A critique of moral relativism

quote:

---

A man butchers your four year old daughter, i.e. he murdered her. Is what he has done right or wrong? Are there any circumstances to where this man would actually be in the right?

---

She picked up a live hand grenade and is just about to pull the pin. The man was across the room and the only way to stop her quickly enough was to put a bullet in her skull, saving himself and the 20 other people in the room.The man, and the 20 other people in the world, are (as far as you know) the last people in the world who are not infected with an extremely virulent, highly contagious and fatal disease. The man and his 4 year old daughter show up outside the house you have barricaded yourself in. Just before you all decide to let them in, becasue they are starving, the daughter begins to show signs of the disease. You decide to kill her, because she can't be allowed to infect any of you, and it is more humane than letting her starve to death. Edited by nator, : No reason given.

I appreciate you honoring me by taking the time to listen to it despite your negative feelings about it. It means that strict naturalists have set up for themselves, whether they are conscious of it or not, an idol. And that idol is nature. Since nothing else can offer them satisfying answers, they look only to nature to explain why things are the way they are. Its become somewhat of a catch-all answer, kind of like "culture," in postulating the reason for something they don't quite understand.Naturally, you will disagree.... (Pun intended) You don't need the Bible to surmise the deep questions, which certainly seems to historically pervade all of mankind-- so, no, I didn't see that as his point. Everyone does that anyway, regardless. But think of it another context. If we all marched to the beat of our own drummer, (which seems to be the most sought after virtue for anti-theists), there would be no coherence. Yes, Mod, I would agree. But you are overlooking something so fundamental in order for you to ever arrive to any conclusion concerning morality. You first need to possess some basic schematic to begin with.Its like he said about the architect. The architect created capriciously, with staircases leading to nowhere, and pillars that were not connected to other structures. He designed it the way he saw life-- capriciously.Could he have poured his foundation so capriciously though, and have his home stand up without immediately collapsing? Aren't we so wrapped up in the finer details that we often completely overlook the fundamentals about life?

---

"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton

Nator's given you some possible scenarios in modern culture.In other cultures, she could've been doing something wrong. She could have been worshipping idols, for example.Here's your God in action again:Ezekiel 9: 5-8

quote:

---

5 As I listened, he said to the others, "Follow him through the city and kill, without showing pity or compassion. 6 Slaughter old men, young men and maidens, women and children, but do not touch anyone who has the mark. Begin at my sanctuary." So they began with the elders who were in front of the temple.

​

7 Then he said to them, "Defile the temple and fill the courts with the slain. Go!" So they went out and began killing throughout the city. 8 While they were killing and I was left alone, I fell facedown, crying out, "Ah, Sovereign LORD! Are you going to destroy the entire remnant of Israel in this outpouring of your wrath on Jerusalem?"

---

Edited by bluegenes, : typo!

Or: A member of one clan or tribe might have murdered a member of another. The other tribe is stronger and will surely prevail in a war, so the weaker tribe acquiesces and gives several hostages to the wronged tribe. The girl is one of the ones chosen to be given, and at the ritualistic correct time, the hostages are killed.A similar incident is related in Chinua Achebe's novel Things Fall Apart.

---

Q: If science doesn't know where this comes from, then couldn't it be God's doing?A: The only difference between that kind of thinking and the stereotype of the savage who thinks the Great White Hunter is a God because he doesn't know how the hunter's cigarette lighter works is that the savage has an excuse for his ignorance. -- jhuger

No worries - what's the point on being here if we are going to give 'the other side' a fair hearing, eh? I wouldn't disagree entirely. I don't agree with your wording - nature isn't an idol for example, it is not something that cares about being worshipped. However, if we think about it, theists suffer the same problem - for them their catch-all answer is 'supernature' and their 'idol' is supernature. If they don't understand something, supernature can be trusted to fill the gap. Well, in fairness this applies equally to theists. Theists obviously walk to the beat of their own drum. Not only are here different forms of theism, but different schools within those forms and even within a church or synagogue or temple there are disagreements and differing opinions on things.Just about anybody, atheist or theist, relativist or absolutist, should appreciate the value of getting everybody on the same moral page (in the same book!) - that is why we see people of many philosophies attempting to convince some other party that their outlook is 'fairer' or leads to a better world with less suffering or is 'holier' or more 'moral' or preferred by God, or whatever.The biggest issue is that different philosophies value different things. I want a world that is free from suffering above all else. A lot of theists would rather the world pleases God first, and we look to suffering after this. There is overlap, I appreciate, but where the two might conflict - God wins.To the atheist, this is often anathema! Yes - but deciding on the nature of that schematic should be part of the long process, one should not simply adopt the prevailing schematic. The difference between an absolutist and a relativist is that the latter believes that there can be multiple schematics which lead to different but equally valid conclusions. A relativist should be able to use one moral schematic for one situation, but realize that same schematic is useless or at least critically flawed in other situations. In the end they'll end up with a complex and not easily described schematic in their head. Right - now there should never be a moral decision that seems capricious. Of course this seems like a good excuse to point to the capricious nature of certain gods. However, more importantly let's look to the homosexual marriage issue.The reason they shouldn't marry has been at times capricious, whimsical or perhaps aesthetic in nature. There is no moral reasoning behind God's decree against homosexuality - it just is. A lot of theists stop right there - what pleases God is the moral course of action, even if it increases suffering. No - but I imagine there were multiple valid ways of setting up his foundation and not one set concrete (pun intended) way of doing it. That belief that there is more than one way to skin a cat/construct a valid moral philosophy is relativism.

