A critique of moral relativism

having read through the ongoing debate , it seems that part of the issue is that no one is willing or able to define any sort of moral code , relative or absolute to justifie any statement about murder , homosexuality , beastilaty , incest , celibacy, adualtury, coverting someones ox/BMW , taking drugs ,stealing.. et alall of us carry so much historical moral junk with us , plus all the moden legal confusions ,that can any one point to a clear moral code , even from the vast varity of churchs and religions and great thinkers and leaders that pour out the "truth".with out any starting point how can we ever hope to agree ....we just end up in our own heads , or we allow our self to be lead by "intrested "parties ...with no absolutes , or even a agreed set of incorrect absolute to reference against we are all trying to navigate with our own version of the moral map ....

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

jar said: to which NJ replied

quote:

---

Then differentiate for me since you think they aren't in any sense related.

---

I'll try.Morality is a subset of ethics related to a given religious system. It involves those things which some religious dogma considers sins. It is a minor subset of the broader category of ethics.Legality relates to established, written, codified behaviors. They have nothing to do with either ethics or morality, but rather some sense of societal safety and order.Right and wrong depend totally on someones response to a given, unique set of circumstances. Sometimes what is right is illegal and immoral, or legal and immoral, or illegal yet moral.An example might involve a response to an accident. If you pick up an injured person and rush that person to the hospital, you may well exceed the speed limit (becoming illegal) while saving a life (moral) and depending on the outcome (you hit a child crossing the street by accident) could be either a right or wrong action. Sorry, but that is nonsense. I can judge you based against my ethical standards, but that is not subjecting you to anything. It also has nothing to do with morality. Morality is within your religious communion. Morality will be determined within your communion.As I said in Message 144: I have no opinion on whether you position is moral or immoral, that is between you and your God. The judgment is made not on the basis of morality, but ethics, a broader category, and on right and wrong. They have ethics. The idea of someone who irreligious having morality, which deals in the concept of sin and accountability to some god, is quite frankly, silly.That does not preclude them having ethical standards.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Modulous responds to me:

quote:

---

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.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?Logic has no relevance to the topic?

quote:

---

And exploring human sexuality and marriage contracts is legitimate, isn't it?

---

It isn't when orthognal traits are brought up.Again: [(A->B) ^ (A->C)] ~-> (B->C)It doesn't matter what A, B, and C are. This is a logical statement that is always true. Just because you can justify B from A and you can justify C from A, that doesn't mean you can justify C from B. You have to start over from the beginning and independently justify the implication.

quote:

---

quote:

---

The conjugation of Spanish verbs is not an explanation for the diversification of life on this planet.

---

​

Agreed.

---

And how would you react if someone kept on insisting on bringing it up?And how would you react if someone kept on treating that introduction is completely normal and acceptable, engaging them on the topic as legitimate?

quote:

---

Yes - are you suggesting that people always adhere to their own personal code of morality?

---

Of course. That is a tautology. Their personal code of morality is what defines their behaviour. If they didn't think what they were doing was OK, they wouldn't do it unless forced. And especially if you can talk to them and they can explain why they have made an exception.Take, for example, those that are both against abortion and for the death penalty. They claim that the reason why they can be for death penalty is that criminals have done something wrong while a fetus is still "innocent." So apparently, there is a relativity to the supposed "absolute" of "life is sacred."It isn't like they're trying to weasel out of it...they are just fine with this relative morality...except to have it called "relative morality." Well, wishing doesn't make it so. They can want to be an absolutist, but it is clear that they are not.

quote:

---

If I do something selfish that reduces happiness - does that mean I do not think the moral thing to do is maximise happiness? No

---

Incorrect. It does if you would do it again under the same circumstances and you weren't forced in the first place.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

ikabod responds to me:

quote:

---

i can think / belive there is a absolute moral standard , i can then chosse to behave immorally .. its called free will ...

