Anyone have a case for Relativism?

[Elioenai26]

No, I hold that right is determined between the subjective values of observers through their actions.

But, subjective values are subject themselves to objective facts.

This is moral objectivism variant.

If your subjective view of murder being wrong is based on (which is what subject means in the way you used it) an objective fact that "murder is wrong", then the proposition "murder is wrong", is an objective moral fact.

Which would make you a moral objectivist. And I agree with everything you said.

 

[Elioenai26]

I cannot say that I am objectively morally right in any given sitation.

Secondly, you must be morally flawless.

Not at all. I fall short everyday of being morally flawless. You need to distinguish my view, from my conduct. My view says that statments like "being selfish and putting yourself first at the expense of others is wrong." are objectively true. But that does not mean I live that way. I could very well believe that, and still be a selfish, egotistical, self-centered person. Which oftentimes, God convicts me that I am. Just because someone adheres to a meta-ethical view that somethings are objectively wrong, does not necessarily mean that that person is going to conduct themselves according to that meta-ethic.

Likewise, I have seen many people here who adhere to moral relativism that do not conduct themselves according to their meta-ethic. They bring charges against the God of the Bible as being immoral, but in order for their charge against God to be more than just the expression of their preference no different than their preference for vanilla ice cream over chocolate, they MUST suspend their relativistic view and adopt an objectivist view.

It would be ridiculous for a moral relativist to say: "You are wrong for not liking vanilla ice cream and should be punished." Or "You should not like vanilla ice cream." But since the relativist sees the above statements as being the same as saying "You should not rape women." i.e. they are only preferences of individuals, then when a moral relativist says God is immoral, it is the same as saying: "Chocolate ice cream is nasty." Who would fault someone for their preference in ice cream? The moral relativist cannot, nor can the moral objectivist. Who would fault someone for their preference in being immoral? The moral relativist cannot, BUT THE MORAL OBJECTIVIST CAN, because the objectivist says that somethings are immoral EVEN IF it is the opinion of the person that it is not.

relativism and ethical subjectivism are not tenable as a meta-ethic for atheists. The number one charge against the God of the bible from atheists is the charge that evil exists and the God is immoral. But from a relativstic meta-ethic, these charges have absolutely no force of argumentation. Opinions never count as good means of argumentation. And that is what the charges must ultimately be seen as if the view is spoken from a relativistic view. When the atheist asks the Christian: "So, is God ordering genocide immoral?" He assumes the Christian must answer yes, and thus, demonstrate that God is immoral. But if being immoral is simply a preference the same way a person prefers chocolate to vanilla, then who would dare say that God was wrong for prefering to order the death of some wicked people? The relativist IF HE IS TO REMAIN FAITFUL TO HIS RELATIVISM must say that it was God's preference that certain people be killed for their wickedness and that to say He was wrong would be the same as saying a person is wrong for prefering chocolate to vanilla.

You just cannot make those statements regarding people's preferences. So when the atheist brings charges against God (and expects these charges to have weight in argumentation), he is speaking as if God has done something OBJECTIVELY wrong. But then, he is not a relativist, but an objectivist.

Now an atheist relativist can say , well it is just my preference that God not like (x) or (y). But that is all the relativist can say. And preference and opinion as I stated earlier is not successful argumentation.

 

[Elioenai26]

Well, I wouldn't say that mathematics is simply intuitive, or that intuition is particularly objective. I can demonstrate that 2+2=4 with just 4 apples. How are you demonstrating that rape is wrong?

If a woman was placed in front of you, and two strong men began to slap her, rip her clothes off while she was kicking, screaming, crying, and fighting for her life, honor, and dignity, and they began to savagely rape her and perform heinous oral and other sex acts on her, while they laughed with Satanic glee, would that not be a demonstration to you that rape is wrong? If not then you are sociopathic and have no conscience or moral intuition. You would be no different than the men committing the acts.

Would that not be the same as placing 2 apples and 2 apples together and you come to the conclusion in your mind that there are 4 apples there?

