My reasons are based on empathy and what I value. — Fooloso4

So would a person without empathy and different values be perfectly justified in committing genocide?

In any discipline where there is disagreement an absolute answer has not been determined. In some cases an answer will be found but until or unless it is found the proposed answers are relative not absolute. — Fooloso4

The proposed answers are not relative they are either right or wrong. We do not know the origin of the universe with certainty but we do believe that the big bang is more probable than the idea that a turtle puked it out. We can only make this distinction because there absolutely is an origin to the universe. The same is true of morality. We may not know with absolute certainty what is right or wrong in some circumstances. We are then left to our best guesses as to what the correct answer is. These guesses are not relative but either right or wrong. Each of these guesses have different moral values. They can only have these values if there is a definite answer. All that matters is that we know this absolute answer exists. From that standpoint we can rank moral ideas, based on how close we believe it is to the truth. But the truth has to be there, in order for our beliefs about it to have any value at all. Without the separate preexisting truth then the big bang and turtle vomit are equally plausible origins of the universe.

Science does not operate based on absolute certainty. History does not operate based on absolute certainly. Philosophy does not operate based on absolute certainty. — Fooloso4

Philosophy actually does often deal in certainty, see absolute truths (but that's not really important right now I just thought you'd find it interesting). Science and history do not operate based on absolute certainty but both disciplines operate based on the idea that there is an absolute truth. I am not arguing for absolute moral certainty, I am arguing that the absolute moral truth exists. Because it exists we should strive to get as close to it as we possibly can.

What moral standard is that? This is not something a moral relativist would do. — Fooloso4

All moral imperatives use should or should not. The should implies that we do not currently do the things being asked of us. My question is that if we invented morality why would we not use it to justify the actions we are currently doing instead of placing a goal that we will fall short of? You are right that a moral relativist would not do this, but a relativist like that would just say that it doesn't matter how we act at all. A slave owner and Harriet Tubman are equally morally valuable.

Ok it seems as though we have almost the exact same view. My argument would just be that while the physical landscape changes, the physical makeup of said landscape is still the same. That which makes up morality does not change either. While the function and form of a thing may change depending on the circumstances, like water turning to ice when frozen, the thing itself is still made up of the same components. You seem to believe that moral absolutism is the view that water will always be water and never be ice. The view is merely that water, ice, and steam are all always H2O. The absolutist understands that circumstances can change morality. Kant may believe that lying is always wrong regardless of the circumstance, but I'm sure that he would not say the same of telling a joke. Yet I would imagine he would agree that knowingly telling a joke at an inappropriate time would be immoral. He is merely a stricter (I think that's a word) absolutist than I am. (this might not be true actually. The never lie maxim brings up the interesting discussion of moral responsibility, which I'd be willing to discuss but it is a bit off topic).

Would you agree that water, ice, and steam are all, always H20, metaphorically speaking? If so then we are in complete agreement on the basis of morality.

moral absolutism has a long history of not merely failing to stop oppression but actually being a part of it. — Judaka

You are correct but unless oppression is morally wrong, why does this matter?

Fascism is only bad because it tramples on things I value but the value I see in those things is indeed subjective, I accept that — Judaka

Do you believe that your moral views and the views of the fascist to have equal moral validity?

The empathiser does not inherently understand pain is bad, they feel the pain and the pain makes them emotional. Things which cause pain may be "bad" but what is "bad"? It just reflects the emotional or intellectual rejection of that thing in a (generally) specified context by the person using the label. — Judaka

If this is the only determining factor then what right do you have to condemn the actions of Mussolini?

Consider. If you don't like chocolate ice cream, then eating it may cause you pain. So don't eat it. That's enough to say right? We don't need to say one shouldn't eat it. Should is extra baggage. — Yohan

I imagine then that the opposite of this is true: If you do like chocolate ice cream, then eating it may cause you pleasure, so eat it. Would you honestly feel comfortable giving this advice to someone if you replaced the words chocolate ice cream with rape?

