Moral Relativism Is Unintelligible

[SpheresOfBalance]

Here is a more complete list of premises:

Today, ground breaking news, can travel at the speed of light around the globe.
The complete truth of the universe, as proven fact, would indeed be ground breaking news, as well as the rest of this list that follows.
Man would have to know himself and everything else "completely" before he could know the truth of the totality of the universe, as he is part of that totality.
Man does not know what constitutes mind or consciousness.
Man does not know how to prevent/cure many deceases, such as cancer.
Man can/has not stop/ped fighting over a glittering element, wearing them as ornaments.
Man can/has not stop/ped competing for domination/power.
Man can/has not circumnavigate/ed the universe.
Man can/has not stop/ped destroying his ecosystem, that his life depends upon.
Man will not feed his own kind with either food or knowledge, unless he can enslave them in the process.
Man can/has not erased his selfishness which far exceeds his need to survive.
Man can/has not controlled his destructive urges.
Man can/has not stopped fighting/cannot agree on the simplest of things, look at us two.
Man does not know the theory (strike theory, rather truth) of everything; not Einstein, nor Hawking, nor Bohr, nor Feynman, nor any other renowned scientist, ever in history.
As the globe is slowly warming, despite the primary cause, man can/has not stopped anything that may help reverse or control, to any required degree, due to selfishness.
It would surely seem that man can/has not controlled his population in a civilized manor, in the face of dwindling resources.
Man can/has not looked into the face of another man and seen himself from the others perspective, which in truth is the way it is. One would think that the philosophical questions and answers that arise from the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) would illuminate this, showing himself the truth of his own image, but alas he merely gears down to a conventional means so as to ignore his reflection, to appease his selfishness.
There are many more, but I ended with the most telling.
I, on a daily basis, seek out ground breaking news.
To date I have not heard proof of the complete truth of the universe, or any of those on the previous list.
Therefore, no one knows the complete truth of the universe, as evidenced by what man cannot/will not do to balance his equations.

I think my resolve conclusive!!!

Again I'm not saying that I know, just that no man does, or we would 'all' be saved/equals!

Of course this all, is from the perspective of the 'truest' form of a 'civilization.' The alternative is 'complete' anarchy, where any man, despite his riches, is a target. As all would surely agree, is unthinkable, I surely do, how about you? But so is the controlled, partial anarchy, that the rich and powerful articulate, so as to maintain their kingdoms, of course not from their perspective.

No assuredly no human knows of the truth of the universe. Maybe a highly evolved extra-terrestrial, but surely no human; where the word humane has no real significance, says nothing of any 'real' benevolence, where the man looks in the mirror and sees 'all' in his reflection!

So, as no man knows all, those things that only directly affect ones self/others that agree, are only moral/immoral as he/they direct. As one might say, in the light of the truth, of the ramifications, that burning coal affects others, even taking their lives, and so is immoral, yet it is done in the greatest degree, of all other methods, yet the selfish greedy man says, that it's moral, on his way to the bank. The same can be said about many things, such that the group surely does immoral things to the individual, that are unforgivable. So if an individual wants to sunbath in the nude on their fenced in property, only affecting their skin, with potential melanoma, it's only ever moral. As the man that looks over the fence, can surely look away, especially if he burns coal in his backyard, or drives the least fuel efficient vehicle with an ICE, spewing out the most toxins/green house gases. Which of the two hurts people the most, and hurts the most people? What about the person that eats and smokes whatever he grows in his yard that is naturally occurring in nature, such as himself, as compared to burning hydrocarbons, detonating nuclear bombs, releasing toxic chemicals into ground water, etc, etc, etc! Which does the most harm to the most people? Thus which is moral and immoral to the greatest degree? Laws were originally created where there was a problem with one man harming another, and that's where they should have stayed, but it's not the case. Now they are created when a powerful/rich man sees that what another does, does not make him any richer. Where does morality lie? As it surely does, in the hands of the rich and powerful. They have depended on ignorance of a time, and market saturation, a form of addiction, and go so far as to ensure the addiction. Do you really need me to provide proof, with premises and conclusions. I could, but have written enough already! Maybe later.

Disprove my assertions above with your logic, if you can, as surely we are equal in our rights to do so, as we both agreed in the beginning. I look forward to your premises and their conclusions, as I shall counter them, in kind; in keeping with your methodology! Surely you can do better than I can, so put it to the test, as you are sure to do well, in your own mind, I'm sure.

