A critique of moral relativism

Its either by design or sheer coincidence that I stumbled onto a sermon concerning the very subject we are having. Incidentally, one of his chief criticism's about moral relativism is that "culture" is used as sort of a catch-all scapegoat for never anchoring down to any concrete beliefs concerning morality.If you will all oblige me by listening to it, I think you'll see that whether you ultimately agree with his and my premise, the point is still a legitimate one. Without a foundation, without a reference point, there is no coherence.Disclaimer: Please disregard the cheesy openingif the foundations be destroyedOn paper they say this. In theory, they say this. But they cannot reconcile the fact that they all have their own presuppositions about what is moral and what isn't, all the while saying that you can't really define it!Its a sleight of hand maneuver that gives with one hand, and takes back what it initially gave with the other.The one thing I've noticed that an avowed moral relativist will not touch with a ten foot pole, (even though they admit it in a roundabout way), is that if there are no absolute morals, then it all boils down to opinion. And if culture defines these opinions, then are we entitled to say that another culture is wrong for their opinion? Isn't that what wars are fought over??? The relativity of it? Isn't that there where strife and enmity come in?One culture is saying that you cannot starve your people because it is so tragically immoral, where the other says, who are you interfere in the affairs of our culture? And each side is moralizing, appealing to the other in hopes that they will acquiesce to some sort of UNIVERSAL standard that we should all know and adhere to without rebuttle. "I AM the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one can come to the Father but by Me." -YeshuaI'm not asking you to believe that Jesus is that way, truth, or life just yet. But think about it another context. There is only one way to solve a theorem in mathematics... The right way. 1 + 1 will never = 42. The only way it could be as such is if you redefine what 1 + 1 even means. That, in my best estimation, is moral relativism in a nutshell. It redefines the foundational so that it can justify itself with the propositional.Up can only mean down when you redefine what up and down means. Black can only mean white when you redefine what black and white is.But, like I've said earlier, I can think of no way to empirically prove which morals are absolute anymore than I can prove, empirically, the existence of God. And that is my conundrum. I have agonized over the problem for many years now. I am willing to cede that point with deference. The only thing I can do is show that, philosophically, there is no meaning without their absolution. And perhaps, if we were to all be debating honestly, for a relativist this may be their agonizing plight that they can't get around.Ravi makes a good point in that message. The fundamental question, the basic questions that we all strive to answer, are the hardest. Its the details that we're good at answering. But as the adage goes, the devil is in the details.

---

"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton

Your point is well taken. Arbitrary is not a good word to elucidate the meaning I had in my mind. "Consent" is very intentionally chosen for you. In the same way, "God's law" is very deliberate for me, not some arbitrary rule I chose at random. Then we are finally in agreement, after much clarification, that arbitrary is not the word I intend to use. What I meant was that you use consent as a basis for the conditional response. Very well then. Did it ever occur to though that by doing so, you are supplanting one absolute in the stead of another, and inadvertently end up in the same place?You are saying that it is immoral to have sex with someone without their consent. Surely, I agree. But tell me: Do you mean that absolutely?As well, I have given you numerous instances where, whether consent exists or not, doesn't remove the moral issue. If you sleep with your mother, is it morally good to do so? The answer I received was that the biological implications are what make it bad. I then upped the ante and asked the same question: If you sleep with your father's wife consensually, who is not biologically related to you, does it then become morally acceptable to do so? Then is it objective by default? Is murder right or wrong?You don't need the conditions in order to answer it. And when you reply, should I expect an absolute answer, or a relative one? In what way, then, would they have been productive? And will your answer be relative to your understand of me, or am I absolutely inane? That's my understanding of it as well.Variable X = Murder.

Relativists may end up having to play a game of semantics in order to get around the inescapable question. Rather than answering the question as is, (because it would undermine their entire premise), they will argue over what constitutes murder. But that's not the question. Would you agree that it must have come to be outside of ourselves in order for it to be absolute? Well, I believe we have found it. But if you've read what I've recently written, I have no way of proving it. So in this way, we are in agreement. I agree. To me, despising someone for being immoral is immoral in itself. Moreover, its hypocritical because we are all immoral, in our own way, if you will momentarily lend credence to the Judeo-Christian ethic. I don't know if there are levels of sin. I realize that, we, as human beings categorize everything. And in many case we use others as a reference to how righteous we are. We may find ourselves thinking, "Well, Jeffrey Dahmer is bad because he killed and ate people. I've never done that, so obviously I'm not as bad as he is." But I wonder if that's faulty thinking. Are we just exonerating the things we are guilty of by promoting this kind of rationale? Who sets the rule on that?Why can't I question homosexuality on the same moral grounds as beastiality, if its all just relative anyway?Why must someone object to that, positing that animal sexuality and human sexuality are two totally different things, but then turn around and cite scientific sources that show that homosexuality exists naturally in the wild?How can someone supplant my position, while foisting the other as a brilliant response, when it inexorably contradicts itself?

