A critique of moral relativism

You should read a paper by Paul Cameron sometime. Actually you can read a critique I did on him here. After you read that he suggested that nearly 20% of homosexuals eat the faeces of their partner (or rub it in their own face) - you'll know that I am not easily dumbstruck in discussions about homosexuailty. Except I remember why they were brought up together, whereas I assume you do not. I explain in Message 1. Hence why I batted no eyelash, I understood the argument. That isn't what you said though. You said that I was unable to discuss bestiality without referring to homosexuality which is easily falsified! I discussed the argument at hand - I note with interest that you have also not been able to discuss bestiality without referring to homosexuality in this thread. Does that mean you connect the two? Or does it mean that they being discussed in the debate so you refer to them? Well - since you can't know what I think I can't prove you wrong. If you really want to suggest you know what I think then so be it. I explained in the other thread the rationale and you are free to ignore it and think anything you like of me. Since I am bisexual - what do you think I connect my own sexual behaviour with? Bisexual bestiality? Or perhaps I connect my sexual preference to the sexual preference of animals and plants? No it doesn't. An absolutist is someone who believes that there are absolute answers to moral questions. Yes - since it is about what a person believes is true, not what is actually true. Fine, and relativists try and show absolutists are relativists. And absolutists believe they fail. In your opinion - but this has been a factor of debate in moral philosophy for some time and I doubt you have managed to solve it, despite your fervent believe that you have. Greater minds than the two of us have tried. You don't understand absolutism - which isn't helping you. Let me try and explain it like this:Situation A (doesn't matter what it is): An absolutist will think Act A' is either moral or immoral.Situation A (the exact same situation child/adult/execution/abortion whatever): A relativist will thing that there can be more than one valid way to answer a moral question. For instance a relativist might say that abortion is moral relative to his standard but also say that it is immoral according to fundamentalist's standards. Since we cannot know which moral judgement is 'True', we can only say which standard we are comparing it relative to when we state our judgement. Yes, Immanuel Kant's philosophy is non-existent I forgot. Nobody ever believed in the Mosiac laws. There has never been nor is there now, a person that believes there is a single objective and absolute moral answer to a moral question.Sure.

Oh, Rrhain, not long back and maing an arse of yourself already... you may want to do some research through EvC on Mod's own sexuality...Of course there are connections between bestiality and homosexuality... I mean, how dense are we being here? A connection between A and B does not necessarily imply A=B, A->B, A<-B, or any thing else you may conjure up. Nem's connection is bloody obvious - both entail sexual activity forbidden in the OT. Given Nem's previous comments and Berb's sensitivity to the issue, is it surprising that Berb took extreme offense? Of course not. Does this mean that we cannot discuss homosexulaity and bestiality in the same paragraph? We can discuss what the hell we like without having someone like you say 'oh, how very telling it is...' you Mary Whitehouse wannabe - well, Mary, you're nearly a laugh...If someone asks me: if I had to, would I shag a ram or a sheep? The answer is obvious, the sheep... I'm straight as they come. I can't be certain, but I'm fairly sure my gay friends would choose the ram. Mod gets the best of both worlds...Is that connection enough for you?ABEOoops, see Mod beat me to it... and there I was worrying about mentioning his preferences...Wife just told me a joke:

quote:

---

Two retired colonels drinking in the mess -

​

"dreadful business about Carruthers - was posted to Arabia, sand drove him mad, and he went AWOL with a camel"

​

"Good grief, man! Female camel I hope?"

​

"Oh yes, nothing odd about Carruthers"

---

Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Why not? Couldn't anything be an idol if it takes a higher precedence in your life than God? Neither was the Golden Calf, but that didn't stop them. That would be like trying to pit God against His law, which doesn't work. The very law means worshipping anything vainly above Him. The Law makes no sense without Him because He is the essence of the Law to begin with. If you were to generalize with all theists and polytheists, yes, I would have to agree. But some theists would say that there is suffering as a consequence for not following the dictates of God in the first place. The very fact that its unnatural, leads to nowhere, and is often a testament to some deep seated psychological issue, leads me to believe that God's decree only magnifies the obvious, not that it alone obviates it.