P.S. I think it more appropriate, that your characterization of my words, as follows:
"I think you're just "poking the bear," so to speak...firing out views, and seeing if anyone "bites" on them, rather than speaking of evidence you have in hand."
are actually my summations of those things I've come to understand via my logic, or so in truth, I would attest, as it is far more accurate, but I would expect a competitive mind to say it, as you have.

[Soren]

Spheres, what you've supplied is a whole bunch of (what you consider to be) indicative evidence for your position. What you haven't supplied is a syllogism clarifying why, rationally speaking, logic does not work --- *that* is the syllogism I was asking you to supply.

A basic syllogism has a major premise, a minor premise, and then a conclusion, not a cloud of indicators plus no singular conclusion. Let me give you an example.

You might have written something like this:

P1 -- I do not believe in logic.
P2 -- What I do not believe in is not true.
C -- Therefore, logic is not true.

That would have been what philosophers call a "sound" but "untrue" argument. It would have been "sound" because it "adds up" by the mathematics of logic: *if* P1 and P2 were true, then C would *have* to be true. It would have been "untrue," though, because P2 itself is assailable.

So again, let me take you back to what I actually asked: can you show me a syllogism proving your claim that logic is not true. Here I've even helped you by supplying the format.

Now, as to your multitudinous other statements, they require a much longer response than can be comfortably read in these spaces. If you pick one or two that are of particular concern to you, I would be happy to share my thoughts on them. But as an unconnected list of indicative evidence it's too much to try to answer in short spaces like this exchange. I think the rest of the readers of this stream would rise up and massacre us both -- and who would blame them.

[Soren]

Response to Arising_uk, who wrote

I think your interpretation of the article is correct Soren. Where do you stand?

Personally I think moral nihilism is correct so where could we go from such a position?

Well, let me answer your second question first, Arising. Beillard is concerned with what is rationally consequential upon our observation of a diversity of moral belief among humans. He argues that you *can* use that observation as evidence for moral nihilism (I.e. the belief that there *is no* objective morality) but not for moral relativism (the belief that there *is* such a thing as morality, but it's totally different for different people). So far do we see it the same way?

Well, I agree with Beillard about this. The existence of differences of opinion among people could be taken as at least weak, indicative evidence that no truth on the matter exists. But it's weak.

Why do I say it's weak? Well, people disagree about all kinds of things for which we know there is a right answer: for example, some people believe that the world is flat. Some believe that black cats bring bad luck. Some believe that star charts determine destiny. Some people ( like children or the brain-impaired) may believe the answer to 2+2 is 10. In all these cases, we realize that their disagreement with science or common sense is a result of them being wrong, and that some people who hold an opposite view are actually right. That's both the simplest and the true explanation of those phenomena.

If that is so, why would we think the moral question is different? Why would we suppose that disagreement over basic maths means that many answers are wrong and one is still right, but that some special quality in morality necessitates that that cannot be the case in moral questions? If it *could* be the case, then why arbitrarily rule that it's *not*? Why not examine further?

Nihilism cuts this Gordian knot by simply saying, "All morality is nonsense." But why would we think that was a sensible thing to do? Morality is certainly a common human phenomenon: are we justified in jumping to the conclusion that everyone who "does" morality is simply foolish, uncultured, ignorant or insane? As we have seen, the simple fact that people disagree does not supply warrant for doing that: it leaves open two different possibilities -- that morality is hogwash, or that there are many wrong answers and one right one. Nihilism simply ignores that second possibility. But ignoring (while notoriously conducing to bliss) does not lead to sound judgment. Rationally, we ought to leave the question of the existence or non-existence of an answer open, and explore further.


Now let me switch tracks and make a pragmatic point about Moral Nihilism: people find it impossible to live it out. To be a genuine Moral Nihilist, one would have to deny the objectivity of *any* moral demands. That would mean moral freedom for you; but it would also mean complete moral freedom for others to do to you as they please -- and you, being a Moral Nihilist, would have no grounds for protest, beyond "I don't like that." In other words, Moral Nihilism turns all human coexistence into a Darwinian power struggle with no rules and not even a teleology or endpoint to guide it. There simply has never been, since the dawn of time, any society anywhere that could run on the consistent version of Moral Nihilism: it's unworkable.

But that's merely a pragmatic observation, not a philosophical demonstration. You may ignore it at your pleasure.

