A perfect god can not exist?

Like I said, go back and read my posts and respond accordingly.

And why do you just assume your view is true instead of offering any arguments? It is not as if you don't share the burden...

Right but that doesn't actually address what I said about meta-ethical moral relativism which is what I believe. What's self-refuting about the claim that: "moral judgments have their origins either in societal or in individual standards, and that no single objective standard exists by which one can assess the truth of a moral proposition?"

---------- Post added 04-24-2010 at 11:42 PM ----------



That doesn't really do much for the credibility of your moral admonishments. You can scold me for murder but I can scold you equally for not murdering. It's just a clash of attitudes after all.

Right, I could go dig through your posts for a point that you claim is there or you could save me some time and actually paste or write something relevant that answers my question. In the time it takes to argue with me you could have already pasted something relevant.

Alternatively, you could just say you have no answer to my question.

That's your problem.

In a nutshell metaethical relativism is self-refuting because it claims moral jugdments of right and wrong are objectively right and wrong within cultural contexts, and that "progress" is possible within that context. If progress is possible within cultural contexts, then this presupposes a culture's moral beliefs have shifted according to an objective moral standard independent of that context.

Yes, of course. And that moral standard is what the people in that culture (context) believe (however we judge that).

In a nutshell metaethical relativism is self-refuting because it claims moral jugdments of right and wrong are objectively right and wrong within cultural contexts, and that "progress" is possible within that context.

Meta-ethical relativism, on the other hand, is the semantic and epistemic position that all moral judgments have their origins either in societal or in individual standards, and that no single objective standard exists by which one can assess the truth of a moral proposition.

a metaethical thesis that the truth or justification of moral judgments is not absolute, but relative to some group of persons

So you agree that cultural moral relativism is false then? Honestly, I'm not sure what you believe.

That's not meta-ethical relativism...



Source: Moral relativism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also from your link which says the same thing...



How is that self-refuting? Where do you see anything about progress?

So, for the third time, please answer my question.

What's self-refuting about the claim that: "moral judgments have their origins either in societal or in individual standards, and that no single objective standard exists by which one can assess the truth of a moral proposition?"

I put it in bold just in case it wasn't catching your eye before.

Right, I could go dig through your posts for a point that you claim is there or you could save me some time and actually paste or write something relevant that answers my question. In the time it takes to argue with me you could have already pasted something relevant.

Alternatively, you could just say you have no answer to my question.

---------- Post added 04-24-2010 at 11:54 PM ----------



I don't feel the need to prove that objective moral truths don't exist anymore than I feel the need to prove that God doesn't exist. There's no evidence for either of these things and therefore no reason to believe in them. Perhaps there are such things but there's no rational reason for either of us to think so.

This version is not self-refuting. But it begs the question. Where's your argument?

My argument for what? That X does not exist? My argument is to show you a room full of not-X. All the rooms in my house lack X. In fact, I've never seen X so I guess it just doesn't exist. That's the best I can do really.

Most of our beliefs are accepted on the basis of testimony, immediate intuition (such as memory), logic, probabilities, and (maybe) inferences to the best explanation. Why are we not within our epistemic rights to believe according to these other sources of justification?

My argument for what? That X does not exist? My argument is to show you a room full of not-X. All the rooms in my house lack X. In fact, I've never seen X so I guess it just doesn't exist. That's the best I can do really.

Your argument for the proposition that, no single objective standard exists by which one can assess the truth of a moral proposition? There are many such standards proposed. So what you say is false. If you are saying that there is no rational standard, then you need an argument for that.

My argument is, show me an objective standard for assessing the truth of a moral proposition. That you simply propose something is an objective standard does not make it one.

Of course not. On the other hand, that you deny that those proposed are objective standards does not show they are not. Even-Steven.

Pragmatic skepticism. I really can't do without some beliefs, such as the belief that I will not suddenly fall through the floor if I take another step. It's not a justified true belief but it's a chance I take because it's useful to do so. I can get around and it seems to work rather well.

What does belief in objective moral truth offer me? Nothing.

If the relativist argues against absolutism from its supposed consequences of intolerance, we can argue against relativism from its real consequences. Good morality should have good consequences, and bad morality should have bad ones. Well, it's exceedingly obvious that the main consequence of moral relativism is the removal of moral deterrents. Just as the consequences of "do the right thing" are doing the right thing, so the consequences of "if it feels good, do it" are doing whatever feels good. Takes no PhD to see that. In fact, it takes a PhD to miss it. Belief in Relativism has never produced a saint. That is the pragmatic refutation of relativists.

The same goes for societies. Relativism has never produced a good society, only a bad one. Compare the stability, longevity, and happiness of societies founded on the principles of moral relativists like Mussolini, and Mau Tse Tung, with societies founded on the principles of moral absolutists like Confucius. A society of moral relativists usually lasts one generation. Hitler's thousand-year Reich lasted not even that long.

Of course, as I said, such things might exist. So too might elves exist. Congratulations if that was your goal, to put objective moral truth on the same footing as Santa's helpers.

I did not put objective moral standards "on the same footing as elves". Why would you ever think that?

The strawmans are voracious.

Yes, I wonder whether he realizes it is a strawman.