Anyone have a case for Relativism?

[Elioenai26]

The funny thing: Eli has been unable to demonstrate anything a moral subjectivst cannot do that a moral objecivist can do (except for saying "this is objectively wrong"). No behaviour is precluded by the mere fact that someone is a subjectivist (and that includes cursing, hurting or even killing the person the subjectivist feels wronged by, not to mention preventing them from doing it).
So all Elioenai can do (of course without substantiating it), and which I can´t do is:
Use one particular wording ("objectively unjustified/wrong/bad/evil/good/right/justified...").
That´s quite a weapon he has there to make the world a better place. I´m sure everyone whose behaviour he disapproves of are trembling in fear once he pulls the word "objectively". :rollleyes:

Is there ever a realistic circumstance or situation where it would be good/justifiable/permissible/acceptable to rape a young child?

Yes or no?

If you can answer this question with a yes or no, then all my work here will be done regarding you. Either way, let us all know.

Thanks

 

[essentialsaltes]

Is there ever a realistic circumstance or situation where it would be good/justifiable/permissible/acceptable to rape a young child?

Yes or no?

In my opinion, no.

 

[Elioenai26]

In my opinion, no.

Why?

 

[quatona]

Is there ever a realistic circumstance or situation where it would be good/justifiable/permissible/acceptable to rape a young child?

Yes or no?

Will you never get tired of repeating this script, regardless how often and how detailed the question has been answered?

The last time I addressed this was in post #51, in detail. Try reading it, for a change.

The short answer to your question is: In my opinion, no.

But what you are trying to get (or trick everyone into) is an answer from objectivity. I don´t have it. I can´t offer it. And even if I claimed to offer it it would be immaterial for your point: you are defining "objective" as being "true beyond human perception and opinion". So how would anyone´s statement about something being "objectively right/wrong" be of any relevance? You yourself have, in your very definition, excluded such human statements from being relevant.

Hitler was convinced that his doings were objectively right. If you feel that a statement "It´s objectively right/wrong" is material to your point you may want to use this example.

If you can answer this question with a yes or no, then all my work here will be done regarding you. Either way, let us all know.

Have you stopped beating your wife? (Hint: loaded questions can´t be answered yes or no.)

 

[essentialsaltes]

Why?

Well, my internal subjective moralitometer has been formed and fashioned from lots of different influences: intuitions, life experience, encountering different moral ideas from religion and philosophy...

When I consider raping children, my moralitometer makes a Bzzzt noise that indicates that I think it is immoral. I could use phrases like 'consensual' and 'age of consent' and so on, but these are principles that I have consciously adopted as being in accord with my opinions, not things that I consider to be objective. Other principles like "might makes right" or "everything is permitted" are not in accord with my opinions, and I have not adopted them. They aren't objective either.

 

[quatona]

Why?

Ever heard the term "empathy"?
In my opinion the desires of the adult don´t outweigh the short- and longterm suffering that their doings cause to the children.

So, why do you think it´s unjustified? Do you have anything to offer, apart from merely claiming "it´s objecitively wrong" without substantiating your claim?

 

[Elioenai26]

Well, my internal subjective moralitometer has been formed and fashioned from lots of different influences: intuitions, life experience, encountering different moral ideas from religion and philosophy...

Did anyone have to teach you that raping children was immoral, or did you know it intuitively?

 

[Elioenai26]

The short answer to your question is: In my opinion, no.

Why?

Have you stopped beating your wife? (Hint: loaded questions can´t be answered yes or no.)

I do not have a wife.

 

[Elioenai26]

In my opinion the desires of the adult don´t outweigh the short- and longterm suffering that their doings cause to the children.

Why is preventing a child from suffering more important than a man's sexual gratification?

 

[quatona]

Why?

Answered in the previous post.

I do not have a wife.

See: No way of answering the question yes or no.
That´s the problem with your questions, as well.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Did anyone have to teach you that raping children was immoral, or did you know it intuitively?

Probably largely intuition. Sadly, intuition is not a very good determiner of objective truth. And in this case, there isn't even any objective truth to determine.

 

[quatona]

Why is preventing a child from suffering more important than a man's sexual gratification?

