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. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum
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. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum
This is an excerpt from another writing I did — Fides Quaerens Intellectum
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. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum
However through study and discovery we, together, can be right about morality. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum
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. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum
My argument is that if you say that there is no morality then moral progress would stop. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum
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. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum
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. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum
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. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum
Moral absolutism, however, claims that there is a moral law that all must follow, no matter whether they are a king, an activist group, or even a god. Absolute morality frees us from the yoke of the oppressor. We now have grounds to fight him. No matter how powerful a man gets there is always something more powerful which we can cling to and fight from. We can rally people who are being oppressed or mistreated, but how do we rally people if oppression and mistreatment do not actually exist? — Fides Quaerens Intellectum
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? — Fides Quaerens Intellectum
The only recourse I can see is for them to prove — Fides Quaerens Intellectum
1. Why does it matter that we discuss morality fairly?
2. What do you mean by harmful? — Fides Quaerens Intellectum
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
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
People are always in disagreement about those laws (drug policy, gun ownership, gay marriage, etc). — Tom Storm
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
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
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
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
I would assume that you believe there is a correct answer to the laws you mentioned. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum
Each of you seems to be arguing that moral absolutism is bad because it promotes oppression — Fides Quaerens Intellectum
The fact that we disagree on what this absolute value implies does not mean that the absolute does not exist. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum
. It is my belief that logic is the highest form of truth and thus our logical conclusions should be trusted. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum
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. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum
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
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
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
That is certainly not my position. — Tom Storm
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. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum
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. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum
appealing to the same absolute. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum
Wrong. Kant would argue that killing in any situation is wrong. You are arguing for subjective ethics. — Tom Storm
It is my belief that the "preposterous beliefs" are the end result of moral relativism. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum
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. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum
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
What did you say "moral relativism" was again? Oh right, you didn't. — SophistiCat
oppression is always wrong no matter what. In other words it is absolutely wrong. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum
Essentially every culture has valued loyalty, integrity, strength, fairness, respect, honesty and more. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum
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
So by what argument do you demonstrate that certain moral claims are apodictically true and others false? — Fooloso4
The only way to argue these moral dilemmas is to appeal to an unyielding moral absolute. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum
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
Just because we don't know the answer to is abortion wrong does not mean there is no answer. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum
Yet you accept that these are true because they are the most probable explanation. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum
Also apodictic is defined as clearly established or beyond dispute by the dictionary. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum
Can you make an argument for a scenario in which genocide is a good thing? — Fides Quaerens Intellectum
2. Things that are invention of the human mind do not exist in reality. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum
3. Therefore morality does not exist in reality. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum
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. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum
Can you please explain how we should always do the moral thing if there is no such thing as a moral thing? — Fides Quaerens Intellectum
You are right. I misunderstood I will try to answer your actual argument. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum
1. If disinterested moral observers from time t1 get the impression Xing in circumstances S is wrong, and distinterested moral observers from time t2 get the impression that Xing in circumstances S is right (P), then other things being equal this is prima facie evidence that Xing in circumstances S was wrong at time t1 and right at time t2 (Q).
2. P
3. therefore Q — Bartricks
You are arguing that we have no reason to believe that morality exists separate of humanity. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum
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
Yes, but not one that I would find persuasive. — Fooloso4
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
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
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
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
moral absolutism has a long history of not merely failing to stop oppression but actually being a part of it. — Judaka
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
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
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.