---

Indeed. You freely chose to show that you don't really believe in that absolute moral standard. Otherwise, you wouldn't have done it unless forced. You can feel all the guilt you want afterward, but the fact remains that you freely chose it which means you thought it was a good idea.And thus, you don't really have an absolute standard.

quote:

---

others can belive in a absolute moral code , and can "belive" that they never break it , even if they do ..

---

And thus, they don't really have an absolute standard. Wishing does not make it so.

quote:

---

people can belive in a religious code , totally and absolutely , and yet can behave at variance to that code ...

---

And thus, they prove they don't really believe it.We see this all the time: People who think that something is horrible...until it happens to them and then they will fight to the death.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

sorry but breaking a rule from a moral code does not mean the code is not absolute ..otherwise if you cant break the code there is no immorality ....the rules of football are absolute , but the players break them all the time .....thieves still belive / know that there is a absolute law they break it and take their cahnce of suffering .you can still belive in a absolute , and fail to meet its standards .. we are only human .. we are allowed to fail ..consider the moral rebel .. the rebel also belives in the absolute moral code .. how else can she/he plan to act in oppersition to it ?OR do you consider a absolute moral code to have some physical power over people that would prevent them acting against its rule .. like the fundermental laws of physics or chemistry ...OR are you saying some superpowered enitiey would intervent to keep you on the moral path and prevent you making any action in violation of the code ? Edited by ikabod, : was interupted

Logic has relevance to the topic, I've not said the contrary. I am asking to explain the connection of the general logic statement you made, to the specific situation we are discussing. Again, before I can go any further with this, you need to explain what you mean by A, B and C. I'd probably not engage them on the topic. Wow. You've never heard of someone breaking their own morality for selfish reasons? Guilt? That doesn't look like moral relativism to me. Absolutism is rarely so strict as you make it out to be, from wiki:

quote:

---

In a minority of cases, moral absolutism is taken to the more constrained position that actions are moral or immoral regardless of the circumstances in which they occur. Lying, for instance, would always be immoral, even if done to promote some other good (e.g., saving a life). This rare view of moral absolutism might be contrasted with moral consequentialism”the view that the morality of an action depends on the context or consequences of that action.

​

Modern human rights theory is a form of moral absolutism, usually based on the nature of humanity and the essence of human nature. One such theory was constructed by John Rawls in his A Theory of Justice.

---

I'm not talking about this particular subset of absolutism, but absolutism as a whole. Think consequentialism, where certain consequences are held to be absolutely moral and others are absolutely immoral. These are absolute ethical philosophies, that take into account the positive and negative consequences of an action: and can hold that abortion has negative consequences (immoral) and death penalty has positive consequences (moral).

---

As I highlighted in the OP, there are different ways of looking at morality. We might be having a disagreement because of this. You seem to viewing morality exclusively from a descriptive point of view, where morality describes people's behaviour. But descriptive morality can also be used to look at the sorts of moral standards people claim to follow. From here:

quote:

---

In short, descriptive ethics asks these two questions:

​

1. What do people claim as their moral norms?
2. How do people actually behave when it comes to moral problems?

---

I'm talking about 1 and you are insisting that only 2 is valid. Does this help clear things up?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

quote:

---

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?

---

Probably because I haven't heard those objections-- only that you object to it. By doing so, you are making it a rule that by my objecting to homosexuality, I should be automatically villafied for it. Thus, you are making a moral judgement about me, which is all fine and good if you want to do so, but at least admit that is what you're doing.How it contradicts your relativistic standards is in the application you present. You are calling me a bigot as if its supposed to be meaningful to me. You are tacitly making an appeal for me to use some universal moral in understanding why homosexuality is peaches 'n' cream and daisies swaying in the wind.And if that's not what you are saying, then all you are doing is voicing your opinion-- in which case, thanks for sharing. I'm not sure what you're referring to since I deleted your quote of me. Can you elaborate?

quote:

---

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.

