The Problems With Ethical Relativism (18 Viewers)

[Dinsdale]

This is more my domain. You need an OS to run software, that's right. Unless you define "software" to include the OS, which of course technically it does. Well, you could also write your code to run on the bare metal, no OS necessary, but that's not very common.

But even before you have an OS, there is some kind of 'basic software' implemented on the motherboard that allows you to install an OS, right? You can't install software from scratch. I thought it was called a boot system.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[rounder]

Oh, absolutely.

In a sense this is a problem with evolution, because you can use it to explain everything. So I don't want to make bold claims that are on shaky ground. But yes I have heard about the inborn morality thing, don't recall anything similar on language though, maybe I missed something.

I'm not educated about this stuff, I know some of the conclusions but I don't know any of the science behind it.

I've read a book once that suggests that morality is inborn. They compared the moral actions of a bunch of children with that of a group of apes, and they discovered that children almost always resort to non-violence, kindness etc..

And Razielist, you again seem to misinterpret my point. I do believe that morality in human beings is a by-product of socio-evolutionary reasons but I don't believe it is the humans who have set all the framework for all moral standards.

I personally believe that a supernatural entity that cares for humanity has set those standards, a theistic God rather than a deistic God.

I have explained in-depth why I cannot accept ethical relativism in my other thread but I do believe there are important lessons to be taken from the concept itself.

 

[*aca*]

I know, I know. It doesn't explain or predict anything. I just suggested a god model that makes a little more sense and is more concrete than the ones usually used, and it's not complete by any means. It's not science, just something that might expand your thinking.

ancient human: the spirits lived in animals (or the wind/fire/wood) because that was the limit of their knowledge. they were nor gods, they were spirits. animism.

ancient greece: top of olympus was the place of gods, because it was the highest top, the limit of what human could reach. we have a switch from spirit to a deity

Judaism/christianity/islam: had to move it further. Now the sky is the limit and that is where the gods are. when the skies were explored & explained, it went further into space. when the space is explained, we reach....

it could be 4 dimensions moving creature.

Cant you see the pattern?

Your definition just uses a fancy word and borrows on achievements of science. Otherwise no differences.

The term commonly used is god of the gaps.

That's how you interpret it. Didn't man (some people, not mankind in general) at some point, based on observations, concluded that the universe is created by a god? Of course we don't know whether this conclusion is right or wrong, and that's why we research the plausibility of explanations supporting this conclusion, so that we can then examine the plausibility of the conclusion itself. The backwards thinking came after the forwards thinking. That's why you too called god a conclusion, and not an axiom.

they did not conclude that. They could not explain. It was beyond their capabilities of understanding so something "bigger" had to do it. It was not based on evidence, but on ignorance.

I called god conclusion because this is what every (or almost every theist) assumes god to be. It is not a conclusion because it does not explain anything. what is the difference between saying "I do not know how this happen" and "god did it"?

I'll repeat. saying "god did it" is the equivalent of saying "unknown being did it by unknowable means"

Unless can explain how god does things (in the words of Pierre-Simon Laplace) we have no need for that "hypothesis".

 

[*aca*]

I suddenly thought of Super Mario. I remember playing that game when only two-dimensional space existed in games, when I thought about it, I was living in three-dimensional space, controlling a character in two dimensional space that cannot even see me while I can see everything in its world.

I suppose that's how the four dimensional space theory would work, with a supernatural entity being involved in our three dimensional universe being able to control our actions without us being able to see it.

Am I close to the general idea?I really found it difficult to get a good grasp on the concept.

argument from super mario.

 

[Martin]

But even before you have an OS, there is some kind of 'basic software' implemented on the motherboard that allows you to install an OS, right? You can't install software from scratch. I thought it was called a boot system.

Oh, the BIOS you mean. Well, the distinction between software and hardware is blurred. BIOS is software but it lives on a ROM chip, so it's not software in the typical sense. Then again you can flash the ROM to update the BIOS. But for all intents and purposes it's rather "built-in".

So yes. Basically all the messages you see on the screen before the OS kicks in come from the BIOS.

 

[rounder]

argument from super mario.

It helped me grasp what I thought was a rather abstract idea.

 

[Raz]

And Razielist, you again seem to misinterpret my point. I do believe that morality in human beings is a by-product of socio-evolutionary reasons but I don't believe it is the humans who have set all the framework for all moral standards.

