Anyone have a case for Relativism?

[Eudaimonist]

They would not be humane then.

You are right, it is honest. What is humane is having a humane ethical stance.

You also infer that a car exists when you see it sitting in your driveway. Both instances are examples of cognitive mental and reasoning processes from sensory input.

If I see a car in my driveway, I can rightly say that it is self-evident that a car is in my driveway. The sight of the car is clear and convincing evidence that a car is present. Whatever reasoning is involved is minimal. The same is not true for ethics.

You are no different than any other human who desires to be treated with love and respect. So come down off of your high horse.

I may desire to be treated with love and respect, but I don't see this as your duty towards me. I might also desire that you give me a million dollars, but that doesn't mean I am obligated to give you a million dollars.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Elioenai26]

If I see a car in my driveway, I can rightly say that it is self-evident that a car is in my driveway. The sight of the car is clear and convincing evidence that a car is present. Whatever reasoning is involved is minimal. The same is not true for ethics.

Do not try to slide out of it by saying "ethics". That is a generalization. We have been talking about genocide here, not some broad ethical system, but THE ACT OF killking people because they were Jews. It was not self evident that it was wrong to the Nazis because they hated the Jews and wanted to destroy them. Freodin will tell you, ask him. The Nazis saw the Jews as not even human...as pigs...as animals...as nothing more than bags of bones to be worked and starved.

Are we to allow them to convince us that these acts are not self evidently wrong??????? Are they to now be our noble model for moral skepticism?

 

[muichimotsu]

Reality shows that there are many sick, evil, twisted, corrupt, hard hearted, moral monsters that think killing Jewish people was good because the Jews were not even human and were poisoning the blood of the pure race.

REality shows that people can be morally and ethically ambivalent and it is the rare individuals who are unabashedly evil for its own sake. Intention doesn't make something good, which is why Nazism and Aryanism are not good because of the feelings of vindication or such behind them.

Saying that their twisted, sick, warped, skewed, evil, atrocious views gives us reasons to not think that their actions were not objectively wrong is like taking Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, Charles Manson, and the thousands of other serial killer, molestor cannibals confessions and using them to say: "Well gee whiz, since these people thought it was right, it is not objectively wrong to be an evil malevolent rapist and murderer."

We have to be remotely objective here, and not let our emotions overtake us. This is not to say we shouldn't bring an emotional aspect into this in that the human ethical/moral experience is based partly in empathy and reciprocity towards others in kind, especially in terms of good for good, possibly even good for bad depending on the nature of the actions.

It is objectively wrong in the sense of a ethical principle that notes people should be secure in their persons as much as possible, especially from attempts on their lives. This is not to say everyone will see that position as so, which is where subjectivity comes in, you see. Objectively it is so, but not objectively in overriding human volition and freedom.

Please guys, I beg you, stop with the bad arguments PLEASE!

Seems to me it isn't the arguments on our end that are bad so much as either your reading comprehension or our specific communication of concepts, which is a fair minded position of blame, is it not?

 

[quatona]

Reality shows that there are many sick, evil, twisted, corrupt, hard hearted, moral monsters that think killing Jewish people was good because the Jews were not even human and were poisoning the blood of the pure race.

Yes, reality shows that something I abhorr is not self-evidently wrong. That was my very point.

Saying that their twisted, sick, warped, skewed, evil, atrocious views gives us reasons to not think that their actions were not objectively wrong is like taking Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, Charles Manson, and the thousands of other serial killer, molestor cannibals confessions and using them to say: "Well gee whiz, since these people thought it was right, it is not objectively wrong to be an evil malevolent rapist and murderer."

Except that this doesn´t even resemble the argument I made.
You asked if a case can be made for the Holocaust not being self-evidently wrong, and I responded to this question.

Please guys, I beg you, stop with the bad arguments PLEASE!

You are ignoring the actual arguments made, and instead you put poor arguments in our mouthes. Dishonesty appears to be a moral value and duty in your allegedly "objective" morality.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Do not try to slide out of it by saying "ethics". That is a generalization. We have been talking about genocide here, not some broad ethical system, but THE ACT OF killking people because they were Jews.

It is through ethics that we judge that "THE ACT OF killing people because they were Jews" is wrong, whether one is a philosopher or one is simply brought up through parenting and other education to make such judgments.

We don't see right and wrong the same way we see a car in our driveway. It may be that judgments of right and wrong become so automated over time (as skill in driving that car) that it almost feels like we can see that, but ultimately it comes down to ideas that need justification.

The Nazis saw the Jews as not even human...as pigs...as animals...as nothing more than bags of bones to be worked and starved.