Likewise, it's not necessary to cause others pain. And causing others pain will not be good for your own sense of self worth, or for your reputation. And why harm your own community? You will feel good about yourself and people will like you more if you treat others from a place of empathy.
Where is the need to add should or should not? — Yohan

What if a person does not want to have self worth or enjoys having a reputation as an evil person? What if they like that everyone fears and hates them? Are they free to murder and steal as long as they don't get caught? We have to add should or should not because, while you would not, I'm assuming, rape a person due to the negative consequences i.e. guilt and shame, there are those who either wouldn't mind the consequences or would enjoy them. They still shouldn't rape.

You seem to mean that thing that is good or right without regard to whether anyone knows or accepts it as such. In that case we may not be doing the moral thing even if we are absolute in our conviction that we are. — Fooloso4

This is exactly my view. Do you disagree with this premise? Again if no one on Earth ever condemned genocide would it be the right thing to do?

Yes, but not one that I would find persuasive. — Fooloso4

Why would you not find it persuasive?

Not only do we not know the answer we do not even know if there is an answer. In either case, if we do not know the answer then whatever position we take is relative not absolute. Once again you have not refuted relativism you have confirmed it. — Fooloso4

We do not know and will never know what happened in history. That is to say that we don't know with absolute certainty. Historical facts are not actual facts, they are our most probable guess based on evidence. But just because we do not know and likely never will know does not mean the events of history did not actually happen. My point is that a lack of knowledge does not constitute a lack of fact.

Also you all seem to be ignoring the absolutes that we agree on. We argue one side or the other or say "this action is wrong because...". We do this because certain, basic, moral principles are understood universally, such as human life should be protected, or one should never cause another undue pain.

In the example you gave:

There are serious medical conditions that are irreversible and lead to a life of continuous extreme pain and suffering. In my opinion, it would be immoral to allow such a life to continue. — Fooloso4

You are arguing that ending suffering should be more valuable that preserving life, are you not? If this is the case where did your idea of this come from?

There are disagreements in every discipline known to man. But it seems that morality is the only discipline in which we take disagreements to mean there is no answer. Why should morality earn this distinction? Morality is studied, even by self proclaimed relativists, why would we do such a thing if there was no answer?

Also consider this if morality was invented by humanity how did we come to set a moral standard that is impossible for humans to reach?

Just because we don't know the answer to is abortion wrong does not mean there is no answer. Can you apodictically prove that evolution is true? or plate tectonics? or Pangaea? or that space is endless? Yet you accept that these are true because they are the most probable explanation. Also apodictic is defined as clearly established or beyond dispute by the dictionary.

Can you make an argument for a scenario in which genocide is a good thing? If not then isn't the idea "genocide is wrong" beyond dispute. Thus making it apodictically true?

Here is what it seems your argument for morality is, please correct me where I am wrong.

1. Moraltiy is merely the invention of the human mind
2. Things that are invention of the human mind do not exist in reality.
3. Therefore morality does not exist in reality.

Except for the fact that you have not proven 1 to be true, this seems like solid logic. Where I get confused is how you get from "morality does not exist in reality" to you should not kill babies.

Can you please explain how we should always do the moral thing if there is no such thing as a moral thing?

Can you see how I think Mussolini is wrong because I feel angry for the people he killed, rather than because I'm upset he violated a moral absolute? Can you see that even though I don't think Mussolini violated a moral absolute, that it doesn't impact my anger about all the innocent people he murdered? — Judaka

You make a good point but if Mussolini did not violate a moral absolute then your anger at his actions is equally morally valuable to his anger that he was opposed. Both of you are angry over a perceived injustice. He was, in his mind, trying to make a better world for Italy. You say he was wrong because he needlessly hurt people. What makes you right and him wrong is the moral absolute he violated.

I can see how someone can be upset by someone else's actions without appealing to a moral absolute. What I do not see is why it matters that someone is upset without moral absolutes. In all of your examples it is inherently understood by the empathizer that causing someone unnecessary pain is bad. If what Mussolini did was only wrong because people didn't like it then why should he stop doing what he is doing? Is it because more people were hurt by his actions than helped? Why should that matter? If it's not an absolute that hurting more people than you help is bad, then why should he ever stop hurting people?

By what basis do you condemn Mussolini if it is not a moral basis?

Can you make an argument for why fascism is bad without appealing to preexisting moral ideas?

What you have done in your reply is simply note that while Xing in circumstances S may be wrong, Xing in circumstances T may be right. True, but irrelevant. — Bartricks

You are right. I misunderstood I will try to answer your actual argument.

