Moral Relativism and the case for theism

[MeDeFe]

No, you can be an agnostic or atheist and believe in moral absolutes.
Either on Kantian gorunds, or utilitarian grounds, or emotivist grounds.
Eg, you ca be an atheist and believe in love as a moral absolute, because love promotes the greatest happiness of the greatest number.
Sorry Ambrose, but this means the rest of your post is unnecessary.

Or, you could be a moral relativist, and an atheist, but just believe that pragmatically, loyalty to ones friends (for example) generally is the best way of acting towards ones friends.
You dont need to believe in a ghostly spirit to act morally - and, in fact, most people dont.

Explain. I've never heard a justification for moral absolutism which doesn't incorporate some idea of an objective and extrnal standard in the form of a deity.

I didnt follow up on it very much, but i remember reading something from Sam Harris (the guy who doesnt like religion very much) arguing with a Catholic that they could create a better objective moral system than was presented in the bible. Im pretty sure there is a segment of philosophy people who are trying to establish what human behavior can be viewed by objectively.

Honestly, the bible doesn't really offer much in the way of moral guidance anyway, most of the old testament is about obeying god when he commands some people to kill other people, or has people tortured so they can show how much they really like god. The new one isn't as bad, admitted, but the family values presented there aren't much to be proud of.

[got tonkaed]

yeah, but i think you would certainly do pretty well for yourself in general (in my opinion at least) if you took bits of the new testament as a guide for a moral compass. Of course you can find a number of the provisions in other texts, but if you just read from the NT it wouldnt be the worst thing for you.

[PLAYER57832]

What I'm basically getting at is that any atheists who aims for social change is, in fact, a hypocrite, because if morality comes from society, then who is an individual to say what should or should not be legal in said society?

All human morality is relative. Why? because we cannot concieve of all the possible choices and situations that may evolve.

As for the "hypocrysy" point. Religion is framed BY the society in which it exists as much or more than it frames that society. This is true for all religions, including Atheism Why was "usery" dismissed by early Christians, but fully accepted now? Slavery, women ... all sorts of issues shift as society shifts.

The prime difference is that an Athiest will find more "logical" reasons to do things first. (killing is wrong because I don't want to be killed ... etc.). In Religion, there is the presupposition that the directives come "from above". (or from a certain philosophy that is some religions). Logic generally follows, but it is secondary. (I won't kill because it is wrong ... but it does happen to make for a more pleasant society).

[Snorri1234]

What I'm basically getting at is that any atheists who aims for social change is, in fact, a hypocrite, because if morality comes from society, then who is an individual to say what should or should not be legal in said society?

All human morality is relative. Why? because we cannot concieve of all the possible choices and situations that may evolve.

As for the "hypocrysy" point. Religion is framed BY the society in which it exists as much or more than it frames that society. This is true for all religions, including Atheism Why was "usery" dismissed by early Christians, but fully accepted now? Slavery, women ... all sorts of issues shift as society shifts.

Not according to Nappy though. This time the catholic chuch is entirely right!

The main reason that religion usually doesn't make any difference in what a society does is due to it basically conforming to it. It's the reason why christianity has gotten such big followings, because it blends in with the society.

[PLAYER57832]

What I'm basically getting at is that any atheists who aims for social change is, in fact, a hypocrite, because if morality comes from society, then who is an individual to say what should or should not be legal in said society?

All human morality is relative. Why? because we cannot concieve of all the possible choices and situations that may evolve.

As for the "hypocrysy" point. Religion is framed BY the society in which it exists as much or more than it frames that society. This is true for all religions, including Atheism Why was "usery" dismissed by early Christians, but fully accepted now? Slavery, women ... all sorts of issues shift as society shifts.

Not according to Nappy though. This time the catholic chuch is entirely right!

The main reason that religion usually doesn't make any difference in what a society does is due to it basically conforming to it. It's the reason why christianity has gotten such big followings, because it blends in with the society.

I still say its a give and take. Many of the people who fought against slavery used the Bible as their grounds. Granted, the Bible was used by the slavery side, too. But, in each case, the view of the Bible shaped society and society shaped views of the Bible, both. Sometimes the effect is subtle (eating fish), sometimes profound (burning at the stake).

[Snorri1234]

I still say its a give and take. Many of the people who fought against slavery used the Bible as their grounds. Granted, the Bible was used by the slavery side, too. But, in each case, the view of the Bible shaped society and society shaped views of the Bible, both. Sometimes the effect is subtle (eating fish), sometimes profound (burning at the stake).

