A critique of moral relativism

You really need to consider the range of views that you call "moral relativism" far more carefully.For instance there is nothing contradictory in holding that morals are subjective and holding moral views. So you cannot criticise everyone who rejects moral absolutism in the same way.Further since you admit that for practical purposes moral subjectivism is true - whatever the absolute reality will be - any insistence that subjectivism is inadequate is tantamount to a rejection of morality. It is is strange that the people who insist most strongly that there is an absolute morality tend to be those most keen to pull down morality but in my experience it is true. And your posts are just another example.Your example of mathematics is another one that in the end undermines your case. Mathematics is governed by strict rules, but those rules are human creations. They are not absolutes. You could any set of mathematically expressible axioms you like and still do valid mathematics. It might not be worthwhile or interesting mathematics but it would be valid. Redefining addition is bad only because the notation becomes confusing not because it violates an absolute.

quote:

---

That, in my best estimation, is moral relativism in a nutshell. It redefines the foundational so that it can justify itself with the propositional.

---

Then I have to say that your best estimate is completely out of touch with reality and displays a complete lack of understanding of the issues. There IS no generally accepted foundation of morality TO redefine - that is one of the fundamental problems of morality. At most you can say is that some choose definitions that you disagree with.

quote:

---

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.

---

But it seems fundamental to your argument that moral laws are essentially arbitrary. Even if they are arbitrary rules invented by God then are still arbitrary rules.

quote:

---

Is murder right or wrong?

---

You know better than that You already know that there are differing ideas of murder. The simple answer is that anyone who judges an act to be murder judges it to be morally wrong. Because that is the distinction we make between murder and simply killing. Thus the answer is "wrong" by definition.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

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.

---

On the contrary I AM using arbitrary in the sense that Jazzns says is correct. It does not necessarily mean whimsical however it does mean with little or no relevant reason. Thus some traffic laws arbitrarily include a requirement to drive on the right rather than the left (or the other way around). That is not "whimsical" in the sense that your illustration suggests - it is just that the alternative is equally valid and there is no good reason for choosing between them.

quote:

---

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.

---

Or rather you assume that that is the case - you certainly don't know the reasons for all of them, do you ?. However this assumption creates an inconsistency in your argument. Because if there can be such reasons then "moral relativists" can have such reasons too.However you assert that it is impossible to have such reasons that would permit homosexuality but ban bestiality. You deny that this is based on equating the acts. It appears not to be based on knowing that both are banned for the same good reason because otherwise you could discuss that reason without bring bestiality into it. Thus I conclude that the only position that makes sense is that you do not believe that there IS a good reason for banning either. You position is based on the assumption that both are arbitrary commands with no reason.
Or maybe your entire argument is unfounded. The only valid way you can answer is to produce the basis of your argument - something you have been reluctant to do.

quote:

---

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?

---

I've already told you. If it's murder it is wrong by definition - because the term murder assumes that we have already judged it to be wrongful. There are no "staggering implications" there - just a trivial tautology.As for a more general view of your example what is it supposed to prove ? A degree of agreement between our moral views ? That if you chose a sufficiently extreme example a large majority of humans would agree ? When I've already informed you that I consider the basis of morality to be biological in origin and thus we should expect a degree of commonality among humans ? How can that possibly have any "staggering implications" for my position ?

quote:

---

So under those parameters it is absolutely wrong?

---

How can that possibly follow ? The fact is that when we call a killing murder we mean that we have judged it to be wrongful. And that's all. It's a simple and trivial tautology, with no great implications. The only significant point is that you shouldn't use "murder" as your example because it doesn't get you anywhere.

quote:

---

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

---

I have. Twice. I pointed out that we define murder as a killing that is morally wrong. Your answer to 'Nator indicates that you agree - you argue that if there is moral justification for a killing it is not murder.It is a trivial tautology to say that a morally wrong act is morally wrong.In classifying an action as murder we judge it to be morally wrong.Therefore the question "is murder wrong" is just a special case of "is a morally wrong act morally wrong". To which the answer is a trivial "yes".So why would you classify that answer as dishonest ?

I disagree on that point - I would certainly use the term murder to refer to technically legal killings that I found morally unacceptable. (And English law calls accidental killings "Manslaughter" where US law would call them "Murder in the 3rd Degree" - IIRC).

Either way NJ's argument fails. Only the moral definition allows for a definite answer -and that only because it's a tautology.[Added]
I've got a guess as to what he's trying. I think that he wants to bring up abortion - and since abortion is legal he's going to have to use the moral definition of murder if he wants to try that.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

Well if he meant that then he shouldn't have tried to use murder as his example. And he definitely shouldn't have accused others of being dishonest for not working out what he meant. And even then I have to ask myself whether he intends to use examples where the definition is doubtful - or where historically it HAS been acceptable.But more likely he intended a trap and he's just angry nobody fell into it.

