About Moral-Ethical (ME) Models, Christian Morals, and Artificial Intelligence

[Stephen3141]

(I assert) that North American Christians are not thinking historically, about
moral-ethical (ME) models. And, that this is damaging to both catechism
in congregations, and to individuals trying to sort out how to live their lives
in increasingly pagan subcultures in America.

I propose to present the common historical ME models, as one would encounter them
in a philosophy class on Moral Theory, and to go through a basic assessment of each
historical model, as to ...

1 Whether or not they are possible to live out
2 Whether or not they intersect with a standard Christian ME model
3 Whether or not they need an authoritative "interpreter" to make them work
4 The challenges of making them into a software product that could be
included in Artificial Intelligence (or simply software) products).
...

My main focus will be on how the ME model is ordered, and how it (claims to)
work, and not on the philosophical discussions of what "perception" is, or
"consciousness."

Hopefully, there will be many Christians who will be able to connect with this
topic, and offer discussion.

I will be quoting copyrighted books, and including sources of the references
as I go. A start to the list of references is...

SOURCES

[Christian Logic]. Christian Logic, Stephen Wuest, Christian Faith Publishers, 2024.

[Moral Theory] Moral Theory: An Introduction, Elements of Philosophy, Mark
Timmons, 2002, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

The book by Timmons is a difficult read, but is a good review of historical ME models.

 

[JEBofChristTheLord]

Historical moral-ethical models, all have one poison pill: every single one of them, has supported evil which their proponents have denied. This is first-century Jerusalem writ large. There may one day grow a powerful totalitarianist state that claims to base itself upon a moral-ethical model authoritized by an AI; this may well be worst of all, and the Lord will destroy it.

 

[Stephen3141]

So, why familiarize yourself with moral models at all?

There should be some good reasons to do this...
---------- ----------

"Although moral theories are not considered part of modern logic, morality/ethics was certainly part of the early teaching of the Apostles and Church leaders. They considered morality/ethics to be a part of our shared reality. And it was this shared reality, that reason/logic is used to evaluate. (The ancient Greeks included some logic in the study of rhetoric, which included a decent grasp of our shared reality, and how parts of that reality interact. And their rhetoric certainly included what we would call ME topics.) So, if we wish to get back to the type of reasoning that the Apostle Paul and the ancient rhetoricians did, we need to think a bit about this part of our shared reality.

Considering moral theories along with the rules of inference, is part of the early Christian approach to apologetics, but is no longer part of a university course in symbolic logic.

Moral theories, are models of morality/ethics. There are many types of moral theories, and Christians should not be naive to think that all these models contain beliefs that are near to the Judeo-Christian model.

There is a specific discipline in philosophy called Moral Theory. This is the disciplined study of morality/ethics (ME).

In the language of some groups, “morality” deals with a higher level of ought than “ethics”, which involves practical choices in life that may not have clear moral guidelines involved. But the use of philosophers is to consider Morality/ethics” (ME) to stand for whatever a person thinks is right or wrong. This is how I will use the language.

God’s ME law is part of our shared reality, and does not change through time.

When Christians are familiar with standard ME models, they will recognize all sorts of arguments that are connected with different ME models. This will help Christians to orient arguments with specific ME models, and identify much that is incompatible with the biblical ME model.

Key Idea:
“The main practical aim of a moral theory is to discover a decision process that can be used to guide correct moral reasoning about matters of moral concern.” [Moral Theory, 3].

Note that in deductive logic, an assertion that is unfalsifiable, also cannot be proven to be TRUE.

Note that in deductive logic, a rule (material implication) that cannot be clearly stated to apply, or not to apply, in a specific situation, is rendered useless in that situation. There must be a clear decision algorithm that determines when a rule does apply."
[Christian Logic, 224-225]
---------- ----------

(Curiously, I am getting responses to this thread, before I enter ANY
material to discuss. I prefer to work through quite a bit of material, before
putting out conclusions....)

Note that some Christian groups define "morality" and "ethics" as different
things. But in philosophical discussion, the language of "morality-ethics" is
used to represent what someone thinks is "right" or "wrong". That is how I will
use this language.

Note that Timmons, in his book on Moral Theory, thinks that the purpose of an
ME model is to provide a DECISION PROCESS, that can be used to
"guide correct moral reasoning about matters of moral concern" [above].