Am I addressing your question, Arising, or am I missing what you really were wanting to ask me here? I surely don't want to miss your point and wander off in some direction that you really find irrelevant or unhelpful. You ask, "Where could we go?" Well, where do you think we *ought* to go, or where do you suppose we *need* to go from here? Do you mean, "...in order to rebuild a case for morality," or something like that? Can you guide me as to what's concerning you?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Spheres, what you've supplied is a whole bunch of (what you consider to be)
It's not about what I consider, it's about facts. The fact is one would have to know 'everything,' and not even the smartest scientist does. You just don't like the fact that I'm correct, and therefore you shall argue, there is no doubt, you have to qualify what you think you know, you have to validate the time spent in school. I went to college too, though it was some time ago, I never kept up with it, nor did I reach any, so called, highest level, I usually say I did just enough to get me in trouble, so as to be funny. Put it this way. It could never be proven that I'm wrong, and you know it.

indicative evidence for your position. What you haven't supplied is a syllogism clarifying why, rationally speaking, logic does not work --- *that* is the syllogism I was asking you to supply.
The reason I haven't is because, first and foremost, I've never said that I don't believe in logic. Actually I'm an extremely logical person. Logic dictates all of my conclusions. FYI, premises, in logic, are synonymous with evidence, it doesn't matter if you're talking modus ponens, modus tollens, or otherwise, forgive my spelling, if it's wrong, I took logic back in '94 & '95. and haven't worked with it since.

The universe includes everything.
Man does not know everything.
therefore man does not know the universe.

Same idea, just that it's much less inclusive.

Premise noun
Logic
a previous statement or proposition from which another is inferred or follows as a conclusion:if the premise is true, then the conclusion must be true
an assertion or proposition which forms the basis for a work or theory:the fundamental premise of the report

verb
[with object] (premise something on/upon)

base an argument, theory, or undertaking on:the reforms were premised on our findings
state or presuppose (something) as a premise: [with clause]ne school of thought premised that the cosmos is indestructible
archaic state by way of introduction: [with clause]:I will premise generally that I hate lecturing.
--Oxford Dictionary 2013--

List of synonyms for premise as it pertains to:
basis
n. foundation for belief, action

assumption, base, essential, evidence
explanation, footing, fundamental, heart
justification, premise, principle, proof
reason, security, support, theory
--Dictionary.com 2013--


A basic syllogism has a major premise, a minor premise, and then a conclusion, not a cloud of indicators plus no singular conclusion. Let me give you an example.

You might have written something like this:

P1 -- I do not believe in logic.
P2 -- What I do not believe in is not true.
C -- Therefore, logic is not true.

That would have been what philosophers call a "sound" but "untrue" argument. It would have been "sound" because it "adds up" by the mathematics of logic: *if* P1 and P2 were true, then C would *have* to be true. It would have been "untrue," though, because P2 itself is assailable.

So again, let me take you back to what I actually asked: can you show me a syllogism proving your claim that logic is not true. Here I've even helped you by supplying the format.
I have made no such claim, quote me!

I see that you are trying to use your jargon as a means, to say that I cannot wield it effortlessly, and that's true. But that has no bearing on my statement on the matter or morals. Fundamental morals as to life, can be ascertained from the fact that the universe caused life to spring forth. It was only ever in the 'hands' of the universe. No not to imply a god, rather a metaphor, to signify cause; that man had absolutely nothing to do with his own existence! So as to everything's life, the universe dictates, and only the universe. Of course morality gets really cloudy, once you get past the fundamentals of existence, with mans fear of survival, first and foremost, that has ultimately created the monster that is "slaves and slave owners." You can wrap it in any fancy colored paper and ribbons that you like, but it's still just shit in a box. And If I knew your jargon inside and out, I could then say the same thing that I have, but in a way that would beat you with your own language.

Understand that these words that I use, have absolutely nothing to do with you or me, instead they only address the truth of the matter.

Most morals, most would agree on, however those that only ever affect ones own life, are nobody else's business, as no man knows the universe complete, in order to truly be an authority on life. And if I was well practiced, I could in fact prove it to you, using your own language; jargon. I could have a string of logical statements, that would bore these fine people, that are watching, to tears, but it would in fact be proof, that what I say is true.

