Morality

[michabo]

Mike,

I'm not sure where you're going with this. Are you saying that moral relativism doesn't exist? It sounds increasingly like one would have to be some egotistical, sociopathic anarchist to meet your criteria. It strikes me that, instead of dismissing this entire field, a more plausible explaination is that you have a misconception of the philosophy, or are drawing overly restrictive barriers. Any philosophical term is meant to convey information about a person's beliefs and not to dictate these beliefs. Are you unclear at all about how someone can not believe in absolute or universal morals and yet have a set of consistent moral beliefs?

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

Ultimately, yes. Mike Earle calls it the Platinum Rule: do unto others as they would have you do unto them. As we cannot know exactly what they would have us to do them, we have to use our own judgement. If they can tell us, that makes things simple, but if they can't I would choose to err on the side of caution. A specific catatonic person may enjoy having his fingers broken, but unless I knew for sure, it is safer to assum that he would consider breaking his fingers to be harmful.

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.

I like Earle's Principle of Life Ownership. It seems to fit with my beliefs. I am generally humanitarian, compassionate and quite left-leaning politically, and this fits. As to why I should be this way, I don't know. Upbringing and society has influenced me, certainly. And unless you are using a very different meaning of relative (what are your sources, anyway?), I still think my beliefs are relative.

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".

No, not at all. The consequences and distribution of tax cuts directly impact the lives of people in the US. I can see many good moral arguments for why a tax cut which favours the exteremly wealthy at the expense of the poor is wrong. I was trying to find an example which is not going to have people on either side demonized.

 

[The Bellman]

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.

None of those are tenets of christianity. They are beliefs of a minority of Christians. And all have been falsified - so they were definitely testable. They were tested and failed. Which is why most christians don't believe them.

 

[Western Deity]

Flynn, you're showing a complete lack of understanding as far as moral relativism goes.

Moral relativism is NOT a set of moral standards.
Moral relativism does NOT state that all morals are equal.
Moral relativism only states that morals only apply within their appropriate societal context. We can judge those who torture for pleasure in our society, and we can look down on them etc. If some far off alien culture on another planet tortures their beings for fun, we cannot apply our moral standards to them. This doesn't mean it is OK by our standards, it just means we cannot apply our morals to make any judgement about them at all, positive or negative.

I hope you don't honestly believe in absolute morals, do you?

 

[einstein314emc2]

None of those are tenets of christianity. They are beliefs of a minority of Christians. And all have been falsified - so they were definitely testable. They were tested and failed. Which is why most christians don't believe them.

OK. Then if christians only believe in stuff that is not testable, then I supose they don't believe in Jesus, on any events in the bible pratically, because at least in theory, you could prove Jesus didn't exist. You wouldn't be able to prove he isn't the son of God, though. My point is there are beliefs that can be falsified. And I wasn't implying that all cristians take the bible literally. But obviously there are enough to keep the creationist/evoltution debate fueled.

 

[The Bellman]

OK. Then if christians only believe in stuff that is not testable, then I supose they don't believe in Jesus, on any events in the bible pratically, because at least in theory, you could prove Jesus didn't exist. You wouldn't be able to prove he isn't the son of God, though. My point is there are beliefs that can be falsified. And I wasn't implying that all cristians take the bible literally. But obviously there are enough to keep the creationist/evoltution debate fueled.

No, you couldn't prove Jesus didn't exist. Or that he did. There are many beliefs that can be falsified, but no christian belief lies in that set. To the best of my knowledge, no religious belief lies in that set, either. As I say, if you can point one out that does, I'll stand corrected...but I don't think you'll be able to.

 

[einstein314emc2]

No, you couldn't prove Jesus didn't exist. Or that he did. There are many beliefs that can be falsified, but no christian belief lies in that set. To the best of my knowledge, no religious belief lies in that set, either. As I say, if you can point one out that does, I'll stand corrected...but I don't think you'll be able to.

