A critique of moral relativism

In fairness, the Hebrew word is ratsach - which is complicated. It is used in Judges 20:4 to mean what we would call murder. In 1 Kings 21:19 it is used to refer to an assassination plot. Job 24:14 it refers to a theif who kills the poor and needy. Psalm 62:3 uses it as a threat against a musician who imagines mischief against man. Proverbs 22:13 refers to what a lion does to a slothful man. Hosea 6:9 has immoral priests doing it to travellers.So it's kind of a flexible word it seems - though debate rages even on that matter. Just to let you know it isn't as simple as that

You should read a paper by Paul Cameron sometime. Actually you can read a critique I did on him here. After you read that he suggested that nearly 20% of homosexuals eat the faeces of their partner (or rub it in their own face) - you'll know that I am not easily dumbstruck in discussions about homosexuailty. Except I remember why they were brought up together, whereas I assume you do not. I explain in Message 1. Hence why I batted no eyelash, I understood the argument. That isn't what you said though. You said that I was unable to discuss bestiality without referring to homosexuality which is easily falsified! I discussed the argument at hand - I note with interest that you have also not been able to discuss bestiality without referring to homosexuality in this thread. Does that mean you connect the two? Or does it mean that they being discussed in the debate so you refer to them? Well - since you can't know what I think I can't prove you wrong. If you really want to suggest you know what I think then so be it. I explained in the other thread the rationale and you are free to ignore it and think anything you like of me. Since I am bisexual - what do you think I connect my own sexual behaviour with? Bisexual bestiality? Or perhaps I connect my sexual preference to the sexual preference of animals and plants? No it doesn't. An absolutist is someone who believes that there are absolute answers to moral questions. Yes - since it is about what a person believes is true, not what is actually true. Fine, and relativists try and show absolutists are relativists. And absolutists believe they fail. In your opinion - but this has been a factor of debate in moral philosophy for some time and I doubt you have managed to solve it, despite your fervent believe that you have. Greater minds than the two of us have tried. You don't understand absolutism - which isn't helping you. Let me try and explain it like this:Situation A (doesn't matter what it is): An absolutist will think Act A' is either moral or immoral.Situation A (the exact same situation child/adult/execution/abortion whatever): A relativist will thing that there can be more than one valid way to answer a moral question. For instance a relativist might say that abortion is moral relative to his standard but also say that it is immoral according to fundamentalist's standards. Since we cannot know which moral judgement is 'True', we can only say which standard we are comparing it relative to when we state our judgement. Yes, Immanuel Kant's philosophy is non-existent I forgot. Nobody ever believed in the Mosiac laws. There has never been nor is there now, a person that believes there is a single objective and absolute moral answer to a moral question.Sure.

Not really. An idol is a representation of that which is to be worshipped. Nature is not a representation nor is to be worshipped. That is why I don't agree with the wording, it is inaccurate and allows for you to frame the topic. A more neutral wording might have been appropriate if you meant it that way. "It means that strict naturalists have set up for themselves, whether they are conscious of it or not, a value judgement that places nature more highly than a proposed supernature or any entity that might reside therein."But then - it could just as easily be removed entirely. No, but the entity that the Golden Calf was meant to represent no doubt cared about the worship. I believe the story is that he did, didn't he? Not really - you worship the supernatural whereas naturalists do not worship the natural. That's all I was saying, nothing about pitting supernatural entities against their own legal system. It not only doesn't work it doesn't make sense in the context! Right, and so we should continue to allow suffering because it is God's punishment for some transgression. As I said - I'd rather minimize suffering than pander to the anonymous punishment of a big cheese. There is nothing in nature that is unnatural - by definition. It leads to couples living happily married lives and children getting equal protection under law, it is never a testament to psychological issue say the consensus of qualified experts in the field of psychology and sociology. Thus: since legal protection for children and the happiness of many people can stem from allowing homosexual marriage I support it.On the other hand, God's decree against homosexuality being applied in today's culture has lead to children who are entirely innocent in this debate getting emotionally and financially harmed. Thus if God supports this decree to this day, God supports hurting children, in which case I think we should tell him to fuck off.Of course, the ultimate decree is that we should love god and love each other. Any law which stems from God's mouth stems from this principle, says God. If situations change and the law is no longer loving the law should be disregarded. That is why God-man was able to perform works on the Sabbath without getting stoned to death or disappearing in a puff of paradox. That's another subject entirely though, neh?

