Anyone have a case for Relativism?

[Elioenai26]

Are you, by any chance, arguing that "terrorism is right and good" is - opposed to "ice cream is good" is not only a subjective but an objective statement?

You believe moral values are personal beliefs made true to the subject by the belief of the subject.

If you have 6 billion subjects running around, some saying rape is fun, genocide is good for the Third Reich, and children are so easy to kidnap and sell into sex slavery. Who adjudicates between all of these subjects?

No one can.

Do you agree?

 

[quatona]

You believe moral values are personal beliefs made true to the subject by the belief of the subject.

Incorrect paraphrasing of my view.
Try again, or simply use the descriptions of my views that I have provided in numerous threads.

If you have 6 billion subjects running around, some saying rape is fun, genocide is good for the Third Reich, and children are so easy to kidnap and sell into sex slavery. Who adjudicates between all of these subjects?

Looking at reality: The courts of their respective societies.

No one can.

Do you agree?

If your question implies an unspoken "objectively": I agree (remember, I am a subjectivist who has yet to be shown objective morality to exist).

 

[Elioenai26]

Looking at reality: The courts of their respective societies.

So two societies, Nazi Germany, and the U.S had two very different and opposing views regarding the "Final Solution" or the systematic slaughter of millions of Jews.

Who adjudicates between them?

 

[Dave Ellis]

So... basically committing genocide is like eating ice cream, some people like it, some don't. Is this what you're saying?

No

Wrote up a fairly lengthly post in the other thread explaining exactly how one can adjudicate morals in a purely subjective system. To save me the effort of writing it all over again, read that one and you'll see how it can be, and is done on an everyday basis.

 

[muichimotsu]

Seems to me that the dichotomies aren't always so clear as to what they mean. Subjective can entail complete relativism in that there is no objective standard or it can simply mean that people each approach ethics from their own perspectives and can, hypothetically, reach similar, though sometimes differing, ethical positions.

Relativists and subjectivists can overlap, but the degree of strictness is different for each, though not all relativists are even the same. Subjectivists might be more like existentialists in recognizing objectivity, but nevertheless insisting that subjectivity is what makes us human in our existence as thinking entities that make judgments.

Of course, even if we qualified the distinction of hard and soft relativism, the latter more common than the former, I'd wager, the question remains about whether we're discussing ethics/morality or philosophical topics beyond that, such as whether even our existence is objectively so or if there is an element of subjectivity/relativity to be considered?

 

[quatona]

So two societies, Nazi Germany, and the U.S had two very different and opposing views regarding the "Final Solution" or the systematic slaughter of millions of Jews.

Who adjudicates between them?

Again looking at reality: The victor.

Now, please answer the counterquestion: Who adjucates between two very different and opposing views when one or both are believed to be objectively right by their holders?
Wait, I´ll answer it myself: The problem would be exactly the same.

The problem we are facing: People disagree. Claiming your own view "objectively" right has never solved any disagreement. For that you would
1. be able to demonstrate that there is an objective morality.
2. be able to demonstrate that this objective morality actually says what you think it says.
I am not able to demonstrate this, and - as the fact that you haven´t even started to try to do this after hundreds of posts on the issue - tells me that you aren´t able to do it, either.
3. Even if we could demonstrate to them both points, people might still disagree and do what we don´t like them to do.

IOW: "This is wrong" and "this is objectively wrong" will both be received as your subjective opinion (and rightly so) - and as a means to solve the problem (people disagreeing in moral questions, people doing what we feel is wrong, people feeling that what we do is wrong) the second isn´t any more powerful than the first.

 

[Elioenai26]

Again looking at reality:

The victor determines whether genocide is right or wrong? You like saying "looking at reality" as if whatever happens is what is supposed to happen.

So if the Nazis had won, then genocide would have been right?

Now, please answer the counterquestion: Who adjucates between two very different and opposing views when one or both are believed to be objectively right by their holders?
Wait, I´ll answer it myself: The problem would be exactly the same.

Of course it would be the same FOR YOU. YOU ARE A MORAL SUBJECTIVIST. However, for me, it would be easy.

The Law of excluded middle says that they cannot both be right if they are contradictory views. If Nazi Germany thought that the holocaust was right and the US thought it was wrong, I would simply judge the two views according to which view coheres closest to human moral experience the same way ethical theorists test competing ethical hypotheses.

To any rational, humane, sane, individual, it is self-evident that killing 6 million Jews because they were Jews is wrong. The Nazis violated that objective moral duty to love their neighbors as themselves and the US and Britian fulfilled the law.

Case closed.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The victor determines whether genocide is right or wrong? You like saying "looking at reality" as if whatever happens is what is supposed to happen.

So if the Nazis had won, then genocide would have been right?