You are arguing that we have no reason to believe that morality exists separate of humanity. I say that it is a reasonably sound argument to say that it does. We speak of our moral discoveries as just that. We discover what is right, we do not create it. American’s owned slaves until the late 19th century, yet we didn’t claim, “Not having slaves worked really well for England so we should try that.”. In fact slavery was surely very prosperous for the slave owner and the economy that housed them. We discovered that slavery was evil and should be stopped no matter the cost to cotton farmers. And it wasn’t that slavery was once great and became evil, it was always evil. We may have convinced ourselves otherwise at one point but we convinced ourselves of a lie. We have to concede then, that this good of not enslaving people, existed before we realized it was good. Slavery was evil before anyone ever owned slaves, slavery will continue to be evil even if we someday eradicate it from the world.

Consider this hypothetical. Let's say that the earth was completely destroyed, the only survivors being a male and female baby rocketed like superman, to another planet. Unlike superman no record of the human race or human history was sent with the rocket. The two repopulate this new planet with no knowledge of previous cultures. The males in the first society decide to take the females as slaves.

In this scenario the males would be morally wrong for taking slaves. They would not be wrong because their previous society deemed it to be wrong they would be wrong because slavery is always wrong regardless of the time place or attitude of the society. It does not matter that the males believed they were doing the right thing. They might even have a very good reason for enslaving the women. They could reason that they need to procreate in order to survive and if the women could not refuse them then they have a better chance of procreating. They would be arguing that the good of survival out weighs the good of freedom. I think that both of us would disagree with their conclusion.

Note too that in order to reason that their enslavement was morally permissible they would have to appeal to the understood preexisting idea that human survival was good.

So to put it in a syllogism

1. Slavery was wrong before humans decided it was wrong.
2. humans cannot decide something before they decide it
3. therefore humans did not decide that slavery was wrong.

My point with this argument was to show that just because there were moral disagreements throughout time and cultures that did not signify moral relativity. My point does need some explanation though. I believe that moral truths are just as valid as mathematical truths. We know that there is mathematical truth because we can obviously see it in simple equations like 2+2=4. There are obvious moral truth's as well, i.e. genocide is wrong. If you don't agree that this is an obvious truth then you are faced with the task of explaining how genocide could someday be seen as good.

In higher mathematics, or theoretical mathematics there are disagreements on what the mathematical truth of the equation is. Despite the fact that math is a purely logical discipline, we know there is an answer to the equation because 2+2=4. We see that it is indeed possible to be right about mathematics. much in the same way an obvious moral truths such as genocide is always wrong or rape is always wrong, make it quite reasonable to assume there is an answer to the less obvious moral dilemmas like the ones you mentioned.

The only way to argue these moral dilemmas is to appeal to an unyielding moral absolute. Take abortion for example, the pro life advocate claims that abortion is wrong because murdering babies is always wrong, the pro choice advocate claims that abortion is morally permissible because pregnancy has an effect on a woman's body and they argue that a woman should have the choice whether or not they want endure those effects. Although the two sides disagree on the final conclusion they both agree on the absolutes they are arguing for. A pro choice advocate is not claiming that women should have the right to murder babies, they advocate for abortion because they do not believe it to be murder. They would fully agree with the pro life advocate when he says that murdering an innocent baby is wrong. Just as the pro life advocate would agree with the pro choice advocate when he argues that women should have rights. Look at it through this hypothetical.

1. murdering babies is wrong
2. abortion is murdering babies
3. therefore abortion should be stopped.

Pro choice advocates disagree with 3 because they disagree with 2. They would, however, agree with 1. So the argument becomes is abortion murder? Because if it is then even the pro choice advocate would say it should be stopped. Why? Because they understand that the murder of innocent babies is absolutely wrong.

The two sides are tasked now with arguing things like the scientific idea of what constitutes a living being, or philosophical arguments about body and soul. Some have even used moral arguments such as it is wrong for us to decide a child's fate for him, or it is wrong for us to decide a woman's fate for her. These arguments can be made because the moral absolutes of killing babies is wrong, and women should have rights is understood, and take for granted by those arguing.

Can you please respond to the part about appealing tot the absolute of the value of human life?

