Anyone have a case for Relativism?

[Eight Foot Manchild]

What is your concept of morality?

Objective standards + subjective values = my morality

To the point though, it doesn't actually matter. Vicarious redemption destroys responsibility, and by extension, any concept of morality.

 

[JGG]

You are your own evidence that objective moral values and duties exist.

I will tell you a true story and then ask you a question.

"KCfromNC, a man in Alabama recently jumped on a school bus and pointed a gun at the bus driver and said something to the effect that he wanted some kids off of the school bus. The bus driver said no, and he was shot dead for refusing to give up any children from the bus. The shooter then kidnapped a young 5 year old boy and held him hostage for a week. After negotiations broke down, the man refused to give up the child and he was killed:

My question is simple:

Were this man's actions wrong even though he was of the opinion that what he was doing was justified by his desire to have some kids off of the school bus?

Your answer in the affirmative will be your evidence. The evidence will come from your own mouth that at least one objective moral value or duty exists.

If you say he was wrong even though it was his opinion he was right, then you are saying he was objectively wrong. That is all that objective in this sense means. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you do not say: "Yes Elioenai26, this man was objectively wrong", then I have a followup question for you:

If he was not objectively wrong, meaning, wrong even though he thought he was right, then what was he? How would you categorize his actions? If he was not wrong, what was he? Were his actions:

A. Morally neutral, that is, the man's actions have no moral component at all for no act is inherently either moral or immoral. These concepts do not refer to -Nihilism

B. Morally commendable and good?

Or...

C. Your opinion that he was wrong. If this is your view, then I have a followup question:

Followup question 1: If it is your opinion that he was wrong, and it was his opinion that he was right, then how is arbitration between the two opinions possible? There are only two possible responses:

Response R. - The societal judiciary system decides who is right and who is wrong. But this simply pushes the issue one step further back, for what is a society, but a colletive group of individuals? If no one view is objectively right or wrong, then who is to say that the majority view or general consensus within a society is the view which should be legislated? It seems that there would just once again, be opinions. In a hypothetical society, you have one-hundred people. Sixty of the one-hundred believe that school bus shootings are ok, and forty believe school bus shootings are bad. Who is to say that the view of the sixty should be preferred over the minority forty? The relativist would say, well the majority rules! But that just leads to the next obvious question: "Who says?" Who says the majority should rule over the minority? If the view that the majority should rule over the minority is itself an opinion with no objective referrent, then the minority could say that they should be able to rule over the majority. Who determines whose rules are legislated? Some would say well, hmm...Aha! Whichver view is based on empathy and sympathy and reason and which is more conducive to human flourishing should be the one accpeted. But this obviously leaves the question looming large: "Who says?" Why should those who disagree with that opinion agree with it? If sixty of the one-hundred say that the view which fosters happiness and reduces suffering should be accpeted, and forty say that their view which fosters greed, self-satisfaction, and fulfilling one's wildest fantasies and pleasures should be accepted, then: "Who says?" They are all opinions, and since there is no objective standard to which one can appeal to to judge the two opinions, then what are we left with? But surely one would say: "We should encourage the view which causes our species to survive and reproduce!" But once again: "Who says?" Why should that opinion be seen as being preferable to the opinion of: "eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die!" Who says we should act in a way that is conducive to our survival as a species? That in itself is just an opinion, like the opinion that one should live for the moment and not care about tomorrow, for tomorrow is not even promised. Everytime someone in a relativistic society comes up with a reason as to why one opinion should be preferred over another, the question will always come up: "Who says?" Some may even condede the point and say: "Well, it should be self-evident to people that regardless of their opinons, that we should live in a way in which it helps us, as a society, do away with human suffering and a way which helps us be happy!" But look at what this person just said. The moral relativist confesses here that it should be self-evident to people regardless of their opinions that we should live in such and such a way. But guess what this moral relativist no longer is when he speaks this way? HE IS NO LONGER A MORAL RELATIVIST! HE IS AT THE MINIMUM A BORN AGAIN MORAL REALIST. HE HAS FINALLY SEEN THE LIGHT!

