CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
1. Is that feeling (sense of right and wrong) present in almost all individuals--an indication of a God given moral law?
2. Or does it simply reflect what we have been taught by our parents?
3. What is its source? Where does it come from?
4. What is its purpose?
*ORIGIN Latin conscientia ‘knowledge within oneself’, from scire ‘to know’ (Compact Oxford English Dictionary)
*Natural Law: "a body of unchanging moral principles regarded as inherent in all human beings and forming a basis for human conduct" (Compact Oxford English Dictionary)
1. Is that feeling (sense of right and wrong) present in almost all individuals--an indication of a God given moral law?
There's no need to bring religion in to the mix. Evolution perfectly explains it. Groups of people that worked together stood a better chance of survival than groups that murdered each other (hyberbole for emphasis).
2. Or does it simply reflect what we have been taught by our parents?
Environment and education certainly has an impact, but it's not the only factor.
3. What is its source? Where does it come from?
As stated above, a mix of nature (genes, evolution) and nuture (environment, education).
Evolution does not decide morals. Evolution doesn't tell us to not piss on the street or not.
Evolution doesn't decide our actions at all, actually. Evolution is merely the course of life. If you're thinking survival of the fittest (Natural Selection weeding out the weak and having the strong reproduce) that still doesn't decide on morals. If anything, morals conflict with Natural Selection for they create sympathy and empathy for a lesser kind (the poor and sick). Even ethics conflict with Natural Selection for they tell us not to kill, not to steal, and not to do things that may benefit us individually.
Evolution has NOTHING to do with morals and ethics.
There is a problem with the evolutionary ethics. That is, there are other elements of morality that cannot be explained in this way.
Rebuttal:
I. How would you explain that in 9/11, the people that were in United Airlines flight 93 engaged in a fight with the hijackers? The blackbox in the plane revealed that after the passengers learned through their cell phone conversations with family and friends, that the hijackers were using the planes to crash buildings, they decided to commit self-sacrfice to save people.
1. According to the evolutionary ethics, those who give up their lives for others are eliminated from the gene pool. It is a trait that natural selection not only does not encourage but should even eliminate from society. The selfish are more likely to survive and reproduce than are the selfless. But...........
2. Morals appear to have a hierarchy property. There always seems to be a greater good or lesser evil to choose between. In this case, the passengers of flight 93 is a perfect example of that. Hijacking was wrong, but to hijack a plane for the purpose of killing thousands is a far more egregious wrong. It could not have been just "opinions" that prompted them to do that. Certainly not the "genes" that evolution described as "selfish". There is great agreement on moral issues and one of them is "self-sacrifice". If that was not the case, than why where they honored with a memorial, etc.?
Conclusion: There is a great moral agreement that transcends time and culture for "self-less" and that selfish are frowned upon. Hence, evolutionary ethics does not reflect reality. Even Richard Dawkins, the foremost advocate of evolution theory, recognize this in his book, "the Selfish Gene". Read his own words:
“My own feeling is that a human society based simply on the gene’s law of universal ruthless selfishness would be a very nasty society in which to live. But unfortunately, however much we may deplore something, it does not stop it being true... Be warned that if you wish, as I do, to build a society in which individuals cooperate generously and unselfishly towards a common good, you can expect little help from biological nature. Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish.” [Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, Oxford University Press (1989), p3]
I. How would you explain that in 9/11, the people that were in United Airlines flight 93 engaged in a fight with the hijackers? The blackbox in the plane revealed that after the passengers learned through their cell phone conversations with family and friends, that the hijackers were using the planes to crash buildings, they decided to commit self-sacrfice to save people.
OR
They decided to fight because after talking to their relatives, it became apparent that if they did nothing they would die anyway. In which case, it was their self preservation (or selfish-gene if you like) that prompted the fight, and not some sense of "sacrifice for the greater good".
"They decided to fight because after talking to their relatives, it became apparent that if they did nothing they would die anyway. In which case, it was their self preservation (or selfish-gene if you like) that prompted the fight, and not some sense of "sacrifice for the greater good".
Rebuttal:
It really does not satisfy the explanation for their decision to commit selfless " sacrifice for the greater good". Granted, that we have the natural instinct of self-preservation. There is a difference between the feeling, a desire to help (herd instinct, if you will) and the feeling that whether you "ought" to help whether you want to or not. In the case of the flight 93 passengers, they would probably feel two desires--the desire to help (due to herd instinct) and the other a desire to keep out of danger. Yet, they probably felt another (independent) feeling in addition to these two impulses. That is, a third thing which tells you that you "ought" to follow the impulse to help, and suppress the impulse to do nothing (run away). Therefore, this third thing that judges between the two instincts can not be itself either of them.
Conclusion: The evolution ethics still does not satisfy because of its shortcomings. It literally denies what is self-evident to every individual no matter their culture or time.
humans have avery complicated set of ethics, however, evolution can fully explain them. we were far more successful hunters when working in teams than not, but we would still be competing for resources with other groups. This explains why we still have complex drives for cooperation and competition that we still see today.
I don't believe there would be biblical morals that would support competitive nature of man. we are not to be covetous so the capitalistic drive would be unwarranted. Love thy neighbor as thyself etc would mean we should not have borders or compete over resources etc.
"humans have avery complicated set of ethics, however, evolution can fully explain them"
1. Can you explain the "Evolution Moral Position" in order to better understand your argument? That is, if there is such a position. I already posted my position and defined it, where is yours?
"them. we were far more successful hunters when working in teams than not, but we would still be competing for resources with other groups. This explains why we still have complex drives for cooperation and competition that we still see today. I don't believe there would be biblical morals that would support competitive nature of man. we are not to be covetous so the capitalistic drive would be unwarranted. Love thy neighbor as thyself etc would mean we should not have borders or compete over resources etc."
1. I am still waiting for you to post the "Evolution Moral Position" in order to better understand your argument. Define.
i think you are right in terms of where that internal 'feeling' comes from, but in terms of universality - i think the question's author means something more like we all have the same feeling rather than all have a feeling. In that respect, I would have to disagree with you that the answer is true. I think the answers would be different based on the evolution of that culture and even that person.
i got nothing to support my oppinion except that i have reared myself from the age of 16. what my parents taught me is irrellevent to what i KNOW is wrong or right.so yes we all have that inner sense of what is morrally wrong or right.minus wat we choose to think is wrong or right.However im sure there are those that are de-sensetized to feeling that inner sense of moral ........................darn, this is a headtap.
Just because your parents did not have an influence on you after 16 does not mean that their influence is irrelevant to your perceptual biases. Firstly, Something like the distinction between right and wrong is learned much earlier than age 16, as soon as you start experiencing punishments and rewards from parents and society based on your actions. Secondly, the dualistic bifurcation of right and wrong is so deeply embedded in our culture, and even in our language, that it would be almost impossible for you to avoid internalizing this basic schema, regardless of how you were raised.
ok, i said i didnt know ,so you sound smart ,help me understand what i said wrong. if i was to have had no moral concience than i would have seen fit to have followed in my mothers footsteps...i didnt...some areas i regret(my mum is a smart woman)...other areas my mum has finally seen the err of her ways, just as i have grown i have seen the err of my ways .....im still far off being perfect but between my mother and i ,we are sorting our differences.From the age off 11-16 i ran away 15 times.YES when i was a little girl i thought the world of my mum,she taught me how to lie in the most unfit areas of life...you are right she did have an influence on my child....AND THIS IS WHY.....when my child tells me something, i listen.......when my child tells me they are not happy ,i ask why...when my child asks for the truth,i tell them the truth.,when my child feels threatened, i ask why ,when my child tells me why, i do something about it ,when my goes missing ,i look for my child ....when my child tells me they love me i tell them i love you back..etc ....why?............... because she didnt....and i know where that can lead a child...........so yes i guess you are right, i think.I DONT KNOW..........sorry DO YOU REALISE HOW EASILY A NEGLECTED CHILD CAN BE BROUGHT BY A PEODOPHILE AND HOW A NEGLECTED CHILD CAN ALSO BE THAT UNINPORTANT TO ITS PARENT THAT THE PARENT COULDNT GIVE A HOOT SO LONG AS ITS NOT CAUSING A FUSS.DO YOU KNOW WHAT GROOMING IS DO YOU KNOW WHAT ABUSE OF INNOCENCE CAN DO TO A CHILD .MENTALLY PHYSICALLY ETC AND DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE TAKE ADVANTAGE OF CHILDREN WHOSE PARENTS CHOSE TO IGNORE IT.DO YOU KNOW HOW UNGUIDED A CHILD CAN BE WHEN EVEN MEMBERS OF LAW TAKE ADVANTAGE OF INNOCENCE..........Bifurcation ?...well i got out my dictionary and i checked it out ,im sorry but i dont understand.All i know is im not like 80% of the people ive met. I am glad.
i think you are supporting the idea that you learned your morals. If your experience of what your parents did was negative, you would be very likely to find flaws in their beliefs in an effort to do better. that is exactly how the other side is saying that morals are developed.
I (based on my personal experience) can definitely feel for you, but I don't think it means that there is a universal moral law.
I'm sorry to hear you had a rough time as a kid. I'm glad you have been able to turn the experience into something positive in raising your own child. I was just trying to argue that by the time you had reached age 16, you probably already had learned to look at the world in terms of "good" and "bad". This message is a deep part of our culture. If you look you can see that it is pervasive in every aspect of the media and is implicit in our laws, and especially in our education. I think living in this culture we cannot help but learn to look at things through this good/evil lens. This is not the case in all cultures. For example, Far-eastern ethical systems such as Buddhism and Hinduism explicitly state that our perceptions of good and evil are only illusions. To them, good and evil are only relative, and neither is preferred over the other.
yeh true and ive met quite a few kids from that cult.................................... ure who can just as easily agree with me . If you would like me to fill you in on everything well im sorry but i didnt come here to give a hard luck story and i dont need pity....im one of the more unique cases people dont hear about ,......but you know what ...you know how there is a "gaydar" well im lucky ,i have many radars.....and anger and care and the courage to stop fukd morals in their track.....Just because a child is led to believe an adults oppinion is correct morally, does not make it so.....
whoever just downvoted me,....... thats fine... but can i point out that to dispute me is pointless ......as i said right from the start, ..... "I GOT NO PROOF" ....so now go ahead,.. tell me how im wrong i am for my ACTUAL EXPERIENCES....or go pick at someone who claims to have proof ...because i havent.... AS i HAVE SAID....but hey i do care about my points(NOW) because if i win a prize here on CD im donating them to the kids .....THEY DESERVE SOMETHING FOR BEING LED INTO THIS DEFILED PLAYGROUND!
I JUST FOUND THIS.... "HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS is just about the last surviving mystery.A mystery is a phenomenon that people dont know how to think about-yet.There has been other great mysteries:the mystery of the origin of the universe,the mystery of life and reproduction,the mystery of the design to be found in nature,the mysteries of time,space,and gravity.These were not just areas of scientific ignorance,but of utter bafflement and wonder.We do not yet have all the answers to any of the questions of cosmology and particle physics,molecular genetics and evolutionary theory,but we do know how to think about them.....With consciousness,however,we are still in a terrible muddle.Consciousness stands alone today as a topic that often leaves even the most sophisticated of thinkers tongue-tied and confused.And as with all the earlier mysteries,there are many who insist-and hope-that there will never be a demystification of consciousness" Daniel.C.Dennett,Consciousness Explained,1991
I guess not ....what would i know....nothing apparrently............I am not looking for your pity....As for universal moral law , i happen to agree with alot of what you have said...w/e. Thanks.
"These were not just areas of scientific ignorance, but of utter bafflement and wonder"
This specific portion I found very interesting because it is an admission of the consciouness of being outside the realm of science. Science investigates the physical world, collect facts, and draws conclusions from those facts. Science can not answer all questions. It seem that many do not understand that it is not a scientific question.
our sense of morality does not come from our parents alone, but from the totality of our nature and nurture. our biology and evolution in addition to our experience in society of appropriate behaviour.
if this consciousness was god-given, then anyone of sufficient devoutness to the same god would get the same answer to complex moral questions
I'm thinking there is. It probably has something to do with how you're raised-- (naturally, our instincts tell us not to share and to be competitive and nasty and such, so get along [survival instincts])-- but, there are cases where someone who's raised you or someone who you think knows the right thing to do is WRONG, and you can just feel in your heart that they're wrong. So maybe it's an abstract feeling of divine right and wrong? I'm not a die-hard religious person, but I do believe that there is some consciencious gut feeling in all of us.
Ahhhh, intesrting ,yeah? It is self-evident when something is right or wrong. You don't need to gather information or use reason. You KNOW. The thing is,....when a person has a choice to make...there are two choices, but......when there is another (independent) thing that judges between both and tells you to choose one over the other, it does not come across as an private, personal decision, or an opinion. It contains a sense of obligation and oughtness. It is a prescription for behavior and motive that have the force of a command. But, we have a choice to obey or disobey this Universal Moral Law. I submit Isasshellbell, that somebody or something from beyond the material universe was actually getting to us, that is behind the Moral Law.
it is not always evident whether something is right or wrong and there are not always 2 choices. e.g. How should the US war in Afghanistan be waged? there are hundreds of possible answers the people of equal consciousness could disagree on
"it is not always evident whether something is right or wrong and there are not always 2 choices. e.g.
"How should the US war in Afghanistan be waged? there are hundreds of possible answers the people of equal consciousness could disagree on"
1. An absolute moral law can exist even if people fail to know the right thing to do in a particular situation. If anything, the dilemma actually proves for-absolute morality. How? Because there would be no dilemma if morality were relative! The very reason we struggle with the dilemma is because we know how valuable life is. Ponder on this, while people may get morality wrong in complicated situations, they don't get it wrong on the basics.
Example: A simple moral question such as "Is murder justified?" proves that at least one law of morality exists (i.e. don't murder).
If just one moral obligation exists (such as don't murder, or don't rape, or don't torture babies), then the Moral Law exists. If the Moral Law exists, then so does the Moral Law Giver.
there would be no dilemma if morality were relative
Incorrect - there is still dilemma in not knowing which course of action will have the more desired outcome over time.
The existence of moral dilemmas proves that either a God with objective moral values does not exist or that God judges us based on a morality that we can not access.
A simple moral question such as "Is murder justified?"
Even the ones that appear simple really aren't. Is the death penalty murder?, how about mercy killing?, killing Hitler?
If Osama bin Laden is in a bunker with 10 innocent pregnant women and you can't send in special forces, can you morally bomb the bunker? does the equation change if it is 1 pregnant woman, or 1 million? Would everyone come to the same conclusions as you?
The old testament allows eye for an eye, the new testament does not, which one is objectively right?
"if the internal morality was god-given, then how you are raised would not effect it"
1. Granted, that we learn (in part) the moral law from our parents, teachers, and that it helps develop our conscience. But that does not mean that the moral law simply is "a human invention". Rather, we discover this code and that this universal moral law transcends time and culture. But, you do not use reason to discover it, you just know it. Intution is a genuine form of knowledge. Hence, the very word "conscience" in Latin means: "Knowledge within oneself."
This argument is completely untenable. Intuition isn't a valid backing in a debate, and further there isn't a single moral law that has remained consistently true in all cultures throughout time.
a universal moral law must always be seen as valid or demonstrated as part of a code in all cultures. It must be as a natural law, divorced from the zeitgeist.
Can you name a single law, or policy, based or morals, that hasn't been changed, or ignored, or seen favourable at some point?
Killing another human without just cause is an example of universal moral law.
Resent use of modern neuro-imaging of the human brain reveals that acting virtuous actually feels good. "Moral" Behavior sends reward-related brain systems into a pleasurable state even more so than the prospect of self-interested gain. The brain's activity in the process can be detected or illuminated using transcranial magnetic stimulation and MRI technologies. As humans struggle to resist doing what is learned to be bad and immoral that are inherent in self view, that regions of the brain fire 'squelch' to interfere with chemically reacted impulses.
This can support that the feeling of duty toward general happiness for all is internal for all of us.
In the example - you may not tie in: feelings. Anger would not apply. Zero 'rewards' attached.
Killing anyone and eveything around you for no reason at all, could not be a learned moral.
If you wanted to be alone? nope does not count, there is a goal attached.
Someone hands you some very good food.. "Thank you now you die."
KILL
Let's say someone helps you from falling of a cliff to your death. "woohw - that was a close one, thanks." "Now you die bastard".. Now you push him off the cliff. How does one feel good about that? it does not work like that.
Killing other humans is something that we know to be wrong. We do not want to die ourselves. (most of the time) It's not a learned thing. If it hurts me it may hurt others is not a hard concept for a human to grasp.
I don't see it. How could this be taught to be a good? It can't.
"Killing another human without just cause is an example of universal moral law."
What about times of war? I know you could argue that soldiers are trained in propaganda that teaches an "Us versus Them" mindset, but battlefields are dynamic and sometimes a soldier will instinctually shoot a non-combatant.
What about riots and large mobs of people? They will sometimes kill people, with little provocation.
Taking an extreme example, what about some of our historic genocides and butcherings of towns? I refer to cases where people invade a peaceful town, invade homes and use a machete or gun to snuff out all life, even though they must face their victims and must deep down know that an unarmed child is no threat, an unarmed mother isn't an enemy, etc.
I know that the universal moral law is not a human invention. Granted, that we learn (in part) the moral law from our parents, teachers, and that it helps develop our conscience. But that does not mean that the moral law simply is "a human invention". Rather, we discover this code and that this universal moral law transcends time and culture. I know that this moral law covers three areas. But, before the three areas can be covered, I believe that it is best to first establish that the universal moral law is not a "human invention" and that it transcends time and culture. Here is the reason why that is the case:
1. There is an independent instinct that judges between the individual's two
instincts that decides which should be encouraged, cannot itself be either of
Having read Eckhart Tolle, I think you are confusing "conscience" with "moral law".
If you replace the words "moral law" with the word "conscience" in most of your sentences you will see what I mean.
The last part of your post is the most interesting one.
That "independent instinct" that you refer to is your conscience, and its ability to monitor your mind and your ego (itself being neither of them).
Consider this sentence: "I can't live with my self"
The "I" is your conscience, (the watcher), and the "my self" is your brain and ego.
So, to sum it up, I think that conscience is universal, you will find it everywhere you go (or at least among people that have transcended their self and ego).
"Morals" (a.k.a. values) however, are not something you come to earth with. They are learned/imposed/absorbed from the environment you live in.
"ask 100 devout people 100 moral questions and you will get different answers and reasonings"
1. I already answered that in your other post. Morality can not be derived from reason. Reason helps us recognize contradictions, but not the morality of the propositions.
"is it moral for a country to provide basic health care for poor people? or immoral to tax non-poor people to pay for that?"
2. Here is a formula: Moral standard + Factual beliefs = Moral judgment. That is to say. "To derive a moral judgment from a moral standard, we must have some beliefs about the facts of the case. Without such information, no moral judgment can be made”. If the questions are answered, than morality's prescriptions can enter into the discussions. But, there still remains the choice to either to apply them or not.
"morals aren't universal to all people of one faith much less everyone in the universe"
Morality cannot be derived from reason. It is derived from EMPATHY. In philosophy class you will learn that without empathy, morality is irrelevant, and without empathy there is no sense of what is just. Child abuse and torture are a great example of universal moral truths--because you cannot dispute abuse to be wrong just because it is merely relative and everyone has their own cultural beliefs. You consider it wrong because it is universally unjust.
"Morality cannot be derived from reason. It is derived from EMPATHY"
Morality being derived from empathy is a good explanation of how morality is SUBJECTIVE - not OBJECTIVE. If something is moral or immoral based on my own perception (based on my past experiences) of how someone else will experience my actions, then it is definitively not gauged by an objective external watcher.