I want to say that I do not believe any of you to be anywhere close to fascists, but that is only because you believe, I'm assuming, that what Mussolini did was absolutely wrong. In other words there never has been and never will be an appropriate time for fascism. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

Your quote was next to the Mussolini quote because the Mussolini quote ended my first point, (that moral absolutism is not the only cause of oppression) and your quote started my next, in fact the only reason I quoted you was just to let you know what point of yours I was responding to. I did not mean to imply that you were a fascist anymore than you meant to imply I was an intolerant dictator for arguing moral absolutism.

What did you say "moral relativism" was again? Oh right, you didn't. — SophistiCat

I have also said multiple times that I believe moral relativism to be the idea that moral truth's do not exist.

But the absolute of the value of human life is not flexible.

Wrong. Kant would argue that killing in any situation is wrong. You are arguing for subjective ethics. — Tom Storm

I am arguing for lack of a better term, flexible killing. Kant believes killing is always wrong I believe it is sometimes not. However both Kant and I are appealing to the absolute that human life should be protected.

Apart from the wonky syllogism earlier, you haven't been using logic in this argument as yet so this is not really apropos. — Tom Storm

Perhaps I should use the word reason then. I'll admit I'm not that familiar with proper philosophy.

Wrong. Kant would disagree with you for a start, as would many moral philosophers. As the well worn saying goes, two wrongs do not make a right. — Tom Storm

Correct but both Kant and I would be arguing what the absolute moral good in this scenario would be, and both of us would be appealing to the value of human life. In fact all arguments made on this scenario would be appealing to the same absolute.

No one disagrees with this point. But you fail to get the the next stage of your argument. Which is
making the case that there is absolute morality — Tom Storm

The fact that the above scenario cannot be debated without both sides appealing to an absolute makes it more reasonable than not to assume that moral absolutes exist. If you disagree please explain to me how a person can argue a moral dilemma without appealing to some absolute.

Now you may be saying that "more reasonable than not" is not proof, and you would right. Perhaps we would have more luck if you tried to prove moral relativism.

That is certainly not my position. — Tom Storm

What is your position? Why are you arguing against moral absolutism?

You all seem to be arguing the same point. Ironically I am in agreement with you guys on every point except the source of morality. Since your replies are all so closely related I will try to answer all your arguments here. First of all I want to say that all of you assume that a belief in moral absolutes requires an inflexibility in moral beliefs. This is not the case I admit that many people have used moral absolutes in order to oppress but the same can be said of moral relativism.

If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories and those who claim to be the bearers of objective immortal truth, then there is nothing more relativistic than Fascist attitudes and activity. From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, we Fascists conclude that we have the right to create our own ideology and to enforce it with all the energy of which we are capable. -Benito Mussolini

The thesis that morality is the invention of humanity is not tantamount to the preposterous beliefs that you attribute to "true moral relativists." At least you haven't made that argument, you merely insinuated it. — SophistiCat

It is my belief that the "preposterous beliefs" are the end result of moral relativism. I also believe that although all of you are moral relativists by name, you are moral absolutists in practice. Each of you seems to be arguing that moral absolutism is bad because it promotes oppression and all of us believe, myself included, that oppression is bad. In fact each of us believes that oppression is always a bad thing. It is wrong regardless of the beliefs of the ruling class, regardless of the beliefs of the major religions, regardless of the beliefs of the individuals in the society. At all points throughout history, on all corners of the globe, and at any point in the future, oppression should be avoided. Why? Not because our current culture values lack of oppression, but because oppression is wrong as a matter of fact. If you still disagree with me answer this question. Is oppression ever right or commendable? if your answer to this question is no then I would assume that you believe it's antithesis, oppression is always wrong no matter what. In other words it is absolutely wrong.

But if no one believes in this purely hypothetical "moral relativism," then (I keep coming back to this question) what is the point of railing against it? It seems that the real objective is a bait-and-switch. — SophistiCat

A few of you have brought this point up, saying that I have not really offered a proof that moral relativism is wrong. You're right, I haven't. This is definitely something that I need to edit and rewrite in my paper. Thanks for the constructive criticism. My argument is, though, that if moral relativism is an invention of humanity, why does it seem so inhuman? And before you say that moral relativism is not the abandonment of morality but rather the recognition that one person or society cannot consider themselves correct about morality, keep in mind that I agree with the latter half of that sentence.