Of course it would be the same FOR YOU. YOU ARE A MORAL SUBJECTIVIST. However, for me, it would be easy.

The Law of excluded middle says that they cannot both be right if they are contradictory views. If Nazi Germany thought that the holocaust was right and the US thought it was wrong, I would simply judge the two views according to which view coheres closest to human moral experience the same way ethical theorists test competing ethical hypotheses.

To any rational, humane, sane, individual, it is self-evident that killing 6 million Jews because they were Jews is wrong. The Nazis violated that objective moral duty to love their neighbors as themselves and the US and Britian fulfilled the law.

Case closed.

Case closed? You didn't even bother to address quatona's point!

To flesh it out a bit further, let's return to the earlier scenario of the Islamist apologist. You insist that your 'objective' morality is objective, and he insists that his 'objective' morality is objective. What now?

 

[Elioenai26]

Again looking at reality: The victor.

Now, please answer the counterquestion: Who adjucates between two very different and opposing views when one or both are believed to be objectively right by their holders?
Wait, I´ll answer it myself: The problem would be exactly the same.

The problem we are facing: People disagree. Claiming your own view "objectively" right has never solved any disagreement. For that you would
1. be able to demonstrate that there is an objective morality.
2. be able to demonstrate that this objective morality actually says what you think it says.
I am not able to demonstrate this, and - as the fact that you haven´t even started to try to do this after hundreds of posts on the issue - tells me that you aren´t able to do it, either.
3. Even if we could demonstrate to them both points, people might still disagree and do what we don´t like them to do.

IOW: "This is wrong" and "this is objectively wrong" will both be received as your subjective opinion (and rightly so) - and as a means to solve the problem (people disagreeing in moral questions, people doing what we feel is wrong, people feeling that what we do is wrong) the second isn´t any more powerful than the first.

If I say killing ethical subjectivists because they are ethical subjectivists is always wrong, then quatona sir, you can disagree with me all you like. It is still wrong. I can say that.

However, you cannot say that.

Of course people will disagree with me. Flat earthers disagree with round earthers, so what?

Postmodernism has poisoned your blood so much that you cannot say things like rape is objectively wrong. I feel great pity for your blindness and hardness of heart. I do. This is not an argument, but rather an appeal for you to open your eyes, and stop denying the truth.

You will have to come up out of yourself and embrace the truth. It is not all about you. Your views are very self-centered, and as such, you will never see outside of your own petty, small-minded worldview. Come up out of yourself and realize that you are not the only one in this world.

Once again, this is not an argument, but I would simply hate to see someone like you as a judge in a criminal court or as a law enforcement officer. Or as a school teacher, or anyone who deals with children. For if you were to be consistent in your views, you would not be a good care-taker of the helpless, and dispenser of justice.

 

[Elioenai26]

Case closed? You didn't even bother to address quatona's point!

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

To flesh it out a bit further, let's return to the earlier scenario of the Islamist apologist. You insist that your 'objective' morality is objective, and he insists that his 'objective' morality is objective. What now?

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

 

[Eudaimonist]

To any rational, humane, sane, individual, it is self-evident that killing 6 million Jews because they were Jews is wrong. The Nazis violated that objective moral duty to love their neighbors as themselves and the US and Britian fulfilled the law.

It is not self-evident to me that "killing 6 million Jews because they are Jews" is wrong. It is rather a conclusion I draw based on my best understanding of what I regard to be an objective standard of values.

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.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Elioenai26]

It is not self-evident to me that "killing 6 million Jews because they are Jews" is wrong. It is rather a conclusion I draw based on my best understanding of what I regard to be an objective standard of values.

So a rational, sane, humane, individual could justifiably say that it is not self-evident that killing 6 million Jews is wrong?

How could a rational, sane, humane individual say that? It seems to me you are insinuating that the person would be justified in demanding some type of corroborative evidence. But would this demand not be an indicator of some type of moral impairment or deficiency? If we were to both walk outside, and a car was in your driveway and we walk up to it and I say: "hmm...I see an object in your driveway but I do not know if it is actually a car, can you prove to me that it is a car?"

What would be your response? Would you not think I had lost my mind? Or maybe had temporarily lost my sight? Or was just joking around? Asking for evidence that killing 6 million jews is wrong is an indicator that something is wrong with the person ASKING FOR THE EVIDENCE. It is an indicator of a hardened, sinful, blind, uncaring, unfeeling, callous, conscience and heart. It bears all the earmarks of something a sociopath would say.

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.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Of course it is, for you would want to be treated the same way, even though you are an egoist...

 

[Eudaimonist]

So a rational, sane, humane, individual could justifiably say that it is not self-evident that killing 6 million Jews is wrong?

