Moral Relativism and the case for theism

[InkL0sed]

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

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

[OnlyAmbrose]

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.

Yes, but empiricism relies on the truth of the senses, for instance. A guy tripping out on acid is not going to make the same empirical observations as someone else. You can't empirically prove that empiricism is the best way to find truth; that statement relies on a prior entity or "faith" in the senses.

Where I'm going with this is basically that everyone has a large degree of faith in the "first" entity from which all other statements can be made. I suppose you're saying that this first entity is the senses. I would disagree, because the senses are flawed, and given that, by definition, truth is not flawed. The first entity must be flawless, and a flawless entity sounds an awful lot like God.

You'll pardon me if my thoughts seem scattered, this line of argument is a newly inspired idea for me.

[InkL0sed]

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.

Yes, but empiricism relies on the truth of the senses, for instance. A guy tripping out on acid is not going to make the same empirical observations as someone else. You can't empirically prove that empiricism is the best way to find truth; that statement relies on a prior entity or "faith" in the senses.

Where I'm going with this is basically that everyone has a large degree of faith in the "first" entity from which all other statements can be made. I suppose you're saying that this first entity is the senses. I would disagree, because the senses are flawed, and given that, by definition, truth is not flawed. The first entity must be flawless, and a flawless entity sounds an awful lot like God.

You'll pardon me if my thoughts seem scattered, this line of argument is a newly inspired idea for me.

You're still going out on a limb and having faith that there is absolute truth. Look at the articles I linked.

[OnlyAmbrose]

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.

Yes, but empiricism relies on the truth of the senses, for instance. A guy tripping out on acid is not going to make the same empirical observations as someone else. You can't empirically prove that empiricism is the best way to find truth; that statement relies on a prior entity or "faith" in the senses.

Where I'm going with this is basically that everyone has a large degree of faith in the "first" entity from which all other statements can be made. I suppose you're saying that this first entity is the senses. I would disagree, because the senses are flawed, and given that, by definition, truth is not flawed. The first entity must be flawless, and a flawless entity sounds an awful lot like God.

You'll pardon me if my thoughts seem scattered, this line of argument is a newly inspired idea for me.

You're still going out on a limb and having faith that there is absolute truth. Look at the articles I linked.

I'm totally familiar with both concepts. I'm not sure what bearing they have on this conversation.

[InkL0sed]

I'm totally familiar with both concepts. I'm not sure what bearing they have on this conversation.

This whole thing about absolute truth began with the statement "If there is truth..."

Well, is there? That's what the articles have to do with the conversation.

[OnlyAmbrose]

Cogito ergo sum.

That's a rather absolute statement which implies at least one absolute truth.

I am a brain in a vat.

That's another absolute statement which also implies absolute truth.

I still don't think I follow. What do you intend to use these concepts for?

[got tonkaed]

edited because i refuse to allow suggs to see me making a point...much less a scathing one.

[DangerBoy]

out of curiosity, are you planning on spending the entire thread saying i dont see what relevance this has to the conversation.

I think your having a problem seeing the world outside of your assumption in this case OA.

Everyone has that problem. We start with assumptions and then look for things which support them. I include myself in that as well.

[OnlyAmbrose]

out of curiosity, are you planning on spending the entire thread saying i dont see what relevance this has to the conversation.

I think your having a problem seeing the world outside of your assumption in this case OA.

Well in this case, I was presented with two links. I was simply asking him to present an argument for me. The articles themselves weren't sufficient... I'm curious as to how they fit into the conversation, and as such I'm asking him to show me.

I think that's fair.

[suggs]

...and its a SLAMDUNK from Tonky!
I was here! I saw it with me own peepers!
Tonky made a point, and in scathing fashion!

Historic day

[OnlyAmbrose]

edited because i refuse to allow suggs to see me making a point...much less a scathing one.

Too late I already immortalized it in a quote

[got tonkaed]

I agree with dangerboy here and can see your point to a degree OA. Im just saying if you want this thread, which could be a good one as far as clarification of points, to be successful. Still i dont think some of the justifications about the semantic issues earlier in the thread were cleared up to a point that i think was fairly understandable. Sure there might be some additional clarification, but i think doing some of the legwork trying to figure where the arguments going could probably clean up some of the confusion going on in the thread.

Edit: well at least i tried lol.

[OnlyAmbrose]

Well basically what I'm saying is this- if you want to make a point, commentary is helpful. I already know about the brain in a vat and Cogito ergo sum, so posting wikipedia articles doesn't help. I need to know what he wants to do with those concepts.

That said, I would like to repost this:

Cogito ergo sum.

That's a rather absolute statement which implies at least one absolute truth.

I am a brain in a vat.

That's another absolute statement which also implies absolute truth.

I still don't think I follow. What do you intend to use these concepts for?

[InkL0sed]

Well basically what I'm saying is this- if you want to make a point, commentary is helpful. I already know about the brain in a vat and Cogito ergo sum, so posting wikipedia articles doesn't help. I need to know what he wants to do with those concepts.

That said, I would like to repost this:

Cogito ergo sum.

That's a rather absolute statement which implies at least one absolute truth.

I may be a brain in a vat.

That's (not) another absolute statement which also implies absolute truth.

I still don't think I follow. What do you intend to use these concepts for?

There ya go.

[OnlyAmbrose]

As to what's going on in this thread, I think we took it on a tangent from morality to "absolute statements and the origin of truth," or some title to that effect. Never been down this road before, personally, which may account for some of the confusion.

[got tonkaed]

I guess at least for me, neither one of those statements have any conflict with any version of moral relativism. Even if we accept those things as truth, we certainly could leave the door open to it not being true, even if on a small level.