quote:

---

I disagree. Jazzns is right that we are not using the word "arbitrary" in its proper context. An arbitrary law would be one that is whimsically formulated, like, it is illegal to type five letters in 10 seconds.

---

On the contrary I AM using arbitrary in the sense that Jazzns says is correct. It does not necessarily mean whimsical however it does mean with little or no relevant reason. Thus some traffic laws arbitrarily include a requirement to drive on the right rather than the left (or the other way around). That is not "whimsical" in the sense that your illustration suggests - it is just that the alternative is equally valid and there is no good reason for choosing between them.

quote:

---

The Law of God, whether you believe it was passed down divinely or by the efforts of men, you still see deliberate, purposeful, meaningful rules-- not capricious rules formulated in vain.

---

Or rather you assume that that is the case - you certainly don't know the reasons for all of them, do you ?. However this assumption creates an inconsistency in your argument. Because if there can be such reasons then "moral relativists" can have such reasons too.However you assert that it is impossible to have such reasons that would permit homosexuality but ban bestiality. You deny that this is based on equating the acts. It appears not to be based on knowing that both are banned for the same good reason because otherwise you could discuss that reason without bring bestiality into it. Thus I conclude that the only position that makes sense is that you do not believe that there IS a good reason for banning either. You position is based on the assumption that both are arbitrary commands with no reason.
Or maybe your entire argument is unfounded. The only valid way you can answer is to produce the basis of your argument - something you have been reluctant to do.

quote:

---

Then let me absolutely clarify for you since you no doubt understand the staggering implications for answering the question.

​

A man butchers your four year old daughter, i.e. he murdered her. Is what he has done right or wrong? Are there any circumstances to where this man would actually be in the right?

---

I've already told you. If it's murder it is wrong by definition - because the term murder assumes that we have already judged it to be wrongful. There are no "staggering implications" there - just a trivial tautology.As for a more general view of your example what is it supposed to prove ? A degree of agreement between our moral views ? That if you chose a sufficiently extreme example a large majority of humans would agree ? When I've already informed you that I consider the basis of morality to be biological in origin and thus we should expect a degree of commonality among humans ? How can that possibly have any "staggering implications" for my position ?

quote:

---

So under those parameters it is absolutely wrong?

---

How can that possibly follow ? The fact is that when we call a killing murder we mean that we have judged it to be wrongful. And that's all. It's a simple and trivial tautology, with no great implications. The only significant point is that you shouldn't use "murder" as your example because it doesn't get you anywhere.