(As a side note, empathy derives from reason – the reasoning that other people will experience things in a similar fashion to how they experience them. And empathy is only one influence on whether a person decides the morality of any action)
"Child abuse and torture are a great example of universal moral truths"
the denotation and connotation of the word abuse includes improperness and it would seem a tautology to believe abuse is immoral - the problem becomes clear when you try to define what activities constitute "abuse" - is circumcision child abuse, how about female circumcision? Spanking? Native American and Africa rites of passage that may be very dangerous, physically harmful and even deadly? The Etoro and Baruya tribes have boys as young as 8 perform fallatio on the other males so they can swallow their semen and obtain their life force – most other cultures would consider this immoral. Is it ok to torture a terrorist? How badly should people feel if a child molester gets molested in prison? The death penalty for a serial killer? The answers to these (and all) moral questions are viewed subjectively by each individual. The truth is that the number of universally agreed upon morals is actually very close to if not totally 0 and no matter how widely accepted a moral belief is, that does not make it objective and given by some external force.
The very existence of sites like these were the morals behind wars, gay marriage, the death penalty, etc. are still being debated, the changing of morals over time like the abolition of slavery and voting rights for women are evidence that morals are anything but unchangeable and objective.
it seems we come back to the same origin of if there is a universal moral law, that is evolution. there is a universal law but only capable for humans to follow, example that animals cannibalize and kill each other, animals do acts of pure selfishness, and only the strongest survive in nature. that shows nature does not follow a universal moral law, but for humans its quite different, humans could of not evolved form the unkind unforgiving nature that has no moral conscience, even Hitler who did horrible things had to convince him self it was right to kill Jews, that is a conscience in essence. nature does not have this "thoughtful mind" the creation can not be greater the the creator, there for nature could not make humans with a moral conscience is does not have. answer is that a stronger force did, that is God. we are personal beings. nature is not, we have a personal creator, nature does to, but was not given a personal conscience, nature is just a mass of bio life, we are a mass of bio life with a personal conscience. God gave us a distinct moral conscience, people have turned away from this moral conscience to do bad things because of freedom of choice, any way off topic. the solution is though that since we have a personal conscience with distinct morals that people natural posses, that can at any time be altered to do bad or good, which still requires a moral set of laws (for instance most terrorist do their horrible acts because it is for the greater good of their objective, that in the long end their acts end up benefiting a stronger safer future for their processes. this is their moral ethical view), we there for as humankind have a moral ethical law.
There is, but there's no deity involved. When you see a woman get hit by a man do you think to yourself: "This does not sit well with my god\parents\culture"? Well, maybe you do. But what if he hits her in the stomach? Maybe it takes her being pregnant for you? In any case there is a point where you just don't think any more, you react viscerally, what your religion, parents or culture taught you doesn’t even enter your mind and you just want to kick the guy’s ass. And that, my friends, is a universal moral law and it’s something we’ve evolved. The only ones who don't abide by it are by definition sociopaths and psychopaths.
yet people will gather in a stadium to watch women who were raped get stoned to death or there heads chopped off. almost no morals are universal.
many 'enlightened' societies have come to something approaching the conclusion that the will of one person should be treated equally with the will of another because other approaches tend to leave a majority of people feeling negatively effected which in the long term does not work.
"yet people will gather in a stadium to watch women who were raped get stoned to death or there heads chopped off. almost no morals are universal"
1. Do you have any concrete examples? In other words, something that actually happened? Evidence.
"many 'enlightened' societies have come to something approaching the conclusion that the will of one person should be treated equally with the will of another because other approaches tend to leave a majority of people feeling negatively effected which in the long term does not work"
1. Give an example of a society that would match your statement.
"If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days." - Deuteronomy 22:28-29
1. Give an example of a society that would match your statement.
Basically any country that is a democracy where each vote is counted equally.
Now we are getting somewhere. The problem with relativism, especially with ethical subjectivism which holds that "What true for you is true for you, and what's true for me is true for me" is that a person can go beyond just being slackers, etc. If it is lived consistantly, than it will produce people like: Charles Manson. Ethical subjectivism produces monsters. People that are unchecked, unaccountable to anything, but personal fiat. You are actually echoing Beckwith and Kouki words, "The quintessetial relativist is a sociopath, one with no conscience". If a person truly believe in that nonesense, than that person that holds ethical subjectivism must allow treapassers into their home, thieves to burgle it, and arsonists do not believe theirs acts are wrong. The fact is, NOBODY LIVES THAT WAY. Or do they?
"If a person truly believe in that nonesense, than that person that holds ethical subjectivism must allow treapassers into their home, thieves to burgle it, and arsonists do not believe theirs acts are wrong. The fact is, NOBODY LIVES THAT WAY. Or do they?"
I think you are misunderstanding ethical subjectivism here. You are right that almost no one lives that way, but an ethical subjectivist would not be logically required to live that way. While ethical subjectivism requires that we regard others' beliefs and actions as morally neutral, this does not inhibit us from trying to stop them when they do things we don't like.
The burglar who is trying to invade my home is not morally wrong from an objective standpoint, but it would still be natural and sensible for me to try to stop him. This is not because I think he is objectively wrong, but rather because I have a personal interest in self-preservation and the preservation of my material possessions and the safety of my family. My belief in ethical relativism does not mean that my instincts, feelings, or senses of responsibility and ownership can not factor into my behavior and decisions. In fact, it does not even require that I refrain from punishing others for their behavior.
In other words, ethical subjectivism does not require me to behave as though I don't care what other people do, or prevent me from trying to interfere when they do something that infringes on my life. My actions and beliefs are just as morally neutral as those of others.
There is a specific statement that you acknowledged which I think is very important to take note: "You are right that almost no one lives that way". Why is that important? While many claim to hold on to the relativism position, they really do not practice it in their lives, as you yourself consented. Granted, you have your odd balls such as Hitler, Charles Manson, robbers, thieves, etc. that (consistently) lives out this view. Relativism holds that societies and/or individuals decide what is right and wrong and that those values vary from culture to culture or person to person. Hugh Mercer Curtler, Professor of Philosophy, Southwest Minnesota State University, quotes Nancy L. Gillford, "Naive relativism is certainly alive and well in the idioms of our ordinary language "True for you, true for me" is echoed in "to each his own," "everyone is entitled to his own opinion," "when in Rome, do as the Romans do," "different strokes for different folks," "whatever feels good," to cite but a few. We use these idioms casually and comfortably. There seems to be little need to ask ourselves what we are really saying" (Curtler, Mercer, Hugh, Ethical Argument: Critical Thinking in Ethics, p. 8-9). That is my point, "There seems to be little need to ask ourselves what we are really saying".
You followed with another statement which was, "this does not inhibit us from trying to stop them when they do things we don't like". You gave an illustration to make your point with that statement:
"The burglar who is trying to invade my home is not morally wrong from an objective standpoint, but it would still be natural and sensible for me to try to stop him. This is not because I think he is objectively wrong, but rather because I have a personal interest in self-preservation and the preservation of my material possessions and the safety of my family. My belief in ethical relativism does not mean that my instincts, feelings, or senses of responsibility and ownership can not factor into my behavior and decisions. In fact, it does not even require that I refrain from punishing others for their behavior"
Let us cross-examine your illustration in light of the definition of what relativism is vs your reactions, your feelings, instincts, and natural and sensible for you towards the burglar. Before I do that, objective morality holds that morals are not opinions. They are not personal, private decisions, and they are not descriptions of behavior. They are prescriptions for behavior and motive that have the force of a command. They contain a sense of obligation and oughtness that is universal, authorative, and outweighs considerations of culture, time, and place.
There is a common core of moral values, standards, values in the vast human societies from different cultures and time. I gave a list of that in my debate with kamranw. The ones that are relevant to your illustration are: “we should not cause unnecessary harm to others in our society”, “we should be responsible for our actions”, “we should be considerate of the well-being and happiness of others, in particular of those we are responsible for”, “we should be willing to protect our families and children from others who might harm them”. Why is that important? J.P. Moreland, distinguished Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology at Biola University in La Mirada, California, gave a set of necessary and/or sufficient conditions for defining morality:
1. A judgment is moral only if it is a prescriptive imperative which recommends actions, attitudes, and motives and not merely a factual description about actions, attitudes, and motives.
2. A judgment is moral only if it makes reference to human flourishing, human dignity, the welfare of others, the prevention of harm, and the provision of benefit.
Inasmuch as this criterion makes exclusive reference to human beings, it is clearly inadequate as a necessary condition for morality.
3. A judgment is moral only if it is accepted as a supremely authoritative, overriding guide to conduct, attitudes, and motives.
The point of this criterion is that morality must have top priority over all else in our lives. In this way, morality is contrasted with mere custom, etiquette, and, perhaps, law.
4. A judgment is moral only if it is universalizable; that is, if it applies equally to all relevantly similar situations.
The main point of this criterion is to express the conviction that moral judgments must be impartially applied to moral situations by taking into account all of the morally relevant features of the situation. ( J. P. Moreland, Norman L. Geisler, "The Life and Death Debate: Moral Issues of Our Time", p.x)
You really do not believe that ethical relativism is true and here is why:
1. "I have a personal interest in self-preservation and the preservation of my material possessions and the safety of my family"
2. "...does not mean that my instincts, feelings, or senses of responsibility and ownership can not factor into my behavior and decisions. In fact, it does not even require that I refrain from punishing others for their behavior"
3. "...this does not inhibit us from trying to stop them when they do things we don't like.
That is objective morality and not ethical subjectivism talking.
Here is the main point Swryght, you believe in the Natural Law which is,
"a body of unchanging moral principles regarded as inherent in all human beings and forming a basis for human conduct" (Compact Oxford English Dictionary). You made this statement, "...it would still be natural and sensible for me to try to stop him."
Hence, your conclusion statement, "ethical subjectivism does not require me to behave as though I don't care what other people do, or prevent me from trying to interfere when they do something that infringes on my life. My actions and beliefs are just as morally neutral as those of others" is not consistent with the ethical subjectivism view because if that was true, why would you push your morality on the burgler? Why not allow him/her to follow through thereby, in your own words, "...ethical subjectivism requires that we regard others' beliefs and actions as morally neutral"?
Supporting Evidence:
Natural Law
(plato.stanford.edu)
Thank you for taking the time to respond in depth. It looks like you've really studied this issue. One major problem with your interpretation of relativism and of my own view is a lack of adherence to the principle of charity. Let's be frank: in philosophical circles, ethical relativism is little more than a punching bag used to teach philosophy students what a poorly-considered position looks like, and how to exploit its weaknesses. It is not hard to attack relativism, and I am very familiar with the criticisms you have been leveling against it. Unfortunately, I don't think they apply in this case. I hope I can mange to lay out my position in a clear yet concise fashion.
I. Philosophers tend to attack the weakest forms of Relativism, ignoring the courteous principle of Charity
Ethical relativism can indeed be held consistently by others apart from "odd balls such as Hitler, Charles Manson, robbers, thieves, etc." This can be difficult to see however, as contemporary philosophers have not used the principle of charity in interpreting relativism. The principle of charity is a suggestion that in our interpretations we try to see an argument in the most favorable way possible before attacking it, rather than jumping straight into exploiting its weaknesses.
One reason for this lack of charity is probably that ethical relativism is rarely formulated in an intelligent or clear fashion. Your point about our idiomatic expressions is well taken--relativism is indeed held by many as an unconsidered, naive assumption. This does not mean that in attacking relativism we should attack the arguments made by naive relativists who have no more justification for their beliefs than do naive moral objectivists, many of whom also happen to populate this debate. I could easily construct a list of common expressions to illustrate that naive objectivism is also "alive and well", to use use Nancy Gillford's language, but i don't see what value this would have. It's seems more sensible to judge a philosophical position based on the beliefs of those who hold more sophisticated versions of it, rather than picking off the weak members of the herd.
II. Philosophers have a natural bias in favor of Moral Objectivism
Another likely reason is that many philosophers have a vested interest, both professionally and in their own psychology, to uphold objectivism and deny relativism whenever it crops up. Professionally, many (analytic) philosophers today see it as their job to uncover objective truth through rational means. This is how their role in society is conceptualized. So what would we expect them to do when when confronted with relativism? Philosophers have strong professional reasons to discredit relativism through whatever means necessary.
More interestingly, philosophers also have unconscious psychological biases in favor of the theory that morality is universal. Friedrich Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil (1886) was was intended in part to directly attack the belief in objective Good and Evil, which has pervaded Western culture since the days of Plato. As Nietzsche writes: "...it must certainly be conceded that the worst, most durable, and most dangerous of all errors so far was a dogmatist's error-namely, Plato's invention of the pure spirit and the good as such."(Preface, my emphasis). Nietzsche continues in Section 2 of Part One: "This way of judging constitutes the typical predjudgment and prejudice which give away the metaphysicians of all ages: this kind of valuation looms in the background of all their logical procedures; it is on account of this 'faith' that they trouble themselves about 'knowledge,' about something that is finally baptized solemnly as 'the truth.' The fundamental faith of the metaphyisician is the faith in opposite values. It has not even occured to the most cautious among them that one might have a doubt right here at the threshold where it was most surely necessary--even if they vowed to themselves, "de omnibus dubitandum ["All is doubted." -from Descartes]". (BGE, Part One, Section 2.)
The "faith in opposite values" Nietzsche is talking about here is the same faith that those who hold to the belief in "Good" and "Evil" (Universal Moral Laws) are clinging to. In Nietzsche's estimation, later supported by empirical psychology, most of us form our rational beliefs based on our deepest unconscious biases. Is it any surprise that most of the people in our culture, including the philosophical community, cleave to a believe that has been fundamental to this culture for over 2,000 years?
III.My beliefs do not conform to all of the criteria you laid out, and are therefore not beliefs in objective morality.
First, I will argue that what I believe is indeed a form of moral relativism. You listed a set of criteria for determining if a judgment is moral. If my actions in the burglary example are based on universal morals, then each of these statements you listed should hold true. If even one of these fails to apply to my situation, then I will have demonstrated that my actions are not based on universal moral judgements. Here are the criteria you quoted:
1. A judgment is moral only if it is a prescriptive imperative which recommends actions, attitudes, and motives and not merely a factual description about actions, attitudes, and motives.
2. A judgment is moral only if it makes reference to human flourishing, human dignity, the welfare of others, the prevention of harm, and the provision of benefit.
3. A judgment is moral only if it is accepted as a supremely authoritative, overriding guide to conduct, attitudes, and motives.
4. A judgment is moral only if it is universalizable; that is, if it applies equally to all relevantly similar situations.
I would argue that my example fails to fulfill criterion (1) on this list because the motivations driving me to fight back against a home invasion would not be based on a prescriptive imperative. I would argue instead that my decision would be based on instinct, which is not prescriptive but an unalterable feature of my psychology. My instincts do not "tell me what to do" in the way that a universal moral imperative would. They simply impel me to action based on crude "survival of the fittest" thinking. Furthermore, my actions would not likely be motivated by a conscious decision, but by a fight-or-flight response based on fear and adrenaline. I suspect you may try to argue that these very instincts are part of the "natural law," but I would remind you that your criteria imply that adherence to objective moral laws hinges on conscious judgment, rather than passive acceptance of one's natural tendencies.
Also, I want to try to clarify my original point that even if my actions are based on moral sentiments, I very consciously regard them as being based only on my own desire to survive and protect those who I care about. These are sentiments that are relative to myself. If I had to characterize the actions of both myself and the burglar in the hypothetical example as "good" or "evil" I would say that we are both acting for our own "goods". The fact that our relative goodness is in conflict in this scenario does not mean that either of us has to yield to the other, even if both of us are staunch, consistent ethical relativists.
To Summarize: Moral relativism as I live it is the belief that there is no universal moral code, and that any notions we have of "good" or "bad", "right" or "wrong" are artifacts of the human imagination based on a vague sense of what we perceive to be "useful" or "not useful" or "pleasant" or "unpleasant" or "tasteful" or "distasteful" or any number of relative dichotomous conceptions.
Moral relativism does not entail that we cannot judge others or stop them from doing things we don't like, because it entitles to have our own beliefs and treat them as provisionally true, while acknowledging the one higher moral truth that there is no higher moral truth.
The ethical subjectivism position that you seem to be trying to present is according to Nietzsche's understanding. I think it is important to point out a particular statement that you made which is, "...naive moral objectivists, many of whom also happen to populate this debate." Okay, since you acknowledged that is it is generally accepted, than the burden of proof falls upon you and not me, right? If you simply ignore that the burden of proof falls on your shoulder and insist that something is true even though no one else agrees, than what you will be commiting is the informal fallacy known as "appeal to ignorance". Secondly, I submit that before we can engage in this dialogue (absolute morality/ethicalsubjectivism), it is necessary to clarify several points that you brought up. Namely: 1. Weak Member of the Herds, 2. The Principle of Charity, and 3. Natural Bias of the Philosophers. It is necessary to do so, otherwise, we might as well not continue. There are two logical fallacies that I have detected in your argument: Ad Hominem and Hasty Generalization.
I. Hasty Generalization and Ad Hominem
a.
"Philosophers tend to attack the weakest forms of Relativism, ignoring the courteous principle of Charity"
"One major problem with your interpretation of relativism and of my own view is a lack of adherence to the principle of charity"
"Let's be frank: in philosophical circles, ethical relativism is little more than a punching bag used to teach philosophy students what a poorly-considered position looks like, and how to exploit its weaknesses. It is not hard to attack relativism, and I am very familiar with the criticisms you have been leveling against it."
1. Granted, that there are those who may not have a grasp of either position in order to defend it. However, I think that you overlooked the difference between two groups of people. Group a: taking advantage of those who do not have a grasp of either position and Group b: those who genuinely desire to demonstrate the strengths and weaknesses of both position. Need I remind you CreateDebate's goal? “Our goal is to build CreateDebate into an incredibly useful learning tool that will help groups of people to sort through issues, viewpoints and opinions so that consensus and understanding can be reached and better decisions can be made” (CreateDebate). Everybody has a worldview. Here or anywhere, it will be tested by criticisms. The question is, are we willing enough to allow it to be? There may be certain beliefs or thinking that does not line up with reality.
b.
"More interestingly, philosophers also have unconscious psychological biases in favor of the theory that morality is universal"
"many philosophers have a vested interest, both professionally and in their own psychology, to uphold objectivism and deny relativism whenever it crops up. Professionally, many (analytic) philosophers today see it as their job to uncover objective truth through rational means. This is how their role in society is conceptualized. So what would we expect them to do when when confronted with relativism? Philosophers have strong professional reasons to discredit relativism through whatever means necessary."
2. When you attack the authors' characteristics or authority that I have quoted who are experts in their respective fields, than you should say what it is and provide the evidences against it. In CreateDebate's Blog, there was posted an explanation on "How to Write Strong Arguments" based on the essay by Paul Graham's "How to Disagree" which states, "Saying that an author lacks the authority to write about a topic is a variant of ad hominem--and a particular useless sort, because good ideas often come from outsiders. The question is wheter the author is correct or not. If his lack of authority caused him to make mistakes, point those out. And if it didn't, it's not a problem." You have not summarized the psychological and professional reasons and the evidences.
II. "The Prescriptive Imperative Explained"
"I would argue that my example fails to fulfill criterion (1) on this list because the motivations driving me to fight back against a home invasion would not be based on a prescriptive imperative. I would argue instead that my decision would be based on instinct, which is not prescriptive but an unalterable feature of my psychology. My instincts do not "tell me what to do" in the way that a universal moral imperative would. They simply impel me to action based on crude "survival of the fittest" thinking"
Granted, we have instincts, but one of them is not the Moral Law. Rather, it directs the instincts. Lewis argued that, "...The most dangerous thing you can do is to take any one impulse of your own nature and set it up as the thing you ought to follow at all costs." (Lewis, C.S. "Mere Christianity", p. 11). The Natural Law is not referring to instintcs, but the Moral Law. Instincts by itself can not tell you what you "ought to do". The Moral Law judges between the two instincts, and decides which should be encouraged, can not be either of them. It can be said, in the example provided, you probably would have two instincts to choose from. The herd instinct, which would be to fight the burgler and protect your family and the other would probably be wanting to be safe rather than to fight the burgler and protect your family.
It can not be explained away simply as acting on instincts without making a choice. Moments like that requires a choice to be made. That is when the Moral Law comes in and gives the "prescribe imperative" in regards to such circumstances. What the Moral Law would do in this case would be to tell you to choose the weakest instinct over the stronger one. When a person makes a choice between the two, it can not be said that it is an act of instincts.