Response S. - There is no way to adjudicate between the two, because all opinions are equally valid. In light of the above, this is the only response that one can give if they are consistent moral relativists. And look at what it leads to. It leads to the conclusion that there actually is no objective moral values and duties. And since the concepts of moral and immoral exist only if there is some objective standard by which they can be measured, as is demonstrated in response R., then the words moral and immoral actually have no meaning. They are just words void of content. This leads us back to A, moral nihilism.

If you say A. Then I can speak for every parent and say that I would not want you as a school bus driver or anywhere near any of my children or any other children. I would not want you to be my doctor, a law enforcement officer, a judge, or a teacher. I would not want you to be my neighbor, an airline pilot, a lawyer, a child care worker, and any other profession where people's lives could directly or indirectly be affected by your sociopathic view. You would also, by saying A. lose any right to make any moral judgments ever again here in this forum. You would never be able to say anything was wrong or evil or bad. You would never be able to make any moral pronouncements at all. For as a moral nihilist you assert that morality does not inherently exist, and that any established moral values are abstractly contrived. Moral nihilism, also known as ethical nihilism, is the meta-ethical view that morality does not exist as something inherent to objective reality; therefore no action is necessarily preferable to any other. For example, a moral nihilist would say that killing someone, for whatever reason, is not inherently right or wrong. Other nihilists may argue not that there is no morality at all, but that if it does exist, it is a human construction and thus artificial, wherein any and all meaning is relative for different possible outcomes. As an example, if someone kills someone else, such a nihilist might argue that killing is not inherently a bad thing, or bad independently from our moral beliefs, because of the way morality is constructed as some rudimentary dichotomy. What is said to be a bad thing is given a higher negative weighting than what is called good: as a result, killing the individual was bad because it did not let the individual live, which was arbitrarily given a positive weighting. In this way a moral nihilist believes that all moral claims are false. *Wikipedia*

If you say B., well then, all I can say is, may God help you...

Firstly, let me point out that this is fallacy from final consequences. You have set it up so that if I decide not to agree with you the only problem with such the consquences of such a choice, rather than the logical validity of my decision.

That being said, I don't know whether there are objective morals are not. There might be, there might not be. I'm just playing devil's advocate. There is no evidence of it, and you have to admit, you're have a right hard time producing some. Your major argument says that objective morals are evidenced by agreement, and yet also say that they exist regardless of whether we agree with them or not. Without a null hypothesis, we will never see evidence.

You have presented no credible evidence for your claim, so I am not convinced that objective morals exist. Therefore I cannot agree that they do. However, I also cannot say that this man's actions are morally neutral, or morally right. So, I choose none of the above.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Firstly, let me point out that this is fallacy from final consequences. You have set it up so that if I decide not to agree with you the only problem with such the consquences of such a choice, rather than the logical validity of my decision.

That being said, I don't know whether there are objective morals are not. There might be, there might not be. I'm just playing devil's advocate. There is no evidence of it, and you have to admit, you're have a right hard time producing some. Your major argument says that objective morals are evidenced by agreement, and yet also say that they exist regardless of whether we agree with them or not. Without a null hypothesis, we will never see evidence.

You have presented no credible evidence for your claim, so I am not convinced that objective morals exist. Therefore I cannot agree that they do. However, I also cannot say that this man's actions are morally neutral, or morally right. So, I choose none of the above.

It is framed in all-or-nothing terms: either morality is 'objective' or there is no morality at all. This is a sort of false dichotomy. Who would say that morality would no longer concern them if it were not something 'objective', in the strictest sense of the word?

 

[quatona]

I have always appealed to people's cognitive reasoning abilities and to moral intuition (conscience) in addition to peoples five senses as proof that they themselves when presented with case examples, affirm the existence of objective moral values and duties on the pain of irrationality.

I know, and I have time and again shown you the errors of this reasoning.

They are true and binding independent of human opinion. Binding in the sense that if we fail to fulfill a moral duty, we incur a sense of moral guilt.

You then go on to say there is no reason to assume they are designed to further our well being because they are independnet of human perception. But this is patently incorrect for at least two reasons:

1. Your usage of the phrase "they are independent of human perception" is taken to mean "existing without regard to humans". But this is not the sense in which philosophers understand this concept of objectivity. The concept of independence from human opinion simply means that a moral proposition's truth pertains not upon the acceptance of the referent subject, but rather upon the objective fact itself appealed to.

That´s why your appeal to broad acceptance is not an argument for objective morality.

