Morality

[Nathan Poe]

No, the correct term is IMmoral. Remember, he is talking of what many creationists say, not what is true. Science IS amoral; many, however, charge it with being IMmoral.

Reminds me of a thread I started way back when...

http://www.christianforums.com/t51148

 

[michabo]

And these statements are proof that while one can claim to moral relativism in principle...no-one does in practice.

How do you figure? What do you think moral relitivism is, if this is not practicing it?

 

[Mike Flynn]

How do you figure? What do you think moral relitivism is, if this is not practicing it?

Read the bolded statements made by MartinM, michabo.

Would he impose his moral standard on others? Yes.

Is it a 'darned good thing' that people generally accept this standard? Yes.

Moral relativism can make no claims about what is good or what is not...since 'good' has no meaning.

And why impose one's own moral standard on others if you believe in moral relativism? I can see a non-moral relativist trying to impose his brand of morality on the rest of us...but not a self-proclaimed moral relativist, it just doesn't make sense.

 

[ThePhoenix]

How do you figure? What do you think moral relitivism is, if this is not practicing it?

Moral Relativism states that since no moral system has any inherent superiority no one should attempt to force their moral code on somebody else.

 

[phylaax]

The truth has inherent superiority, but that's another argument I guess...

 

[michabo]

I don't believe in absolute morals, yet I do not wish to live in fear of my life, so I would seek to impose my belief that people should not be harmed onto others. Does that mean I am or am not a moral relativist? What label should I use?

 

[MartinM]

Would he impose his moral standard on others? Yes

In this particular case, yes.

Is it a 'darned good thing' that people generally accept this standard? Yes

Subjectively, yes.

Moral relativism can make no claims about what is good or what is not...since 'good' has no meaning

Right.

And why impose one's own moral standard on others if you believe in moral relativism?

Because it's my morality, and I'm rather partial to it.

 

[michabo]

My formal training in philosophy hasn't covered moral relativism, but I checked Wikipedia, and it describes it as the belief that morals are not universal or absolute. I think that nicely describes my beliefs and MartinM's. I think we also believe that it would be harmful to us and to society if some practices were encouraged (rape, murder, etc.). I don't see how that means we should give up our 'moral relativist' card.

 

[Mike Flynn]

Because it's my morality, and I'm rather partial to it.

Then merely by presuming that your morality is 'better' than others to the extent that you feel it necessary to impose on another, you are demonstrating that you are not one who practices moral relativism. Your partiality is the very thing that contradicts your claim to relativism.

IOW, you are saying its OK for everyone to have their moral standard, however...I believe mine is better. 'Better' has no meaning to a relativist....all moralities should be equally valid.

You may give it lipservice...but you are not practicing what you preach in this case. That has been my point from the beginning.

 

[Mike Flynn]

I think we also believe that it would be harmful to us and to society if some practices were encouraged (rape, murder, etc.). I don't see how that means we should give up our 'moral relativist' card.

Because you cannot possibly define 'harmful' as a moral relativist...nor should you use it as part of your vocabulary. If someone says it would be good to allow systematic torture, persecuation, and genocide of a particular group in the population..then you cannot make the claim that this is 'harmful' to society....or it is not good.

IOW, your own beliefs demonstrate that you have already handed in your moral relativist card...and its likely you never had it in the first place.

 

[michabo]

Well no, my moral principles describe what is harmful to me and to society. I understand that Hitler's morals showed that Jews and artists were harmful to his conception of society. We both try to do our part towards changing society.

I don't see why my belief that the world would be a better place if people didn't kill each other means I am not a moral relativist. I make no claims that there are absolute morals, nor do I think that everyone shares my beliefs. You are saying that I am not a moral relativist because I have some conviction and am willing to follow my beliefs.

As for not being able to define "harmful", that's nonsense. I can state what my principles are and derive what is harmful from that. A moral relativist is not amoral.

Perhaps it would help if you describe what you think a moral relativist actually is. I am using the description here.

Edit: again, I am seeking clarification. I have no training in this area, so think it is entirely possible that I am using a conception of moral relativism which is not in common usage.