 

[Elioenai26]

I don't think that moral objectivism necessarily implies moral universalism.
eudaimonia,

Mark

Moral universalism is a meta-ethic subset of moral realism. Philosophers use universalism and objectivism interchangeably because they are interchangeable. Universalism implies objectivism because it is inherently objective based. Universalism is also called moral objectivism, this philosophy argues for the existence of a universal ethic. Certain behaviors are simply wrong regardless of the circumstances. In a 2007 interview Noam Chomsky defined universalism as “If something's right for me, it's right for you; if it's wrong for you, it's wrong for me.” psychology.wikia.com

The word regardless bolded above carries the connotation of objectivity. That is why the terms are used interchangeably. If one says they are a moral objectivist, they are saying that it is their 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. Wikipedia

Once again, Mark, the required use of the word regardless in the definition denotes objectivity.

Believing that morality is fact-based could, in principle, lead to the conclusion that unique facts about individuals lead to different ethical conclusions about those individuals. For instance, the sex of the individual might play some role in how ethics applies to those individuals, just as an example.

I do not see your point.

If moral statements are not based on moral facts (objective moral values and duties) then they must be based on subjective preference.

Of course the important aspect of the definition of moral universalism that you are not taking into account is the aspect of "all similarly situated individuals",[1]

You are taking applied ethics and epistemology and are trying to cast doubt on the veracity of the existence of objective moral values and duties which is an ontological issues. Do not confuse the two. It is very easy to do so.

I am not espousing absolutism either. For there are definitely situations in which it would be right to take the life of a child. The absolutist says that it is NEVER right to take the life of a child REGARDLESS of circumstance or context.

But this clearly is false. For every physician worth his title of physician, when confronted with the scenario of taking the life of a baby during birth complications to save the life of the mother, is going to say that in that extreme and exceptional scenario, taking the life of the child so that the mother may live is right, or preferable. And this is what happens, unless the mother and father of the unborn child agree that it is best in their view that the mother should die so that the child may live. IN BOTH CASES THE UNDERLYING OBJECTIVE MORAL VALUE AND DUTY IS PRESENT. And that is that life is precious and should be guarded and preserved at all cost. This objective moral fact undergirds both decisions. How one goes about applying this fact to the situation is based on a number of various things, but this does not mean that therefore the fact that life is precious and should be guarded and preserved at all costs is somehow subjective. It isnt.

You MUST distinguish between the three:

1. Ontology.
2. Epistemology.
3. Applied Ethics.

 

[quatona]

If a woman was placed in front of you, and two strong men began to slap her, rip her clothes off while she was kicking, screaming, crying, and fighting for her life, honor, and dignity, and they began to savagely rape her and perform heinous oral and other sex acts on her, while they laughed with Satanic glee,

There´s absolutely no need to expand on your inappropriate content fantasies here.

would that not be a demonstration to you that rape is wrong?

Objectively wrong? No, it wouldn´t.
(Have you already forgotten what you wrote in your previous post, and which I urgently requested you to not forget: "But the moral relativist or ethical subjectivist cannot say that rape is objectively wrong the way a moral realist can. The reason is because they do not believe that objective moral facts exist at all!)

My disgust, my repulsion and my overall emotionally negative response would demonstrate my personal loathing of violence.

If not then you are sociopathic

"If you don´t follow my conclusions you are sick." is by no means an argument. It´s intellectual bankruptcy. Cut it already.

and have no conscience or moral intuition.

Yes, I would. I would just not follow your unsubstantiated philosophical abstractions which you keep reaffirming by means of circular logic.
The ironic thing is that in the attempt to demonstrate the existence of an objective (in your definition: independent of human perception) moral truth you are appealing to my very subjective conscience and intuition.

You would be no different than the men committing the acts.

Well, sure - if you ignore the differences any two things are the same.
You have two legs, so you aren´t different from the men committing the acts, either.

Would that not be the same as placing 2 apples and 2 apples together and you come to the conclusion in your mind that there are 4 apples there?

Yes, it wouldn´t. For to convince someone that two and two apples are four apples no appeal to intuition or conscience is required, to begin with.
You simply count "1,2,3,4", pointing at the apples. If the guy counts "1,2,3,5" you simply point him to the conditions that are defined for the formal system of decimal mathematics.