In other words, to say that for example: "rape is wrong", is to say that the act of rape being wrong is based not on what the subject's personal opinion about rape is, but rather, the objective moral duty being appealed to as support for the normative prescriptive evaluative judgment.

Yet, instead of demonstrating the existence of such objective duties all you do is point to the broad agreement on a few handselected issues.

2. Whether one is a subjectivist or objectivist, it is undeniably clear that normative statements such as: "One should not rape a woman", or "Parents should love and protect their children", or "People should love their neighbor as themselves" are conducive to human well-being. In fact, in the absence of some defeater, we are to hold that every moral normative statement is conducive to human well-being. I mean after all, that is what morality is all about, right behavior or behavior conducive to human well being!

1. You are the one postulating that the source for your "objective" morality must be external to humans. There is no reason to assume that this source has any interest in the well-being of humans. We could just be tools in the pursuit of a higher purpose unknown and unknowable to us (which particularly suggests itself when we are to believe that the ways of this "objective" source are beyond human comprehension, mysterious, etc. etc.).

2. If, as your paragraph suggests, you admit that a morality acceptable for us must be circled around the well-being of humans and humankind, a fruitful discussion would be circled around this question, as well. Proving that morality is "objective" (even if you could do that - which is, in view of your previous attempts, highly doubtful) doesn´t help the discussion what we humans want, need and desire.
If we are to assume that the rationale and foremost criterium of morality (be it subjective, objective, absolute, relative or whatever) is to further the well-being of humans (in a way that is comprehensible to the human mind) we can immediately move on to the actual discussion: "Is X conducive to human well-being?", the very question you actually would like to circumvent by focussing on proving that morality is objective and at the same time rejecting any discussion of your moral statements.

This is exactly the point where my sig-line kicks in. We would be better off asking ourselves "In which way is X conducive to human well-being, in which way is it injurious to human-well being?" instead of asking "Is it right or wrong?" or even "Is there an objective answer?".
If there were an "objective" answer - which could be accessed through our human devices - there would be no need for you to constantly deny a discussion of your ex cathedra moral claims to the point that you replace actual arguments by attacks on the mental health of those who might question your apodictic claims.

Bottom line: The question whether morals are objective is completely irrelevant for any given purpose or intent. You can claim your morals to be "objective" until the cows come home - nobody who disagrees with you will be impressed by that any more than by a moral statement that does not claim to be "objective". What you´d actually have to do is demonstrate how your moral stances are conducive to human well-being, and once you would have done that (and convinced everyone) the question whether these stances are "objective" would be as obsolete.

Anyway: In regards to the deity concept of your preference (the alleged "objective" source of morality) you have been pointed to several actions and commands that are demonstrably not conducive to human well-being. Thus, if the furthering of human well-being must be assumed to be at the core of morality (as was your claim), this deity concept must be excluded from being the source of morality.

The first thing you have to do in order to make your approach consistent: Decide whether you really want to postulate that morality must be circled around human well-being in a way that is comprehensible to the human mind (in which case we could immediately move on to the actually important questions - "Is X conducive to human well-being?", or whether you want to keep the option to obscure it by pointing out that the ways, motives, intentions, purposes of the source of morality might be beyond human comprehension (in which case your ever recurring references to broadly held human opinions would be irrelevant, in the first place).

 

[quatona]

It is framed in all-or-nothing terms: either morality is 'objective' or there is no morality at all. This is a sort of false dichotomy. Who would say that morality would no longer concern them if it were not something 'objective', in the strictest sense of the word?

If I remember correctly, this was the point of my very first post in this thread: The existence of subjective morality is demonstrable. There is no question that humans hold subjective values and opinions.
Thus, the question whether morality is subjective or objective is indeed a false dichotomy.
If anything, we could ask ourselves: Is there - along with the demonstrably existing subjective morality - also some sort of "objective" morality?

 

[KCfromNC]

You are your own evidence that objective moral values and duties exist.

Nope. We've been over this - the fact that people have opinions about morals are in no way evidence for an objective moral law-giver external to human existence. That's true even if you can make up a situation which provokes strong feelings.

For some reason you keep coming back to wanting to have your moral opinions validated by everyone else - that's why you set up these extreme hypothetical where most people will agree with you. If you actually believed you had a direct line to the objective moral truth, why keep worrying if other people share your opinions?