Think of it this way. Scientists all believe in scientific facts. However there are many disagreements on what those facts are. To give a softball example, a scientist believes that the earth is round, there are people, however, that claim the earth is flat. The scientist can use facts to prove that the earth is round because scientific truth exists. If scientific truth was merely an invention of humanity and it could vary from culture to culture, how could one argue that the flat earther is wrong? In the same way we cannot argue moral truth, such as: oppression is wrong, if there was no moral facts.

People are always in disagreement about those laws (drug policy, gun ownership, gay marriage, etc). — Tom Storm

The fact that people in our current society or in past societies have disagreed on what is right and wrong does not matter in the slightest toward disproving moral absolutism.

I would assume that you believe there is a correct answer to the laws you mentioned. Take gay marriage for example, it seems to me from your other arguments that you believe that restricting gay marriage is wrong. If this is the case, then do you believe that there ever was or ever will be a time where restricting gay marriage is correct? If not it is because you believe that restricting gay marriage is wrong always, no matter what, regardless of the views of the society or the time period or location on the globe. If all of my assumptions about your beliefs are true, correct me if they are not, then do you see how this is a moral absolute?

If someone disagreed with your view how would you argue with them? You would likely say (sorry for assuming again) something to the nature of, it makes them happy and it doesn't hurt anyone so there is no reason to restrict it. Inherent in this argument is the belief that denying someone the right to marry merely because their religion forbids it, is absolutely morally wrong, always, no matter what. How ever you could not make that claim if their were no moral facts.

People at some times seem to have gotten the impression that Xing in circumstances S was wrong, whereas people at other times seem to have gotten the impression Xing in circumstances S was right. — Bartricks

My question would be why was Xing wrong at some point but not at others? To make it easier to understand let's use a tangible example, killing. If I were to kill you for no reason I would be in the wrong. However if I discovered that you were going to murder thirty people and the only way to stop you was to kill you, then one could argue that not killing you was wrong. You might be saying that this is because morality is relative, that's why killing is wrong in one instance and right in the other, however you have to answer the question: Why is this the case? It is the case because human life is valuable and should always, no matter what be protected. Again an absolute belief in moral truth. Note also that while I would claim that killing a man to stop him from killing several is the right thing to do pacifists may say that it is still morally wrong. Despite our disagreement we are both appealing to the absolute of, human life should be valued and protected. The fact that we disagree on what this absolute value implies does not mean that the absolute does not exist.

Moral absolutism has existed throughout human history, it has not succeeded in freeing people from tyranny, it has abetted tyranny and that still occurs today. — Judaka

So has moral relativism, see the Mussolini quote above. Also remember that your belief that tyranny always has been and always will be wrong, is itself an absolute moral statement.

I want to say that I do not believe any of you to be anywhere close to fascists, but that is only because you believe, I'm assuming, that what Mussolini did was absolutely wrong. In other words there never has been and never will be an appropriate time for fascism.

My argument is that if you say there is a right answer but we have no way to discover it, this is functionally the same. — Tom Storm

We may never discover the origin of life, but that doesn't mean that we should stop studying it. However if we were to say there is no origin of life then why study it? Why make arguments for what is most likely true?

You could make the argument that we never will know the answer to these moral truths and thus we shouldn't ever believe we are absolutely morally right, I would disagree. It is my belief that logic is the highest form of truth and thus our logical conclusions should be trusted. Now logic is also the hardest form of truth to prove and as a result we should be open to all criticisms of our logic. But I'd like to point out that when you disagree with my logic you are disagreeing with the logical conclusion I have come to because you do not believe it to be the truth, not because you don't believe truth to be a thing.

Morality is the only discipline in which disagreements about the facts are attributed to their nonexistence. Most of science is built on theory and many of these theories are impossible to prove, evolution for example. However we take these to be true because they are the most logically probable. Now before you point out that natural sciences uses physical evidence where morality cannot, remember that mathematics is a purely logical discipline. And while we can see obviously the truth of 1+1=2, there are disagreements among mathematicians in higher math. Yet no one is claiming there is no mathematical truth. In fact I would argue that seeing that mathematics is fact and morality is fact can be done in the same way.

