Anyone have a case for Relativism?

Davian · Jan 27, 2013

Elioenai26 said:
If I see someone becoming fatigued in the water, and throw them a life preserver ring from the saftey of a boat and tell them to grab a hold to it and hold on so I can pull them up out of the water and they laugh at me and say you are stupid, you are not going to help me, I can make it to land safely by myself, and they refuse to accept my help, my advice, my warning, then when they die, am I supposed to feel sorry for them?

Are you referring to 'the Flood' or to how you are trying to 'save me'?

If the former: explain why all but one family needed to be slowly drowned, including children, babies, and pregnant women. Was this the best solution that your omnipotent deity could muster? Or were the writers of the bible stories just going for the fear factor?

For the record, do you believe in a global flood, as per the bible?

If the latter: I do not appear to be suffering from signs of fatigue. I am not even in the water. Your boat that you claim to have is nowhere in sight, and you can show no evidence of owning one, although you do have records of paying for one, by donation once per week. When I ask to examine one of these "life preserver rings", you decline to have its buoyancy tested - "it doesn't work like that" you exclaim. "Our life preservers cannot be put in a test tube" says your friend. I ask, so where does all that money go?

Do you have anything new, Elio?

JGG · Jan 27, 2013

Elioenai26 said:
Are you an adherent to moral relativism? Yes, no, sometimes?

If so, do you live according to your beliefs? Yes, no, sometimes?

Based on your understanding, is an adherent of moral relativism simply someone who believes that something can be moral for one person, in one time or place, and immoral for another in another time and place? Or is it something else as far as you understand?

If I say that I believe that rape or genocide is wrong for all people, in all places, throughout history (moral universalism), that doesn't mean that I agree that morality is objective (moral objectivism), right?

I can't help but think that you're using subjective and relative (as well as objective and universal) interchangeably, when they mean very different things. I just don't really understand how someone would live according to moral relativism.

KCfromNC · Jan 28, 2013

Elioenai26 said:
Are you an adherent to moral relativism? Yes, no, sometimes?

If so, do you live according to your beliefs? Yes, no, sometimes?

If you're asking if I base my views of morality on what I see in reality, then yes. Certainly morals change based on the situation, and they've definitely changed throughout time and with different cultures. I'm not sure if recognizing that this reality exists could be considered a belief system or just being sane, though, so I'm not sure how to answer your obviously leading questions.

Now with that out of the way, your turn. Do you think it is now moral to take virgin girls captive as spoils or war, or do you believe that morality has changed from the time of the Bible?

quatona · Jan 28, 2013

Elioenai26 said:
If I see someone becoming fatigued in the water, and throw them a life preserver ring from the saftey of a boat and tell them to grab a hold to it and hold on so I can pull them up out of the water and they laugh at me and say you are stupid, you are not going to help me, I can make it to land safely by myself, and they refuse to accept my help, my advice, my warning, then when they die, am I supposed to feel sorry for them?

Why sure.

Dave Ellis · Jan 31, 2013

Elioenai26 said:
Incorrect for one simple reason:

If I say raping children is objectively wrong, then there is no other equally valid opinion. That is the whole point. If something is objectively wrong, then it is wrong REGARDLESS or WITHOUT REGARD to the other competing views.

To prove the point, just ask yourself, what other view when placed along side of the view: "raping children is objectively wrong" is equally valid?

The answer is that there is no other equally valid different view!

First off, I will state that I fully agree raping children (or anyone else) is morally wrong. However, your statement simply does not lead to any kind of evidence for objective morality.

In short, the question to be asked in regards to the morality of child rape is why could it be considered moral, and why could it be considered immoral?

I can think of numerous reasons why it is immoral, and I can't think of a single reason why it would be considered moral. Therefore, subjectively I have determined that child rape is extremely immoral, given the fact it has absolutely no redeeming qualities.

However, that fact in no way ties it to an absolute morality, or an objective moral law. Just because it's really bad, doesn't mean it's objective... all it means is that it's really bad.

To call it objective, you must demonstrate that there is an actual objective law. You haven't even begun to do this, and I fail to see how you can even tie this to it.

Eight Foot Manchild · Jan 31, 2013

I find it amusing that 99% of all objections people think they have against subjectivism can be boiled down to 'your moral philosophy would not convince a sociopath'.

Really? You think?

As if a sociopath is going to read some William Lane Craig and say 'golly gee, I never thought of it that way.'