Again, "the only thing one ABSOLUTELY owes another, is to leave them alone!" It is up to each individual to answer his/her own question as to what life is, as long as they do not cross lanes and impede the progress of their fellow swimmers, as then, they should be disqualified. That was the ruling, as should be life. Yes, I was a competition swimmer, once; and a gymnast; and a track and field competitor. No I was never a boxer, a football, hockey, basketball or baseball player. I was once a karateka, but it was forced upon me, and I threw it away, despite being an expert with much skill, three television appearances, and trophies. You may not understand this and how it pertains to the topic at hand, but I assure you it does. Men that want to control, only do so for their own selfish interests, and it doesn't matter how many veils they hang in front of it, as it's still a little impish self centered liar of a man, pulling the levers and pushing the buttons, to maintain the illusion, that fuels his singular desires; one in seven billion. Oh there will be similarities alright, but if in all truth, all intents/beliefs/desires, etc were laid on the table, it would be 1 in 7 billion, in every case.


Now, as to your multitudinous other statements, they require a much longer response than can be comfortably read in these spaces. If you pick one or two that are of particular concern to you, I would be happy to share my thoughts on them. But as an unconnected list of indicative evidence it's too much to try to answer in short spaces like this exchange. I think the rest of the readers of this stream would rise up and massacre us both -- and who would blame them.

I agree! This is not the medium to do real philosophy, when one is not well versed in the lingo, so that they can appear to go through the motions, that may simply be programmed response, and nothing more. I think here is largely a place for people to thrust out their chest, like a peacock, and say look at me, I can wield jargon, see!!

I truly look for those that know the jargon well, and understand where my head is, only too well, through their effective use and understanding of that jargon. I know they are out there somewhere. I may get lucky one day, and find them.

[Soren]

It's not about what I consider, it's about facts.

That's really not the point, Spheres -- the point is whether or not those facts constitute sufficient premises to warrant your conclusion. I was pointing out that since you don't supply the suppositional second premises (P2) there's no way for anyone to know *how* you think those premises are supposed to connect to your conclusion; and the answer to that certainly isn't obvious to anyone but you.

Here you do provide one syllogism. Thank you for supplying the missing premise in this case: it makes it possible for me to see your suppositions clearly.

The universe includes everything.
Man does not know everything.
therefore man does not know the universe.

Premise 1 is definitional, and so would be recognized as true.
Premise 2 would also be true as stated: but is limited by the phrase "not...everything."
Conclusion does not follow because "does not know everything" does not imply "does not know anything."

I could restate the pattern of argument you're trying to employ, changing the conclusion to refer to some other item in the universe, like this:

P1: The universe includes everything.
P2: Man does not know everything.
C: therefore, man does not know his own name.

Now you can surely see the logical flaw. Everybody knows his/her own name. So whatever you meant by "not...everything," it does not include some things, such as one's own name.

Therefore, logically it might be quite possible (according to your own reasoning as expressed above) that "morals" or even "the meaning of life" fall into the excluded category, i.e. things some people do know. So your premises do not provide rational warrant for moral relativism.

Your logic is clearly flawed, assuming you expect premises 1+2 to justify your conclusion.

This is the value of me suggesting you spell out your premises. (Again, feel free to ask me to do the same.) It makes clear when someone is not actually being logical but thinks he/she is.

Now again, I cannot address all you are writing. It's just too long. So I'm going to try one more time to get the discussion down to proper size.

May I suggest we stick to the question of moral relativism, and whether that ideology can be rationally defended? That is, after all, the purpose of this stream -- discussion of Beillard's article, not general philosophy. I suggest that if we want to expand the scope of the discussion beyond that, you and I should go elsewhere and place each item in the appropriate forum.

[SpheresOfBalance]

It's not about what I consider, it's about facts.

That's really not the point, Spheres -- the point is whether or not those facts constitute sufficient premises to warrant your conclusion. I was pointing out that since you don't supply the suppositional second premises (P2) there's no way for anyone to know *how* you think those premises are supposed to connect to your conclusion; and the answer to that certainly isn't obvious to anyone but you.

Here you do provide one syllogism. Thank you for supplying the missing premise in this case: it makes it possible for me to see your suppositions clearly.

The universe includes everything.
Man does not know everything.
therefore man does not know the universe.

Premise 1 is definitional, and so would be recognized as true.
Premise 2 would also be true as stated: but is limited by the phrase "not...everything."
Conclusion does not follow because "does not know everything" does not imply "does not know anything."

I could restate the pattern of argument you're trying to employ, changing the conclusion to refer to some other item in the universe, like this:

P1: The universe includes everything.
P2: Man does not know everything.
C: therefore, man does not know his own name.
Soren, "Anything" is not the imperative, "Everything" is the imperative.

So: Wrong answer. What you say here, has nothing to do with the premises. It's not about anything, it's about everything. My point is that everything of the universe would have to be known by any man that thinks he can speak for it. I understand, that it's common for man to think himself king, which is in fact the problem, too many kings, and not enough subjects.
So...

The universe is all there is
Man does not know all there is
therefore man does not know the universe

Which brings us to (based upon the previous logic):

The universe created life
man does not know the universe
therefore man cannot rule life

Now you can surely see the logical flaw. Everybody knows his/her own name. So whatever you meant by "not...everything," it does not include some things, such as one's own name.

Therefore, logically it might be quite possible (according to your own reasoning as expressed above) that "morals" or even "the meaning of life" fall into the excluded category, i.e. things some people do know. So your premises do not provide rational warrant for moral relativism.

Your logic is clearly flawed, assuming you expect premises 1+2 to justify your conclusion.

This is the value of me suggesting you spell out your premises. (Again, feel free to ask me to do the same.) It makes clear when someone is not actually being logical but thinks he/she is.

Now again, I cannot address all you are writing. It's just too long. So I'm going to try one more time to get the discussion down to proper size.

May I suggest we stick to the question of moral relativism, and whether that ideology can be rationally defended? That is, after all, the purpose of this stream -- discussion of Beillard's article, not general philosophy. I suggest that if we want to expand the scope of the discussion beyond that, you and I should go elsewhere and place each item in the appropriate forum.

Sure:

The universe is all there is
Man does not know all there is
therefore man does not know the universe

Which brings us to (based upon the previous logic):

The universe created life
man does not know the universe
therefore man cannot rule life

Which shows that largely morals are relative. They are simply mans rules as to what's right and wrong, which is purely mans concept, in answer to his self preservation, which in these times has been blown way out of proportion. The only thing we know for sure is that life should be here, or else it wouldn't. As to the reason we are here, no man knows because to know would require the knowledge of the entire universe, such that before one can dictate a life's course, they would have to know the entire universe COMPLETE, INSIDE AND OUT, THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING! But he is free to decide for himself, as long as he stays in his own lane. And that's the actual logical truth as to morals.

[SpheresOfBalance]

OK, Soren:
For the following I want no theories, only factual accounts, you can use logic, if you so choose, though I doubt it shall do you any good.

Does life have a purpose?

Why is there life?

How is there life?

If no one knows these answers, with absolute certainty, then how can they advise anyone as to the course of their lives, morally or otherwise?

[Soren]

Spheres: You wrote,

Soren, "Anything" is not the imperative, "Everything" is the imperative.

So: Wrong answer. What you say here, has nothing to do with the premises. It's not about anything, it's about everything. My point is that everything of the universe would have to be known by any man that thinks he can speak for it. I understand, that it's common for man to think himself king, which is in fact the problem, too many kings, and not enough subjects.
So...

The universe is all there is
Man does not know all there is
therefore man does not know the universe


Spheres, your response makes no sense here. It would only make some sense if *knowing everything* were necessary in order for someone to *know anything.* But it is not necessary to know everything in order to know *something.* The important point is that knowing all the information in the universe is not a necessary prerequisite to knowing answers like "what is right/wrong." If we are logical, we have to admit the possibility that one or another of the answers out there in the world might be the right one.

So no, it's the *right* answer I gave you...You just misunderstood it.

Which brings us to (based upon the previous logic):

The universe created life
man does not know the universe
therefore man cannot rule life

What is this? What do you mean "rule"? And what do you mean "life"? You've lost me completely here. You're far too vague for me to know what to say in order to do justice to whatever it is you have in the back of your mind. More clarity needed, please.

You conclude:

Which shows that largely morals are relative. They are simply mans rules as to what's right and wrong, which is purely mans concept, in answer to his self preservation, which in these times has been blown way out of proportion. The only thing we know for sure is that life should be here, or else it wouldn't. As to the reason we are here, no man knows because to know would require the knowledge of the entire universe, such that before one can dictate a life's course, they would have to know the entire universe COMPLETE, INSIDE AND OUT, THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING! But he is free to decide for himself, as long as he stays in his own lane. And that's the actual logical truth as to morals.

Statement 1 here, non-sequitur. Statement 2, unsubstantiated assumption. Statement 3, unsubstantiated value term, "should." Statement 4: hasty generalization and non-sequitur. Statement 5, unjustified value term "is free," uninformative cliche, "stays in his own lane". Statement 6, redundancy "actual logical truth," (not to mention unwarranted triumphalism).