There are any number of ways to condemn the Pharaohs for their actions but we can look at groups today like Al'Queda or ISIS and I'd say it's pretty obvious, most Western moral relativists view them with disgust and horror — Judaka

The "obviousness" referred to in this statement is much like the obviousness of 1+1=2. Because ideas like terrorism is wrong are obviously true we can see that truth does exist morally speaking. Just as we see that mathematical truth does exist through the obvious equations.

The fact that all of us agree that societies should behave in certain ways regardless of the time, place, and attitude of said society makes moral absolutism the most logical choice. Thus it should be accepted as truth.

And who would those people be? I mean, who would be the people who actually believe all the stuff you say they believe? Your mistake, I think, is in ascribing so many attributes to "true moral relativists" that hardly anyone would recognize themselves in your characterization. And that makes the whole project into an exercise in futility. — SophistiCat

No one believes this, that I know of. My point is that the horrific beliefs that I described are the end result of moral relativism. I have never met someone who would embrace the ideas I posed however. My intent with this argument was to point out that because moral relativism claims morality as an invention of humanity, almost no human, at least that I know of, would be ok with the morality that moral relativism represents.

Independent of what any people believe? As if it was woven into the fabric of the universe - or the mind of God? — SophistiCat

This is indeed what I mean by independent standard.

But how does (2) follow? You give examples of broad trends and commonalities in moral beliefs, but how does that show that they stem from some mind-independent standards? What you describe is perfectly consistent with morality being a product (or byproduct) of human nature and history. Why would we need to appeal to anything beyond that to explain these facts? — SophistiCat

This is an excerpt from another writing I did:

A person may think he circumvents morality by claiming that it is merely a creation of the weak to hold back the strong, and therefore should be abandoned. But if there is no actual morality then why should it matter if the weak hold back the strong? He would argue that it is for survival purposes, but why should the survival of humanity have any importance? Perhaps it’s time for us to bow out and let penguins rule the world.

The problem with this argument is that it seeks to disprove good, better, and best, by proving what is best. The arguer may not call it morality but his values are based on a prior existing good, namely survival. He does not appeal to the value all life should be protected but he does concede that some life should be. He draws his conclusion from an assumption that his readers will know survival to be good, how could this be though if goodness is not real?

PS-I understand that you are not claiming that morality is just a method for the weak to hold back the strong, but I hope this example illustrates my point.

Also if you would like a more intelligent argument that makes the same points I would encourage you to read "The Poison of Subjectivism" by CS Lewis. It is very short and you can find the whole thing online at various sources.

You seem to be equating moral absolutism with moral inflexibility. Moral absolutism does not make the claim that our current understanding of morality is true, merely that moral truth exists, whether we know it or not. Moral relativism claims that there is no moral truth.

Historically and today, moral absolutism has not actually been an impediment to the powerful and there's really no denying that. — Judaka

To this I would offer this CS Lewis quote.

Correct thinking will not make good men of bad ones; but a purely theoretical error may remove ordinary checks to evil and deprive good intentions of their natural support.

What you say is true but under moral relativism what ground do you have to condemn the actions of, say, the Pharaohs who used slaves to build monuments to themselves?

Across the world, many governments see homosexuality as objectively immoral, the oppressed homosexual has absolutely no recourse. — Judaka

The only recourse I can see is for them to prove, or at least make a case for, the opposite absolute. "Homosexuality is wrong" is either a correct or incorrect statement. Which one it is is dependent upon a moral truth one way or the other. But if there is no moral truth then oppressive society is just as correct as the oppressed.

I don't believe that's a coincidence, honestly and fairly debating moral issues is just more difficult when morality is absolute and dislodging harmful moral views is much more difficult. — Judaka

In order to prove my point I ask you to answer the following questions based on this passage:

1. Why does it matter that we discuss morality fairly?
2. What do you mean by harmful?

which lecture? My name comes from Anselm of Canterbury, it was his motto. It means if you didn't already know, "faith seeking understanding". It fully encapsulates my idea of how we should come at both theology and philosophy. i would be interested in the lecture you mentioned.