Facts and value judgements are not to be equated. (Even less so formal system and value judgements).

 

[JGG]

Not at all. I fall short everyday of being morally flawless. You need to distinguish my view, from my conduct. My view says that statments like "being selfish and putting yourself first at the expense of others is wrong." are objectively true.

Okay, but how are they objectively true? You can claim it's objectively true, but you could be wrong. You stated that objective beliefs are true regardless of whether you believe it or not. Perhaps being selfish and putting yourself first is objectively morally true, and you've got it wrong. Use some objective method to show that you're right.

You are claiming that your particular moral beliefs are objectively true. You stated that the problem with subjectivism is that I could not tell group (z) that action (a) was immoral, and that your condemnation carries more power.

This more than implies that you are morally superior to me. It further implies that you have total knowledge of these objective morals, and therefore your morals are flawless.

But that does not mean I live that way. I could very well believe that, and still be a selfish, egotistical, self-centered person. Which oftentimes, God convicts me that I am. Just because someone adheres to a meta-ethical view that somethings are objectively wrong, does not necessarily mean that that person is going to conduct themselves according to that meta-ethic.

That's not the point.

Likewise, I have seen many people here who adhere to moral relativism that do not conduct themselves according to their meta-ethic. They bring charges against the God of the Bible as being immoral, but in order for their charge against God to be more than just the expression of their preference no different than their preference for vanilla ice cream over chocolate, they MUST suspend their relativistic view and adopt an objectivist view.

Right. Whereas if you were to say that vanilla ice cream is the best flavor ice cream, then vanilla ice cream must objectively be the best flavor of ice cream.

It would be ridiculous for a moral relativist to say: "You are wrong for not liking vanilla ice cream and should be punished." Or "You should not like vanilla ice cream." But since the relativist sees the above statements as being the same as saying "You should not rape women." i.e. they are only preferences of individuals, then when a moral relativist says God is immoral, it is the same as saying: "Chocolate ice cream is nasty." Who would fault someone for their preference in ice cream? The moral relativist cannot, nor can the moral objectivist. Who would fault someone for their preference in being immoral? The moral relativist cannot, BUT THE MORAL OBJECTIVIST CAN, because the objectivist says that somethings are immoral EVEN IF it is the opinion of the person that it is not.

Let's not use the word preference, let's use opinion, it is more accurate.

If I say "(x) is morally wrong." I am stating my opinion.

You claim that if you say "(x) is morally wrong." you are not stating an opinion but an objective moral fact, and thus your condemnation of (x) is more powerful than mine.

This implies that you have full knowledge of all objective morals on any given issue. Given that you have knowledge of objective morals, you would have to be morally flawless. Otherwise, on any given issue your stance may be wrong, which would make your condemnation of (x) no more powerful than mine.

This has nothing to do with your actions, but your claim that any moral position you take is necessarily objectively true. This makes you morally flawless, and morally superior to anyone else. Inevitably, this is your claim.

So with this in mind, I will remind you that my dying mother, and kosher questions are still sitting unanswered.

relativism and ethical subjectivism are not tenable as a meta-ethic for atheists. The number one charge against the God of the bible from atheists is the charge that evil exists and the God is immoral. But from a relativstic meta-ethic, these charges have absolutely no force of argumentation. Opinions never count as good means of argumentation. And that is what the charges must ultimately be seen as if the view is spoken from a relativistic view. When the atheist asks the Christian: "So, is God ordering genocide immoral?" He assumes the Christian must answer yes, and thus, demonstrate that God is immoral.

I think if God commands against murder in one instance, and condones genocide in another, he is immoral based on his own morals. I don't think we need objectivists to point that out.

But if being immoral is simply a preference the same way a person prefers chocolate to vanilla, then who would dare say that God was wrong for prefering to order the death of some wicked people?

Again not a preference, but an opinion. I would further say that someone who is of the opinion that ordering the death of people, even evil ones is immoral would claim that God is immoral. Why can they not hold that opinion?