*Sigh*

[Soren]

Again, Spheres wrote:

OK, Soren:
For the following I want no theories, only factual accounts, you can use logic, if you so choose, though I doubt it shall do you any good.

Does life have a purpose?

Why is there life?

How is there life?

If no one knows these answers, with absolute certainty, then how can they advise anyone as to the course of their lives, morally or otherwise?

Excellent questions. But they are not the ones we agreed to deal with on this forum. Let me suggest you pose them on the appropriate forum instead, so we do not frustrate those who log on here to find out something about Beillard's argument.

I will, however, respond to your last question here, since it has direct implication for the Beillard article. "Absolute certainty" is a quality which is only to be had in mathematics. Science does not deal in "absolute certainty," but in heightened probabilities. So there are many cases (in fact almost every department of human knowledge, science included) when we do without "absolute certainty." We go with the most highly plausible answer, given whatever data we have.

Science also makes no statements about what "no one" knows. It makes no claims without confirming by testing. "Absolute" testing would require speaking to every person who is living, has lived, or ever will live. Science does not claim to be able to do that (nor to need to, since science limits itself to examining probabilities, not "absolute" knowledge). So science does not make claims like "no one knows..."

I grant you, though, that *assuming* we are all just products of cosmic accident, then it would be a pretty good *guess* that no one knows. It seems *improbable* that there would be a human being who would have, of his or her own doing, the ability to discover the right course of life. It's not impossible theoretically, perhaps, but so extremely highly improbable that we ought not to expect it. But all of that is granted only on the assumption that we are products of a cosmic accident.

Interestingly, that is not what the various religious traditions claim. They claim that our creation was purposed by a Supreme Being. Now, you needn't believe them, if you don't want to. But let us grant that assumption for a second, just to examine the consequences. Let us suppose such a Supreme Being as they conceive existed. Would there be any reason to think it would remain impossible for such a Supreme Being (again, only assuming His existence) to *reveal* answers to people? I see no reason why we should think so (again, *assuming* the existence of such a Being). And in fact, that is precisely what the various religious traditions claim. They say that there is an answer to questions like "What is right and wrong," and God told them what it is.

Now, we can choose to deny their basic supposition that such a Being exists, and thus disregard them if we wish; but if we chose not to deny their basic supposition of the existence of such a Being, and leave open a possibility that any of their traditions are telling the truth about that, we would have no reason to deny the rational possibility of their claim. If such a Being did indeed create the universe, it is not unreasonable to assume He had a reason for doing so, and perhaps some plan in view; and it would not at all be reasonable to suppose that a Being capable of such a creation would, for some reason, be unable to express His views or convey any information to his creatures if He chose to do so. Communicating is a whole lot easier than creating a universe.

Now let me anticipate the next objection, if I may. There are many religious traditions, and they all disagree. I grant you that. But as Beillard so astutely points out, the *fact* of a disagreement says absolutely zero, logically speaking, about whether or not one or more of them has a right answer, or that some have part of an answer, or some are closer to the answer than others. All those scenarios are rationally possible.

The upshot is that Beillard is right: the existence of disagreement among people is insufficient evidence for a rational argument against the existence of an answer.

Relativism is not provided any rational warrant by the fact of disagreement.

Let me give you the formal syllogism for this one, as you have requested. I'll make this one a hypothetical:

P1 -- When people believe in different answers to a question, then logically speaking, there still may be a single correct answer.
P2 -- People do believe in different answers.
C -- Therefore, there may still be a single correct answer.

P1 -- is easily demonstrated (think of the 2+2=10 example, or my argument above; there are lots of such cases)
P2 -- You concede that this is true, so it's uncontested.
C -- follows necessarily, given the truth of P1 and P2.

And if this is correct, then Beillard is right; disagreement does not warrant a conclusion of Relativism -- an answer may indeed still exist.

[LloydBennett]

What you two refer to is MOBS RULE. Morals are not absolute when it comes to ones own life choice where it never directly affects another. Sounds like, would be, dictators abound, unless of course anyone here currently believes themselves one!

Traffic lights affect everyone's life, so it's a bad choice, as to relativity. But there are many things that plead it's case quite effectively.

The whole thing is reduced to money making opportunities, power and mob rule!

So which things will satisfy perfectly to MOBS rule and effect our life immensely.. Do you have some good examples?

