0
   

A perfect god can not exist?

 
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 07:46 pm
@Extrain,
Extrain;155926 wrote:
You've argued against it by means of succeeding in showing cultural moral relativism is most likely false. So your strategy backfired.


I am sorry. I don't recognize that argument as mine. I think that cultural relativism is likely true, although it is problematic because of the unclarity of the notion of moral disagreement as between two societies. For example, the disagreement might just arise from a disagreement about the facts, and not about morality at all, so that if agreement about the facts could be established, the moral disagreement might vanish. And that is but one problem.
Extrain
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 07:54 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;155929 wrote:
I am sorry. I don't recognize that argument as mine. I think that cultural relativism is likely true, although it is problematic because of the unclarity of the notion of moral disagreement as between two societies. For example, the disagreement might just arise from a disagreement about the facts, and not about morality at all, so that if agreement about the facts could be established, the moral disagreement might vanish. And that is but one problem.


But if there are no cultural moral disagreements, this lends support for thinking cultural moral relativism is false, and moral objectivity is true.

And the fact that there is set pattern of some cultures accepting their conquerers moral beliefs, and some cultures not accepting their conquerer's moral beliefs, gives strong support for the claim that there is rather a moral (not cultural) pattern of moral truth independent of cultural contexts. The wedge between Cultural Moral Relativism and Moral Objectivity becomes much more noticeable. This lends very strong support for objective moral truths independent of culture.
pagan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 08:06 pm
@Extrain,
hi extrain
Quote:

This lends very strong support for objective moral truths independent of culture.
i honestly don't know how any moral truths can be independent of culture. Surely such a concept is in itself by definition a cultural perspective on morality. How else could it be adopted if not by a culture?
Extrain
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 08:14 pm
@pagan,
pagan;155933 wrote:
hi extrain
i honestly don't know how any moral truths can be independent of culture. Surely such a concept is in itself by definition a cultural perspective on morality. How else could it be adopted if not by a culture?


That's a logical fallacy. All of us have already gone over this. Please catch up on the recent posts.

A culture can surely possess moral beliefs that are false.
pagan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 08:18 pm
@Extrain,
whats necessarily wrong with logical fallacies? Morality isn't all logic. It is often conflictory. eg loyalty versus truth. Both have moral value. Neither can be given an absolute numerical ranking.
Extrain
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 09:07 pm
@pagan,
pagan;155937 wrote:
whats necessarily wrong with logical fallacies? Morality isn't all logic. It is often conflictory. eg loyalty versus truth. Both have moral value. Neither can be given an absolute numerical ranking.


Meta-ethical claims are not normative (moral) claims. "Cultural Relativism is true, therefore, Cultural Moral Relativism is true" is a meta-ethical invalid argument. Just because a culture believes something does not make the beliefs of that culture true. Some cultures might believe the earth is flat, but that doesn't make the earth flat.
pagan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 09:11 pm
@Extrain,
Extrain;155945 wrote:
Meta-ethical claims are not normative (moral) claims. "Cultural Relativism is true, therefore, Cultural Moral Relativism is true" is a meta-ethical invalid argument. Just because a culture believes something does not make the beliefs of that culture true. Some cultures might believe the earth is flat, but that doesn't make the earth flat.


But thats my point. Truth to a cultural relativist is not supreme as a moral value. Loyalty can overide it. There may not be objective truth in a belief that the earth is flat, but there might be moral value in it.
Extrain
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 09:34 pm
@pagan,
pagan;155946 wrote:
But thats my point. Truth to a cultural relativist is not supreme as a moral value. Loyalty can overide it. There may not be objective truth in a belief that the earth is flat, but there might be moral value in it.