err dont take a line out of context otherwise you may get confused ...read the whole , if fact i have not posited a absolute as i go on to say "unless ...." also how else can you deny the exsistance moral absolutes ?? i just used the normal way .. as if i was denying the exsistance of mating rituals of the lesser spoted pink unicorns . murder is neither right or wrong .. it is a act , it is a part of reality , its only when human opinion becomes invold does it gains a label ..
when a lion murders a zebra is it right or wrong.. is it moral ???
when a lion murders the offspring of the defeated pride leader is it right or wrong.. is it moral ???
when a lion murder a man is it right or wrong.. is it moral ..???
when a man murder a cow is it right or wrong.. is it moral ...???
when a human murders a human is it right or wrong .. is it moral ...???the act is not wrong or right , it is only when murderer tries to justifie their act , and the rest of the socitey look apon and judge the the actions of the murderer that any label to its place in the moral or legal structure of that society occurs , and the labels that get applyed are not absolutes .... even within that society there may be differing opinons ....further a murder could be right or wrong and yet still be moral or immoral ....because there are no absolutes .. only opinionUNLESS you are a follower of a religion or a code, then you will have absolutes , these may be invented but as long as you hold to the code they are treated in all respect as absolutes ..if you examine may of these religions and codes murder can be either right or wrong , moral or immoral depending on specified condistionslook at how murder cases are handled in courts .. there is a dead body , they show who killed it , THEN they look for motive , extenuating curcumstances , the reputaion and nature of the victim is held up for examination , it is never as simple as the actual act of firing the gun ... even with our eons of legal prcatice we still look at each murder case individually ....and then we rely on 12 people to ageree on the judgementwe accept this as for legal judgement ..would you take less for a moral one ? ? BUT those circumstances are viewed differnetly by different poeples , cultures , socities , religions , et al ..thus there is no agreement on what murder is .. if you cant define it how can it be wrong , right , moral , immoral ?? you cannot commit a murder with out circumstances , its the judgement of those circumstances which define if the act is wrong or right moral or immoral ... and it we humans who make those judgements .. based on which set of rules we currently follow . very simple the meaning is justice in its truest sense .......
justice is not about truth , truth is merely a tool used to example something , justice is about ideals , that go far beyond truth , justice is a goal to be strived for , it is what need , truth just is ..example .. you only have enough food for 10 people to stay alive the 3 weeks till rescue , but 11 are present ,
what is the just way to distribute the food ??cos the truth is harry over there is a total waste of space , low intelligence , poor motor skills , no usfull knowleged , we could do with out him ..justice is a human concept and consturct based on how we would like reality to opperate ..truth is the steamroller that charges through reality reguardless of what we humans want ,need or hope for ...re your Singapore situation .. neither you plead your case on the fact the judge is treating you differently .. he is making an example ..he may have the right to do this , and the truth is you spat , but it is not just that you should pay more for other peoples crimes , your crime should be judged for what it is , and the penalty imposed .... you ask for justice .. *****sorry for a big quote , but this needs dealing with as a whole *****..gosh which deep dark hole dig you drag that from ...no there is a anchor , a point of reference , a meaning , a prupose .. its called living and its what ever you make of it ..you can allow other to give you truths , anwsers , guidelines and codes , you can let given absolute dictate your path ...OR you can take responcability for your self , your actions , and your opinions .....look reality in the face and say wow what a neat place lets explore ....lets us think about things why they are the way there are , do i agree with that way , what are the other options , are they better or worst for me ,for those i know , for the whole of reality ?? challenge reality to meet your standards , aim beyond high , seek the impossible , then you may just reach something worth having ....right and wrong , moral and immoral , good and bad are usefull tools to help us deal with aspects of reality ....
BUT avoid , flee from any absolute that stops you questioning , that stops you doubting , that tries to releave you from making judgments ... they will imprison you , cut you off from reality and all its varity and wonder

quote:

---

A man butchers your four year old daughter, i.e. he murdered her. Is what he has done right or wrong? Are there any circumstances to where this man would actually be in the right?

---

Well, then, that wouldn't be murder now would it...?In which case, what does that have to do with anything. I'm asking if murder is right or wrong. Not a single person has answered that honestly. NO circumstances are needed to answer the question. You are conflating between determing whether something is murder with the very definition of murder.Just answer the question.

---

"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton

I beg to differ:

The point is, whether or not something is murder depends on the circumstance of the incident and the context of the society. What may be murder in one context is justifiable homicide in another.Even then, whether or not it is immoral depends on the religious framework of the moment.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

There is an existing thread on this that I totally forgot about. Moral Absolutism v Relativism (and laws)

quote:

---

I'm asking if murder is right or wrong. Not a single person has answered that honestly. NO circumstances are needed to answer the question

---

I have. Twice. I pointed out that we define murder as a killing that is morally wrong. Your answer to 'Nator indicates that you agree - you argue that if there is moral justification for a killing it is not murder.It is a trivial tautology to say that a morally wrong act is morally wrong.In classifying an action as murder we judge it to be morally wrong.Therefore the question "is murder wrong" is just a special case of "is a morally wrong act morally wrong". To which the answer is a trivial "yes".So why would you classify that answer as dishonest ?

Why are you hiding behind a tautology? You have rolled up the contextual questions into a dictionary definition. Murder is the unlawful taking of a human life. Therefore, those who attempted to assassinate Hitler--a plot which, if successful, would have excised a great evil and likely have saved millions of lives--were conspiring to commit an immoral act. Abortion, where legal, by your lights, then must be a moral act by definition, and those who oppose it do so immorally, since it is itself--again, by your lights, and the law in many places--a moral act.So, sure, I'll answer the question. No, murder is not an immoral act. It is certainly illegal, by definition, but law does not legislate morality.Do you believe law determines morality? Did the laws of Nazi Germany--and do the laws of China regarding prison labor, forced abortions, arbitrary executions--determine absolute morality in those nations? If a nation adopts a law allowing its security forces to kill at their own discretion, are those killings moral?Does Caesar trump Christ?You should stop your definitional, tautological posturing and engage the real question: What moral case does not require consideration of the context? If there is a moral absolute, then there are cases where no knowledge of context is required to determine the morality of the action. So far, you have failed to name one.Check the mirror. It is not your debate opponents who are arguing in bad faith.

---

Real things always push back.
-William James Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

NJ's fallacy is even worse than that, PaulK. Murder is legally, rather than morally, determined. His tautology isn't even a proper tautology.

---

Real things always push back.
-William James Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

I disagree on that point - I would certainly use the term murder to refer to technically legal killings that I found morally unacceptable. (And English law calls accidental killings "Manslaughter" where US law would call them "Murder in the 3rd Degree" - IIRC).