My First Shot in the War on Relativism
All relativists are hereby challenged to respond to this thread stating that every action that any person has ever taken was moral. Since relativists define morality by culture, they have NO RIGHT to condemn Gestapo death squads, Islamic terrorists, or even Charlie Manson for doing whatever deeds they deem to be moral.
Who is willing to defend nazi prison camps as a part of twentieth century German culture?
Are you going to stand up for the members of the Ku Klux Klan who killed blacks in the name of their white culture?
I want someone to write a comment defending the parents who sexually, emotionally and physically abuse their children, because parental culture is just as valid as any other.
Atheists, are you going to stand by and tell me that its moral for Christians to kill you, just because murder is a part of their culture?
Go ahead, I dare you!
16 comments:
My moral relativism has nothing to do with cultural context. It has to do with one simple fact: There are no scientific measuring instruments to discern 30 units of morality or 70 units of immorality. The very notion cannot be tested. As such, no factual statements can be made with respect to morality.
There are no current scientific instruments to measure the intensity of love. Therefore no factual statement can be made regarding love.
Same stupid argument, same stupid conclusion. I can't believe Aaron said you were smart !
Frances you are wrong.
There are no instruments to discern 30 units of logic or 70 units of the first law of thermodynamics.
But that doesnt mean factual statements cant be made with respect to them.
There are no current scientific instruments to measure the intensity of love. Therefore no factual statement can be made regarding love.
Sure there are. "Love" is a physiological phenomenon. One can measure the chemicals produced and hormonal fluctuations. The idea that "love" is more than the sum of its physiological parts is an illusion created by our brain. Love is no different than an orgasm: It is defined by its physiological parts, all of which can be quantified.
Frances you are wrong.
There are no instruments to discern 30 units of logic or 70 units of the first law of thermodynamics.
But that doesnt mean factual statements cant be made with respect to them.
But things like the first law of thermodynamics are based upon facts; morality isn't. You and I both abhor coercion. However, I think it's making a presumption to say coercion is immoral. How can that be proven? How can that be proven without making any presumptions?
As I said on Alleee's blog, I have a real problem with declaring a "correct moral code." To me, it's virtually identical to declaring that there's a "correct religion." With respect to both, I'd rather say none is correct than one is correct (and all the others wrong).
"Sure there are. "Love" is a physiological phenomenon. One can measure the chemicals produced and hormonal fluctuations."
Then show me the instrument.
"But things like the first law of thermodynamics are based upon facts; morality isn't."
Proof please ?
"However, I think it's making a presumption to say coercion is immoral"
I already wrote an entry on why coercion is immoral. Read this :
http://goosetheantithesis.blogspot.com/2005/09/virtue-of-non-coercion.html
If you don't agree with my reasoned points, you're full of it.
"With respect to both, I'd rather say none is correct than one is correct (and all the others wrong)."
Then you must hate science as well. Science says we can find the truth by using rational methods. You seem to hate truth.
But things like the first law of thermodynamics are based upon facts; morality isn't.
Why dont you name a fact that the first law of thermodynamics is based upon, and then I will name one of the facts that objective morality is based on.
You and I both abhor coercion. However, I think it's making a presumption to say coercion is immoral. How can that be proven? How can that be proven without making any presumptions?
Because coercion is a positive claim, and positive claims have the burden of proof. So basically, you have to prove that coercion, or positively restructing someone, is moral, or permissible. To not-coerce or not-restrict someone else doesnt have any burden of proof.
As I said on Alleee's blog, I have a real problem with declaring a "correct moral code."
Just like you have a problem with declaring that you need food or oxygen to survive?
To me, it's virtually identical to declaring that there's a "correct religion." With respect to both, I'd rather say none is correct than one is correct (and all the others wrong).
Do you consider the same thing with atheism? That its a way of declaring a "correct religion"? What makes you think an individual has the moral right to initiate coercion on another?
Do you really think that morality is not based on any earthly reason for anything? People only make decisions based on belief?
Again (sigh) when you make a decision to buy a house and move there with your family, you are making a moral decision, because it affects your values and the values of your family. You financial, and your physical life. If you make that decision based on belief, you're going down.
Are you guys really telling me you make your life decisions for no earthly reason? And that there's no earthly reason to say that rape is wrong? You manage to judge the morality of Chritsianity, do you not? And how do you evaluate christian claims? Through fact. If not, you're, as Franc says, "full of it."
Same stupid argument, same stupid conclusion. I can't believe Aaron said you were smart !
Hehe, frances, meet francois!
Then show me the instrument.
There of course is no readily-available instrument to measure love because there is no economic incentive for anyone to do the research in it and produce it. But frances is absolutely right in that it could, in principle, be measured. The technology today might not allow for a noninvasive measurement of it, and I don't know of many people who would participate in a study to measure their love by cutting open their brain.
Is it wrong for me to kill you?
Strictly speaking, it isn't "wrong", because the word wrong doesn't mean anything. It's wasteful, disrespectful for the lives of others, etc, but it isn't "wrong".
Why dont you name a fact that the first law of thermodynamics is based upon, and then I will name one of the facts that objective morality is based on.
Sure, the first law is basically a restatment of conservation of energy, and doesn't really say much more than that. However, energy conservation is found to be true experimentally to extremely high accuracy and ideas that originate along those lines has led to deep insight into modern physics phenomena. So what's a fact that objective morality is based on, and then how do you translate that into saying an objective statement?
Are you guys really telling me you make your life decisions for no earthly reason?
I don't know where you get the idea that someone is suggesting this. People make life decisions based on self-interest, and even acts of charity are ultimately acts of self-interest.
Then show me the instrument.
Do you deny that the physiological symptoms of love can, at least theoretically, be measured with instruments? Chemicals and hormones are physical things - they are highly tangible.
I already wrote an entry on why coercion is immoral. Read this :
http://goosetheantithesis.blogspot.com/2005/09/virtue-of-non-coercion.html
If you don't agree with my reasoned points, you're full of it.
I did read it. I found this sentence particularly interesting:
"Both Christianity and relativism fail to account for the basic moral assumptions we all make."
So, even you admit that Objective Morality is based upon assumptions. You assume people acting peacably toward you is better than people acting violently toward you. You assume cooperation is preferable than inability to work together. You assume existence is preferable to non-existence. While I agree with all those things, I still argue they are all assumptions, which cannot be verified. Indeed, "preferable to" and "better than" are phrases exclusively for use in opinion statements.
Then you must hate science as well. Science says we can find the truth by using rational methods. You seem to hate truth.
Science is the study of the physical world around us. Strictly speaking, science has nothing to do with philosophical issues such as "right" and "wrong." Science can measure whether a leopard or panther runs faster, but can't determine whether faster running is "better" or "worse," without making the presumption that survival is preferable to death.
Francesthemagnificent, you claim that no factual statements can be made with respect to morality. Is it wrong for me to kill you?
Here's a factual statement, if you're willing to consider it one: "In FrancestheMagnificent's opinion, it is morally wrong to murder FrancestheMagnificent." No matter who makes that statement, it's true. Being a moral relativist doesn't mean I'm agnostic with respect to moral issues. Indeed, I have strong opinions on them. I just don't believe my opinions somehow reflect the absolute truth, that applies to everyone.
Here's an example:
Factual statement: "In FrancestheMagnificent's opinion, armed robbery is immoral."
Subjective statement: "Armed robbery is immoral."
Why dont you name a fact that the first law of thermodynamics is based upon, and then I will name one of the facts that objective morality is based on.
Here, my word choice was poor. I should say that the First Law of Thermodynamics can be experimentally demonstrated and has stood up over time. Morality is based upon statements of opinion, such as "Survival is preferable to death."
Because coercion is a positive claim, and positive claims have the burden of proof. So basically, you have to prove that coercion, or positively restructing someone, is moral, or permissible. To not-coerce or not-restrict someone else doesnt have any burden of proof.
I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at here. Saying, "Coercion is morally wrong" is indeed a positive claim, requiring evidence. Speaking in general, separate from my own opinion, I'm saying coercion may or may not be morally wrong. Thus, I'm making no statement at all, hardly something that demands proof.
Just like you have a problem with declaring that you need food or oxygen to survive?
This isn't analogous. Indeed, I need food and oxygen to survive. That's demonstrable, and has no trace of opinion in it. But, moral statements rest upon the presumption that survival is preferable to death, which isn't demonstrable (how can one demonstrate "preferable"?) and clearly represents opinion.
"Do you deny that the physiological symptoms of love can, at least theoretically, be measured with instruments?"
So can morality. Both are material facts.
""Both Christianity and relativism fail to account for the basic moral assumptions we all make."
So, even you admit that Objective Morality is based upon assumptions."
Nowhere do I say that morality is based on assumptions. I said neither can account for basic moral assumptions that people make. You have zero fucking reading comprehension.
"You assume people acting peacably toward you is better than people acting violently toward you. You assume cooperation is preferable than inability to work together. You assume existence is preferable to non-existence. While I agree with all those things, I still argue they are all assumptions, which cannot be verified."
No, they are not assumptions. Some of these don't even make any sense. Existence is preferable to non-existence ? What the fuck is non-existence ? Your stupidity is revolting.
"Science is the study of the physical world around us. Strictly speaking, science has nothing to do with philosophical issues such as "right" and "wrong.""
You are simply denying again that morality has to do with fact. Your burden of proof. PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
Francois,
I responded to your response in the other thread. At this point, I'm ready to agree to disagree. I'm not interested in having a vitriolic argument about this. I'm secure in my views; you're secure in your views. That should be enough.
"I'm ready to agree to disagree."
And yet you admitted that you DO make decisions based on facts. Are you now saying you're not ? Make you your mind.
"People make life decisions based on self-interest, and even acts of charity are ultimately acts of self-interest."
I would add one word to that statement, "... based on perceived self-interest. The fact that many people will rationalize away their own moral code (or belief system) is not the same as saying that they do not have one, and that they do not have reasons for having one. This is a different discussion.
Yes, nothing makes those things inherently bad. Bad is a perceived opinion or applied lable, which in itself needs a viewpoint, a perspective, to make the assertion. As there is no absolute viewpoint by definition, there is no absolute good or bad.
If there was no man to view a million dollars burning, there would be no one to make the assertion, and thus it would be a neutral entity. Anything is neutral until perspective is given.
To continue, you killing me may be bad from my perspective, but it may very well be good from yours. True, while in today's society general dispositions and adversions will overlap, there is no total ground of objectivity, and thus it's all relative.
Post a Comment