Anyone have a case for Relativism?

E

Elioenai26

Guest
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.
 
Last edited:
E

Elioenai26

Guest
Please define the definition of "existing objectively" in regards to possibility (2).

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.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟175,292.00
Faith
Seeker
In recent discussions, it has become clear that there is a large presence of moral relativists/subjectivists here in this thread. 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.
You have made that promise to me several times before, and each time you left the discussion soon because you were unable to make your case. Have you found new arguments in the meantime?

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

1. They exist relatively
2. They exist objectively
3. They do not exist at all
No.
Firstly, "relative"/"objective" aren´t antipodes.
"Relative"/"absolute" and "objective"/"subjective" are.
Secondly, subjective morality can be demonstrated to exist: People do have different opinions as to what´s right and wrong.
Thus, if you happen to succeed in showing that "objective morality" exists, it must exist along with subjective morality.

In defense of (2), it will be shown that objective moral values and duties exist more probably as being objective rather than relative or not existing at all.
Um, yes. "objective moral values[...]exist more probably as being objective rather than[...]". Sure, with all the force that tautologies can summon up. :doh:
The existence of subjective moralities is undisputable. It is demonstrable. So is the fact that moralities are relative to time and place.
So, false dichotomies aside, feel free to go ahead and make your case for the existence of objective morality.
 
Upvote 0
E

Elioenai26

Guest
You have made that promise to me several times before, and each time you left the discussion soon because you were unable to make your case. Have you found new arguments in the meantime?


No.
Firstly, "relative"/"objective" aren´t antipodes.
"Relative"/"absolute" and "objective"/"subjective" are.
Secondly, subjective morality can be demonstrated to exist: People do have different opinions as to what´s right and wrong.
Thus, if you happen to succeed in showing that "objective morality" exists, it must exist along with subjective morality.

Fair enough. The amendment has been made to cohere with your observations.


Um, yes. "objective moral values[...]exist more probably as being objective rather than[...]". Sure, with all the force that tautologies can summon up. :doh:
The existence of subjective moralities is undisputable. It is demonstrable. So is the fact that moralities are relative to time and place.
So, false dichotomies aside, feel free to go ahead and make your case for the existence of objective morality.

Fair enough, the necessary amendment has been made. But I must ask, are you a moral subjectivist? In other words, do you deny that objective moral values and duties exist?
 
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟175,292.00
Faith
Seeker
Fair enough. The amendment has been made to cohere with your observations.




Fair enough, the necessary amendment has been made. But I must ask, are you a moral subjectivist? In other words, do you deny that objective moral values and duties exist?
I observe subjective moralities. I don´t observe "objective morality", and, frankly, I don´t know even know what that´s supposed to be.
So, as soon as you make a good case for "objective morality" existing (after you have provided a definition that exceeds the usual ex negative definitions) I will look at your argument. Go ahead and convince me.
 
Upvote 0
E

Elioenai26

Guest
I observe subjective moralities. I don´t observe "objective morality", and, frankly, I don´t know even know what that´s supposed to be.
So, as soon as you make a good case for "objective morality" existing (after you have provided a definition that exceeds the usual ex negative definitions) I will look at your argument. Go ahead and convince me.

Will the [post=62182431]definition[/post] in post #3 suffice?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟175,292.00
Faith
Seeker
Will the [post]62182431[/post] definition in post #3 suffice?
Not really.
Objective moral values are moral values that are true independent of the belief of human beings.
Firstly, it´s an ex negativo definition. It says what they are independent of, but it doesn´t say what they are dependent of.
Secondly, I have no idea what a "true value" is supposed to be. A value, in my understanding, is what someone ascribes to something. IOW, a value, in my understanding, is a relation between a person (or a conscious entity) and an object or a concept.
I have no idea how what "value" could possibly mean without there being someone who values something. The underlying concept is about as alien to me as the idea that there can be friendship without people. Or a thought without someone thinking.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
E

Elioenai26

Guest
Not really.
Firstly, it´s an ex negativo definition. It says what they are independent of, but it doesn´t say what they are dependent of.
Secondly, I have no idea what a "true value" is supposed to be. A value, in my understanding, is what someone ascribes to something. IOW, a value, in my understanding, is a relation between a person (or a conscious entity) and an object or a concept.
I have no idea how what "value" could possibly mean without there being someone who values something. The underlying concept is about as alien to me as the idea that there can be friendship without people. Or a thought without someone thinking.

When I say that objective moral values exist, I mean that a statement like, "Murder is evil," is making a claim about some objective moral reality in precisely the same way that the statement, "There is a chair in my kitchen," is making a claim about an objective physical reality. In contrast, a moral relativist claims that a statement like, "murder is evil," is a subjective claim about our (or our society's) preference.

Instead of value, you could use the word judgment i.e moral judgements.

Another example to help you understand this concept is:

To say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so. It is to say, for example, that Nazi anti-Semitism was morally wrong, even though the Nazis who carried out the Holocaust thought that it was good; and it would still be wrong even if the Nazis had won World War II and succeeded in exterminating or brainwashing everybody who disagreed with them.

