Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If you put up your arguments to scrutinity here, you should be happy to be shown its faults - no matter by whom.I didn't address the reductio ad absurdum to you but to variant.
Sure, do that.So I still await his reply.
My point stands - if you feel you can´t address it other than by attempts at uncharitable mind reading, that´s not my problem.Nor am I convinced that what you are doing is anything more than giving lip service to moral relativism.
You could simply address the point.I am skeptical.
To a "queer" God?You hit the nail right on the head once again. We as humans have this, as C.S. Lewis once put it, a "queer" sense of good and bad and of right and wrong. But to what do we owe it to?
And the Nazis imagined and reasoned and perceived that their extermination of certain homo sapiens was good and right and that to dissent would be bad and wrong.
According to you, since they arrived at this conclusion, they had a moral obligation to exterminate the Jews.
This is my reductio ad absurdum against your view.
Right and I think the Natzi's are wrong.
My view is that they imagined they did, used reasoning to reach that conclusion or precieved the consequences of those actions Good.
Moral obligations are human inventions, they are only as good as the humans employing them.
Some people being bad at morality in others view, doesn't make morality being a human invention an absurd conclusion, it's in fact, exactly what we would expect.
Exterminating six million people because they are of a particular ethnicity in your worldview can be both good and bad right and wrong.
This is the reductio ad absurdum of your view.
In your worldview, saying rape is wrong is like saying chocolate is nasty.
Tell me, why think that moral statements are no different than statements of person-relative taste?
From the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
Relativism Implies that Obvious Moral Wrongs are Acceptable
The most serious objection to moral relativism is that relativism implies that obvious moral wrongs are acceptable. The objection is that if we say beliefs and actions are right or wrong only relative to a specific moral standpoint, it then becomes possible to justify almost anything. We are forced to abandon the idea that some actions are just plain wrong. Nor can we justify the idea that some forms of life are obviously and uncontroversially better than others, even though almost everyone believes this. According to the relativists, say the critics, the beliefs of slave-owners and Nazis should be deemed true and their practices right relative to their conceptual-moral frameworks; and it is not possible for anyone to prove that their views are false or morally misguided, or that there are better points of view. To many, this is a reductio ad absurdum of moral relativism.
Given your own moral relativism when it comes to genocide, I would advise against pointing fingers, Jeremy.
Pardon?
Oh, I'm sorry, I must have gotten you confused with your very, very close associate, Elioenai26. Almost like twins you are.
Yes!Ken-1122
This is where I dont get it. Arent you making a statemnet that I was wrong and therefore saying you know better or you know something about what is correct and incorrect whether you are proving it or not.
But there can be different ways people see the moral but the moral still stays the same. So the moral doesn't become a new moral version for that person just because they have seen it in a different way. It remains the original moral with an adjustment.
When people use the example of subjective morality they say things like, but look at the past they use allowed killing. But they didn't allow killing like it was OK to kill for everyone or in any circumstance. They just allowed it for that one occasion and that one situation. All the other situations in their life killing was still wrong so they still had the same basic moral belief that killing was wrong.
If we assume morality is objective, whoever allowed an adjustment to the moral in that one situation was wrong. Anybody who attempts to make an exception to 1+1 so that it equals 3 is wrong. When something is written in stone, you cant change it. If morality is objective; it can't be interpreted to be changed.If you use the maths example of 1 + 1= 2. If the moral was always 1+1= 2 in the basic true form of the moral as it was intended. The society or person has allowed an adjustment to the moral in that one situation so the total is still (2). The situation hasn't changed that number to 3 and made a new number for that person like a new moral. They still believe that killing is wrong or the answer is 2. Its just they have been allowed make an adjustment to the strict ruling of that moral being 1+1 and made it say 1+ .5 + .5 on that one occasion. But the moral still adds up to 2. It is still wrong to kill and no new moral has been allowed for that person or society or culture.
Exterminating six million people because they are of a particular ethnicity in your worldview can be both good and bad right and wrong.
This is the reductio ad absurdum of your view.
In your worldview, saying rape is wrong is like saying chocolate is nasty.
Tell me, why think that moral statements are no different than statements of person-relative taste?
From the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
Relativism Implies that Obvious Moral Wrongs are Acceptable
The most serious objection to moral relativism is that relativism implies that obvious moral wrongs are acceptable. The objection is that if we say beliefs and actions are right or wrong only relative to a specific moral standpoint, it then becomes possible to justify almost anything. We are forced to abandon the idea that some actions are just plain wrong. Nor can we justify the idea that some forms of life are obviously and uncontroversially better than others, even though almost everyone believes this. According to the relativists, say the critics, the beliefs of slave-owners and Nazis should be deemed true and their practices right relative to their conceptual-moral frameworks; and it is not possible for anyone to prove that their views are false or morally misguided, or that there are better points of view. To many, this is a reductio ad absurdum of moral relativism.
Objective means written in stone. If killing is objectively wrong; you cant make exceptions to that rule.
