Things You Can't Do as a Moral Relativist:
Bonus #8: Stephen Meyer, in the TrueU video series (which is excellent for group study), lists a couple more. Edit: Meyer's number 8 is: Relativists can’t complain about the problem of evil. But his number 2 is: The relativist can't complain about being mistreated.
- Relativists Can’t Accuse Others of Wrong-Doing
- Relativists Can’t Complain About the Problem of Evil
- Relativists Can’t Place Blame or Accept Praise
- Relativists Can’t Claim Anything Is Unfair or Unjust
- Relativists Can’t Improve Their Morality
- Relativists Can’t Hold Meaningful Moral Discussions
- Relativists Can’t Promote the Obligation of Tolerance
As an added bonus, Brian even adds links to further resources. The really interesting thing about this list is that moral relativist still do it anyway and most miss the inconsistency in their own position. Follow the link to read Brian's article.
The Top 7 Things You Can't Do as a Moral Relativist - Apologetics 315
I'm not sure what your point of posting this is. As Chris Gowans (Moral Relativism, SEP, 2008) points out, "Moral relativism has the unusual distinction—both within philosophy and outside it—of being attributed to others, almost always as a criticism, far more often than it is explicitly professed by anyone. "
ReplyDeleteIn other words, in its strict narrow form, there are few since the days of early Marxism who actually adhere to it! (Straw Man?). Some adhere to far more complex versions, or claim that people like Auten here produce a false dichotomy, whereby we should actually have a mixed approach (some moral actions are relative, others not).
Moral philosophy is very complex, such that moral subjectivism can be very different from moral relativism, where we have subjectivism being able to be argued as a realist AND a non-realist approach, where you can be cognitivist or non-cognitivist.
If you look at the Philpapers results, moral relativism doesn't even appear as a question or option in the biggest ever philosophy survey.
If the point was to equate atheists with relativists, then this is sadly inept and naive.
If not, then it is the same as me saying, "You know what, Queen Victoria has died." Well, yeah, over a hundred years ago, what's your point?
Not all atheists are moral relativist. All this is saying is that if you are a moral relativist these are seven things you cannot do and stay consistent to the idealogy you espouse. Are you a moral relativist? I'd guess not because you see to agree with these 8 points just like you'd agree that Queen Victoria died. Did you read both articles?
ReplyDeleteThe point is that moral relativism, in the sense that I think you and the article understand it, is hardly adhered to by anyone.
ReplyDeleteLook, only 27.7% of philosophers adhere to moral anti-realism, of which relativism is just a smaller subsection. In other words, not since the Victorian era of anthropology when we went and discovered people with different moralities and some people said "Ooh, look, morality is neither right nor wrong, just dependent on culture" has relativism been accepted.
It is often lifted up as a hallmark of atheism, but this is a straw man as it is nothing of the sort. Therefore, for an apologetic blog to critique it (assuming they are critiquing the people that hold to it, and thus atheism), they really are building up a straw man.
Utilitarianism and consequentialism are far more representative of secular ethics. As R.M.Hare and many, many others state, ethics only makes sense if it is universalisable, which realativism is not.
As Peter Singer says (Practical Ethics, p 4-6)
ReplyDelete"Let us take first the oft-asserted idea that ethics is relative to the society one happens to live in. This is true in one sense and false in another. It is true that, as we have already seen in discussing consequentialism, actions that are right in one situation because of their good consequences may be wrong in another situation because of their bad consequences. Thus, casual sexual intercourse may be wrong when it leads to the existence of children who cannot be adequately cared for and not wrong when, because of the existence of effective contraception, it does not lead to reproduction at all. This is only a superficial form of relativism. It suggests that a specific principle like ‘Casual sex is wrong’ may be relative to time and place, but it is compatible with such a principle being objectively false when it is stated to apply to all instances of casual sex, no matter what the circumstances. Nor does this form of relativism give us any reason to reject the universal applicability of a more general principle like ‘Do what increases happiness and reduces suffering.’
A more fundamental form of relativism became popular in the nineteenth century when data on the moral beliefs and practices of far-flung societies began pouring in. The knowledge that there were places where sexual relations between unmarried people were regarded as perfectly wholesome brought the seeds of a revolution in sexual attitudes to the strict reign of Victorian prudery. It is not surprising that to some the new knowledge suggested, not merely that the moral code of nineteenth-century Europe was not objectively valid, but that no moral judgment can do more than reflect the customs of the society in which it is made.
Marxists adapted this form of relativism to their own theories. The ruling ideas of each period, they said, are the ideas of its ruling class, and so the morality of a society is relative to its dominant economic class, and thus indirectly relative to its economic basis. This enabled them, they thought, to triumphantly refute the claims of feudal and bourgeois morality to objective, universal validity. Then some Marxists noticed that this raises a problem: if all morality is relative, what is so special about communism? Why side with the proletariat rather than the bourgeoisie?