Read more: Our Grasp of Objective Moral Values | Reasonable Faith

Does this clear it up?
 
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟175,292.00
Faith
Seeker
When I say that objective moral values exist, I mean that a statement like, "Murder is evil," is making a claim about some objective moral reality in precisely the same way that the statement, "There is a chair in my kitchen," is making a claim about an objective physical reality. In contrast, a moral relativist claims that a statement like, "murder is evil," is a subjective claim about our (or our society's) preference.
Well, "murder" is wrong by definition. So that´s not a particularly good example.
But we can escape this problem easily by saying "X is evil".

Anyway, for distinguishing a mere opinion about there being e.g. a chair in someone´s kitchen from the fact we have certain criteria. What are the criteria you are proposing for distinguishing a moral opinion from a moral fact?

Instead of value, you could use the word judgment i.e moral judgements.
I don´t know how there can be a judgement without there being a judge. Enlighten me.

Another example to help you understand this concept is:

To say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so. It is to say, for example, that Nazi anti-Semitism was morally wrong, even though the Nazis who carried out the Holocaust thought that it was good; and it would still be wrong even if the Nazis had won World War II and succeeded in exterminating or brainwashing everybody who disagreed with them.
It´s not like I haven´t understood your ex negativo definition. I am just missing the criteria that would render something "objectively" wrong or right in the absence of someone considering its value.

Person A values something as positive, person B values something as negative. That´s what´s observable: subjective values.
Now, what would be the arbiter of a value being "objective"?


Does this clear it up?
No, sorry, no.
 
Upvote 0
E

Elioenai26

Guest
Well, "murder" is wrong by definition. So that´s not a particularly good example.

Well, I think the above serves to prove my point. You say that murder, or the unjustified taking of another life is wrong by definition. That is what I would refer to as a moral value or a moral judgment. In saying that murder is wrong by definition, you are making a judgment and are therefore the one judging or making the consideration that murder is not right but that it is wrong.

I believe the only question now is: Is murder objectively wrong, or subjectively wrong?

We all make moral judgments, we all act as judges. The question is, are we all judges equally, in the sense that no person's judgment supervenes over another's, or is one human being's judgement supervenient over all the rest of humanity, or is a collective majority of human being's judgement supervenient over humanity, or is there one outside of and beyond humanity whose judgement's are supervenient over humanity?

1. The relativist takes the position of the first.
2. I do not know of anyone who would take the second
3. The third is known as a majority rules type deal
4. The fourth is classical theism
 
Upvote 0

Jade Margery

Stranger in a strange land
Oct 29, 2008
3,018
311
✟19,915.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
In Relationship
It doesn't matter how many times you make different versions of the same thread if you are unable/unwilling to provide the evidence you claim you have to support your position, and are equally unable/unwilling to address the positions of others.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
C

Carmella Prochaska

Guest
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.
 
Upvote 0
E

Elioenai26

Guest
It doesn't matter how many times you make different versions of the same thread if you are unable/unwilling to provide the evidence you claim you have to support your position, and are equally unable/unwilling to address the positions of others.

I am ecstatic you dropped by. I see quatona has retired for the time being. Would you like to state whether you are a moral subjectivist or objectivist?
 
Upvote 0

Jade Margery

Stranger in a strange land
Oct 29, 2008
3,018
311
✟19,915.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
In Relationship
I am ecstatic you dropped by. I see quatona has retired for the time being. Would you like to state whether you are a moral subjectivist or objectivist?

:p

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.

Well, isn't the point of moral relativity that it isn't consistent?

Not all kinds of charity is good, to use your example. Donating clothes to people in underdeveloped countries may seem like a good thing to do, but in actuality the over abundance of clothing puts local clothes-makers (sewers, tailors, fabric makers, sheep farmers, etc.) out of business, decreasing jobs and increasing poverty. Giving food to the Red-Cross in the form of canned goods or boxed meals may seem generous, but since each item must be sorted and examined separately by hand to make sure it is undamaged and pre-expiration date, the extra manpower needed to process it actually costs the organization more money than the food is worth.

Now, murder is an English word that means 'unlawful/wrongful killing' (depending on the dictionary) so it is wrong by definition. 'Wrong thing is wrong' is obviously always going to be true. But, what one culture or person considers a wrongful killing, another may believe to be perfectly justified. Perhaps if someone did something terrible to you or your family (and I sincerely hope no one does) you would feel like hurting or killing them would not be a wrong thing to do. The law--and other people--may disagree.

So, what is right or what is wrong depends not only on the circumstances (an action may cause harm in one case and good in another) but also the perspective of the person forming the opinion. When perspectives under certain circumstances are similar throughout the population, it is made into law.

It's messy, it's complicated, it's full of gray areas and disagreements and changing social patterns and all kinds of weirdness. The people who think there is such a thing as objective morality are looking for the easy way out. They imagine one set of cosmic perfect rules (usually the ones they grew up with, fancy that) and then let that excuse them from thinking too hard or examining their own beliefs with the scrutiny they deserve.