III. "The Principle of Charity"
"The principle of charity is a suggestion that in our interpretations we try to see an argument in the most favorable way possible before attacking it, rather than jumping straight into exploiting its weaknesses"
The principle of charity holds that to have a successful translation and interpretation, there is a need of a great measure of agreement. The problem with this principle is that it refuses to acknowledge the disagreements and to totally ignore them. That is, preventing the individual to make a rational decision of which position is the strongest. In other words, just accept it as "gospel truth" before anything. A good example would be trying to find an agreement between creationism and evolution. It does not work. You can not do that and hope that truth will emerge when there is an obvious conflict that can not be reconciled. Both positions can not be right/true.
Don't get me started on relativism... But you can't ignore the fact that there is some sort of a moral zeitgeist, also mentioned by Richard Dawkins, in God Delusion I believe. I understand it as a basically bottom up approach to morals. Something not designed, prescribed, agreed upon but more like a product of different social and cultural pressures. The argument is pretty much analogous with the much more prominent creationist v. evolutionist debate so there’s no need to get in to too much detail. And those are a different kind of morals then what we came up with evolution, which could be called baseline. In which group does the self sacrifice fall in I couldn’t tell you for certain, but I strongly believe there’s a thought process behind it. This would put it in the moral zeitgeist category.
Whether or not relativism produces sociopaths or monsters is irrelevant to this discussion. We are discussing whether absolute, universal morals exist. The desirability of absolute morals or undesirability of relativism is irrelevant.
1. Is that feeling (sense of right and wrong) present in almost all individuals--an indication of a God given moral law?
Not the way I see it. To me it is an indication that common lessons learned across enough generations end up becoming deeply imbedded in our nature.
2. Or does it simply reflect what we have been taught by our parents?
I think it roots itself a little deeper and broader than just our parents
3. What is its source? Where does it come from?
see my first two responses
4. What is its purpose?
Well if it is a supposed universal moral law then I shall suppose one for the sake of conversation/debate
"It is immoral to intentionally cause an injury."
The purpose of articulating such a "law" I will leave to your imagination
If there is universal agreement, we could make this a "universal ordinance" based on that agreement. Laws on the other hand are discovered not created.
I appreciate your participation and hope that our debate will provoke us to dig deeper than what we would normally want to. I have read some of your debates and indeed I believe it will do just that. I have to say I am looking forward to our debate. I will do my best to be as clear as possible and accurate to the position from which I am arguing. I am learning along the way and I found that defining terms is important to an early stage of a debate. I believe that you have read the definitions that I accept for the absolute morality position and the different forms of relativism, etc. Do you accept the definitions? Or would you prefer that I summarize them and post it again. And/or if you do not agree would you be so kind as to define your position and define morality?
Then to start I think success would be to find an articulation of our (supposed) disagreement that we both agree accurately describes how we disagree.
Do you accept the definitions? Or would you prefer that I summarize them and post it again.
if you want to be nice you could do that, I might respond quicker than if I had to search this whole thread (which I will do) but it might take me a bit longer to distill and digest then if you re-summarized.
Of morality.... I think of it as a condition that develops within our personality as we reflect on past actions and their motives. Sometimes we are proud of our behavior and sometimes not. Someone with active morality is someone who is self critical.
Ok now I will re -read your posts.............perhaps we can challenge one another? :)
Holds that societies and/or individuals decide what is right and
wrong and that those values vary from culture to culture or person
to person.
In this world view, there are no objective, universal moral truths,--just conventions for behavior that are created by people for people and that are subject to change.
a1. Cultural Relativism:
Is based on the observation that different cultures seem to have different values. And since they have all different value systems, there must be no right system, no objective morality.
a2. Coventionalism:
The view that each society decides what is right and wrong. In contrast with cultural relativism, which says that there is no right or wrong answer, conventionalism claims there is right and wrong, but it varies from society to soceity.
a3. Ethical Relativism:
Individuals decide what is right and wrong for themselves and themselves only. Morality becomes fluid and privatized, changing to fit circumstances and conforming to convenience. This view holds that morality is nothing more than personal preferences and opinion.
It holds that morals are prescriptions for behavior and motive that have the force of a command. They contain a sense of obligation and oughtness that is universal, authoritative, and outweighs considerations of culture, time, and place.
Thus, this world view holds that morals are not opinions. They are not personal, private decisions, and they are not descriptions of behavior.
a. Science, Reason, Intuition.
I would submit that in order to understand what our moral obligations are, we do not go about it scientifically. As you know, science investigates the physical world, collect facts, and draws conclusions from those facts. Therefore, it can not tell us what "ought" to happen, only what will probably happen under certain circumstances. Basically, it is descriptive. Secondly, if morality can't be based on descriptions of the world, neither can it be derived from reason. Reason helps us recognize contradictions, but not the morality of the propositions.
Morality is concerned with our beliefs and judgments regarding right and wrong motives, attitudes, and conduct. When an ethicist studies morality, certain value concepts are the center of focus: "right," "wrong," "good," "bad," "ought,""duty," "virtuous," "blameworthy," and so on" ( J. P. Moreland, Norman L. Geisler, "The Life and Death Debate: Moral Issues of Our Time", p. viii).
IV. Set of necessary and/or sufficient conditions for defining morality.
1. A judgment is moral only if it is accepted as a supremely authoritative, overriding guide to conduct, attitudes, and motives.
The point of this criterion is that morality must have top priority over all else in our lives. In this way, morality is contrasted with mere custom, etiquette, and, perhaps, law.
2. A judgment is moral only if it is a prescriptive imperative which recommends actions, attitudes, and motives and not merely a factual description about actions, attitudes, and motives.
This criterion expresses the distinction between a mere descriptive, factual "is" and a prescriptive, evaluative "ought" and identifies morality with the latter.
3. A judgment is moral only if it is universalizable; that is, if it applies equally to all relevantly similar situations.
The main point of this criterion is to express the conviction that moral judgments must be impartially applied to moral situations by taking into account all of the morally relevant features of the situation.
4. A judgment is moral only if it makes reference to human flourishing, human dignity, the welfare of others, the prevention of harm, and the provision of benefit.
Inasmuch as this criterion makes exclusive reference to human beings, it is clearly inadequate as a necessary condition for morality.
( J. P. Moreland, Norman L. Geisler, "The Life and Death Debate: Moral Issues of Our Time", p.x)
Morality is concerned with our beliefs and judgments regarding right and wrong motives, attitudes, and conduct.
agreed
When an ethicist studies morality, certain value concepts are the center of focus: "right," "wrong," "good," "bad," "ought,""duty," "virtuous," "blameworthy," and so on"
ok
Number 4 is the one that resonates best with me.
Are we on the subject of how morality IS understood or how it ought to be understood? lol
There is what we think (based on imperfect understanding) to be good actions. Then there is reality which is independent of what we think. If we admit when we are wrong as opposed to jumping into some pseudo-philosophical justification about how nothing is in and of itself wrong or we cannot with good certainty know wrong from right. The in my view we have a healthy understanding of Objective morality.
I think that it is possible to err to both the side of relativism AND absolutism. I think that "worldview" think is an expression of absolutism.
Ok. societies and individuals do decide what they think is bad or good, But that decision making is not what makes something bad or good. My take is that what makes something bad is if it promotes injury and sickness, what makes something good is if it promotes health.
All we can do is articulate what we hope are well formed standards. Since we do not understand cause and effect well enough, we still do things that seem good at the time but later on we found out differently. We have to continue working to improve our standards. And yes I do think that we (people) are soley responsible for how well they are developed.
As to the scientific method being useless in this process, I am not convinced. However I am aware that the scientific method's nature is that it is a method not a reason or purpose. It tells us how to study not what to study. Our focus of study I posit is based on religious sentiments. It is religious behavior that addresses the underlying purpose of all our efforts.
So you think that the scientific method cannot be successfully applied to help us develop moral standards that are in better harmony with what actually is bad and good?
that's what you get from me this time?? that's the best response I can muster tonight.. we'll see if it is provocative enough for continued discussion.
"Ok. societies and individuals do decide what they think is bad or good, But that decision making is not what makes something bad or good. My take is that what makes something bad is if it promotes injury and sickness, what makes something good is if it promotes health"
First, I would argue that when people are asked "Why do people believe what they believe" they would give different answers that can fit into four categories:
a. Sociological reasons
b. Psychological reasons
c. Religious reasons
d. Philosophical reasons
However, I think we need to find which of the four categories is the best as far as given adequate grounds for justifications of beliefs. I submit that neither a, b, or c does that.
Second, there has to be an understanding what we mean by "truth" and how is truth know. I think that you would agree with me that apathy and ignorance can be fatal. In other words, " I don't know" and "I don't care". That being said, I would like to define what truth is.
I. Truth Defined:
I think that truth can be defined as "that which corresponds to its object" or "that which describes an actual state of affairs."
A. Truths about Truth:
1. Truth is discovered, not invented. It exists independent of anyone's knowledge. (i.e. gravity existed prior to Newton)
2. Truth is unchanging even though our beliefs about truth change.
(i.e. when we begin to believe the earth was round instead of flat, the truth about the earth didn't change, only our belief about the earth changed)
3. Truth is transcultural; if something is true, it is true for all people, in all places, at all times. (i.e. 2+2=4 for everyone, everywhere, at every time).
4. Truth is not affected by the attitude of the one professing it.
(i.e. an arrogant person does not make the truth he professes false and a humble person does not make the error he professes true.)
5. All truths are absolute truths. Even truths that appear to be relative are really absolute. (i.e. "I feel cold on January 7, 2009" may appear to be relative truth, but it is actually absolute true for everyone, everywhere that I had the sensation of cold on that day.)
6. Beliefs cannot change a fact, no matter how sincerely they are held.
In short, contrary beliefs are possible, but contrary truths are not possible. We can believe everything is true, but we cannot make everything true.
Do you agree or disagree so far? If not, I would still proceed with cross-examining what you have posted, lol. By the way, I apologize for "dispute" tag. I wanted it to be "support" since it is just putting forth info rather than rebuttal.
I submit that all of these factor into the formation of beliefs.
I think we need to find which of the four categories is the best
I think we need to consider how these are inseparably interrelated factors.
"that which corresponds to its object"
I favor something like "that which improves awareness"
1. Truth is discovered, not invented. It exists independent of anyone's knowledge. (i.e. gravity existed prior to Newton)
This calls to mind the "tree falling in the forest" dilemma.
2. Truth is unchanging even though our beliefs about truth change.
I suppose there is some merit to that. I am not sure why you are making this truth claim.
when we begin to believe the earth was round instead of flat, the truth about the earth didn't change, only our belief about the earth changed
Conversely it was once true that "flat earth" was the prevalent belief. That is no longer true, so in a sense truth has changed. The truth about what most people believe.
Truth is transcultural
universal truths are transcultural. But you must admit that some of the truths specifically related to a culture indeed do not apply well cross culturally.
4. Truth is not affected by the attitude of the one professing it.
I don't disagree with that but why do you mention it?
5. All truths are absolute truths.
I object due to a sense of certainty that might develop where doubt might be appropriate.
6. Beliefs cannot change a fact, no matter how sincerely they are held.
"Women are not legally allowed to vote in the US." This was once a fact. Today this is not a fact. Perhaps this is due to changing beliefs.
Do you agree or disagree so far?
hard to say..I have agreed with some of your propositions. I have never agreed whole heartedly with all of anyones propositions, even my own. :)
-We need proofs outside scripture to help discover which if either, is true.
d. Philosophical Reasons:
1. Consistency, Coherence, Completeness (best explanation of all evidence)
-I do not mean someone's opinions, but the classical sense of the word where philosophy means finding truth through logic, evidence, and science. I think that something is worth believing if it's rational, if it's supported by evidence, and if it best explains all the data.
Pondering and working on the other responses.......
"Truth is not affected by the attitude of the one professing it.
I don't disagree with that but why do you mention it?"
1. Sometimes in a debate (I would prefer the word "dialogue"), a person can be emotionally charged and cloud one from determining if the "truth claims" are true or false. I do not think we are an exception. :)
"I favor something like "that which improves awareness"
1. I favor beliefs that are supported by evidence, science, logic, history, etc. You even mentioned science, right? Now, that is not to suggest that the scientific method is the ONLY tool to gather evidence. Right questions requires the right method to answer them. It is possible that people try to answer questions with the wrong method. It would be like trying to unscrew a nut with a hammer.
2. It is true, we start with the set of assumptions/beliefs. However, it is another thing altogether to discover if they correspond with reality.
"Beliefs cannot change a fact, no matter how sincerely they are held"
"Women are not legally allowed to vote in the US." This was once a fact. Today this is not a fact. Perhaps this is due to changing beliefs"
1. Proposition: noun 1 a statement expressing a judgement or opinion.
2. Fact: noun 1 a thing that is indisputably the case. 2 (facts) information used as evidence or as part of a report.
3. Affair: noun 1 an event of a specified kind or that has previously been referred to. 2 a matter that is a particular person’s responsibility. 3 a love affair. 4 (affairs) matters of public interest and importance. [1]
4. Correspond:1 a : to be in conformity or agreement
5. Truth:1 a archaic : fidelity, constancy[2]
1. There are two facts here: Past and Present:
a. Women are legally allowed to vote
b. Women were not legally allowed to vote
According to the correspondence theory, truth is defined as” that which corresponds to its object" or "that which describes an actual state of affairs." J.P. Moreland argued that, “A proposition is not made true by someone's thinking or expressing it and it is not made true by our ability to determine that it is true. Evidence allows us tell if a proposition is true or false, but reality is what makes a proposition true or false.” [2] It depends what your proposition is, right? If your proposition was, "women are not legally allowed to vote", than it depends if your are referring to the past or present. Since your proposition was "Women are not legally allowed to vote" that is obviously false, (present tense) right? There has to be a match between the proposition and the fact that corresponds to the specific proposition.
neither a, b, c, is adequate as a method to justify beliefs:
Granted. But isn't it true that philosophical considerations (especially as you have defined them) more than encompass a,b and c?
I have been thinking about the relation between religion and philosophy. I think an individual's religion consists of those specific principles of philosophy that they accept, try to live up to and promote.
Where did you get your information about the characteristics of relativism? You think of it like terminal fence sitting? Someone who holds to he "worldview" of moral relativism as you define it never feels fit to make a firm judgment?
Just trying to see if I am getting your points?
of cultural relativism:
The phrasing is confusing to me. there are some conclusions that you assert relativists make. And I struggle to see any meaningful distinction between this and plain old relativism.
Of Conventionalism and Ethical Relativism:
Again I see no significant difference between these supposedly different "forms" of relativism.
The Encyclopedia explains, "Moral relativism, put very broadly, states that certain moral features vary relative to certain phenomena" [1] It is very broad because, "relativism,...is not a single doctrine but a family of views whose common theme is that some central aspect of experience, thought, evaluation, or even reality is somehow relative to something else."[2]
"of cultural relativism:"
The Encyclopedia explains it as, "the theory that culture shapes beliefs, provides concepts, organizes value systems, and informs and orients human behavior."[3]
The Encyclopedia explains it as, "...people create their own values for themselves, and different people (even within the same culture) may choose quite different values." [4]
[1] "Relativism." International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. 2008. Thomson Gale. Encyclopedia.com. 9 Jan. 2010 .
[2] Swoyer,Chris, "Relativism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.).
[3] Swoyer, Chris. "Subjectivism." New Dictionary of the History of Ideas. 2005. The Gale Group Inc. Encyclopedia.com. 9 Jan. 2010 .
[4] "Cultural Relativism." International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. 2008. Thomson Gale. Encyclopedia.com. 9 Jan. 2010 .
[5] Powell, Doug. "Holman Quick Source: Guide to Christian Apologetics", p.75-77
(For "conventionalism, which I already typed)
Doug argues that there is a contrast between "conventionalism" and cultural relativism. Conventionalism claims that society decides what is right and wrong, where as cultural relativism does NOT make such a claim. Rather, it claims that there is no right or wrong. He goes on further by stating that, "The majority rules and morality becomes what is legal. That is to say, the law defines what morality and if society were to change a law, it would not change from immoral to moral or from unjust to just. The law could only change from one rule to another. It would simpoly be different, not better or worse."
"Someone who holds to he "worldview" of moral relativism as you define it never feels fit to make a firm judgment?"
Worldview: "A set of assumptions or beliefs about reality that affect how we think and how we live" [1]
1. No. I believe that relativism is self-refutting, unpractical, and mostly no one lives like that. They may say they do believe, but in reality they do not.
2. What I am arguing is that neither of these "worldviews" seem to convince me that it satisfies their “truth claims“. That is to say, there is no correspondence between a belief or a proposition and a fact or a state of affairs. Which is why I provided the definition of truth and the truths of truth. The issue is which worldviews is adequate that justifies beliefs. Bertrand Russell actually popularized the term "correspondence theory". J.P. Morealnd, explained the theory this way, "In its simplest form, the correspondence theory of truth says that a proposition is true just in case it corresponds to reality, when what it asserts to be the case is the case." [2] So, false beliefs fails to correspond to anything.
3. I think that you would agree with me that Truth and belief are two different things. We can believe everything is true, but we cannot make everything true. I think, it is important to know the difference. Worldviews require faith. Facts are also central to all worldviews because they all make truth claims. Therefore, since all worldviews makes "truth claims", than there is the need to have facts (evidences) in order to be evaluated and investigated to see if it is true or false.
[1] Cosgrove, P., Mark, "Foundations of Christian Thought," p. 19
Worldview: "A set of assumptions or beliefs about reality that affect how we think and how we live" [1]
This use of the term "worldview" is what I am uncomfortable with. We must understand someone's thoughts/beliefs pretty thoroughly to be able to speak meaningfully of their "worldview". To address someone's worldview then, how many of the persons underlying assumptions/beliefs must be taken into account?
false beliefs fails to correspond to anything
I disagree with that. they correspond with real events that are poorly understood.
I think that you would agree with me that Truth and belief are two different things..
Your right, I do agree with you here.
all worldviewsmake truth claims.
The only claim relativism makes about truth is that it is so often poorly understood, that we must remain self critical.
For the sake of argument let's say that it's fair to call relativism a worldview. You say it is self refuting and that mostly no one lives like that.
If a worldview is self refuting, than why spend such effort refuting it. Obviously it's not obvious if you must go to such effort to point it out.
Thinking relativistically, truth does not exist objectively, but only in relation to what is sought after. There must be a perspective for truth to enlighten. The statement "Traveling due west from Arizona will get you to New Mexico" is true. But there are other truths about ways to get from here to there that one might be better off being aware of. So relativistic thinking better leaves us open to improve our perception of more beneficial truths.
The relativist says "I have found a truth" where the absolutist says "I have found the truth."
The statement: "Don't believe everything that you think." can be interpreted in different ways. 1. Don't trust your perception of truth at all or 2. Remain self critical
Plenty of people "live by" #2 but I agree that regarding #1 people rarely live like that. Institutionalization may be required for those afflicted by #1
If the attempt is to counter the most prolific misunderstandings related to truth. I think that absolutism deserves more blame than relativism partly since false certainty is much more common and generally problematic than excessive doubt.
"So you think that the scientific method cannot be successfully applied to help us develop moral standards that are in better harmony with what actually is bad and good?"
1. I believe that I can answer that if you bear with me and let us go through the categories and see if we can agree which is the best method of finding "truth". I strongly do not think that a, b, or c does that. Shall we?
1. If we can agree on the definition of truth and truths about truth.
I would be floored..
2. Determing the adequate method of finding truth.
"THE adequate method" hmm.. The method I value as most adequate is the scientific method.
Do you agree on the definition provided/truths of truth?
I suspect (I haven't read it yet) that there are aspects of how you articulate it that I can support and others that I will take issue with. Check back later for my response to that post.
Are you willing to explore thses categories?
If I think either of us are benefiting from this, or anyone might benefit by reading it. I will continue.
I agree with Flame. You moral relativists have no leg to stand on and here's why.
Suppose you consider the moral truth that torturing babies for fun is morally wrong. This is universal under these points.
1) torturing a helpless child that cannot defend themselves is considered child abuse.
2) Child abuse is a universal crime no matter where you are in the world.
Abuse is wrong no matter what--even if you get off on it. Why? Because the cons outweight the pros.
