moral relativism

[iambiguous]

8 Sources Of Morality
Nick Byrd

1. Science

What? Science as a source of morality? But, but—calm yourself.

Why might one be alarmed by those -- those in power especially -- claiming that right and wrong, good and bad can be differentiated by/derived from science? That, in other words, using the scientific method reflecting objectivity thought to be embedded in, among other things, mathematics, we can pin down how one ought to behave?

Universally?

Though, sure, if there are scientists actually able to demonstrate this in regard to any of the moral conflagrations that rend us...let's hear them out?

Anyone here aware of such definitive evidence?

Morality may have begun as something unscientific—e.g., a way to deal with failures to cooperate as the human population grew and expanded into just about every habitable portion of the globe. However, now we can use the tools of science to determine the most reliable paths to the moral outcomes that we prefer.

We can use science in order to more precisely pin down facts pertaining to any number of conflicting value judgments. The science of skin color, of gender, of human sexuality, of human psychology, of human social interactions. But how "more precisely"?

Thus...

What decisions, policies, etc. tend to promote cooperation and minimize violence? That’s an empirical question. And science offers the most reliable methods for answering empirical questions. At least, that’s the kind of claim you will expect from those who adopt a naturalist view of ethics.

I certainly would not argue that in regard to things like the abortion wars, gun control, animal rights, homosexuality, capital punishment, etc., science [hard and soft] can't provide us with more rather than less intelligent parameters able to be explored empirically...experientially and experimentally. Assessments where predictions can be made and results more or less replicated.

But. again, how definitive can the "naturalists" be here?

Given a particular context.

Anyone here have one?

[iambiguous]

I don't think that's the best example. My suggestion is to choose something that most people think is an immoral law. Perhaps the women in Iran right now who are intentionally breaking the laws requiring hijabs. Or people who helped slaves escape to the north. Etc.

I would agree that those are immoral laws. But in the society in which they were/are imposed, they were not considered that. In fact, both were/are considered virtuous and necessary.

Right, that's why they are good examples for most people, though not all.

It seems obvious to me that slavery, infanticide, child abuse, premeditated murder, rape, etc....these are universally evil, no matter what any society says, and no matter what the perps happen to think about it, be they one or many or a whole society.

If it seems obvious to you, what role does God play?

He's the reason it's all objectively wrong.

This is why so many sheep flock to all of the myriad One True Path religious congregations around the globe. In a No God world the sociopaths among us are able to rationalize all of these behaviors. How? By merely assuming that in a No God world morality itself is derived from their own personal wants and needs. Rooted in dasein I suggest.

IC is merely pointing that out to us. That he is utterly shameless in assuring us that he can demonstrate the Christian God does in fact exist is moot. All he need do is to believe it "in his head".

It may well even be a "condition" for all we know. And thus "beyond his control".

Or, in a wholly determined universe, completely beyond his control.

[Immanuel Can]

In a No God world the sociopaths among us are able to rationalize all of these behaviors. How? By merely assuming that in a No God world morality itself is derived from their own personal wants and needs.

Well, they don't even have to "root" it at all. Moral nihilism will be sufficient. They can just prefer to say, "There's nothing to any of it."

They don't even have to use their own needs as a reason. They can, if they want, say, "All our needs and wants are equally irrelevant; however, at the moment, I have power over you, so my needs and wants are going to crush yours; live with it."

That's Nietzsche's world.

[henry quirk]

It seems obvious to me that slavery, infanticide, child abuse, premeditated murder, rape, etc....these are universally evil, no matter what any society says, and no matter what the perps happen to think about it, be they one or many or a whole society.

Yep.

[Iwannaplato]

I would agree that those are immoral laws. But in the society in which they were/are imposed, they were not considered that. In fact, both were/are considered virtuous and necessary.

Right, that's why they are good examples for most people, though not all.

Why "not all"? It seems obvious to me that slavery, infanticide, child abuse, premeditated murder, rape, etc....these are universally evil, no matter what any society says, and no matter what the perps happen to think about it, be they one or many or a whole society.

Do you think otherwise? I would be surprised if you did.

I focused where I wanted to. I meant, some people, not all people.

[Immanuel Can]

Right, that's why they are good examples for most people, though not all.

Why "not all"? It seems obvious to me that slavery, infanticide, child abuse, premeditated murder, rape, etc....these are universally evil, no matter what any society says, and no matter what the perps happen to think about it, be they one or many or a whole society.

Do you think otherwise? I would be surprised if you did.

I focused where I wanted to. I meant, some people, not all people.

So you don't think slavery, infanticide, child abuse, premeditated murder and rape are objectively evil?