If a line is drawn in the sand; and you are allowed to cross that line for a specific reason, later down the road whoever allowed you to cross the line for a specific reason the first time will allow you to cross the line again for another specific reason; then you will be allowed to cross that line again and again each time for specific reasons, and each time you cross the line; the line will fade a little and when youve crossed the line enough times eventually the line will have faded away; now there is no line. When you get to the point that you no longer have a line drawn in the sand; anything goes.
In order for morality to be objective, it would have to be much more than "set in stone" it would have to be demonstrable like math, temperature, or measurement. Everybody agrees to the rules of math, temperature, and measurement; but everybody does not agree on morality. Because there is no one set rule that morality is based upon, morality is subjective.I'm not sure you couldn't have a morality that is both objective and seriously bureaucratic/qualified or even algorithmic.
It would just be very difficult to formulate all the situations and exceptions you would have to set in stone ahead of time and difficult for anyone to actually implement in their lives.
Perhaps the morality of conscious AI's will be enlightening when they come into being.
In order for morality to be objective, it would have to be much more than "set in stone" it would have to be demonstrable like math, temperature, or measurement. Everybody agrees to the rules of math, temperature, and measurement; but everybody does not agree on morality. Because there is no one set rule that morality is based upon, morality is subjective.
Ken
In order for morality to be objective, it would have to be much more than "set in stone" it would have to be demonstrable like math, temperature, or measurement. Everybody agrees to the rules of math, temperature, and measurement; but everybody does not agree on morality. Because there is no one set rule that morality is based upon, morality is subjective.
Well, yes, it is clear that morality can't be demonstrable. But you are right, disagreement doesn't prove anything here.Therefore, since some people are flat Earthers, the shape of the Earth is subjective and not set in stone.
It isn't at all clear that morality can't be demonstrable. The simple fact of disagreement on the issue doesn't prove anything.
eudaimonia,
Mark
Well, the best way to support the idea would be to demonstrate a moral fact. It never seems to happen, though. That´s reason enough for me to put that idea to the side.It isn't at all clear that morality can't be demonstrable.
Agreed.The simple fact of disagreement on the issue doesn't prove anything.
Then if this is the case you are stating that you know something of the truth more than I in this matter. But how do you know that.Steve
This is where I dont get it. Arent you making a statemnet that I was wrong and therefore saying you know better or you know something about what is correct and incorrect whether you are proving it or not.
Kens reply yes.
How can I do that. What does morality look like. It would be as hard as proving God. Morality doesn't like like a chair or spoon. But I can make a case that we all know and have this objective morality in us by the way we behave. Even though you say we all have different views of morality when it comes to our reactions we behave in the true manner. So some may say I believe that people can have different versions of morality and we all have to accept that and can't judge them. But when someone actually takes some action against that person with their version of morality they will react differently to what they said they believed.Okay; you seem to be under the impression that there is one morality, one truth that exist. If thats the case, where is it? Demonstrate this morality exists. Dont say you believe it is in God; demonstrate it is through God or where ever it is you believe it exists.
Yes you can when that moral crosses with another moral that will over rule it. What happens when two morals clash. You have to compromise one of them. Objective morals can be compromised with a greater moral good. By not taking action you are doing a greater wrong. But what people do is they make out that this compromise is another version of the same moral. Its not, the original moral stays upheld. There is a good reason why only in that situation and that occasion it can be compromised and thats it. It is justified and its not another new version of that moral. Its an exception to the rule and doesn't mean that people can now breach or compromise that moral for any or all reasons.Objective means written in stone. If killing is objectively wrong; you cant make exceptions to that rule.
This is what happens with moral subjectivity. As I said the reason should only be because of a greater moral wrong or right. But with subjectivity because no absolute morality is believed this can happen. Because there is no clear moral set in stone anyone can argue and make a case for why they can change the rules and compromise or breach the moral standard. It is all undermined. But if we had a clear set of morals then we would know that only very rare and justified situations would allow that moral to be changed.If a line is drawn in the sand; and you are allowed to cross that line for a specific reason, later down the road whoever allowed you to cross the line for a specific reason the first time will allow you to cross the line again for another specific reason; then you will be allowed to cross that line again and again each time for specific reasons, and each time you cross the line; the line will fade a little and when youve crossed the line enough times eventually the line will have faded away; now there is no line. When you get to the point that you no longer have a line drawn in the sand; anything goes.
No they dont make the adjustment to 1+1 to equal 3. On rare occasions because a greater moral injustice maybe done they may compromise or be allowed to take an action despite that moral which would make it like 1+ .5 +.5 to equal 2 still as the calculation. The sum still adds up to 2 which is the moral staying the same. Its just they are making an alteration to the set criteria of how that moral is seen because of a another moral which would cause a greater wrong.If we assume morality is objective, whoever allowed an adjustment to the moral in that one situation was wrong. Anybody who attempts to make an exception to 1+1 so that it equals 3 is wrong. When something is written in stone, you cant change it. If morality is objective; it can't be interpreted to be changed.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?