 

[Mike Flynn]

Well no, my moral principles describe what is harmful to me and to society. I understand that Hitler's morals showed that Jews and artists were harmful to his conception of society. We both try to do our part towards changing society.

And Hitler was *clearly* not a moral relativist. Thats precisely why he wanted to change society in the first place.

Michabo, a true moral relativist has no business imposing their take on morality on anyone else. How can one have the mind to say this: 'I believe all moral veiwpoints are equally valid' and at the same time also believe that it is OK to impose his own view of it on others? It is a contradiction.

I don't see why my belief that the world would be a better place if people didn't kill each other means I am not a moral relativist.

How do you define 'better' as a moral relativist?

make no claims that there are absolute morals, nor do I think that everyone shares my beliefs. You are saying that I am not a moral relativist because I have some conviction and am willing to follow my beliefs.

I am saying you are not a moral relativist because you believe that society would be a 'better place' when we hold to certain moral standards rather than others.

As for not being able to define "harmful", that's nonsense. I can state what my principles are and derive what is harmful from that. A moral relativist is not amoral.

You can state only what you believe is harmful for yourself, not for anyone else or society as a whole....and you should certainly have no position on fixing your brand on morality on the rest of society. You have already made claims contrary to that idea.

Perhaps it would help if you describe what you think a moral relativist actually is. I am using the description here.

A belief that there are no moral absolutes and that all moralities are therefore equally valid.

Edit: again, I am seeking clarification. I have no training in this area, so think it is entirely possible that I am using a conception of moral relativism which is not in common usage.

Other than some reading...neither do I.

I'm curious...how does a moral relativist define 'harmful' or 'better' in terms of moral conduct?

 

[michabo]

Mike,

To quote Wikipedia, which so far is the only source that I've got:

Moral relativism refers to a view that claims moral standards can not be absolute or universal, or even comparable, but rather emerge from social customs and other sources. Relativists consequently see moral values as incompatible with other moral systems, and applicable only within agreed or accepted cultural boundaries. Protagoras' notion that "man is the measure of all things" may be seen as an early philosophical precursor to relativism.

Moral relativism stands in contrast to moral absolutism, which sees morals as fixed by an absolute human nature (John Rawls), or external sources such as deities (many religions) or the universe itself (as in Objectivism).

There is nothing here that says that moral relativists (MRs) do not have morals or guiding principles, nor does it imply that MRs cannot proscribe behaviours which they feel is harmful to them or to society. The term "harmful" has meaning to them because they do have morals, they just don't believe morals have been handed down from on high, nor are they shared by all people or cultures. This does also not imply that MRs don't believe that some morals should be shared, just that MRs believe they aren't.

And Hitler was *clearly* not a moral relativist. Thats precisely why he wanted to change society in the first place.

I think we're talking cross-terms here. You seem to be talking about some sort of moral anarchism. Taking the MR position of a lack of absolute moral standards and pushing it to an extreme where MRs must tolerate, accept and support any form of morality, no matter how foreign to their own. I have seen nothing to indicate that this is a common understanding.

How can one have the mind to say this: 'I believe all moral veiwpoints are equally valid' and at the same time also believe that it is OK to impose his own view of it on others? It is a contradiction.

Well, for a start, killing people is a quite harsh way of imposing ones moral standards on others. So by this argument, I'd imagine that MRs may be quite opposed some actions.

I think that, from what I've read, MR comes into play in part when judging the actions of people within a different society. How we might judge the actions of guards of death camps, or spectators at gladiatoral competitions.

I'm curious...how does a moral relativist define 'harmful' or 'better' in terms of moral conduct?

Harmful seems clear: ask the recipient. Cutting some people with a knife might be harmful (a mugging), exciting (masochism), or life saving (operation). And as for better, I have my own values for what is good within a society, but I know that all do not share my beliefs. Take for example the tax cuts in the US: good according some, not so good according to others. Based on my own moral principles, I know where I stand, and will fight for that belief, but I can hardly argue that everyone should feel as I do.