I hate the Nazis as much as you and Indiana Jones do. We should team up some time and fight them.

Are we to allow them to convince us that these acts are not self evidently wrong???????

Yes, since while those acts are wrong -- very wrong -- they aren't self-evidently wrong.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

Are we to allow them to convince us that these acts are not self evidently wrong???????

Yes.

Are they to now be our noble model for moral skepticism?

No. They weren´t moral skeptics, to begin with. They were moral objectivists.
We can use them as an example to point out the problems with your arguments from consequence.

 

[muichimotsu]

It seems to me there's a fundamental misunderstanding on the part of moral objectivists that moral subjectivists are saying there are no objective morals. The difference lies not in the ultimate conclusions we draw, but the process by which we do so. Subjectivists acknowledge that not everyone sees things the same, but also sees that circumstance and upbrinnging can affect perception

 

[Archaeopteryx]

His point is moot. The case is closed. Agree or not. If you disagree, then that is your choice. But you are still wrong.

All you are doing is insisting that you are right. That isn't very convincing.

How do we test two different answers to a math equation to see which one is right?

Show us how you would do it. You insist that your 'objective' morality is objective, and he insists that his 'objective' morality is objective. What then?

 

[Dave Ellis]

It is also not self-evident to me that we have an objective moral duty to love our neighbors as ourselves. That is a popular belief that is promoted by Christianity, but there is nothing self-evident there.

It's also worth noting this belief is also promoted by many other religions, as well as non-religious philosophies.

I should note however before someone jumps in and starts making claims about it's objectivity, the fact the belief is widespread doesn't mean it's objective.

 

[Eudaimonist]

It's also worth noting this belief is also promoted by many other religions, as well as non-religious philosophies.

Is it?

I was under the impression that it was the "Silver Rule", not the Golden Rule, that was so popular.

The Silver Rule says something like: don't do unto others what you would not want done unto you. The Golden Rule in Christianity, turns that around into a positive obligation.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Dave Ellis]

The problem Elio is having, along with many moral objectivists is that they can't see the concept that Subjective Morality can be equal to, or superior than an Objective morality.

They think if you don't believe a moral atrocity is "objectively" wrong, that you are immoral... Even if you rationalize through subjective means that the atrocity is immoral.

That line of argument is a loaded statement and does nothing to prove objectivism. It's flawed logic, and pointless.

What's the difference between something being objectively morally wrong, and society by consensus reaching the conclusion that the same action is morally wrong?

From the view of someone living in that society, there is no discernible difference.

Therefore, objective morality has no claim to superiority over subjective morality. You don't need to believe something is "objectively" wrong to believe it is wrong, and the fact someone does not believe something is an objective moral fact says nothing in regards to that persons moral base, or standards.

In fact, I don't find the concept that objective morality is desirable at all. What if there is a flaw in the objective moral code? You have no way to rectify it. A subjective system is subject to continual improvement and refinement as time goes on and new moral or ethical issues present themselves that did not exist previously (i.e. nobody had to worry about the issue of Human Cloning in 1400AD).

We can debate and reach consensus through reason why some actions are moral, and why other actions are immoral. These moral dilemmas are a part of everyday life, they're all around us. Stem Cell Research, Human Cloning, Euthanasia, Gay Marriage, etc... Society debates and determines through rational argument what is morally correct.

When Gay Marriage eventually becomes legal nationwide in the U.S., as I'm sure it will eventually, there will still be a significant portion of the population that think it's immoral. However as it becomes a societal norm, that faction will slowly wither away, and 100 years from now, it'll be left as a fairly marginalized [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]. This is the history for all similar situations, from interracial marriage, to women's suffrage, to slavery and black civil rights.

Morality shifts and improves as time goes on. There is no objectivity to it, it's a gradual process of improvement.

If morality was objective, then the things listed above would have been considered morally right at all times (regardless of what society believed). And even if this objective morality does exist, that's a demonstration we have no way of knowing what the code is without using subjective means. And even then we don't know for sure if our subjective views actually line up with the hypothetical objective code.

In short, We have no way of knowing what is in this objective code. It's indistinguishable and therefore irrelevant from a practical standpoint even if it does actually exist.

We are forced by necessity to rely on subjective means to determine what is and what is not moral. Taking our subjective moral views and labelling them as objective as you are doing is dishonest. Even if this objective code really exists, we have no way to know what it says or if it actually does exist at all. You are making an unsubstantiated claim.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Now is a good a time as any to remind Elio that after six threads constituting 100+ pages, he still doesn't have anything remotely resembling a workable epistemology upon which to predicate his 'objectivism'.

