ok - but what if my conscience is really saying “slavery is bad you idiot “. But I like money so much, I just say “I think slavery is moral”

Did I just turn moral relativism from what I think into what i say ?

I would say that relative to your views, slavery is morally permissible, that it's morally acceptable, etc — Terrapin Station

thanks - just to be clear - the "correct" was asking you if my understanding was correct.

Ok, different question.

I want to own slaves, because owning slaves will make me a bunch of money. And I really like money.

I think about it a sec, and then I decide, my moral view is slavery is morally permissible.

In your view or moral relativity, relative to myself, am I correct, slavery is morally permissible ?

agree - and neither can prove the other false.

Maybe someday when we leave this broke down palace we will know, or not.

here is what I think the bottom line is.

At its core objective vs some form of relative moral view is, a theist/atheist argument - you can point to an exception here or there maybe, but it does not change this core reality.

And since this is the core, there is no correct answer to what is the right moral view.

All we can hope for is understanding each other, not agreement

where do moral stances occur? — Terrapin Station

Understand - but all thought is not true, all thought is not correct, and we do not really know the source of all thought. I still say if you continue to peel the onion away - even this line of logic lead back to - there is no God, therefor it is human.

Not making a theist argument - just saying whether you realize it or not - that is the core proposition relative morality rests on.

Now - I am happy to get off that point and get to some more pragmatic approach. Happy to go down some road that says something along the lines of human nature, a shared consciences on many issues, or some such road. But here is where i can't get.

some people at some time, and for some reason believe slavery was moral
other people at some time, and for some reason believe slavery was immoral

Both times the people were correct, and the morality of slavery changed.

All this says is whatever one thinks is infallibly morally correct for you - that is nonsense.

In my view it has absolutely nothing to do with what the merits of one versus the other would be. It has to do with which one is the way the world really is. — Terrapin Station

Actually no you don't, you believe it has to do with the way you think the world really is. Maybe, just maybe, your view of how the world really is, is not correct.

Do you mean that in the sense of "It can't be proved"? No empirical claim can be proved, period. That includes proving that Jack is homeless. — Terrapin Station

The argument you gave me originally is the source argument, it is, as you said, what could be the source of an objective morality? I say the core assumption under that argument continues to be,

there is no god, therefore the source is human, and since it is human it is contingent in one way or another.

I am happy to give up this line of reason - if you can come up with another argument against objective morality that is not the source argument. But I will not accept as convincing any argument that rests on a core proposition that has no real truth value.

It seems to me the argument of relative morality vs objective morality is not being argued on the merits of one vs the other.

Your source argument is certainly the best argument against objective morality - but the argument is based a proposition that can not be shown to be true.

At its core, i think the entire argument for relative morality rests on one core proposition, that is not true.

The core of the relative moral arguments is -

P1 - there is no God
P2 - since there is no God - the source of morality is human

There is no support that P1 is true or false

So this is the core belief that leads to rather interesting points.

Things like truth is relative, murder is relative, Slavery is relative, etc etc

as you wish, will just add it to all the other questions you dodge and deflect with ad hominem. Man up, make an argument of your own for once. Give up your default comfort level of throwing stones at others views.

Here is my view once again.

Slavery is morally wrong without regard to situation, time period, or any individual evaluation.

If you wish to man up and take the challenge and present your argument that I am wrong I'll be here.

I could care less if you do or do not make an argument. Suit yourself.

allow me to recap.

We finally get to a point where we understand each other's view. I say great I understand and disagree.

You don't like that and ask me to argue my view of morality to you

I say I have no interest in making such an argument to you. I have no need to change your view.

You ask again

I still say no

You say come on argue your point.

I say no, but if you want to argue I am wrong go ahead.

You call me names, and demand my unconditional surrender

It is always a special time dealing with you.

No, your burden of proof is not mine. It is a fallacy to try to shift the burden of proof. Either concede or present your argument. Stop wasting time and be honest. — S

i have no idea at all what you are talking about.

Would you say the same thing about a licensed massage therapist and his or her client? — Jake

Sure, other than I would see it as very possible. I have ran a few marathons, could not have done it without deep tissue massage taking out the knots. The only thing it had in common with sex was a little bit of touch and me screaming

Also, you don't seem to recognise or appreciate how sophisticated my ethical position is. It is pragmatic and flexible, not rigid. If you want to talk about truth-values in relation to moral statements in an absolutist or objective sense, then we can do so. That leads to nonsense or falsity. I would be an error theorist, rather than a moral relativist, in that situation. — S

If you want to do some of the heavy lifting, feel free to make an argument against my position that:

Slavery is morally wrong in all circumstances, in every time, and no matter the individual that is evaluating it.

I would be interested in hearing your argument. If you feel no compulsion to change my mind, I am fine with that as well.

you have already said that all truth is relative to your view of it. Again unless I feel some need to change your views on the nature of morality, why would I argue truth with someone who says relative to him. There is no point

If there is some philosophical rule that says we have to agree - it has been widely ignored for a very long time. Understanding is important - agreement - not so much.