Awesome! Colour me officially green. Well I've spent a lot of time explaining how I think they can be and why the debate ended the way it did. A lot of time has been spent explaining the contrary position. It hasn't gotten anyone anywhere, unfortunately. Well if actual examples of me doing that very thing can't convince you I'm not sure what can. It is obviously trivial to prove you wrong. Start a thread on bestiality and I can guarantee I will not bring up homosexuality once during the thread.I have only discussed homosexuality after someone else brought it up, and I responded to them in order to refute their position. You've been discussing the two. I've been discussing the two to explain how nj was wrong in his conclusions about relative morality - it seemed rather unavoidable if I was going to address what he said. I have explained that, if you don't understand something specific I'm happy to explain it further - or refer you to where I addressed it. Yes. You understand the difference between agreeing with someone's points and refuting them, right? Well, a connection can be drawn between any two things at all if one was asked what the connection was. What a logical connection is, as opposed to an illogical connection - I am not sure. I thought it wiser to understand nj's issue and address it rather than avoid it since that would play into his hands. Agreed. However - a person's belief can put them in certain philosophical camps even if they are wrong. Absolutists are put into the absolutist camp. Theists in the theist camp. Even if someone doesn't act like there is a god, if they believe there is, they are a theist. That's not all you have done - you also denied the existence of absolutists. If you now accept that they exist, but that they are wrong then we are in agreement. But denying the existence of absolutists is certainly what it sounds like you are doing. The label is about what a person believes or thinks - it is a philosophical position! Their philosophy put into practice might, under inspection, actually be relativism - but that doesn't stop them from thinking there are absolute moral answers.

I agree that there is no connection to homosexual sex and interspecies sex in the sense of 'connection' that you mean here. Do you think that discussing the criteria for marriage would indicate that I think there is some question between marrying a lawnmower and marrying the person I'm in love with. Lawnmowers were also brought up you see, but I'm confused as to why it is just bestiality that is being singled out in every single discussion on this issue - especially given that nj wasn't talking about bestiality when he raised the issue. You think so? Given that this is a topic about moral relativity, and we are discussing a discussion about homosexual marriage and lawnmower marriage, not only are we engaged in meta discussion but we are also off-topic.I believe that the question of marriage was legitimate, but that the point being made was wrong. It is rare that I see a question that is entirely illigitimate, I can usually divine a speaker's meaning even if it doesn't mesh entirely with the words he uses. If I am still wondering what the person means - I just ask them. Since it is likely that you will probably say that I don't even if I explain it, if you'd like you can explain it's relevance again. Yes I could have done that. I feel that nj would simply feel his point has been proven by our inability to answer it. We all have our ways of handling debate... OK, let's run with this line of thinking. What name do you think I should be using to describe people that believe there is a single moral answer to a given moral question which is objectively true? Agreed. Hopefully you've gathered my point: absolutism is a defined by a belief. Well, to claim to be a moral absolutist, anyway. A lot of absolutists say that they themselves fall short of living in the most moral fashion possible. Yes it is simple. I disagree - I accept the existence of hypocrites that do not live up to their own beliefs. In case you were confused as to how I was using the word absolutist in the OP - you should be clear now. I was not discussing absolutists who upon close examination act as absolutists should. I was discussing people that held a certain belief - whether or not their belief was true, could be shown to be false or whether they could be shown to not live life as if it were true. Not when it comes to discussing what they believe - which is all I was doing in the OP. What relavence does this criticism have to the OP if that is all you were saying?

I think it goes deeper than that. Nemesis believes that God only accepts marriage between 1 man and 1 woman. He asks that if we remove God or some other source of absolute morality, how then do we determine what is a valid marriage? The fact that sexual acts are forbidden in the OT is only incidental since nemesis also asked about marrying lawnmowers (not mentioned) and marrying children (which by our definitions was the done thing in the times surrounding the OT) and marrying trees (not mentioned in OT), and I think polygamy came up (no big problem for the Hebrews).There is probably further confusion afoot because marriage and sex where meant to be almost one and the same thing in the OT.