Any type of abuse would psychologically damage and physically damage the one being abused. Just because it is fun for you doesn't mean the victim is having any fun being abused.
Empathy is an important part of morality no matter where you are in the world.
Without empathy--morality wouldn't exist.
Without morality--there would be no sense of what is just
and chaos would ensue.
So there must be a law that governs what one ought to to and what one
should not do and that law is the universal moral law.
Enough said. Try telling this person who is in a philosophy class that universal morality doesn't exist--and I'll also think you're trying to sell me the brooklyn bridge in China.
This is a copied response to another question I answered.
Lets start with this. To assert that something is true is to say that something is definite, unchanging, or completely self-consistant. So, to ask the question is there a universal truth is really asking is there something in the universe that is true. To answer this question we must not accept any bias whether it is religious or none religious. So i our assumtion is that anything is possible but then if anything is possible we also assume the possiblity that nothing is possible. Ultimately this statement cannot be true because if anything is possible that would mean it is possible for something and nothing to be possible at the same time which clearly contradict the whole idea in its' self. The answer is that only somethings are possible because nothing cannot exist no matter how you try to make sense of the idea its' just simply impossible. So there you have the final answer to your question. Only something can exist and nothing cannot that is a universal truth. So universal truths do exist.
I just one agruement to make. HOW DO WE KNOW EVIL ACTUALLY EXIST!!!!!
Because this is the whole point of this agruement. Who's right and who wrong. At different instances what could be view as right or wrong depends totally on the sistuition. So if morality is subjective because it depends on the nature of the sistuition and the beliefs of the people in the enviroment who is to say what is right or wrong. Just about every culture and people have ideas about what is good or bad but it does necessarly make their ideas right. So this whole agruement is really about peoples perception, points of view, and conscious expression. Ultimately since everybody has a point of view or degree of self-express and no degree of subjection can be applied to either it then becomes a universal moral that freedom of a people is to be respected as long it does impede or restrict the freedom of others, their enviroment, and their own.
THIS CONVERSATION IS DONE. END OF STORY THE YES SIDE WINS.
Morals are made up by human beings in order to determine what they feel is right or wrong. Ethics are made up by human beings using logic, as in, they know that one thing inflicts on the other (stealing, murder, etc.) so it MUST not be allowed. Is it wrong? Well, by human standard it is, but at a Universal standard what we do doesn't matter.
Okay, so if there is no moral point of reference, than that means what you think is no more right or wrong than what I think, right?
"Morals are made up by human beings in order to determine what they feel is right or wrong"
Than I have to ask where did those human beings get those morals from to determine what is right and wrong? How do they know what is crooked unless they know what is straight? Because from what you are telling me they seem to be appealing to some kind of standard. So than by who's standard (if theirs than I have to ask where did they get theirs from?) are they measuring and comparing to? Right?
"Ethics are made up by human beings using logic, as in, they know that one thing inflicts on the other (stealing, murder, etc.) so it MUST not be allowed"
Okay, so than, where does this "knowing" come from? That is, the source of this knowledge? Would you agree or disagree than that "stealing, murder, etc." are examples of what people in differant time and cultures do not admire? Granted, people "know" this law, but they do not always obey. Yet, the underlining point is that, in differant time and culture, it is not admired.
1. Exactly, my morals are subjective to your morals.
2. I'm not explaining the origin or morals, but history does show us that morals change in each culture and point in time. Look to the Victorian era or the 1950s. Look to now or Communist China. Morals are simply made by civilization for w/e reason.
3. Ethics, as I said, are built on conflicting with others. We have no moral obligation to feel that an action is right or wrong, but civilization realizes that in order to thrive, they must make sure that one doesn't hurt the other. The Social Contract. If you're wondering where our ability to critically think comes from, the answer doesn't lye within Moral Law, it lies within evolution or something deeper. But no one knows how humans have the intellectual capacity that they do... we just do.
1. Let me ask another way, if it is not true for you is not true for everybody?
2. “I'm not explaining the origin or morals, but history does show us that morals change in each culture and point in time. Look to the Victorian era or the 1950s. Look to now or Communist China. Morals are simply made by civilization for w/e reason”
a. “I'm not explaining the origin or morals"
Science and reason can not answer both what “ought” to happen and the proposition of morality. Science can only tell you what would probably happen where as reason helps us recognize contradictions. As an agnostic, you are only relying on either or both., which is why you can not give an answer. Therefore, you did just what T.H. Huxley, a British Biologist, suggested, “to follow reason “as far as it can take you”; but then, when you have established as much as you can, frankly and honestly to recognize the limits of your knowledge” "agnosticism." (Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 26 Nov. 2009 .)
Here is a question for you: Torturing babies for fun is wrong. Agree or disagree?
b. …“but history does show us that morals change in each culture and point in time. Look to the Victorian era or the 1950s. Look to now or Communist China. Morals are simply made by civilization for w/e reason”
The majority of moral conflicts actually has nothing to do with morality. There is great agreement on moral issues when the moral systems of other cultures and religions are surveyed. What is it than? Basically, they at their core, factual disputes.
Example: Let us take on abortion. The pro-life position argues that it is wrong to take a life of an innocent human being. The pro-choice position actually agrees with the pro-life position on this essential point. What is the differance than? Pro-choice that does not agree that the fetus or the embryo is a human being.
The debate is factual. If the question is answered, than morality's prescriptions can enter into the discussion, and abortion either is recognized as morally neutral, completely acceptable procedure, or as murder. Your just going by how cultures behave, which is just that, observation and nothing more. Therefore, these observations are simply statements of facts. Morals are not the descriptions of the way things are. Just because things are a certain way does not mean they should be that way. When Popeye says , “I am what I am” he is making a statement of fact, not a moral statement. If he said, “I ought to be what I am,” he would make be making a moral claim.
3. "Ethics, as I said, are built on conflicting with others. We have no moral obligation to feel that an action is right or wrong, but civilization realizes that in order to thrive, they must make sure that one doesn't hurt the other. The Social Contract. If you're wondering where our ability to critically think comes from, the answer doesn't lye within Moral Law, it lies within evolution or something deeper. But no one knows how humans have the intellectual capacity that they do... we just do"
3. Question: Are you suggesting than that society decides what is right and wrong?
I'm gonna skip the first few and answer the last question, since it basically sums everything up:
Are you suggesting than that society decides what is right and wrong?
Yes. Universally, there is no right and wrong. Society basically makes it up.
side note: torturing babies is unethical because it is an action conflicting with an individual. Morals have to do with actions that are considered obscene or wrong for reasons illogical (body piercings, gay marriage, etc.)
Anyway, my whole point lies on that answer that I put up. Morals don't exist other than in our heads. They're merely guidelines that civilizations made up. And my comment on the origins or morals was really just that I don't know why exactly it's considered wrong to have oral sex or put your elbows on the table. Civilizations just come about those morals for one reason or another.
As an agnostic, I don't know the origins of the Universe or if there's a God or not. What I do know is that morals are subjective, and that's it.
1. "Yes. Universally, there is no right and wrong. Society basically makes it up"
If that is true, if society defines morality, then a person who protests against the law of that society is, by definition, immoral and criminal. A perfect example of what a society would look like, would be that of Germany in the 1930's and 40's. They passed a law stating that it was illegal to have blue eyes and the penalty for having blue eyes is death. Because they adopted that philosophy, millions of Jews were slaughtered! Why? Because the law was the law; by definition it was "moral". What grounds did the Jews had when they critique the German society??? The Nazis that were tried in Nuremberg, their defense was "It couldn't have been wrong, it was the law", they said. "We were following orders". Even if society were to change a law, it would not change from immoral to moral or from unjust to just. The law could only change from rule to another. It would simply be different, not better or worse. You might as well call Martin Luther King Jr., Gandhi, Abraham Lincoln, etc. one of the worst criminals! They basically pointed to what they saw wrong in society and that it should be changed, that it ought not be that way. It just shows how bankrupt that view is.
2. "torturing babies is unethical because it is an action conflicting with an individual. Morals have to do with actions that are considered obscene or wrong for reasons illogical (body piercings, gay marriage, etc.)"
Unpleasant position to having to argue against it right? Because you can not say it is wrong and be consistent.
3. I am referring to the method that an agnostic would use for the purpose of obtaining knowledge. Reason can only helps us recognize contradictions, but not the morality of the propositions. Therefore, it can not be derived from reason. The one way we come to moral knowledge is directly. That is, we know it through intuition. Why? Because some things are only known in themselves. There is no need for investigation of facts or reasoning is required.
None of this proves for there to be a Universal Moral Law. Really, you didn't even help your argument by bringing up the holocaust. The Nazis found it immoral for one to be a jew. They found it immoral to have relations with a jew. If morals were Universal, where was Hitler's intuition?
Morals are made up. That's it. We can't prove right from wrong, we just come up with agreements, just how the Nazis did.
"The Nazis found it immoral for one to be a jew. They found it immoral to have relations with a jew"
Conventionalism is about power, not morality. Which ever the wind blows, the will of the majority is what is moral. Forcing into submission those who woud oppose them, coventionalism forces its preferences on everyone by defining itself into power. Conventionalism: a view that each society decides what is right and wrong. That is, it claims that there is right and wrong , but it varies from society to society. The majority rules and morality becomes simply what is legal. The Germany of the 1930's-40's clearly shows what that kind of society would look like.
Theodore Schick Jr., is Professor of Philosophy at Muhlenberg College, argued that, "If cultures were morally infallible, however, it would be impossible to disagree with one's culture and be right. Social reformers couldn't claim that a socially approved practice is wrong because if, society approves of it, it must be right. If society approves of slavery, for example, then slavery is right. Anyone who suggests otherwise is simply mistaken. Thus cultural relativism would have us believe that William Lloyd Garrison advocated an immoral position when he advocated the abolition of slavery. But this is not what we believe. We believe that the practice of slavery was wrong even though our culture approved of it. Since cultures are not morally infallible - since they can sanction immoral practices - cultural relativism cannot be correct" (Article Title: Is Morality a Matter of Taste? Why Professional Ethicists Think That Morality Is Not Purely 'Subjective.'. Contributors: Theodore Schick Jr. - author. Magazine Title: Free Inquiry. Volume: 18. Issue: 4. Publication Date: Fall 1998. Page Number: 32+. COPYRIGHT 1998 Council for Democratic and Secular Humanism, Inc.; COPYRIGHT 2002 Gale Group)
"If morals were Universal, where was Hitler's intuition?"
1. If all truth is relative, (if the answer is yes), then what are we to do with that statement itself, since it would be universally true?
2. And if it is not true for everybody, then why is the relativist pushing his morality on other people?
The fact is thepyg, I challenged you to take on this question: "Toturing babies for fun is wrong" ....If you do not believe that this statement is true, the burden of proof is on you to provide a counterexample. If you are unable to do so - if you cannot cite a situation in which toturing babies for fun is right- then your claim that it is true is irrational, for you have no good reason to make it. Secondly, you deliberately stated you wanted to skip other things I mentioned..."the factual debates" part. You didn't challeneged, you clearly stated you wanted to skip it. If you can't do these things, you weakened your own argument.
There is no universal moral law. First off, if this were the case so many different cultures would not disagree on some many levels. Even if you take it to the most basic of morals such as killing others, there are still cannibal tribes in some parts of Africa.
Secondly, what would this moral law state? We need more specifics.
Holds that societies and/or individuals decide what is right and
wrong and that those values vary from culture to culture or person
to person.
In this world view, there are no objective, universal moral truths,--just conventions for behavior that are created by people for people and that are subject to change.
a1. Cultural Relativism:
Is based on the observation that different cultures seem to have different values. And since they have all different value systems, there must be no right system, no objective morality.
b. Objective Morality:
It holds that morals are prescriptions for behavior and motive that have the force of a command. They contain a sense of obligation and oughtness that is universal, authoritative, and outweighs considerations of culture, time, and place.
Thus, this world view holds that morals are not opinions. They are not personal, private decisions, and they are not descriptions of behavior.
II. Science, Reason, Intuition.
Now that both positions are defined, I would submit that in order to understand what our moral obligations are, we do not go about it scientifically. As you know, science investigates the physical world, collect facts, and draws conclusions from those facts. Therefore, it can not tell us what "ought" to happen, only what will probably happen under certain circumstances. Basically, it is descriptive. Secondly, if morality can't be based on descriptions of the world, neither can it be derived from reason. Reason helps us recognize contradictions, but not the morality of the propositions.
Example: If someone told you, "I always lie," you would use reason to understand that this is a paradoxical statement. If it's true, than it's false, and if its false, then its true. But reason does not tell us anything about whether lying is right or wrong or whether truthful confession is virtue or not.
One way we come to moral knowledge is directly. That is, we know it through intuition. Why? Because some things are only known in themselves. There is no need for investigation of facts or reasoning is required.
Example: "Torturing babies for fun is wrong" Reason does not help us respond to this claim. And nobody has to investigate what torture is, what babies are, and what fun is before they can take a moral stance on it.
Hence, it is self-evident; knowledge and our intuition equip us to recognize it as such. Moral intuition is a genuine form of knowledge.
III. Your Points:
1. "First off, if this were the case so many different cultures would not disagree on some many levels"
IV. Rebuttal:
1. The majority of moral conflicts actually has nothing to do with morality. There is great agreement on moral issues when the moral systems of other cultures and religions are surveyed. What is it than? Basically, they at their core, factual disputes.
Example: Let us take on abortion. The pro-life position argues that it is wrong to take a life of an innocent human being. The pro-choice position actually agrees with the pro-life position on this essential point.
What is the differance than? Pro-choice that does not agree that the fetus or the embryo is a human being. The debate is factual. If the question is answered, than
morality's prescriptions can enter into the discussion, and abortion either is recognized as morally neutral, completely acceptable procedure, or as murder.
IV. Conclusion
There are great moral agreements among cultures and that majority of the conflicts are mainly factual debates.
The majority of moral conflicts actually has nothing to do with morality. There is great agreement on moral issues when the moral systems of other cultures and religions are surveyed. What is it than? Basically, they at their core, factual disputes.
The example I provided goes against the most basic of morals agreed upon. There are tribes that still practice cannibalism. Therefore, morals are all relative.
All morals come from cultural and social background. There are no morals that exist in EVERY person or EVERY culture in the world. Therefore, there is no universal moral.
There does appear to be significant evidence for a common core of ‘moral’ values across human societies.
E.g., if you look at moral codes from widely separated cultures and time-frames, such as those listed below, we do see a significant core of commonality.
ancient Jews/ Israelites,
the teachings of Jesus the Christ,
the Roman Empire’s system of justice,
the moral codes of Ancient Mesopotamia,
the moral codes in ancient China,
the moral codes in ancient India,
the moral codes in ancient European societies,
the teachings of individuals recognized as great moral leaders in various societies through the ages.
And the vast majority of human societies (from widely separated cultures and time-frames) would agree that we should be willing to protect our families and children from others who might harm them.
"The example I provided goes against the most basic of morals agreed upon. There are tribes that still practice cannibalism. Therefore, morals are all relative"
"All morals come from cultural and social background. There are no morals that exist in EVERY person or EVERY culture in the world. Therefore, there is no universal moral"
Okay, let us go over it again. Schick argued that, "To derive a moral judgment from a moral standard, we must have some beliefs about the facts of the case. Without such information, no moral judgment can be made. The formula for a moral judgment, then, can be expressed as follows:
Moral standard + Factual beliefs = Moral judgment
Some anthropologists believe that this is often the case.
Solomon Asch writes:
It has been customary to hold that diverse evaluations of the same act are automatic evidence for the presence of different principles of evaluation. The preceding examples point to an error in this interpretation. Indeed, an examination of the relational factors point to the operation of constant principles in situations that differ in concrete details. . . . Anthropological evidence does not furnish proof of relativism. We do not know of societies in which bravery is despised and cowardice held up to honor, in which generosity is considered a vice and ingratitude a virtue. It seems rather that the relations between valuation and meaning are invariant.(2)
According to Asch, people in different cultures arrive at different moral judgments, not because they have different views about the nature of morality, but because they have different views about the nature of reality"
(Theodore Schick, Jr., is Professor of Philosophy at Muhlenberg College and coauthor (with Lewis Vaughn) of How to Think about Weird Things (Mayfield, 1995) and Doing Philosophy: An Introduction Through Thought Experiments (Mayfield, 1999).
Note: Schick quotes, Solomon Asch, a Social Psychologist: " Social Psychology, (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1952), pp. 378-79.
Therefore, the very fact that there is a differance of arrival of moral judgements in different cultures proves otherwise, that it is simply, "...because they have different views about the nature of reality (Schick).
the bible says women are far inferior to man and should defer decision making etc to the man should not be allowed to speak in church or teach the bible.
how then did we come to the conclusion that women should be allowed to vote? because a sufficient number of people put sufficient pressure on society - the cost of jailing women who disobeyed, educated women showing that they knew more than many men who were allowed to vote, women putting pressure on their spouses at home etc. - our morals changed. based on enough people coming to the logical conclusion that allowing them to vote was less bad than not letting them vote. Slavery and many other things allowed in the bible (yes, even the new testament - see 1st Timothy) have undergone similar transitions. often hindered by people claiming it to be morally wrong
"the bible says women are far inferior to man and should defer decision making etc to the man should not be allowed to speak in church or teach the bible"
1. Can you provide evidence in the Bible to support your statement please?
"Slavery and many other things allowed in the bible (yes, even the new testament - see 1st Timothy) have undergone similar transitions. often hindered by people claiming it to be morally wrong"
1. The idea that God or Christianity encourages or approves of slavery is shown to be false. Everyone agrees that forced, involuntary servitude is morally wrong, how can Christians justify the Bible's apparent support of slavery? Right?
a. The Old Testament on Slavery:
- First, we must recognize that the Bible does not say God supports slavery. In fact, the slavery described in the Old Testament was quite different from the kind of slavery we think of today - in which people are captured and sold as slaves. According to Old Testament law, anyone caught selling another person into slavery was to be executed:
"He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death." (Exodus 21:16)
Slavery during Old Testament times was not what we commonly recognize as slavery, such as that practiced in the 17th century Americas, when Africans were captured and forcibly brought to work on plantations. Unlike our modern government welfare programs, there was no safety-net for ancient Middle Easterners who could not provide a living for themselves. In ancient Israel, people who could not provide for themselves or their families sold them into slavery so they would not die of starvation or exposure. In this way, a person would receive food and housing in exchange for labor.
So, although there are rules about slavery in the Bible, those rules exist to protect the slave.
1. Injuring or killing slaves was punishable - up to death of the offending party.
"If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished." (Exodus 21:20)
"If a man strikes the eye of his male or female slave, and destroys it, he shall let him go free on account of his eye. "And if he knocks out a tooth of his male or female slave, he shall let him go free on account of his tooth." (Exodus 21:26-27)
"He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death." (Exodus 21:12)
2. Hebrews were commanded not to make their slave work on the Sabbath.
"Six days you are to do your work, but on the seventh day you shall cease from labor so that your ox and your donkey may rest, and the son of your female slave, as well as your stranger, may refresh themselves. (Exodus 23:12)
3. Slander a slave.
"Do not slander a slave to his master, Or he will curse you and you will be found guilty." (Proverbs 30:10)
4. Have sex with another man's slave.
"Now if a man lies carnally with a woman who is a slave acquired for another man, but who has in no way been redeemed nor given her freedom, there shall be punishment; they shall not, however, be put to death, because she was not free." (Leviticus 19:20)
5. Or return an escaped slave.
"You shall not hand over to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you." (Deuteronomy 23:15)
6. A Hebrew was not to enslave his fellow countryman, even if he owed him money, but was to have him work as a hired worker, and he was to be released in the year of jubilee (which occurred every seven years).