[Arising_uk]

Well, let me answer your second question first, Arising. Beillard is concerned with what is rationally consequential upon our observation of a diversity of moral belief among humans. He argues that you *can* use that observation as evidence for moral nihilism (I.e. the belief that there *is no* objective morality) but not for moral relativism (the belief that there *is* such a thing as morality, but it's totally different for different people). So far do we see it the same way?

I think so, the idea being that if something is objective then it should be universally so for all?

Well, I agree with Beillard about this. The existence of differences of opinion among people could be taken as at least weak, indicative evidence that no truth on the matter exists. But it's weak.

Why do I say it's weak? Well, people disagree about all kinds of things for which we know there is a right answer: for example, some people believe that the world is flat. Some believe that black cats bring bad luck. Some believe that star charts determine destiny. Some people ( like children or the brain-impaired) may believe the answer to 2+2 is 10. In all these cases, we realize that their disagreement with science or common sense is a result of them being wrong, and that some people who hold an opposite view are actually right. That's both the simplest and the true explanation of those phenomena.

If that is so, why would we think the moral question is different? Why would we suppose that disagreement over basic maths means that many answers are wrong and one is still right, but that some special quality in morality necessitates that that cannot be the case in moral questions? If it *could* be the case, then why arbitrarily rule that it's *not*? Why not examine further?

Hence the whole history of Ethics and Morality? With respect there is no argument over basic mathematics and I guess its because its objectively true and can be shown to be to those with all their faculties. The same appears not to be the case with moral questions?

Nihilism cuts this Gordian knot by simply saying, "All morality is nonsense." But why would we think that was a sensible thing to do? Morality is certainly a common human phenomenon: are we justified in jumping to the conclusion that everyone who "does" morality is simply foolish, uncultured, ignorant or insane? As we have seen, the simple fact that people disagree does not supply warrant for doing that: it leaves open two different possibilities -- that morality is hogwash, or that there are many wrong answers and one right one. Nihilism simply ignores that second possibility. But ignoring (while notoriously conducing to bliss) does not lead to sound judgment. Rationally, we ought to leave the question of the existence or non-existence of an answer open, and explore further.

Maybe but does not Nihilism say that the idea that there's objective moral 'laws' is what's hogwash maybe its just self-interest that makes it sensible to behave in a way that produces what we currently call moral?

Now let me switch tracks and make a pragmatic point about Moral Nihilism: people find it impossible to live it out. To be a genuine Moral Nihilist, one would have to deny the objectivity of *any* moral demands. That would mean moral freedom for you; but it would also mean complete moral freedom for others to do to you as they please -- and you, being a Moral Nihilist, would have no grounds for protest, beyond "I don't like that." In other words, Moral Nihilism turns all human coexistence into a Darwinian power struggle with no rules and not even a teleology or endpoint to guide it. There simply has never been, since the dawn of time, any society anywhere that could run on the consistent version of Moral Nihilism: it's unworkable.

Why? As you say, one would be limited by what one is allowed to get away with by others so one will be constrained in ones actions and others can see that constraint and act accordingly.

Not sure if this contradicts what I've said as I find ethics and morals a difficult subject to think about but could we not say that it's in ones self-interest to act morally towards others. Although he'd disagree that we should transfer his results with computational game theory, Peter Danielson in his book "Artificial Morality: Virtuous Robots for Virtual Games" showed that in the long-run the best or most rational strategy(i.e. the best in the sense of rewards gained) is to co-operate with those who wish to co-operate and default on the defaulters once identified, i.e. be moral with the moral and not with the immoral(not that he'd agree with such a lose description).

Am I addressing your question, Arising, or am I missing what you really were wanting to ask me here? I surely don't want to miss your point and wander off in some direction that you really find irrelevant or unhelpful. You ask, "Where could we go?" Well, where do you think we *ought* to go, or where do you suppose we *need* to go from here? Do you mean, "...in order to rebuild a case for morality," or something like that? Can you guide me as to what's concerning you?

Yes I think you have my gist, as best I understand it that is as your reply did make me think 'What was my point?' As my take when introduced to Ethics and Morality as a subject was 'What's the point?' as do we not all have ethics and morals? We are born and nurtured into having them, no-one doesn't have them its just that its experience that gives them and its further experience that decides which ones we actually obey or change.

Hope this reply makes some sort of sense as to what I was thinking about with my question.

[Soren]

I think so, the idea being that if something is objective then it should be universally so for all?