KCfromNC · Feb 1, 2013

Eight Foot Manchild said:
I find it amusing that 99% of all objections people think they have against subjectivism can be boiled down to 'your moral philosophy would not convince a sociopath'.

Really? You think?

As if a sociopath is going to read some William Lane Craig and say 'golly gee, I never thought of it that way.'

Maybe they'd enjoy the parts which rationalize genocide?

Elioenai26 · Feb 1, 2013

JGG said:
If I say that I believe that rape or genocide is wrong for all people, in all places, throughout history (moral universalism), that doesn't mean that I agree that morality is objective (moral objectivism), right?

Moral Universalism is moral objectivism, the two phrases are synonymous.

Moral universalism (also called moral objectivism or universal morality) is the meta-ethical position that some system of ethics, or a universal ethic, applies universally, that is, for "all similarly situated individuals",[1] regardless of culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexuality, or any other distinguishing feature. Moral universalism is opposed to moral nihilism and moral relativism. *Wikipedia*

JGG said:
I can't help but think that you're using subjective and relative (as well as objective and universal) interchangeably, when they mean very different things. I just don't really understand how someone would live according to moral relativism.

It seems you understand the inherent weaknesses of moral relativism too.

To say something is subjective simply means subject to the person. To say something is relative is to say that it relates to something. To say something is objective simply means to be mind independent or independent of human opinion. Universal means everyone or all persons. All of these need to be understood in the context of morality.

Elioenai26 · Feb 1, 2013

Dave Ellis said:
First off, I will state that I fully agree raping children (or anyone else) is morally wrong. However, your statement simply does not lead to any kind of evidence for objective morality.

Is the proposition: "raping children is wrong" true independently of human opinion, or is its truth value dependent on human opinion?

Elioenai26 · Feb 1, 2013

quatona said:
Why sure.

So, it is your subjective opinion that I should be empathetic and sympathetic to the drowning man. That is great. I am glad to hear you feel that way. I would also say you are right.

But if If I say that it is my subjective opinion that the drowning man should not be shown empathy or sympathy then I am also right. According to ethical subjectivism of course.

From this it follows:

1. The proposition: "It is my subjective opinion that drowining men who have been provided a way of rescue should still be shown sympathy and empathy." Is a true proposition.

2. The proposition: "It is my subjective opinion that drowining men who have been provided a way of rescue should not be shown sympathy and empathy." Is a true proposition.

Therefore it follows:

Ethical subjectivism leads to violations of the law of non-contradiction and is therefore, necessarily false because it allows for two contradictory propositions to be true at the same time.

It is also not tenable because in the case of moral disagreements, there is no logical, viable way to arbitrate between two or more opposing views.

Beechwell · Feb 1, 2013

Elioenai26 said:
Moral Universalism is moral objectivism, the two phrases are synonymous.

not when using your definition of moral objectivism. iirc according to you moral objectivism means that morals are independent of human opinions, that something can be moral even if noone believes it to be.

moral universalism in its simplest sense means that (some) moral values are shared among (practically) all humans.that is not the same! moral values may be universal because all humans are genetically or socially conditioned to certain moral values. that doesn't mean these values somehow exist independently of humans.

our did I misunderstand your idea of moral objectivism?

FrenchyBearpaw · Feb 1, 2013

Elioenai26 said:
Moral Universalism is moral objectivism, the two phrases are synonymous.

Moral universalism (also called moral objectivism or universal morality) is the meta-ethical position that some system of ethics, or a universal ethic, applies universally, that is, for "all similarly situated individuals",[1] regardless of culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexuality, or any other distinguishing feature. Moral universalism is opposed to moral nihilism and moral relativism. *Wikipedia*

It seems you understand the inherent weaknesses of moral relativism too.

To say something is subjective simply means subject to the person. To say something is relative is to say that it relates to something. To say something is objective simply means to be mind independent or independent of human opinion. Universal means everyone or all persons. All of these need to be understood in the context of morality.

Are the initiation rites of the Sambia tribe objectively moral, or morally relativistic?

The Sambia Tribe

essentialsaltes · Feb 1, 2013

Elioenai26 said:
Is the proposition: "raping children is wrong" true independently of human opinion, or is its truth value dependent on human opinion?

It has no truth value. There are no moral facts.

Is the proposition "Brussels sprouts taste bad." true independently of human opinion, or is its truth value dependent on human opinion?