In modern language associated with computers, I use the phrase "decision
algorithm". "Algorithm" is a generic term, that refers to a specific list of
steps that can be taken, to reach a specific goal. Other equivalent phrases
are "demonstration" or "proof" or "argument".


This point about an ME model defining a decision algorithm, IS A BIG ONE.
ME models that cannot define a decision algorithm (including when certain
rules DO NOT APPLY, and including handling conflict resolution between rules),
becomes an UNUSABLE ME model.

 

[Stephen3141]

Timmons has some good thoughts on introductory concepts, that
are relevant to ME models. And, I add a few more.
---------- ----------

"Introductory Ideas in ME

Intrinsic and Extrinsic Good and Evil

“To say that something has intrinsic value—that it is intrinsically good—is to say that there is something about it that makes it good in itself. In other words, its goodness is grounded on something that is internal to that thing. By contrast, to say that something is extrinsically good is to say that it possesses goodness because of how it is related to something that is good.” [Moral Theory, 8-9]

[Note that this is a consideration in theology, when we ask whether God considers us holy, or whether the Spirit of God actually changes us to make us holy.]

Although we speak about the natural world that God made as being good, “... it is only responsible agents that are candidates for being morally good or bad.” [Moral Theory, 10]
[Christian Logic, 225-226]


"Concepts of What We Ought to Do

Philosophers use the language of deontics to discuss the ancient Greek ideas of dei and dew (I’m transliterating Greek)—what is necessary for us to do and what we ought to do."

Some ME systems are deontic, in that the assert that there is a moral/ethical ought for us to include virtues in our lives, and to exclude vices from our lives.

Other ME systems are not deontic, in that they try to choose actions that have “utility” in our lives (or not), but without any inherent moral/ethical value.

Some ME models have both actions that are deontic, and actions that are considered to be merely desirable, but not necessary. [A prominent Vulcan in Star Trek movies, holds to this position.]

The Christian ME model definitely includes commands that have deontic force (“You shall not murder a human being”, “you shall not lie”, “you shall not commit idolatry”, etc.) but that also includes commands that are exemplary, but do not necessarily have deontic force.

Note that the Christian ME model holds bearing true witness about our shared reality, as perhaps the primary deontic command. You could see all the prohibited sins in the Christian ME model, as forms of lying about our shared reality. In this sense, recognizing our shared reality, has deontic force, in Christianity." [Christian Logic, 227]


"Characteristics That a Moral Theory Should Have

Consistency
Determinacy
Intuitive Appeal
Internal Support
External Support"

[Moral Theory, 13] [Moral Theory, 13-14] [Moral Theory, 14] [Moral Theory, 14] [Moral Theory, 16]
[Christian Logic, 228]

---------- ----------

Note that the concept of intrinsic good and evil, is intuitive.
But, as the Apostle Paul notes, if eating food offered to idols offends a brother,
then, in that situation, eating food offered to idols is wrong.

Note that in the Star Trek movie, the young Spock is practicing recognizing the
difference between what is morally required, from what is morally
admirable, from what is evil. These are basic ME concepts.

Note that the person who asserts...
"If the court finds me guilty, then the entire legal system is corrupt,
but, if the court finds me innocent, then we have a wonderful legal system."

is using an ME model that has no precise decision algorithm (personal opinion is
NOT a clear decision algorithm), does not define what this concept of Determinacy
is based on, and does not have a clear relationship to "our shared reality" (aka,
"the facts of the case"), which would be part of External Support for the ME model.

NOTE: and this is not meant to be inflammatory... those who are anti-intellectual,
often BYPASS the precise definition of what their decision algorithm is, and BYPASS
the historical tests of an ME model that Timmons suggests.

Note: Models of what biblical scholarship should be, often have the same deficiencies
as ME models may. Does your model of "critical Bible study skills" include...

1 a decision algorithm, to determine what the meaning of a biblical passage is?
2 a way to determine what passages in the Bible are RELEVANT or IRRELEVANT
to a certain topic?
3 Is your method of interpretting the Bible Consistent?
4 Does you method of interpretting the Bible have INTERNAL SUPPORT (read,
is it logical?)
5 Does your method of interpretting the Bible have EXTERNAL SUPPORT
(such as, do you use the biblical languages, and the world-class biblical
language reference books)?