I have to ask: because it's a little hard to believe somebody would actually think that...or say it.

[Iwannaplato]

Why "not all"? It seems obvious to me that slavery, infanticide, child abuse, premeditated murder, rape, etc....these are universally evil, no matter what any society says, and no matter what the perps happen to think about it, be they one or many or a whole society.

Do you think otherwise? I would be surprised if you did.

I focused where I wanted to. I meant, some people, not all people.

So you don't think slavery, infanticide, child abuse, premeditated murder and rape are objectively evil?

I have to ask: because it's a little hard to believe somebody would actually think that...or say it.

YOu find it hard to believe? I find it hard to believe that you would find it hard to believe that somebody would actually say that. Have you not noticed, for example, Peter Holmes? Have you not heard the terms Moral relativist or Moral Antirealist? I am stunned you haven't noticed that there are people who don't believe in objective morals. And, of course, my post was being cautious around the issue of universal morals, not objective morals. And I entered the discussion around what are good examples for convincing people intead of your parking ticket example.

I guess you might think moral antirealists, etc. are lying or confused about their own beliefs.

[Immanuel Can]

I focused where I wanted to. I meant, some people, not all people.

So you don't think slavery, infanticide, child abuse, premeditated murder and rape are objectively evil?

I have to ask: because it's a little hard to believe somebody would actually think that...or say it.

YOu find it hard to believe? I find it hard to believe that you would find it hard to believe that somebody would actually say that.

Oh. So rape's okay in Pakistan, infanticide is fine in India, child abuse is fine in the Middle East, and slavery's still okay over most of the world? That's your position?

...there are people who don't believe in objective morals....

I have never met one. I hope I never do.

I guess you might think moral antirealists, etc. are lying or confused about their own beliefs.

I'm sure they are.

But it's not "bad" for me to be an objective moral realist, if you're an antirealist. So you've got nothing to say about it, apparently.

[henry quirk]

I guess you might think moral antirealists, etc. are lying or confused about their own beliefs.

Me, I think they're boldly lyin', yeah.

[FlashDangerpants]

I guess you might think moral antirealists, etc. are lying or confused about their own beliefs.

Me, I think they're boldly lyin', yeah.

What did I steal from you? That's the only way anything counts as lying in your dogshit theory Henry.

[henry quirk]

*What did I steal from you? That's the only way anything counts as lying in **your dogshit theory Henry.

*Nuthin, cuz I know you're lyin' when you say there is no moral fact.

**

[FlashDangerpants]

*What did I steal from you? That's the only way anything counts as lying in **your dogshit theory Henry.

*Nuthin, cuz I know you're lyin' when you say there is no moral fact.

**

You lie.

A lie is inaccurate information conveyed to unjustly deprive, in part or whole, someone of his existence and being, his capacity to choose and act, or his rightful possessions.

[henry quirk]

I ain't wastin' time on you, flash...not again.

Age, Big Mike, biggy, prometh, veg: say hello to your new roomie in the penalty box.

[FlashDangerpants]

Lol

[iambiguous]

In a No God world the sociopaths among us are able to rationalize all of these behaviors. How? By merely assuming that in a No God world morality itself is derived from their own personal wants and needs.

Well, they don't even have to "root" it at all. Moral nihilism will be sufficient. They can just prefer to say, "There's nothing to any of it."

No, moral nihilism is sufficient only for those among us who embrace it as an objectivist. And to them I would ask the same thing: "how do you go about demonstrating that moral nihilism is in fact the One True Path that all rational men and women are obligated to embrace"?

I am certainly not arguing that it is. I am simply pointing out that existentially my life has unfolded such that "here and now" moral nihilism seems to be a reasonable way in which to broach and to explain moral and political value judgments in a No God world.

Look, I'm not the one making a fool out of himself by insisting objective morality is derived from a Christian God residing in Heaven able to be demonstrated to in fact exist given videos he provides said to be on par with videos others can provide to demonstrate that the Pope resides in the Vatican. And thus clearly does exist.

I'm not the one "proving" that the Christian God exists by quoting Scritpure from the Christian Bible.

They don't even have to use their own needs as a reason. They can, if they want, say, "All our needs and wants are equally irrelevant; however, at the moment, I have power over you, so my needs and wants are going to crush yours; live with it."

That's Nietzsche's world.

Yes, and that frame of mind is derived precisely from the assumption that "a God, the God" has never once been demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt to exist.

Look, I'm even providing you with excuses for looking like a fool here. It's a "condition". It's "beyond your control". Or the thread itself is all inherently part and parcel of the only possible world in a wholly determined universe.