I thought he was quite specific, upon being asked and the meaning was clear to me before being asked. It started quite vague but then - he was responding to a rather vague comment by someone else when it started. He went into great detail about marriage, lawnmowers, and relativity upon be asked though. I saw quite specific claims being made, not vague ones.But then - perhaps that's the central problem here - the disagreement on whether it was specific enough. Then again - since it was like 8 months ago and people generally refer to their memories rather than the posts, that might contribute to the general feeling...what do you think?

Seems to me that the current series of posts came up after the old posts were brought up by somebody else connecting them. It was brought up again here and nemesis commented that all sins are sins, homosexuality, lying and bestiality. Then the debate turned primarily towards the comments from eight months ago.I don't see anything I agree with, but I'm not sure vague really cuts it. What would you see as vague about his comments?

My point exactly, which is why I said "people generally refer to their memories rather than the posts". Getting anyone to provide specific examples in this discussion has proven peculiarly difficult. Sure all of that - but this little subthread was discussing two sexual activities forbidden in the OT, not the murder scenario. That is what I am asking you about when I asked "What would you see as vague about his comments?" I know that you find his comments vague, but I don't see them as vague just disagreeable. I thought it might be useful to learn why other people think he refuses to explain since I see plenty of explanation.

You'll have to explain what A, B an C are in the discussion. I'm not sure anyone has used an A to justify B and B to justify C where only A can be shown to justify C.
7 Yep, there's the definition, now the relevance? We legitimize the creationists by the existence of this forum. Snopes legitimizes urban legends. The Badastronomy blog legitimizes moon landing hoaxes (and when NASA refused to legitimize them that was seen as proof the MLHs were on to something). There are no people in this world that believe there are absolute moral answers? That sounds like a handily unfalsifiable position. I never said it was. I said absolutism is a belief. More specifically it is a philosophical position. From wiki: Moral absolutism, the position that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged. All we have to do now is examine the actions of every human being that has ever lived and decide if their actions line up with their beliefs. Since many 'phantoms' will say that nobody is perfectly moral, and that people's actions are sometimes immoral by an absolute moral standard this might be interesting. How do we tell if a person is an absolutist if their philosophy includes the fallibility of man to adhere to the absolute standard?What about absolutists that state that we cannot know exactly what the absolute standard is, but we can try to come up with a good model for it? How do we judge them to see if they are absolutists?And of course, all of this is irrelevant. Even if they are wrong in that there is no absolute moral standard or even if they behave as if there were no absolute moral standard...they can still hold the position that there is an absolute moral standard.I fear though, you will just gainsay that.If you really really want to, you can just replace 'absolutist' in my OP with the phrase 'people that state that they think there is an absolute moral standard' and replace 'relativist' with 'people that state that they think there is no absolute moral standard'. The latter is necessary because this thread is about how relativists come to definite moral conclusions which (say the 'absolutists') belies their claim to be relativists.

All I am saying is this: After a loooot of debate there has only been one candidate put forward as to where this started "The Haggard Thread". Which was about marriage. I can't remember if NJ has mentioned the Haggard thread directly, but he has clearly referred to it. Hence why I thought part of the problem might be that people are arguing about their memory of what NJ is saying rather than what NJ is actually saying. It's reasonable if people start making accusations about what someone else has said in the past. Either be prepared to back up the accustations or don't make them - it's built into the rules more or less.For instance: you say that NJ has not explained himself about the sexual practices issue. I say he has, and show where. The defence to this is not "you can't expect us to read what he said!" And yet I see that he has, many times. I was hoping you could point me in the direction of where he has been vague about the whole thing so that I might see for myself. I've certainly spent a lot of time pointing to where he hasn't been vague. Once again, I have found it odd that people say NJ has done this or that, but are somewhat reluctant to get specific. It's like people hope that the general homophobia is enough to springboard from. It's usually at the start of the chapters in leviticus: I am your LORD, God. God's will is obviously arbitrary - he is The Arbiter of Arbiters. The Judge of Judges and all that shite. I don't think I've ever argued otherwise on that. That isn't why NJ brought the issue up though. NJ assumed most people do not want for interspecies marriage to becoem the norm and asked why that was. I don't see that as particularly vague. In your terms - NJ has an arbitrary rule - but relativists don't. So how to decide what parties get to marry?The only other time the issue came up was that NJ simply said all sins are equally sinful. But that isn't particularly interesting or offensive either.