"If a countryman of yours becomes so poor with regard to you that he sells himself to you, you shall not subject him to a slave's service. 'He shall be with you as a hired man, as if he were a sojourner; he shall serve with you until the year of jubilee. 'He shall then go out from you, he and his sons with him, and shall go back to his family, that he may return to the property of his forefathers. 'For they are My servants whom I brought out from the land of Egypt; they are not to be sold in a slave sale. 'You shall not rule over him with severity, but are to revere your God." (Leviticus 25:39-43)
"If you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years; but on the seventh he shall go out as a free man without payment." (Exodus 21:2)
7. In fact, the slave owner was encouraged to "pamper his slave".
"He who pampers his slave from childhood Will in the end find him to be a son." (Proverbs 29:21)
Since many of the early Christians were slaves to Romans,1 they were encouraged to become free if possible, but not worry about it if not possible.2 The Roman empire practiced involuntary slavery, so rules were established for Christians who were subject to this slavery or held slaves prior to becoming Christians. The rules established for slaves were similar to those established for other Christians with regard to being subject to governing authorities.3 Slaves were told to be obedient to their master and serve them sincerely, as if serving the Lord Himself.4 Paul instructed slaves to serve with honor, so that Christianity would not be looked down upon.5
1. "Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that. For he who was called in the Lord while a slave, is the Lord's freedman; likewise he who was called while free, is Christ's slave. You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men."(1 Corinthians 7:21-23)
2. "Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor. Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law." (Romans 13:1-8)
3. "Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ; not by way of eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. With good will render service, as to the Lord, and not to men, knowing that whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free."(Ephesians 6:5-8)
"Slaves, in all things obey those who are your masters on earth, not with external service, as those who merely please men, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord. Whatever you do, do your work heartily, as for the Lord rather than for men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the reward of the inheritance. It is the Lord Christ whom you serve. For he who does wrong will receive the consequences of the wrong which he has done, and that without partiality." (Colossians 3:22-25)
"Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are unreasonable. For this finds favor, if for the sake of conscience toward God a person bears up under sorrows when suffering unjustly. For what credit is there if, when you sin and are harshly treated, you endure it with patience? But if when you do what is right and suffer for it you patiently endure it, this finds favor with God. For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps." (1 Peter 2:18-21)
4. "All who are under the yoke as slaves are to regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against. Those who have believers as their masters must not be disrespectful to them because they are brethren, but must serve them all the more, because those who partake of the benefit are believers and beloved. Teach and preach these principles." (1 Timothy 6:1-2)
5. "And masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him." (Ephesians 6:9)
As with slaves, instructions were given to their masters as to how they were to treat their slaves. For example, they were not to be threatened,1 but treated with justice and fairness.2 The text goes on to explain that this was to be done because God is the Master of all people, and does not show partiality on the basis of social status or position.1, 2
1. "And masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him." (Ephesians 6:9)
2. "Masters, grant to your slaves justice and fairness, knowing that you too have a Master in heaven." (Colossians 4:1)
There is an interesting letter in the New Testament (Philemon15-21) that gives some insight into the problems encountered in the early Christian church regarding the issue of slavery. Paul, the author of the letter, is writing from a Roman prison awaiting trial. 15 He is writing to Philemon, who runs a local Christian church out of his house 16 (since Christianity was highly persecuted at this point in time). Philemon, we find out, is the master of the slave Onesimus, who has escaped but has been converted to Christianity by Paul.18 In the letter, Paul indicates that he is sending Onesimus back to Philemon.19 However, Paul says that he has confidence that Philemon will "do what is proper"17 although Paul wants him to do it by his "own free will".20 Even so, Paul indicates that Onesimus would be a great aid in helping him spread the gospel.19 Paul ends the letter by saying that he has "confidence in your obedience" and indicates that he knows Philemon "will do even more than what I say."21 Although Paul did not directly order Philemon to release Onesimus from slavery, it would have been difficult to come away with any other conclusion from his letter.
(Philemon 1:1-22)
c. God does not distinguish between slaves and freemen:
The New Testament proclaims that all people are equal in the eyes of God - even slaves:
1. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28)
2. "knowing that whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free." (Ephesians 6:8)
3. "And masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him." (Ephesians 6:9)
4. "a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all." (Colossians 3:11)
Therefore, the idea that God or Christianity encourages or approves of slavery is shown to be false. In fact, anybody who was caught selling another person into slavery was to be executed. However, since voluntary slavery was widely practiced during biblical times, the Bible prescribes laws to protect the lives and health of slaves. Paul, the author of many of the New Testament writings, virtually ordered the Christian Philemon to release his Christian slave from his service to "do what is proper". In addition, numerous verses from the New Testament show that God values slaves as much as any free person and is not partial to anyone's standing before other people.
If universal morals exist they are still basically useless since humans are not able to access them. Put 100 people in 100 rooms and ask 100 moral questions - there will be no concesus on the answers or the reasoning behind the answers.
So, if universal morality exists, then it is only used as a way to measure morality of people who cannot reliably access it.
"If universal morals exist they are still basically useless since humans are not
able to access them"
1. You seem to overlook the human equation known as "the human will".
Because an individual choose to ignore the moral prescription for behavior
does not in itself prove that there is no such thing as a universal moral law.
Morals are not descriptive, but prescription how a person “ought” to behave.
An absolute moral law can exist even if people fail to know the right
thing to do in a particular situation.
"Put 100 people in 100 rooms and ask 100 moral questions - there will be no concesus on the answers or the reasoning behind the answers"
2. There is a difference between factual disputes and agreement in moral issues.
If you were to have “100 people in 100 rooms and ask 100 moral questions -
there will be no consensus on the answers…” because there would be
disagreements upon facts. If the questions are answered, than morality's
prescriptions can enter into the discussions. But, there still remains the
choice to either to apply them or not"
"So, if universal morality exists, then it is only used as a way to measure morality of people who cannot reliably access it"
If you mean "measure" as in judging which to suppress and which to encourage, than yes. But to make the statement that people do not have access, than no.
HELL NO. Morals are just an illusion. You as a person might have your own morals like IT'S WRONG TO EAT SOUP WITH A FORK or something, but another person might have a different point of view. Really, there is NO point of moralities. Morals and even laws shouldn't be put in the same thing. It's just wrong... I might not have a clue of what I'm talking about but... I read a good article about how moralities are just an illusion, sort of like you'd never jump off a cliff, but if your favorite celebrity would do it or told you too, you'd probably do it. People of higher authority seem to control you whether it's part of your morals or not. Kind of get where I'm shooting at?
It also varies on cultural references. If it's OKAY to eat a dog in _____ and it might not be okay to eat it in _____, you'd still do it.
It's kind of like being gay, YOU KNOW IT'S WRONG or something, PEOPLE THINK IT'S WRONG. But you think it's right, so you continue to do it whether morally wrong or right.
"It's kind of like being gay, YOU KNOW IT'S WRONG or something, PEOPLE THINK IT'S WRONG. But you think it's right, so you continue to do it whether morally wrong or right"
Questions: Subject of homosexuality
1. Who are you referring to when you typed "YOU KNOW ITS WRONG"
are you referring to yourself in second-person?
2. So than is that an acknowledgement of an individual who did receive an
intuitive knowledge of what they "ought" to do, but willingly choose to disregard it?
For something to be considered a law, scientifically, it must apply in all situations, and must be consistent in all situations. Gravity, for example, is a law of the universe, because it applies all the time and is consistent every time. Gravity will also apply in all situations regardless of human presence. Morals however cannot be laws because there is no absolutely truthful definition of right and wrong. Even if there was, the enforcement of those laws relies on the existence of humans. Since earth is the only place in the universe where humans are known to exist. Morals cannot apply universally.
"For something to be considered a law, scientifically, it must apply in all situations, and must be consistent in all situations. Gravity, for example, is a law of the universe, because it applies all the time and is consistent every time. Gravity will also apply in all situations regardless of human presence. Morals however cannot be laws because there is no absolutely truthful definition of right and wrong. Even if there was, the enforcement of those laws relies on the existence of humans. Since earth is the only place in the universe where humans are known to exist. Morals cannot apply universally"
First of all, what you just did is what is known as "the fallacy of equivocation". That is to say, "taking a word with more than one definition and freely substituting one definition for another". The word "law" has more than one definition. Secondly, “in order to understand what our moral obligations are, we do not go about it scientifically. As you know, science investigates the physical world, collect facts, and draws conclusions from those facts. Therefore, it can not tell us what "ought" to happen, only what will probably happen under certain circumstances. Basically, it is descriptive”. Third, how could you compare the law of gravity to that of moral law? That is another logical fallacy known as "weak analogy", which is, "the two things that are being compared aren't really alike in the relevant respects".
Let us clarify the meaning of the usage of the word "law" in dealing with the question of morality. It used to be called "the Law of Nature" by philosophers of the past. "The Law of Human Nature" is what they meant. The reason it was termed as such was because people thought that every one knew it by nature and did not need to be taught it. That is to say, they thought that the idea that decent human behavior was obvious. There is a major difference between the moral law and the law of gravity and all other laws such as, biological laws. How so? We can choose to obey or disobey the moral law where as the law of gravity and biological laws, etc. we can not.
1. the system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce by the imposition of penalties
2. a statement of fact, deduced from observation, to the effect that a particular natural or scientific phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions are present
These two definitions say that laws are either absolute truths in the universe, or basically just rules made up by people to govern themselves. Since the debate topic is whether or not there is a universal moral law, the debate is looking for an absolute truth in human morals. Therefore a statement of fact (as noted in the second definition) is needed. You acknowledge in your rebuttal that people are not bound by these moral "laws" like they are by other laws of science. So, by definition, these cannot be laws, just differences in opinions. Therefore, there is no universal moral law. Just because your thoughts on morality don't hold up to scientific scrutiny, that doesn't make science inapplicable, it just makes you wrong. Morals are only made up by individuals and the people they allow to influence them, there is no cosmic rule book for everyone out there.
"a body of unchanging moral principles regarded as inherent in all human beings and forming a basis for human conduct" (Compact Oxford English Dictionary)
Exactly my point, you choose just two of the various definitions. You still commited the two logical fallacies: 1. Equivocation fallacy and 2. weak analogy. Therefore, the conclusion is false. Secondly, yes I stand by what I said on my rebuttal. Third, these are not just "my thoughts" this is self-evident. The problem is, you think that it can be answered by scientific knowledge. It is not a scientific question. Science investigates the physical world, collect facts, and draws conclusions from those facts. Therefore, it can not tell us what "ought" to happen, only what will probably happen under certain circumstances. Basically, it is descriptive. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Natural law theory’ is a label that has been applied to theories of ethics, theories of politics, theories of civil law, and theories of religious morality" ( Murphy, Mark, "The Natural Law Tradition in Ethics", The Stanford Encyclopedia). You yourself acknowledged that, " the debate is looking for an absolute truth in human morals", right? How many people would you be able to ask, "Hey, by the way, did you had to stop and analyze and reason to see if stealing from you was wrong?" It is self-evident, (obvious). Hence, ORIGIN Latin conscientia ‘knowledge within oneself’, from scire ‘to know’ (Compact Oxford English Dictionary).
Supporting Evidence:
Natural Law
(plato.stanford.edu)
I would agree with this premise: "All human beings have an intuitive sense of right and wrong." However, I don't think this implies either of the following propositions:
1) There is a universal moral law
2) God is the source of moral law
The sense of "conscience" or intuitive morality that Flame carefully articulated is better explained psychologically than theologically. Our intuitions about morality stem from psychological archetypes, or mental-instincts, that are fundamental to the human mind. These archetypes of morality serve adaptive purposes just as do behavioral instincts.
However, just because all humans have a sense of morality, this does not mean that our human morality is universal. We need not apply our moral codes to non-humans, for example. For a code to be universal, it would have to apply to all hypothetical beings (or perhaps sentient beings?) in the universe. Since the likelihood of sentient life on many other planets is very high, the population of the Earth is not a statistically sufficient sample size to generalize to the rest of the universe. Neither is it a diverse sample, since all the members come from the same tiny region of the universe (ie, Earth).
Also, there is no compelling reason to suppose that a God is the source of moral intuitions. I will appeal to Occam's razor and suggest that the theory that moral intuition is psychological is sufficient to explain the phenomenon, and that positing a God as the source of of this psychological fact is to multiply entities beyond necessity.
Once again, I would like to give thanks to Swyrgt for his contribution. I have read his arguments in other debates and indeed they are thought provokers. On to the debate. Swryght makes several points that needs to be addressed. I will first define some terms, present my opponent's syllogistic argument, my rebuttals and contentions.
I. Definitions:
Metaethics:The philosophy of ethics dealing with the meaning of ethical terms, the nature of moral discourse, and the foundations of moral principles.[1]
Source:
1 a : a generative force : cause b (1) : a point of origin or procurement : beginning (2) : one that initiates : author; also : prototype, model (3) : one that supplies information.[2]
Archetype:
1 : the original pattern or model of which all things of the same type are representations or copies : prototype; also : a perfect example.
2 :idea 1a
3 : an inherited idea or mode of thought in the psychology of C. G. Jung that is derived from the experience of the race and is present in the unconscious of the individual.[3]
Sufficient: adequate for the purpose; enough: sufficient proof; sufficient protection. [4]
Reason: a basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event, etc.[5]
All: 2 : every member or individual component of. [6]
Natural Law: "a body of unchanging moral principles regarded as inherent in all human beings and forming a basis for human conduct” [7]
Better: more advantageous or effective
Naturalism: a theory denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance; specifically : the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena. [8]
Supernatural: attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. [9]
Positivism: : a theory that theology and metaphysics are earlier imperfect modes of knowledge and that positive knowledge is based on natural phenomena and their properties and relations as verified by the empirical sciences.[10]
II. Swrygt's Syllogistic Argument:
1. The sense of "conscience" or intuitive morality is better explained psychologically than theologically.
2. Intuition about morality stem from psychological archetypes or mental-instincts.
3. Therefore, there is no compelling reason to suppose that a God is the source of moral intuitions.
III. Rebuttals:
A. My opponent made this statement and I quote,"All human beings have an intuitive sense of right and wrong.” First ,it is an acknowledgement that intuition is a genuine knowledge of right and wrong. Secondly, that every individual of the human race has access to this genuine knowledge. According to the principle of contradiction, “It is impossible for something to both to be and not to be at the same time and in the same respect.[11] In other words, he clearly negated his own statement which was, "However, I don't think this implies either of the following propositions: 1) There is a universal moral law. It is saying something that does not correspond to the objective facts. Natural law is defined as, " a body of unchanging moral principles regarded as inherent in all human beings and forming a basis for human conduct" which Swryght conceded. Thus, my premise that there is a universal moral law stands.
B. Answers people give mainly falls in four categories: Sociological reasons, psychological reasons, religious reasons, and philosophical reasons. My opponent choose psychological reasons. I have to assume that he meant definition (3) which is "an inherited idea or mode of thought in the psychology of C. G. Jung that is derived from the experience of the race and is present in the unconscious of the individual.” Since he did not explain C.G. Jung's theory of archetypes than allow me to share a summary:
"term introduced by psychiatrist Carl Jung to represent a form of the unconscious (that part of the mind containing memories and impulses of which the individual is not aware) common to mankind as a whole and originating in the inherited structure of the brain. It is distinct from the personal unconscious, which arises from the experience of the individual. According to Jung, the collective unconscious contains archetypes, or universal primordial images and ideas." [12]
I think I can safely say that we are in agreement that "All human beings have an intuitive sense of right and wrong." However, Swryght denies that there is any supernatural significance by clearly saying that it can be effectively explained from a psychological viewpoint (naturalism). In his debate with Prof. Taylor (Athiest), Prof. William Lane Craig quotes Taylor's book, "Ethics, Faith, and Reason",
"The modern age, more or less repudiating the idea of a divine lawgiver, has nevertheless tried to retain the ideas of moral right and wrong, not noticing that in casting God aside, they have also abolished the conditions of meaningfulness for moral right and wrong as well.... Thus, even educated persons sometimes declare that such things as war...or the violation of human rights, are ‘morally wrong,’ and they imagine that they have said something true and significant.
Educated people do not need to be told, however, that questions such as these have never been answered outside of religion." He than concludes, "Contemporary writers in ethics, who blithely discourse upon moral right and wrong and moral obligation without any reference to religion, are really just weaving intellectual webs from thin air; which amounts to saying that they discourse without meaning."[13]
1. Non-theistic Ethical Theories will be incomplete and Inadequate:
We can have ethical systems that make no reference to God, but it is incomplete and inadequate because they still do not tell us why human beings have intrinsic value, rights, and moral obligations. Spiegel made this point, “Meaning and value transcend the physical world and must therefore find their source in the supernatural.”[14] There is a connection between God and morality that even some atheists and skeptics have noted it:
a. “Atheist Michael Martin argues that, “theists give the same reasons as atheists for condemning rape: it violates the victim's rights, damages society. What Martin really means is that atheists can be good without believing in God, but they would not be good (have intrinsic worth, moral responsibility, etc.) without God. (Indeed, nothing would exist without him.)” [15]
b. “The late atheist philosopher J. L. Mackie said that moral properties are "queer" given naturalism "if there are objective values, they make the existence of a god more probable than it would have been without them. Thus we have a defensible argument from morality to the existence of a god.” [15]
c. "Agnostic Paul Draper observes, "A moral world is very probable on theism." [15]
C. Occam's Razor favors Theism
My opponent made the statement, that "the theory that moral intuition is psychological is sufficient to explain the phenomenon and appealed to Occam's razor. However, he is clearly misapplying this principle in two ways. First a simple definition of what Occam's Razor is:
"Occam's razor is a principle which is frequently used outside of ontology, e.g., by philosophers of science in an effort to establish criteria for choosing from among theories with equal explanatory power.* [16] In other words, in an attempt to account some phenomenon, the simplest hypothesis, other things being equal should be preferred. Now, here are the two ways Swryght abused the principle:
1. He assumed that both hypothesis were of equal explanatory power.
I have given the reasons why it is of no equal explanatory power. That is, incomplete and inadequate because his hypothesis still do not tell us why human beings have intrinsic value, rights, and moral obligations.
2. He assumed that my hypothesis is false.
Applying Occam's razor does not prove that a hypothesis is false. It is fallacious to make a bold statement such as, "that positing a God as the source of this psychological fact is to multiply entities beyond necessity.
D. Additional Problems
1. Not all beliefs can be scientifically verifiable
Positivism is basically the methodology driving naturalism. If my opponent believes that all knowledge must be scientifically verifiable than he must be aware that it is self-refutting since all beliefs can not be scientifically verifiable. Thus, by the positivist's own standard, positivism must be rejected as unknowable. [17]
2. Science cannot teach humans what they most need to know: the meaning of life and how to value it.
Most of our beliefs fall outside the realm of science. Spiegel quotes Holmes Rolston, University Distinguished Professor of philosophy at Colorado State University, "Science is never the end of the story, because science cannot teach humans what they most need to know: the meaning of life and how to value it....After science, we still need help deciding what to value; what is right and wrong, good and evil, how to behave as we cope. The end of life still lies in its meaning, the domain of religion and ethics." [18]
Conclusion:
Swryght declared that there is no basis or cause for belief that God is the Author of the universal moral law (the sense of right and wrong) because it can be effectively explained psychologically. That is, the foundation of moral principles can be verified scientifically. Therefore, denying supernatural significance. However, this is not the case because:
1. Non-theistic Ethical Theories will be incomplete and inadequate because they still do not tell us why human beings have intrinsic value, rights, and moral obligations.
2. If my opponent believes that all knowledge must be scientifically verifiable than he must be aware that it is self-refutting since all beliefs can not be scientifically verifiable. Thus, the positivist's own standard, positivism must be rejected as unknowable.
3. Science cannot teach humans what they most need to know: the meaning of life and how to value it.
4. It is the domain of religion and ethics (The philosophy of ethics dealing with the meaning of ethical terms, the nature of moral discourse, and the foundations of moral principles) and not science. In other words, it is not a scientific issue.
In order for my opponent to demonstrate that my conclusion is false, he must prove that premise 1 or 2 is false. My syllogistic argument meets the following requirements which are: the truth of premises, the relevancy of premises, and the form is valid. The three terms of the argument have been connected and we can see that the conclusion indeed follows. There is no avoiding it.
II. My Syllogistic Argument:
1. Every law has a law giver.
2. There is a Moral Law.
3. Therefore, there is a Moral Law Giver.
III. My Contentions:
Contention 1: Our Reactions Helps Us Discover the Moral Law
Our reactions will reveal the Moral Law written on our hearts and minds. It also indicates that relativism is ultimately unlivable. It is not always apperent from our actions, but it is indeed in our reactions.
