Moral relativism.

[ajblaise]

How is moral absolutism true if the Christian God exists?

If Christianity is correct and a Christian God exists, then by extension, moral absolutism would be correct and exist, because it's part of Christianity.

Noone can show that it is plausible for dragons to exist, should we use the existence of dragons as the foundation for our ideas in zoology?

Or better yet morality? Should we make ethical decisions based on our belief that dragons exist?

No. I don't think the Christian God theory is plausible either, but it is slightly more plausible than the dragon or the flying spaghetti monster theory.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

The only way I could see morality having an existence outside of the grounds you gave in the initial post, would be if their is some kind of cognitively innate form of morality. Whether such a thing does exist is highly debatable.

1)What is innate form of morality?
2)What reasons are there for believing that it exists?

 

[Magic Poriferan]

How is moral absolutism true if the Christian God exists?






Noone can show that it is plausible for dragons to exist, should we use the existence of dragons as the foundation for our ideas in zoology?

Or better yet morality? Should we make ethical decisions based on our belief that dragons exist?

Put simply, we tend to draw beliefs from other beliefs. Things of a systematic nature, be they ethical, logical, taxanomic, etc.. are especially prone to being designed in ways that accounts for various things we believe to be true. So yes, if someone did believe that dragons existed, it would make sense for them to take the existence of dragons into account when trying to understand zoology (for instance, what is the evolutionary history of the dragon, and what class is it a part of?).

The dragon is not so applicable to morality however. The reason God is, is because many faithful believe that God is the one who dictates what is moral. I suppose this still begs a thousand questions, but the devoutly religious seem to be far more comfortable with abruptly terminating inquiry than I am. There is a notion on their part that somehow, there is simply a bottom line for universal morality. You cannot use reasoning to undermine it, because they simply say that it is what it is. So in otherwords, Universal morality has no existence outside of faith.

 

[ajblaise]

Oh, certainly. But usually those types of arguments (for accepting a "moral" on the basis of tradition) try and sell the particular "moral" as being universal in the first place.

Yeah I could respect the argument more if they were open about their appeal to tradition instead of pointing to some ancient scripture or trying to apply their morals to everyone's natural existence.

But I suppose arguing for the status-quo isn't quite a sexy idea to sell.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

1)What is innate form of morality?
2)What reasons are there for believing that it exists?

I mean "innate morality" as in neurologically inborn. The reasons for believing that it is exists is that various aspects of human thinking have been found to manifest themselves in brain activity, some of which we have figured out how to directly manipulate. This mental activity is often global, existing in people of all races in all parts of the world, and can include very complex processes such as guilt and empathy. It is on this basis that some suppose that certain underlying principles of morlity itself may be inherent in all people (though, even this hypothesis fails to account for the mentally deformed, such as psychopaths).

 

[SolitaryWalker]

So yes, if someone did believe that dragons existed, it would make sense for them to take the existence of dragons into account when trying to understand zoology (for instance, what is the evolutionary history of the dragon, and what class is it a part of?). .

If I believe that dragons exist because I found water on my floor, I should take them into account when trying to understand zoology, or understand what animals exist, and what they are like.

The dragon is not so applicable to morality however. The reason God is, is because many faithful believe that God is the one who dictates what is moral. I suppose this still begs a thousand questions, but the devoutly religious seem to be far more comfortable with abruptly terminating inquiry than I am. There is a notion on their part that somehow, there is simply a bottom line for universal morality. You cannot use reasoning to undermine it, because they simply say that it is what it is. So in otherwords, Universal morality has no existence outside of faith.

What if I say that dragons meet me in my sleep and command me how to live. Moreoever, you all should listen to what I tell you, because dragons get upset when you do not do as they want you to, and only I know what they want you to do because they talk to me in my sleep, and when they get upset people die! The whole world shall catch on fire!

Is this any less applicable to morality than belief in God?

 

[Magic Poriferan]

If I believe that dragons exist because I found water on my floor, I should take them into account when trying to understand zoology, or understand what animals exist, and what they are like.



What if I say that dragons meet me in my sleep and command me how to live. Moreoever, you all should listen to what I tell you, because dragons get upset when you do not do as they want you to, and only I know what they want you to do because they talk to me in my sleep, and when they get upset people die! The whole world shall catch on fire!

It must be understood that we are talking about a hypothesis here. The question isn't whether the original premise is true, but what conclusions would follow if the premise were. I'd think a person with such a fervant belief in dragons is probably very naive or crazy, because there appears to be no evidence that dragons exist. But if, for the sake of argument, dragons did exist, it would make sense for them to be accounted for.

Is this any less applicable to morality than belief in God?

I basically think it's a matter of function. The more and more you describe dragons as entities which function like God does, the more applicable it becomes to the belief in God.

As an added note, there are many different conceptions of God. My take on it varies significantly depending on whether we are talking about God as a cosmic, pantheistic entity, or some kind of wordly, interventionist diety. I personally believe in neither, but I would grant that the former is much more plausible than the latter.

 

[wedekit]

Welcome to the Western World: Home of the Relativists. Home of "Tolerance." Enjoy.

 

[nomadic]

Welcome to the Western World: Home of the Relativists. Home of "Tolerance." Enjoy.

i dunno. i mean, i think in general the recent trend is to NOT care what other people/cultures think...

but yeah, i think its another thing entirely to know what and how others think first, and then not care. but understand thats just how they think...

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

I worry for absolutists. Not only are they potentially dangerous, but I think they're severely out of touch.

 

[Didums]

I'm absolutely sure that I shouldn't be absolutely sure about anything.

 

[Llewellyn]

I support Nietzsche's idea that morality should originate as a need, after a point of moral nihilism. Then the right morals will "naturally" come up.

 

[Mycroft]

I support Nietzsche's idea that morality should originate as a need, after a point of moral nihilism. Then the right morals will "naturally" come up.

Nietzsche espoused living by one's own code of principles, arrived at through rigorous self-examination and "sublimation of Wills to Power", not morals.

On a more general level, the distinction between a personal code of ethics, e.g. principles, and morals is an important one.

Welcome to the Western World: Home of the Relativists. Home of "Tolerance." Enjoy.

Yes, those Evangelicals and their constant preaching of tolerance and understanding is really driving me crazy. Lousy peaceniks!

 

[Hirsch63]

View attachment 2732View attachment 2731

 

[booyalab]

I worry for absolutists. Not only are they potentially dangerous, but I think they're severely out of touch.

are you absolutely sure?

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

are you absolutely sure?

Yes.

<--your grandfather

 

[Totenkindly]

Objectively it's relative, but realistically, we are a species with certain biological limitations and patterns of behavior, and as such, there are going to be universal codes which are beneficial when followed, such as the incest taboo and laws against murder. But I still voted relativism.

The bolded part does seem stable, but I generally accept relativism. Not because it's relative, but because it seems sensible and logical.

I did grow up in a very conservative culture, though, that treated relativism as morally backslidden and an attack upon "good" traditional values.

It made life uncomfortable for a very long time, until I finally just realized I was more relativistic because the other approach seemed inaccurate to me.

 

[JAVO]

To say that morality is always relative is contradictory, because that itself is a morally absolute statement.

There are some moral absolutes, but the rest is relative.

 

[Orangey]

To say that morality is always relative is contradictory, because that itself is a morally absolute statement.

But is that a moral position?

 

[Nocapszy]

I'm absolutely sure that I shouldn't be absolutely sure about anything.

What a beautiful ideal.
A difficult one to practice I'm sure.

Interesting.