You are just begging the question. Again, just because someone believes or is loyal to X, does not make X true. Someone can be loyal to the cultural belief that the earth is flat, but he can be wrong. Someone can be loyal to cultural belief that raping toddlers is morally permissible, but he can be wrong.
pagan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 10:22 pm
@Extrain,
Quote:
Again, just because someone believes or is loyal to X, does not make X true.


exactly. But a lack of objective truth does not negate all moral value. Moral value is not necessarily synonymous with objective truth. So from the relativistic non absolute perspective, even though X is not objectively true it does not necessarily negate moral value from believing or being loyal to x.
Extrain
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 10:36 pm
@pagan,
pagan;155956 wrote:
Moral value is not necessarily synonymous with objective truth. So from the relativistic non absolute perspective, even though X is not objectively true it does not necessarily negate moral value from believing or being loyal to x.


Again, You are begging the question. You are claiming that what is right and wrong in fact is determined by a culture's values. But this is the very assumption you are trying to prove. It is true that values differ with cultures, but then you think that differences in values is an indication that moral rightness and wrongness differs with cultures, that what is wrong in one culture is right in another. But this premise begs the question. It presupposes the very moral relativism you are trying to prove, namely, that what is really right and wrong is culturally relative.

Fallacy.
pagan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 11:16 pm
@Extrain,
Quote:
It is true that values differ with cultures, but then you think that differences in values is an indication that moral rightness and wrongness differs with cultures, that what is wrong in one culture is right in another.
on the contrary, right and wrong are not necessarily clear by comparison. Difference does not necessarily imply a right and wrong division from a culture to the point of confrontation. There can be shades and mixes of values between cultures such that neither is right over the other because of difference.

There is value in a culture that strongly emphasises say loyalty as compared to one that say emphasises truth. Neither have to elevate one value over the other exclusively in all cicumstances nonetheless. The emphasis and complexity of a value system thus places a context for other values within that system........ and this contextual perspective disables right wrong black and white value divisions. It is holistic. To seperate a particular value and judge it without considering the context from whence it came is to diminish its full complexity.

Sometimes of course we may do that as relativists because something particular is abhorrent ..... but not generally and certainly not habitually. And even then we do not chuck out the whole barrel because of one rotten apple.
Extrain
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 11:25 pm
@pagan,
pagan;155961 wrote:
There can be shades and mixes of values between cultures such that neither is right over the other because of difference.

"Shades of value" between or within cultures is irrelevant to the point you are trying to prove, namely, what is right in one culture can be wrong in another. You just assume no moral set of values within any given culture is objectively correct. So again, what reason do you have for thinking neither set of moral values within a given culture is objectively right over the other? You just assume this.

pagan;155961 wrote:
There is value in a culture that strongly emphasises say loyalty as compared to one that say emphasises truth. Neither have to elevate one value over the other exclusively in all cicumstances nonetheless. The emphasis and complexity of a value system thus places a context for other values within that system........ and this contextual perspective disables right wrong black and white value divisions. It is holistic. To seperate a particular value and judge it without considering the context from whence it came is to diminish its full complexity.


? It doesn't matter that some moral judgments are not absolute, and morally contextual instead. Moral absolutism could very well be false anyway (at least with respect to some moral principles, perhaps, like "never kill"). But this doesn't mean that moral objectivity is false. In fact, most moral objectivists are moral non-absolutists, that is, they hold that some moral principles are overridable in some situations. So again, how does this prove that objective moral judgmens do not hold for all people all times and places, and that cultural relativism is true instead?
pagan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 11:38 pm
@Extrain,
Quote:
? How does this prove that objective moral truths do not exist, and that cultural relativism is true?
its not meant to be a proof. Its a pragmatic and moral perspective in the absence of the existence of objective moral truths for many of us.

As a relativist i have no objection to people believing in such an objective value system, so long as it doesn't negate diversity (because diversity is advocated on moral grounds of both tolerance and uncertainty within relativism) or produce abhorrent practice.

For example. I believe generally speaking in a democratic element to society. But it can be recognised that some cultures are neither economically or psychologically able to make it work. Their circumstances may demand non democratic politics. Not all aspects of non democratic cultures are wrong, and further democracy may be morally wrong for that culture in the present circumstances.

Thus even though i do not believe in an objective truth in democracy, nevertheless i believe in it to a large extent .... while more than willing to sit with people who may believe in it on objective grounds and put good arguements for it on that basis.
Extrain
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 11:51 pm
@pagan,
pagan;155964 wrote:
its not meant to be a proof. Its a pragmatic and moral perspective in the absence of the existence of objective moral truths for many of us.