Yes, what they would say is that they are judging the matter from their ethical understanding. They may have good reason to believe that their ethical understanding is rational, sane, and humane, but there wouldn't necessarily be anything self-evident about it.

How could a rational, sane, humane individual say that?

By rationally concluding that the issue is not self-evident.

It seems to me you are insinuating that the person would be justified in demanding some type of corroborative evidence. But would this demand not be an indicator of some type of moral impairment or deficiency? If we were to both walk outside, and a car was in your driveway and we walk up to it and I say: "hmm...I see an object in your driveway but I do not know if it is actually a car, can you prove to me that it is a car?"

Poor analogy. We don't "see" right and wrong. We infer right and wrong.

Of course it is, for you would want to be treated the same way, even though you are an egoist...

Your mind-reading skills need work.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[muichimotsu]

Did Eudaimonia say he was an egoist? Somehow I'm not sure if we're understanding the term. It's not the same as egotist. You can be concerned with yourself but also have concern for others as it benefits you and them in some mutual sense. But our primary concern is self in one sense of the term.

More importantly, I think the qualification about whether committing genocide in general being wrong is entirely dependent on the race in question, though I'd say 99% of races in the universe don't deserve to have genocide committed on them. The ethical justification for that would be that they pose a threat to all known forms of life, like a dangerous parasite akin to the Flood in the Halo series, for instance. Jews, Germans, black people, French people, all those would have no ethical basis for someone to find it ethical or moral to commit genocide on them.

One does not need a religious or theistic or supernatural underpinning to ethics or morality for them to either make sense or compel you to obey them as a duty of some sort

 

[quatona]

The victor determines whether genocide is right or wrong? You like saying "looking at reality" as if whatever happens is what is supposed to happen.

You asked me: Who adjudicates. I answered your question.

So if the Nazis had won, then genocide would have been right?

No, reality shows that they would have been the adjudicators.
Don´t shoot me - I am just the observer.

Of course it would be the same FOR YOU. YOU ARE A MORAL SUBJECTIVIST. However, for me, it would be easy.

The Law of excluded middle says that they cannot both be right if they are contradictory views. If Nazi Germany thought that the holocaust was right and the US thought it was wrong, I would simply judge the two views according to which view coheres closest to human moral experience the same way ethical theorists test competing ethical hypotheses.

IOW in the attempt to establish your morality as objective you would appeals to your own judgement and add a bandwaggon fallacy.
That´s exactly what a subjectivist can do, as well.

To any rational, humane, sane, individual, it is self-evident that killing 6 million Jews because they were Jews is wrong. The Nazis violated that objective moral duty to love their neighbors as themselves and the US and Britian fulfilled the law.

Case closed.

It´s amazing how that prevented Nazi-Germany from happening, and it´s even more amazing how that prevented the Nazis from considering their ways objectively right, and arguing exactly like you do. No, wait, it didn´t.

 

[Elioenai26]

By rationally concluding that the issue is not self-evident.

They would not be humane then.

Poor analogy. We don't "see" right and wrong. We infer right and wrong.

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.

Your mind-reading skills need work.


eudaimonia,

Mark

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.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Did Eudaimonia say he was an egoist? Somehow I'm not sure if we're understanding the term. It's not the same as egotist. You can be concerned with yourself but also have concern for others as it benefits you and them in some mutual sense. But our primary concern is self in one sense of the term.

I rarely call myself an ethical egoist because that is prone to create too much misunderstanding. I personally think that a flourishing life involves having genuine concern for the well-being at least some other individuals. I'm not the straw man egoist who regards all others as merely an instrumental means to his ends, instead of seeing them as having their own lives and flourishing to pursue.

I regard kindness and generosity as virtues, but I simply don't take the Christian view that there is some "duty" to "love others as oneself". We may be obligated to treat other people with all due human dignity, e.g. as free and self-determining individuals, but that's not quite the same concept.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Elioenai26]

No, reality shows that they would have been the adjudicators.
Don´t shoot me - I am just the observer.

You say they would not have been right, even if by force, they were the victorious adjudicators. In saying this you have said that it is your opinion that they were wrong EVEN IF they thought it was right, and won, and became the adjudicators.

Therefore, you affirm that it is your belief that they were objectively wrong.

Case closed. Wrap it up.

 

[quatona]

So a rational, sane, humane, individual could justifiably say that it is not self-evident that killing 6 million Jews is wrong?

Yes. Reality shows that it is not self-evident. A large portion of the German population back then participated and/or supported the genocide, and considered it right. So quite obviously the wrongness of the act isn´t self-evident.

 

[Elioenai26]

Yes. Reality shows that it is not self-evident. A large portion of the German population back then participated and/or supported the genocide, and considered it right. So quite obviously the wrongness of the act isn´t self-evident.

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.

Ask Freodin, he will tell you.

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."

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