The Problems With Ethical Relativism (23 Viewers)

[rounder]

So what you want me to prove is that objective morality doesn't exist? As with god, I leave it up to you to prove first that it does exist.

No, quite the contrary. Do we argue about whether the sun is yellow? No, because that is a fact, it is objectively true. There is no point arguing because everyone's opinion is the same.

Why is ethical relativism right? You have not given me an appropraite answer yet. You have just mentioned that everyone has their own morality but that doesn't really prove ethical relativism. I want you to prove to me that there are no fundamental moral truths. That torturing a new-born is not an objectively morally reprehensible action.


Ah, but that wasn't really my point. I am arguing for an objective moral law meaning that if you and I are arguing about a moral question, we are arguing to a specific moral standard. Either I am right, or you are right.

If this moral standard did not exist, then what is the point of arguing? This is the same as asking two people to find the answers to a math problem that does not have the answer. What is the point of that? Since no one is really right or really wrong, why discuss the matter any further, it is simply useless.

Not really. You see, religion is made up. And because it is made up and there is no one to make sure that religious rules that religious people have to obey are benign, inevitably many are harmful. I criticize both aspects, the fact that it's made up and the fact that the rules are harmful. One does not exclude the other.

Ethical relativism is also a concept that is harmful, it does have dangerous implications. I don't see how its different from religion. Both are flawed and dangerous, if one is not necessarily false then why should the other be?

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Martin]

Why is ethical relativism right?

Do I need to bring out the quote where I wrote "I never said it was right, there is no right"? Is your memory so short that you have to repeat the same things all the time because you've forgotten where the debate lead last time? We already went over this several times.

You have not given me an appropraite answer yet. You have just mentioned that everyone has their own morality but that doesn't really prove ethical relativism. I want you to prove to me that there are no fundamental moral truths. That torturing a new-born is not an objectively morally reprehensible action.

I told you. You prove to me first that there are. As with god.

Ethical relativism is also a concept that is harmful, it does have dangerous implications. I don't see how its different from religion. Both are flawed and dangerous, if one is not necessarily false then why should the other be?

So is violence.

 

[rounder]

1. its an objective fact?
2. This one is too considered a fact, not opinion right?
3. It is so objective that it seems that no one here believes in it, and you still are using it as an evidence.
4. And not accepted too.
5. Is it one more of your objective things?

1) A very likely possibility. You directly assume the layman position and decline it. So typical. Why don't you read a few cosmological books because I personally don't feel like going into detail. I'd recommend Stephan Hawkings, 'A Brief History of Time'.

2) Again, research the topic because you clearly do not know what the top physicists of our world have to say about it.

3) It is objective in the sense that it holds true regardless of whether people believe in it or not. Not objective in the sense that everyone believes in it. I cleared this up last time but you don't seem to want to learn.

4) By some people.

5)Many people have experienced God, who are you to day they are all wrong? Isn't that just a little arrogant, dare I say ignorant?

 

[Raz]

If this moral standard did not exist, then what is the point of arguing? This is the same as asking two people to find the answers to a math problem that does not have the answer. What is the point of that? Since no one is really right or really wrong, why discuss the matter any further, it is simply useless.

Wouldn't the better example be two people arguing which panting is more beautiful? Would that discussion be pointless too?

 

[Raz]

1) A very likely possibility. You directly assume the layman position and decline it. So typical. Why don't you read a few cosmological books because I personally don't feel like going into detail. I'd recommend Stephan Hawkings, 'A Brief History of Time'.

2) Again, research the topic because you clearly do not know what the top physicists of our world have to say about it.

3) It is objective in the sense that it holds true regardless of whether people believe in it or not. Not objective in the sense that everyone believes in it. I cleared this up last time but you don't seem to want to learn.

4) By some people.

5)Many people have experienced God, who are you to day they are all wrong? Isn't that just a little arrogant, dare I say ignorant?

1,2,3,4. Objectivity is written all over it. If you wouldn't put them as evidence then I would be ok with, it, but come on even you don't think of this as evidence of gods being?

5. Many people are now in hospitals thinking they are Napaleon or some other fairy too, who am I to say they are wrong?

 

[rounder]

Do I need to bring out the quote where I wrote "I never said it was right, there is no right"? Is your memory so short that you have to repeat the same things all the time because you've forgotten where the debate lead last time? We already went over this several times.



I told you. You prove to me first that there are. As with god.



So is violence.

But that doesn't make sense. You believe in ethical relativism but you don't believe it is right? Let me clarify here, You believe in it but you acknowledge it is not true?


I did. There are timeless moral truths that are clearly independent of culture. It does not matter if 100 years ago they believed slavery was fine, salvery is still fundamentally wrong.

You disagree with this and say this is only according to my moral standard but this isn't true. It is an absolute truth that slavery is wrong.

 

[Martin]

But that doesn't make sense. You believe in ethical relativism but you don't believe it is right? Let me clarify here, You believe in it but you acknowledge it is not true?

I believe violence exists. I don't believe it's "right".

I did. There are timeless moral truths that are clearly independent of culture. It does not matter if 100 years ago they believed slavery was fine, salvery is still fundamentally wrong.

According to your opinion.