---

Paul, these are axiomatic maxims were dealing with, not pretentious ramblings. I have presented a philosophical question that appears to be insoluble without amassing contradiction after contradiction. Its just the nature of it.

quote:

---

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.

---

It does nothing of the such because it proves nothing about animal sexuality. But that is an aside issue that is OT. The point is, if someone is going to say that I can't make reference to beastiality and homosexuality from a moral context (because animal sexuality and human sexuality are not similar enough to make any kind of connection), then neither can the opposition cite references that say chimps and dolphins engage in homosexual acts, therefore, it logically extends to humans. That's completely hypocrtitical.

---

"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:

---

Probably because I haven't heard those objections-- only that you object to it.

---

OK so lets go over the problems with that position.Firstly the fact that I haven't given those reasons doesn't offer much support to your claim that there I can't possibly have any. The more so since others HAVE given reasons.Secondly even if I didn't have reasons others could - and you know that they do.Thirdly at this point you are arguing FOR permitting bestiality. The only concession you can reasonably hope to get is that there is nothing wrong with bestality.For the record I consider bestiality to be the equivalent of using a live animal as a sex toy. The animal is not capable of giving rational consent and cannot be assumed to have any desire for the act whatsoever. Moreover the animal is likely to suffer distress or even actual physical harm.

quote:

---

By doing so, you are making it a rule that by my objecting to homosexuality, I should be automatically villafied for it. Thus, you are making a moral judgement about me, which is all fine and good if you want to do so, but at least admit that is what you're doing.

---

All I did was explain why others called you a bigot. That isn't making a rule.
The reason I gave was NOT simply objecting to homosexuality but the offensive way you go about it.
Thirdly the rule you falsely attribute to me does not involve any judgement of you whatosever.So honesty compels me to deny your assertion.

quote:

---

How it contradicts your relativistic standards is in the application you present. You are calling me a bigot as if its supposed to be meaningful to me. You are tacitly making an appeal for me to use some universal moral in understanding why homosexuality is peaches 'n' cream and daisies swaying in the wind.

---

It does mean something to you. That's why you're so determined to deny it. And no I'm not appealing to any universal moral - just the common element of our moral standards. So the "contradiction: is simply your invention. It's what you want me to say - not what I said. And the fun thing is that I haven't even called you a bigot yet. Want to read tht e title of the post again ?

quote:

---

And if that's not what you are saying, then all you are doing is voicing your opinion-- in which case, thanks for sharing.

---

If I did call you a bigot it would still be saying something other than the moral judgement you (incorrectly) attribute to it. It would still mean that you are intolerant and prejudiced even if you see nothing wrong with that.

quote:

---

I'm not sure what you're referring to since I deleted your quote of me. Can you elaborate?

---

You can't just scroll down and look ?

quote:

---

2. How can you possibly distinguish which is good, and which isn't, while holding to a relative standard?

---

And the answer is by applying the standard. If you've got a standard of good and evil you use it to work out what is good and what is evil. Isn't that obvious.

quote:

---

Paul, these are axiomatic maxims were dealing with, not pretentious ramblings. I have presented a philosophical question that appears to be insoluble without amassing contradiction after contradiction. Its just the nature of it.

---

An axiom should be self-evidently true. Not something that on the face of it appears to be false. You've had answers to your specific examples. You haven't demonstrated any contradictions. Invented, yes, but that doesn't count. Resorting to fabrication only shows the weakness of your case.{add para}
So can you actually explain the basis of your argument ? Because I see none that is self-evidently - or even probably - true. And your continued evasion only makes it more likely that you are simply using it as an excuse to be offensive - or that you are hiding your reasons because you really are the bigot that some have concluded that you are.
{end}

quote:

---

It does nothing of the such because it proves nothing about animal sexuality.