IF a person thinks that they live in a personal reality, and have no moral-ethical
OUGHT to be in touch with "our shared reality" (See the thread on "Christianity,
and Teaching About Reality"), and do not consider "valid reasoning methods" to
be part of our shared reality, THEN (I assert) that that person cannot be holding to
God's ME model, or the historical Christian ME model, and does not know what
the Bible means when it presents us with its definition of "lying" (bearing false
witness about our shared reality).

It's not politically correct to say that. But, historical Christian thinking about
ME models include a connection to our shared reality, and a connection to
valid reasoning. And this, needs to be clearly presented by pastors/teachers.

 

[JEBofChristTheLord]

I'll have to suggest that neither the Bible nor God has a moral/ethical model. God does not have a model of anything; he has absolute truth, and is the only one with absolute truth, of everything.

 

[KevinT]

(I assert) that North American Christians are not thinking historically, about
moral-ethical (ME) models. And, that this is damaging to both catechism
in congregations, and to individuals trying to sort out how to live their lives
in increasingly pagan subcultures in America.

I propose to present the common historical ME models, as one would encounter them
in a philosophy class on Moral Theory, and to go through a basic assessment of each
historical model, as to ...

1 Whether or not they are possible to live out
2 Whether or not they intersect with a standard Christian ME model
3 Whether or not they need an authoritative "interpreter" to make them work
4 The challenges of making them into a software product that could be
included in Artificial Intelligence (or simply software) products).
...

My main focus will be on how the ME model is ordered, and how it (claims to)
work, and not on the philosophical discussions of what "perception" is, or
"consciousness."

Hopefully, there will be many Christians who will be able to connect with this
topic, and offer discussion.

I will be quoting copyrighted books, and including sources of the references
as I go. A start to the list of references is...

SOURCES

[Christian Logic]. Christian Logic, Stephen Wuest, Christian Faith Publishers, 2024.

[Moral Theory] Moral Theory: An Introduction, Elements of Philosophy, Mark
Timmons, 2002, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

The book by Timmons is a difficult read, but is a good review of historical ME models.

How will AI play into this?

KT

 

[JEBofChristTheLord]

How will AI play into this?

KT

It's already happening. Those that rely on human logic, and formal catechisms, and moral-ethical models, will rely more and more on AI systems as their authorities. These will diverge steadily from those that are part of the Word of God, as is written in early Acts.

 

[KevinT]

It's already happening. Those that rely on human logic, and formal catechisms, and moral-ethical models, will rely more and more on AI systems as their authorities. These will diverge steadily from those that are part of the Word of God, as is written in early Acts.

OK, I misunderstood. I thought you were discussing creating an AI that would implement a moral ethical model.

I agree that as AI becomes relied upon as a source of information and logic, that those that control the model will have an undue influence on users.

KT

 

[linux.poet]

I don't think it would be too hard to program a computer system to follow the Ten Commandments. Possibly a smarter computer could also be programmed in accordance with the teachings of Christ and Paul's guidelines as well. There isn't much of a need for a model in the middle.

For example, a robot could simply be programmed to avoid human beings and to not touch or use weapons (thus "thou shall not kill") and also to keep a record of ownership of objects in its environment so that it doesn't steal anything.

 

[Stephen3141]

How will AI play into this?

KT

Wow! That's a whacker of a quesiton!

"Artificial Intelligence" products are a loose canon, because none of the big
software companies have bothered to build a moral-ethical model into the
products, to constrain them to NOT engage in criminal behavior. (They laugh at
the idea that they SHOULD do this.) All the software companies want to do, is
make a lot of money. The billionaires don't apply ME models to their OWN
behavior, and why should they apply some ME model to their products???

AND, (I assert), North American Christians are becoming more and more of
a loose canon (with their resources and choices), and so have almost NO CLUE
what the potential problems with the AI tools could be, or how to recognize these
problems, or how to pressure politicians to regulate the massive abuse that these
(still in their infancy) products could be used to carry out. I would point to the
popularity of "conspiracy theories" to support this assertion. IF Christians don't
know how to carefully test "explanations", and reject those that are out of touch
with our shared reality, THEN they will become easy prey to those who spin
explanations/conspiracy theories to manipulate huge groups of people.

