The Problems With Ethical Relativism (14 Viewers)

[Raz]

The Bible promises that once you accept Jesus, you will experience God. Many people have done so and many have experienced God, if you believe you possess eternal, divine knowledge and will openly dismiss all of these claims then be my guest.

Where did i said i posses such knowledge?

As for your starving babies, well i don't really think of it as a moral issue here, because if a whole culture would do that it would just die out. So it isn't a moral issue here, it's practical one, you don't torture, kill, damage your babies because it is wrong, you don't do it because this way you will damage yourself in a long run.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Martin]

There is a big difference between believing something and actually seeing/experiencing it.

Sure, but if you really believe something exists (ghosts) and you really want to see them because you are emotionally very attached to this idea, then chances are sooner or later you will see something that you think is a ghost. And that will only reinforce your belief further.

Now if someone says that was just a shadow you will argue vigorously.

 

[Raz]

There is a big difference between believing something and actually seeing/experiencing it.

If you are delusion from wishful thinking how would you know that what you are seeing is really true?

 

[rounder]

You are using the same word in different contexts.

So far so good.

What does this mean? What truth are you talking about? It is not the truth of the statement anymore.

Now you are back to talking about the truth of the statement.

1) Statement 2 suggests that morality is subjective.

2) Statement 2 is correct.

3) Subjective morality suggests that nothing is correct, it is all relative thus statement 2 ( Morality is subjective ) cannot be correct.

 

[Martin]

Absolutely, I have nothing against investigating religion, in fact, I'm all for it.

Ethical relativism is something that is not agreed upon by most ethicists. Thus I believe there is very good reason to examine this subject, a lot more than objective morality. You, or someone needs to conclusively prove that ethical relativism is 'true' in the sense that it most accurately defines the nature of morality.

Untill now, it remains entirely unconvincing and stating that there are no moral truths just makes ethical relativism even more unbelievable.

That's a rather big statement. You should back it up.

You, or someone needs to conclusively prove that ethical relativism is 'true' in the sense that it most accurately defines the nature of morality.

You want this to be proven? Well I told you different people make different judgments on the same moral questions. Different countries have different laws. These are all examples of subjective morality. What more proof do you want?

 

[Hist]

I agree with most of the things you are saying. I would only like to point out a few points which I believe you should agree with.

If some morals are relative to culture, this does not mean that all morals are relative to culture. Meaning that if dressing inappropriately in Saudi Arabia is considered immoral while in America it is perfectly fine, this does not mean that all questions of morality depend on culture.

Would you not agree that their are absolute moral principles that can be verified regardless of time, individual, culture? I cannot prove this is the case as no one can prove that ethical relativism is the right philosophy but basically things like raping a child are fundamentally immoral regardless of any of the factors I have mentioned above.

maybe but either way we cannot know if this is the case or not.
The problem is not of whether there is the absolute principles that you are talking about... the problem is that of judgement.
We cannot judge objectively whether there exists such laws or not because our judgment is always shadowed by past experience and emotions.
If these laws were self evident then this problem is already solved but they are not.
Attaining knowledge of such thing is impossible because making an objective judgment about it is impossible... so believing it exists or not is impossible.

Moral relativism does not suggest that consensus about a moral topic is impossible because this would obviously be false as the world does agree on many things. However, Taking the exact same factors into account while performing the judgment (even if agreement was met) is impossible and that is why they claim its relative to the judge.
On the other Hand, Mathematics does not take these factors into account because the process of judgment in Math does not take personal emotions and culture into account. It is none debatable unlike morals.
So the point is, that maybe moral laws are objective in themselves (meaning there is a best way to act in each situation) but we as human beings cannot objectively know their existence, it is above our capabilities and hence we disagree on this very topic. This too has to do with faith that is why i don't see it as sufficient proof for god's existence. If you were to prove its objective reality using an objective argument like that we use in math then it would be a proof of god's existence.

Humans then pass judgment using their moral books on other society's moral books and so cultural shocks take place. So in attempting to reach agreement on a wider scale, while acknowledging that our judgment is relative, groups such as the UN and others (in this age of globalization) try to make morality look more like math to search for an objective moral truth like the one you believe in. They add criteria to it to have a more efficient judging system so that we can be able to punish and reward while maintaining justice. Criteria like Universality where you take a certain situation and analyze a certain action by seeing if every person in the world were to do that action in that certain situation. On that wide scale, a universal scale, would the world be better with slavery or without?
The world agreed that slavery was not the best way to go like 100 years ago only. This is because of our refining criteria that tries to eliminate the subjective factors judges take into account making morals more like math in order for the world to live a better life.. to making a better state.
Whether the world at one point will Fix its moral code as THE CORRECT MORAL CODE (like the one you suggest) that will not be modified ever again is a matter of faith.

shit you make me write a lot.

EDIT: That is why morality is not a science... and that is why whenever we try to objectively study something we try to turn it to numbers.. as numbers are the most objective thing we have.

 

[rounder]

Sure, but if you really believe something exists (ghosts) and you really want to see them because you are emotionally very attached to this idea, then chances are sooner or later you will see something that you think is a ghost. And that will only reinforce your belief further.

Now if someone says that was just a shadow you will argue vigorously.

But you don't know that. This is pure speculation, you are merely inferring this because it seems most reasonable to you.

You have never seen anything supernatural or paranormal, you have heard that some people who have made such claims were not taken seriously, thus you conclude that all people who have seen anything supernatural must not be taken seriously also.