No, most absolutists are those who believe that they HAVE the answers. And many are not so idealistic that they won't find excuses and make exceptions when covenient for them (some are completely self-righteous and will break their own moral code without even thinking).You're wrong about relativists, too. Relativism covers a range of positions and generalising is a bad mistake. I recognise that morals are subjective and that to us an absolute moral code is a mirage. Nobody has found any practical or theoretical basis for one that holds up.

quote:

---

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.

---

I guess that you failed to read what I wrote. What I clearly stated was that the choice between having a law mandating driving on the right and one mandating driving on the left was (often but not always) arbitrary. Moreover my point in doing so was to point out that the wrod "arbitrary" was not restricted to the odd whimseys of your argument - soomething you don't even consider in your reply.

quote:

---

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.

---

And how can you know that without knowing the reasoning ? Indeed since you insist that there cannot be any such reasoning your argument must be based on one of the assumptions I presented. Modulous hasn't added anything that contradicts my point either.

quote:

---

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.

---

In other words you evade the point. You refuse to offer any foundation for your argument. My analysis of your position remains - for you have offered nothing to prove it false.

quote:

---

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.

---

If you mean to refer to an absolute morality - something you should have explicitly stated - then it is nothing to do with your point. In the absence of an absolute morality nothing can be absolutely right or wrong in that sense. In that case the answer is clearly "neither". Moreover since you admit that you cannot prove that anything is absolutely right or wrong you must at least agree that you cannot give a certain answer.And to turn the statement back on you, in your morality is it absolutely right or absolutely wrong to accuse others of dishonesty when they have simply been mislead by your poor phrasing of your question ?

quote:

---

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.

---

I seem to be doing OK so far. By legal or moral definitions your argument goes nowhere. By introducing the assumption of absolute morality you beg the question. Thus your argument still fails to prove anything.

quote:

---

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.

---

Of course they have done no such thing. You have been given valid answers to the question AS ASKED. It is not the fault of others if you fail to write clearly - if you fail to include an important qualification in your question. Thus it proves only that you are unwilling to take responsibility for your own errors and quick to accuse others for no good reason.

quote:

---

But the absolute is that MURDER is ALWAYS wrong, right????

---

As I have clearly explained when murder is DEFINED as a morally wrong killing then it trivially follws from the Law of Identity that murder is morally wrong. However that says nothing about moral absolutes. It is simply a very trivial application of logic, a tautology that tells us nothing of any value.

quote:

---

...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.

---

Using the moral definition of murder, it is always "wrong" (in a non-absolute sense) BECAUSE THAT IS HOW MURDER HAS BEEN DEFINED. By classifying an act as murder it has already been classified as morally wrong thus it is a TRIVIAL TAUTOLOGY to say that murder is "wrong" in a non-absolute sense. So it is always wrong not because of any absolutes other than a trivial application of the law of identity.I've already explained this to you. Please try discussing it instead of jumping to completely unjustified conclusion.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Look it up, absolutism covers a range of positions too. Most absolutists are not saying there is any moral code which will always work.

---

Absolutism covers a range of different positions, yes. But most would claim that their moral code is the one that is absolutely right. YOu won't find many people outside of philosphy arguing that there is some absolute moral code but we don't know what it is.

quote:

---

Look it up, absolutism covers a range of positions too. Most absolutists are not saying there is any moral code which will always work.

---

Of course, the OT is full of examples of God killing, commanding killing and approving of killing. So really you're down to subjective ideas of what God wants - in in all likelihood your idea of what God wants is going to be more strongly influenced by your moral code than by the Bible - because the Bible doesn't present a clear and consistent moral code.

But it must be pointed out that "both are forbidden in the OT" is not a relevant connection for the purposes of NJ's argument. Two reasosn to consider are the fact that Christians happily permit some things forbidden in the OT without seeing anything wrong with them - and forbid things accepted in the OT. (Therefore not even NJ thinks that that alone is an adequate reason). Secondly it assumes that the only reason for fobidding something is that it is forbidden in the OT - which conradicts NJ's assertion that there are reasons behind the prohibitions.I've been prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt to the extent of accepting that he might have some relevant connection in mind (even if it's wrong). But since he's evaded giving any explanation of it, it seems he doesn't. It looks as if the connection is indeed made only for rhetorical effect.

I haven't been calling for a suspension because there is some doubt. But if the only similarity is that both are forbidden in Leviticus or other OT writings then he's essentially arguing that neither is wrong for any good reason.

That's not true, though is it ? Even the Catholic Church allows the use of NFP techniques as contraception. The mainstream Protestant churches - and most of the rest - are even more liberal. And no Christian church I know of regards fertility as a necessary requirement for marriage.

Then he's picking a lousy way of arguing his point. He ought to say it explicitly if that's what he means. Of course it does look as if he's being deliberately vague as a tactic so maybe that's why he doesn't say it.

Does he ? Does he think that all forms of contraception - even "natural" NFP techniques - are immoral ? Does he think that infertile people should not be allowed to marry and should never have sex ? Has he actually said so, or are you simply assuming that he takes a very rare position ?