I personally believe that a supernatural entity that cares for humanity has set those standards, a theistic God rather than a deistic God.

Ok, I'll keep it in mind next time.

Please don't be offended and I'm asking this not to mock you or anything, just from pure curiosity. Why do you think god, if there is one, cares about us. And from what you are saying I can understand that he is morally good, why is that? And why would he create us?

One answer I got today was so that we could accept him, but that is a stupid reason to create something for a such entity no? I mean does he lack love or something?

I just want to know why do you think he created universe with us inside? And why do we have to have such cosmic purpose? Can't we just be?

 

[*aca*]

btw, there is evidence that we are born with empathy hard wired in our brains (together with survival instincts and sex drive - which would indicate importance of empathy for our survival as species).

 

[Dinsdale]

ancient human: the spirits lived in animals (or the wind/fire/wood) because that was the limit of their knowledge. they were nor gods, they were spirits. animism.

ancient greece: top of olympus was the place of gods, because it was the highest top, the limit of what human could reach. we have a switch from spirit to a deity

Judaism/christianity/islam: had to move it further. Now the sky is the limit and that is where the gods are. when the skies were explored & explained, it went further into space. when the space is explained, we reach....

it could be 4 dimensions moving creature.

Cant you see the pattern?

Your definition just uses a fancy word and borrows on achievements of science. Otherwise no differences.

The term commonly used is god of the gaps.

The differences are huge. Ancient humans: has nothing to do with god like you said yourself. God located in sky or mountains: doesn't make any sense, because you can't create something that you're part of yourself. So no, I don't see a relevant pattern at all. It's obvious to anyone that my suggested interpretation of god makes sense and those you mentioned don't make any sense at all. And please don't repeat that it doesn't explain anything, you've already said that enough.

edit: you might wanna read some things I've posted in this thread the last few pages, as they probably provide answers to the comments you'll be making

they did not conclude that. They could not explain. It was beyond their capabilities of understanding so something "bigger" had to do it. It was not based on evidence, but on ignorance.

I called god conclusion because this is what every (or almost every theist) assumes god to be. It is not a conclusion because it does not explain anything. what is the difference between saying "I do not know how this happen" and "god did it"?

I'll repeat. saying "god did it" is the equivalent of saying "unknown being did it by unknowable means"

Unless can explain how god does things (in the words of Pierre-Simon Laplace) we have no need for that "hypothesis".

Who are you to decide that? Who are you to decide that "gravitational forces make two objects attract each other" is a good enough explanation? You can't even show these forces are there, so why don't we reject all physics too.

"Oh right, the forces did it..."

Couldn't physical laws be the way god does things?

argument from super mario.

It's an analogy. What's so funny about it? I can't help but notice this recurring condescending tone you have.

 

[Raz]

Couldn't physical laws be the way god does things?

But thats just it, we have no idea how does he do what he do, and yet we can say anything, just about anything and it will still stick.

And this will not change in the future, because we can't know what is this entity. Since we have no knowledge about it, and we will not be able to get any knowledge about it, so there is really no point thinking there is something like it creating some worlds outside of our natural world/universe whatever.

 

[rounder]

Ok, I'll keep it in mind next time.

Please don't be offended and I'm asking this not to mock you or anything, just from pure curiosity. Why do you think god, if there is one, cares about us. And from what you are saying I can understand that he is morally good, why is that? And why would he create us?

One answer I got today was so that we could accept him, but that is a stupid reason to create something for a such entity no? I mean does he lack love or something?

I just want to know why do you think he created universe with us inside? And why do we have to have such cosmic purpose? Can't we just be?

To answer your first question. Since, as you know, I believe in objective morality. It is logical to conclude that any being that would set a framework for morality would be a morally good entity. Why would God set an objective moral law if He did not care His creations, it wouldn't make very much sense, would it?

I'm not sure I understand the second part, do you mean to ask why I think we have reason to live rather than happen to be accidental by-products of nature?

Well, if that's your question, it's a good one.

I have a number of answers actually. One of which is this, since I don't believe we could have been accidental by-products of nature, see the teleological argument, I believe that our creation does have an objective purpose.

Also, if our creation was accidental, our lives would have no objective meaning.
If I asked you what the meaning of your life was? You would probably give a range of things including carreer, education, wealth, family, friends, happiness, fame, love; notice that all of these things carry subjective meaning to the individual's life.

Everything you work for, all the knowledge you attain, all the friends you meet, and all the goals you accomplish all carry subjective meaning to your own life but what would it all matter a few hundred thousand years from now? I find it necessary that our lives do carry a sense of objective meaning, a higher purpose than attaining wealth and pleasure. I think life is much more meaningful than that.

I know this seems more like an emotional reason than a logical one, but I do think that the fact human beings have this longing for an objective meaning to their lives that extend beyond materialistic objectives here on earth really says something profound, at least for me. It seems rather pointless for humans to have this longing if indeed it never existed, don't you think?

Just as we have a longing for love, money, power, we have a longing for eternal life and objective meaning to our lives. Notice that love, money, and power are all attainable things.

 

[*aca*]

The differences are huge. Ancient humans: has nothing to do with god like you said yourself. God located in sky or mountains: doesn't make any sense, because you can't create something that you're part of yourself. So no, I don't see a relevant pattern at all. It's obvious to anyone that my suggested interpretation of god makes sense and those you mentioned don't make any sense at all. And please don't repeat that it doesn't explain anything, you've already said that enough.

you do not see the pattern because today you know more that people of ancient times.

terminology is different, that's about only difference there is.

Who are you to decide that? Who are you to decide that "gravitational forces make two objects attract each other" is a good enough explanation? You can't even show these forces are there, so why don't we reject all physics too.

"Oh right, the forces did it..."

Couldn't physical laws be the way god does things?

I do not decide what is good enough explanation. Those explanation exist and you accept them and understand the consequences of ignoring them. If you doubt that two objects attract each other, just try jumping from a skyscraper. Maybe that explanation is wrong and you'll land down gently.

Forces exist. You can test it, try it, experiment and provide evidence. They are real. Some still have to postulate "supernatural (whatever that may mean) but for a life on this planet, god is unnecessary burden.

If the physical laws are the best way for god to do things, he's not much of a all powerful creator, no? I'm no engineer, but if i was almighty, i would have done a way, way better job

It's an analogy. What's so funny about it? I can't help but notice this recurring condescending tone you have.

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

it was funny. That is all there is too it.

 

[Raz]

Thanks for the answer.

But you can inprint your name in history without need of god, you can try to change other lives to better, try to make a better future, or maybe a worse one, whatever you choose. That could be your purpose, not just some cash and some romance. There are plenty of ways you can make your life meaningful without the need of god.

Well it does seem a bit emotional to me too I got nothing against it, it is your choice. But I have other thoughts about this longing for life after death and etc. I think i have told the reasons before, so i'm not gonna repeat them. In short - if you wish hard enough you will start seeing things that aren't really there.

Although I am a bit surprised that you have found something at least remotely good in my post, eh, who am i kidding, you probablyare drunk anyway

 

[rounder]

Thanks for the answer.

But you can inprint your name in history without need of god, you can try to change other lives to better, try to make a better future, or maybe a worse one, whatever you choose. That could be your purpose, not just some cash and some romance. There are plenty of ways you can make your life meaningful without the need of god.

Well it does seem a bit emotional to me too I got nothing against it, it is your choice. But I have other thoughts about this longing for life after death. I think i have told the reasons before, so i'm not gonna repeat them. Anyway it's just my opinion.

Although I am a bit surprised that you have found something at least remotely good in my post, eh, who am i kidding, you probablyare drunk anyway

I am drunk.

The world will come to an end one day, thus everything we do will not have any significance eventually. So even if we do leave a legacy behind us, what will it matter when the world comes to an end? Unless there's some kind of reason for us being here, nothing would really be meaningful.

You mentioned imprinting your name in history. Yes, this may bring as I mentioned, subjective happiness to some people, again, it will eventually become completely insignificant.

 

[Raz]

Heh, i was right then.

People die every day, so of course it would be sweet if it were for some higher reason. But just because we want it to be doesn't mean that it has to be there. Reason is something man made, so basically its just in our heads.

 

[rounder]

Heh, i was right then.

People die every day, so of course it would be sweet if it were for some higher reason. But just because we want it to be doesn't mean that it has to be there. Reason is something man made, so basically its just in our heads.

But that's my question really. Why would it be in our heads in the first place, why would we long for an impossibility? You don't see rational men wishing they had a unicorn next to them, they long for things they could attain. Why do we long for this sense of immortality, why is this feature innate in nearly all human beings in all cultures at all times?

If we were just acccidental by-products of nature that would at one point exist then at another point never exist again, why don't we just naturally accept that as our destiny. Why do so many of us long for something that is irrational, and impossible?

There has to be a good psychological explanation for all this.

 

[Raz]

I think even if it were certain that there isn't god. People would still feel the need to become immortals, be remembered.

So people dream about it, hope for it. Its all good when you are living with food, shelter, you aren't a slave, but when you don't have all this, you start imagining stuff that makes you think you will have a better life after this hell.

Thought that my suffering while my friends are living with luxury will be balanced out. Need to feel secure. It all helped us to fantasise for things that are not true.

 

[Dinsdale]

But thats just it, we have no idea how does he do what he do, and yet we can say anything, just about anything and it will still stick.

And this will not change in the future, because we can't know what is this entity. Since we have no knowledge about it, and we will not be able to get any knowledge about it, so there is really no point thinking there is something like it creating some worlds outside of our natural world/universe whatever.

Yes, but it's equally pointless/unfair to claim there isn't something like that, like snake midget concluded also.

you do not see the pattern because today you know more that people of ancient times.

terminology is different, that's about only difference there is.

It has nothing to do with technology. The distinction I made is a pure logical/analytical one. I already mentioned it 3 times, and you ignored it as many times, but what the heck: you can't create anything of which you're a part yourself. I'm sure someone has come up with that a few thousand years ago too, and by that concluded that it's nonsensical to define a god that exists within our universe (like when it would be located on a mountain or whatever).

I do not decide what is good enough explanation.Those explanation exist and you accept them and understand the consequences of ignoring them. If you doubt that two objects attract each other, just try jumping from a skyscraper. Maybe that explanation is wrong and you'll land down gently.

Forces exist. You can test it, try it, experiment and provide evidence. They are real. Some still have to postulate "supernatural (whatever that may mean) but for a life on this planet, god is unnecessary burden.

No, I can only see two objects moving towards each other, I'm not doubting that. But I cannot see these forces. How do these forces work? Why should I just assume that these mysterious thing you call forces are there? I cannot understand it, and if you try to explain it to me you're making an ad hoc explanation because your starting point is 'forces exist', so it cannot exist...

Does this reasoning sound lame to you?

Claiming god exists isn't helpful, but it isn't a burden either.

If the physical laws are the best way for god to do things, he's not much of a all powerful creator, no? I'm no engineer, but if i was almighty, i would have done a way, way better job

If there was a site with a list of silly atheist arguments, I'm sure this one would make that list.

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

it was funny. That is all there is too it.

What the hell is the link between the analogy Juve Rev made up in order to better understand a certain interpretation of god, and that list of "god proofs" mocking theism? See, it's this - should I say it? - arrogant attitude of atheists like yourself, claiming that your believe system (god doesn't exist) is more superior than the other, that is really annoying and makes you more close minded than some theists even.

I don't believe in god myself and all I did was give a more understandable interpretation of god, and instead of just accepting it for what it is, you stubbornly come up with standard rejecting arguments like I'm some kind of priest trying to convert you. And that shows how biased you really are.

If it would be a football match between theism and atheism, it's still 0 - 0.

 

[Raz]

Yes, but it's equally pointless/unfair to claim there isn't something like that, like snake midget concluded also.

I have never said that i am certain that there is no god. But i do think that there is very high chance that there is deistic god, who was a cause to our universe or something similar and then went on his way without looking back. And I think there is absolutely no chance of a theistic god, the one who created us for god knows what reason and now all he does is sit around and watch us play in a big sandbox, giving candy to the good ones and disciplining the bad ones.

 

[Dinsdale]

I have never said that i am certain that there is no god. But i do think that there is very high chance that there is deistic god, who was a cause to our universe or something similar and then went on his way without looking back. And I think there is absolutely no chance of a theistic god, the one who created us for god knows what reason and now all he does is sit around and watch us play in a big sandbox, giving candy to the good ones and disciplining the bad ones.

Yeah, I don't even think about a theistic god. The only necessary function is creating the universe, no need to make up extra stuff.