Elioenai26 · Feb 1, 2013

KCfromNC said:
If you're asking if I base my views of morality on what I see in reality, then yes. Certainly morals change based on the situation, and they've definitely changed throughout time and with different cultures.

Ok, so your main reason for adhering to moral relativism is because you perceive that morals change based on the situation, time, and culture.

Is this correct?

Also, I need you to clarify what you mean when you say "morals". The term can be used several different ways. In which way are you using it?

Elioenai26 · Feb 1, 2013

essentialsaltes said:
It has no truth value. There are no moral facts.

Ahh so you are a moral nihilist?

They consider morality to be constructed as a complex set of rules and recommendations that may give a psychological, social, or economical advantage to its adherents, but is otherwise without universal or even relative truth in any sense.*wikipedia*

Is this you? If so, are you an error theorist, or an expressivist?

essentialsaltes said:
Is the proposition "Brussels sprouts taste bad." true independently of human opinion, or is its truth value dependent on human opinion?

Its truth value is dependent on human opinion because it is with reference to personal taste distaste, or likes and dislikes.

Archaeopteryx · Feb 1, 2013

Elioenai26 said:
Is the proposition: "raping children is wrong" true independently of human opinion, or is its truth value dependent on human opinion?

You admitted that it seems to be dependent on religious opinion.

Archaeopteryx · Feb 1, 2013

Elioenai26 said:
So, it is your subjective opinion that I should be empathetic and sympathetic to the drowning man. That is great. I am glad to hear you feel that way. I would also say you are right.

But if If I say that it is my subjective opinion that the drowning man should not be shown empathy or sympathy then I am also right. According to ethical subjectivism of course.

You are putting the cart before the horse.

From this it follows:

1. The proposition: "It is my subjective opinion that drowining men who have been provided a way of rescue should still be shown sympathy and empathy." Is a true proposition.

2. The proposition: "It is my subjective opinion that drowining men who have been provided a way of rescue should not be shown sympathy and empathy." Is a true proposition.

Therefore it follows:

Ethical subjectivism leads to violations of the law of non-contradiction and is therefore, necessarily false because it allows for two contradictory propositions to be true at the same time.

What of the contradictions in your 'objective' moral system?

Archaeopteryx said:
This poses a number of problems for your line of reasoning thus far. If genocide is objectively wrong, then your God's command to commit genocidal acts indicate that he is not worthy of being praised as morally perfect. If, on the other hand, the wrong-ness of genocide depends on whether or not your God commands it, then in what sense does that constitute an objective moral system? Acting morally is then simply defined by obedience, in which case even the most despicable acts might be deemed 'good' if those committing them believe they are complying with a divine directive. Since you refuse to answer any questions pertaining to how we are able to obtain knowledge about the supernatural, there will always remain uncertainty as to whether any 'divine directive' actually stems from the divine. Moral claims thus become reduced to assertions of "God wills it; therefore it is right." Whose God wills what seems to depend on the individual believer and his religion. Moral claims are thus reduced to religious claims or supernatural claims. Is is it any wonder then that some theists insist that persons who do not typically make religious claims (e.g. atheists) are correspondingly unable to make moral claims also?

It is also not tenable because in the case of moral disagreements, there is no logical, viable way to arbitrate between two or more opposing views.

This is a very adequate description of theistic moralities. It's what happens when moral claims are reduced to religious claims.

Elioenai26 · Feb 1, 2013

Archaeopteryx said:
You admitted that it seems to be dependent on religious opinion.

Where?

Elioenai26 · Feb 1, 2013

FrenchyBearpaw said:
Are the initiation rites of the Sambia tribe objectively moral, or morally relativistic?

The Sambia Tribe

I do not understand your question as phrased. What do you mean when you say "objectively moral"?

Do you mean to ask: "Are the initiation rites of the Sambia objectively right, or relatively right?"

Archaeopteryx · Feb 1, 2013

Elioenai26 said:
Where?

Here and here for example.

Anyone have a case for Relativism?

fallible

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

"God"? What do you mean??

Contributor

His Supreme Holy Correctfulness

Regular Member

Elioenai26

Guest

Elioenai26

Guest

Elioenai26

Guest

Glücksdrache

Take time for granite.

Fact-Based Lifeform

Elioenai26

Guest

Elioenai26

Guest

Wanderer

Wanderer

Elioenai26

Guest

Elioenai26

Guest

Wanderer

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency