• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.
  7. There has been an addition to the announcement regarding unacceptable nick names. The phrase "Let's go Brandon" actually stands for a profanity and will be seen as a violation of the profanity rule in the future.

Anyone have a case for Relativism?

Discussion in 'Philosophy' started by Elioenai26, Jan 14, 2013.

  1. Elioenai26

    Elioenai26 Guest

    +0
    A person cannot be objectively moral. You are confusing the term and its usage. In the context in which you use "objectively moral" it simply means moral or right independent of people's opinions. But these terms "moral" and "right" in this context are used to denote values or ideas not persons.

    I answered your question. But I will ask you one. Who were the dietary laws given to, and when were they given, how were they given, where were they given, and why were they given, and who gave them?
     
  2. quatona

    quatona "God"? What do you mean??

    +4,189
    Seeker
    So what is it you want to learn from me?
     
  3. quatona

    quatona "God"? What do you mean??

    +4,189
    Seeker
    These questions sound like you are about to make a case for moral relativism.
     
  4. Elioenai26

    Elioenai26 Guest

    +0
    I would pray and if I had peace about the decision, I would tell them to take her off of life support.

    I base my decision on the fact that it would be wrong to not alleviate my mother's suffering from being eaten alive by cancer if that is what she wants. It is really quite simple.

    In fact, not only would it be wrong for me, but it would be wrong for anybody, at anyplace, at anytime to not alleviate their mother's suffering from being eaten alive by cancer if that is what she wanted and if they were able to.

    I can say this as a person who believes that some moral values and duties exist independent of people's preferences.

    :thumbsup:
     
  5. Elioenai26

    Elioenai26 Guest

    +0
    There is your first mistake. God does not create a moral code. He gave the Law to Moses at Mt. Sinai, but God did'nt become a moral being at that moment. God has always been and always will be all-good.

    He told you that God's laws which He gave to man were a reflection of His nature. In other words, God is the locus of all that is good, right, moral, and just.

    God never created a moral code at all. This is what you do not understand. For God Himself was never created. He is. He always has existed. Since God's very nature is all-good, holy, righteous, pure, and omnibenevolent, there never was a time in which there were not these things. God GAVE men His laws, He did NOT CREATE THEM.
     
  6. quatona

    quatona "God"? What do you mean??

    +4,189
    Seeker
    (emphasis added)
     
  7. JGG

    JGG Well-Known Member

    +2,041
    Seeker
    Private
    Then I am confused, because you say that when I condemn (x) it is merely my opinion, but when you condemn (x) it is because (x) is objectively immoral, and as a result your condemnation has more power. How do you know that it objectively moral if you are not always morally flawless? On what are you basing your condemnation of (x)?

    No, you really didn't. Answering "Jesus says..." does not address those people who claim that kosher dietary laws are objectively moral. So, for your flawless perspective, is eating non-kosher food objectively immoral?

    Who they were given to, when they were given, where they were given, and who gave them, all imply moral relativism. Y'know, where what is moral depends on who, when or where you are... You are welcome to play that card, of course.

    A group of people claim that adhering to kosher laws is objectively moral, and straying from those laws is objectively immoral. Are they right or wrong? I'm looking for an affirmative or negative response.
     
  8. Dave Ellis

    Dave Ellis Contributor

    +803
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    CA-Conservatives


    Doesn't that violate "Thou shalt not kill"?

    Don't get me wrong, I agree with your actions, I would likely do the same thing.... however you are in direct contravention of your "objective" moral code, and yet still calling your beliefs moral.

    How do you justify your position?
     
  9. Dave Ellis

    Dave Ellis Contributor

    +803
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    CA-Conservatives
    It's possible the code was created long before he passed the info on to Moses, I wasn't asserting God could not be moral prior to that date.

    And where did God's moral nature come from?

    And how was that moral nature established?

    If God never created a moral code, then you are admitting that your objective moral standard is non existent. You just flatly stated that there is no god given code.

    Furthermore, you have shifted your argument to the other prong of the Euthyphro dilemma. If God is not responsible for the creation of moral laws or codes, and morality is inherent, that makes God irrelevant when it comes to moral issues.

    Whether or not it's his nature, it shows that God is not responsible for the creation of morality, and that perfectly moral standards can exist that were not created by him.
     
  10. Archaeopteryx

    Archaeopteryx Wanderer

    +2,536
    Atheist
    Private
    But God is a person, at least according to you. And objective morality is, according to you, independent of the perceptions and conceptions of persons.

    An ombibenevolent deity would not command genocide.
     
  11. JGG

    JGG Well-Known Member

    +2,041
    Seeker
    Private
    Is that the objective answer?

