Moral relativism does not mean (not defined as) no moral codes exist. Relativists do not necessarily say or think that no moral codes exist. Thus you cannot just assert that moral relativism means that no moral codes exist, otherwise you are putting words in their mouth. Or fighting a strawman.
Of course they believe in a sense of morals. That's just it, nobody can get around it and still be honest with themselves. However, what we often see is that we can't pinpoint any legitimate standard of right and wrong, which offers the relativist countless chances to escape their sense of justice. The relativist makes their morals so low that an infraction of them is next to impossible.
If relativism were true, then everything could contain contradictory conditions. This, of course, is not possible. Opposites cannot both be true as it defies the law of non-contradiction. This is an undeniable fact because we cannot use it, without using it, and you can’t deny it, without using it. Even in some wholly paradoxical usage the premise would conflict with itself in every instance. If relativism were true, then nothing could actually be true.
Wrong, or they just don't like something, or don't want it to happen to themselves? I might point out that the "laws" are instituted to stop those that don't share such agreements or pangs. By your own statement above "virtually everyone" is not everyone, and hence there is not a universal... no absolute.
It is universal, however, the "virtually everyone" makes a case against psychopaths and sociopaths who have deadened their senses. If you will pardon the religious expression, these are wages of sin. And I say that it is universally accepted that murder is wrong. What is relative and objective is what constitutes murder and what is a justified killing? The Lord God made the broad pronouncement, "You shall not murder." That's a very broad, letter-of-law statement that gives no specific instances of how we could go about infracting this Law. But nothing can be found wrong in that no matter what country you go to. Murder is always wrong. The only thing we disagree upon is what constitutes murder. Do you see the difference? Again, I want to make it clear that I cannot persuade anyone to follow what I believe the absolute morality to be. I am only making a philosophical argument that morals must be absolute. Uncovering what they are is a matter of your interpretation.
And I could move on to point out that murder itself is fluid. Murder of a neighbor is wrong, oh unless he is an enemy agent, or a killer/rapist, or (for some) an abortionist. What gets defined as murder v justified killing tells us that there is not a universal concept. Ancient Japan and even the early US showed whole classes of people thought able to be killed, with no concept that murder was occuring. Dueling was also accepted in both cultures with no moral repercussion of murder.
Of course. As I already shared, relativity exists. Here in America, a man standing 5'10 might be considered an average height after some statistical analysis. But when he is among a Pygmy tribe he is considered quite tall. In this way, its all relative. And shooting someone is generally viewed as murder. But when we look at the officer responding to a report of domestic violence, a man emerges from the bushes with a kitchen knife slashing at the officer. The officer removes his sidearm and places two slugs in the offender, center mass. Had the offender succeeded, we all know it would be murder-- the unjustified killing of another human being. But the officer succeeded in defending his own life. He is justified in his actions. That's because killing is lawful, relatively, but murder is always and absolutely wrong, irrespective of personal opinion.
My guess is they would be horrified or other based on how it was presented. I am quite certain a child would be equally horrified at an open heart operation, or even liposuction treatment on a morbidly obese person... that does not indicate these events have moral repercussions.
The child may view all three of those acts as murder because (s)he does not yet have the mental capacity to distinguish between surgery and killing. S/he sees knives and blood. But there would be no question once s/he saw those little arms, legs, and severed heads coming out of the patient. You know, nobody says, "How far along is your fetus?" They want to know how far along your baby is. And maybe this is exactly what moral relativism has done for us.
quote:
One must first have an absolute concept to even come to a relative understanding about anything.
and yet...
Nobody has a universal consensus on ice cream because flavors have nothing to do with absolutes. Most of life deals in relativity.
No, it sounds as if you just don't understand the difference between objective truths, like pluralism, and relative truth. As it relates to morality, the relativist sees pious views as being intolerant. Interestingly, when expressing views on absolutes, I usually get the chance to some of their ”tolerance’ in action. They might see my view as too rigid and finite and so, they are repulsed by it. But, the mere fact that they argue the point only strengthens my argument. If morals were really relative then you would have no basis for arguing mine.
To answer your question, with regard to personal preferences, there are no absolutes. There may certainly be a single factual Absolute Reality which underlies/results in our sensory experiences... but that is descriptive and not presciptive or value ridden. Indeed where there are physical values given (such as distance) they are surely relative.
Right. Liking ice cream and various flavors between people are all relative to their likes. It has, literally, nothing to do with moral absolutes. That has to do with objective truths. "I like vanilla." That's true for me. And you say, "I like chocolate." Both statements are true insofar as it depends on you.
First of all really stupid laws like that are made. Haven't you ever seen lists of ridiculous laws?
Yes I have, but all of them had some sort of purpose behind them. The point is, nobody just writes laws onto the books for no apparent reason. There is always an underlying factor.
Second, you just underscored my point (in your second sentence). It can be about sympathy with a victim, in the sense that we do not want ourselves being victimized. That has nothing to do with it being "wrong".
So you are suggesting that laws are written as mechanisms of self-preservation? Laws are written to protect the citizens. And yes, if we were not able to feel empathy/sympathy, we would not have the understanding that something is wrong. And by that you just underscored my point. I presume that you've never been hacked to death, and yet, I'm certain you'd be horrified if a fellow human being was hacked before your eyes. Where does that understanding come from?