 

[Eudaimonist]

What's the difference between something being objectively morally wrong, and society by consensus reaching the conclusion that the same action is morally wrong?

In one case, it really is wrong. In the other, it is merely thought of as wrong.

That's the difference between the Earth being round, and the Earth merely being thought of as round.

I'm pretty certain that's a difference.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Dave Ellis]

In one case, it really is wrong. In the other, it is merely thought of as wrong.

That's the difference between the Earth being round, and the Earth merely being thought of as round.

I'm pretty certain that's a difference.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Right, but the point is what is the discernible difference to someone living in a society with those beliefs?

 

[SithDoughnut]

Elioenai26, you appear to have missed my reply to your claims:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7716030-26/#post62357386

The short version is essentially this: if we assume, for the sake of argument, that I am a moral nihilist, how does this disprove relativism? Your idea that this is a "price" does not logically follow from your premises, nor does it logically lead to a relevant conclusion. By being human, I pay a "price" of not being able to breathe in water, but that doesn't mean that humans are wrong or do not exist.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Right, but the point is what is the discernible difference to someone living in a society with those beliefs?

Ah, I see.

I would ask: what is the nature of the consensus? How was this consensus arrived at? What were people appealing to in arriving at this consensus?

With objective morality, there is at least some chance that people are appealing primarily to facts that affect their view of what is good for individuals. Views regarding objective morality could change, but if they change with respect to improvements in their understanding of the facts, this can only be an improvement.

With subjective morality, what else is there to appeal to other than desires? Any facts involved would be merely tied to means, and not to the selection of the ultimate ends of the moral system.

So, what is the anchor that keeps a subjective culture on course? Desires can change dramatically over time.

Now, granted, if an objective culture does not tie its views on an objective good to rationally discernable facts, that is a big problem. We end up with quatona's challenge regarding two dramatically different views on objective morality clashing with each other.

However, if facts and reason are involved, then there is at least a chance that rationality can win the day by supporting one view over the other. Rational discourse would be important and relevant to the development of that culture.

With subjective morality (or a non-rational objective culture) what else is there but clashes of feelings and desires, where reason is relegated to the role only of determining means, not ends?

It seems to me that this would make a difference over time.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[essentialsaltes]

In fact, I don't find the concept that objective morality is desirable at all. What if there is a flaw in the objective moral code?

A flaw would not be possible. The kind of objective morality Elio wants is not objective like the Code of Hammurabi is objective: this list of do's and don'ts objectively exists, all written down in black and white (or cuneiform). It's objective in that it is (somehow) objectively true, like 8 is the square root of 64. There can't be an error if it's objectively true.
It might be unpleasant if it turned out it's objectively wrong to eat bacon, but if it's really wrong, it's really wrong.

 

[Dave Ellis]

A flaw would not be possible. The kind of objective morality Elio wants is not objective like the Code of Hammurabi is objective: this list of do's and don'ts objectively exists, all written down in black and white (or cuneiform). It's objective in that it is (somehow) objectively true, like 8 is the square root of 64. There can't be an error if it's objectively true.
It might be unpleasant if it turned out it's objectively wrong to eat bacon, but if it's really wrong, it's really wrong.

Well, of course I'm talking about a flaw from my subjective opinion.

For example, it could be a principle in this objective morality that Genocide is acceptable at times. I would call that immoral, as would most of humanity.

So, what is applicable? All an objective moral standard is, is a standard independent of human opinion or whatnot.

There is no requirement that an objective standard is considered "perfectly" moral. It is possible that if an objective standard exists, that it follows Hitler's ideology to a tee. That does not mean we should regard that objective moral standard as actually moral. It is merely an objective standard of morality we find repugnant.

You are conflating an objective moral standard with the idea that the standard by necessity must be anything resembling moral by our opinion. It does not have to be.

 

[Beechwell]

how about a different approach: if there are objective morals there should be an objective way to distinguish the "correct" morals from the "false" ones. if one cannot do this, then even if objective morals excuse they are unknowable as such, and thus irrelevant.

so, of the two statements:
"it is amoral to kill a murderer as punishment"
and
"it is moral to kill a murderer as punishment"
which one its the objectively correct one? how do we tell (other then appealing to emotions, which are by nature subjective)?

 

[muichimotsu]

A case for hard relativism would be impossible on the grounds that making an absolute claim about relativism while relativism itself in this case would claim that everything is relative creates a contradiction

A case for soft relativism, on the other hand, better phrased as perspectivism or subjectivism or even existentialism, is quite possible, I'd say.