I’m not sure whether we’ve gone over this yet, but I thought I’d start a new topic on it anyway.

I don’t agree with everything this guy says here, but it should make a good topic starter.

http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio/05_relativism/...

http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio/05_relativism/...

We have talked about it before, on several threads I think.

Morality is so misunderstood. To put it into “absolute” or “relative” terms misses the point.
Best quote from a dude and Bro. that I highly respect on the subject-” Morality and Beauty are of the same nature. Morality is merely the Beauty with which we treat each other.”

“They are wrong and they should be punished.”
LOL Show me the recurring theme in the Bible teaches this about absolute morality. You’ll find the exact opposite message presented… It’s about forgiveness and redemption… Not condemnation and punishment… No, you can have absolute morality and NOT be bigoted, spiteful, and close-minded…

Oh yeah, and Hitler was psychotic … using him as the proving point for your morality debate is probably not the best idea…

absoluteliquid wrote:
“They are wrong and they should be punished.”
LOL Show me the recurring theme in the Bible teaches this about absolute morality. You’ll find the exact opposite message presented… It’s about forgiveness and redemption… Not condemnation and punishment… No, you can have absolute morality and NOT be bigoted, spiteful, and close-minded…

No, but you might be wrong. :]

But still, if you believe in the absolute morality presented in the bible, then you see some actions as downright wrong, and others as right. I suspect that that is incorrect: that no action is “wrong” or “right”.

Oh yeah, and Hitler was psychotic … using him as the proving point for your morality debate is probably not the best idea…

Ahem! To quote: “I don’t agree with everything this guy says here, but it should make a good topic starter.”

Arandur, I’ll get around to dealing with those recordings later. I have to go soon. I’ll talk to my friends about relative morality, and report back, sirs! Salute

Thanks. And yes, I think we “absolutists” accept the possibility that we might be wrong. Like science’s pursuit of laws and truth, we view morality as a discoverable, debatable pursuit of a moral law to arrive at what is truly right or wrong.

It seems to me that moral relativism is bound up in the issue of the existence of absolute truth. One of the things that bothers me about that video clip (and so far I admit I’ve only listened to half of it) is that he talks about discussing morality and persuading people to your own views. Well, on what basis can you have any sort of discussion if you’re not trying to arrive at some definable good? It becomes pointless and groundless circular reasoning to assume there is no good and then to try to persuade someone to your definition of good (a good that doesn’t exist…)

One of the most simple and fundamental problems with relativism is that it is a self-contradictory proposition. Bound up as it is in the question of whether truth exists, relativism asserts that truth does not exist. Well, no truth exists except that there is no truth that exists. There is no right or wrong except that you “absolutists” are wrong and we relativists are right. See? Circular, self-contradictory reasoning.

Yes FiNi, I might very well be wrong… However as far as morality goes I base mine on an immovable anchor point… If your morality has no such base then I believe it arguable you have no morals… not directed at you specifically but rather as a general statement…

My last comment was directed at the person in the video… not you my friend =)

...And as Arandur posted as I was typing my last response I will double post to say I agree with his more well put together response… especially the last paragraph…

Might as well go for the gold with a TRIPLE post… and just say way to start a thread Finix… about time we had some action around here…

on what basis can you have any sort of discussion if you’re not trying to arrive at some definable good?

Ah, but according to relative morality, that’s just it; we define what is good and what is bad. Nothing is bad or good, we merely label it bad or good. So says relative morality.

as far as morality goes I base mine on an immovable anchor point… If your morality has no such base then I believe it arguable you have no morals…

What’s your definition of “morals”?

My morals are my standard of conduct.

How can you discuss or persuade anyone about a label that you are claiming has as much meaning as gibberish? You might as well try to define your morality by saying murder is gojrbump and love is tarflac. You’ve reduced the terms “good” and “evil” to be similarly meaningless gibberish, and you cannot even discuss them anymore, much less persuade anyone to your point of view with no solid reference point—and apparently this guy in your video believes you should be able to discuss good and bad and persuade people.

I’ll listen to the rest of the clip this weekend, but about had to cut it off for time shortly after he was giving his example of the remote sado-masochist culture. Note that he was evaluating this culture based on a moral absolute that as long as people choose things willingly and things are done to them according to their own idea of what is good for them, then how could you criticize it?

Well, this neglects the whole point and begs the question. A basic failure of relative morality is that even if I am the kindest, most loving and innocent person in the world and am a strict pacifist, never having harmed anyone and wanting only love and peace and harmony, a terrorist or sadist murderer commits a perfectly good and acceptable act by torturing and murdering me and everyone I’ve ever known or loved in the most sadistic and horrific way for weeks on end before raping and slaughtering us in front of each other.

It’s an extreme example, but extreme examples are useful to show the absurdity of ideas and positions. No offense to you personally, but relative morality is a ridiculous idea (ridiculous—worthy of ridicule, because of its absurdity).

My morals are my standard of conduct.

If that’s your definition of a moral, I have plenty of morals. The difference is, I choose my standard of conduct, and am free to change it if necessary.

How can you discuss or persuade anyone about a label that you are claiming has as much meaning as gibberish? You might as well try to define your morality by saying murder is gojrbump and love is tarflac. You’ve reduced the terms “good” and “evil” to be similarly meaningless gibberish, and you cannot even discuss them anymore.

That’s not true; I know that much from experience. If all participants in a conversation fully understand relative morality, things go just fine.

Note that he was evaluating this culture based on a moral absolute that as long as people choose things willingly and things are done to them according to their own idea of what is good for them, then how could you criticize it?

Yes; he chose that absolute. Absolutes (laws/rules/opinions) are required to ensure that societies (and lives) run smoothly. However, relative morality claims that those absolutes are man made, and that there is no more a perfect set of absolutes than there is a perfect way to build a car, and just as you can modify a car, you can modify those absolutes.

A basic failure of relative morality is that even if I am the kindest, most loving and innocent person in the world and am a strict pacifist, never having harmed anyone and wanting only love and peace and harmony, a terrorist or sadist murderer commits a perfectly good and acceptable act by torturing and murdering me and everyone I’ve ever known or loved in the most sadistic and horrific way for weeks on end before raping and slaughtering us in front of each other.

His fellow terrorists might consider that to be a “perfectly good and acceptable act”, but most every other sane person on the face of the earth would not and would protest against such treatment.

That’s not true; I know that much from experience. If all participants in a conversation fully understand relative morality, things go just fine.

So how can a bunch of relativists have a discussion of good and evil and what they ought to be defined as without appealing to some standard they refuse to consciously name and recognize, but upon which they are all subconsciously relying?

Absolutes (laws/rules/opinions) are required to ensure that societies (and lives) run smoothly. However, relative morality claims that those absolutes are man made, and that there is no more a perfect set of absolutes than there is a perfect way to build a car, and just as you can modify a car, you can modify those absolutes.

So now the “good” being appealed to is for societies and lives to “run smoothly.” Be careful, you’re suggesting an objective goal of morality. His argument still suggests that one can judge another culture by another standard. And if you can’t judge or engage another view of morality, then we’re back to an utter absence of meaningful morality or discussion.

His fellow terrorists might consider that to be a “perfectly good and acceptable act”, but most every other sane person on the face of the earth would not and would protest against such treatment.

Another absolutist term: “sane.” Why does it matter if they protest? There’s no good or evil here. It appears we’re left with a kill or be killed, dominate or be dominated existence. Not even nature operates consistently in that manner, by the way.

So how can a bunch of relativists have a discussion of good and evil and what they ought to be defined as without appealing to some standard they refuse to consciously name and recognize, but upon which they are all subconsciously relying?

To a relativist, neither good nor evil has an absolute definition. The definition of good and evil is a matter of personal opinion. Nothing more.

So now the “good” being appealed to is for societies and lives to “run smoothly.” Be careful, you’re suggesting an objective goal of morality.

No, I just said that “absolutes are required to ensure that a society runs smoothly”. I never said anything about morality pertaining to an objective goal.

His argument still suggests that one can judge another culture by another standard.

Correct. Your opinion.

Another absolutist term: “sane.”

When did I say that the definition of “sane” isn’t relative? When did I say that the definition of any word isn’t relative?

Why does it matter if they protest? There’s no good or evil here.

It matters ‘cause they might just prosecute yo’ @$$ if you’re not careful.

Maybe I’m just not understanding your answers, or maybe you’re not understanding what I wrote and I need to put it differently, but I don’t think you responded to any of the points I made.

The first one was having to do with this whole idea put forward by your speaker and seemingly agreed to by you that discussing morality is something that is worthwhile and can in fact be done. Your statement here just backs up my point that relativists actually assert that morality is meaningless and pointless, and therefore conversations about it are worthless.

If certain moral norms are necessary or helpful for the smooth running of society, and you are holding to those moral norms for that purpose, then yes, you are devising a morality pertaining to an objective goal—the goal of supporting the smooth running of a society. Social stability has become the good by which you define your morality.

I don’t know what you’re getting at in your response about judging other cultures. If it’s just a meaningless opinion, then we’re back to the futility of the whole idea of morality—you are asserting that relativism essentially destroys the whole concept and worth of morality. Relative morality is an oximoron.

When you apply the label of “sane” to people, you’re making a judgment based upon an objective norm of sanity, to which you are appealing to make your point. Words and language are not relative in definition. They rely necessarily on common, accepted, objective meanings in order to convey information. You are not a fish, you are a human.

As for prosecution, again, this just demonstrates my point that what relativists really advocate is a kill or be killed, might makes right existence that relies on domination of your will over others.

Now which idea is more tolerant and peaceful?

As my college president said today at Commencement (quoting Pope Benedict XVI), our knowledge of absolute truth and morality requires that every human being, by virtue of being human, has a claim on us, a claim of justice and brotherhood and love. This is not something that we can just choose to be obligated to or not; we are all obligated, though we can make the wrongful choice to disregard our obligations and human rights and dignity. The point is, we are not at liberty to cast off the rights and dignity of another human being simply because we wish it.