But again, you haven't shown that your disagreement is reasonable. Can you demonstrate a "real truth"? — S

what would be the motivation for me to argue a truth statement to an individual moral relativist. No matter what I say, you can just always say - "not relative to me"

So unless i find some compulsion to change you relative view - why would i bother?

ok - then we just disagree. Which is fine - I think there is a truth statement we can make about slavery.

Thanks and thanks - that is fine, we just disagree then.

Moral judgement is right and wrong, not correct and incorrect. And if you're just saying that slavery has always been wrong relative to your judgement, then that's fine. It has always been wrong relative to my judgement also — S

ok - agree

now if I say relative to my judgement there is nothing wrong with slavery. Other than saying you disagree, and use whatever you can muster to attempt to change my mind. If I don't change my mind, and according to your moral view - I am just wrong relative to you, and right relative to me. And if that is the case than there is no real truth statement we can make about slavery.

well if this is your view on moral judgments

No, because I'm ultimately an individualistic moral relativist. I only accept cultural relativism as just another way of pointing out moral relations. It is useful, and it reflects a sort of truth. But I don't actually depend on any cultural reference, because I can just say, for example, that murder is wrong relative to my judgement. That's about me and my judgement, not any culture. — S

then my answer to this

Empty words. You are a dogmatist, and you aren't being reasonable, whether you like it or not, unless you attempt to support the following:

My view is slavery was always wrong, and the culture that allowed it was incorrect.
— Rank Amateur — S

Is is my individual moral judgement, and it requires no support at all.

Agree completely , the issue is, do you think that means, as S does, that there is no truth statement we can make about slavery without cultural context.

Turning this around, and using word. Cultural norms are always right, the subject of their judgments are variable.

And does that mean that it is objectively true, that the prevalent cultural norms, whatever they are, are by definition right?

. Slavery was right relative to the prevailing culture, and then it was wrong relative to the prevailing culture — S

still want to get back to this. Your view is there is no truth statement we can make about the rightness of slavery without a cultural reference. Is this correct ?

And it isn't fine to just disagree. You should concede that your position is unreasonable. That it is dogmatic. And then we can be over and done with this. — S

No, i will not admit my use of correct vs your use of right makes my position unreasonable. Especially since i didn't take any position in the options. And gave you an non or the above option to describe it yourself.

did i understand you right - would you agree this is your position?

Your view is there no truth statement we can make about the rightness or wrongness of slavery without the appropriate cultural reference. — Rank Amateur

(note just added "cultural")

you didn't get back to me on this one yet.

no it really is not - I am not making any argument so far either for or against any option, i just put them out as i understand them. I also gave an option of none of the above if i missed it or got it wrong.

I am interested in application of these stances against a real life issue.

So I ask you to pick one, or add your own and apply it to the issue of slavery.

It is like how you described, only without the problems. Slavery was right relative to the prevailing culture, and then it was wrong relative to the prevailing culture, but you don't get to say anything about correct or incorrect without being clear about what sense of correct and incorrect you're talking about. Every time that you fail to clarify your meaning on things like that, you are being a problem for everyone else in the discussion. — S

Ok - i admit i am missing it, but in the thought that is in my head there is absolutely nothing different between your use of right and my use of correct. They are semantically equal to me.

That being as it is. Your view is there no truth statement we can make about the rightness or wrongness of slavery without the appropriate reference.

In that case I just disagree, which is fine. My view is slavery was always wrong, and the culture that allowed it was incorrect.

I just want you to answer a question.

I will try again see if this is better.

Can you tell me how your view of cultural relativism applies to slavery ?

not sure I can. It is very evident i have no ability at all to communicate effectively. And it is not important to the point I started this with. It was an aside. Just say OK I agree with you.

are any of those moral options close to your view ?

It is wrong to even use the word "allow" in that context. You appear to be deeply stuck in your own problematic way of looking at things. It is possible under cultural relativism for cultures to judge slavery as morally acceptable, as it is possible under every single other meta-ethical position. — S

i am getting very tired of near every response on this board is becoming near pure semantics.

did cultural relativism as you understand it allow certain cultures to judge slavery as morally acceptable ??

Thanks, more interested in which view you support.

thanks - understand the view - and what i see that option as. I would just disagree - I would say it is objectively true that slavery is morally bad.

assume with your world view, you have no need to accept or reject my view. It is just a fact that Rank Amateur has that moral stance.

But it does not follow from this that disparate moral judgements are all seen, in any sense, as 'equally valid' by any single individual. — ChrisH

it is just one to the other -

i can't actually see how your caveat above is even possible - it would mean an individual would say the abolitionist and the slave holder have equal valid views according to his judgement -

well maybe possible - but he is an idiot then and his view is meaningless

I, i hope obviously don't think so, but it is an option for others.

