both opinions are they not?

Sure, but that doesn´t mean that ice cream and genocide are the same (as was your statement). Your previous statements (which I agreed with) weren´t even statements about ice cream and terrorist attacks - they were statements about subjective moral judgements about them.

Are you, by any chance, arguing that "terrorism is right and good" is - opposed to "ice cream is good" is not only a subjective but an objective statement?