Friedrich Engels, Marx's co-author, dealt with this problem in the only way possible: by abandoning relativism in favour of the more limited descriptive claim that the morality of a society divided into classes will always reflect the interests of the ruling class. In contrast, the morality of a society without class antagonisms would, Engels wrote, be a ‘really human’ morality. This is no longer normative relativism – that is, relativism about what we ought to do – at all, but Marxism still, in a confused sort of way, provides the impetus for a lot of woolly relativist ideas, often dressed up as ‘postmodernism’.
The problem that led Engels to abandon relativism defeats ordinary ethical relativism as well. Anyone who has thought about a difficult ethical decision knows that being told what our society thinks we ought to do does not settle the quandary. We have to reach our own decision. The beliefs and customs we were brought up with may exercise great influence on us, but once we start to reflect on them, we can decide whether to act in accordance with them or go against them...
"...
ReplyDeleteThe opposite view – that ethics is and can only be relative to a particular society – has most implausible consequences. If our society disapproves of slavery while another society approves of it, this kind of relativism gives us no basis for choosing between these conflicting views. Indeed, on a relativist analysis, there is no conflict – when I say slavery is wrong, I am really only saying that my society disapproves of slavery, and when the slave owners from the other society say that slavery is right, they are only saying that their society approves of it. Why argue? Most likely, we are both speaking the truth.
Worse still, the relativist cannot satisfactorily account for the non-conformist. If ‘slavery is wrong’ means ‘my society disapproves of slavery’, then someone who lives in a society that does not disapprove of slavery is, in claiming that slavery is wrong, making a simple factual error. An opinion poll could demonstrate the error of an ethical judgment. Would-be reformers are therefore in a parlous situation: when they set out to change the ethical views of their fellow citizens, they are necessarily mistaken; it is only when they succeed in winning most of the society over to their own views that those views become right.
These difficulties are enough to sink ethical relativism;"
As mentioned, there are some far more complex versions of relativism which have more merit (eg Harman and Wong). There are also mixed approaches, as well as different definitions within moral relativism (Descriptive, meta-ethical, normative relativism) so one cannot be so dogmatic without really exploring the different versions first. However, in doing so, most philosophers will still opt for some kind of realism, or virtue ethics etc.
So in short, Greg Koukl and Stephen Meyer are saying that moral relativism makes no sense and you agree. You further seem to think that this is equivocation with atheism. It's not. No one said that all atheists are moral relativists. I don't believe that and neither does Koukl or Meyer.
ReplyDeleteI think you over reach when you say that no one today takes this point of view or moral relativism.
Richard Dawkins said that we can't really say that the Nazis were absolutely wrong.
And Peter Singer also said:
"Yes, if that was in the best interests of the baby and of the family as a whole. Many people find this shocking, yet they support a woman's right to have an abortion. One point on which I agree with opponents of abortion is that, from the point of view of ethics rather than the law, there is no sharp distinction between the fetus and the newborn baby."
He thinks there is nothing wrong with killing an unwanted baby after it is born. That seem morally relativistic to me.
Seems like you need to go pull Singer and Dawkins coattails.
Firstly, Dawkins is no philosopher, but I would like to see the exact quote to put it in context and know what he meant.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, the Singer quote goes to show that you don't really understand morality and its different types. Have you read Singer? Or is a quote mine from the internet.
I think you are confusing subsects of morality. Singer seems to be a moral realist, espousing forms of consequentialism, in its narrower guise of utilitarianism.
This is NOT moral relativism. If you had read Singer, you would know this. The previous quote I gave you illustrated that.
Here is another Singer quote from the same source:
"The opposite view – that ethics is and can only be relative to a particular society – has most implausible consequences. If our society disapproves of slavery while another society approves of it, this kind of relativism gives us no basis for choosing between these conflicting views. Indeed, on a relativist analysis, there is no conflict – when I say slavery is wrong, I am really only saying that my society disapproves of slavery, and when the slave owners from the other society say that slavery is right, they are only saying that their society approves of it. Why argue? Most likely, we are both speaking the truth.
Worse still, the relativist cannot satisfactorily account for the non-conformist. If ‘slavery is wrong’ means ‘my society disapproves of slavery’, then someone who lives in a society that does not disapprove of slavery is, in claiming that slavery is wrong, making a simple factual error. An opinion poll could demonstrate the error of an ethical judgment. Would-be reformers are therefore in a parlous situation: when they set out to change the ethical views of their fellow citizens, they are necessarily mistaken; it is only when they succeed in winning most of the society over to their own views that those views become right."
He also, and correctly, differentiates moral subjectivism from moral relativism (see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-anti-realism/moral-subjectivism-versus-relativism.html for ONE way in which they can be different). As mentioned earlier, Singer agrees that relativism does not supply a universalisability, and so cannot be used as an ethical system. There is no universal truth in relativism. Which means he is neither a relativist or moral anti-realist. Utililtarianism is a realist approach since the results of a moral action are empirically testable, and the results reflect a 'truth' or moral fact in the action based on the logic and premises of utilitarianism.
That is what Singer and many other moral philosophers believe.