---

The fact that animals do engage in homosexual behaviour demonstrates that it is natural to them.

quote:

---

The point is, if someone is going to say that I can't make reference to beastiality and homosexuality from a moral context (because animal sexuality and human sexuality are not similar enough to make any kind of connection), then neither can the opposition cite references that say chimps and dolphins engage in homosexual acts, therefore, it logically extends to humans. That's completely hypocrtitical.

---

Assuming that your argument does not rely on equivocation it's a strawman. Nobody is making the argument you mention. So you've got no point. Just more misrepresentation.Edited by PaulK, : Added paragraph (marked) to emphasise a point.

quote:

---

Paul, please, don't be so naive. In the religious moral system of a great, large, huge amount of people, ALL forbidden sexual behaviours ARE equivalent. That is, they are ALL wrong. In Catholicism, for example, they are all as wrong as murder, as genocide, as suicide. They are 'mortal sins'.

---

I missed this the first time. It misses my point completely.
The equivalence I refer to is an equivalence of the acts - a very close equivalence of the acts - not the moral judgement made about them.

The dictionary defines morals and ethics as being synonymous. The dictionary defines ethics, as, a system of moral principles. And as far morals are concerned, religion is not a definitional qualifier, also according to Dictionary. We've been over this multiple times. If laws were not derived by a moral framework, then laws would be completely arbitrary. Then why do you not grant me the same permission? According to what?

quote:

---

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?

---

First of all, the atheists here claim for themselves that they have morals-- remember, they are trying to defend relative morality?Secondly, ethics and morals are the same thing.The problem, it seems, is that you have a fundamental misunderstanding. Now that you can see the difference, perhaps you will understand what I've been saying.

---

​

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt

Not true. They can be based on things other than morals, they can be based on safety concerns, property valuation, efficiency, many things.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Did you replay to my last post in the exchange we are having? I don't recall that you did or else I would have seen an email about it but I discussed a considerable objection to this very idea of yours.What seems to be pretty obvious is that the basis for our morals/laws are on the foundation of concepts based on evidence. That is where your claim to 'arbitrary' goes right out the window. It is very easy to test to see if arbitrary morals work, when they don't we abandon them in favor of ones that do.The only thing that is absolute about the morals of any given society is that they have changed over time as you move through the generations. They change based on practicalities and culture shifts that the next generation reveals. If anything, this is the largest piece of evidence against an elucidated absolute standard that you could possibly have.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

Many people make this exact distinction. On what grounds?On the grounds of informed consent.They say that animals can't consent to sex, and that children can't give informed consent. Gay men (and women), like straight men and women, it is argued, can offer informed consent.Personally I think this is probably simplifying the issue, but it's an answer that people give. These people consider consent to be fundamental to their moral understanding. You don't. In a universe where there appears only to be relative morality, as I believe this one to be, there is no moral bedrock, and yet all of us with our differing conceptions of morality have to rub along together. Sometimes it flares up into violent disagreement, but where there is a sufficiently strong state and legal system, the state will impose its moral framework. In the real world, those in positions of power have a disproportionate ability to impose their morality - but that doesn't stop other moral outlooks from existing.This has all been a very long winded way of saying I can't begin to understand your position. I'm trying to picture what you think would happen if there wasn't God's moral framework holding us all together. I don't believe in this framework, and I believe what we see is consistent with what you'd expect from a world without such a framework.

Tusko, pardon the intrusion. The issue is not consent, per se. We don't generally look for the consent of animals when we decide to eat them, keep them as pets, or use them for milk and wool.What we do look for is respect, equality, and love for our fellow humans. It is irrelevent whether we believe overall in an absolute morality, or in a relative morality. At this very moment, we have to make decisions AS IF our morality was the only one in existence.So...one person feels that love of God is of utmost importance in morality. God only 'allows' certain persons to marry, so any other marriage is immoral.Another person does not believe in God, but feels that love of neighbor is of utmost importance in morality. Thus, any marriage which may be harmful to someone is immoral.It can be demonstrated to a point whether certain marriages are harmful, as in, when someone can not legally give consent.