So you are just assuming that objective moral truth does not exist, then. Ok. But no one has to believe you since you don't have any good arguments for your belief. And if you are going to evaluate a moral system on pragmatic grounds then you ought to be a moral objectivist. My question is, why should any culture have to be tolerant to another if tolerance is not a value it upholds? It doesn't have to do anything. A culture can do anything it damn well pleases. In fact, cultural relativism endorses intolerance, since no objective moral truth exists.
pagan;155964 wrote:
As a relativist i have no objection to people believing in such an objective value system, so long as it doesn't negate diversity (because diversity is advocated on moral grounds of both tolerance and uncertainty within relativism) or produce abhorrent practice.


If cultural moral relativism is true, then you can't consistently hold the principle of tolerance for all cultures. The most you can say to Hitler is, "Oh hum, bygones will be bygones. But I hate that you exterminated 6 million Jews." You can't consistently say that the extermination of 6 million Jews is objectively wrong, and that Hitler should stop because Hitler is not bound by your own moral system anyway. If what Hitler thinks is right, then it is right, and you thus have no case against him whatsoever. The fact that Cultural Moral Relativism allows for abhorrent practices and intolerance toward other cultures is a very good reason for abandoning it. You have no good reason to hold it if you are interested in correcting the crimes against humanity committed by some violent and intolerant cultures.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Apr, 2010 04:22 am
@Extrain,
Extrain;155931 wrote:
But if there are no cultural moral disagreements, this lends support for thinking cultural moral relativism is false, and moral objectivity is true.

And the fact that there is set pattern of some cultures accepting their conquerers moral beliefs, and some cultures not accepting their conquerer's moral beliefs, gives strong support for the claim that there is rather a moral (not cultural) pattern of moral truth independent of cultural contexts. The wedge between Cultural Moral Relativism and Moral Objectivity becomes much more noticeable. This lends very strong support for objective moral truths independent of culture.


I did not say there were no cultural disagreements. I said that the notion is problematic.

I don't find your argument persuasive, since I doubt that the alternatives are simply between moral relativism, and moral universalism. But more important, relativists don't deny that morality is objective. That is subjectivism. Consider this analogy: the properties of a chair being to the right of you, or to the left of you, is relative to the direction in which you face the chair. But that does not mean that whether the chair is to the right of you, or to the left of you, is subjective. It is quite objective. Isn't it. You are confusing relativism with subjectivism.
Extrain
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Apr, 2010 08:17 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;156001 wrote:
I did not say there were no cultural disagreements. I said that the notion is problematic.

I don't find your argument persuasive, since I doubt that the alternatives are simply between moral relativism, and moral universalism. But more important, relativists don't deny that morality is objective. That is subjectivism. Consider this analogy: the properties of a chair being to the right of you, or to the left of you, is relative to the direction in which you face the chair. But that does not mean that whether the chair is to the right of you, or to the left of you, is subjective. It is quite objective. Isn't it. You are confusing relativism with subjectivism.


No I am not confusing anything. You are. You are talkinga about moral non-absolutism. There is a correct judgment about which direction someone is facing in your chair example. But this isn't Cultural Moral Relativism. Moral relativists believe there are "objective" moral facts which are contextually relative to culture. It is just very debatable "objective" has meaning anymore if a contextual non-absoulte moral judgment does not have moral applicability to all human beings when made within a culture. Kant certainly would think not. So your analogy is disanalogous.

Stop being so pedantic, Ken.
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Apr, 2010 08:35 am
@Extrain,
Extrain;155966 wrote:
So you are just assuming that objective moral truth does not exist, then. Ok. But no one has to believe you since you don't have any good arguments for your belief. And if you are going to evaluate a moral system on pragmatic grounds then you ought to be a moral objectivist. My question is, why should any culture have to be tolerant to another if tolerance is not a value it upholds? It doesn't have to do anything. A culture can do anything it damn well pleases. In fact, cultural relativism endorses intolerance, since no objective moral truth exists.