I didn't offer any conclusion - i offered different moral view options for a specific situation. I can't beg the questions if there is no conclusion to beg.

what I am trying to say is -

if the morality of slavery is an individual moral judgement, than the judgement of the slave owner and the abolitionist are in no way superior, better, more correct ( fill in a word you like) to each other - they are just individual moral judgments that are different.

each as true, real, meaningful, correct, right. I am not tied to the word, it is not specifically special. Just trying to convey the concept, the idea within the limits of language and my limited command of it.

I know definitions are often important, don’t think this is the case here. If you are going down that road lMO you are being semantic.

Either that, or condense it into subjective relative truth. That way, truth meets its logical criterion of a sound conclusion but with different premises. I mean, in effect, we’re doing that very thing right here. We agree the leaders of the Crusades understood their sojourns to save Jerusalem were moral.....but we wouldn’t do it in a million years. We might notwithstanding all that, disagree on how the Crusaders came by their moral justifications from which their actions developed.

You know, truth, per se, really doesn’t have much to do with a philosophical moral system. I use logical truth to signify how it is possible to arrive at non-contradictory subject/predicate propositions, which are required for explaining why one morally acts the way he does under the auspices of a particular moral theory. Truth explains how the theory works, but doesn’t enter into the moral actions themselves.

What do you think morality actually is? What can you reduce it to? — Mww

Understand, so we have to make both truth and morality variable.

Let me test that perception against slavery.

For most, if not all, human history, many cultures have practiced slavery. These views, in my admittedly novice understanding would meet the criteria for a normative relative moral view that slavery was not immoral.

In the case of the United States, and I would think in most others, while the prevailing or controlling moral view viewed slavery as moral, others in the same culture held a different moral view that slavery was immoral.

So here are the available moral options as I see them for this actual situation.

1. Both truth and morality are culturally relative:

The slave holders have the majority cultural belief and therefore their moral view that slavery is not immoral is the correct moral view, and then the same people held the incorrect immoral view when the majority of the culture changed

The abolitionists while not the cultural majority at this time, had the incorrect moral view that slavery was immoral, until the cultural majority view changed, and then they had the correct moral view.

2. Some truths and moral judgments are not culturally relative they are to large measure objectively true regardless of situation or culture or individual views.

Slavery was always immoral, and the slave holders were always wrong and the abolitionists were always right.

3. The is no truth or moral statement that you can say about slavery

Slavery just is. It is neither true nor false that it is good or bad. There is no moral judgement anyone can make about slavery - it just is.

4. The morality or immorality of slavery is an individual judgement.

All of us just make our own judgement - each as valid as the other.

5. Others I can't think of.

Of course my view is only 2 makes any practical sense to me, it is always true that slavery is wrong, and enslaving people is immoral.

How do the other options work with truth and morality ?

- thanks Jake no shock I would disagree with most, if not all of that. But none of my disagreements have any kind of a real philosophic basis -

the one point I would make to you is the nature of ordered or disordered. It is not centered on the item or the action, it is centered on the motivation, on the why, on an honest discernment if the action (sorry for the foray into God) is for the greater glory of God, or the love of others or self). This is a pretty hard and easy evaluation all at the same time. Although we all can rationalize almost anything, I do think it is impossible to lie to yourself. So it is just a look into your self and what your true self says that matters.

Don't think you could possibly convince me of the case. But if you told me that the prostitute in his/her true self did not find it disordered, and if the john in his/her true self did not find it disordered, and if any other party to the act did not find it truly disordered - than I would say it is not disordered. i just can't see how that is possible.

You’re struggling with it because you can’t see how arbitrarily taking a life could possibly be good, or that even assigning a truth value to a moral proposition which says taking a life could possibly be good. The best way to get over that struggle is to become the object of some other moral agent believing it is true that taking a life is good. Being that object doesn’t help you understand how someone could believe it, but you certainly will be forced to know they do. — Mww

Tried, can't get there. Understand some do, I just still get to they are objectively false.

I don’t struggle with it because I have determined it couldn’t possibly be good in fact and the proposition that contains it is morally bankrupt. It is my own morality with which I concern myself, and from there, I don’t care how someone can come to believe something I find abhorrent. You, on the other hand, are on your own. This is subjective relativism writ large and how it works is entirely metaphysical. How it originates in the beginning, and how it manifests in the end, is something else indeed, for these are both empirically conditioned. Morality itself is in the middle. — Mww

Understand, disagree. Not with the explanation, but that such a rationalization has any meaning in any evaluation of a truth.

They seem so, but can be reconciled a priori by means of pure reason. It is these reconciliations from which distinct forms of morality arise, and makes objective morality as a doctrine, impossible.

Notice also, the things we agree on are not the root of the moral debate, but rather it is the things we disagree on. If the former is significantly greater than the latter, we have an ethical community. Where the latter does come to the fore, we have administrative justice to handle the disagreement. Morality, again, in the middle, describes how the differences obtain. — Mww

Just can't get to point where I see this type of resoning has value


If we go down this path we need to allow for such things as relative truth and subjective truth.