Were this man's actions wrong even though he was of the opinion that what he was doing was justified by his desire to have some kids off of the school bus?

Depends - was he commanded by an objectively moral God to do this or not?

More interestingly, can you demonstrate evidence for the objective standard outside of human opinion which shows that these actions are wrong?

Followup question 1: If it is your opinion that he was wrong, and it was his opinion that he was right, then how is arbitration between the two opinions possible? There are only two possible responses:

Funny that the way we actually do things here in our society is neither of the only "possible" responses you list. Hope you enjoyed the workout you got from beating up on a strawman of your own making. We'll be waiting back here in reality if actually want to get serious and discuss how the US lawmaking and justice system works, and how it relates to morality. But if you'd rather just talk to yourself, that's fine too.

 

[Elioenai26]

Objective standards + subjective values = my morality

To the point though, it doesn't actually matter. Vicarious redemption destroys responsibility, and by extension, any concept of morality.

What do you mean by objective standards? Do you have an example of one of these objective standards?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

What do you mean by objective standards?

Factually quantifiable criteria.

Do you have an example of one of these objective standards?

Harm.

For every moral consideration in which there exists a logically available outcome resulting in minimal harm, that outcome is the preference.

Whether you value the reduction of harm is where the subjective element enters. Value is necessarily subjective, whether the person making the value judgment is named Joe or Yahweh.

Again, though, it doesn't matter to the point I was making. All moral philosophies are necessarily predicated on the concept of personal responsibility. Nihilism merely denies obligation to the concept. Vicarious redemption destroys it.

 

[SithDoughnut]

If anyone thinks they are a consistent moral relativist/subjectivist then I would like to show you why you are not.

I do, and you've failed so far to demonstrate otherwise. Most of the arguments you have presented so far against subjectivism/relativism have fallen into two main groups. Either they go after the other person (e.g., "You don't say that murder is objectively wrong? You're an evil person!"), which is not an argument for objective morality. The second group is the argument where you try to turn subjective morality into objective morality. If you present an argument like this one:

If person A says X, and person B says Y, how do we decide who is correct?

Your question actually means:

How would you objectively compare these two subjective positions?

Which is nonsensical, for obvious reasons. If subjective morality is indeed the true nature of morality, then it makes no sense to even consider trying to judge it objectively. It would be like trying to find the objectively best flavour of ice-cream. Now, this question does make sense if you're looking at a specific case study (in which case you could look at the specific reasons that a judgement was made), but that's not what we're doing here, so for all intents and purposes, consider this line of argument invalid.

Neither of these arguments work. The first isn't even on-topic and the second is goal-post shifting at best, and downright illogical at worst. So please, before you try to prove me to be an objectivist, make sure you're not using these two "arguments". They don't work. Finally, above all else, remember that subjective/relativistic morality is a statement of how morality works, not what is moral and what is not.

I look forward to seeing what you come up with.

EDIT: I've just realised that you appear to mean consistent as in "will say X in an objective capacity", which is not consistency, it is objectivity. No, I am not an objective moral subjectivist, because that would be ridiculous, but I am consistent in that I apply the values I hold consistently, and consistently don't become a moral objectivist on any occasion.

 

[Elioenai26]

Firstly, let me point out that this is fallacy from final consequences. You have set it up so that if I decide not to agree with you the only problem with such the consquences of such a choice, rather than the logical validity of my decision.

These statments are not even sensical and quite incoherent. You say I have committed a fallacy, but in your attempt to explain why, you string together incoherent sentences that cannot even be understood.

That being said, I don't know whether there are objective morals are not. There might be, there might not be. I'm just playing devil's advocate. There is no evidence of it, and you have to admit, you're have a right hard time producing some.

The answer you give to this question is your evidence:

"Is child molesting wrong even if the molestor 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.

Your major argument says that objective morals are evidenced by agreement, and yet also say that they exist regardless of whether we agree with them or not. Without a null hypothesis, we will never see evidence.

Strawman. Nowhere have I argued that because people agree that objective moral values and duties exist, therefore they exist.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The answer you give to this question is your evidence:

"Is child molesting wrong even if the molestor 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.

Wrong wrong wrong. If I say yes, it means that the subjective morality I adhere to is the one I adhere to. The molester's own subjective morality does not influence my own.

