Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A critique of moral relativism
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3425 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 61 of 219 (411404)
07-20-2007 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Hyroglyphx
07-20-2007 12:11 PM


Re: Arbitrary or deliberate?
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.
Exactly. Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a human. If someone has killed another human in self-defense, in defense of another, in an accident, or in an otherwise justifiable circumstance/manner, then it is by definition not murder and therefore not wrong.
I don't understand what you are trying to prove with this example. Are you trying to trick the "relativists" into declaring murder to be "absolutely" wrong? If so, it doesn't prove your point at all, because the definition of the word itself equates it with wrongdoing based on the circumstances!
However, the Biblical absolutist does have quite a conundrum because the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" all by itself leaves no leeway. The absolutist must then become a relativist because he must then define circumstances in which killing is justifiable (some of which are done for him by levitical law proscribing stoning to death for many infractions, God commanding the killing of every man woman and child in enemy cities, etc).
Do you see what we mean by relative, now? It is not a free for all with no boundaries like you seem to think. Absolutes are defined through law and depend on extenuating circumstances. They can also change over time. We accept the "absolutes" that society has formed and, if we don't, we can work to change them.
BTW...I found this quote in a book I'm reading and I thought it highly applicable. I think it will be my new signature. (The protagonist Ernest Everhard is speaking to a group of clergymen at a dinner party).

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-20-2007 12:11 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Modulous, posted 07-20-2007 2:29 PM Jaderis has not replied

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3425 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 90 of 219 (411699)
07-21-2007 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by AdminNem
07-21-2007 1:06 PM


Re: Arbitrary or deliberate?
If it was arbitrary, you would drive on the road drifting from left to right or down the center. There would be no pattern at all. The fact that the law specifies that you must drive down a specific path to keep the safety of all drivers means that it was deliberately chosen.
Yes, it was chosen, but not "deliberately." No evidence was weighed to choose which side of the street was the better side to drive on. The decision to drive on the right side of the street (or the left) was chosen arbitrarily, for no good reason. It just was.
But people follow it, also for "no good reason" except that it works, because everyone else follows the rule (for the most part), but you can be sure that if somehow it is shown that driving on the side of the street that we are used to driving on causes more accidents than driving on the opposite side, we may just change our ways. Otherwise it is irrelevant, but arbitrary, nonetheless
No, you have it all backwards. I am saying, and Modulous has clarified, that if there is no good reason to consider homosexuality immoral, then there is no good reason to think that beastiality, pedophilia, incest is immoral by the same relativistic reasoning. Whether my argument is only that God has concluded it, or that nature abhors the unnatural, or any other derivative of the argument, I am curious to know your reasoning on why homosexuality is okay, but the others are not. Because you seem to have no reason, whatsoever, to come to the conclusions you've made
Your question has been answered, but, you refuse to acknowledge the reasons presented to you and continue on as if no one has provided a "reason." If you do not accept the reasoning behind the arguments, then please feel free to debate the reasons instead of completely ignoring them and smugly pretending that you have gone unanswered.
Exactly my point! I'm not asking you to decipher what constitutes murder, I'm asking you if murder is absolutely wrong, or absolutely right.
Now we're getting somewhere
Why don't you address those who have pointed out your tautology?
You try to act like you have caught someone in a trap, but the ruse is thin.
That you cannot hold fast to your position without contradicting yourself. Relative morality is irreconcilable with something of this magnitude. Its forced to cancel itself out.
Only because you do not understand the position. A strawman is always easy to defeat.
The proof is how a plethora of posters have either manipulated the argument and skewed my very, very simple question, or they are adding extraneous elements are circumstances that are completely irrelevant to the simplistic question. In either case, they are avoiding the question. That much is painfully clear with all of this waffling.
So do you as an "absolutist" not define degrees of murder or agree with extenuating circimstances which would drop a charge of murder down to manslaughter or justifiable homicide? What kind of "waffling" do you exhibit when questioned about the slaughter of children in the OT? Because the command came from God it is Good? What kind of apologetics are applied when asked about homosexality vs. pork-eating? Which laws did Jesus come to fulfill? It is not written down in the text plain as day for all to see, so people have to interpret it and apply the "Law" based on the apologetics and theology of the day.
You and I have different ideas about morality, but we come from a similar place. You get your absolutes from what you believe your God has ordained (with a little wiggle room for what you are comfortable with) and I get mine from what I have gained from human society (with a little wiggle room for what I am comfortable with).
But the absolute is that MURDER is ALWAYS wrong, right???? So if its always wrong, then its absolutely wrong. How you arrive to the conclusion of how an incident is considered murder is the relative portion. That's the relativity of it. However, I am asking you if murder is wrong.
Yes, "murder" as defined is always wrong. The definitions, however, change. I'm thinking that the definition of "just" murder has changed in the last few centuries (in Western society) to exclude less egregious offenses (i.e. cursing your parents, fucking someone outside of marriage, changing or questioning religion) and that people commiting more egregious offenses are held more justly accountable for their offenses than before (i.e. lynching, barroom brawls/shootings, domestic violence, etc). Which is the more moral way?
BTW, do you wish to include the offenses listed in the Bible for the death penalty as evidence for your higher morality?
If so, why?
If not, why not?
Edited by Jaderis, : No reason given.

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by AdminNem, posted 07-21-2007 1:06 PM AdminNem has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024