---

"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

If it was arbitrary, you would drive on the road drifting from left to right or down the center. There would be no pattern at all. The fact that the law specifies that you must drive down a specific path to keep the safety of all drivers means that it was deliberately chosen. No, you have it all backwards. I am saying, and Modulous has clarified, that if there is no good reason to consider homosexuality immoral, then there is no good reason to think that beastiality, pedophilia, incest is immoral by the same relativistic reasoning. Whether my argument is only that God has concluded it, or that nature abhors the unnatural, or any other derivative of the argument, I am curious to know your reasoning on why homosexuality is okay, but the others are not. Because you seem to have no reason, whatsoever, to come to the conclusions you've made.

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?

---

Exactly my point! I'm not asking you to decipher what constitutes murder, I'm asking you if murder is absolutely wrong, or absolutely right.Now we're getting somewhere. That you cannot hold fast to your position without contradicting yourself. Relative morality is irreconcilable with something of this magnitude. Its forced to cancel itself out.The proof is how a plethora of posters have either manipulated the argument and skewed my very, very simple question, or they are adding extraneous elements are circumstances that are completely irrelevant to the simplistic question. In either case, they are avoiding the question. That much is painfully clear with all of this waffling. But the absolute is that MURDER is ALWAYS wrong, right???? So if its always wrong, then its absolutely wrong. How you arrive to the conclusion of how an incident is considered murder is the relative portion. That's the relativity of it. However, I am asking you if murder is wrong.Edited by AdminNem, : Realized that post was selected for AdminNem, and now its locking me out of my regular user mode

---

Thou shalt not have any other Mods before Me

quote:

---

If it was arbitrary, you would drive on the road drifting from left to right or down the center. There would be no pattern at all. The fact that the law specifies that you must drive down a specific path to keep the safety of all drivers means that it was deliberately chosen.

---

I guess that you failed to read what I wrote. What I clearly stated was that the choice between having a law mandating driving on the right and one mandating driving on the left was (often but not always) arbitrary. Moreover my point in doing so was to point out that the wrod "arbitrary" was not restricted to the odd whimseys of your argument - soomething you don't even consider in your reply.

quote:

---

No, you have it all backwards. I am saying, and Modulous has clarified, that if there is no good reason to consider homosexuality immoral, then there is no good reason to think that beastiality, pedophilia, incest is immoral by the same relativistic reasoning.

---

And how can you know that without knowing the reasoning ? Indeed since you insist that there cannot be any such reasoning your argument must be based on one of the assumptions I presented. Modulous hasn't added anything that contradicts my point either.

quote:

---

Whether my argument is only that God has concluded it, or that nature abhors the unnatural, or any other derivative of the argument, I am curious to know your reasoning on why homosexuality is okay, but the others are not. Because you seem to have no reason, whatsoever, to come to the conclusions you've made.

---

In other words you evade the point. You refuse to offer any foundation for your argument. My analysis of your position remains - for you have offered nothing to prove it false.

quote:

---

Exactly my point! I'm not asking you to decipher what constitutes murder, I'm asking you if murder is absolutely wrong, or absolutely right.

​

Now we're getting somewhere.

---

If you mean to refer to an absolute morality - something you should have explicitly stated - then it is nothing to do with your point. In the absence of an absolute morality nothing can be absolutely right or wrong in that sense. In that case the answer is clearly "neither". Moreover since you admit that you cannot prove that anything is absolutely right or wrong you must at least agree that you cannot give a certain answer.And to turn the statement back on you, in your morality is it absolutely right or absolutely wrong to accuse others of dishonesty when they have simply been mislead by your poor phrasing of your question ?

quote:

---

That you cannot hold fast to your position without contradicting yourself. Relative morality is irreconcilable with something of this magnitude. Its forced to cancel itself out.