Why it is more important to me? Are you asking me why I don´t like to see people suffer? That´s just the way it is. Do you want me to rationalize my empathy?

Are you going to answer your own questions?

(And just so you make no mistake: Rape is not about sex, it´s about power.)

 

[Elioenai26]

Why it is more important to me? Are you asking me why I don´t like to see people suffer? That´s just the way it is. Do you want me to rationalize my empathy?

Are you going to answer your own questions?

(And just so you make no mistake: Rape is not about sex, it´s about power.)

Why do you have empathy towards people who are suffering? These are all legitimate questions and the answers to these questions demonstrate why people believe what they do and why people make the moral judgments that they do.

 

[Elioenai26]

Probably largely intuition. Sadly, intuition is not a very good determiner of objective truth. And in this case, there isn't even any objective truth to determine.

I agree with you when you say that you intuitively know that raping children is never ever good/justifiable/right/permissible. I wholeheartedly agree. And guess what? Every person who is sane and has any sense of right and wrong will agree.

Of course there are some people who are sociopathic and or mentally disabled or ill that get pleasure out of torturing and harming others, but these people we are talking about are abnormal in their capacity to properly distinguish between these concepts and values we are discussing. These people are clinically sick and possess moral deficiencies.

To say that they furnish a reason to deny that it is objectively wrong to torture and rape is like saying that just because a color-blind person is unable to see the beautiful colors of a rainbow or a sunset over the ocean, that there is therefore actually no beautiful colors in the rainbow or sunset.

 

[essentialsaltes]

To say that they furnish a reason to deny that it is objectively wrong to torture and rape

Fortunately, that's not really my argument.

And in other news, it seems that people have "an innate mechanism of preference towards those who we perceive to be similar to ourselves over those who are ‘different’". As a believer that there is some connection between intuition and objective morality, what does that tell you about the objective morality of various forms of prejudice?

 

[quatona]

Why do you have empathy towards people who are suffering?

According to recent findings of brain research it´s due to so called "mirror cells" that can be found in the brain. Different people seem to have more or less of them? Why don´t you have this empathy and need to look for "objectivity" in your insecurity? Why does another person feel the drive to be destructive in a situation in which I - on the contrary - am overwhelmed by my empathy? Why do I hate the taste of garlic? Why does the next person love it? Why do I love Bach and can´t stand HipHop, and the next person has it the other way round? Why is any form of violence repulsive to me, while most people find it acceptable in certain situations? Why did Hitler feel that "Arians" or worth more than Jews?

These are all legitimate questions and the answers to these questions demonstrate why people believe what they do and why people make the moral judgments that they do.

Yes, psychology, sociology and cultural sciences are highly interesting fields.

 

[Elioenai26]

Fortunately, that's not really my argument.

And in other news, it seems that people have "an innate mechanism of preference towards those who we perceive to be similar to ourselves over those who are ‘different’". As a believer that there is some connection between intuition and objective morality, what does that tell you about the objective morality of various forms of prejudice?

I read the article. The main idea in it is that people recognize people who are of a different skin complexion than they are and this is shown via the various diagnostics that are gathered from brain scans. I also noticed the heavy usage of words like "suggests" and "could" and "interpreted" and "may". This is all great, but to say that this furnishes conclusive proof that people are somehow prejudiced is really a moot point. No one has to look at brain scans to know that people are naturally gonna tend to be closer to people of their own race. That is human nature. Nor do I believe there is anything inherently wrong with that. It is a simple fact that people tend, in general, to feel more comfortable around people who they identify with.

With regards to intuition and knowing that somethings are objective with regards to morality and duty, I will simply say that we do not have to be taught that we should not rape and torture people. However one wants to define the word "conscience", it is clear that we all apprehend a realm of objective moral values not unlike the objective physical world which we apprehend with our physical senses.

 

[essentialsaltes]

it is clear that we all apprehend a realm of objective moral values not unlike the objective physical world which we apprehend with our physical senses.

No, it really, really isn't.

 

[JGG]

So, is this the third thread Eli has created on this subject in the past couple weeks? Are we to abandon the other two?

 

[Gottservant]

Someone who is relative rarely has the strength to instruct someone on what is moral.