---

"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton

quote:

---

Variable X = Murder.

​

1. Absolute Morality says X is always wrong.

​

2. Relative Morality says X is wrong unless...

---

You forgot to copy and paste the very next line.

quote:

---

Relativists may end up having to play a game of semantics in order to get around the inescapable question. Rather than answering the question as is, (because it would undermine their entire premise), they will argue over what constitutes murder. But that's not the question.

---

Care to answer the question? The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

​

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time -John 8:3-9 Then is it right for Middle Easterns, to which you referred to as being "semi-barbaric," to stone people or not? You speak about it in a way that indicates your contempt for it.So tell me: Is it wrong for these men, in all of their barbarism, to throw stones because of their superstition? Or is it just one culture expressing a different opinion than another?

---

"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton

I disagree. Jazzns is right that we are not using the word "arbitrary" in its proper context. An arbitrary law would be one that is whimsically formulated, like, it is illegal to type five letters in 10 seconds.The Law of God, whether you believe it was passed down divinely or by the efforts of men, you still see deliberate, purposeful, meaningful rules-- not capricious rules formulated in vain.

quote:

---

Is murder right or wrong?

---

Then let me absolutely clarify for you since you no doubt understand the staggering implications for answering the question.A man butchers your four year old daughter, i.e. he murdered her. Is what he has done right or wrong? Are there any circumstances to where this man would actually be in the right? So under those parameters it is absolutely wrong?

---

"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton

And yet you just posited an absolute in order to deny all absolutes.The more one hammers away at the law of non-contradiction, the more it pulverizes them in the process. In other words, moral relativism....? The circumstances are what qualify or disqualify whether or not its murder. But "murder," is always wrong, always has been, always will be. There seems to be a problem with distinction.Thus far, I have asked an incredibly simple question: Is murder right or wrong.Can you answer that honestly without throwing a wrench in your own gears? Lets say you visit Singapore. You are unaware that it is illegal to spit on the sidewalk (which is an actual law in Singapore, btw). The punishment for such an infraction is being caned with a four foot bamboo cane, three inches in diameter.Now, lets say that this judge is deciding to up the ante a bit in order to set an example. He is sick and tired of Westerner's coming to his country and spitting on their soil. But Westerner's just keep on doing it. So, for future deterence, the punishment is now being caned to death.You are horrified and feel that the punishment is grossly improportionate to the crime. You plead that it is immoral, according to your customs and traditions, to be so severely punished for something you do all the time back home. And it all would seem so silly to you had your very life not been on the line over, what you perceive, to be such a spurious crime.But at the same time, you just so happen to be an activist, which is why you were in Singapore in the first place. You are there in defense of the Singaporean government against the American government who are currently appealing the Singaporean courts to spare the lives of one of their servicemen who has been sentenced for a similar crime.You were there because you hate how America always uses its foreign policies in such a way that sickens you. You can't stand how they stick their nose in everyone else's business, as if they were the self-assigned Big Brother to the rest of the world.Now, I just gave you about 18 extenuating circumstances to try and dissect for you to contemplate your guilt or innocence.Are you going to stand by laurels or are you going to hypocritically cave in to spare your own life?This, is moral relativism.There are not only easy answers, but impossible one's. What is the meaning of justice without an absolute truth? There is no right or wrong. There is no point of reference. You can't trust other people's judgments, much less, your own thoughts. You are a vessel tossed about in a sea of disorder.You desperately wanted life to be capricious so that you could deal with the cold, hard realities of the world. And so you see yourself as water-- fluid, undulating-- never staying in the same spot, never able to identify itself with it surroundings. You are neither here nor there. You are indistinguishable in the same way you view life.You are a body of water inside an ocean of water, climbing a staircase of water, into a sky made of water.And at some point you ask, "Is this what life is? Is this all that it is? Do my own feelings betray me? Oh, I am utterly lost because I'm anchored by nothing-- the very thing I wanted to believe about life.... That its nothing.Unfortunately, this is the bleak reality that you believe exists, simply by default. Because without truth, there is nothing.