If you don't explain what A,B and C are in the context of this discussion I don't see the relevance to the topic. That's right, I really don't know. If you think I'm playing dumb and that means there is no point - then stop continuing. And exploring human sexuality and marriage contracts is legitimate, isn't it? Agreed. Yes - are you suggesting that people always adhere to their own personal code of morality? I know I don't - but that doesn't mean I don't have a code of morality. Let us say my morality is known as Modulism. Modulism says that the moral thing to do is maximise happiness throughout all of humanity. If I do something selfish that reduces happiness - does that mean I do not think the moral thing to do is maximise happiness? No - it means I did something that I accept is immoral.

I think I understand the confusion now. You replied to a comment from cavediver who was replying to Rrhain who was discussing previous threads with me. Rrhain and I were operating on the assumption that we knew what had happened in previous threads without the need to continue explicitly mentioning them since it was a spillover from other threads. I've only seen him bring up the bestiality related argument once in this thread (edit twice) I thought that was fairly clear and specific: Since absolutism isn't the primary topic here, I don't think nemesis has to justify why his God has chosen to command against the two. Even if it was - nemesis should have no problem with shrugging his shoulders. It's God's rule - take it up with him. If no believey God: take it up with 'Moses'. Quite probable. I don't claim absolute knowledge. I have asked various people to point to other examples, to little avail. Perhaps someone on the ground might throw me a bone at some point - up here on the ivory tower we sometimes get out of touch.edit: I did a google search of EvC and found another couple of other threads it came up in, one was a spillover from the marriage thread (or rather the moderation thread in which the issue was raised again). He seemed to be saying the same things in the other threads and I don't see any vagueness there either. Did I? I missed that, sorry.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I'm not sure how one would hypocritically cave in here. I would argue that the fair thing to do would be to only punish those that had been made aware of the penalty (due to its disproportionality) that each case should be searched for its merits, that mitigating factors should should be brought into judgement etc etc.That is because death penalty for spitting is an immoral thing relative to my moral system, which was partly handed to me by the way my society does things (Culture). I would not argue that this criminal justice system is an invalid way to structure and regulate social interaction, just that there are other ways that achieve those same ends that are more efficient. For instance: Do not allow people in who are on pleasure trips unless they have explicitly accepted and understood the odd capital crimes in the country. That would probably dent tourism, and if they were still so bothered about the practice they could just limit the number of people coming in entirely.However - if I'd gone there knowing it was a capital crime to spit on the floor, then spitting on the floor would be essentially suicide. I'd have nobody to blame but myself. I'd try and change their minds about optimum ways of achieving the same goals. There is right and wrong in moral relativism, the thing is - there is no absolute truth value that can be placed on moral statements. One thing can be wrong to you, but right to me. That's relative morality - not that there is no right and wrong, but that there is no way to know whose right and wrong is 'true' - they both share the same level of validity.Justice works the same way. What is justice in my country might not be seen as justice in your country. For instance: arresting somebody without telling them what for, keeping them without access to a lawyer, trying them without telling them what the evidence is, and sentencing them to life imprisonment might be seen as just by some people in the US, but not everybody considers that justice.Now - everybody considers their version of justice to be the right version, the fairest and the most practical. Whose is right? As it turns out - a system is usually placed to be the arbiter on what is right and just and we call them judges. On their own they represent absolute judge on justice - what is right and what is unfair. However, judges rarely act as the final final authority. Several judges might end up being asked to make a decision. Perhaps majority rules, or perhaps a hierarchy is established with checks and balances in place or whatever.Either way - justice is whatever you mean it to be. There is no absolute standard of what is just and what is not and we can function perfectly well without pretending there is. We function fine without being able to divine what that perfect system is.Final thought on this: Life is unjust. Some humans have tried to help make it more just, as just as possible. But villains can sometimes prosper and the virtuous can die alone and in poverty. What is the meaning of justice you ask? The meaning is what as a society choose it to mean, it means what we as individuals choose it to mean. One always has to critically examine one's own thoughts and moral systems all the time - that's part of humility. You can trust them - but you should always be prepared to be wrong in thought. People grow, people change. Someone once said "some minds are like concrete: all mixed up and permanently set". That I strive to not be like this should not be regarded as a vice. A Republican senator once said "Life is not a static thing. The only people who do not change their minds are incompetents in asylums, who can't, and those in cemeteries." You are always here, and the relativit admits that there is also a 'there' and that 'there' is just another 'here' for those that are there. Kant had this same kind of reasoning (although obviously better (and more) worded). Rationalism, he argued, reduces to nihilism. However, it is not moral nihilism since that holds that normative moral statements are false. This is in contrast to moral relativism which holds that one cannot say that a normative moral statement is either true or false. Is once again an incorrect statement of moral relativism but more akin to moral nihilism. The relativist does not say there is no point of reference but rather that there are multiple valid points of reference. Absolutism is that there is only one valid point of reference, rejection of this does not mean relativists accept there are no points of reference at all. Moral relativism simply says that there is no absolute moral truth but there are relative truths. It does not say that there is nothing. Compare it to the theory of relativity. The statement "I am travelling at 5m/s" has no truth value on its own. It is neither true nor false. However, if we give a point of reference "I am travelling at 5 m/s, relative to the earth", we can give it a truth value. Relativity argues there is no absolute frame of reference, and that all frames of reference must be described relative to another frame of reference.The theory of relativity does not argue there is no such thing as velocity, just that there is no absolute definition of a thing's velocity.