In the book (Christian Logic), I open the door to all the challenges of creating
a moral-ethical model in software code, whether or not this ME model is put
into an AI product, or not. There are huge challenges.

In the book, I assert that the younger American generations have largely
ditched formal logic, and even the DUTY to think carefully. This has happened
for multiple generations (the "electronic screen" generations). So now, the
trend has become a dominant feature of American culture. I donot think that
the younger generations will see the huge problems caused by AI tools coming,
and will have no idea what they potentially could do, to stop these problems.

The current "AI" tools are really often not up to the design requirements of
real AI, according to Computer Science. They are often nothing more than a
way for people to automate jobs that they previously did manually. But, criminals
have been the first to recognize the utility of automating crime on the Internet.
Now, politicians are recognizing that they can use AI algorithms to poll users
about their opinions, and to accentuate whatever the politicians want to
accentuate, in order to create pliant audiences that will support whatever the
politician wants to do. Again, there is no Moral-Ethical model, in the middle
of this massive manipulation.

 

[JEBofChristTheLord]

One of the real oddball, but very very popular, theorists of AI, was Isaac Asimov. He postulated that without his Three Laws, AI could not exist...and then gradually wrote more and more stories in which the Three Laws were subsumed and irrelevantized :-D It does seem to me like there is a very strong tendency of human flesh to want sets of laws ("moral-ethical models") even though the only holy such thing to ever be, failed in most spectacular fashion, in sin, death, and destruction, multiple times.

 

[Stephen3141]

One of the real oddball, but very very popular, theorists of AI, was Isaac Asimov. He postulated that without his Three Laws, AI could not exist...and then gradually wrote more and more stories in which the Three Laws were subsumed and irrelevantized :-D It does seem to me like there is a very strong tendency of human flesh to want sets of laws ("moral-ethical models") even though the only holy such thing to ever be, failed in most spectacular fashion, in sin, death, and destruction, multiple times.

It's good that someone brought up Asimov's 3 laws for the control of robots
(or any AI).

---------- ----------
The wikipedia version is ...

The Three Laws, presented to be from the fictional "Handbook of Robotics, 56th Edition, 2058 A.D.", are:[1]

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

---------- ----------
You CANNOT point to these 3 "laws", as if they solve the problem of putting a
moral-ethical safeguard into an AI product! I have to point this out! That is,
because...

1 They do not define what "injuring" a human being means, or "come to harm".

2 Problem 1, completely disables the second law.

3 The third law rests on the meaning of law 1 and law 2, which are completely
undefined. So, the third law is also undefined.

4 Should I also have to say, that these laws do not define what a "human being" is?????
Think of the debate over the "rightness" of abortion on demand, from the pro-abortion
and the pro-life positions. And you will see that the definitions of "human being" and
"human rights" are VERY DIFFERENT, between these 2 groups!

Asimov, in these "laws", appeals to all sorts of unspoken and undefined meanings
that may or may not be free-form mental associations in the people who read
Asimov's novels. But "laws" that embed free-form mental associations are not
really laws at all. And so Asimov's "laws" are really free-form mental associations,
that are undefined.

NOTE: You will find that the same problem comes up with different ME models,
when people blithely appeal to "what is good for the people," or "what is
virtuous" or "what is plainly considered to be evil."

Any rule of law that CLAIMS to be fair, MUST include precedents (read, examples of
concrete instances) that show, by example, what the abstract (moral-ethical) laws
MEAN. And THAT will raise the question of what sort of AUTHORITY is required of
the method that decides what a precedent is, for some law or group of laws.

 

[JEBofChristTheLord]

Any rule of law that CLAIMS to be fair, MUST include precedents (read, examples of
concrete instances) that show, by example, what the abstract (moral-ethical) laws
MEAN. And THAT will raise the question of what sort of AUTHORITY is required of
the method that decides what a precedent is, for some law or group of laws.

Well put. Of course, then we get to the problems that God has never promised to be fair...and that all human precedents fade in history...!