You disagree with this and say this is only according to my moral standard but this isn't true. It is an absolute truth that slavery is wrong.

You can't prove this.

 

[Raz]

But that doesn't make sense. You believe in ethical relativism but you don't believe it is right? Let me clarify here, You believe in it but you acknowledge it is not true?


I did. There are timeless moral truths that are clearly independent of culture. It does not matter if 100 years ago they believed slavery was fine, salvery is still fundamentally wrong.

You disagree with this and say this is only according to my moral standard but this isn't true. It is an absolute truth that slavery is wrong.

Learn to read, for something to have flaws doesn't meant they are not true.

And you saying there are timless truth about this is just your subjectivity talking, you think that at any given time those truth would be immoral, but get this, it would be immoral to you, not neceseraly every one else.

 

[rounder]

Wouldn't the better example be two people arguing which panting is more beautiful? Would that discussion be pointless too?

Exactly. It would be pointless because this will take us nowhere since no type of panting is objectively more beautiful. I think one is more beautiful, you think the other is, what will we accomplish? Nothing. Thus it is useless.

Now, can we say the same about morality?

1,2,3,4. Objectivity is written all over it. If you wouldn't put them as evidence then I would be ok with, it, but come on even you don't think of this as evidence of gods being?

5. Many people are now in hospitals thinking they are Napaleon too.

They all suggest the existence of a supernatural being, an intelligent designer. They are not proof of God's existence, but they are evidence.

5. Many highly esteemed people claim to have experienced God, are they all delusional?

 

[rounder]

I believe violence exists. I don't believe it's "right".


According to your opinion.



You can't prove this.

Learn to read, for something to have flaws doesn't meant they are not true.

.

I didn't mean right as in morally right. I meant it in the sense that it is true.

Let me rephrase then, do you believe that ethical relativism is true? If so, why?

 

[Martin]

What does "true" mean? I said it exists.

 

[Raz]

Exactly. It would be pointless because this will take us nowhere since no type of panting is objectively more beautiful. I think one is more beautiful, you think the other is, what will we accomplish? Nothing. Thus it is useless.

Now, can we say the same about morality?



They all suggest the existence of a supernatural being, an intelligent designer. They are not proof of God's existence, but they are evidence.

5. Many highly esteemed people claim to have experienced God, are they all delusional?

No we can't, because morality isn't objective. It's the same thing, we can discuss, share opinions, try to change others point of view, but we cant know any objective moral truth, since everything we would decide would be subjective.

Proof is the same as evidence. So no, there is no proof of god's existence.

5. I really don't know what their motives were and such, i don't think they saw god, and anyway why would god have appeared to them?

I mean why to them? Why not to all? Because it would couldn't accept it on our own will? So then why did he appear to those guys? To get involved, i thought he didn't do that since its up to us?

 

[rounder]

Learn to read, for something to have flaws doesn't meant they are not true.

Okay buddy.

And you saying there are timless truth about this is just your subjectivity talking, you think that at any given time those truth would be immoral, but get this, it would be immoral to you, not neceseraly every one else.

Do you think that torturing a new born baby for pleasure was at any time a morally justifiable action?

 

[Raz]

I didn't mean right as in morally right. I meant it in the sense that it is true.

Let me rephrase then, do you believe that ethical relativism is true? If so, why?

Go outside and look around you, i think it should be enough to see that there is no objective moral standards.

 

[rounder]

What does "true" mean? I said it exists.

If you believe that ethical relativism exists. Does this not mean you think ethical relativism is true?

 

[Raz]

Okay buddy.



Do you think that torturing a new born baby for pleasure was at any time a morally justifiable action?

If in some tribe the is some rite of passage of this kind, then yes, to them it is moral, to me? No.

 

[Martin]

If you believe that ethical relativism exists. Does this not mean you think ethical relativism is true?

What does "true" mean? True is the answer to some question. What is the question?

 

[rounder]

No we can't, because morality isn't objective. It's the same thing, we can discuss, share opinions, try to change others point of view, but we cant know any objective moral truth, since everything we would decide would be subjective.

Proof is the same as evidence. So no, there is no proof of god's existence.

5. I really don't know what their motives were and such, i don't think they saw god, and anyway why would god have appeared to them?

I mean why to them? Why not to all? Because it would couldn't accept it on our own will? So then why did he appear to those guys? To get involved, i thought he didn't do that since its up to us?

The Bible says,'Draw close to God and He will draw close to you'. If you choose to act cynically towards Him, choose not to believe in Him, and mock him, then how do you expect God to appear to you?

Go outside and look around you, i think it should be enough to see that there is no objective moral standards.

That's your best argument yet.

 

[rounder]

If in some tribe the is some rite of passage of this kind, then yes, to them it is moral, to me? No.

So it's okay to torture a new born baby for fun if it leads them to some kind of tribal passage?

 

[Raz]

So it's okay to torture a new born baby for fun if it leads them to some kind of tribal passage?

Whatever rocks their boat. Who am i to come into their jungle and say stuff which i have no idea about?

While of course i can try to say that they are wrong, but it will be just according to me and my culture. So i can go in at take out all the babies with UN permission, but that wouldn't be universally right, it would just be right according to our standards.

Did god already appeared to you? No, try believing harder then, I'm sure the time will come.