---

"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton

I appreciate you honoring me by taking the time to listen to it despite your negative feelings about it. It means that strict naturalists have set up for themselves, whether they are conscious of it or not, an idol. And that idol is nature. Since nothing else can offer them satisfying answers, they look only to nature to explain why things are the way they are. Its become somewhat of a catch-all answer, kind of like "culture," in postulating the reason for something they don't quite understand.Naturally, you will disagree.... (Pun intended) You don't need the Bible to surmise the deep questions, which certainly seems to historically pervade all of mankind-- so, no, I didn't see that as his point. Everyone does that anyway, regardless. But think of it another context. If we all marched to the beat of our own drummer, (which seems to be the most sought after virtue for anti-theists), there would be no coherence. Yes, Mod, I would agree. But you are overlooking something so fundamental in order for you to ever arrive to any conclusion concerning morality. You first need to possess some basic schematic to begin with.Its like he said about the architect. The architect created capriciously, with staircases leading to nowhere, and pillars that were not connected to other structures. He designed it the way he saw life-- capriciously.Could he have poured his foundation so capriciously though, and have his home stand up without immediately collapsing? Aren't we so wrapped up in the finer details that we often completely overlook the fundamentals about life?

---

"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton

quote:

---

A man butchers your four year old daughter, i.e. he murdered her. Is what he has done right or wrong? Are there any circumstances to where this man would actually be in the right?

---

Well, then, that wouldn't be murder now would it...?In which case, what does that have to do with anything. I'm asking if murder is right or wrong. Not a single person has answered that honestly. NO circumstances are needed to answer the question. You are conflating between determing whether something is murder with the very definition of murder.Just answer the question.

---

"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton

Why not? Couldn't anything be an idol if it takes a higher precedence in your life than God? Neither was the Golden Calf, but that didn't stop them. That would be like trying to pit God against His law, which doesn't work. The very law means worshipping anything vainly above Him. The Law makes no sense without Him because He is the essence of the Law to begin with. If you were to generalize with all theists and polytheists, yes, I would have to agree. But some theists would say that there is suffering as a consequence for not following the dictates of God in the first place. The very fact that its unnatural, leads to nowhere, and is often a testament to some deep seated psychological issue, leads me to believe that God's decree only magnifies the obvious, not that it alone obviates it.

---

"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton

Modulous and AdminPD have been gracious enough to post three separate threads where I made a similar argument. The undeniable fact is that I have remained absolutely consistent in those themes, all in different time frames.Listen to me, please. When I brought up beastiality, incest, pedophilia, or whatever else, in a context of homosexuality, it was always from a reference from a moral position.The argument I've made is this: how can you say that homosexuality is perfectly acceptable, while maintaining that incest or pedophilia is not, all the while defending moral relativism?Why am I considered a "bigot," when

The answer is that you can't without compromising one or both positions. Its a lesson in futility-- one that apparently quite a few still haven't learned. The ENTIRE point of the argument is that you, as a relativist, cannot defend both positions philosophically without contradicting those beliefs. How has this flown over everyone's head? Seriously. I'm absolutely mystified.Secondly, how is it that people can say that I can't use beastiality, either in an argument on morals or nature, because the sexuality of animals and humans are too different. Yet, these are the same people who have no problem pointing out that homosexual unions are found within nature, and use that as a justification that extends to humans.I shouldn't have to belabor the obvious by pointing out how its completely contradictory.

---

"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton

But what does fairness mean without some solid, unyielding standard that you expect others to intrinsically know and follow? I thank you for mentioning this because right before I got suspended, I was going to bring up how moral relativism and multiculturalism clash.You say on the one hand that being executed for spitting on the ground is immoral, according to your culture. However, you are now in another culture with its own set of social mores. Spitting on the ground, ofr them, is like you desecrating everything they view as scum to be trodden under foot.Who then is right? Are we entitled to different opinions equally?I have recently been reading a few books by English authors who are saying that they are having a very difficult time reconciling the irreconcilable.One author gives an instance where a young Indian girl is scheduled to be married by her parents. She, of course, is left bereft and in terrible anguish. She rebels and the parents physically imprison her within their home. The English authorities have a big problem on their hand.Their own cherished beliefs say that every one is entitled to lead their lives. But, they also have a cherished belief that we should honor other cultures. Besides, getting involved might give them the impression that they are racists. But by the same token, a young girl is being held against her will.Without an absolute standard to rely on, which is the morally correct action to take, and which isn't? Seeing that despite them choosing one or the other, the authorities are going to have to compromise one of their positions.

quote:

---

What is the meaning of justice without an absolute truth? There is no right or wrong.