---

I seem to be doing OK so far. By legal or moral definitions your argument goes nowhere. By introducing the assumption of absolute morality you beg the question. Thus your argument still fails to prove anything.

quote:

---

The proof is how a plethora of posters have either manipulated the argument and skewed my very, very simple question, or they are adding extraneous elements are circumstances that are completely irrelevant to the simplistic question. In either case, they are avoiding the question. That much is painfully clear with all of this waffling.

---

Of course they have done no such thing. You have been given valid answers to the question AS ASKED. It is not the fault of others if you fail to write clearly - if you fail to include an important qualification in your question. Thus it proves only that you are unwilling to take responsibility for your own errors and quick to accuse others for no good reason.

quote:

---

But the absolute is that MURDER is ALWAYS wrong, right????

---

As I have clearly explained when murder is DEFINED as a morally wrong killing then it trivially follws from the Law of Identity that murder is morally wrong. However that says nothing about moral absolutes. It is simply a very trivial application of logic, a tautology that tells us nothing of any value.

quote:

---

...So if its always wrong, then its absolutely wrong. How you arrive to the conclusion of how an incident is considered murder is the relative portion. That's the relativity of it. However, I am asking you if murder is wrong.

---

Using the moral definition of murder, it is always "wrong" (in a non-absolute sense) BECAUSE THAT IS HOW MURDER HAS BEEN DEFINED. By classifying an act as murder it has already been classified as morally wrong thus it is a TRIVIAL TAUTOLOGY to say that murder is "wrong" in a non-absolute sense. So it is always wrong not because of any absolutes other than a trivial application of the law of identity.I've already explained this to you. Please try discussing it instead of jumping to completely unjustified conclusion.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

Surely this is the crux of the matterBoth the relatavist and the absolutist DO have "good reasons" on which they make their moral judgements.The absolutist has their external source of morality (e.g. the bible)
They consider this a good reasonThe relatavist has their rationally thought out overarching framework (e.g. the freedom of individuals to pursue happiness as long as they do not hurt, harm or interfere with the others pursuing the same freedoms)
They consider this a "good" basis for reasoning their detailed moral judgements.Neither the relatavist or the absolutist are making moral judgements on the basis of That would indeed be unjustified and open to the sort of attacks you are making.However your complaint against relatavism on the basis of is a straw man argument.Bringing nature into the argument is also a dangerous game. If homsexuality can be shown to natural does that make it right in your eyes? If paedophilia can be shown to be natural does that make that morally right? Is eating hotdogs natural? Does that make it morally wrong?Why should what is natural have any bearing on what is morally desireable or vice versa?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Not really. An idol is a representation of that which is to be worshipped. Nature is not a representation nor is to be worshipped. That is why I don't agree with the wording, it is inaccurate and allows for you to frame the topic. A more neutral wording might have been appropriate if you meant it that way. "It means that strict naturalists have set up for themselves, whether they are conscious of it or not, a value judgement that places nature more highly than a proposed supernature or any entity that might reside therein."But then - it could just as easily be removed entirely. No, but the entity that the Golden Calf was meant to represent no doubt cared about the worship. I believe the story is that he did, didn't he? Not really - you worship the supernatural whereas naturalists do not worship the natural. That's all I was saying, nothing about pitting supernatural entities against their own legal system. It not only doesn't work it doesn't make sense in the context! Right, and so we should continue to allow suffering because it is God's punishment for some transgression. As I said - I'd rather minimize suffering than pander to the anonymous punishment of a big cheese. There is nothing in nature that is unnatural - by definition. It leads to couples living happily married lives and children getting equal protection under law, it is never a testament to psychological issue say the consensus of qualified experts in the field of psychology and sociology. Thus: since legal protection for children and the happiness of many people can stem from allowing homosexual marriage I support it.On the other hand, God's decree against homosexuality being applied in today's culture has lead to children who are entirely innocent in this debate getting emotionally and financially harmed. Thus if God supports this decree to this day, God supports hurting children, in which case I think we should tell him to fuck off.Of course, the ultimate decree is that we should love god and love each other. Any law which stems from God's mouth stems from this principle, says God. If situations change and the law is no longer loving the law should be disregarded. That is why God-man was able to perform works on the Sabbath without getting stoned to death or disappearing in a puff of paradox. That's another subject entirely though, neh?