The relativist IF HE IS TO REMAIN FAITFUL TO HIS RELATIVISM must say that it was God's preference that certain people be killed for their wickedness and that to say He was wrong would be the same as saying a person is wrong for prefering chocolate to vanilla.

Yes. However, that would not mean that I agree with his opinion just that it his opinion. I could also claim that I believe his opinion is wrong and immoral.

Apparently, if I were to claim objectivism, then I could simply say that I know his opinion is wrong, and immoral.

You just cannot make those statements regarding people's preferences. So when the atheist brings charges against God (and expects these charges to have weight in argumentation), he is speaking as if God has done something OBJECTIVELY wrong. But then, he is not a relativist, but an objectivist.

No we're saying that he's done something wrong from our point of view. Whether we are objectivists or not does not actually change what has happened. It doesn't change whether or not God's actions are right or wrong.

Now an atheist relativist can say , well it is just my preference that God not like (x) or (y). But that is all the relativist can say. And preference and opinion as I stated earlier is not successful argumentation.

But your argument is that because God prefers vanilla ice cream, you can objectively claim that vanilla ice cream is better. Which makes you wonder why you would ever eat chocolate ice cream.

 

[variant]

This is moral objectivism variant.

If your subjective view of murder being wrong is based on (which is what subject means in the way you used it) an objective fact that "murder is wrong", then the proposition "murder is wrong", is an objective moral fact.

No, it goes more like this:

I consider "murder is wrong" to be correct because of how I view murder, my own personal feelings about myself in such a situation and how I ought to be treated, and the effects of murder in society as a whole.

There are objective reasons for my decision in this case (as there should be) but my values concerning human life, myself, and the rightness of murder are subjective.

Nothing about this makes "murder is wrong" a fact, it makes it a value statement based upon factual information.

So, no I'm not quite a moral objectivist, because I don't think my subjective values are facts, I think they are well researched preferences.

Which would make you a moral objectivist. And I agree with everything you said.

I'm not sure the label is appropriate.

 

[JGG]

If a woman was placed in front of you, and two strong men began to slap her, rip her clothes off while she was kicking, screaming, crying, and fighting for her life, honor, and dignity, and they began to savagely rape her and perform heinous oral and other sex acts on her, while they laughed with Satanic glee, would that not be a demonstration to you that rape is wrong? If not then you are sociopathic and have no conscience or moral intuition. You would be no different than the men committing the acts.

I personally believed that it was wrong well before that. However, please demonstrate how you know it is objectively wrong. You are merely demonstrating emotional appeal which is not objective (observe the emotional detail you put into your description, and note that none of this is needed to show that 2+2=4), and relying on social agreement, which you yourself pointed out is not objective (as even if we all agree that a thing is moral or immoral, that doesn't in itself make it so, from the objectionist position).

This is why I presented a less clear cut case in the dying mother as it has emotional pull in both directions, and is controversial which means we cannot rely on simple social agreement. This is a better question to demonstrate how morals would be objective as emotional appeal and social agreement do not work.

Take a stance on these problems, and then we can talk about demonstrating how morals are objective.

Would that not be the same as placing 2 apples and 2 apples together and you come to the conclusion in your mind that there are 4 apples there?

No. Math can be demonstrated without appealing to emotions.

 

[essentialsaltes]

But if being immoral is simply a preference the same way a person prefers chocolate to vanilla, then who would dare say that God was wrong for prefering to order the death of some wicked people?

Me. I would dare. If subjective preferences are (as I believe) all there is to morality, then I need no further justification for making moral judgments than my own preference.

The relativist IF HE IS TO REMAIN FAITFUL TO HIS RELATIVISM must say that it was God's preference that certain people be killed for their wickedness and that to say He was wrong would be the same as saying a person is wrong for prefering chocolate to vanilla.

If God said that "Brussels sprouts taste good" - I would disagree with this statement. Yes, I understand there is no fact of the matter, and it is a matter of preference, but this does not lessen my personal disgust at the thought of eating Brussels Sprouts.