What we need to remember is that many of the things we think are alright today were once considered very, very wrong, and many of the things we think are very wrong were once considered perfectly normal. Would you, as a young woman about to enter adulthood, like to have been married off to a forty-year-old man you never met before at the age of twelve and have two or three kids by now?

No?

Me neither. Today we consider that pedophilia and child abuse. Our many-greats-ancestors called it traditional family values.

We are an evolving species, not just physically, but also socially. Look at how much better we treat each other now than we did just a few centuries ago. Imagine how much better our children's children will be treated.

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.

Gosh, what's the point of anything if you don't get to live forever? [/sarcasm]

You have to find--or create--your own meaning in life, and in my opinion, the farther you can do it from religion, the better. As an atheist, I think one of the greatest tragedies is the vast numbers of people who spent their only short time on this planet suffering or toiling or fighting for the hope of something better afterwards, only to receive nothing. There is a reason the slave-owners of the South taught their slaves to adhere to their master's religion--what better tool for keeping an uneducated population in check, than instilling a belief that blind obedience is good, suffering is noble, and reward is guaranteed only after you no longer live and therefore can't complain if it isn't there?

Now, suffering, toiling, or fighting to make THIS world better for you and for your children, I can understand that. Which gets back to survival of the fittest, in a round-a-bout way. Systems of morals and beliefs are also subject to evolution. Tiny changes in accepted thought creates societies better capable of working together and surviving in the world.

Why does it matter, you ask, if we're all going to die and the universe is going to ka-boom in a million trillion years or whatever? Well in the long run you're right, it doesn't matter at all to the universe because the universe wouldn't care if we blew ourselves to tiny bits.

But here, and now, and to us, it matters. We make it matter.
 
Upvote 0
E

Elioenai26

Guest
:p



Well, isn't the point of moral relativity that it isn't consistent?

Not all kinds of charity is good, to use your example. Donating clothes to people in underdeveloped countries may seem like a good thing to do, but in actuality the over abundance of clothing puts local clothes-makers (sewers, tailors, fabric makers, sheep farmers, etc.) out of business, decreasing jobs and increasing poverty. Giving food to the Red-Cross in the form of canned goods or boxed meals may seem generous, but since each item must be sorted and examined separately by hand to make sure it is undamaged and pre-expiration date, the extra manpower needed to process it actually costs the organization more money than the food is worth.

Now, murder is an English word that means 'unlawful/wrongful killing' (depending on the dictionary) so it is wrong by definition. 'Wrong thing is wrong' is obviously always going to be true. But, what one culture or person considers a wrongful killing, another may believe to be perfectly justified. Perhaps if someone did something terrible to you or your family (and I sincerely hope no one does) you would feel like hurting or killing them would not be a wrong thing to do. The law--and other people--may disagree.

So, what is right or what is wrong depends not only on the circumstances (an action may cause harm in one case and good in another) but also the perspective of the person forming the opinion. When perspectives under certain circumstances are similar throughout the population, it is made into law.

It's messy, it's complicated, it's full of gray areas and disagreements and changing social patterns and all kinds of weirdness. The people who think there is such a thing as objective morality are looking for the easy way out. They imagine one set of cosmic perfect rules (usually the ones they grew up with, fancy that) and then let that excuse them from thinking too hard or examining their own beliefs with the scrutiny they deserve.

What we need to remember is that many of the things we think are alright today were once considered very, very wrong, and many of the things we think are very wrong were once considered perfectly normal. Would you, as a young woman about to enter adulthood, like to have been married off to a forty-year-old man you never met before at the age of twelve and have two or three kids by now?

No?

Me neither. Today we consider that pedophilia and child abuse. Our many-greats-ancestors called it traditional family values.

We are an evolving species, not just physically, but also socially. Look at how much better we treat each other now than we did just a few centuries ago. Imagine how much better our children's children will be treated.



Gosh, what's the point of anything if you don't get to live forever? [/sarcasm]

You have to find--or create--your own meaning in life, and in my opinion, the farther you can do it from religion, the better. As an atheist, I think one of the greatest tragedies is the vast numbers of people who spent their only short time on this planet suffering or toiling or fighting for the hope of something better afterwards, only to receive nothing. There is a reason the slave-owners of the South taught their slaves to adhere to their master's religion--what better tool for keeping an uneducated population in check, than instilling a belief that blind obedience is good, suffering is noble, and reward is guaranteed only after you no longer live and therefore can't complain if it isn't there?

Now, suffering, toiling, or fighting to make THIS world better for you and for your children, I can understand that. Which gets back to survival of the fittest, in a round-a-bout way. Systems of morals and beliefs are also subject to evolution. Tiny changes in accepted thought creates societies better capable of working together and surviving in the world.

Why does it matter, you ask, if we're all going to die and the universe is going to ka-boom in a million trillion years or whatever? Well in the long run you're right, it doesn't matter at all to the universe because the universe wouldn't care if we blew ourselves to tiny bits.

But here, and now, and to us, it matters. We make it matter.

I am guessing, in light of the above, that you are a moral subjectivist then?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums