The Problems With Ethical Relativism (4 Viewers)

[*aca*]

The purpose of this thread was to indicate the fallacies of ethical relativism. I will reserve the discussion of objective morality to another day. Heres another flaw by the way.

If we reject the theist basis of morality, we are left with subjective relativism. And what we call murder is committed in many many ways in the animal kingdom. We cannot tell the lion is wrong to commit murder of another animal - the lion doesn't even understand what right and wrong are.

well, until you do provide evidence for objective moral truths, moral relativism, with all its faults, is what is reflected in reality.

and there is no such a thing as "theist basis of morality". Creator god is a personal god, ie every theist makes up what that god is as he goes along according to his/hers preferences. No objectivity whatsoever.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[rounder]

There are many points that you make (about moral values changing true time) which are correct. They change because they are subjective not because there is a set of objective values that we did not discover.

In order for you to argue that objective value exist, you have to provide evidence for their existence, not argue against moral relativity because moral relativity is not perfect.

Cant you see the difference?

If morality is not relative then it is objective. This is the basis of my argument and I believe it is sufficient to prove the existence of an objective reality.

heheheh, so we are back to square one

Further more, if there is a objective moral law giver and that giver is a god, those value are still not objective. They are subjective to the law giver

Those values are objective to us.

 

[Martin]

The purpose of this thread was to indicate the fallacies of ethical relativism. I will reserve the discussion of objective morality to another day. Heres another flaw by the way.

If we reject the theist basis of morality, we are left with subjective relativism. And what we call murder is committed in many many ways in the animal kingdom. We cannot tell the lion is wrong to commit murder of another animal - the lion doesn't even understand what right and wrong are.

Which one of them?

 

[rounder]

Nah, I've discussed this a dozen times now and Rev (reverend?) still doesn't grasp the concept of objectivity. He says things like "it's obvious" without substantiating it. I tried to explain to him that objectivity must be based on facts, but he keeps ignoring that.

It's hopeless.

You have asked me to defend objective morality which I truly believe to be a fundamental reality just as you do ethical relativism. Instead of having me to defend objective morality, I simply ask you to defend ethical relativism.

 

[rounder]

Which one of them?

Christianity.

 

[*aca*]

If morality is not relative then it is objective. This is the basis of my argument and I believe it is sufficient to prove the existence of an objective reality.

No. Arguing that moral relativism is wrong, does not automatically mean that moral objectivity is true.

Those values are objective to us.

So you excluded god from being subject to objective moral values? Then they are not objective.

and they are objective to us but we interpret them subjectively? how does that work?

 

[Raz]

Here we go again...

 

[Martin]

You have asked me to defend objective morality which I truly believe to be a fundamental reality just as you do ethical relativism. Instead of having me to defend objective morality, I simply ask you to defend ethical relativism.

I don't have to. The flaws you have mentioned are true.

 

[*aca*]

Christianity.

have you read the bible?

 

[rounder]

well, until you do provide evidence for objective moral truths, moral relativism, with all its faults, is what is reflected in reality.

and there is no such a thing as "theist basis of morality". Creator god is a personal god, ie every theist makes up what that god is as he goes along according to his/hers preferences. No objectivity whatsoever.

When I mention theistic God, I am indicating a personal creator that set the framework for morality.

 

[rounder]

have you read the bible?

Ignore my statement. I was being sarcastic because I thought we already had the definition of what I was talking about already pinned down. Apparently, I was wrong.

I am talking about a personal God, far from the descriptions of that in any religion. It is the concept of the personal creator.

 

[Raz]

Personal god, with objective moral values? You do understand that your personal god can differ from anoher ones? With his god the morals will change too.

 

[rounder]

No. Arguing that moral relativism is wrong, does not automatically mean that moral objectivity is true.

So you excluded god from being subject to objective moral values? Then they are not objective.

and they are objective to us but we interpret them subjectively? how does that work?

If moral relativism is wrong, then what is true? Nihilism?

The interpretation is not what is in question here and it is not what I am arguing for.

 

[Martin]

If moral relativism is wrong, then what is true? Nihilism?

It's not wrong, it's flawed. See if you have a bicycle and you think damn my bicycle is much too slow, that doesn't mean you automatically have a car. No, you're still stuck with the bicycle, even if it's flawed.

 

[rounder]

Personal god, with objective moral values? You do understand that your personal god can differ from anoher ones? With his god the morals will change too.

I am arguing for a benevolent creator that cares for humanity. Thus a theistic God.

Let me make myself a little more clear.

Theistic God: Not God from Religion, but God that cares for humanity.

Deistic God : Not God from religion; but God that went on a permanent vacation.

 

[rounder]

It's not wrong, it's flawed. See if you have a bicycle and you think damn my bicycle is much too slow, that doesn't mean you automatically have a car. No, you're still stuck with the bicycle, even if it's flawed.

I am sorry but if the logic underlying a certain belief is flawed then why should I maintain this belief? You state that ethical relativism is part of reality, but I have indicated that this is anything but the case.

Why is ethical relativism true? This is my question. Just because you want it to be true does not make it so.

 

[*aca*]

how is the "personal creator" different from anything that you can make up as you go along?

 

[rounder]

Martin, this also defeats your entire purpose of criticizing religion.

You criticize religion because it is flawed, but if what you are saying is correct, then that is no reason to assume that religion is wrong.

 

[Raz]

I am sorry but if the logic underlying a certain belief is flawed then why should I maintain this belief? You state that ethical relativism is part of reality, but I have indicated that this is anything but the case.

Why is ethical relativism true? This is my question. Just because you want it to be true does not make it so.

This actually made me laugh out laud.

 

[*aca*]

I am sorry but if the logic underlying a certain belief is flawed then why should I maintain this belief? You state that ethical relativism is part of reality, but I have indicated that this is anything but the case.

Why is ethical relativism true? This is my question. Just because you want it to be true does not make it so.

i already stated here that relativism does not mean that there are no moral values which we can not all agree on.

we can and maybe we will, but that will always be a product of subjective investigation.