Why are you using your AdminNem account to continue debate after your NJ account was suspended?It isn't done, old boy. It's a bit low.

---

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

I believe that it was unintentional. The interface makes it easy to do by mistake. We should always be prepared to give reasonable benefit of the doubt and there is no evidence that this particular example represents an intentional abuse.

I have just suspended my modulous account and replied to you. There is no blaring message that tells you that you have been suspended when you try and post, it just grays out your name, and defaults to posting under your admin account. Nemesis then asked why he had been suspended, in the suspension thread. He hasn't posted since that.Go easy on the old chap, easy mistake what, what?

Because I was in the middle of writing my post when the subsequent suspension was issued. In other words, I didn't know.

Thanks, Mod. I retract my snarky sneer.

I now understand what happened and have seen Mod's confirmation of it: my apologies for jumping to conclusions.AbE: On the other hand, I see you used your admin status to argue your suspension on the Suspensions and Bannings thread, something "ordinary" members cannot do.I'll take half that apology back.Edited by Omnivorous, : No reason given.

---

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

Look it up, absolutism covers a range of positions too. Most absolutists are not saying there is any moral code which will always work.We may say 'love of God' is always good, or 'love of neighbor' is always good' but the ways and means for accomplishing love are always relative.Absolutism has flaws. I may believe that I can love God by killing those who hate God. That is, unless I believe that God condemns killing.
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

Yes, it was chosen, but not "deliberately." No evidence was weighed to choose which side of the street was the better side to drive on. The decision to drive on the right side of the street (or the left) was chosen arbitrarily, for no good reason. It just was.But people follow it, also for "no good reason" except that it works, because everyone else follows the rule (for the most part), but you can be sure that if somehow it is shown that driving on the side of the street that we are used to driving on causes more accidents than driving on the opposite side, we may just change our ways. Otherwise it is irrelevant, but arbitrary, nonetheless Your question has been answered, but, you refuse to acknowledge the reasons presented to you and continue on as if no one has provided a "reason." If you do not accept the reasoning behind the arguments, then please feel free to debate the reasons instead of completely ignoring them and smugly pretending that you have gone unanswered. Why don't you address those who have pointed out your tautology?You try to act like you have caught someone in a trap, but the ruse is thin. Only because you do not understand the position. A strawman is always easy to defeat. So do you as an "absolutist" not define degrees of murder or agree with extenuating circimstances which would drop a charge of murder down to manslaughter or justifiable homicide? What kind of "waffling" do you exhibit when questioned about the slaughter of children in the OT? Because the command came from God it is Good? What kind of apologetics are applied when asked about homosexality vs. pork-eating? Which laws did Jesus come to fulfill? It is not written down in the text plain as day for all to see, so people have to interpret it and apply the "Law" based on the apologetics and theology of the day.You and I have different ideas about morality, but we come from a similar place. You get your absolutes from what you believe your God has ordained (with a little wiggle room for what you are comfortable with) and I get mine from what I have gained from human society (with a little wiggle room for what I am comfortable with). Yes, "murder" as defined is always wrong. The definitions, however, change. I'm thinking that the definition of "just" murder has changed in the last few centuries (in Western society) to exclude less egregious offenses (i.e. cursing your parents, fucking someone outside of marriage, changing or questioning religion) and that people commiting more egregious offenses are held more justly accountable for their offenses than before (i.e. lynching, barroom brawls/shootings, domestic violence, etc). Which is the more moral way?BTW, do you wish to include the offenses listed in the Bible for the death penalty as evidence for your higher morality?If so, why?If not, why not?Edited by Jaderis, : No reason given.

---

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London