You nauseating description of a gang rape is apparently intended to arouse moral disgust at the idea of rape. That's not necessary; I think all of us here are disgusted by rape. That is part and parcel of our subjective determination that it is morally wrong. Just because other people (rapists, or Brussels sprouts-lovers) have different preferences does not somehow nullify our own, or make us unable to act upon them, or force us to adopt an 'anything goes/laissez faire' attitude about morality (this is a form of 'moral relativism' that I reject).

 

[Dave Ellis]

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

I would say it's true dependent on human opinion.

Do you have any evidence to show otherwise?

 

[quatona]

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

I have heard this value judgement only from humans.
Besides, why would I care about value judgements about human intersubjective behaviour that are not depending on human opinion?
Would I expect the lab rat to care about the opinion of the laboratory staff as to what the rat should or should not do? Certainly not.

 

[Elioenai26]

I have heard this value judgement only from humans.

Of course. I mean, rats have never said it, or baboons, or any other creature. So I agree.

Besides, why would I care about value judgements about human intersubjective behaviour that are not depending on human opinion?

Because if there are objective moral values and duties, you are bound to live according to them. And if you do not care about them, then you, as a human, are failing in the most critical duty and responsibility as a moral creature. This is why there are penal systems in every society in the world. People who do not care about others, and live as if what is right and wrong is solely dependent upon their own desires and opinions and act accordingly are called criminals.

Would I expect the lab rat to care about the opinion of the laboratory staff as to what the rat should or should not do? Certainly not.

In this, your analogy is amazingly accurate. On an atheistic view, we are intrinsically no different than rats....

Except for the fact that we are moral creatures, and that makes all the difference now doesnt it?

 

[Elioenai26]

Me. I would dare. If subjective preferences are (as I believe) all there is to morality, then I need no further justification for making moral judgments than my own preference.

But you are not right and God is not wrong though. That is the point I am making. Your statements are at the most, arbitrary. Since there is no objective standard by which your preference and God's preference can be measured, then no preference is objectively right or wrong. They are just preferences. You prefer chocolate, I prefer vanilla. You prefer raping women, I prefer helping them across the street. Its all the same.

If God said that "Brussels sprouts taste good" - I would disagree with this statement.

If you do not like brussel sprouts of course you would. It is a matter of personal like or dislike.

However, if God said that "The unjustified taking of life is wrong." and you disagree with that statement and prefer to take life whenever you feel like it because you like taking life, does that make it right for you to take life?

You nauseating description of a gang rape is apparently intended to arouse moral disgust at the idea of rape. That's not necessary; I think all of us here are disgusted by rape. That is part and parcel of our subjective determination that it is morally wrong. Just because other people (rapists, or Brussels sprouts-lovers) have different preferences does not somehow nullify our own, or make us unable to act upon them, or force us to adopt an 'anything goes/laissez faire' attitude about morality (this is a form of 'moral relativism' that I reject).

It happens everyday, and my description is nothing compared to the reality.

You then venture to say rape is morally wrong. But that says nothing of whether or not the men were objectively wrong. If you are to remain true to your relativism, then you must see these men's acts as what they prefer, and since as you say, subjective preference is ALL THAT MORALITY IS, then you cannot say these men did anything objectively wrong.

In this, it is seen that godless relativism logically leads to nihilism. Which is what Nietzsche saw, as well as Dostoyevsky.

 

[Elioenai26]

I consider "murder is wrong" to be correct because of how I view murder, my own personal feelings about myself in such a situation and how I ought to be treated, and the effects of murder in society as a whole.

There are objective reasons for my decision in this case (as there should be) but my values concerning human life, myself, and the rightness of murder are subjective.

Nothing about this makes "murder is wrong" a fact, it makes it a value statement based upon factual information.

So, no I'm not quite a moral objectivist, because I don't think my subjective values are facts, I think they are well researched preferences.



I'm not sure the label is appropriate.

So you are saying that the truth of propositions like:

"The unjustified taking of someone's life (murder) is wrong."

Is determined only by the opinion (subjective view) of the person making the statement?

Is this what you are saying? Yes or no.

