Anyone have a case for Relativism?

JGG said:

... or objectively moral. You are the one claiming to be objectively morally flawless.

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

Click to expand...

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?

Spunkn said:

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

Click to expand...

So what is it you want to learn from me?

Elioenai26 said:

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?

Click to expand...

These questions sound like you are about to make a case for moral relativism.

JGG said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Dave Ellis said:

Are you illiterate?

We were discussing how God created his moral code.

Click to expand...

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.

Dave Ellis said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Elioenai26 said:

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.

Click to expand...

(emphasis added)

Elioenai26 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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)?

I answered your question.

Click to expand...

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?

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Elioenai26 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Elioenai26 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Elioenai26 said:

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.

Click to expand...

And how was that moral nature established?

Elioenai26 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Elioenai26 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

An ombibenevolent deity would not command genocide.

Elioenai26 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Is that the objective answer?

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

JGG said:

Is that the objective answer?

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

Click to expand...

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.

Dave Ellis said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

quatona said:

These questions sound like you are about to make a case for moral relativism.

Click to expand...

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

Elioenai26 said:

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.

Click to expand...

So, I'm sure you'd understand my confusion there as:

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.

Click to expand...

As here you sound like a moral absolutist.

So, is suicide immoral?

Elioenai26 said:

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

Click to expand...

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?

Elioenai26 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Elioenai26 said:

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

Click to expand...

IOW, a red herring?

JGG said:

So, I'm sure you'd understand my confusion there as:



As here you sound like a moral absolutist.

Click to expand...

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".

JGG said:

So, is suicide immoral?

Click to expand...

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.

quatona said:

(emphasis added)

Click to expand...

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.