Yeah you have a point. But the thing about that is that I'd say it were the people using the bible for their cause instead of the other way around. The thing about it is that you can read so much into it that at a certain point the justification is quite simply based on preconceived notions.

Basically, the bible was a tool. It's been an unneccesary tool at times but it has never surpassed the status. The western world was ready to abolish slavery anyway, it just was the bible as a tool that was used. It wasn't the bible in the function of what it actually said, but at what it represented (i.e. the word of god).

[OnlyAmbrose]

No, you can be an agnostic or atheist and believe in moral absolutes.
Either on Kantian gorunds, or utilitarian grounds, or emotivist grounds.
Eg, you ca be an atheist and believe in love as a moral absolute, because love promotes the greatest happiness of the greatest number.
Sorry Ambrose, but this means the rest of your post is unnecessary.

Or, you could be a moral relativist, and an atheist, but just believe that pragmatically, loyalty to ones friends (for example) generally is the best way of acting towards ones friends.
You dont need to believe in a ghostly spirit to act morally - and, in fact, most people dont.

So you're defining morality as "the greatest happiness of the greatest number." Who are you to do that?

NOTE- I'm not talking about Christianity, I'm talking about theism here.

[got tonkaed]

No, you can be an agnostic or atheist and believe in moral absolutes.
Either on Kantian gorunds, or utilitarian grounds, or emotivist grounds.
Eg, you ca be an atheist and believe in love as a moral absolute, because love promotes the greatest happiness of the greatest number.
Sorry Ambrose, but this means the rest of your post is unnecessary.

Or, you could be a moral relativist, and an atheist, but just believe that pragmatically, loyalty to ones friends (for example) generally is the best way of acting towards ones friends.
You dont need to believe in a ghostly spirit to act morally - and, in fact, most people dont.

So you're defining morality as "the greatest happiness of the greatest number." Who are you to do that?

NOTE- I'm not talking about Christianity, I'm talking about theism here.

a utilitarian?

[OnlyAmbrose]

No, you can be an agnostic or atheist and believe in moral absolutes.
Either on Kantian gorunds, or utilitarian grounds, or emotivist grounds.
Eg, you ca be an atheist and believe in love as a moral absolute, because love promotes the greatest happiness of the greatest number.
Sorry Ambrose, but this means the rest of your post is unnecessary.

Or, you could be a moral relativist, and an atheist, but just believe that pragmatically, loyalty to ones friends (for example) generally is the best way of acting towards ones friends.
You dont need to believe in a ghostly spirit to act morally - and, in fact, most people dont.

So you're defining morality as "the greatest happiness of the greatest number." Who are you to do that?

NOTE- I'm not talking about Christianity, I'm talking about theism here.

a utilitarian?

And on what basis does the utilitarian define good? I know what he defines as good, but what is the foundation of that definition?

[got tonkaed]

though i didnt actually read the article on it...i would assume the good folks at wikipedia have more to say about our friend utilitarianism, than i do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism

[InkL0sed]

"Good" generally means it is somehow conducive to survival or longer life.

[heavycola]

So you're defining morality as "the greatest happiness of the greatest number." Who are you to do that?

NOTE- I'm not talking about Christianity, I'm talking about theism here.

Of course there is no absolute morality. Why talk about theism rather than xianity? What are the morals shared by all theists?

A few thoughts on the relative value of human life:

Xianity: GW Bush had more people executed as governor of texas than any before him, yet apparently this sits perfectly well with his born-again xian morals. The millions of midwest xians dont appear to call him on it, and I would say it is a safe assumption that many in fact support it wholeheartedly. Is the death penalty a shared moral stance among all xians?

Hinduism - this is anecdotal, but when I asked an indian friend why the bus drivers there drove (as it appeared to me) so callously and scarily fast around windy, crumbling mountain roads, he explained that Hindus place a different value on human life because of their belief in reincarnation and in karma. When it's your time, it's your time.

Islam - leaving aside the extremist belief that killing oneself and others will grant you access to paradise, what about public beheadings in Saudi for apostasy? Or honour killings in Pakistan and, increasinlgy, in Pakistani communities in the UK? Or the subjugation and mistreatment of women throughout the middle east?

My point is that there is no such thing as a shared moral absolute among religions, or even among the different groups within a religion. If the bible, for example, lays down an absolute moral code, why do quakers find pacifism within its pages while born-again presidents see no problem in going to war or putting people to death?

Hard moral choices are hard because there is no 'absolute code' that we can access from some platonic realm. It is meaningless to talk about 'theism' in a moral context, because the only shared belief is one in a higher power. And why does that higher power have to be the fount of human morality anyway?