You could prove that Jesus exists. Not the full literal bible version, that performed miracles, but you could prove that there was a Jesus who led many people in a new religion. (This is what he did right? correct me if I'm wrong). BTW, when I say prove, I say prove in the sense that its a %99.999 percent chance that they existed. If you mean prove, as in absolute truth, then yes you can't prove any religious beliefs, or anything at all. As for proveing he didn't exist, this would be much more difficult, to the point of being practically impossible. How do you define religous belief? Because it is obvious that most beliefs can be falsified, unless they are beliefs on the supernatural, because these, by definition, cannot be falsified.

amendum:
The diffuculty of disproving something compared to proving something is why people most produce positive evidence for their theory. You can't expect just to throw out a theory with out evidence and expect anybody to care about your theory. This is one reason Einstein's theory of relativity was so contraversial at first- his theory was mostly based on reason. But as evidence was found to support his theory, it was accepted.

 

[Forty-Two]

Except 42 is suggesting that the smarter you are, the sillier God becomes. Statements like that are proof that their are ignorant atheists IMO. And at the same time, he appeals to logic and reason while offering nonsense.

I was just summing up in my own words the OP's link. IQ and education are inversely proportional to religious beliefs. Are you saying this isn't true?

There are ignorant atheists. But there are more ignorant Christians. After all, this is the Christian creationist forums; 6k year old earth and all.

 

[Western Deity]

42, have some blessings.

 

[Forty-Two]

42, have some blessings.

Handy!

 

[The Bellman]

You could prove that Jesus exists. Not the full literal bible version, that performed miracles, but you could prove that there was a Jesus who led many people in a new religion. (This is what he did right? correct me if I'm wrong). BTW, when I say prove, I say prove in the sense that its a %99.999 percent chance that they existed. If you mean prove, as in absolute truth, then yes you can't prove any religious beliefs, or anything at all. As for proveing he didn't exist, this would be much more difficult, to the point of being practically impossible. How do you define religous belief? Because it is obvious that most beliefs can be falsified, unless they are beliefs on the supernatural, because these, by definition, cannot be falsified.

No, I don't think you can prove that Jesus existed. There are vitually no records from the time. Outside the gospels, there is almost no reference to him - I think it's impossible to prove. And don't forget, it isn't just a tenet of Christianity that there was a guy named Jesus who was executed...the tenet is that he was divine. That can never be proven.

amendum:
The diffuculty of disproving something compared to proving something is why people most produce positive evidence for their theory. You can't expect just to throw out a theory with out evidence and expect anybody to care about your theory. This is one reason Einstein's theory of relativity was so contraversial at first- his theory was mostly based on reason. But as evidence was found to support his theory, it was accepted.

I'm not talking about the difficulty of proving that something doesn't exist (or didn't happen) compared with the difficulty of proving it did. I'm talking about your basic tenets of religion - they are unprovable. Obviously, those bits which are based on the "real world" (such as, for example, Joseph Smith having existed), are relatively easily provable. But the religious beliefs (in this case, that he was visited by the angel Moroni) are not provable.

By the same token, it's possible that you could prove that a guy named Jesus existed and was crucified by the Romans around 30 C.E. (although I don't think you could - but it's certainly possible). But it's NOT possible to prove that he was divine, or that following what he taught leads to eternal life (or even that there IS an eternal life).

 

[einstein314emc2]

No, I don't think you can prove that Jesus existed. There are vitually no records from the time. Outside the gospels, there is almost no reference to him - I think it's impossible to prove. And don't forget, it isn't just a tenet of Christianity that there was a guy named Jesus who was executed...the tenet is that he was divine. That can never be proven.


I'm not talking about the difficulty of proving that something doesn't exist (or didn't happen) compared with the difficulty of proving it did. I'm talking about your basic tenets of religion - they are unprovable. Obviously, those bits which are based on the "real world" (such as, for example, Joseph Smith having existed), are relatively easily provable. But the religious beliefs (in this case, that he was visited by the angel Moroni) are not provable.

By the same token, it's possible that you could prove that a guy named Jesus existed and was crucified by the Romans around 30 C.E. (although I don't think you could - but it's certainly possible). But it's NOT possible to prove that he was divine, or that following what he taught leads to eternal life (or even that there IS an eternal life).

Thats why I tried to make a distinction between divinity and just that he existed. As for disproving that he rose from the dead etc., personnally I think this would be falsifiable just as telekinesis has been falsified, although this is just my opinion. I added the part about about having to suply positive proof because it is something that needs to be done more often on this forum, and with YECs in gerneral, although it is somewhat unrelated.