 

[Stephen3141]

And so, moving into the presentation of some historical moral-ethical (ME) models....
---------- ----------

"Divine Command Theory

“From the doctrine of God as Creator and source of all that is, it follows that a thing is not right simply because we think it is, still less because it seems expedient. It is right because God commands it. This means that there is a real distinction between right and wrong that is independent of what we happen to think. It is rooted in the nature and will of God.” [Robert C. Mortimer, Christian Ethics, 1950, p. 8]

Note that divine command theory is not uniquely Christian. Any religion that believes that God is a law-giver, falls into this category.
For Christianity, the moral/ethical law of God is that ME law that appears in the Old Testament, and is repeated again by the New Testament writers, is God’s ME model for Christians. It includes the testimony of the natural world (natural theology), about the
essential characteristics of God. And it includes the conscience (or moral consciousness, in Paul’s words) that God gives to every human being.

From the Christian worldview, our accessibility to our shared moral/ethical reality is such that we know (or, at least at one time, knew) the difference between right and wrong, and who God is.

For Christians, God’s ME law is part of our shared reality, along with valid reasoning methods (which we can use to think about God’s ME law), and the experience of God in our own lives and in the history of the People of God. We can take all this evidence in our shared reality, to be external evidence of the Christian divine command theory ME model (as an abstract model). We can take the conscience as internal evidence of this model.

Note that there are “equivalents” to the divine command theory model, as used by some secular (atheistic) models. They use the proclamations of some great teacher, as if they were the words of a god, even though they are atheistic systems of reasoning.

Note that the current trend of declaring some popularity group as authoritative, is a version of the divine command theory. This generally takes the form of holding that the ME declarations of whoever is not white or male or heterosexual, has intrinsic authority to declare an ME model that we all should respect. (The problem with this type of ME system is that they can’t agree on what our shared reality is. What they produce is endless warfare between disagreeing models of what reality is.)

The Christian ME system is based on unchanging declarations by God, as to what righteousness and evil are. (Christians believe that God himself, is unchanging, in his characteristics.) Because the Christian ME system is based on God the Creator, he has sovereignty to assert what is right and what is wrong, and upon whom this moral law applies (all his created beings, that are responsible agents)."
[Christian Logic, 230-231]
---------- ----------

Note that the Divine Command Theory model is an entire groups of specific
ME models, that claim to be founded on the utterances of God.

There are non-Christian Divine Command Theory models.

AND, among Christian groups, there are some distinctively different versions of this model.

Christian groups that are anti-intellectual, tend to veer toward a model that involves
God personally revealing to each person, his ME rules. From the biblical point of view,
(I assert), this confuses prophecy with an ME model.

Christian groups that have embraced the mind (a "renewed" mind, as Paul words it),
embrace ME models that are rule-based, and which involve the mind, in the
interpretation of what each command from God, means.

Christian groups that have embraced the intellect, as a useful tool from God,
mostly embrace the intellect ALSO as a tool for the interpretation of Scripture,
and for an intellectually rigorous definition of what "critical Bible study tools"
are, and embrace the idea that not every Christian should be "free-associating"
about what they think the Bible asserts about morality-ethics (and expect to
be taken seriously).
---------- ----------

Note that Christians who embrace the intellect (this is a position that respects
the biblical language of reasoning, and weighing evidence, and testing all things
for their correctness, or not) also have to deal with the concept of AUTHORITY in
the Church.

Authority in the Church (such as Christ giving his Apostles "all authority in heaven
and in earth") is important, to ME models, because...

1 It was this Church authority that determined what the canon of the New Testament
is (from which, we get a lot of ME rules)

2 it is this ongoing authority in the Church, that is the analogy to the scribes and Pharisees
who sat in the seat of Moses, authoritatively interpretting the law of Moses. The ME laws
of God need an authoritative intepretive function.

It is a function of authority in the Church, that needs to decide "precedents/examples/
instances" of behavior, that fall under the abstract ME commands of God, in Scripture.
(This may be a VERY unsettling idea to some Christians, but the ME law of God is often
given to us in abstract rules ("You shall love your neighbore as yourself", for example),
which are almost no use to us, unless there is authority in the Church to declare
concrete examples of what this means, in our culture, in our time.)