As mentioned, make sure you really understand relativism as opposed to all other moralities, and make sure you understand what people actually believe, rather than what you think they believe.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, Dawkins is no philosopher, but I would like to see the exact quote to put it in context and know what he meant.
Way to throw a fellow atheist under the bus, Johnny P.
Dawkins is quoted:
“What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question. But whatever [defines morality], it’s not the Bible. If it was, we’d be stoning people for breaking the Sabbath.” source
As for Peter Singer, I think assuming that it's okay to abort an unwanted baby after it's born is abominable but consistent if you think abortion is not killing a human being. Relatively speaking I don't sees a distinction between born and unborn. If you want to make a difference between Relativistic morality and moral subjectism all you want. No dispute there, but functionally I don't think it makes a difference in how you live. Additionally, you seem to agree with me:
1. Not all atheists are moral relativists. And you can't equate them.
2. People can't realistically live it out.
You agree with Greg Koukl. That is a good thing.
The thing that is bothering me however is do you believe that only a trained philosopher is qualified to rationally define and discuss such matters? If so what makes you more qualified than Richard Dawkins?
Firstly, I don't think you realise that there are many philosophers who disagree with Dawkins. They agree with his conclusions, but not some of the way he got there, ie the philosophy he used needs some work. As for throwing him under a bus? Are you serious? Atheists have many different worldviews. Atheism as lack of belief does not dictate morality. As a result, it is actually fallacious to thrown all atheists into the same pot when discussing such worldviews. I have spent many posts criticising Dawkins for not debating Craig, for example. I have no special place for Dawkins just because he is an atheist!
ReplyDeleteI suggest you read a book by a Christian philosopher friend of mine, Peter S. Williams, who wrote "A Skeptical Guide to Atheism" - it is a critical attack on New Atheism, often using sources from within atheism. Although I have written a long critique of this book, he does make some good points.
As far as philosophy goes, you don't need a qualification, though it helps, bu if you are to make pronouncements on philosophy (you and Dawkins) you need to have done the requisite reading and / or studying.
From your comments, and I mean no disrespect here, it is clear that you haven't.
I agree moral relativism is not a coherent moral code. So what? It is clear that atheism is implied in this attack. I suggest this is a straw man because atheists are not relativists on the whole.
Chad Meister, for example, sees Dawkins as arguing objective morality from evolutionary biology.
As wiki says:
"Another argument against relativism posits a Natural Law. Simply put, the physical universe works under basic principles: the "Laws of Nature". Some contend that a natural Moral Law may also exist, for example as argued by Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion (2006)[35] and addressed by C. S. Lewis in "Mere Christianity" (1952).[36] Dawkins said "I think we face an equal but much more sinister challenge from the left, in the shape of cultural relativism - the view that scientific truth is only one kind of truth and it is not to be especially privileged."[37]"
Personally, I think Dawkins is often confused on morality precisely because he hasn't done enough reading.
Firstly, I don't think you realise that there are many philosophers who disagree with Dawkins.
ReplyDeleteThat is where I think you are wrong. I know that many philosophers and intelligent people disagree with Dawkins on a great many things. I apologize for lumping you with those who treat him like some infallible high priest. Good for you that you are not like that, but some people are.
They agree with his conclusions, but not some of the way he got there, ie the philosophy he used needs some work.
Just which conclusions are you referring to?
As for throwing him under a bus? Are you serious? Atheists have many different worldviews. Atheism as lack of belief does not dictate morality. As a result, it is actually fallacious to thrown all atheists into the same pot when discussing such
worldviews.
Yes, I am serious. It seemed like to me like you were saying "obviously Dawkins does not know what he's talking about because he's not a philosopher." If that's not what you are saying then I misunderstood you. But you misunderstand me and Greg Koukl and Brian Auten. Neither one of us tried to lump all atheists into a single worldview.
I have spent many posts criticising Dawkins for not debating Craig, for example. I have no special place for Dawkins just because he is an atheist!
Good for you. But I'm not arguing that you do. And just where are these posts published?
I suggest you read a book by a Christian philosopher friend of mine, Peter S. Williams, who wrote "A Skeptical Guide to Atheism" - it is a critical attack on New Atheism, often using sources from within atheism. Although I have written a long critique of this book, he does make some good points.
I am familiar with Dr Williams' work. I read his blog and have listened to a few of his lectures. I think he's brilliant and you would do well to listen to him. Just where is this "long critique of this book" posted?
As far as philosophy goes, you don't need a qualification, though it helps, bu[t] if you are to make pronouncements on philosophy (you and Dawkins) you need to have done the requisite reading and / or studying.
From your comments, and I mean no disrespect here, it is clear that you haven't.
To be honest from your comments, I'm way more impressed by Peter S Williams than I am by you. I don't think you really know what you are talking about [No offense intended].
I agree moral relativism is not a coherent moral code. So what?
We agree there. Shocking. Why can't you just say Greg Koukl is right on this point and move on?
It is clear that atheism is implied in this attack.