That is where your relative morality is terribly dangerous, deficient, and ultimately much, much more evil and corruptive of society than a recognition of absolute truth and morality.

The first one was having to do with this whole idea put forward by your speaker and seemingly agreed to by you that discussing morality is something that is worthwhile and can in fact be done. Your statement here just backs up my point that relativists actually assert that morality is meaningless and pointless, and therefore conversations about it are worthless.

Not at all. Morality can help to ensure that societies run smoothly. Even while keeping in mind that morality is relative, this is true. I think that’s very pointed.

If certain moral norms are necessary or helpful for the smooth running of society, and you are holding to those moral norms for that purpose, then yes, you are devising a morality pertaining to an objective goal—the goal of supporting the smooth running of a society. Social stability has become the good by which you define your morality.

Correct. The good (IMO) by which I define my morality.

I don’t know what you’re getting at in your response about judging other cultures. If it’s just a meaningless opinion, then we’re back to the futility of the whole idea of morality—you are asserting that relativism essentially destroys the whole concept and worth of morality. Relative morality is an oximoron.

As morality currently stands, yes, it is an oxymoron, because the current standing of morality opposes relative morality. In my opinion, morality is incorrect and relative morality is correct.

In my opinion, “morally right” and “morally wrong” and “good” and “evil” are all terms which (as they are currently defined) should be trashed in favor of subjective terms.

When you apply the label of “sane” to people, you’re making a judgment based upon an objective norm of sanity, to which you are appealing to make your point. Words and language are not relative in definition. They rely necessarily on common, accepted, objective meanings in order to convey information. You are not a fish, you are a human.

Oh? Then why is it that different dictionaries define the same words differently?

As for prosecution, again, this just demonstrates my point that what relativists really advocate is a kill or be killed, might makes right existence that relies on domination of your will over others.

I don’t agree with “might makes right”; “might wins”, maybe. As for “kill or be killed”, isn’t that just a fact of life?

There is a finite amount of matter in the universe. This means that, for every something that exists, something else does not exist. To flip an old saying on its head, “a penny found is a penny lost.”

Also, there’s something you’re overlooking, and that is that cooperation trumps defection: a large nation trumps a small one, a united nation trumps a fractured one. “Kill or be killed” and “might wins” both encourage morality, because an army trumps a loner, and a man without morals stands alone; no one wants to ally with a man who might stab them in the back.

Now which idea is more tolerant and peaceful?

Relative morality’s my guess, because it is more understanding.

Finix, there’s something going on with the format of your posts that is cutting off the first few letters on the left margin.

I’ve got to head to bed, soon, but a quick reaction to your final assertion: it is your moral code, your understanding and definition of relative morality may be “understanding.” Even this I would take issue with, because since you assert that all morality is relative, you are saying that all moralities are correct except absolute ones (the majority of moral codes out there, each aiming at discovering and adopting an ultimate absolute moral truth). Relativism is intolerant of absolute moralists—again, the vast majority.

What you’re describing encourages people to try to force their moral codes over other people, because it is the only way to ensure that people treat you by how you would like to be treated.

If relativists were to be truly “tolerant” (which, by the way, seems the ultimate absolute that most relativists seem to aspire to, again basing their whole concept of morality upon an absolute principle—they simply cannot escape absolute terms, because it is how all of existence and human nature works and relies upon), they would recognize the validity of the theistic and philosophic approaches to morality and quit griping. After all, isn’t my opinion just as true as yours, then?

you assert that all morality is relative, you are saying that all moralities are correct except absolute ones

Absolute morality asserts that there is an absolute definition of right and an absolute definition of wrong which apply to all people at all times, even if they are unaware of it. From there it becomes a matter of figuring out what’s right and what’s wrong.

Relative morality asserts that there is no absolute definition of right or absolute definition of wrong, that morality is merely another invention of humanity, and that we each have our own opinions pertaining to right and wrong which are liable to be challenged by others.

So, yes and no. Absolute moralities are valid opinions, but I disagree with them.

What you’re describing encourages people to try to force their moral codes over other people, because it is the only way to ensure that people treat you by how you would like to be treated.

It encourages people to try to force their moral codes upon others because otherwise human society would go to shit; every time the police arrest a criminal, they are forcing their morals upon others. Absolute morality just sugar coats it by asserting that the police were right and the criminal was wrong.

they simply cannot escape absolute terms

That’s because the english language doesn’t contain words with which to properly express relative morality in its purest form, IMO.

If relativists were to be truly “tolerant”, they would recognize the validity of the theistic and philosophic approaches to morality and quit griping.

Absolutists argue about morality all the time. Are you saying relativists shouldn’t also share their thoughts on the subject?

After all, isn’t my opinion just as true as yours, then?

It is; it is truly your opinion.

I have tons of morals, infact! Mormons pretty much base theire whole way on living on morals. We don’t drink, smoke, no coffe, no drugs, dress modestly, no sex b4 marriage, the list goes on and on!