For a clear application of God's ME law, we need a clear DECISION ALGORITHM that
defines the authority in the Church that interprets the ME law of God, and that
settles disputes. It is clear TO ME, that some Christian groups do not have this.
---------- ----------

So, these are some basic concepts of a Divine Command Theory ME model,
without trying to get into what the exact list of Christian ME rules are, or
which ones apply in which situations, or which rules have precedence over
others, and the definition of the authority that determines all of these things.

 

[Stephen3141]

(Sorry for a couple typos, in the last entry.)

 

[Stephen3141]

I'll have to suggest that neither the Bible nor God has a moral/ethical model. God does not have a model of anything; he has absolute truth, and is the only one with absolute truth, of everything.

Some religious gorups are not used to thinking in the vocabulary of the
historic discussions of morality-ethics.

Try using the vocabulary of "belief system" or "theological beliefs about
morality-ethics".

This impediment, about vocabulary, is cultural, and not semantic.

 

[Stephen3141]

Now going on to the model of Moral Relativism...

Note that there are some really disconcerting connections between the moral relativism
model, and ways of thinking that some Christians tend to slip into, when they try to
be "diverse" (in the language of modern American culture).
---------- ----------

"Moral Relativism

There are a number of different forms of moral relativism (MR). [Moral Theory, 38]

“Moral relativism makes right and wrong depend ultimately on the moral code of a culture.” [Moral Theory, 38]

It is important to recognize that there are very different forms of MR, and also that many of the important discussions that philosophers have had, deal with topics that intersect with concepts related to moral relativism.

Many of the interpretations of Scripture that individual Christians have used, are based on concepts of MR (although those who support these interpretations may not realize that they are embracing a form of MR in their interpretations!). Arbitrarily labelling some command in Scripture as merely “cultural”, is a form of MR.

It is true that one’s native culture forms a context of one’s ME thinking. This is the point that Paul is making, when he says to be sensitive to brothers and sisters who have a weak conscience. It is not that the thinking of a Christian who is ignorant or immature is right, but that we should avoid offending them (and damaging their faith). This is not elevating non-Christian native culture to a place in which it judges God’s ME law.

Note that there is a difference between one’s native culture, and the popular definitions of “blame groups” that commonly appear in social media. Some of these blame groups are abstract and arbitrary creations of people who are engaged in rhetoric. And so there is the ongoing problem of the Straw Man argument, when we are considering native cultures.

It is also true that God’s ME laws demand changes in our behavior and lifestyle (you could say, changes in our “culture”). We have no moral/ethical grounds to claim that we have a right not to change our native culture (when it conflicts with God’s ME law), as if our native culture gives us some inherent entitlement to live in conflict of God’s ME law. We have no inherent right to live in conflict with God’s ME law. We cannot assert that God does not have the right to command his people to live in a separate culture, governed by his ME law. After all, this right is just part of God’s sovereignty." [Christian Logic, 231-232]


"It is true that our native cultures differ (on certain points) from God’s moral law, and from other native cultures. But this does not mean that there is no universal ME law that is true on these points, and that governs what we ought to do. [Moral Theory, 44]

The strongest evidence for MR comes from the field of anthropology. [Moral Theory, 45] But anthropology is hardly a field that promotes God’s ME law, and the Bible as the standard of morality/ethics! And, as mentioned above, differences in behaviors in different cultures, does not mean that there cannot be a universal ME standard governing that behavior.

Note that when 2 cultures disagree on some point, it is not necessarily on a topic that has moral/ethical importance. [Moral Theory, 49]

There is the further problem that it is not clear how to find the “authority” on morality/ ethics, in any given culture. Who is it that speaks, for that native culture. [Moral Theory, 49]

Do we include gang cultures, racial superiority cultures, and atheistic cultures? Do we include cultures that are built around bling materialism?

Note that while some anthropologists emphasize the ME (and non-moral) differences between different cultures, anthropologists also have emphasized great agreements between ME concepts in different cultures. [Moral Theory, 50] This is why we can affirm that racial lynchings are evil, as is genocide based on slander.

“The point is that there is a plurality of ways in which we might conceive of culture, and the relativist needs to provide a principled account of what counts as one’s culture for purposes of moral evaluation. [Moral Theory, 55]"
[Christian Logic, 233]

 

[Stephen3141]

Some more comments on the Moral Relativism model...