But this does happen and has happened. There are so many examples I can give to show that a culture acceptance or moral values does endorse intolerance.

What you seem to be thinking is just because you do not agree with intolerance, you want to reject moral subjectivity. It's weird because you even state the case for what we actually observe happening and has happened and call that no evidence for moral subjectivity.

Extrain;155966 wrote:

If cultural moral relativism is true, then you can't consistently hold the principle of tolerance for all cultures. The most you can say to Hitler is, "Oh hum, bygones will be bygones. But I hate that you exterminated 6 million Jews." You can't consistently say that the extermination of 6 million Jews is objectively wrong, and that Hitler should stop because Hitler is not bound by your own moral system anyway. If what Hitler thinks is right, then it is right, and you thus have no case against him whatsoever.


You always have a case. The case is built upon your subjective moral value. If you believe what he is doing it is wrong, then by all means you can hold him accountable for being wrong.

It is no different from teaching your child a lesson. You are in a position as a parent to direct and instill a particular moral value that you want them to have. Now if you are a criminal and you are teaching your child in the art of slight of hand. From your child's perspective what you are teaching them, is not wrong. However if they go to school and excerise their skill in slight of hand and get caught by another child who scolds your child because he believes that slight of hand is wrong.

Extrain;155966 wrote:

The fact that Cultural Moral Relativism allows for abhorrent practices and intolerance toward other cultures is a very good reason for abandoning it.


Actually this is a huge lie. It is insistent moral objectivity which causes intolerance. Because if you are laying down what is right then only those things will be considered right. So tell me if there is moral objectivity, is being a homosexual, right or wrong?

Extrain;155966 wrote:

You have no good reason to hold it if you are interested in correcting the crimes against humanity committed by some violent and intolerant cultures.


As I mentioned previously. You can hold anyone up to your subjective moral value if you hold the position of support for your moral system. It does not prevent you from exercising your moral values upon anyone else. Just like you are already doing with this whole argument you are making. You are insisting that anyone who makes the claim that moral values are subjective and are not objective truths, are wrong.

So tell me;

is prostitution wrong?
is drug use wrong?
is being homosexual wrong?

You might think I am asking rhetorical questions here. But honestly if you are making the claim that moral values are objective truths. Then by all means you will have to provide for me what are the right moral values. Because I can not determine what moral values are right.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Apr, 2010 08:40 am
@Extrain,
Extrain;156047 wrote:
No I am not confusing anything. You are. You are talkinga about moral non-absolutism. There is a correct judgment about which direction someone is facing in your chair example. But this isn't Cultural Moral Relativism. Moral relativists believe there are "objective" moral facts which are contextually relative to culture. It is just very debatable "objective" has meaning anymore if a contextual non-absoulte moral judgment does not have moral applicability to all human beings when made within a culture. Kant certainly would think not. So your analogy is disanalogous.

Stop being so pedantic, Ken.


But if there is a distinction between subjectivity and relativism (which there clearly is) then why is pointing out the distinction pedantic? I am not clear what it means to say, "It is just very debatable "objective" has meaning anymore if a contextual non-absoulte moral judgment does not have moral applicability to all human beings when made within a culture". Especially the part about the debatability of whether "objective" has meaning anymore. Careful. You are beginning to sound like Fido and Reconstructo. The relativist hold that it is objectively true that it is right in a cannibalistic society to eat people. Why does "objective" "lose meaning" when applies to that society? Or rather, what does that mean? I know what the relativist means.
Extrain
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Apr, 2010 09:02 am
@Krumple,
Krumple;156050 wrote:
But this does happen and has happened. There are so many examples I can give to show that a culture acceptance or moral values does endorse intolerance.