Self preservation and even straight up selfishness are equally able to construct a pattern of laws between different actors.
Ever notice how selfishness is not considered a virtue only until its in context to some Darwinian sense? That's because all the brains they've poured into it, they still can't understand where morality comes from, so they have to invent these elaborate stories in order to account for them.
We can decide to keep order or not. People could very well drive cars without such rules, if you've been to Italy or Boston you might have had a taste of this, and certainly which side goes first has no moral component. The autobahn has essentially no speed limit, yet in the US it was restricted to 75 and then 55 (which some people just can't drive!). Where is the moral component in these decisions, much less an indicator of universality?
Holmes, you're floundering and flailing about. The reasons why there are rules of the road is to keep order. The reason to keep order is to minimize accidents. The reason they want to minimize accidents is because people could get hurt. The reason why they don't want people to get hurt is because they can empathize/sympathize with them. The reason they can empathize/sympathize with them is because Almighty God has imparted in man an innate understanding.
Take it up with social contract theorists like the founding fathers. They do. Lets pretend for a second that you really have no concern with being murdered and so laws against murder just to protect yourself.
When I think of murder or why its wrong, myself is the last person I think about. How many people murder victims actually think in their lifetime that they will die by being murdered? Probably very few. Judging by how people speak, I can assume that most people don't think of themselves as being murder victims, or murder being the way in which they will die in the future. Most people speak about what they are going to do when they get old. Most people seem to assume that they will die of natural causes, not accidents or murder.
It is equaly valid to have concerns for those you love. Why not? That still has nothing to do with murder being wrong, but a desire to keep those around you alive because you happen to like them and want them around (and perhaps not to suffer).
Then let me ask you if murder is wrong. Is murder wrong? If so, why?
In any case, my guess is you do not have such "selfless" motives when it comes to getting robbed or raped, and so quite alive afterward.
I don't think we should outlaw robbery and rape because it
might happen to me. That's ridiculous. I can honestly tell you that I've maybe thought of myself being raped maybe one time. That means I'm not thinking of myself as the victim or the victimizer but rather an outsider looking in-- like a juror.
That's not quite right. I did not say that people (as in all or most) would be naturally honest. Nor did I say it was wholly inexplicable, just not fully understood.
I have a three year old who already is starting to lie. If he, like most people, senses that he can cover up whatever he did, he's going to try it. Just ask Haggard.
People have natures, tastes. I cannot say why that is. Some people like to get up early and some like to get up late. Some like strawberries, others die if they eat them. Some people have a desire to lie, some just happen to have an honest disposition.
Everyone has the conflicting desire to both tell the truth and to lie. They have a desire to tell the truth because they have an innate sense of it being the 'right' thing to do, even if it is not in their best interests immediately. However, the pride of life comes in and beckons us to lie so that we can fool the other person into believing that we are upstanding.
But see, all of this should speak very loudly to you. You are giving tacit recognition that all of this innate to a great extent. In fact, the OP is appealing to us to conform to some kind of moral standard. He is saying that what Haggard did was immoral. And interestingly enough, we all are in agreement, and yet, we all share different beliefs. Don't you find that interesting?
Indeed your whole argument seems to be that without a single concept of moral truth, immoral action (or random chaos) are required... which would itself be a sort of moral rule and simply not be true. Why can't people, via experience, simply discover things they like and dislike and so become internally ordered, while not necessarily sharing the same order as anyone else?
Again, have you been hacked to death by way of experience? Have you cheated on your wife with a meth-addicted male prostitute? What personal experience gives you the capacity of understanding? Sure, experiences play a role in all of this. But I dare not say that there isn't something within us, call it genetics or spirituality, but don't deny its profundity.
quote:
How can anyone be liars in a world of relativism?
Good question, in that it will hopefully allow for clarification. Lying is defined as intentionally telling something which is known not to be factually true. That would remain true even if moral relativism and nihilism were the case. Liars and lies could still be identified.
A relativist with a personal code could still say they believe a lie is "wrong", only perhaps seeing how it can be seen as "right" to another system.
I would grant this argument more credibility if lying simply meant stating something unfactual. That's not a lie. That's being incorrect. If I was in a remote part of the world, I might still be inclined to believe that the earth is flat for the sole reason that the landscape appears flat. If I told you it was flat, would I be lying or would I be incorrect? Lying is intentional manipulation. Lying is inherently a selfish act. However, there is a story in the Bible that always makes me think. I want to make some Christians in here think:
In the book of Joshua, we have a story about a harlot who became somewhat of heroine. I'm sure you know the story of how Rahab and how she lied to the spies in order to save the lives of her companions. Prima facie, she lied. However, had she told the truth, she would have sacrificed innocent life. So she lied because she knew the spies were wicked. Was Rahab wrong? Was she righteous for what she did? The answers can be found in one of the epistles and in the Tanakh. In Hebrews 11, Paul gives her special mention as he listing the faithful of God. How is her false witness considered faithful?
that those who do not feel as you do will do anything and everything with no consistency and somehow be incapable of joint action/agreement.
"The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." -2
nd Corinthians 10:4-5
™ Version 4.2