1 This is an ME model that is probably MOST spoken against, by
Christian apologists.

2 Advocates for Moral Relativism often quote the body of DIFFERENCES between
different cultures. But, there are more similarities in ME beliefs between
different cultures, than there are differences. Christians should keep this in mind.

3 The Moral Relativism argument that is VERY politically correct is
"My culture has ,such-and-such> a belief
Therefore, I am justified in demanding that you respect this
belief, as if it were TRUE."

But there is no such tolerance of other ME systems, by the authors
of the Bible. Note that Americans arbitrarily apply this argument to groups
that are not necessarily the traditional "cultures" that philosophers were
discussing. Americans may invoke this argument for GROUPS defined by
sex, race, gender orientation, economic level, or the type of dog that one
owns. That is, Americans have generalized this "culture" category to include
almost ANY arbitrary definition. This does not change the problems with
this model.

4 The deep problems with the Moral Relativism argument include...
-- who authoritatively defines who is in a "culture"?
-- who authoritatively declares what a "culture" believes?
-- who authoritatively asserts when a "culture" needs to be reformed,
and what areas need to be reformed, and to what?
-- the Bible addresses the "Gentiles" who are doing the works of the "law",
without being in a "culture" that keeps God's ME law, and that they are a
"law unto themselves". But this means that they are keeping GOD'S ME
law, not some other culturally defined law.

5 Practically, the question of what "our shared reality" is, is deeply embedded
into the evaluation of the Moral Relativism model. (See the thread "Christians
and Teaching About Reality".)

[The interface is fritzing out, so I will move on....)

 

[Stephen3141]

Some more comments on Moral Relativism...
---------- ----------

6 With regard to the MR model, Christian apologists should carefully try
to sort out the difference between a person's "culture", and a person's
view of reality. These are often mixed, and treated together, resulting
in hopelessly confused conversations.

People who do not accept the concept of "our shared reality" (as I present
this concept in the thread on Christians, and Teaching About Reality), are
living in a world in which there can be no universal truth, there can be no
no universal fair rule of law, and there can be no universal concept of
justice. This is a HUGE price to pay, for a personal model of reality!!!!!

7 If the Moral Relativism ME model is TRUE, then why do Americans reject
the view of radical Neo-Nazi groups, and radical racial superiority groups,
when they use the language of (non-white) people "diluting the racial
profile" of American citizens, or talk about "purging the population of
inferior racial groups"???

When American Christians arbitrarily accept SOME conclusions of "diverse"
cultural or racial groups, but arbitrarily reject the conclusions of other groups,
upon what BASIS can American Christians appeal to a UNIVERSAL ME model
that ALL PEOPLE OUGHT TO ADHERE TO????

8 Note that Moral Relativism is sometimes called the Moral Diversity thesis.
---------- --------

"The Moral Diversity (MD) Thesis:

“The moral codes of some cultures include basic moral norms that conflict with the basic moral norms that are part of the moral codes of other cultures.” [Moral Theory, 43]

“Moody-Adams goes on to argue that because of the complexity of cultures and the problem of determining a moral authority for a culture, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to gather the kind of empirical evidence that would be needed to support the moral diversity thesis. Whether or not one shares her pessimism, I think we must conclude that the moral diversity thesis has not been established, And so, lacking the needed evidence to support premise 1, the anthropologist’s argument collapses.” [Moral Theory, 51]"
[Christian Logic, 235]


Note that there is more to be said about the ME model of Moral Relativism, but
the philosophical writer Timmons (in his book, Moral Theory), does not consider
this ME model to be logically justified.

 

[JEBofChristTheLord]

>> I'll have to suggest that neither the Bible nor God has a moral/ethical model. God does not have a model of anything; he has absolute truth, and is the only one with absolute truth, of everything.

Some religious gorups are not used to thinking in the vocabulary of the
historic discussions of morality-ethics.

Try using the vocabulary of "belief system" or "theological beliefs about
morality-ethics".

This impediment, about vocabulary, is cultural, and not semantic.

No. I'll have to suggest that neither the Bible nor God, has a moral/ethical model, or belief system, or theological beliefs about morality-ethics. God does not have a model of anything; He has absolute truth, and is the only one with absolute truth, of everything, or anything.