Almost everybody has an intrinsic sense of fairness - though it differs from person to person and it is viewed through a variety of social lenses. I reckon my best strategy would be to demonstrate that their practice was unfair by their own standards. My other hope would be try and convince them that there is a better way to achieve their stated goals and that their penal system would undermine those stated goals. I cannot appeal to some absolute moral code to show them they are wrong - such an appeal would no doubt fall on deaf ears - unless it happened to be the absolute moral system they happen to follow. Moral relativism holds that no party is right and no party is wrong. Yes. There is no morally correct action to take. Just different actions with different consequences. The British authorities (I doubt it's just English authorities) will have to examine the moral code they have been elected to uphold. Of course, this is not an easy job and I'm glad I don't have it. As I said in the OP - moral relativism cannot provide an absolute answer to this question and it isn't intended to. The question the authorities need ask is "What is morally right according to our national moral zeitgeist?" Moral truths can never be established as absolutely true or false, according to moral relativism. There is no stalemate, just the acceptance of morally grey. Those who have to make a moral judgement can only do that very thing: make a judgement. Sometimes they will later think they did the wrong thing, sometimes they will think later that they did the right thing. Acceptance comes when one realizes that the judgement was made at the time given the information and time to think that one had at the time. Growth comes from realizing when something you did was wrong and adjusting behaviour and making recompense to those you feel you harmed. Not really. If you are intolerant of opinions/beliefs/lifestyles different than your own you are a bigot. It's a definitional issue not a moral one. Whether you are intolerant or not is a judgement call which does not require moral questioning. That was my fault. A better phrase might be life is ajust. We humans have to define what just is for ourselves and try and make our social interactions live up to that standard. More specifically moral truths can only be be made relative to some standard be it our own or another one. If that is what you define a nihilist as then moral relativists are not nihilists. Relativists only claim there is no absolute standard of morality and a moral relativist can believe this and also that we justify other knowledge claims. It is only the knowledge of the truth of a moral proposition that cannot be known with any veracity. Nihilists go further than relativists. What of the nihilist who says that he doesn't know knowledge is impossible, but that is what he believes? Either way, this is not a topic on nihilism nor is it one on moral nihilism. It is about moral relativism, which is a moral philosophy not a philosophy on everything. It is a moral philosophy that holds there are multiple valid ways of structuring human interaction and that a moral proposition cannot be said to be true without a frame of reference or moral standard to compare it relative to.Moral relativism is not about denying morality, just acknowledging that there are different moral systems and that there is no way to ascribe a truth value to any one of them.