Maybe if you ground it in god? — ToothyMaw

That is my belief.

btw, I'm not a philosopher, nor even experienced in writing philosophy. I've written a couple of essays, but that's it. And I usually am wrong, it seems. — ToothyMaw

same here.

I will look into some of his philosophy. I would never have expected to sound like a theologian. — ToothyMaw

Actually after I looked closer it seems you have almost the opposite belief as him. He believes that we cannot affect the future yet we still have moral responsibility. According to him our actions are predetermined by God in order to show his glory. However we are still morally responsible for our sins, not God. I must admit it doesn't make sense to me and even Calvinists that I've talked to say it only makes sense from God's perspective.

Agency still exists even if determinism is true. — ToothyMaw

I think Calvin would agree with this statement, but he would come to an opposite-ish conclusion. It might still be worth checking out.

could our environment have determined that we have free will? Or could it be built into our initial character?

@ToothyMaw also have you read John Calvin. Much of what you are saying sounds like his philosophy.

If agency still exists then how are we not morally responsible?

Try squaring that with religions that believe in karma, because karma is only generated by the intentional action of agents, and it’s impossible to determine in advance how that will play out. — Wayfarer

Yes but that is a different philosophy to determinism. Which is what ToothyMaw is arguing. The determinist would just say that Karmic religions are wrong.

You can say killing is wrong in almost all cultures but that is not specific enough. In some cultures infanticide is or was practiced, or human sacrifice/wife burning, etc. Killing is subject to interpretations. Drilling down into specific actions helps clarify the moral morass that is human behavior. — Tom Storm

I may be mistaken but I don't believe that human sacrifices were ever done because they thought that human sacrifice in and of itself was a good thing. They were always done to gain favor from the gods or demonstrate a leaders power. The cliche example of sacrificing virgins in order to prevent a volcano was done not to promote sacrifice but rather to promote the health of the entire village.

You would not, I'm assuming, be ok with human sacrifice taking place today. But your aversion to the practice wouldn't be because you want everyone to die in a volcanic eruption. It would be because senseless killing is wrong and you do not believe that sacrificing a human would prevent natural disasters.

If we hold a position that there is a right way to behave morally but we may be unable to identify or justify this conclusively, then how is this different in practical terms to relativism? — Tom Storm

I did not word my argument well. What I should have said is that any one person cannot claim to be right about morality. Any single person who claims to have all the moral answers is as foolish as a man who claims to have all the mathematical or scientific answers. However through study and discovery we, together, can be right about morality.
Also understanding that there is an answer we don't know is different from saying there is no answer at all. put it in terms of scientific discovery. What is the origin of life? We do not, and perhaps never wiil, know the answer but we study this only because we believe there is an answer? If we believed that there was no answer to the question we wouldn't give it a second thought. For example why is the Earth flat? Most of us do not believe the Earth is flat so we do not spend time trying to figure out the answer to the preceding question. There is no answer. My argument is that if you say that there is no morality then moral progress would stop.

My default could be to accept any action until you demonstrate how it is wrong. — Tom Storm

How would you demonstrate that it is wrong without an objective idea of wrong?

2. is not accurate. Judgements are made according to cultural standards and custom and personal preferences - these are not objective but may be shared by many. Relativism does not deny there are independent standards, it just says that there are many of these standards and they are not shared, they differ between folks and assessing one against the other isn't possible. — Tom Storm

Where do these cultural standards come from? From what I can see cultural standards are derived from absolutes. It is merely that one culture values on standard above the other. The early American south prioritized production over humanity. We rejected slavery not because we don't value production but because we value humanity so much more. You see all of the standards are the same it is just the amount of value we place on these standards that changes. I would argue that we should be able to put these standards in a hierarchy, and that fervent study of morality will teach us how to do so.

Could you present to me a sophisticated argument for moral relativism. I read several defenses of moral relativism but hey all appealed to some transcendent good that we should follow instead of what we currently have. Usually they claim that moral relativism is better because it promotes tolerance. They then go on to say that tolerance should be our number one concern, but I don't see how that argument is different from moral absolutism.

BTW you can link people into your posts so that they get a notification.

Sorry I'm new to forums

I think that even if we don't have moral culpability, we are morally responsible for reducing suffering. So in a way, I think that there are moral responsibilities.