Surely, you can't deny every single supernatural claim in the history of mankind and deem them all as psycological disorders.

Where did i said i posses such knowledge?

As for your starving babies, well i don't really think of it as a moral issue here, because if a whole culture would do that it would just die out. So it isn't a moral issue here, it's practical one, you don't torture, kill, damage your babies because it is wrong, you don't do it because this way you will damage yourself in a long run.

Incorrect. I can leave those babies alone and live a perfectly fine life.

 

[Martin]

1) Statement 2 suggests that morality is subjective.

2) Statement 2 is correct.

3) Subjective morality suggests that nothing is correct, it is all relative thus statement 2 ( Morality is subjective ) cannot be correct.

Your reasoning just doesn't hold up. You're mixing things. Subjective morality doesn't say "nothing is correct", it says "nothing is correct for absolutely everyone". Actually, it doesn't even say that. Something could be correct for everyone. It says "of all possible moral questions, not all have the same answer for everyone".

 

[rounder]

That's a rather big statement. You should back it up.



You want this to be proven? Well I told you different people make different judgments on the same moral questions. Different countries have different laws. These are all examples of subjective morality. What more proof do you want?

I thought it was a known fact, I've read it many times actually. Ethical Relativism is not a very popular theory among most ethicists. I will try to find a few links if you want.


Yes, I know this but what is your evidence that torturing a new born baby is not fundamentally immoral but rather just dependant on culture and time?

 

[rounder]

Your reasoning just doesn't hold up. You're mixing things. Subjective morality doesn't say "nothing is correct", it says "nothing is correct for absolutely everyone". Actually, it doesn't even say that. Something could be correct for everyone. It says "of all possible moral questions, not all have the same answer for everyone".

If subjective morality cannot be right for absolutely everyone then this logically implies that objective morality applies to some of the people. However, if objective morality applies to some people, it will automatically apply to everyone since it is objective.

 

[Martin]

Yes, I know this but what is your evidence that torturing a new born baby is not fundamentally immoral but rather just dependant on culture and time?

It seems you don't understand the definition.

In strict mathematical terms:

Subjective morality means there is at least one moral question for which the answer is not the same for every person.


I hope you understood that.

This means even if we can agree on your baby torture example, not everyone in the world would agree on every example.

 

[Raz]

Martin, I'm gonna stop here since we are going in circles, have fun

Till something new comes up

 

[*aca*]

Till something new comes up

that would be the day

 

[Raz]

It seems you don't understand the definition.

In strict mathematical terms:

Subjective morality means there is at least one moral question for which the answer is not the same for every person.


I hope you understood that.

This means even if we can agree on your baby torture example, not everyone in the world would agree on every example.

Fantastic summary If he will not get it now, i don't know then...

 

[Martin]

But you don't know that. This is pure speculation, you are merely inferring this because it seems most reasonable to you.

Sure. But I can't be sure that tomorrow the sun will go up either. I just think it will, because it's very likely.

You have never seen anything supernatural or paranormal, you have heard that some people who have made such claims were not taken seriously, thus you conclude that all people who have seen anything supernatural must not be taken seriously also.


Surely, you can't deny every single supernatural claim in the history of mankind and deem them all as psycological disorders.

I have never heard of a scientific study that showed any kind of supernatural/paranormal event. Once I hear about one such study, and it's not funded by some religious group, I will rethink this.

 

[Hist]

i think i laid it down nice and simple, read my last post juverev

 

[rounder]

It seems you don't understand the definition.

In strict mathematical terms:

Subjective morality means there is at least one moral question for which the answer is not the same for every person.


I hope you understood that.

This means even if we can agree on your baby torture example, not everyone in the world would agree on every example.

I do understand that Martin but this does not contradict with the logical fallacy here. If subjective morality exists, then moral truths depend on the individual, yes? But since subjective morality states that nothing is objectively true, this means that subjective morality itself cannot be objectively true. If it is not objectively true, then it is useless accepting such a theory.

I hope I got my point accross.

 

[Hist]

I do understand that Martin but this does not contradict with the logical fallacy here. If subjective morality exists, then moral truths depend on the individual, yes? But since subjective morality states that nothing is objectively true, this means that subjective morality itself cannot be logically true.

I hope I got my point across.

Read my long post and reply please.

The statement that morals are subjective does not imply knowing, it implies not knowing.

 

[rounder]

i think i laid it down nice and simple, read my last post juverev

I will, just have some patience with me.

Sure. But I can't be sure that tomorrow the sun will go up either. I just think it will, because it's very likely.



I have never heard of a scientific study that showed any kind of supernatural/paranormal event. Once I hear about one such study, and it's not funded by some religious group, I will rethink this.

I agree, and that's why it is intellectually fallable to state that you know God does not exist 100%. Hopefully, you agree with me here.

 

[Martin]

I do understand that Martin but this does not contradict with the logical fallacy here. If subjective morality exists, then moral truths depend on the individual, yes? But since subjective morality states that nothing is objectively true, this means that subjective morality itself cannot be objectively true. If it is not objectively true, then it is useless accepting such a theory.

I hope I got my point accross.

But since subjective morality states that nothing is objectively true

Nothing is objectively true ABOUT MORAL CHOICES. And it does not refer to itself.

It doesn't say "this statement which says nothing is true is referring to itself therefore it is is also not true". You wildly misunderstand this.