 

[variant]

So you are saying that the truth of propositions like:

"The unjustified taking of someone's life (murder) is wrong."

Is determined only by the opinion (subjective view) of the person making the statement?

Is this what you are saying? Yes or no.

No I am saying nothing about the "truth" of the statement. And, I don't consider it an either or issue. The phrasing here is probably wrong too.

It is determined by the values of the subject who have to make their judgments in an objective world, having been shaped by that world.

I am saying that I can't properly come to the conclusion that murder is right, so it is not determined by me subjectively.

This means that there are objective components in subjective value judgment so I can't answer your question definitively.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Since there is no objective standard by which your preference and God's preference can be measured, then no preference is objectively right or wrong. They are just preferences.
...
You then venture to say rape is morally wrong. But ... you cannot say these men did anything objectively wrong.

I think you may have accidentally understood what I said.

In this, it is seen that godless relativism logically leads to nihilism.

Incorrect.

 

[Dave Ellis]

But you are not right and God is not wrong though. That is the point I am making. Your statements are at the most, arbitrary. Since there is no objective standard by which your preference and God's preference can be measured, then no preference is objectively right or wrong. They are just preferences. You prefer chocolate, I prefer vanilla. You prefer raping women, I prefer helping them across the street. Its all the same.

Is our secular code of laws merely arbitrary and can be disregarded at will?

If you believe that you should be able to keep slaves, does that mean you should do so, and the state would be wrong to charge and punish you?

That's simply not how reality works. Laws, like morality are things that we as a society agree upon, it is our self-imposed standard. We need no objective source to create our legal system, and in fact if we appealed to your particular objective source, slavery would not be a problem.

Thankfully our view of ethics and morality has progressed since that time, and our experience has grown. There are far better moral views out there than those that you find in the Bible.

 

[quatona]

Of course. I mean, rats have never said it, or baboons, or any other creature. So I agree.

Good, so we agree that we are talking about human judgements.

Because if there are objective moral values and duties, you are bound to live according to them.

What does that even mean? If everyone were bound to live by them (as we are bound to live by objective facts) there would be no alleged violations of these rules.

And if you do not care about them, then you, as a human, are failing in the most critical duty and responsibility as a moral creature.

In my opinion I would have greater duties and responsibilities towards my human creatures than adhering to "objective" duties and responsibilities (assuming for the sake of the argument that such existed) regardlessly where they come from and what they are.

This is why there are penal systems in every society in the world.

No. Penal systems in every society are there to make people obey the laws of the country. No need to invoke objectivity existing somewhere in the non-human realm.

People who do not care about others,

I didn´t say I don´t care about others. I said I don´t care about supposedly objective laws -exactly because I care about the well-being of humans. That´s my personal standard and criterium - regardless of what an "objective" morality might dictate otherwise.

See, I wouldn´t rape others even if there were an objective morality that dictates to rape others.
Whereas you - in order to be consistent in your own line of reasoning - would rape others in this scenario.

and live as if what is right and wrong is solely dependent upon their own desires and opinions and act accordingly are called criminals.

No. People who violate the laws of their respective country are called criminals. You are making a case for relative morality here.

In this, your analogy is amazingly accurate. On an atheistic view, we are intrinsically no different than rats....

Did you miss the point out of stupidity, or did you ignore it intentionally?

Except for the fact that we are moral creatures, and that makes all the difference now doesnt it?

Sure it does. It enables us to make our subjective personal judgements - no matter what is claimed to be objective.

 

[Spunkn]

Most people claim they believe in relativism until someone steals their car, wallet, etc then suddenly they believe in absolutes

 

[Davian]

...

You then venture to say rape is morally wrong. But that says nothing of whether or not the men were objectively wrong. If you are to remain true to your relativism, then you must see these men's acts as what they prefer, and since as you say, subjective preference is ALL THAT MORALITY IS, then you cannot say these men did anything objectively wrong.

In this, it is seen that godless relativism logically leads to nihilism. ...

Morality based on reason, compassion, empathy, and human well-being does not. And it worked long before the invention of gods.

Your argument fails.