 

[Forty-Two]

There are many beliefs that can be falsified, but no christian belief lies in that set.

... YEC --

 

[The Bellman]

... YEC --

Again, YEC is not a christian belief - it is a belief held by a minority of christians.

 

[Mike Flynn]

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.

Lots of the tenets are testable...through the machinery of human experience.

Whether or not Jesus existed, or if God is real, or if Jesus rose from the dead...these are not the tenets that Christianity calls you to test. Other tenets are personally testable through personal experience. Many people become Christian after testing some of these tenets, and finding them to be true. As a corollary, then, they make the inference that the claims about God being real and Christ rising from the dead are also true.

However, I suspect that you place little value on it, since this kind of test is not readily done with test tubes or metre sticks. IOW, these tenets are not testable via any other means other than personal human experience.

 

[Mike Flynn]

I hope you don't honestly believe in absolute morals, do you?

Yes I do. I would say that it is clearly wrong to torture and murder another being (against their will) for pleasure. And I would say that this should be considered as an absolutely higher moral standard than anyone who would claim otherwise in this case.

IOW, I am saying that in this instance, I believe it is an absolute standard. Anyone who disagrees with this has a morality that is flawed. It is very likely that you agree with me I would imagine...which has been my point all along.

Based on the response I am getting from several of you here, I get the impression that we are talking about two different things. Perhaps what I am defining as moral relativism is not the same as michabo (who has best represented it).

Let me illustrate with an example: suppose one lives next door to a family that brutalizes their young children. I'm sure all of you would agree that such conduct is immoral based on solely your own moral standard. Because of that, you believe you should intervene...not because you disagree with their moral standards...but because of your own. So this behaviour does not contradict moral relativism per se. That is the point that many of you have made and I can understand it perfectly. However, most of us would also agree that it would be good for that family to get help and have thier moral standard changed. See my point?

Let me try to illustrate using an example: Choosing a car is based on relativism, correct? I make my choice based on fuel economy, etc...someone else makes thiers on power and speed. I might not understand why anyone would value such things, but I accept that everyone's rationale is perfectly valid since buying a car is based on completely relative perceptions. I might say 'what a stupid reason to buy a car'...but that is only my own relative position in this case...so in the end, as one who places value on relativism, I must accept the POV of another as a legitimate one...and I will not set myself the goal to change his mind....its his choice.

Here's my point: no one *practices* moral relativism like this. The reason is obvious: our own morality usually includes the moral standard of those with whom we interact. So I can't allow a neighbor to cling to a deplorable moral standard while I try to maintain my enlightened one. So while a moral relativist may cling to moral relativism, he also finds himself unable to accept some of the deplorable moral standards held by a neighbor, even if the neighbor has not yet acted on his deplorable standard.

IOW, can anyone here say that if they met an acquaintance that believed its good to torture kids, that they would not only take steps to protect the children...but also take steps to convince that acquaintance of the errors of his ways? IOW, to bring him to a moral standard that is different that his own?

So I am not arguing that moral relativism is not true. All I am saying is that I have never met anyone who actually practices it.

 

[Mike Flynn]

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

Sorry, but where are my invalid claims? You certainly didn't point them out.

And 42 made 2 invalid claims:

The smarter you are the sillier god is.

and

the more education you have the less likely you are to believe in things that arn't real.

Implying that God is not real. Neither of these claims is supported by the data presented in the OP, or any other data for that matter, and they therefore both are invalid.

The fact that you didn't notice them just proves you have chosen not to test them for yourself....but apparently that doesn't stop you from supporting him. I wonder why that is? A brotherhood of atheists, perhaps?

 

[The Bellman]

Lots of the tenets are testable...through the machinery of human experience.

Whether or not Jesus existed, or if God is real, or if Jesus rose from the dead...these are not the tenets that Christianity calls you to test. Other tenets are personally testable through personal experience. Many people become Christian after testing some of these tenets, and finding them to be true. As a corollary, then, they make the inference that the claims about God being real and Christ rising from the dead are also true.

However, I suspect that you place little value on it, since this kind of test is not readily done with test tubes or metre sticks. IOW, these tenets are not testable via any other means other than personal human experience.