 

[Elioenai26]

I do, and you've failed so far to demonstrate otherwise. Most of the arguments you have presented so far against subjectivism/relativism have fallen into two main groups. Either they go after the other person (e.g., "You don't say that murder is objectively wrong? You're an evil person!"), which is not an argument for objective morality.

You are exactly right. That is not an argument for the existence of objective moral values and duties. When did I ever use that as an argument? This has never once been my argument and therefore it is a strawman. If a person cannot say that acts like child molestation are objectively wrong, this in no way proves that objective moral values and duties exist. What it does prove, and this has been my point, is that if one cannot say that child molestation is wrong even if the molestor thinks it is right, then it follows logically that the act of child molestation is:

Either good or...

Your opinion that it was wrong, but since he thinks it is right and since you think it is wrong, and since all there is is opinions, all of which must be equally valid to the consistent relativist (if not he is admitting that there is some standard by which to judge the opposing opinions independent of the opinions, which he cannot admit and still be a relativist) then this logically leads to the conclusion that no act is inherently or intrinsically moral or immoral in and of itself which is Nihilism.

Therefore, when I present this moral argument to someone, like you for instance, I make you see the price you have to pay in order to deny that God exists. In order to avoid the conclusion that God exists, you have to resort to denying premise (1) or (2) of the argument. And if you want to deny premise (2), you have to resort to adopting a sociopathic, nihilistic view of morality.

So its bad for you and for the atheist who insists on denying God. You have to adopt a nihilistic view of morality, which, by the way, is something that Nietzsche understood way before you were even born!


The rest of what you wrote is quite immaterial to my point and thus, until you address the above, I will refrain from any further responses.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Therefore, when I present this moral argument to someone, like you for instance, I make you see the price you have to pay in order to deny that God exists. In order to avoid the conclusion that God exists, you have to resort to denying premise (1) or (2) of the argument. And if you want to deny premise (2), you have to resort to adopting a sociopathic, nihilistic view of morality.

So its bad for you and for the atheist who insists on denying God. You have to adopt a nihilistic view of morality, which, by the way, is something that Nietzsche understood way before you were even born!

Are you being dishonest here? The atheist doesn't have to be a nihilist, and you know that.

 

[Elioenai26]

Wrong wrong wrong. If I say yes, it means that the subjective morality I adhere to is the one I adhere to.

You are saying that the child molestor is wrong even though he thinks it is right.

The truth bearing proposition is an objective fact that you appeal to in your subjective statement. The moral fact that child molestation is wrong is true independent of the child molestors opinions, or even your opinion. This proposition is based on an objective fact that exists external to the will of you and the opposing view holder.

Saying: "It is my opinion that rape is wrong even though the rapist thinks it is right." is the same as saying: "It is my opinion that the earth is round even though members of the flat earth society think its flat."

Do people walk around saying well, there is no objective truth regarding the earth's shape because anyone that says it is round is just stating their subjective opinion on the earth's surface!!!

OF COURSE NOT LOL! It is a fact. The shape of the earth is not determined by my or your opinion. It either is round or not. It is round even if you do not know it is round. It is round even if you do not know how it got to be round. It is round even if you believe it is not round.

LIKEWISE, CHILD MOLESTATION IS WRONG. THAT IS A FACT. CHILD MOLESTATION BEING WRONG IS NOT DETERMINED BY MY OR YOUR OPINION, IT IS WRONG EVEN IF YOU DO NOT KNOW WHY IT IS WRONG, IT IS WRONG EVEN IF YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IT IS WRONG, IT IS WRONG EVEN IF THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE IN THE WORLD LOVE DOING IT. IT IS WRONG EVEN IF YOU DO NOT KNOW HOW YOU CAME TO KNOW IT IS WRONG.

How hard is this to understand? Surely you agree?

Saying that it is your subjecive morality is redundant and you say it to try and make the truth bearing proposition non-objective. But you simply are ignorant of what truth-bearers and truth-makers are in a sentence which is a linguistic object consisting of a sense-perceptible string of markings formed according to a set syntactical rules which is a grammatically well-formed sting of written words.

Of course anything you say is going to be your view. We all know this when we read your sentence that starts with "I believe, or it is my view that.....