Likewise even the statement itself doesnt have much of a relevance on morality. If there is such a thing as absolute truth, it doesnt necessarily equate to moral absolutes. Certainly even if your comparing those statements, like ones saying i think therefore i am or killing people is wrong...those are very different types of statements, and the fact that one could be true in every situation (possibly) doesnt mean that the other statement is therefore true as well.

[OnlyAmbrose]

Well basically what I'm saying is this- if you want to make a point, commentary is helpful. I already know about the brain in a vat and Cogito ergo sum, so posting wikipedia articles doesn't help. I need to know what he wants to do with those concepts.

That said, I would like to repost this:

Cogito ergo sum.

That's a rather absolute statement which implies at least one absolute truth.

I may be a brain in a vat.

That's (not) another absolute statement which also implies absolute truth.

I still don't think I follow. What do you intend to use these concepts for?

There ya go.

Well, that leaves the first one. If you buy into Solipsism then you buy into at least one absolute truth.

If you buy into the brain in a vat thing then you probably also buy into absolute truth. I may be a brain in a vat; I may not be a brain in a vat. Two options, one of which is true.

Just because I "may" be something in no way implies that there is no absolute truth. Said truth may be different from what I believe, but it's still there. Either you are a brain in a vat or you are not.

Likewise even the statement itself doesnt have much of a relevance on morality.

True, and like I said the thread has been more or less derailed. I'm alright with that though, because this is a new area which I'm finding interesting

Even if we accept those things as truth, we certainly could leave the door open to it not being true, even if on a small level.

I agree. It could either be true, or not true. That's a rather absolutist statement.

[InkL0sed]

Well basically what I'm saying is this- if you want to make a point, commentary is helpful. I already know about the brain in a vat and Cogito ergo sum, so posting wikipedia articles doesn't help. I need to know what he wants to do with those concepts.

That said, I would like to repost this:

Cogito ergo sum.

That's a rather absolute statement which implies at least one absolute truth.

I may be a brain in a vat.

That's (not) another absolute statement which also implies absolute truth.

I still don't think I follow. What do you intend to use these concepts for?

There ya go.

Well, that leaves the first one. If you buy into Solipsism then you buy into at least one absolute truth.

Well, yes, but then it stops there...

If you buy into the brain in a vat thing then you probably also buy into absolute truth. I may be a brain in a vat; I may not be a brain in a vat. Two options, one of which is true.

Just because I "may" be something in no way implies that there is no absolute truth. Said truth may be different from what I believe, but it's still there. Either you are a brain in a vat or you are not.

But the point is that you can't ever know whether you are or not, something you need to have an absolute truth.

Honestly, I'm starting to lose track of what you're arguing...

[Neoteny]

human rights are inherent in our humanity.

Why?

Why not?

How?

Ignore my above attempt at humor. Within the boundaries of our humanity we have such things as empathy and sympathy. These inherent characteristics provide the tools to discern and achieve moralistic goals. If you want to ask why we have empathy and sympathy, well, that's not difficult to answer evolutionarily, at least hypothetically.

the goal or best action is the absolute. This is not to say that we have or will achieve this, but it is rather noble to try.

Here you go, though, using those moral judgement words. "best" and "noble." We still haven't established where these "human rights" come from.

How about now?

I do think we've progressed a long way

According to your moral perspective. But here you are applying direction to morality, implying that you do thing that there is a "good" and "bad" direction. Who or what determines good and bad?

The context and the results. If it's inherent in the system, nothing needs to be determined, aside from us figuring it out.

[Gregrios]

human rights are inherent in our humanity.

Why?

Why not?

How?

Ignore my above attempt at humor. Within the boundaries of our humanity we have such things as empathy and sympathy. These inherent characteristics provide the tools to discern and achieve moralistic goals. If you want to ask why we have empathy and sympathy, well, that's not difficult to answer evolutionarily, at least hypothetically.

the goal or best action is the absolute. This is not to say that we have or will achieve this, but it is rather noble to try.

Here you go, though, using those moral judgement words. "best" and "noble." We still haven't established where these "human rights" come from.

How about now?

I do think we've progressed a long way

According to your moral perspective. But here you are applying direction to morality, implying that you do thing that there is a "good" and "bad" direction. Who or what determines good and bad?

The context and the results. If it's inherent in the system, nothing needs to be determined, aside from us figuring it out.

If your morals are determined by context and results then you're simply making a distinction based on whether you can get away with it or not. This line of thinking suggests that there are NO morals to begin with. How can there be morals if a person bends them to their own advantage?

Basically what I'm saying is that your contradictions are showing how truly desperate you are to argue this point even to the point where you lack logic.

[got tonkaed]

why would there have to be morals to begin with. If we take a relatively simple assumption that morals are specifically involved with human social behavior...then why would there be morals without the people to enact in them.

Also i defy you to come up with a system that is not designed to advantage humans in some capacity. You can include religion in this, moral codes are in some capacity designed to help the person engage in a relationship with the divine, which i would assume is to the persons advantage.

Its a pretty poor assumption in my estimation to assume morals exist outside of our ability to interact with them.

[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?

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.

Ambrose may i say, while I'm here, that your recent threads have sparked some very interesting debate that has been missing from this board for a while. Kudos.

Secondly - sure, if there is an absolute morality then there has to be an outside reference i.e. god. My point, I guess, is that there is absoutely no evidence for such a morality - especially not in the major religions, which, given your argument, is exactly where it seems we should start looking.,

[Napoleon Ier]

I'm still waiting for my justification of absolute morality without an objective external standard.

[InkL0sed]

I'm still waiting for my justification of absolute morality without an objective external standard.

Probably because as far as I can tell nobody is arguing that...

[Napoleon Ier]

I'm still waiting for my justification of absolute morality without an objective external standard.

Probably because as far as I can tell nobody is arguing that...

Suggs was.