Reality and Justice and the Metaphysical Norms

If morality (in practice in the world today) isn't relatively-determined, then what absolute or planetary "Guide to Right and Wrong" is everyone using these days? In discussing morality and justice, I think there needs to be a distinction between: How things are -and- How we think they should be. Otherwise we go whole-hog talking in vastly-divergent directions.
Hoping to understand - Thanks

If it is such an easy contradiction why don't you flex your formal logic muscle and show it?

Reason only deals in abstractions: relationships, rules, probabilities. It doesn't actually deal with the physical. Because of this reason is always baseless. It deals with conditionals; if this, then this. It can never decide the former this.

Semantics.

Theft is inherently unjust and property is inherently just. You cannot rely on a definitional tautology to analyze a moral proposition.

Objective doesn't apply. You ask a meaningless question, like "What's 10 divided by 0?"

The ten commandments of course.

The belief can't be self-justified as that would make it question begging. It requires an objective basis to be justified.

Question begging.

Reason also has it's a posteriori basis.

I did use definitional tautolgy to analyze a moral/ethical proposition. From this point I will use the term ethics. Ethics is a branch of philosophy. You are correct in stating that theft is inherently unjust. But that is not a "relativist" value. This shows that ethics is not "relative or subjective." Ethical questions can be resolved utilizing the tools of logic.

In calling theft "inherently unjust" you have de facto conceded the argument.

The question wasn't about 10/0. It was about "moral relativist" values. If neither is more or less objectively true than the other, then they would necessarily be objectively equal. This demonstrates a problem with "moral relativism" from a logical standpoint. It requires that two contradictory actions or beliefs are equal which is of course not possible.

No.

It is not question begging because there is no assumption that morality is relative in my explanation as to why morality is relative. Morality is relative can have an objective basis; it is not a moral proposition, it is an ontological proposition.

How is that possibly question begging?

How do we gain knowledge of reason through experience?

Do you bother with the arguments I make? This entire post consists of you quoting statements, trying to refute them, and completely ignoring my own supportive arguments.

Again, "theft" is definitionally wrong, at no point is any deliberation made to whether theft is actually wrong. As my example pointed out, an action is analyzed and determined to be wrong and then called "theft".

The point is that you are asking me a meaningless question.

Built into moral relativism is the lack of an objective standard, so when you ask me to gauge them objectively you are wanting me to do something impossible, like 10/0.

If you fully understood logic, then you would understand that circular reasoning is question begging. The belief can't justify itself. Your position lacks valid logic.:whip:

You assumed what you were trying to prove.

Are you kidding me? Experience can be used by reason to formulate its conclusions.

When you actually said anything rational (once) , it was acknowledged.

You appear to be missing the point. By subjecting it to logical analysis, we have seen that theft is ultimately self-refuting. This necessarily makes it logically false. That is the true/false determination of its value. This is an objective determination.

Built into the concept of truth is an objective standard. And it is by that standard that the contradictory beliefs must necessarily be weighed. If "moral relativism" were true, then these contradictory beliefs have to be equal. Since they can't be equal, "moral relativism" is logically false.

If one is interested in truth, then one abandons logical falsehood and accepts logical truth.

Are you interested in truth?

Again, I am justifying moral relativism not with moral relativism but with the nature and development of human understanding and social behavior.

Two propositions, show me the contradiction:

1. Steerpike justifiably believes it is wrong to murder.
2. There is no absolute moral system.

I am quite plainly saying that there is objective truth to moral relativism.

I know what "begging the question" means. I just wonder how can quote a statement with no argument behind it and still manage to claim it uses circular reasoning. The portion you quoted had no reason involved whatsoever.

Now here is the argument:

1. Human reason deals only in abstract relationships. It determines that the brightness of the sun hurts one's eyes, but it doesn't determine that the sun is bright.

2. Moral decisions require underlying values that are real and documentable
material processes. Every moral rule falls to the question of "why". There is no rule that is justified in itself and eventually they get broken down to some value that is necessary to the person for no reason.

3. If moral decisions require some real value that cannot be questioned, and human reason only deals with relationships between the real and not reality itself, then human reason alone is insufficient for moral judgment.

4. If reason itself is not sufficient and real values that are wrapped in the nature of humanity must also be referenced, then all men are the measure of morality and morality is relative.

Please identify which portion of this argument engages in circular logic.

Reason can never tell us what to want, only how to get it, and so reason alone is powerless in developing a should.

I completely agree that experience and reason can both be applied to formulate knowledge, but you said reason has a a posteriori basis. Name one instance where experience is used to formulate a rule of reason.

Now who is begging the question?

Your entire argument resides on your assumption that all truth is objective.

The belief in proposition one can't justify itself. If that belief is to be justified, then in must have an objective basis. That is where the contradiction comes from. If there is no objective basis, then the belief can't be justified.

This is what you were trying to prove.

Your number one and number three are merely restating what you are trying to prove.

Joe is hungry. The last time Joe ate food his hunger went away. If Joe eats food when he is hungry, then his hunger goes away.

"Subjective truth" is pseudo-intellectual rubbish for pseudo-intellectuals.

You are showing fallacy or poor logic, you are questioning one of the statements. You question the statement because you assume objective truth. Why does justification require objective truth?

The moral itself is self-referential and the holder must accept that he cannot appeal to the objective truth of his morality.

No, I was attempting to prove that morality is relative and show my logic so that you could provide an example of where the logic is circular.

What you are quoting from before was an aside where you denied that emotional sympathies play a role in moral decision making, and could never be construed as my central point on this topic. It was quite clearly a supporting argument for the conclusion, which would explain why it is quite similar to 3).

Holiday - Morals are beliefs of right and wrong, right and wrong is either an interpretation of reality, or actuality. You cannot just glue the two together to have this belief-fact system.

Whoever,

Your example rests on the subjective understanding of the relative position of all humans as morally equal sentient beings.

There is no objective backing for the this understanding.

That moral system may be universal (as is the one I am espousing, why I made the comparison between our two systems), but it is relative and subjective.

There is no in principle reason why moral behaviour should not be determined in the same way, as derived from an understanding of the laws of the universe. Of course, you may say that there are no laws which bear on morality, as many people believe, but for a rational view this would have to be proved, not just assumed.

How would the existing rules of the universe imply how we should behave?

I appreciate your extrapolation, but it doesn't answer my question very well.

Even if we can document these Karmic laws, how are we to know they are right? That was the question: how does the existence of a law prove the correctness of a law? Its an old question.

Whoever,

You were correct you first stated that morality doesn't apply to such a scenario. Morality only applies to intentional action, and so any force not exerted by an intentional actor will be devoid of moral weight.

This also means that morality is incomprehensible outside of the human method of forming intention. Simply, only a conscious individual can determine a "should".

Even more simply, "ought" implies option. Unless there is a choice, moral deliberation is meaningless; it would be ludicrous to say that gravity should not cause planes to crash.

Of course, because of the problem of different minds that you mentioned earlier, decision making is only understood in terms of the reason and emotion of the decision maker and not through objective observation.