That would be a correct understanding of "objective." It means "really there," not perhaps in a material sense but in a sense in which abstractions like mathematics are real. It would then be binding on everyone no less than, say, the Law of Gravity would be. The opposite would be "subjective," meaning "changing depending on perspective of the individual or culture," just as, say, traffic laws might be. Subjectivism would have to be true before relativism could become plausible; but then relativism has such serious logical problems that the moral field just collapses into incoherence under its weight. That seems to be part of Beillard's conclusion.

With respect there is no argument over basic mathematics and I guess its because its objectively true and can be shown to be to those with all their faculties. The same appears not to be the case with moral questions?

The maths example I use to show only one basic principle, the same one that Beillard would advance: namely, that multiplicity of answers does not justify a conclusion of relativism. I am not advancing the view that mathematics and morality are the same thing, or even the same *type* of thing -- only the universal idea that deducing from multiplicity to relativism is stupid in obvious places like mathematics, and it doesn't get smarter in less testable areas like morals. The great thing about using maths as an example is that it's very clearly verifiable. We can detect a right and wrong answer easily. If a method of thinking is clearly wrong in a verifiable area, then it's equally stupid in a yet-to-be-verified one. That's all I'm aiming at.

Morality cannot be a "real thing" (i.e. objectively real) AND at the same time be "relative." If it's "relative," then it's an imaginary, perspectival thing (i.e. purely subjective). So as Beillard points out, there would be no intelligibility in saying, "Morality is a real thing and also relative," or "relativism is true." That's like saying "pregnant male."

Maybe but does not Nihilism say that the idea that there's objective moral 'laws' is what's hogwash maybe its just self-interest that makes it sensible to behave in a way that produces what we currently call moral?

I think what you're referring to there, if I'm not mistaken, is cultural or perhaps evolutionary morality, not Nihilism? Nihilism literally says, "There are NO moral axioms -- not individual ones, and not social ones, and not even "evolutionary" ones -- none at all. Nietzsche, for example, thought we needed to get completely "beyond good and evil", as he put it. He hated conventional moralities of all kinds, but especially Jewish and Christian varieties. So I think Nihilism must be taken at its word (name): *no* morality.

As my take when introduced to Ethics and Morality as a subject was 'What's the point?' as do we not all have ethics and morals? We are born and nurtured into having them, no-one doesn't have them its just that its experience that gives them and its further experience that decides which ones we actually obey or change.

It seems to me, though, that this is to think of morality only individualistically (i.e. in terms of the choices and preferences of the individual). The problem is that the concept "morality" always relates to the issue of how at least 2 people interact. In other words, at least those 2 people must agree on the rules of their interaction, or no morality is present. In actual practice, however, "morality" involves larger groups: families, societies, and even the global community.

Why should we, as free individuals, care? The answer is simple: because those rules will dictate what other people get to do to you, as well as what they owe you in terms of respect, remuneration, friendship, care, duty, etc. In other words, the condition of your whole social life is profoundly shaped by morality had by groups of people who are *not* you.

To illustrate: America was blissfully relativistic before 9-11. Then it savagely learned that what other people believe about morality matters. The same, on a smaller scale, is what happens to the person who thinks morality does not involve more than his/her individual preferences. He/she thinks it doesn't matter until somebody else starts hurting him/her.

[SpheresOfBalance]

What you two refer to is MOBS RULE. Morals are not absolute when it comes to ones own life choice where it never directly affects another. Sounds like, would be, dictators abound, unless of course anyone here currently believes themselves one!

Traffic lights affect everyone's life, so it's a bad choice, as to relativity. But there are many things that plead it's case quite effectively.

The whole thing is reduced to money making opportunities, power and mob rule!

So which things will satisfy perfectly to MOBS rule and effect our life immensely.. Do you have some good examples?

You seemingly misunderstood, a mob ruling is not what is right, yet it is the current state of the human condition. Each can only ever find what is right for themselves, and those that agree, as long as it does not harm another directly, that does not agree.

So the one moral that continually gives to everyone equally, is much like the golden rule, or my rewrite that I call the Fundamental Social Axiom. Which basically states that everyone is free to pursue their own version of, whatever they believe their life should be, which also inhibits the denying of such to those that do not agree, having their own set of ideas as to their life's meaning/course.

Mankind's current mob rule, is for fear, but we are not cookies, and should not be shaped by any one (or group) of mans cutters, as we each only have one short, finite life, which should only ever be our own utopia or folly, to be determined by whom?