    Are you saying that under certain circumstances it's not immoral to kill someone?
     
  12. Elioenai26

    Elioenai26 Guest

    +0
    I can think of hundreds of circumstances in which it is not immoral to kill people. It is called justifiable homicide.

    Law enforcement officers do it everyday.

    Seems to me you are mistaking an objectivist for an absolutist.
     
  13. Elioenai26

    Elioenai26 Guest

    +0
    You've simply confused moral objectivism with absolutism.

    I have said several times already that a moral absolutist is a moral objectivist but an objectivist is not necessarily an absolutist.

    Absolutists say it is never right to kill someone regardless of the situation.

    Objectivists say it is never right to unjustifiably kill someone regardless of whether people agree with that proposition.

    I can think of hundreds of situations in which it would be right to kill someone.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 4, 2013
  14. Elioenai26

    Elioenai26 Guest

    +0
    Just trying to see if he can tell me a little about these kosher regulations he's been asking me about for weeks.
     
  15. JGG

    JGG Well-Known Member

    +2,041
    Seeker
    Private
    So, I'm sure you'd understand my confusion there as:

    As here you sound like a moral absolutist.

    So, is suicide immoral?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 4, 2013
  16. JGG

    JGG Well-Known Member

    +2,041
    Seeker
    Private
    Why? Those questions are beside the point. Is it moral to be non-kosher? There's a group of people who say that it isn't. How would you explain to them, that it is acceptable, and not objectively immoral? And remember, with this group "Jesus says..." isn't really an option.

    Or for that matter how would we ascertain the objective answer?
     
  17. Dave Ellis

    Dave Ellis Contributor

    +803
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    CA-Conservatives

    But that is the problem with how your holy book is written, it leaves no provisions for matters like Euthanasia.

    How do you know that God is ok with you pulling the plug on someone? Perhaps God gave them that illness for a reason, and by you pulling the plug, you're interfering with what God's plan is?
     
  18. quatona

    quatona "God"? What do you mean??

    +4,189
    Seeker
    IOW, a red herring?
     
  19. Elioenai26

    Elioenai26 Guest

    +0
    Understanding terms and their meanings is critical here. A moral absolutist says things like taking a life are wrong and its being wrong DOES NOT DEPEND ON THE CONTEXT. So for example, the absolutist would say that it would be wrong for me or for you to ask that our mothers be taken off of life support even if that was her wish and even if she were in intense pain. Notice the phrase "even if"? It means independent of the context. Therefore, it is clear that absolutism is a "hard" "unflexible" form if objectivism in SOME cases.

    However, as moral objectivists WE ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT CONTEXT AND INTENTION AND MOTIVE, which differentiates us from hard absolutism.

    And I can still speak as an absolutist when phrasing my thoughts correctly. An objectivist can speak as an absolutist if he is VERY PRECISE AND CLEARLY LAYING OUT HIS JUSTIFICATION FOR HIS VIEW. Case in point above. The objectivist can speak as an absolutist and say that it is wrong for all people in all places at all times to unjustifiably kill someone regardless of dissenting opinion. Notice the SPECIFIER? The word unjustifiably is precise and gives us the reason for speaking as an absolutist. So, as an objectivist, I can speak as an absolutist when taking a proposition and stripping it down to its universally and absolutely binding objective value.

    In conclusion, any person who thinks it is ok to allow their mother to lay on a bed of sickness, wasting away from being literally eaten alive by cancer, when the person HAS THE ABILITY to take her off of life support and cause her to be at rest from her suffering after having received peace from praying to God about it (if they are religious) is WRONG AND SADISTIC and THEY ARE WRONG AND SADISTIC EVEN IF THEY THINK THEY ARE SOMEHOW "RIGHT".

    Suicide is a form of homicide. Some homicides are justifiable and moral according to the motivation of the one doing the killing. For example: A doctor who kills a baby to save the life of the mother during extreme and exceptional birth complications and in order to avoid the death of both mother and baby is going to be seen as someone saving a life, not a murderer.

    With regards to suicide, I as a believer, would say that ultimately ONLY GOD can determine whether an individual's suicide is immoral. Why? Because God is the only one who knows that persons true heart's intent and motivation.
     
  20. KCfromNC

    KCfromNC Regular Member

    +12,320
    Atheist
    Private
    Yep. There's lots of evidence that deep down the OP knows that morals are just subjective judgments about the way we're supposed to treat other people. He doesn't seem to like that conclusion, though, so tries to use a series of arguments from consequence to convince himself that reality is different from what he really knows it is. Your post points it out, as do the posts saying we shouldn't believe religious-based claims of objective morality, as do the posts asking to be reassured about subjective judgements about various extreme moral choices.
     
Loading...