Contention 2: Without The Moral Law, There Would Be No Way To Measure Moral Differences
If the Moral Law does not exist, then there is no difference between equality and racism, care and abuse, life and murder. Also, statements like "Murder is evil," "racism is wrong," or "You shouldn't do abuse children," have no objective meaning. They're just someone's opinion. Terms such as, "good," "bad," and "worse," would have no objective meaning when used ina moral sense.
Contention 3: Without The Moral Law, You Couldn't Know What Was Right Or Wrong
A person can not know what is moraly wrong unless they have some idea of what is moraly right.
If any of you (the readers looking at this question) have studied foreign cultures and societies you'd know that very few moral issues have been agreed upon throughout history among all of them.
For example:
Cannibalism, wrong? Not according to certain Polynesian cultures.
Slavery, wrong? It still exists in Africa to this day.
Murder, wrong? Everybody has an opinion on when it could be necessary, if at all.
Rape, wrong? If you follow certain Islamic clerics, and Christian leaders, they'll tell you that a wife should never deny her husband sex, and unconsented sex is rape. Further, in certain Islamic societies the raped person is punished for the crime of having an indecent form of sex.
Child molestation, wrong? It was a common (accepted) practice a thousand or so years ago in a number of cultures. In Thailand there are child prostitutes.
How about young adolescents and older men? This happened in ancient Greek culture.
The point to take from this is that at any time throughout history to the present day, what our society considers right and wrong will change, and has changed, 180 degrees. If we can't find absolute moral positions that are timeless, it's fair to say that there are none or we have no ability to discern them.
Read my arguments concerning "Cultural Relativism" before just posting the same question. Than, if you still do not see it, do not just say " I do not see". Make your case:examples, clarity. Fair enough? Your debating from that position. Read kamranw's argument and my rebuttal.
Good and evil are morals, beliefs and values that we made ourselves. The universe is not an entity and cannot create such values.
How can we explain good without knowing evil? Similarly, how can evil exist without good? As the Chinese clearly put in their "yin yang" principle, opposites attract. Opposites co exist. One cannot exist without the other.
We can explain our conscience through this. Everyone has different standards of good and evil. There is nothing that is entirely universal. A serial killer may think what he is doing is right. On the other hand, the community at large would condemn what he was doing.
Yet the community would not be able to define "crime" without it taking place. The law was formulated as a means to define what can or can't be done. However, just because the law is considered a benchmark mark on moral action by many, does not mean that everyone agrees with it.
Adolf Hitler massacred millions of Jews, thinking that he was doing something right. The outrage, or "moral values" held by many did not mean a thing to him. He had his own moral values, which were Anti-Semitic.
Conclusion:
Everyone's morals are different. Some condemn all forms of lying, others do not. We can apply the fact that to some, the values of others, the law and the consequences do not matter. There can be no universal moral law because of such diversity of beliefs.
First, I would like to give the definition of morality and a criterion that, “…may not be necessary for addressing all cases of morality, it is helpful in many moral contexts” as argued by J.P. Moreland, distinguished Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology at Biola University in La Mirada, California, second, answer your points, and third examine your examples:
"Morality is concerned with our beliefs and judgments regarding right and wrong motives, attitudes, and conduct. When an ethicist studies morality, certain value concepts are the center of focus: "right," "wrong," "good," "bad," "ought,""duty," "virtuous," "blameworthy," and so on" ( J. P. Moreland, Norman L. Geisler, "The Life and Death Debate: Moral Issues of Our Time", p. viii).
I. Set of necessary and/or sufficient conditions for defining morality.
1. A judgment is moral only if it is accepted as a supremely authoritative, overriding guide to conduct, attitudes, and motives.
The point of this criterion is that morality must have top priority over all else in our lives. In this way, morality is contrasted with mere custom, etiquette, and, perhaps, law.
2. A judgment is moral only if it is a prescriptive imperative which recommends actions, attitudes, and motives and not merely a factual description about actions, attitudes, and motives.
This criterion expresses the distinction between a mere descriptive, factual "is" and a prescriptive, evaluative "ought" and identifies morality with the latter.
3. A judgment is moral only if it is universalizable; that is, if it applies equally to all relevantly similar situations.
The main point of this criterion is to express the conviction that moral judgments must be impartially applied to moral situations by taking into account all of the morally relevant features of the situation.
4. A judgment is moral only if it makes reference to human flourishing, human dignity, the welfare of others, the prevention of harm, and the provision of benefit.
Inasmuch as this criterion makes exclusive reference to human beings, it is clearly inadequate as a necessary condition for morality.
( J. P. Moreland, Norman L. Geisler, "The Life and Death Debate: Moral Issues of Our Time", p.x)
a. "The universe is not an entity and cannot create such values"
This is a logical (equivocation) fallacy, "taking a word with more than one definition and freely substituting one definition for another”. The word “universal” is made in refernce to condition number 3, not the cosmos.
b. "How can we explain good without knowing evil? Similarly, how can evil exist without good? As the Chinese clearly put in their "yin yang" principle, opposites attract. Opposites co exist. One cannot exist without the other"
1. Interesting, so does that mean that you do believe that there is such a thing as good and evil? That is, you KNOW differance between right and wrong?
c. "We can explain our conscience through this. Everyone has different standards of good and evil. There is nothing that is entirely universal. A serial killer may think what he is doing is right. On the other hand, the community at large would condemn what he was doing"
1. "Everyone has different standards of good and evil"
That is not true. There is a difference between factual disputes and agreement in moral issues. That would be condition 2.
II. Examining your examples: Adolf Hitler and the Serial Killer.
Example 1: Adolf Hitler
"Adolf Hitler massacred millions of Jews, thinking that he was doing something right. The outrage, or "moral values" held by many did not mean a thing to him. He had his own moral values, which were Anti-Semitic.
Notice some points you made:
1. ..."thinking that he was doing soemthing right"
That would be someone who would consistently live out the ethical subjectivism. This is what ethical subjectivism is: it holds that invididuals decide what is right and wrong for themselves and themselves only.
2. "The outrage, or "moral values" held by many did not mean a thing to him. He had his own moral values, which were Anti-Semitic"
That would another form of relativism in which Adolf Hitler took it to another level which is: "Convemstionalism"The view that each society decides what is right and wrong in which the majority rules and morality becomes simply what is legal.
"A serial killer may think what he is doing is right. On the other hand, the community at large would condemn what he was doing. Yet the community would not be able to define "crime" without it taking place. The law was formulated as a means to define what can or can't be done. However, just because the law is considered a benchmark mark on moral action by many, does not mean that everyone agrees with it"
Notice some points you made:
1. "A serial killer may think what he is doing is right"
Again, another example of consistantly living out ethical subjectivism.
2. "Yet the community would not be able to define "crime" without it taking place. The law was formulated as a means to define what can or can't be done. However, just because the law is considered a benchmark mark on moral action by many, does not mean that everyone agrees with it"
1. "A serial killer may think what he is doing is right"
Again, another example of consistantly living out ethical subjectivism.
2. "Yet the community would not be able to define "crime" without it taking place. The law was formulated as a means to define what can or can't be done. However, just because the law is considered a benchmark mark on moral action by many, does not mean that everyone agrees with it"
a. "Yet the community would not be able to define "crime" without it taking place"
Woooooahhhh, are you suggesting that it is not wrong until it happens? So that means just the act is wrong and not the attitude and the motive behind stealing? And that nobody would have reacted even if there was no law?
That goes along with condition 1 and 4.
Question for you: You do know what stealing is? So you need help from a law to tell you what is right and wrong?
b. "just because the law is considered a benchmark mark on moral action by many, does not mean that everyone agrees with it"
There is a difference between agreement in moral issues and factual disagreements.
Flame Wrote: 1. ..."thinking that he was doing soemthing right"
That would be someone who would consistently live out the ethical subjectivism. This is what ethical subjectivism is: it holds that invididuals decide what is right and wrong for themselves and themselves only.
How do you get from the assertion that Hitler thought he was right, to the conclusion that he was an ethical subjectivst? Are you making an implicit argument that if someone does something that seems wrong to most people, yet believes in his own heart that he is doing the right thing, that he must be a subjectivist? Stated that way, this seems like quite a leap of logic, which would designate all social reformers as subjectivists.
It seems more likely to me that Hitler had what he thought was an objective view of the world, and that he thought the rest of the world was just wrong from that standpoint. This is the typical perspective adopted by those who view themselves as reformers, wouldn't you agree? Those who think they somehow have access to objective moral truth might be capable of the most harm to others, considering that this sort of thinking seems to be what is behind violent acts of religious fundamentalism, for example the destruction of the World Trade Center, or the Crusades. I doubt that the 9/11 hijackers considered themselves subjectivists, but rather heroes who were trying to make the world an objectively better place by fighting what they saw as injustice. To them, the fact that most of us disagree would have been irrelevent, because in their view we are blinded to the objective truth.
"How do you get from the assertion that Hitler thought he was right, to the conclusion that he was an ethical subjectivst"
I think it is important to point out that relativism, "...is not a single doctrine but a family of views whose common theme is that some central aspect of experience, thought, evaluation, or even reality is somehow relative to something else." (Swoyer, Chris, "Relativism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). The Ethical Subjectivism that you are arguing from is based on "Voluntarism". In this debate, most comes from other views of relativism, mainly that of culture and the individual. You are saying that it is relative to choice where as they say it is relative to culture and the individual. It is possible to combine both the individual and culture.
"Are you making an implicit argument that if someone does something that seems wrong to most people, yet believes in his own heart that he is doing the right thing, that he must be a subjectivist? Stated that way, this seems like quite a leap of logic, which would designate all social reformers as subjectivists"
Social reformers such as Dr. Martin Luther King, Mohatma Gandhi (In his autobiography acknowledged that he was influenced to the teaching of Jesus), and such like challenged the society in the time-frame they lived in by pointing out what was wrong with it. Hitler and the Nazi Party on the other hand, adopted Nietzsche's as the philosopher of National Socialism. That is, the doctrine of the"superman" (German: Ubermensch) is the man who realizes the human predicament, who creates his own values, and who fashions his life accordingly. Wicks argues that, "...during the 1930's, aspects of Nietzsche's thought were espoused by the Nazis and Italian Fascists, partly due to the encouragement of Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche through her associations with Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. It was possible for the Nazi interpreters to assemble, quite selectively, various passages from Nietzsche's writings whose juxtaposition appeared to justify war, aggression and domination for the sake of nationalistic and racial self-glorification."(Wicks, Robert, "Friedrich Nietzsche", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2009 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). John L. Snell, was an author and professor of German history at Tulane University, the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of North Carolina, wrote that, "Christian teaching scarcely reached the populations of industrial towns; European civilization became more and more secular as a result of the technical progress which took place in this rationalized and "unsupernatural" world. In Germany idealist philosophy, which had been a substitute for religion in bourgeois society for many years, began to be rejected, not in favor of philosophical materialism but of the modern "philosophy of life" which was spreading throughout Europe. This "philosophy of life" influenced large sections of society, and there was much talk of the supremacy of will, of biological explanations of mankind and of society, the glorification of physical strength, and of pure vitality, instead of a higher spirituality; the intellect and the rational were despised, while strong "instincts" (Triebe) and the vital impulse (the élan vital of H. Bergson) were admired. Nietzsche's doctrine of the superman and of the will to power as the prime force in the world, envisaged at first as an aristocratic ethical system, became in popular literature the deification of brutal mankind, of will to domination, of the eternal struggle for existence, of brute strength--though not without the complicity of that philosopher who unhesitatingly set the most daring aphorisms before the world. Darwinian ideas of the "survival of the fittest," of the eternal struggle for existence of all creatures, influenced all political thought." (Snell, L., John, "The Nazi Revolution: Hitler's Dictatorship and the German Nation, p. 26). Hitler was a social reformer, but not through moral objectivism, but ethical subjectivism.
"It seems more likely to me that Hitler had what he thought was an objective view of the world, and that he thought the rest of the world was just wrong from that standpoint. This is the typical perspective adopted by those who view themselves as reformers, wouldn't you agree?"
No, I do not agree because it is historically inaccurate as pointed out. Secondly, the moral objective position and the ethical subjective position are in opposition. As I have previously pointed out if we are to go by the textbook definition of both positions.
"Those who think they somehow have access to objective moral truth might be capable of the most harm to others, considering that this sort of thinking seems to be what is behind violent acts of religious fundamentalism, for example the destruction of the World Trade Center, or the Crusades"
First of all, you are dealing with two different world religions, right? So let us review Christianity and Islam. What is Jihad by definition? Moshay writes, "The Quran says that Jihad is, in fact, not just a religious duty, but a commerce, a business! (Surah 61:10-13)." (Moshay, G.J.O., "Who is this Allah, p.23). It is not radical, but in reality practicing Islam. This is Christianity, "But, I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you. And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek, offer also he other." (Luke 6:27-29). There is a huge difference between "Christianity" and "Christendom". Jesus clearly stated the evidences of discipleship: 1. the continuance principle (John 8:31-32), 2. the love principle (John 13:34-35), and 3. the fruit principle (John 15:7-8).
"I doubt that the 9/11 hijackers considered themselves subjectivists, but rather heroes who were trying to make the world an objectively better place by fighting what they saw as injustice"
"To them, the fact that most of us disagree would have been irrelevent, because in their view we are blinded to the objective truth"
There is a difference between beliefs and truths. What people believe is not what is important. People have different beliefs about things all the time, but what matters is which beliefs are true. That is, moral agreement vs factual disputes. A difference in values does not logically show that there can be no universal morality. Schick argued that, "To derive a moral judgment from a moral standard, we must have some beliefs about the facts of the case. Without such information, no moral judgment can be made. The formula for a moral judgment, then, can be expressed as follows:
Moral standard + Factual beliefs = Moral judgment
Some anthropologists believe that this is often the case.
Solomon Asch writes:
It has been customary to hold that diverse evaluations of the same act are automatic evidence for the presence of different principles of evaluation. The preceding examples point to an error in this interpretation. Indeed, an examination of the relational factors point to the operation of constant principles in situations that differ in concrete details. . . . Anthropological evidence does not furnish proof of relativism. We do not know of societies in which bravery is despised and cowardice held up to honor, in which generosity is considered a vice and ingratitude a virtue. It seems rather that the relations between valuation and meaning are invariant.(2)
According to Asch, people in different cultures arrive at different moral judgments, not because they have different views about the nature of morality, but because they have different views about the nature of reality"
(Theodore Schick, Jr., is Professor of Philosophy at Muhlenberg College and coauthor (with Lewis Vaughn) of How to Think about Weird Things (Mayfield, 1995) and Doing Philosophy: An Introduction Through Thought Experiments (Mayfield, 1999).
Note: Schick quotes, Solomon Asch, a Social Psychologist: " Social Psychology, (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1952), pp. 378-79.
Therefore, the very fact that there is a differance of arrival of moral judgements in different cultures proves otherwise, that it is simply, "...because they have different views about the nature of reality (Schick).
I just wanted to point out that this video seems to be implying that Hitler applied Nietzsche's philosophy and expressed it through is life and political activities. Nothing could be further from the truth. Hitler misunderstood Nietzsche at the most basic of levels, and perverted his philosophy into a mockery and a travesty.
Nietzsche's writings are full of harsh criticisms. He reserved his most vitriolic rhetoric for the following three groups:
-Germans
-Nationalists
-Anti-Semites
Nazis combined all three of these. Nietzsche would have hated them more than any other group, especially considering the way they twisted and abused his life's work until it bore no resemblance to its original meaning.
Nietzsche was a good friend of Richard Wagner, but stopped speaking to him and began openly criticizing him after he learned that Wagner was an anti-Semite. He also refused to bless his sister's marriage to the proto-Nazi, Bernhard Forster.
Nowhere in Nietzsche does there exist a doctrine supporting the idea of a super race. the Superman (Ubermensch) is for Nietzsche a rare individual, not a group of people, and certainly unlikely to be german, nationalistic, or anti-Semitic.
Just wanted to clear this up, as the common misconception that Nietzsche was some kind of proto-Nazi is completely false and unfounded. If you want a Nazi philosopher, look at Heidegger.
Granted, that Nietzsche was not forecasting the brutal superman of the German Nazis, for his goal.1 (Brittanica Encyclopedia) I would like to point out that The German prefix über can have connotations of superiority, transcendence, excessiveness, or intensity, depending on the words to which it is prepended. Mensch refers to a member of the human species, rather than to a man specifically. I have to disagree with you that it is in reference to just one human being because "in philosophy, the superior man, who justifies the existence of the human race."2 Secondly, I think you missed the point of the video. It did not suggest that Nietzche intentionally meant it as Hitler used it since it was just a portion of the video. But, the very philosophy of life that he proposed such as; to create his own values, etc. can be understood why Hitler and others would capitalize on it as history demonstrates. Snell described Europe's condition of society, "This "philosophy of life" influenced large sections of society, and there was much talk of the supremacy of will, of biological explanations of mankind and of society, the glorification of physical strength, and of pure vitality, instead of a higher spirituality; the intellect and the rational were despised, while strong "instincts" (Triebe) and the vital impulse (the élan vital of H. Bergson) were admired. Nietzsche's doctrine of the superman and of the will to power as the prime force in the world, envisaged at first as an aristocratic ethical system, became in popular literature the deification of brutal mankind, of will to domination, of the eternal struggle for existence, of brute strength -- though not without the complicity of that philosopher who unhesitatingly set the most daring aphorisms before the world." "The Fault of Mass Democracy," The Nazi Revolution: Germany's Guilt or Germany's Fate?, ed. John L. Snell (Boston: D. C. Heath, 1959) 79, Questia, Web, 19 Dec. 2009. In other words, there were certain conditions that were set and changed such as: political change, religious change, change in social and economical structure. (snell's) It seems that you forgot the Christians in your list that Hitler persecuted. After all, Nietzche's idea was to do away with God. Indeed, Hitler did lived it to the letter.
I have to disagree with you that it is in reference to just one human being because "in philosophy, the superior man, who justifies the existence of the human race.""
I'm sorry, but any way I look at this, it seems like you are arguing against yourself here. Maybe you are misunderstanding what this means. By "Justifying the existence of the human race" Nietzsche refers to the individuals who make the entire existence of humanity meaningful, not the other way around. For Nietzsche, only 1 out of maybe hundreds of thousands (not a figure found in his writings, I'm just using it to provide an example) will be an Ubermensch, while the rest are members of the what he uncharitably calls "the herd." This is a philosophy all about individuals, and the idea that Nietzsche would have supported the idea of a "master race" is preposterous to me, having studied his work closely.
Hitler was a moral objectivist. It is clearly expressed in his work that he believed he was:
"acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." (Mein Kampf).
He selectively chose sections of Nietzsche, misinterpreted them, and used them to justify his position. His life bears no resemblance to Nietzsche's philosophy of life of to his hypothetical ideal man. Nietzsche was a relativist, Hitler an objectivist. Just because Hitler misunderstood Nietzsche and used those confused beliefs to justify some of his actions does not count against relativism any more than the average Christian's perverse misunderstanding of Christ counts against objectvism.
"After all, Nietzche's idea was to do away with God. Indeed, Hitler did lived it to the letter."
What? This is a really obtuse caricature of Nietzsche. His idea was not to do away with God at all, but rather that we should learn how to live well in a world where God is "no longer worthy of belief". If you read Nietzsche at some point, you will see how filled his works are with notions of spirituality. However, his spirituality is located in the physical realm rather than a supernatural realm. Nietzsche was an atheist, and Hitler believed in God:
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.... When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited." (From a speech by Hitler in 1922)
"Hitler was a moral objectivist. It is clearly expressed in his work that he believed he was:
"acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." (Mein Kampf)."
1. Is there a reason why you selectively quoted just that statement and ignored other sayings of Hitler? On the other hand Hitler made this statements regarding Christianity:
Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:
National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things.
14th October, 1941, midday:
The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... ...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... Christianity the liar.... We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State.