How? Is it because theists do not argue for moral relativism and some atheists do? That's not really true either. I never said or implied that all atheists think that way. I know of quite of few who do not. You are arguing against a position that no one is taking.
I suggest this is a straw man because atheists are not relativists on the whole.
I'd like to see some proof that most atheists are not moral relativists? It doesn't seem that way to me. But of course you can't say that all atheists are moral relativists and have never said such a thing on this post.
Chad Meister, for example, sees Dawkins as arguing objective morality from evolutionary biology.
I'm not sure if that's how I'd characterize Dawkins position.
Personally, I think Dawkins is often confused on morality precisely because he hasn't done enough reading.
I would agree that Dawking is indeed confused on Morality but I don't think reading about it will make him agree with you or lead him to the true. Here is more proof of just how confused he is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ISYvY-AvhJQ
“Just which conclusions are you referring to?”
ReplyDeleteThat the God hypothesis is wrong.
“ It seemed like to me like you were saying "obviously Dawkins does not know what he's talking about because he's not a philosopher."”
Not at all. I am saying, however, that he does make some fairly short-sighted philosophical arguments and criticisms which he would not have done if he was better philosophically read. I have said the same about you, too. I just think people underestimate philosophy and how hard it is to epistemologically establish even the most seemingly obvious of things. I, for one, do not believe in free will. I am a determinist, as are most philosophers (though many in the guise of compatibilists). But to the non-philosopher, free will is a given, an obvious fact of life. It’ rather like believing most matter is solid, even though matter is 99.9999999999999% empty space. Things in life are not what they seem, and it is tough to philosophically establish many things. This is the case for God, morality etc etc. Dawkins, for example, builds a straw man for the ontological argument. Now, he may well be right in his conclusions, but for the wrong philosophical reasons. I’ve got a lot of time for Dawkins and what he has done to the religious landscape – opening up a debate in the States that just wasn’t really there. Many of his arguments are very good. Some, however, are less good, or less well arrived-at.
“Neither one of us tried to lump all atheists into a single worldview.”
Not explicitly, but the only point of posting this on an apologetics website is to attack the opposite (atheist) view. It’s just not an atheist view. Consequentialism, virtue ethics or the many other types of morality would be better debated. Unfortunately for the theist, they are harder to debunk than the theist’s own moral system! Thus my accusation of straw man.
“And just where are these posts published?”
A good number of comments on different atheist websites. I did so several times on DC, for example.
“I am familiar with Dr Williams' work. I read his blog and have listened to a few of his lectures. “
Be careful there, as there are several Peter S. Williams! He is not the one who works for Tyndale House, but for the Damaris Trust. There is no point reading my critique until you have read the <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Sceptics-Guide-Atheism-Unkown/dp/1842276174/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1324134939&sr=8-2”>original book </a>.
If you have, let me know and I will point you towards the critique.
“I don't think you really know what you are talking about.”
Fair enough, it’s just that you have continually not shown this. On morality, and the logic of omniscience, you were unable to show anything like the requisite reading or put forward good enough points.
“Why can't you just say Greg Koukl is right on this point and move on?”
My point was not about his correctness, it was about building a straw man for atheistic morality, and seemingly not admitting that almost all atheists adhere to a different moral system.
“I'd like to see some proof that most atheists are not moral relativists? It doesn't seem that way to me.”
ReplyDeleteAnyone cognisant of the philpapers survey (in philosophy EVERYONE knows it) would know what the majority positions are:
Meta-ethics: moral realism or moral anti-realism?
Accept or lean toward: moral realism 525 / 931 (56.3%)
Accept or lean toward: moral anti-realism 258 / 931 (27.7%)
Other 148 / 931 (15.8%)
Normative ethics: deontology, consequentialism, or virtue ethics?
Other 301 / 931 (32.3%)
Accept or lean toward: deontology 241 / 931 (25.8%)
Accept or lean toward: consequentialism 220 / 931 (23.6%)
Accept or lean toward: virtue ethics 169 / 931 (18.1%)
Moral judgment: cognitivism or non-cognitivism?
Accept or lean toward: cognitivism 612 / 931 (65.7%)
Other 161 / 931 (17.2%)
Accept or lean toward: non-cognitivism
Moral motivation: internalism or externalism?
Other 329 / 931 (35.3%)
Accept or lean toward: internalism 325 / 931 (34.9%)
Accept or lean toward: externalism 277 / 931 (29.7%)
ReplyDeleteThat the God hypothesis is wrong.
That is one conclusion. It seemed like you were bringing up more than one.
Not at all. I am saying, however, that he does make some fairly short-sighted philosophical arguments and criticisms which he would not have done if he was better philosophically read. I have said the same about you, too. I just think people underestimate philosophy and how hard it is to epistemologically establish even the most seemingly obvious of things. I, for one, do not believe in free will. I am a determinist, as are most philosophers (though many in the guise of compatibilists). But to the non-philosopher, free will is a given, an obvious fact of life. It’ rather like believing most matter is solid, even though matter is 99.9999999999999% empty space. Things in life are not what they seem, and it is tough to philosophically establish many things. This is the case for God, morality etc etc. Dawkins, for example, builds a straw man for the ontological argument. Now, he may well be right in his conclusions, but for the wrong philosophical reasons. I’ve got a lot of time for Dawkins and what he has done to the religious landscape – opening up a debate in the States that just wasn’t really there. Many of his arguments are very good. Some, however, are less good, or less well arrived-at.
