Quote:
Originally Posted by sockhead2
That strikes me a bit like saying a female cannot be a urologist because she doesn't have a penis. It really isn't a contradiction (no pun intended), and it doesn't stand to reason.
Moral relativists do not believe there are moral absolutes. The preceding sentence is not a moral absolute, even though it's subject matter happens to be moral absolutes. There is no contradiction.
This reminds me of people who used to call into a local tv show to declare that god(s) give us morality, and if they woke up tomorrow not believing in god(s) anymore, they would immediately commence raping and killing everyone in sight. Personally, I don't want to rape or kill everyone in sight, and that is probably the biggest contributing factor to my not doing so.
Moral relativism is not a Get Out of Jail Free Card. I think your example is flawed and ironic and misses the mark. People do in fact commit rapes and murders! And people have even been known to brag about it or rub it in the faces of the victims' loved ones! These things happen, and potentially some of the people carrying out these acts think they are morally ok. And other people think they are morally not ok. But so what?
Each of us as individuals acts as we wish, based on what we personally perceive to be right and wrong. That includes creating a legal system with lawyers and judges and courts and jails. In some places, it includes death as a penalty for some crimes.
The only difference between a moral relativist and a moral absolutist is that the latter believes that someone's set of morals (read: his own personal morals; what a shock!) are true and real and woven into the fiber of the universe, whereas the moral relativist does not.
Gills are essential if you want to breath underwater, but useless on dry land. Morals, too, are relative to their surroundings, and meaningless (not to mention, useless) to rocks, stars, the speed of light, gravity, and Bermuda grass.
The only thing that even makes this an argument/discussion/debate at all, and not a crystal clear triviality (imo) is the "I believe in a powerful, magical, invisible, etc., being who cares about us and has a plan for us"-factor. Without that thought being held by one "side" of this argument, I think it very quickly and easily distills down to something as silly as: I believe Goodnight Moon by Margaret Wise Brown is some crap that humans made up; versus: No no no, I believe Goodnight Moon by Margaret Wise Brown is a universal absolute!
(And I said parenthood wouldn't change me!?)
So going back to your example, if we lived in a moral relativist state... well, I believe we already do. I think your hypothetical would play out exactly as it does in the real world. Someone did something, society frowns on it, they will lock him away in jail, or kill him for it.
And to briefly address your Hitler-related remarks... Even though it is dramatic and emotional, it doesn't matter. What Hitler did is no more or less intrinsically "absolutely" wrong than what Fred Rogers (of Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood) did. But that has virtually no bearing on the mob mentality of people; we are quite willing to judge, criticize, hold accountable, punish, etc., people for their actions as we see fit, whether or not some of us claim/admit we are doing it because our holy books tell us to, or because it is ultimately self-serving.
In fact, moral relativism to some extent informs my tolerance. I may not like what you are doing, but in general, I know my wants and beliefs are no more or less good or bad than yours, and so if I can live with you doing what you're doing, then why not let you go on your way and do as you wish? (Lest this open up a whole new can of worms, starting this whole thread again based on this paragraph -- "But what if what I want to do is take all your money?" -- this does not mean I am paralyzed into complete pacifism and inaction; I can and will act in self-defense, etc.).
As far your stance that that the sentence "Moral relativists believe there are no moral absolutes." is not a moral absolute, its obvious that it is. You are claiming that just because the subject matter is moral absolutes does not make it a moral absolute, is a major fallacy and does not make sense at all.
The belief "There are no apples." (forgive me for the poor example) is an absolute about apples because it is saying there are NO apples and it is talking about apples, so therefore it is an "apples absolute" if you will. The same applies to morals. Saying " there are no moral absolutes" is an absolute, which contradicts with itself because you are saying yourself that there are no moral absolutes, which is a moral absolute.
By the way (and this is for everybody reading this thread and participating), I am really not trying to come off as condescending or rude, but as a Christian I owe it to myself to talk about this kind of stuff and "debate" (such an ugly word) what it is that I believe, to prove the validity (if only to myself) of what I believe. So just thank you for all that are participating, and now back to the topic. (sorry for the temporary derailment)
Ok, back to the response...
In your response you said,
"Each of us as individuals acts as we wish, based on what we personally perceive to be right and wrong. That includes creating a legal system with lawyers and judges and courts and jails. In some places, it includes death as a penalty for some crimes." You are dancing around the fact that these beliefs that are right and wrong
had to come from somewhere. As humans we all have consciences, which is God's law written upon our heart, to know what is right and what is wrong. I do agree that courts and jails and all of that have been made, which had to come from us knowing what is right and wrong, and those standards had to come from somewhere.
I agree with you that morals do not apply to rocks and stars, as they do not have the power to make moral decisions, but I'm not sure how that helps your argument or deconstructs mine.
Refer to my paragraph above regarding the locking the man in jail and frowning upon what he did.
You will have to elaborate more on the Hitler/Mr. Rogers point, as I'm not sure I completely understand it.
In that paragraph about the argument hinging upon an invisible God existing, you are correct. But you are assuming that God doesn't exist which would make moral absolutes invalid, but the argument that God exists is a whole other topic entirely, and another thread should be made. Moral absolutes are not the only evidence of God's existence. But for now we should stay on the topic of Moral Absolutes/ Moral Relativism.
Your final paragraph seems to be simply agreeing with my point. Also I am pressed for time so perhaps I will be able to discuss that paragraph with you further at a later date.