How does one reduce suffering in a world that is predetermined. Wouldn't the amount of suffering on earth merely be the amount that was always going to exist no matter what?

I suppose my argument could be stated as:

1. Moral relativism claims that there is no independent moral standard.
2. Judgements of value cannot be made without an independent standard.
3. Actions have value.
4. Therefore moral relativism is false.

I think that's valid. I apologize if it isn't I am a philosophy novice.

What would give someone the authority to say the ethical behaviour of any given tribe or culture is wrong?

The same thing that would give one the authority to tell someone that 1+1 doesn't equal 3. If the laws of morality are independent of me then I can appeal to the laws of morality to criticize someone's moral view. They also have the right to criticize mine. Granted moral judgments are not as simple as 1+1=2, they are going to take a lot of discussion and no one will likely ever be able to say that their morality is right. My argument is simply that there is a moral right and moral wrong, without which our moral rebukes, including the thought that we should not subscribe to set moral laws, are groundless.

I originally wrote this for a Christian theology/philosophy group I host. There were originally a few paragraphs preceding this that I directed at the professed Christian. I cut it out because the argument had very little if any philosophical value. It essentially boiled down to "the Bible says so", which is a fantastic argument if you are talking to people who believe the Bible is the divinely inspired Word of God. If you don't believe that then it is pretty well worthless. I forgot I made reference to it later.

As to why I point out the outrageous beliefs of true moral relativists, is to point out to those who claim to believe in it without giving it much thought, where their supposed worldview gets them. I was trying to point out that the "relative relativist" is an fact an absolutist. It is my belief that only total moral devotion or total moral abandonment make any rational sense.

However I didn't really make that very clear thanks for pointing that out.

I think we are actually in agreement on this whole issue. I think you are right in how we should discuss moral issues except when you say that this interpretation needs to be done without a set standard. In your metaphor with the rock we are describing what we see from our vantage points, but "under the rock" must exist independently of us if we are to discuss what it is.

if you are interested here is a link to a recitation of Lewis' wirting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lgcd6jvsCFs&t=13s

What is needed is to attempt to help other to see, from their own perspective , what we find to be more insightful in dealing with people, rather than resorting to condemnation and moralistic blame.

I fully agree with you. The fact that moral relativism is so appealing is likely due to the abuse of moral "authority" by governments or the Church and so on. What I am suggesting is not a strict enforcement of moral codes, as I see fit. Because how do I know that I am right? What i am suggesting is that it is possible for me to be wrong. We need a study of morality, which would include consideration of varying viewpoints. We need to study it in the same way we study math or science. You would not say that I am forcing it down your throat, if i insisted that 1+1=2.

I will concede moral absolutist proponents often do try to force their beliefs down people's throats. But I would argue that this is not a necessary component of a belief in moral laws.

My question for Nietzsche would be: Why should we embrace his view? If moral judgments are mere imaginings then by what criteria does he judge that we should abandon them. Surely if this were the case it would make no difference whether we embraced or abandoned them.

It reminds me of what CS Lewis said in his "Poison of Subjectivism" -

But how little it is now understood can be gauged from the procedure of the moral reformer who, after saying that “good” means “what we are conditioned to like” goes on cheerfully to consider whether it might be “better” that we should be conditioned to like something else. What in Heaven’s name does he mean by “better”?

I like that. Thanks for posting. I'll have to check him out.

I have a few questions which you may have already answered but I missed them if you have.

1. Do you believe that moral responsibility exists?

If so where do you lay this moral responsibility.

If not then do you believe in morality. I cannot see a way in which morality could exist if moral responsibility doesn't, but I would be interested to hear any arguments against my belief if they are out there.

If you do not believe morality exists then why do you care if people are held morally responsible? You seem to be implying that it would be better for us to not hold people morally responsible for their actions. If this is the case then could you please define what you mean by better. If not morally then what?

2. Do you hold the same beliefs about intellectual responsibility?

If our moral actions are determined externally of us, could the same argument not be made for what knowledge we have? If I refuse to learn to spend money wisely, wouldn't I be responsible for running out of money? Essentially what I'm asking is are we held responsible for our own knowledge? If not then so be it but if so, how is it different than morality?

P.S. I tried hard to keep this from sounding combative, I hope I have. I do not want to attack your beliefs.