[Zaqq]

Amen

[OnlyAmbrose]

So you're defining morality as "the greatest happiness of the greatest number." Who are you to do that?

NOTE- I'm not talking about Christianity, I'm talking about theism here.

Of course there is no absolute morality. Why talk about theism rather than xianity? What are the morals shared by all theists?

A few thoughts on the relative value of human life:

Xianity: GW Bush had more people executed as governor of texas than any before him, yet apparently this sits perfectly well with his born-again xian morals. The millions of midwest xians dont appear to call him on it, and I would say it is a safe assumption that many in fact support it wholeheartedly. Is the death penalty a shared moral stance among all xians?

Hinduism - this is anecdotal, but when I asked an indian friend why the bus drivers there drove (as it appeared to me) so callously and scarily fast around windy, crumbling mountain roads, he explained that Hindus place a different value on human life because of their belief in reincarnation and in karma. When it's your time, it's your time.

Islam - leaving aside the extremist belief that killing oneself and others will grant you access to paradise, what about public beheadings in Saudi for apostasy? Or honour killings in Pakistan and, increasinlgy, in Pakistani communities in the UK? Or the subjugation and mistreatment of women throughout the middle east?

My point is that there is no such thing as a shared moral absolute among religions, or even among the different groups within a religion. If the bible, for example, lays down an absolute moral code, why do quakers find pacifism within its pages while born-again presidents see no problem in going to war or putting people to death?

Hard moral choices are hard because there is no 'absolute code' that we can access from some platonic realm. It is meaningless to talk about 'theism' in a moral context, because the only shared belief is one in a higher power. And why does that higher power have to be the fount of human morality anyway?

I fail to see your point. I'm not saying that all the religions have the correct moral code. In fact, for the purposes of this thread, I'm not even saying one of them has the correct moral code. That does not mean that there is no absolute moral law.

[MeDeFe]

The point is that they all derive their morals from a divine source that's supposedly absolute, btw, did you read my post about the pink elephants and why there are no absolute statements I linked you to earlier?

[OnlyAmbrose]

The point is that they all derive their morals from a divine source that's supposedly absolute, btw, did you read my post about the pink elephants and why there are no absolute statements I linked you to earlier?

I did, and maybe I'm just dense, but I'm still not seeing your point. I'll quote from the post in question.

I'm getting out of your semantic trap easily, "there is no absolute truth" is not an absolute statement, but a relative one and therefore it conforms with the theory that there is no absolute truth.

What's tripping me up, I think, is that I'm not seeing how it is a relative statement. You are passing a rather black and white judgment by saying "there is no absolute truth."

I read down the thread looking for an adequate explanation of why that's a relative statement, but I couldn't find one. I think daddy1gringo noticed this as well... could you either link me to a response you made, or explain it here please?

[OnlyAmbrose]

Oh, and also:

The point is that they all derive their morals from a divine source that's supposedly absolute

We're not talking about religion. And we're certainly not assuming that all religions are right. We're talking about theism. The case I'm making is basically that if there is a moral absolute, then there is a God. That has nothing to do with world religion.

[InkL0sed]

Your original statement was "There are no moral absolutes" is a moral absolute.

It isn't. It's an absolute, but it isn't a moral.

[MeDeFe]

The point is that they all derive their morals from a divine source that's supposedly absolute, btw, did you read my post about the pink elephants and why there are no absolute statements I linked you to earlier?

I did, and maybe I'm just dense, but I'm still not seeing your point. I'll quote from the post in question.

I'm getting out of your semantic trap easily, "there is no absolute truth" is not an absolute statement, but a relative one and therefore it conforms with the theory that there is no absolute truth.

What's tripping me up, I think, is that I'm not seeing how it is a relative statement. You are passing a rather black and white judgment by saying "there is no absolute truth."

I read down the thread looking for an adequate explanation of why that's a relative statement, but I couldn't find one. I think daddy1gringo noticed this as well... could you either link me to a response you made, or explain it here please?

In the other thread we were at that point arguing whether there are absolute statements or not. My point was that any statement relies on reference to entities other than the statement itself in order to be true or false. Therefor there are no absolute statements. Of course, this does not show that there is no giver of absolute morals, but it does show that the statement "there are no (moral, or whatever) absolutes" is not itself an absolute, as you asserted in the OP that it was.