No, none of these tenets are testable through personal experience or any other way. Many people have "tested" them and said "Yes, it works!" While many people have tested them and said "No, zero result." The apparent conclusion is that it lies within the tester, not within what is being tested. This conclusion may well be wrong - but, again, there is no way to test it.

I'll be quite clear on this point - not ONE of Christianity's tenets are testable.

 

[einstein314emc2]

I'll be quite clear on this point - not ONE of Christianity's tenets are testable.

I don't know what you call the tenets of Christianity, but if none of them are testable, the must be pretty limited in what they are. Basically only thing outside of out natural world.

 

[michabo]

Yes I do. I would say that it is clearly wrong to torture and murder another being (against their will) for pleasure. And I would say that this should be considered as an absolutely higher moral standard than anyone who would claim otherwise in this case.

Why? What makes you think that this is "an absolutely higher moral standard"?

As a side point: what does "pleasure" have to do with anything? Are you saying there are cases where turture and murder is justified? Does that mean that if we take two different people doing the very same act, one may be considered immoral if he enjoys it, and one might be considered moral if he does not?

What general principle are you using to make your decisions? Why do you think this general principle is universal and absolute?

IOW, I am saying that in this instance, I believe it is an absolute standard. Anyone who disagrees with this has a morality that is flawed. It is very likely that you agree with me I would imagine...which has been my point all along.

I would agree that I consider torture to be wrong, but I can certainly see cases where torture would not be considered immoral. Just because you and I, or even some significant majority of the world's population agrees, still does not make it absolute.

While I would like it if all of the world agreed that torture was wrong, that clearly is not the case. Many people function quite well with a moral system which does not prohibit torture. How can this be if absolute morals exist? Are you saying that people have different morals (you relativist, you) but you wish they didn't, and you are going to judge their actions by your moral standards?

I might say 'what a stupid reason to buy a car'...but that is only my own relative position in this case...so in the end, as one who places value on relativism, I must accept the POV of another as a legitimate one...and I will not set myself the goal to change his mind....its his choice.

Well that's a fair example. Let's explore it further. Let's say that I think that SUVs are dangerous to other cars, especially lighter ones. Let's also say that I think that SUVs are dangerous to people in general, through their increased fuel consumption, emissions, and use of natural resources. I agree that chosing cars are personal decisions, yet I may also believe that SUVs should be tightly regulated, reduced or eliminated.

Broadening the example, there are many standards which a car must pass before it is sold. It must pass emissions controls, must be safe enough for passengers to survive some impacts, must not be a hazard to other drivers, must have certain lighting and markings for safety and tracking. Why? Because people have felt that there are some broader principles which must be enforced and applied to everyone, even though some people may disagree. It is precicely the recognition that these values are not universal which makes regulation necessary.

IOW, can anyone here say that if they met an acquaintance that believed its good to torture kids, that they would not only take steps to protect the children...but also take steps to convince that acquaintance of the errors of his ways?

No, I would do as you say. I would acknowledge that my neighbour has different morals (not absolute, see?) and try to convince him that his morals could use some shifting. Maybe take a board and try some normative adjustment upside his head...

I suspect that the only people who could be satisfied with everyone having different moral systems and make no attempt to correct anyone else's behavior to bring it in line with their morals would have to be sociopathic or profoundly anarchistic.

No mistake: just because I believe that there are no absolute morals and actions must be judged in an appropriate context, I am egotistical enough to think that my moral system is far superior to most everyone else's! I just can't think of any reason for it...


Anyway, it sounds like we're pretty close to agreement. We both think that other people do not share our moral beliefs, and that in some cases, perhaps they should. In these cases, whether we can convince them of our superior morality or not, we would both try to correct their actions if not their beliefs.

Contrast this with CS Lewis who believes in absolute morality. He says that Nazis, child molestors, and professional torturers all share the same underlying morals (absolute, see?). Whenever these people act against these absolute morals, their conscience gives them a twinge and they feel bad and regret their actions. Do you think this characterizes your beliefs? Do you think that that everyone shares a common understanding of what is right and wrong, or are you just saying that everyone should?

 

[The Bellman]

I don't know what you call the tenets of Christianity, but if none of them are testable, the must be pretty limited in what they are. Basically only thing outside of out natural world.

I've given some examples above. So has Mike Flynn (although he has claimed that they ARE testable, he nevertheless gives some).