A perfect god can not exist?

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.

Are you telling me that it would feel good to rape and murder but you don't do it because it's simply not right?

I think that whether or not you do these things, the mere fact that they would feel good to you makes you a sick person.

Anyways, the fact that some people out there are monsters just gives the rest of us a chance to be heroes.

You can do whatever feels good to you, raping toddlers perhaps, and I will do whatever feels good to me, lynching toddler rapists. That's a world I can live with.

What moral reason does a person without a morality have to be a hero if he doesn't believe that objective value and intrinsic worth belongs to the human being in reality?

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.

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.

Who sad anything about lacking morality? I have my own feelings on morality but I'm not foolish enough to think that they are anything more than feelings.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pagan
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.

So then you think some things have to be taken on faith(since we can't use logic)? A notion most naturalists on this forum consider utterly preposterous. btw have you not been attempting to make logical arguments throughout this thread? So yeah, there is a problem with you making logical fallacies.

I'm quite curious to your thoughts on faith vs. reason. Because your argument seems to hinge on the idea that logic has no place in morality and that there is value in believing something that is not true.

Moral relativism abandons reason. It is committed to saying that WWII Germany's mass genocide of 6 million Jews was right within the context of Germany.

"Do unto others as you would have done unto you"

If we are to assess this proposition by it's relation to "harmony" would that not be an objective standard.

Pragmatic skeptcism. We really can't do without some moral beliefs which are useful, such as moral objectivism. Most (if not all) humanitarian heroes in history, and great influential thinkers who called for moral reform and revolutionary change in society, have believed in some kind of objective moral truth and instrinsic worth and dignity of the human being. I don't know of any self-proclaimed moral relativists, or non-cognitivists for that matter, who ever had this kind of influence on either the moral conditions of society or whose writings continue to be of inspiration to so many others such as,

Gandhi
M. Theresa
Oskar Schindler (WWI Germany)
Per Anger (WWII Germany)
Fr. Max Kolbe (WWII Germany)
Pope Pius XII (WWII Germany)
Martin Luther King
The Dalai Lama
Princess Diana
Thomas Jefferson
Abe Lincoln
Theodore Roosevelt
Eleanor Roosevelt
Helen Keller
Plato/Socrates/Aristotle
Jesus Christ
Confucius
Lao Tzu
Albert Schweitzer

The list goes on..

And of course there are moral objectivists who were very terrible individuals too. But who has it been that has reformed the unjust institutions created by these terrible individuals? It has always been other moral objectivists, simply because the attitude of moral relativists (such as your own) doesn't give you any sufficient moral reason to change the moral conditions in your society since, to be consistent with your own belief that values are relative to culture, whatever the culture says ought to hold for that culture, necessarily holds for you, too, since the culture is right and you thus have believe that it is, even if you disagree with your own culture in secret--so you believe both that your culture is right (Meta-Ethical Relativism) and simultaneously not believe that? You must be both a cognitive and non-cognitive mess.

My point is that I just don't know of the so-called "pragmatic worth" of believing in Moral Relativism whatsoever. So if pragmatic arguments are good reasons for staking your position on the Ethics Map one way rather than another, then you have more reason, all things considered, to be a moral objectivist than a moral relativist.

Here is a passage directly from Mussolini, a self-proclaimed moral relativist.
Did you know Ted Bundy was a self-proclaimed moral relativist too--not to mention Charles Manson??

"Everything I have said and done is these last years is relativism, by intuition. From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology, and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable. If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories, and men who claim to be the bearers of an objective immortal truth, then there is nothing more relativistic than fascism." -Benito Mussolini

ah ha! Here is a potentially self-refuting inconsistency with Meta-Ethical Relativism.

The M.E. Relativist contends that whatever a culture believes with regard to moral principles is right. But it is also certainly possible for him to disagree with what his own culture thinks is right. So he both believes and doesn't believe that his culture is right?

"My culture is right, but I don't believe that it is".....lol

This is a classic instance of cognitive dissociation!

This version is not self-refuting.

ah ha! Here is a potentially self-refuting inconsistency with Meta-Ethical Relativism.

The M.E. Relativist contends that whatever a culture believes with regard to moral principles is right. But it is also certainly possible for him to disagree with what his own culture thinks is right. So he both believes and doesn't believe that his culture is right?

"My culture is right, but I don't believe that it is".....lol

This is a classic instance of cognitive dissociation!

Not every member of a culture need agree with the moral judgments of the culture for moral relativism to be true. That would be a self-defeating restriction on the notion of moral relativism. Why adopt it? It would be like holding that absolute certainty is a necessary condition of knowledge.

amperage

where are on earth did i say that logic is of no worth in morality??? what i said was that logic is far from being a complete method for morality. Moreover to construct the reaction that if it isn't logic it must be faith is a tad simplistic and extreme isn't it??? What about memory, experience, anecdotal evidence, intuition, loyalty, suspicion and so on?

if moral relativism were true then no one would have the 'right' to impose law on another individual who held an opposing 'opinion' on a matter. However, this is clearly not the case, so if moral relativism is true, the world is operating by objectivism therefore everyone is a hypocrite. The mere fact that the world does not operate and, in fact, could not operate by moral relativism is a strong indication that it is false.

if moral relativism were true then no one would have the 'right' to impose law on another individual who held an opposing 'opinion' on a matter.

If you hurt someone I care about, I will make you suffer for it. If I think you will hurt someone I care about, I will take measures to stop you. What's hypocritical in that?

Moral Relativism (wkipedia)

"Normative relativism, further still, is the prescriptive or normative position that as there is no universal moral standard by which to judge others, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when it runs counter to our personal or cultural moral standards."

Since you place inverted commas on both sides of the term, right, and the term, opinion, which indicates you are using it in some special way, but you don't tell me how you are using both those terms. I have no good idea of what you may mean. But, of course, in no democratic society I know of, has anyone the right to impose a law without due process. If you are talking about a society like Nazi Germany, then, of course, all bets are off.

Not without being a hypocrite you wont. If there is no objective moral standard then I'm not wrong for doing what he did(if I think I was right). And demanding others to follow your rules is simply imposing might makes right. What you think is right and what you think is wrong does not matter to anyone else besides you if relativism is true.

if you do not tolerate others behaviors then you would be acting hypocritical towards your claimed belief in moral relativism.

How is imposing might makes right hypocritical? I don't care if what I think matters to anyone else. I will make it matter to them through violence or at least I will impose my will on them. Again, what's hypocritical about that? I'm not being inconsistent.

Could you show me the chain of reasoning that lead you to this conclusion? How would I be acting inconsistently with my beliefs? Why would you think meta-ethical relativism requires tolerance to be consistent with believing it?

No, you're making a logical jump that isn't supported.

1. All "ought" claims are of equal moral value.

2. We "ought" to only punish those that make claims of lesser moral value.

I agree with (1) but you think that entails (2). The problem is, (2) is just another "ought" claim. It's not warranted. I can punish whoever I want and still be consistent with (1). By punishing someone I am not committing myself to the belief that they have lesser moral values. I am simply committing myself to the belief that they aren't my values and I don't like them.

I don't have to do something because I think I'm more right or whatever you want to claim. I can do something just because I feel like it.

sure, but if you are going to judge someone on their moral beliefs which are just as right as yours, you're being hypocritical