9th April, 1942, dinner:
There is something very unhealthy about Christianity
When one looks at the atrocities committed under the Nazi regime of Adolf Hitler and compares them to the teachings of, Jesus of Nazareth, one might come to the immediate conclusion that the notion that Hitler was a Christian is absurd. Before I'll provide evidences on the difference between Hitler and Jesus' teachings, I would like to point out:
Point 1: Conclusion of Biographers and Historians:
1. Hans Küng
-The most prominent Catholic theologian living today, respected by thinkers of all denominations. He is well known around the world and has been Professor of Dogmatic and Ecumenical Studies at the University of Tübingen, Germany, as well as Visiting Professor at Chicago University and at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor. He holds honorary degrees from several American universities and has lectured at various universities in Europe, America and Asia." (Hans Küng, On Being a Christian, Image Books Doubleday, New York, 1976)
"the great figures of terror in our century—Hitler, Stalin and their deputies—were programmatic anti-Christians" [Küng, p. 30]
"...we cannot make Jesus a guerrilla fighter, a rebel, a political agitator and revolutionary or turn his message of God's kingdom into a program of politico-social action, unless we distort and reinterpret all the Gospel accounts, make a completely one-sided choice of sources, irresponsibly and arbitrarily work with isolated texts...and largely ignore Jesus' message as a whole...Even though it is as much the fashion today to speak of Jesus, the rebel, the revolutionary, as it was in Hitler's time to speak of Jesus the fighter, the leader the military commander, or in sermons of the First World War of Jesus the hero and patriot, it must be made unmistakably clear—for Jesus' own sake, regardless of the spirit of the age—that he was neither a supporter of the system nor a politico-social revolutionary. [Küng, p. 187]
2. Alan Bullock
A journalist and biographer of Adolf Hitler.
"Hitler had been brought up as a Catholic and was impressed by the organization and power of the Church. Its hierarchical structure, its skill in dealing with human nature and the unalterable character of its Creed, were all features from which he claimed to have learned. For the Protestant clergy he had nothing but contempt: 'They are insignificant little people, submissive as dogs, and they sweat with embarrassment when you talk to them. They have neither a religion they can take seriously nor a great position to defend like Rome.' [Conversation with Rauschning on 7 April 1933; Hitler Speaks, p. 62] It was 'the great position' of the Church that he respected, the fact that it lasted for so many centuries; towards its teaching he showed the sharpest hostility. In Hitler's eyes Christianity was a religion fit only for slaves; he detested its ethics in particular. Its teaching, he declared, was a rebellion against the natural law of selection by struggle, and the survival of the fittest. 'Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure.' [Hitler's Table Talk, London 1953, p. 57] From political considerations he restrained his anti-clericalism, seeing clearly the dangers of strengthening the Church by persecution. For this reason he was more circumspect than some of his followers, like Rosenberg and Bormann, in attacking the Church publicly. But, once the war was over, he promised himself, he would root out and destroy the influence of the Christian Churches. 'The evil that is gnawing at our vitals,' he remarked in February 1942, 'is our priests, of both creeds. I can't at present give them the answer they've been asking for but...it's all written down in my big book. The time will come when I'll settle my account with them... They'll hear from me all right. I shan't let myself be hampered with judicial scruples.' [Hitler's Table Talk, p. 304]
...The truth is that, in matters of religion at least, Hitler was a rationalist and a materialist. 'The dogma of Christianity,' he declared in one of his wartime conversations,
gets worn away before the advances of science....Gradually the myths crumble. All that is left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and the inorganic. When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know the stars are not sources of light, but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity....The man who lives in communion with nature necessarily finds himself in opposition to the Churches, and that why they're heading for ruin—for science is bound to win. [Hitler's Table Talk, pp. 59-61][Bullock, p. 387-88]"
3. Konrad Heiden (historian)
Heiden is an interesting source, writing as a contemporary of the Third Reich. However, he writes without the benefit of the documentary evidence captured by the Allies and without the testimony of the Nuremberg war crimes trials.
"These [National Socialists] were concerned with more than power; many were out for more than advantages. They wanted their life to have a new meaning, their existence in society a purpose; their value for their own people was the one thing that gave their careers on earth any value. To many, and not always the worst among them, only faith in their fatherland had retained any meaning, their own nation had become God; if they hesitated openly to declare themselves religious unbelievers, Hitler had provided them with a suitable formula: 'We know two Gods: one in heaven and another on earth; the second is Germany.' But 'we' are Germany, Hitler had said on another occasion, and 'we' meant 'I.' And so there were people who prayed to Hitler, perhaps without realizing that this was prayer. [Der Fuehrer by Konrad Heiden, pp 631]
It was at this time [1922] that [Hitler] began to believe in his own God-given mission. It was no accident that—in his own words—he 'learned from the Bible with boundless love how our Lord and Savior seized his whip,' and marched on Jerusalem. Was not he himself armed with a heavy crocodile whip, marching through the streets of his beloved Munich, which he sometimes called the 'Mecca' of National Socialism? A short time previous, it is true, he had admitted in a chastened mood to his friend Georg Schott: 'All of us are nothing but little Saint Johns. I am waiting for a Christ.' But the period of modesty was drawing to a close. Were not all the signs by which Heaven customarily announces its prophets being fulfilled in him? The fanatical faith of the disciples, the rejoicing of the masses, the hostility or contempt of those in high places—and now wasn't he going through a sort of Golgotha? His Golgotha, to be sure, was nothing more impressive than the month in prison which he wished so fervently to avoid; but before going in, he took leave of his people with the words: 'Two thousand years ago the mob of Jerusalem dragged a man to execution in just this way.'
Hitler, introduced as a speaker, explains how Judah tried to conquer the world; first with the help of the Ten Commandments; then (this was only hinted rather shamefacedly) by Christianity; finally through Marxism and Bolshevism; for Hitler and Eckart had no doubt that Lenin was a Jew. [Der Fuehrer, p. 280]
A metaphysical line runs through [Mein Kampf], not always easy to find amid all the vulgar vilification and barren, long-winded meditations; here a man seeks for God and discovers himself. This is exactly what happened to Soloviev's Antichrist; he too, like Hitler, had written in his thirty-third year, a book in which he claimed to be the Savior. [Der Fuehrer, p. 281]."
4. Ian Hershaw - Historian
Kershaw's fine book The 'Hitler Myth' presents an in-depth study of German public opinion and how it was manipulated by Nazi propaganda. This book also has an excellent list of sources. An excerpt follows:
"Apart from the organized sectors of the working class, the Nazis had greatest difficulty, as is well known, in penetrating the Catholic sub-culture, where the dominant image of Hitler provided by Catholic 'opinion leaders' was equally negative. The main attack was levelled at the anti-Christian essence of the Nazi Movement and of its leader's philosophy. Publications sought to demonstrate that Hitler's ideas stood in direct contradiction to the teaching of the Christian catechism. Especially in Bavaria, where Catholicism was dominant and extreme anti-Marxism widespread, he and his Movement were seen as a variant of 'godless Bolshevism'-an association which was frequently to recur after 1933 during the 'Church struggle'. Though Catholic anti-Nazi polemics generally concentrated on attacking the anti-religious, and especially anti-Catholic, thrust of Nazism, some publications did offer a devastating assault on the entire Nazi doctrine. Hitler's brutality, contempt for human rights, warmongering, and elevation of force to a principle of political behaviour, were all castigated in Catholic publications of the early 1930s. One Catholic weekly above all, Der Gerade Weg, published in Munich under the editorship of Dr Fritz Gerlich-murdered in Dachau in 1934-and Fr. Ingbert Naab, kept up a relentless assault on Hitler, describing him in September 1932, at a time when, despite his open show of solidarity with five of his SA men who had been condemned to death for the brutal murder of a communist in Potempa, the Centre Party was involved in negotiations with the Nazis, as 'the incarnation of evil'.
A few months earlier, the alleged hostility of Hitler to the Church had played a key role in persuading the Catholic parties to support the Protestant, and 'pious', Hindenburg in the election for the Reich Presidency. ... They were equally concerned to attack and debunk the neo-pagan deification and mythologizing of Hitler. One speaker told of a woman who had erected an altar in her house with a picture of Hitler in place of the monstrance, and declared that he could simply not understand the German people for letting itself be led astray by such a charlatan: 'Hitler has succeeded in organizing the idiots, and only idiots, hysterics, and fools to go the NSDAP.' His election, he prophesied, would bring irreparable harm and destruction to Germany.
Hitler was himself well aware of the need to counter his anti-Christian image if his Party were to break through in Catholic areas. He was keen even in the early 1920s not to antagonize unnecessarily the Catholic Church. And during the rise to power the NSDAP made particular efforts-largely in vain-in Catholic areas such as the Rhineland and Bavaria to emphasize its 'positive Christianity', to deny the slur that it was an anti-religious party, and to claim that National Socialism alone could provide the Church with a barrier against Marxism." In 1930 Hitler felt compelled to distance himself from Alfred Rosenberg, one of the leading Party ideologues, whose book The Myth of the 20th Century had cemented his reputation as the dominant representative of the 'new heathenism' and prominent 'hate figure' of the Catholic Church. And speaking before a mass gathering in the Catholic stronghold of Bavaria in April 1932, Hitler told his audience that while north German Protestants had labeled him a hireling of Rome and south German Catholics a pagan worshipper of Woden, he was merely of the opinion-here playing to some widespread anti-clerical sentiments-that priests in Germany, just as was the case in Italy, should end their political activities and confine themselves to denominational matters and pastoral duties: what the Pope had admitted in Italy, he concluded, could not be sinful in Germany. In fact, he was at pains to stress, he himself was deeply religious, the 'spiritual distress' of the German people even greater than its economic misery, and the toleration of over fourteen million anti-religious atheistic Marxists in Germany highly regrettable.
Despite these disdainers, the negative image of 'neo-heathenism', which the NSDAP could not shake off; undoubtedly played a considerable role in bolstering the high level of relative immunity to Nazism which prevailed before 1933 in Catholic circles. Even after the disappearance of the Catholic press in the early years of the Third Reich, Catholic clergy were able to sustain the image through their own subtle 'propaganda' methods-greatly assisted by the often crude assaults of the Nazis themselves in the 'Church struggle'-and it remained throughout the Third Reich an important basis of the alienation of the Catholic population from the regime and of forms of partial opposition to Nazism in the Catholic subculture. Even so, the notion that there might be some authoritarian, patriotic, anti-Marxist, residual 'good' in Nazism, that 'National Socialism, notwithstanding everything, might succeed some day in eliminating from its programme and its activities all that which conflicted in principle and practice with Catholicism', offered the opening for the volte-face which Catholic bishops were prepared to make following Hitler's avowals of tolerance and support for the Church in March 1933 and the potential, too, for driving a wedge between 'the god-fearing statesman' Hitler and the anti-Christian Party radicals, especially Rosenberg. [pp 24-37]
The sagging morale and worsening of mood in the second half of 1941 was not solely determined by the changing fortunes on the eastern Front. Events at home were also playing their part. The gathering force of worrying rumor about the killing in asylums of mentally sick and incurably ill patients was one factor which, especially but not solely among practising Christians, was giving rise to grave concern and threatening to alienate support for the regime. In August 1941, news of the courageous open denunciation of the 'euthanasia action' by Bishop Galen of Münster spread rapidly and seems to have persuaded Hitler to halt the killing, at least inside the Reich itself. Some reports by the Nazi authorities on the unrest which had arisen claimed that it was having an impact on confidence in Hitler himself. It may even have been the case--a suggestion emanating, admittedly, from a piece of post-war testimony--that the Reich Propaganda Ministry deliberately started off a rumour that the Führer, on discovering what was taking place (in an 'action' which, in reality, he himself had authorized in writing), had given the order to halt it immediately. According to this interpretation, the protection of the 'Führer myth'--of the legend that Hitler was kept in the dark about the misdeeds of the regime, and acted promptly on learning of them--was a crucial component in bringing the 'euthanasia action' to an end.
Opinion in Catholic parts of the Reich in particular was greatly influenced by the new wave of attacks on the position of the Church which had been in spring 1941 and gathered momentum during the summer and autumn. They appear to have been initiated by the head of the Party Chancellery, Martin Bormann, probably under pressure at Gau level, for whom the apparent strengthening of the Church's hold over the population during the war was a notable provocation. New measures against the Church--including the confiscation of monastic property, further restrictions on provision of religious instruction and on publications, the removal of the last nuns from any form of social or education work, and interference with holy days and with the form of school prayers--where guaranteed to stir up antagonism and unrest in Catholic regions. [pp. 176-177]
Now when he saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him, and he began to teach them saying:
"Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn,
or they will be comforted.
Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called sons of God.
Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
Murder
"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.
"Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.
"Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still with him on the way, or he may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. I tell you the truth, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.
An Eye for an Eye
"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
Love for Enemies
"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Therefore, "we cannot make Jesus a guerrilla fighter, a rebel, a political agitator and revolutionary or turn his message of God's kingdom into a program of politico-social action, unless we distort and reinterpret all the Gospel accounts, make a completely one-sided choice of sources, irresponsibly and arbitrarily work with isolated texts...and largely ignore Jesus' message as a whole...Even though it is as much the fashion today to speak of Jesus, the rebel, the revolutionary, as it was in Hitler's time to speak of Jesus the fighter, the leader the military commander, or in sermons of the First World War of Jesus the hero and patriot, it must be made unmistakably clear—for Jesus' own sake, regardless of the spirit of the age—that he was neither a supporter of the system nor a politico-social revolutionary." On other hand, we can understand why Hitler made use of Nietzche's doctrines, even though it was selectively picked, there was nothing to twist in Nietzche's doctrines.
I think it is important to point out that relativism, "...is not a single doctrine but a family of views whose common theme is that some central aspect of experience, thought, evaluation, or even reality is somehow relative to something else." (Swoyer, Chris, "Relativism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). The Ethical Subjectivism that you are arguing from is based on "Voluntarism". In this debate, most comes from other views of relativism, mainly that of culture and the individual. You are saying that it is relative to choice where as they say it is relative to culture and the individual. It is possible to combine both the individual and culture. Secondly, the Objective Morality, holds that morals are prescriptions for behavior and motive that have the force of a command. They contain a sense of obligation and oughtness that is universal, authoritative, and outweighs considerations of culture, time, and place.
Thus, this world view holds that morals are not opinions. They are not personal, private decisions, and they are not descriptions of behavior. These are the textbook definitions of both positions. It seem that you deliberately want to ignore the difference. Especially when I have provided the textbook definitions for them. Ad Honinem is not a good way of dismiss it either.
Supporting Evidence:
Natural Law
(plato.stanford.edu)
Hitler was born Catholic just as Stalin was born into the Russian Orthodox Church, but these facts prove nothing as many people reject their religious upbringing, as these two men did. Secondly, During his ascent to power, Hitler needed the support of the German people-both the Bavarian Catholics and the Prussian Lutherans-and to secure this he occasionally used rhetoric such as "I am doing the Lord's work." To claim that this rhetoric makes Hitler a Christian is to confuse political opportunism with personal conviction. Hitler himself says in Mein Kampf that his public statements should be understood as propaganda that bears no relation to the truth but is designed to sway the masses. Third, The Nazi idea of an Aryan Christ who uses the sword to cleanse the earth of the Jews-what historians call "Aryan Christianity"-was obviously a radical departure from the traditional Christian understanding and was condemned as such by Pope Pius XI at the time. Fourth, Hitler's Table Talk, a revealing collection of the Fuhrer's private opinions, assembled by a close aide during the war years, shows Hitler to be rabidly anti-religious. He called Christianity one of the great "scourges" of history, and said of the Germans, "Let's be the only people who are immunized against this disease." He promised that "through the peasantry we shall be able to destroy Christianity." In fact, he blamed the Jews for inventing Christianity. He also condemned Christianity for its opposition to evolution. Hitler reserved special scorn for the Christian values of equality and compassion, which he identified with weakness. Finally, The Nazis also drew on the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, adapting his atheist philosophy to their crude purposes. Nietzsche's vision of the ubermensch and his elevation of a new ethic "beyond good and evil" were avidly embraced by Nazi propagandists. Nietzsche's "will to power" almost became a Nazi recruitment slogan. I am not for a moment suggesting that Darwin or Nietzsche would have approved of Hitler's ideas. But Hitler and his henchmen approved of Darwin's and Nietzsche's ideas.
you seem to allow no room for largely agreed upon good rather than devine good.
that women were inferior was largely agreed upon and supported but the bible for all but our very recent history and they are still treated inferior in many cultures. it has changed over time becasue consensus shifted, not because the universal moral good shifted.
"you seem to allow no room for largely agreed upon good rather than devine good"
1. Can you explain what you mean by this question?
"that women were inferior was largely agreed upon and supported but the bible for all but our very recent history and they are still treated inferior in many cultures"
1. We really were not dealing the Bible itself , but since you brought it up, can
you share the evidences rather than making a statement of opinions?
"as changed over time becasue consensus shifted, not because the universal moral good shifted"
1. There is really no moral disagreements, but factual disputes.
There does appear to be significant evidence for a common core of ‘moral’ values across human societies.
E.g., if you look at moral codes from widely separated cultures and time-frames, such as those listed below, we do see a significant core of commonality.
ancient Jews/ Israelites,
the teachings of Jesus the Christ,
the Roman Empire’s system of justice,
the moral codes of Ancient Mesopotamia,
the moral codes in ancient China,
the moral codes in ancient India,
the moral codes in ancient European societies,
the teachings of individuals recognized as great moral leaders in various societies through the ages.
And the vast majority of human societies (from widely separated cultures and time-frames) would agree that we should be willing to protect our families and children from others who might harm them.
You can't say people were bound by similar morals with slight differences adjusting to cultures.
Let me give an example.
In eastern countries being homosexual is immoral ~(in general)
In western countries being homosexual is amoral (in general)
Now when we look in the past a bit more we see that in western societies homosexuality was immoral. Now people look on it as if it is ok. It has been fabricated into society, merged into mentalities that it is ok to be homosexual. You are born with a sense of right and wrong but it's your surroundings throughout life that develop on those ideas.
According to the Oxford Compact English Dictionary, amoral with immoral are some of the common confused words. "Amoral with immoral: amoral means 'not concerned with morality', while immoral means 'not conforming to accepted standards of morality."
Question: Which of the two are you really referring to?
A successful debate does involve understanding both nominal and real definitions. What I gave you is the real definition. It's a pain, worth it, right? :) If you gave me a nominal, than I would have to ask your definition of it, tracking? I am going to ponder on what you presented as I will do with atypician's. Also, I encourage you to read my re-posting of my summary with includes the position I am arguing from, definition of truth, etc. Sounds good?
Did you read, my re-posting of my summary with includes the position I am arguing from, relativism, definition of truth, truths about truth, etc? As well as, the categories?
I think there is at least six areas of confusion which occurs when arguing from the relativism position. In this case, you are arguing from the "cultural relativism" which would be "the theory that culture shapes beliefs, provides concepts, organizes value systems, and informs and orients human behavior."[1].
Philosophical Argument: Sociological Reason
I submit that culture can sometimes be wrong and therefore would fall short as an adequate method to justify beliefs. The Nazi’s for example had a culture that accepted the murder of all Jews. The U.S. had a culture that accepted slavery. North India has the culture that accepts the anti-conversion law. [2]
Response to Western Countries being homosexual is amoral
Since you have accepted the definition of "amoral" which is, "'not concerned with morality"concerning homosexuality, it is false to make such conclusion since not all western countries uphelds it. It is an assumtption at best to state it as "western countries" and "general" than some. According to the Gallup Poll, one of the western countries, namely the U.S., does not in general see homosexuality as moraly right. It states that, "Americans may remain intransigent regarding the moral acceptability of homosexuality but attitudes about its legality have made a tidal shift.
Confusion-An Absolute Morals vs. Moral Disagreements
Now, what you are doing is confusing them by pointing out a controversial issue. Just because there are different opinions about homosexuality doesn't mean morality is relative. There are easy and hard problems in morality just as there are in science. "The very ability to make moral assessments is actually evidence that objective moral values exist." [3]
Conclusion
While our beliefs are shaped by our surroundings (sociological reasons: culture, society, parents, friends,) does not necessarily mean that we have to virtually accept literally everything as true or fact since these have been somtimes wrong.
[1] "Cultural Relativism." International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. 2008. Thomson Gale. Encyclopedia.com. 9 Jan. 2010 .