We all know who is speaking. You are the subject. So saying it is my subjective opinion that x..... is simply redundant. Just say: "I believe or I hold the view that ........

The molester's own subjective morality does not influence my own.

Who said it did?

 

[Elioenai26]

Are you being dishonest here? The atheist doesn't have to be a nihilist, and you know that.

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.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

You aren't that good at listening, are you?

 

[JGG]

The answer you give to this question is your evidence:

"Is child molesting wrong even if the molestor 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.

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.

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

The fact that you cannot present these problems without an emotional appeal, shows that they are not objective.

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.

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. Yes, my opinion covers my actions, and encompasses the actions of others. Just because I believe that my opinion, and moral view is subjective, does not mean that I approve, or am neutral toward people who violate my ethics.

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?

Strawman. Nowhere have I argued that because people agree that objective moral values and duties exist, therefore they exist.

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.

 

[Eudaimonist]

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?

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

 

[SithDoughnut]

You are exactly right. That is not an argument for the existence of objective moral values and duties. When did I ever use that as an argument?

In a post a few pages back, you said this about nihilism, when presenting a series of "options" for a poster to choose.

If you say A. Then I can speak for every parent and say that I would not want you as a school bus driver or anywhere near any of my children or any other children. I would not want you to be my doctor, a law enforcement officer, a judge, or a teacher. I would not want you to be my neighbor, an airline pilot, a lawyer, a child care worker, and any other profession where people's lives could directly or indirectly be affected by your sociopathic view.

If you don't understand how this is a perfect example of what I was talking about, and how this shows your attempt to force people down certain choices because of how you attack them if they do, then I can't be much clearer.

What it does prove, and this has been my point, is that if one cannot say that child molestation is wrong even if the molestor thinks it is right, then it follows logically that the act of child molestation is:

Either good or...

Good or any other descriptor. That's a lot of options.

but since he thinks it is right and since you think it is wrong, and since all there is is opinions, all of which must be equally valid to the consistent relativist

No, that's your strawman relativist. An actual relativist is under no obligation to consider differing opinions as equally valid. All that is actually required is to recognise that different opinions exist, and the rest is extra. Wikipedia refers to how I see relativism as "meta-ethical relativism", although I've heard other names. What you're describing is apparently called "normative relativism", and is not something that any relativist is required to be.

Personal standards can be relativistic and subjective too, you know.

then this logically leads to the conclusion that no act is inherently or intrinsically moral or immoral in and of itself which is Nihilism.

If you mean moral nihilism, I can see where you're coming from. Don't equivocate nihilism and moral nihilism - they are not the same thing. It often follows, but is not a logical requirement, because a relativist can consider moral claims to be true (a moral claim can be viewed as a statement of opinion), even if they are not intrinsic to actions. That runs counter to moral nihilism.

I make you see the price you have to pay in order to deny that God exists.

No, you invent a price and consistently ignore the many many times people have shown you to be wrong.

So its bad for you and for the atheist who insists on denying God. You have to adopt a nihilistic view of morality, which, by the way, is something that Nietzsche understood way before you were even born!

Guess what? You've just made the argument that you're claiming you didn't make in the post where you claim you don't make it.

You want to know something? Even though I've dismantled your attempts to logically connect relativism and moral nihilism, I do largely agree with moral nihilism. So let's assume that I am a moral nihilist (I'm pretty sure you're equivocating still, so remember the moral aspect before you start quoting from the nihilism wikipedia page) - so what? Is that supposed to be a "price", like moral nihilism is something bad and wrong to be? Is this your argument, that I pay a price because moral nihilism is "bad"? This is exactly the argument that you claimed was a strawman - you must have literally been reading the post I talked about it only moments before you actually did it again.

So, for the sake of argument, let's assume that I am a moral nihilist. This is your conclusion, after all. Now what? Have you got a point to make which isn't attacking me for being a moral nihilist?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Saying: "It is my opinion that rape is wrong even though the rapist thinks it is right." is the same as saying: "It is my opinion that the earth is round even though members of the flat earth society think its flat."

No, it is similar to saying "It is my opinion that Beethoven is a greater composer than Bach, even though members of the Bach society think the opposite."

LIKEWISE, CHILD MOLESTATION IS WRONG. THAT IS A FACT.

I know how the sphericity of the earth was established. How did you establish this fact?