 

[The Bellman]

I'm curious Bellman, you don't have a problem with invalid claims made by 42, but you have a problem with a bit of toungue and cheek by a theist?

42 made no invalid claims; you, on the other hand, did.

 

[The Bellman]

I'm glad you were waiting for it...I guess you care more about religion than your athiesm suggests.

Its simple really, Christianity asks you make certain choices, to embody a certain character, and to try to live according to a certain standard. Moreover, it tells you that when you put your life to this end, then you will experience what Christianity calls the 'good fruit' of the spirit.

Lets get this point clear: you can test the validity of the claims through your own experience with such things. IOW, the test instrument is the human condition and human experience. You cannot simply hand that over to someone else to verify...each is called to verify that through thier own experience.

Isn't this stating the obvious?

Complete rubbish. The tenets of christianity are untestable, just like every other religion.

 

[The Bellman]

Because you cannot possibly define 'harmful' as a moral relativist...nor should you use it as part of your vocabulary. If someone says it would be good to allow systematic torture, persecuation, and genocide of a particular group in the population..then you cannot make the claim that this is 'harmful' to society....or it is not good.

IOW, your own beliefs demonstrate that you have already handed in your moral relativist card...and its likely you never had it in the first place.

This indicates that you don't know what moral relativism is. Moral relativism does not prohibit defining 'harmful' at all. A moral relativist can easily (and, of course, they do) prefer one moral system to another, for any one of a number of reasons. The ONLY reason he can't use is that one particular moral system is absolutely "right".

 

[einstein314emc2]

Complete rubbish. The tenets of christianity are untestable, just like every other religion.

tenet n.
An opinion, doctrine, or principle held as being true by a person or especially by an organization.

The existance of god is untestable, for sure, and thats what makes him supernatural. As for other beliefs, there are certainly testable. I guess it depends on what you believe in. But if you take the bible literaly, or at least semi-literaly, you can certainly disprove a lot of the things in it. (specificaly creation and the flood)

 

[The Bellman]

The existance of god is untestable, for sure, and thats what makes him supernatural. As for other beliefs, there are certainly testable. I guess it depends on what you believe in. But if you take the bible literaly, or at least semi-literaly, you can certainly disprove a lot of the things in it. (specificaly creation and the flood)

I know of no tenet of christianity which is testable. There may be one/some, but after 20 years as a Christian, I couldn't find any.

 

[Mike Flynn]

There is nothing here that says that moral relativists (MRs) do not have morals or guiding principles, nor does it imply that MRs cannot proscribe behaviours which they feel is harmful to them or to society. The term "harmful" has meaning to them because they do have morals, they just don't believe morals have been handed down from on high, nor are they shared by all people or cultures. This does also not imply that MRs don't believe that some morals should be shared, just that MRs believe they aren't.

But morality does not have to be handed down from on high in order to be absolute...it could be that it is derived from some kind of evolutionary process....and says nothing either way about God.

Harmful seems clear: ask the recipient. Cutting some people with a knife might be harmful (a mugging), exciting (masochism), or life saving (operation).

And what about those who cannot make this distinction? Whatever someone else decides is harm, then?

And as for better, I have my own values for what is good within a society, but I know that all do not share my beliefs.

Ok. Then how do you decide, as a moral relativist, what makes your choice of morality the best choice for you. IOW, why choose the one you have over any other one? When you answer that question, with regard to specific moral choices, you will find that your thinking is not really relative.

Take for example the tax cuts in the US: good according some, not so good according to others. Based on my own moral principles, I know where I stand, and will fight for that belief, but I can hardly argue that everyone should feel as I do.

But that is a poor example because it has little to do with morality at all. Its like saying 'I like the streets to be clean and my neighbor doesn't...we clearly have some differences in moral standard".

 

[einstein314emc2]

I know of no tenet of christianity which is testable. There may be one/some, but after 20 years as a Christian, I couldn't find any.

So your saying either that the bible is not literal, or that the earth wasn't created in 6 days(be it literal days or not), and the great flood never happened.