TBH My instinctual reaction to the question is that yes there is a universal moral law - in general about what is right and wrong. But when my thoughts go deeper I find many many excuses from this...
Morals however cannot be laws because there is no absolutely truthful definition of right and wrong. Even if there was, the enforcement of those laws relies on the existence of humans. Since earth is the only place in the universe where humans are known to exist. Morals cannot apply universally.
Everyone's morals are different. Some condemn all forms of lying, others do not. We can apply the fact that to some, the values of others, the law and the consequences do not matter. There can be no universal moral law because of such diversity of beliefs.
1. No, it does not. It is not evident that it is given, much less from a god.
2. Yes, many morals are taught to us by our parents.
3. Morals come from ancestors that began to form tribes.
4. Morals were needed to establish trustworthiness and allow individuals in a tribe to all prosper. today, they serve a societal purpose. Exhibiting a lack of morals ostracizes an individual from a society because it demonstrates that individual cannot be trusted to behave in accordance with accepted standards for behavior.
Well if their is, then it is every Christians position to assume that all people who think seperatley to their ideoligies are inherentley evil which is what they think, and why they are mad.
Why is it that I believe that abortion is ok while someone else thinks that it is wrong. Why do I believe that euthenasia is moral and someone else thinks otherwise.
I'm not evil, and I'm not blocking out any moral judgement. So their cannot be any universal moral law.
I was lost in the Darkest parts of my own wicked ways, spiraling down a path of destruction leading me away from His Almighty ways, and all the while im going down ONLY ONE, He could save me. No matter how far i looked on this lowly planet, i never once found a soul who could manage, to show me the love that i truly needed, because on this planet aint nothing but hate and contempt have been breeded. the lowly snake slithering as he goes through the towns of man looking for lowly lowly souls, to feed on so that it could plant it's evil seeds, and so that throughout the generations nothing but evil and hate we could recieve, but those where the ways of the past, my brothers and sisters. the devil had a hold of us and he managed through our parents, down through the generations His ways have been lost, and because of the us, the devil has turned and tossed, We can All be saved, all we need is Thanksgiving, to the One who Above, for All of His Givings. The devils trying to stop me right now as i speak, but Faithful to the Lord and willit He, that i may be meek. Because it is He not i that gives you this message but it is The One that we All should seek. i know that it is hard to find Rest, as we all go through this test some call a game, every single last one of us, probably, training to gain and retain our fame. But That is not what this life is about, i have a Strong feeling that we are All getting our Water from the wrong wrong spout. because thats all the devil has for us is a little bit, of pleasure, then comes the pain. steady feeding our bodies what i see now Is Insane. because ya'll hafto see that we are all carnally minded, and This is the reason The LORD, us he has blinded, binding, ourselves to our own flesh, so that eventually we would All fail this Test. but know that The Lord, He loves us, and wishes nothing but the best, and all He wants is for us to Love Him all the while through this Test. some wonder why we see nadoes and quakes, He needs ya'll to know that its Ya'lls souls that He is trying to shake. and bake if you will, so the devil may not have his fill, to letchya'll know that there is NONE like that ALMIGHTY AND ALL POWERFULL ONE. i say full because Hes filled with Love, like None that we have seen on this lowly earth, but now that i have SEEN, my Eyes have been UnBlinded, and now it is He, He who signs this, letter so maybe that some of Ya'll could listen, and Maybe get the Message that He is trying to dish, out of His spout, so that ya'll might be fed, with all of His Love, His Water, And His Bread. Don't for a second think any of Ya'll are living, All of ya'll are dead and for the devil are you "living" as i sit here and do this all of the "dome" just know that it is Not me and that this is His tomb. He is singing through me in these words and this song, so that maybe one day we All can be free all the day long, and ya'll can say its cheesy if ya'll want, but just know the devil in you he does flaunt x) i had to stop and show ya'll how i felt about that one, cuz its the truth, and right now i have a Strong feeling He is swinging harder than that brother Babe Ruth, or ballin harder than micheal jordan, and in this song he Is Playing His Accordian. Ya'll just need to know that He is our Guardian, and right now im flying Higher than any single air jordan, because my love i gave to Him more than any of Ya'll so i guess i can say more than them. But dont getit twizted like boi's if ya'll know, that me and moreover Him, have a lot to show. we are all brothers and sisters, but i should call us the missers, because we all fail to see the smaller things in this world, without even thinking twice, what truly brings a man alot of happiness or to see the pain that ALOT of us have in us. i know that we are all hurting on the inside, and for ya'll who say we dont, Boi, you know that is a lie, because only with Him and not that evil leech from down south, can we truly fly. higher than the highest of trees or the tallest of mountains, But in Him we Have to trust, so that We may Drink From The One and Only True fountain, only because of Him can i do this for days, and its Because i gave Him my love, thanksgiving, and praise. so now that i have seen what it is truly to be Man, Men of God, all these hater out there who bout to say something aint nuthing more than sod. sorry if it dont make sense, just know that me and Him the latter first, We are just trying to give His children, ya'll some mother lovin cents. forgive me if i pause for no longer am i a vulgar man life is just a beach, and Now, He is playing in the sand, hopefully in the minds of the young, the daughters and sons, i have my holster, and now the Lord is my Gun, Shining Brighter, than a million suns, times two, because His love is True, actually make that twenty twenty, because He is aplenty, in me in you and All, i just hope that ya'll can hear His call, so that maybe that ya'll may not fall, into the Pit, but right now i can say the devil is probably having a fit, of anxiety cuz he is losing his "children" just know that we are God's and with me He has been pilfering, in my mind day and night, as i have been in my room trying to stay out of sight, of ya'll because all it seems like to me, that nothing to ya'll it would please, more, than to see one of your own fellow brother get shot and fall. when i look around me i dont see any real love, this evil surrounds me, but Now i DO NOT CARE, because the Lord, THE LORD, HE has found me. so now ya'll cannot touch, because with His love, im about to bust. with loving Faith and Trust, i put in Him, so that i can be led away from this life of sin, and Now that i have His Trust, my brotha's and sista's, not just the black ones, comeon now, that just is not a must, there is no such thing man, all that is, is nothing more than an evil thought, brought up in vain, so that maybe a man's soul, that leech, can be bought. Quit being evil, for it is Love, that should be sought, out so once again we may be fed from His Spout, for only He can give us what we need so that in the end we may succeed. my brothers and sisters all we need to do is Believe, and then, Anything, together, WE CAN ACHIEVE. this is an ode to ya'll so in hopes once again that ya'll may hear The Call, and will not fall, so one day me, ya'll, and The Almighty,Perfect, like a prefect without the er, Omnipotent, and Patient ONE, that together we May All Ball. and they keep telling me to stop, but i just cant my brothers me and Him are headed to the top, and right now i got The Heart Of A Lion, King, and pray tell me my brothers and sisters who are reading, what single Beast can stop that king? of the jungle we are running but with Him we can be free. out into the open pasture we all can roam, just know this is not me, and that this is His Tomb. its wierd how they're spelled alike but do not rhyme, im talking bout bomb my brothers, and its One of a Kind. in the Hopes that this petty rhyme, can help lead the black sheep, away from the Blind, being themselves, for who? tell me can save them from that? if you dont answer right then your a part of this blight that runs rampant through the streets, evil im talking about and all it wants to do is eat, your souls because it is angry at the Living God, hahahaha for it is nothing more than a sod, on His Cleat as He is Running, Hoping that some of these Words, hit you right in the stomach, and make you sick, but not you, im talking about the evil you, for we are all children of God, but we have made ourselves nothing more than a sod =( i say with a heavy heart, because all this time we have been playing the devil, his part, but with Him it is nothing but a fart, because He Forgives, and Only Through Him may we EVER, get the chance to Live, and im not talking about on the earth, im talking about another, and maybe one day you can see and i can Truly call you my Brother, for there is Life in Death, but it is only gained through this life which is a test, just know that when we die, if you have lived righteously, on that day you will Fly, for the Lord will Breathe His Breath in you when you die and like i said before You Will Fly, but not if you keep eating from the devil's table, for you can only eat from one, and i hope its Not the devil's table. for if we Eat from Him, we can All go back into His Stable, and only in doing that can we Ever truly be stable, only only if, we are eating from, The Living God's Table. and for ya'll who are sitting at your computers steadily dissin Him, i pray for you, because it you are missin, Him and the bigger picture, just know right now im taking a Big Gulp From His Ultimate Pitcher, not one from the MLB, and if you are listening then i pray that you sea, i mean see, but with Him we can fly over the one before, and higher than mike, dunk it in, right for a score, but not for 2 for it is for 3, because He is Holy in me, but atm holy in you, because you missing some parts, we all need to change, so that we may play His Part, that He intended from the Beginning, because only With Him can we ever be winning, but hahahaha not as long as we are sinning. for that is not the way that we was meant to walk, With Him we was mean to Walk and Talk. once again i say this way i, used to, but we choose to live, is insane in the membrane, but He is using me as His Template, lol or templar whichever you prefer, just know that He is Prefect, ha just without the errrr. as i sit here steadily dissin em i mean the demons in the minds of the children of the One and Only, God Who Is Kind, i hope that they depart, so we can All gaze upon The Divine, not like wine or watch, i aint lil wayne, just know that i feel like im the only one who is sane. because i AM NOT PERFECT, do not get the wrong message for that would hurt me, only He is, and He just wants some love from His Kids, but for some odd reason... we still choose to do the evil leeches bids, for i feel he has sucked to much from us, all of our blood, i mean soul, it has tucked from us, and right now He is aiming at it with a Big Ol' Blunderbuss. to shoot it and unleech it, from His Children's Soul's so one day maybe we can gaze upon, That Wonderful City Of Gold, and dont letit peak your in ter ests, for if you do your not getting whats bests, from this test that He has beset, for our minds to ponder and think on, maybe in some of the hearts out there this message is shining, for He is a Beacon of Light, to shine out all the evils, and end this ugly, hateful blight, that courses through our vains, that nasty garbage that makes us feel insane, because no one is living right, and for That NONE is sane. you can talk and sit there and chatter, but i pray and hope that none get fatter, and im not talking because of mcdonalds, im talking about your ego and pride, because We Alll NEED to push that aside, all we seem to do is breed hate and contempt, sitting there looking for another hurt sould to feed on, thinking it makes us content, but just know NOW people, lolol all your doing is letting the devil be your PIMP! ha ha ha i think that really funny, because in the words of man that just makes ya'll some ho's, and please forgive my trespasses my sisters and brothers, for my vulgar words, because i Did Not mean to hurt, He's just trying to keep our faces from being rubbed in the dirt. but it really shouldnt matter because we are mud, and from One we all came, so can i not call ya'll blood??? nah im not talking about them two glock shotta's, im talking bout from The One Who Has Always Got Us, not us as in the navy, i mean us as in the ones who might sit on that bus, the one going to school and to the ones who drool in class, and all of us who needs a kick in the, pause, ya'll know what i mean, im just sitting here trying not be obscene, all im trying to do is get the bigger picture, through ya'll minds so that maybe one day, we can All WALK IN THE LORDS WAY. forgive me if i make any of ya'll mad, if i do know that i Am sad, but how about ya'll just go to the store and go and grab on of them happy hefty bags, you know i meant glad if you didnt you are simple, and forgive me as i sit here and bust this pimple, lol sorry that was nasty just know that i didnt, and know that we are all fake, and its time for some rhino plasty, or however its spelled im just hoping some hearts will melt, like the plastic we are, and become melded into flesh, as i sit here and type in this Soul Food test, for if ya'll can't hear me then your hearts are so cold, forgive me as i trespass, because, uhm, i Am not trying to be bold, im just tryna through some fia atcha hearts, in the hopes that you may leave the Dark, ness not loch just in case thats watchu thought, all you gotta do is leave your flesh behind, and know that He is the one who Should Be Sought, out so we can drank From His Spout, cuz the Lord Knows, man it has been a drought. we are all so thirsty, but in order to be filled its The Lord who must come firsty x) just know that me and Him are going Stooopid, and for those who are real maaan i thoughtchu knew it. and if you dont i pray you haven't already blew it, up i mean your ego, like a balloon, just know right now i feel like taz boi, yup them looney toones, or tunes whichever you prefer, just know that He is Prefect, just without the err. and i say pre because He was always here, yes before you and me, but with Him i wanna letchu know that we can all be as pure, and as white as the snow, just like powder we can all be melted, i mean melded into the beings we were meant to be, so one day we may fly free as a dove, Right over the sea, so that we all can reach New Jerusalem, yup just right where we was all meant to be, that is the Golden City for those who did not, know, im just hoping that one day we can All be as pure as the snow, because the evil has taunted and flaunted and given us a show, to peak i mean perk up our ears and it, that leech i mean, gave us nothing but fears, fears of ourselves and one another, fears from our sisters and daughter, Father, and brothers, but we have a right to Fear the Living God, because to Him we have all become a sod, He is sorrowful and cries as we follow, the evil being, who was never meant to be followed, and i felt His pain at one point in time, yes i Am talking About the Divine, we both cried together, in my room, because of the little things we miss, something just as small as, a heartfelt kiss... for it is the little things that bring us the greatest joy, not some diamond chain, or a, wind up toy, the biggest thing of all that should, is His Love, should bring us the Greatest joy, in the world, for thats all it is man just cars and noise, all the long going our way, Missing the sweetest noise, zes ya'll know what i mean, im talking about the One who is Never obscene, for He is Just And Right, in each and every single way, and for our sins my borhters and sisters, we have to pay, but do not fret for it is never to late, I think we all need to call upon The Divine, and we should All go on a date, do not worry for on this date there is no rape, or murder, or hate, for that is of the devil, and Your Soul it will take, there is no worries once you follow Him, we should all be hand in hand as we walk down this path, called, life Never having to worry about no pain or strife, or for a bigger picture His Wrath, but ONLY IF WE DRINK FROM HIS PITCHER. for The All Powerful and Righteous Wrath, only comes when you stray from His Path, it is there to show us our wrongs...can you feel His Soul as i sit here and Sing His song? and with Him i will NEVER fall, because with my Brother, I will always Hear His Call. i say we but it is Him, who say these words to in the hopes, that those who have an Ear to listen may never Fall, into the Pit, all you have to do is have Faith, Follow The Ten, Believe, and never EVER Quit, for in order to gain His All Perfect and Good Graces, we have to eliminate ALL the Hate and evil, in all sorts of places, i have a feeling this song was wrote long before, just in His mind and now in mine, and i sing His song in the Hopes, that you follow Him and not any of these "popes" for no hope lies in them, lol and if you truly think aboutit that actually rhymed, just know that im thinking of Him, foremost, but ya'll too as i steadily write This Rhyme, it comes from above yup, Straight From the Divine, in the Hopes that one day ya'll can SEE, exactly it was that we was missing, so we can All fly over the sea. Man this thing is long but i should Say God, because this is His Rhyme, and not from a sod, like me or you, if you real you can feel its True, as His Sword aims at the hearts of His good, flying Straight and Through, lol i mean True, but them if you can follow my friend, all we gotta do is sing Praises and Thanksgiving to Him, until the very end, and give Him all of our love, Because WITHOUT HIM, ha There WOULD BE NO LOVE, all there would be is pain and suffering, and i hope that the ones who are, suffer, i mean acating, Might actually stop and take the time to sit there and be debating, against the devil of course, cuz all it wants to do is, lead us, right, or left, but straight off our course. Lord Please Forgive me, if i am being coarse just know that i am your back, and You Are My Horse, lol ya'll might think He's heavy but He's really not, and i Love Him till Death, i mean Life, cuz i have found It, but back to the point, because i HE HAS TAUGHT, never went to church or none of that, maybe when i was younger but none of that, for our minds our are churches, ha gotit backwards but i feel as tall as the burches, talking bout them trees man im over the seas man, just know i cant, wait, My Father, until You Kick Over My Can Man x) aw man i thoughit was funny, because he's One Cool Dude, and i am His, Bunny, i mean Collie, and know that as i, i mean He, but as i bark, that i have a Strong feeling, that i am playing my Part, or His i prefer the latter but the choice is yurs, because it is His Puzzle, and i am the last part, i cant be for certain because the Knowledge is His, but im just trying to bring His Black Sheep back, you know i mean His KIDS, He thoughtit was funny, But ya'll best Believe that He NOR i the first comes first, but neither one of us is No, pause, Dummy, lol but if you choose you can beat and bite, whatever you do just know it is out of spite, and i dont capitilize because its an evil word, just know me and HIM, are trying to end this wrongful blight, and saying these words i Hope that maybe, just maybe some can be given the Sight, that HE intended us to have, right, from Go, talking bout monopoly,lol but no no more, from the start maaaan all HE ever wanted was us to give our heart, which is HIS, because He gave to us, All that is HIS, HE just Wanted someone to talk to man, thats why HE made HIS Kids, HE was all alone, and then HE built, a Beautiful place for us, and HIM, to walk and talk all the while, just laughing and talking, seeing eachother smile =) because HE is our FATHER, He's not as mean ha as ya'll would believe, just know that HE TRULY IS ONE BENEVOLENT KING. lol ha ha i think this is funny, He knows what im talking about, cuz this is all of the top of the dome with barely a second to pause, Just Know the THE LION KING, Has Opened HIS Claws, Blessed be the children who took the time to listen, to the message that a, and The King is steadily dishin, i say a because i am one too, but know that im a servant, and from a Seed i did Grew, i dont care if it makes no sense to ya'll because i have heard the Lords Call, and they, they know who they are, are always listening, and as He types, through, me i have a feeling they are about to call, Prayer is the Best Wireless Connection X) aint no service down here got that type of Connection, i just hope that i get to see some of ya'll at that intersection, i mean Crossroads, bone thugz n harmony, they said it first, man thats the song man and if you feel their soul, then maybe you should hurt, because those bois on the streets back in the day, all they was doing was searching for some Peace, but in the streets, the oppressors, following the devil, have no love for us in the slums, just know that we All have a Holster and God Is our Gun, we dont need no metal, for The Lord our issues HE will settle, all you gotta do is Have some Faith, saying this in hope that some dont see any wraiths, talking demons people come now and please listen, as the Lord spits his song and these Words HE is dishin, out yup you getting it word of mouf, lol or mouth whichever you prefer just DONT follow that lowly snake, yup the one down south, it might try and offer pleasure and happiness butits all fake, HA what do ya'll expect from a lowly snake? remeber eve as she sat under that tree? sitting there thinking and feeling the breeze? the snake spoke in her Ear temptation it did bring, and after teel me WHO did she fear? she had a split second of happiness and thats all it can give, and after that she felt the WRATH which is ONLY HIS, lol i hope that ya'll see, the way we live people, it just wasn't meant to be, i have a feeling that there all up there laughing, with, not at me as i type out His message, and i pray ALMIGHTY FATHER, THE ONES WHO HAVE AN EAR TO LISTEN PLEASE FATHER PLEASE LET THE HEAR. and the ones who dont i pray you dont hit him hard, maybe just a little tap, just like Babe Ruth, on that baseball card x) Peace be with you my sisters and brothers, just know that HIS LOVE IS LIKE NO OTHER, GOD BLESS ALL WHO FINISHED, AND I PRAY YOUR SOULS NEVER, DIMINISH. ONE HEART IS ALL, AND WITH THAT HEART WE CAN NEVER FALL, lol i said i was finished, but i dont think HE is as you can tell this words are not mine, THEY COME FROM THE UPPER BEING, yup THE DIVINE!!! i think im going to cut Him short and please Forgive me, because i know HE could go all day, BECAUSE I CAN FEEL HIM IN ME.
1. Is that feeling (sense of right and wrong) present in almost all individuals--an indication of a God given moral law?
No- if that were the case, I feel there would be more consensus. I'm not arrogant enough to believe that my beliefs are shared by everyone, but others choose to dismiss them, and I know what I feel.
2. Or does it simply reflect what we have been taught by our parents?
Not merely our parents. All of society. Parents, peer groups, media, etc.
3. What is its source? Where does it come from?
Social pressures. presumably values had practical benefit at first, and then became enshrined in tradition. Of course, those like "Do not murder" are still most relevant, which could explain why they are near universal.