Dude. That's a lot of verbage to defend a point that I conceded that not all atheist 100% agree with each other. I actually think you are mistaken that as many philosophers agree with you. Free will is not a given to everyone and it certainly not for me. we also agree that Dawkins is wrong about a lot of things.
Not explicitly, but the only point of posting this on an apologetics website is to attack the opposite (atheist) view. It’s just not an atheist view. Consequentialism, virtue ethics or the many other types of morality would be better debated. Unfortunately for the theist, they are harder to debunk than the theist’s own moral system! Thus my accusation of straw man.
You really see things in black and White. You accused me of not "making sure you understand what people actually believe, rather than what you think they believe." Yet THAT is exactly what you have done. I'm not saying that all atheists are moral relativists. And you can't prove that not all atheists are not moral relativists.
A good number of comments on different atheist websites. I did so several times on DC, for example
Links or URLs would help.
Fair enough, it’s just that you have continually not shown this. On morality, and the logic of omniscience, you were unable to show anything like the requisite reading or put forward good enough points.
Just because I reject your premises and conclusions don't mean I don't understand them. That is why I reject them. You however didn't show you understood what I was saying, or even trying to.
My point was not about his correctness, it was about building a straw man for atheistic morality, and seemingly not admitting that almost all atheists adhere to a different moral system.
Um he wasn't talking about all atheists. And never said he was. That should be a given that not all atheists accept the same moral system.
Anyone cognisant of the philpapers survey (in philosophy EVERYONE knows it) would know what the majority positions are:
Aren't you committing the same fallacy: Assuming you know what every atheist philosopher believes? I think you are.
“That's a lot of verbage to defend a point that I conceded that not all atheist 100% agree with each other. I actually think you are mistaken that as many philosophers agree with you.”
ReplyDeleteThe philpapers survey tells us that only 14.6% of philosophers believe in libertarian free will.
“And you can't prove that not all atheists are not moral relativists.”
Er, yes I can. I gave you the percentages. Or, even, the fact that every atheist friend I have is not a relativist. And I am not. Though I am not technically an atheist, but an weighted agnostic
“A good number of comments on different atheist websites. I did so several times on DC, for example
Links or URLs would help.”
I could waste half an hour trawling posts on DC. Just google DC Johnny P William Lane Craig Dawkins or something. They’re there somewhere.
“Just because I reject your premises and conclusions don't mean I don't understand them. That is why I reject them. You however didn't show you understood what I was saying, or even trying to.”
Hmm. I’d let others be the judge of this.
“Um he wasn't talking about all atheists. And never said he was. That should be a given that not all atheists accept the same moral system. “
“Aren't you committing the same fallacy: Assuming you know what every atheist philosopher believes? I think you are.”
Er, no. But I AM giving you the biggest ever survey conducted of professional philosophers so if there is any indication, Marcus, this is it. Anything else is MERE conjecture, rather than evidence and data based.
Let’s look at the orginal article:
“ If you don't think objective moral values exist, Kreeft can teach you about that. But what's the problem with moral relativism? “
So objective morality vs relativism. Again, a false dichotomy. There is, of course, error theory, moral nihilism, subjective (but non-relativistic) morality and depending on your definition of moral realism, many morally universal theories.
The philpapers survey tells us that only 14.6% of philosophers believe in libertarian free will.
ReplyDelete14.6% of what? Every single philosopher alive today? I don't think so. And I agree with you. I reject "liberatarian free will" - so what?
Er, no. But I AM giving you the biggest ever survey conducted of professional philosophers so if there is any indication, Marcus, this is it. Anything else is MERE conjecture, rather than evidence and data based.
I wouldn't make such a bold certain claim about what the majority of philosophers think based on a single survey - was it even worldwide? This seems a lot like conjecture.
So objective morality vs relativism. Again, a false dichotomy. There is, of course, error theory, moral nihilism, subjective (but non-relativistic) morality and depending on your definition of moral realism, many morally universal theories.
Regardless of what you think about moral relativism, there are people who embrace it as a worldview and some of them are both atheists and philosophers. You can't pretend that they don't exist.
I wouldn't make such a bold certain claim about what the majority of philosophers think based on a single survey - was it even worldwide? This seems a lot like conjecture.
ReplyDeleteJohnny; one thing you have to remember about Marcus, I'm sure you are already painfully aware of, is that evidence against his chosen conclusion is simple ignored. You can't prove it exists, even if it's as plain as the nose on your face. Sigh...
I am, indeed, painfully aware. I'm sure all his other readers are too (as they rush willingly to his defence...).
ReplyDeleteAlthough some 200 or so did not specify their country, here are the demographics of the survey:
United States of America
1405
United Kingdom
381
Canada
199
Australia
167
Germany
115
Sweden
49
Italy
42
New Zealand
41
Spain
37
Brazil
32
France
31
China
27
Ireland
26
Netherlands
25
India
23
Mexico
22
Israel
22
Switzerland
21
Hungary
19
Argentina
18
Finland
18
Denmark
18
South Africa
17
Portugal
16
Poland
16
Romania
16
Belgium
16
Norway
13
South Korea
12
Russia
12
Austria
11
Colombia
11
Turkey
10
Greece
10
Iran
9
Croatia
8
Philippines
8
Japan
6
Taiwan
6
Singapore
5
(sigh) Yet again it seems to be me who does the legwork of actually supplying evidence for my points, both in sources and raw data, and not just powder puff opinion.
ReplyDelete@Ryan Anderson
ReplyDeleteJohnny; one thing you have to remember about Marcus, I'm sure you are already painfully aware of, is that evidence against his chosen conclusion is simple ignored. You can't prove it exists, even if it's as plain as the nose on your face. Sigh.
@JohnnyP
I am, indeed, painfully aware. I'm sure all his other readers are too (as they rush willingly to his defence...).
Gentlemen, I'm intrigued how blind you are to your own chosen conclusions. You are so dedicated to them that you are unable to think critically about any contrary evidence. It is really a shame. Why would you just believe that a single survey really tells the whole story? Was every single professional philosopher queried? You can't say that all philosophers agree with you but you can say that the majority of the philosophers who participated in the survey agree with you. That is the truth.
Let's go back to the point of the post. Johnny P agrees that moral relativism is not a consistent or appropriate way to look at the world. We agree. Greg Koukl agrees. But as far as I can tell, Ryan Anderson does not.
Johnny P's contention with this post is that it makes it seems that all atheists are moral relativists but they are not. But the fact of the matter no one in the post made that charge but Johnny P himself. No one said that all Atheists are the same or think the same way but Johnny P seems to think that is what was being said and it was not. Not all theists accept Libertarian Free Will as Johnny P seems to think we do. Yet, he insinuates that I am making charges and accusation against people who don't actually believe what I am saying that they believe and I have not. Yet he has done exactly that. I do not believe that all atheists are moral relativist. I do not think that all atheists have the same worldview outside of rejecting the existence of God. says I do. Where is my apology?
It's interesting that the very first quote in the original Salvo article from which this came said this:
ReplyDelete"Its funny that these are the logical conclusions to morally relativistic philosophical presuppositions to life, but that hardly any moral relativists follow any of these rules at all. In fact, all relativists do is claim things to be unfair/unjust. I think its because a their heart, they aren't really moral relativists. Moral relativists just dont exist. "
My point was this: In order that a salvo against moral relativists makes sense on an apologetics website, then the apologist must think that a good proportion of atheists are relativists. I just pointed out that, according to the stats, and if you just took some time to talk to some, you would find that most are not relativists, and this appears to be a straw man. For example, I could count the moral relativists I know on one hand. One finger, actually.
But as that poster states, you will find that they do actually believe in moral facts. The average relativist, I wager, is pragmatically a moral realist of some regard.
"Not all theists accept Libertarian Free Will as Johnny P seems to think we do. "
Having written a book on this, I am aware, thank you. Calvinists are not backward in coming forward, don't you just know.
"Where is my apology?"
Eh?
My point was this: In order that a salvo against moral relativists makes sense on an apologetics website, then the apologist must think that a good proportion of atheists are relativists.
ReplyDeleteReally consider this statement. Now explain why that is true? Do you really think that must be true and that is not just a presupposition you are making and I am not? How would you even begin to prove that this is true, rather than just stating that it's your unfounded opinion.
I just pointed out that, according to the stats, and if you just took some time to talk to some, you would find that most are not relativists, and this appears to be a straw man.
I have talked to several people who claim to be moral relativist. Johnny P, are you really asserting that every atheist you know or talked is not a moral relativst? Or are you saying that most (except one) philosopher is a moral relativist? The point of the post is not that moral relativists by necessity are atheists. Neither I nor any of the people quoted in the post said that. You seem unable to understand that I am not saying that all atheists are moral relativists and refuse to be corrected when I tell you what I believe. You insist in telling me what I believe.
But as that poster states, you will find that they do actually believe in moral facts. The average relativist, I wager, is pragmatically a moral realist of some regard
And what have I written that contradicts that statement? The point is that although a moral relativist believes in moral facts, he/she has no consistent basis for believing that. We agree,
Having written a book on this, I am aware, thank you. Calvinists are not backward in coming forward, don't you just know.
What is the title? Who published it? When was it published?
You owe me an apology because you keep saying I think that all atheists are moral relativists and refuse to be corrected when I tell you what I believe. You insist in telling me what I believe and I'm not saying anything of the kind.
"Johnny P, are you really asserting that every atheist you know or talked is not a moral relativst? Or are you saying that most (except one) philosopher is a moral relativist?"
ReplyDeleteMore than that. No philosopher, and only one atheist non-philosopher, and that is because she doe snot really understand moral philosophy to the degree she would like.
"You seem unable to understand that I am not saying that all atheists are moral relativists and refuse to be corrected when I tell you what I believe."
No, read my last 2 posts. That should tell you exactly what I said and believed.
"You owe me an apology because you keep saying I think that all atheists are moral relativists and refuse to be corrected when I tell you what I believe. You insist in telling me what I believe and I'm not saying anything of the kind."
I didn't say that you said that. If you read my first 2 posts I was questioning whether you were, and saying IF this is the case, then you are building a straw man. Let me refer you to my conidtional statement: "If the point was to equate atheists with relativists, then this is sadly inept and naive."
You are the king of misrepresentation. I think you owe me an apology for such appalling lack of sophistication.
More than that. No philosopher, and only one atheist non-philosopher, and that is because she doe snot really understand moral philosophy to the degree she would like.
ReplyDeleteYou can't seriously believe that no philosopher is a moral realist. But if you want to believe that...fine. I think we are talking way past one another. We agree that moral relativism is problematic.
No, read my last 2 posts. That should tell you exactly what I said and believed.
I don't think I have misrepresented you I'm saying you are misrepresenting me.
I didn't say that you said that. If you read my first 2 posts I was questioning whether you were, and saying IF this is the case, then you are building a straw man. Let me refer you to my conidtional statement: "If the point was to equate atheists with relativists, then this is sadly inept and naive."
You keep saying:
In order that a salvo against moral relativists makes sense on an apologetics website, then the apologist must think that a good proportion of atheists are relativists.
Therefore you are saying that i am lumping all atheists into the same lump and I am not and i keep telling you I am not. You did say it and have not said "Okay, i understand that you are not saying all atheists are moral relativists." you have not shown that the you understand that the point was not to equate atheists with relativists. That is why you owe me the apology. I have not misrepresented you and these are your own words.
Apologies for confusion. No philosopher I know. Lost in translation.
ReplyDeleteWhat was the title of the book your wrote that you referred to and who published it? When was it published?
ReplyDelete"Therefore you are saying that i am lumping all atheists into the same lump and I am not and i keep telling you I am not. "
ReplyDeleteI am talking about the apologetics website that wrote it.
By philosopher I know, I mean know, not know of.
Oh, and before you spout off about apologies, let us look at how you misrepresent me. This is picked out of the same post:
"Therefore you are saying that i am lumping all atheists into the same lump"
Accusing me of accusing you of lumping all atheists.
"In order that a salvo against moral relativists makes sense on an apologetics website, then the apologist must think that a good proportion of atheists are relativists."
The claim that for the post on another website to make sense, it must be assuming a 'good proportion' of atheists are relativists. And to back my point up, this is what the first poster on that site also assumed. So yes, you have clearly misrepresented me again. It is in your words that I have posted here. Can't argue with that.
The original article, written with Beckwith, makes reference to his book Relativism, which, according to its many critics, is littered with similar straw men.
Now, if we look at the things relativists supposedly can't do, you find this an implicit attack on atheists. Who else professes the Problem of Evil argument?
Now, the authors of the post must think that moral relativism applies to an important enough group that it warrants the post. I have read the post, and most of the links given. That is a lot of effort if they think they are only talking about a small minority. I am arguing that moral relativism is, in fact, a small minority.
The claim that for the post on another website to make sense, it must be assuming a 'good proportion' of atheists are relativists. And to back my point up, this is what the first poster on that site also assumed. So yes, you have clearly misrepresented me again. It is in your words that I have posted here. Can't argue with that.
ReplyDeleteYou can't substantiate that.
The original article, written with Beckwith, makes reference to his book Relativism, which, according to its many critics, is littered with similar straw men.
That don't make it true.
Now, if we look at the things relativists supposedly can't do, you find this an implicit attack on atheists. Who else professes the Problem of Evil argument?
Excuse me. Have you ever read Job? Habbakuk? Anything in the Bible? Luke 13? The Bible is full of answers to the problem of evil. You do know what a "theodicy" is right? It's not the domain of atheists only! I see not reason to see this as an attack on all atheists.
Now, the authors of the post must think that moral relativism applies to an important enough group that it warrants the post.
I sure would like to see you prove that.
I have read the post, and most of the links given. That is a lot of effort if they think they are only talking about a small minority. I am arguing that moral relativism is, in fact, a small minority.
I don't think moral relativists are a small minoriy. Your whole shtick seems to be that there is a small remnant of philosophers who are moral relativists! The article is not just about philosophers. There are people who are moral relativists who are not philosophers. I think that there are many people who hold this mistaken view - even if most of them are not philosophers.
"Now, if we look at the things relativists supposedly can't do, you find this an implicit attack on atheists. Who else professes the Problem of Evil argument?