Just like Hitler's, Stalin, and Mao's Cultural Moral Relativism breeds intolerance? Any moral system can breed intolerance. The question is, what do you do when it does? If cultural Moral Relativism is true, you're sh*t out of luck. It is relativism that fosters intolerance. Why not be intolerant? You have no answer to this. Because tolerance feels better? Or because it is the popular consensus? Well suppose it no longer feels better. Suppose it ceases to be popular. The relativist can appeal to no moral law as a dam against the flood of intolerance. We desperately need such a bulwark, because societies, like individuals, are fickle and fallen. What else will deter a humane and humanistic Germany from turning to an inhumane, Nazi philosophy of racial superiority? Or, a now-tolerant America from turning to a future intolerance against any group it decides to ignore the rights of? It is unborn babies today, born babies tomorrow. Homophobes today, perhaps homosexuals tomorrow.

Krumple;156050 wrote:
What you seem to be thinking is just because you do not agree with intolerance, you want to reject moral subjectivity.


huh? You seem to think that just because you agree with tolerance as a moral value, that you should be adopting moral subjectivity. But this backfires on you. If relativism is true, then there is no reason that anyone SHOULD be tolerant, since no inter-cultural objective truth exists.

Krumple;156050 wrote:
It's weird because you even state the case for what we actually observe happening and has happened and call that no evidence for moral subjectivity.


Just because people disagree on who is president of the united states does not entail there is no objective fact of the matter about who, in fact, is president of the united states. People can be mistaken about a lot of things. What does lack of consensus prove other than that people can be wrong? Lack of consensus no more provides evidence for subjectivism than objectivism. Get a clue.

Krumple;156050 wrote:
You always have a case. The case is built upon your subjective moral value. If you believe what he is doing it is wrong, then by all means you can hold him accountable for being wrong.


On what grounds? Objective ones? Then Cultural Moral Relativism is false. You have no appeal to any objective moral principles outside your culture if Cultural Moral Relativism is true. If Hitler believes the genocide of 6 million Jews is good, then Hitler is right, and you are wrong to think otherwise. It also says, that if you think the extermination of 6 million Jews is wrong, then you are right, and Hitler is wrong to think otherwise. So, the extermination of 6 million Jews in right in one culture, and wrong in another. What inter-culture case do you have? The answer is "none."

Krumple;156050 wrote:
Actually this is a huge lie. It is insistent moral objectivity which causes intolerance. Because if you are laying down what is right then only those things will be considered right. So tell me if there is moral objectivity, is being a homosexual, right or wrong?


Just like the Cultural Moral Relativism of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao?


Krumple;156050 wrote:
As I mentioned previously. You can hold anyone up to your subjective moral value if you hold the position of support for your moral system. It does not prevent you from exercising your moral values upon anyone else. Just like you are already doing with this whole argument you are making. You are insisting that anyone who makes the claim that moral values are subjective and are not objective truths, are wrong.


huh? You are just assuming no objective moral truths exist. I am not claiming anything other than the fact that your argument is invalid, unsupported, and confused about what moral subjectivity and objectivity are.

Quote:
So tell me;

is prostitution wrong?
is drug use wrong?
is being homosexual wrong?

You might think I am asking rhetorical questions here. But honestly if you are making the claim that moral values are objective truths. Then by all means you will have to provide for me what are the right moral values. Because I can not determine what moral values are right.


Then your cultural moral relativism is in no better shape than moral absolutism.
Just because it is difficult to determine what the objective moral facts of a given case are, does not entail there is no objective moral fact of the matter at all.

If people don't know whether the earth is round or flat, does that entail there is no fact of the matter about the earth? No. So why would you think this about moral judgments too? Again, you have no case.
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Apr, 2010 09:12 am
@Extrain,
Extrain;156059 wrote:
If people don't know whether the earth is round or flat, does that entail there is no fact of the matter about the earth? No.


I don't even know why I bother having this discussion with you. Once again you take something that is measurable to use as an example for moral values? Moral values can not be measured.

Extrain;156059 wrote:

So why would you think this about moral judgments too? Again, you have no case.


But the part you completely miss, is that by saying I am wrong about subjective moral values it implicitly suggest that there must be objective moral values. You have not show that there are objective moral values and completely dodge doing so. If I have no case, your case for dismissal is completely invalid. All you are really saying is, "no you are wrong". With nothing other than that, it is completely pointless discussing this topic with you.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 10:11:54