[OnlyAmbrose]

In the other thread we were at that point arguing whether there are absolute statements or not. My point was that any statement relies on reference to entities other than the statement itself in order to be true or false. Therefor there are no absolute statements. Of course, this does not show that there is no giver of absolute morals, but it does show that the statement "there are no (moral, or whatever) absolutes" is not itself an absolute, as you asserted in the OP that it was.

So, if every statement relies on an entity other than itself in order to be true, then, if truth in fact exists, doesn't this necessitate one entity which relies on no other, from which all true statements come?

The cosmological argument of truth, as it were?

[MeDeFe]

In the other thread we were at that point arguing whether there are absolute statements or not. My point was that any statement relies on reference to entities other than the statement itself in order to be true or false. Therefor there are no absolute statements. Of course, this does not show that there is no giver of absolute morals, but it does show that the statement "there are no (moral, or whatever) absolutes" is not itself an absolute, as you asserted in the OP that it was.

So, if every statement relies on an entity other than itself in order to be true, then, if truth in fact exists, doesn't this necessitate one entity which relies on no other, from which all true statements come?

The cosmological argument of truth, as it were?

That entity is commonly referred to as "the world" or sometimes "reality". 'True' indicates that a statement correctly represents the facts to which the statement refers that can be observed in the world.

[InkL0sed]

In the other thread we were at that point arguing whether there are absolute statements or not. My point was that any statement relies on reference to entities other than the statement itself in order to be true or false. Therefor there are no absolute statements. Of course, this does not show that there is no giver of absolute morals, but it does show that the statement "there are no (moral, or whatever) absolutes" is not itself an absolute, as you asserted in the OP that it was.

So, if every statement relies on an entity other than itself in order to be true, then, if truth in fact exists, doesn't this necessitate one entity which relies on no other, from which all true statements come?

The cosmological argument of truth, as it were?

Well, almost. By this argument, if truth exists, then there must be some source of truth. I just think your usage of "giver" obviously implies a God. It could be some kind of universal fact, kind of like a mathematical identity.

But anyway, I can't even be sure anything other than myself exists, can I?

[OnlyAmbrose]

In the other thread we were at that point arguing whether there are absolute statements or not. My point was that any statement relies on reference to entities other than the statement itself in order to be true or false. Therefor there are no absolute statements. Of course, this does not show that there is no giver of absolute morals, but it does show that the statement "there are no (moral, or whatever) absolutes" is not itself an absolute, as you asserted in the OP that it was.

So, if every statement relies on an entity other than itself in order to be true, then, if truth in fact exists, doesn't this necessitate one entity which relies on no other, from which all true statements come?

The cosmological argument of truth, as it were?

That entity is commonly referred to as "the world" or sometimes "reality". 'True' indicates that a statement correctly represents the facts to which the statement refers that can be observed in the world.

In saying "observed," you seem to be defining "truth" as "that which can be verified empirically." Where does that truth come from? I think that even that statement relies on a prior entity, so I don't think it satisfies the necessity for an entity that relies on no other entity.

[Snorri1234]

Your original statement was "There are no moral absolutes" is a moral absolute.

It isn't. It's an absolute, but it isn't a moral.

Word.

Now if the statement was "there are no absolute statements" you might have had a point.

[MeDeFe]

In the other thread we were at that point arguing whether there are absolute statements or not. My point was that any statement relies on reference to entities other than the statement itself in order to be true or false. Therefor there are no absolute statements. Of course, this does not show that there is no giver of absolute morals, but it does show that the statement "there are no (moral, or whatever) absolutes" is not itself an absolute, as you asserted in the OP that it was.

So, if every statement relies on an entity other than itself in order to be true, then, if truth in fact exists, doesn't this necessitate one entity which relies on no other, from which all true statements come?

The cosmological argument of truth, as it were?

That entity is commonly referred to as "the world" or sometimes "reality". 'True' indicates that a statement correctly represents the facts to which the statement refers that can be observed in the world.

In saying "observed," you seem to be defining "truth" as "that which can be verified empirically." Where does that truth come from? I think that even that statement relies on a prior entity, so I don't think it satisfies the necessity for an entity that relies on no other entity.

Do you deny that some things can be verified empirically? Like for example that two bodies are moving away or towards each other (say you throw a ball straight up into the air, the distance between the ball and earth will increase and then decrease again), gravitation dictates that bodies will attract each other. Facts are empirically observable, the language we need to communicate the findings to others is arbitrary, though, and only makes sense because we (humans) are in agreement about what the words mean. Even a fish that doesn't even have a language can see a stone fall down, what the fish can not do is tell others that it saw a stone fall down.