---

Then do you believe that truth, as an absolute, can ever be established? Or are we to find ourselves as human beings to be perpetually in a stalemate situation? Then it does boil down to mere opinion. In which case, my castigation for being called a bigot is completely unfounded as it attempts to foist one opinion above another. The argument could be made that we all operate under the assumption that no true moral authority could be made because of our moral relativism. But that would only mean that we are not following an absolute, not the negation of its existance. Indeed, my whole argument is premised upon the notion that without an absolute standard, this is what we inevitably resort to-- in which case, we undermine our own sense of justice. The only way for life to be unjust is if we have in mind a sense of what justice should look like in an absolute sense. See, this is my problem. You can't make such pronouncements without contradicting yourself. (I don't mean, you, necessarily. I'm saying that is the inevitable conclusion philosophically).

quote:

---

Is this what life is? Is this all that it is? Do my own feelings betray me? Oh, I am utterly lost because I'm anchored by nothing-- the very thing I wanted to believe about life.... That its nothing.

---

I see it as nihilism. Because if we are all formulating our own opinions on the matter, what we are really acquiescing to, is that, Truth® claims can only be made in light of us only knowing that Truth within ourselves.Nihilists believe that there is no justification for any knowledge claims. They believe that nothing can truly be known with any sort of veracity. It should not take long, however, to see the flaw in their basic premise. How can the nihilist even purport such a claim if he hasn’t the ability to know that knowledge is unattainable?If nothing can be verified, then he should not offer any solutions, being that, it means nothing. What I mean to say is, if knowledge or truth is unattainable altogether, then what gives him the reason to question my truth?Similarly, the one who holds fast to the solipsist argument believes that the self is the only verifiable thing anyone could know. Ironically, these are often the same people who will argue with you for hours about reality, and what’s more, morality. If they are only able to acquaint themselves with reality, strictly through themselves, then what is their justification for criticizing my reality? If they do not know if there is even knowledge apart from themselves, then what are they arguing about?It is this kind of illogic that unwittingly pits the philosopher against his own beliefs. Is it not absurd and contradictory that nihilists know that knowledge is impossible? I think we can safely say, yes. This is just one example of how the epistemology of relativism is constantly at ends with itself.

---

"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton

Actually, I've been asking this to all my detractors. No one has answered it outright. You are the first. How can I answer that question when you haven't given me an example of the alleged misrepresentation?

---

"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton

So then it still boils down to your perception against mine. And if its all relative, what is that supposed to mean to me? Its as asinine as you telling me that you like Chocolate ice cream, and me saying in response, okay, thanks for sharing. Because you are using my alleged bigotry in an absolute sense-- consequently, your own. If morals really are relative, then you calling me a bigot is merely your opinion.... So, what?By calling me a bigot, you are demanding that I conform to some sort of standard that you allege I am violating. If I am, by what standard am I violating? Because its your opinion against mine. You saying that I'm wrong is pointless. All that my counter argument has to be, is: Okay, thanks for sharing your opinion with me.But lets all agree that moral relativity is all that we have. I will respond accordingly. According yo you, my answer is just another opinion in a myriad of others. But for you, you will invariably contradict yourself with no help from me. If homosexuality cannot be reasonably identified as unnatural, then neither can beastiality or pedophilia. Which means, you are making the same moral pronouncements that I am. Where then do they come from?

---

"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton

Then is it immoral for their individual morals to be subjected against you?

---

"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton

What does the agreement of people have to do with anything? Doesn't that only detract from your position? Most people in the world view homosexuality as an aberration. But you maintain otherwise, and a paradigm shift has not taken place within your life. What is a basic moral principle without a basic moral guideline from which to establish a a basic moral principle? I can't prove what is absolutely (im)moral, that's true. And its also true that it won't solve disagreements. The problem is, neither will relativism. But vastly more important-- there never would have been any disagreements to begin with until somebody challenged those absolute morals. What??? That's not a moral judgement? Then what is it? If you call me a bigot for thinking homosexuality is wrong, you are also presuming to call me morally wrong. No, I was responding to Modulous who said that nihilism differs from moral relativism.

quote:

---

:
If homosexuality cannot be reasonably identified as unnatural, then neither can beastiality or pedophilia.

---

Propose a refutation then. Equivalent to what? Morally? I've already said that I question whether or not there are tiers of sin. But if there are not, then bad is bad, sin is sin, wrong is wrong.

quote:

---

Which means, you are making the same moral pronouncements that I am. Where then do they come from?

---

But this society still says that homosexuality is wrong. Remember, you want to change the status quo?And as far as something being bad genetically, its only on an individual level. What's bad for the individual may be great for the population.

---

"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton

Then differentiate for me since you think they aren't in any sense related. You do it all the time, Jar. You're one of the worst offenders here. Every time you call me a bigot, you are subjecting me to your moral standards. Then how is it that all of the irreligious folk on this forum plainly say that they have a set of morals, albeit, not an absolute set? Thanks for sharing your opinion with me.... Unfortunately for you it should mean nothing to me if I were ascribe to the version of morality you are trying to sell me.

---

"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton