Moral Relativity: Where moral values come from?

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

. . . No, you clearly don't understand. If you believe in many systems of morality, you don't believe in any. You want to believe in morality, because you want to think of yourself as a moral person, but you're just kidding yourself. There is no morality where there is no duty, and if you believe in a moral code that applies only to yourself, then you have only a duty to yourself, which is no duty at all. . . .

Spot on, Joe.

0 Replies

Max is babbling. It really doesn't amount to much more than that.

0 Replies

Neologist, ColdJoint and JoeFromChicago are all in agreement... or are they?

I would like each of you to answer the following two questions:

1. Is it possible for someone who doesn't believe in God to be a moral person?
2. Is same sex-marriage acceptable to moral people?

If you are really all in such close agreement... then I will concede the argument.

(I suspect that my Joe's absolute morality in practical terms is closer to mine then it is to ColdJoint's.)

3 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

(I suspect that my Joe's absolute morality in practical terms is closer to mine then it is to ColdJoint's.)

Those are loaded questions, again, Max. When did you stop beating your wife?

I am not here to play word games with a hypocrite. And that is what you are.

And Joe and you can have as much in common as you wish. It changes nothing .

1 Reply

@coldjoint,

Not loaded questions at all. This is the point.

People who believe in an absolute morality have very different ideas on what the morality is, or even what it is based on.

Moral absolutists all believe there is one (and only one) true system of morality. If they could come to any agreement on what that system of morality was, they would have a much better case.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Neologist, ColdJoint and JoeFromChicago are all in agreement... or are they?

I would like each of you to answer the following two questions:

1. Is it possible for someone who doesn't believe in God to be a moral person?

Yes For whenever people of the nations that do not have law do by nature the things of the law, these people, although not having law, are a law to themselves. 15 They are the very ones who demonstrate the matter of the law to be written in their hearts, while their conscience is bearing witness with them and, between their own thoughts, they are being accused or even excused. (Romans 2:14-15)

maxdancona wrote:

2. Is same sex-marriage acceptable to moral people?

Why is this important?

maxdancona wrote:

If you are really all in such close agreement... then I will concede the argument.

I may have to settle for half.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I would like each of you to answer the following two questions:

1. Is it possible for someone who doesn't believe in God to be a moral person?

Yes.

maxdancona wrote:

2. Is same sex-marriage acceptable to moral people?

That depends on what you mean by "moral people."

maxdancona wrote:

If you are really all in such close agreement... then I will concede the argument.

Our agreement means nothing. You think that a lack of consensus means that there's a lack of an absolute standard. That's clearly wrong. If Billy thinks that 2+2=4 and Bobby thinks that 2+2=5, that doesn't mean there's no such thing as mathematics. It just means that one of them (I suspect it's Bobby) is wrong.

The same is true of morality. If Billy thinks that lying is always wrong and Bobby thinks that lying, in some situations, is right, you conclude that their disagreement proves there can't be any standard regarding the morality of lying. That, however, merely begs the question: you've already decided that everyone's version of morality is correct, so you are driven inescapably to the conclusion that a disagreement about morality means that everyone is right.

I reject your premise. I don't think everyone's version of morality is correct, just as I don't believe everyone's version of mathematics is correct. Consequently, the fact that some people may have disagreements about morality doesn't lead me to the conclusion that everyone is right. Rather, it leads me to the conclusion that some (and perhaps all) are wrong.

The ironic thing is that you clearly believe in absolute morality. You prove it with your thread on the lack of conservative condemnation of racist comments. If you didn't think that racism was immoral for everybody, you wouldn't expect others to condemn what you regard as immoral. If morality were purely personal, your expectation that everyone else should share your moral views would be as irrational as expecting everyone else to share your opinion of broccoli or modern jazz or cubism.

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Thomas and I have already discussed the difference between morality and mathematics. The difference is that I can clearly show you why 2+2=4 (on one hand no less).

You can't show me why there is any value to reducing human suffering and you certainly can't show me why reducing human suffering takes precedence to preserving liberty (two common modern moral values) at times when these moral values conflict..

My thread on conservative values is clearly appealing to modern American values. A discussion on bigotry 500 years ago, or even 100 years ago would have largely irrelevant. In fact to some people present it still is.

When I make a moral stand on bigotry I am relying on the fact that our society values justice and fairness as I do. Contrary to your assertion, I don't need to believe in God, or in any other Absolute Truth to take this stand.

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

The ironic thing is that you clearly believe in absolute morality. You prove it with your thread on the lack of conservative condemnation of racist comments. If you didn't think that racism was immoral for everybody, you wouldn't expect others to condemn what you regard as immoral.

Thanks for pointing that out Joe. I told you people he would end up with his foot in his mouth and his head up his ass.

Funny," irony" is one of his favorite words.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

You can't show me why there is any value to reducing human suffering and you certainly can't show me why reducing human suffering takes precedence to preserving liberty (two common modern moral values) at times when these moral values conflict..

On the contrary. I certainly can show you why there is a value to reducing human suffering. You might not be convinced, but that only means that there can be a difference of opinion between us - just as there can be a difference of opinion between us regarding the value of 2+2. What you can't do is show me that our difference of opinion means that both of us are right.

maxdancona wrote:

My thread on conservative values is clearly appealing to modern American values. A discussion on bigotry 500 years ago, or even 100 years ago would have largely irrelevant. In fact to some people present it still is.

For a moral relativist, "values" are the same thing as "tastes" or "preferences." You can certainly appeal to people's tastes, but you can't expect them to share yours. In effect, you want everyone to react to racism the same way that you do on an esthetic level. That's asking too much.

maxdancona wrote:

When I make a moral stand on bigotry I am relying on the fact that our society values justice and fairness as I do.

De gustibus non est disputandum.

maxdancona wrote:

Contrary to your assertion, I don't need to believe in God, or in any other Absolute Truth to take this stand.

When did I ever assert that?

0 Replies

I don't think Max can take anything at face value. He is more concerned with conflating every ones posts to his liking. And his habit of telling people what others have said is also dangerous. Disingenuous is disingenuous.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

What's your point ..do you think I'm an artist? Just answer my question

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

So being an atheist is somehow a sign of intelligence...Hmmm. You are not more intellectually evolved simply because of this. I do give you kudos for at least attempting to understand how you think. Problem is you can't possibly contemplate an alternate solution . Believing in the existence of God does not indicate your mind is flawed. These are some physicists who were brilliant and did not close their minds to the possibility of a God: Einstein, Max Planck, Werner Heisenberg..see it's not a matter of intelligence. Most mortals couldn't dare categorize themselves in the ranks of these magnificent minds. So it boils down to creation vs adaptation or evolution? Why not both? Open your mind. Maybe we have an inherent moral compass ( in order to survive together as a human race) but we have also evolved in some way. Why close your mind? If the universe is indeed expanding there had to be a starting point to gauge that progress of expansion( see my point).

2 Replies

@Germlat,

Adaptation is completely consistent with creation

1 Reply

@Germlat,

Is not like your posting an original thought within your post. You are regurgitating someone else's views which you have adapted as your own.

0 Replies

@neologist,

Many can't even entertain that thought.

0 Replies

I have mixed feelings on moral relativism.

It's a useful concept for helping us judge the character of people who come from cultures of different places and times. (So if two people behave in a way I find abhorrent, but one violates the norms of his culture and other doesn't, then I would judge the first person more harshly and show the second more understanding.)

However, I do feel that the West should expect immigrants from elsewhere to adopt our values when they come here. They should assimilate.

1 Reply

@Kolyo,

Quote:

However, I do feel that the West should expect immigrants from elsewhere to adopt our values when they come here. They should assimilate.

I don't think this has anything to do with Moral Absolutism. Clearly the moral standards of a dominant existing culture are going to take precedence over the morals of immigrant groups. This happens now as it always has.

But cultural assimilation is a bit more complicated in a diverse population such as ours. What do we expect immigrants to assimilate to?

In reality, the Tea Party is having a harder time assimilating to American values than any immigrant group is having.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

In reality, the Tea Party is having a harder time assimilating to American values than any immigrant group is having.

No they just think differently than you. And we all know you can't have that.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

But cultural assimilation is a bit more complicated in a diverse population such as ours. What do we expect immigrants to assimilate to?

You have a point, there. Americans don't all share the same values. However, I don't think it's the Tea Party that won't adopt the values and beliefs of Urban America -- values that liberals like us would like to call "American values" -- so much as it's the Christian Right that won't.

For my part, though, I would like to see Muslim families (and other immigrant families from conservative religious traditions) learn to respect the right of the individual to self-determination, even if that goes against what the family wants. A friend of mine teaches high school and tells me a lot of Muslim girls feel suffocated. At school they abandon the hijab their families make them wear and change into Western dress. Their parents are already planning their weddings, but the girls want careers and educations. Conservative Christians may oppose gay rights, and some may believe that women should put aside career ambitions in favour of their "primary role" as mothers, but one thing I would say the Christian conservatives have in common with us liberals is a belief that an individual should be free to choose the course of his or her own life. The right of the individual to self-determination may be something most Americans can agree defines our society.

2 Replies

Moral Relativity: Where moral values come from?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know