ReplyDeleteExcuse me. Have you ever read Job? Habbakuk? Anything in the Bible? Luke 13? The Bible is full of answers to the problem of evil. You do know what a "theodicy" is right? It's not the domain of atheists only! I see not reason to see this as an attack on all atheists."
Er, none of whom were relativists. Nice one.
"Now, the authors of the post must think that moral relativism applies to an important enough group that it warrants the post.
I sure would like to see you prove that. "
Eh? Either it refers to a substantial bunch of people and is a meaningful post, or it doesn't, and is rendered irrelevant!!!
That is like writing a post condemning people who believe in Thor!
Er, none of whom were relativists. Nice one.
ReplyDeleteWow, nice to see how easy you can miss a point. The Bible writers dealt with the "problem of evil". And they didn't punt to "relativism" - like Ryan Anderson. Johnny P, Do you have to be a moral relativist or an atheist to discuss the "problem of evil"? Hmm someone forgot to tell the theists over the past 6000 years who have had theodicies to address it.
Eh? Either it refers to a substantial bunch of people and is a meaningful post, or it doesn't, and is rendered irrelevant!!!
Johnny P is wrong. The post is not about atheism. It's about moral relativist. My point was that there are a lot of them out there and it doesn't matter if there are philosophers or not.
Eh? Either it refers to a substantial bunch of people and is a meaningful post, or it doesn't, and is rendered irrelevant!!!
That is like writing a post condemning people who believe in Thor!
Even you must realize that there are substantially more moral relativists than Norse Religion adherents. Would you care to argue that all moral relativists are atheists? I wouldn't.
Jeez, this is painful.
ReplyDelete"Er, none of whom were relativists. Nice one.
Wow, nice to see how easy you can miss a point. The Bible writers dealt with the "problem of evil"."
Only atheists use this argument against theist, to try to defeat their arguments. Job and Ecclesiastes were early attempts at creating theodicies, but they were NOT attempts to debunk God. The point of including the POE in the moral relativist list is to say moral relativiste have no epistemic right to use the POE. In other words, it is equating moral relativists with atheists. Now, it is not saying that all atheists are moral relativists, but it ,ust assume a goodly proportion of them are.
Hardly any of them are, in reality. Even if some claim they are, if you investigate their beliefs, they will have realist tendencies, the sort that are evoked within a relativist framework.
Look, it is fairly obvious the author must think most atheists are relativists. My rather simple point was that they are not, both empirically (the philpapers survey) and anecdotally.
but they were NOT attempts to debunk God.
ReplyDeleteI never said the Bible writers tried to debunk God but they were asking God to explain why there is evil because God is so good. They are answering the Problem of Evil because just like us today they wrestled with the issues. Do you really think that the only use of such issues is to slide into faceplant because it equates to "debunking" God? I don't
In other words, it is equating moral relativists with atheists.
According to your conclusions that you have already reached despite what is actually written on the web site.
Hardly any of them are, in reality. Even if some claim they are, if you investigate their beliefs, they will have realist tendencies, the sort that are evoked within a relativist framework.
Look, it is fairly obvious the author must think most atheists are relativists. My rather simple point was that they are not, both empirically (the philpapers survey) and anecdotally.
There you go again. If a person says that they are moral relativist, you should take them at their word and just know that they don't live it consistently.
"but they were NOT attempts to debunk God.
ReplyDeleteI never said the Bible writers tried to debunk God but they were asking God to explain why there is evil because God is so good. They are answering the Problem of Evil because just like us today they wrestled with the issues. Do you really think that the only use of such issues is to slide into faceplant because it equates to "debunking" God? I don't"
And you accuse me of reading comprehension issues? You need to read the thread again. You totally don't understand the point or the way it was made. Jeez.
"There you go again. If a person says that they are moral relativist, you should take them at their word and just know that they don't live it consistently."
Would you call someone a Christian if they purported to be one, but didn't understand the theology and didn't adhere to the teachings?
I think not. Here endeth the lesson.
"but they were NOT attempts to debunk God.
ReplyDeleteI never said the Bible writers tried to debunk God but they were asking God to explain why there is evil because God is so good. They are answering the Problem of Evil because just like us today they wrestled with the issues. Do you really think that the only use of such issues is to slide into faceplant because it equates to "debunking" God? I don't"
And you accuse me of reading comprehension issues? You need to read the thread again. You totally don't understand the point or the way it was made. Jeez.
"There you go again. If a person says that they are moral relativist, you should take them at their word and just know that they don't live it consistently."
Would you call someone a Christian if they purported to be one, but didn't understand the theology and didn't adhere to the teachings?
I think not. Here endeth the lesson.
And you accuse me of reading comprehension issues? You need to read the thread again. You totally don't understand the point or the way it was made. Jeez.
ReplyDeleteExactly. You do have reading comprehension issues. Recall you are the one who argued that only atheists would bring up the problem of evil. You are the one who argued that all atheists are not moral relativist and yet I keep saying I agree you keep trying to argue that the post is equating moral relativism with racism and there is no reason to make that conclusion other than you want to make that equivocation. Paranoid much?
Would you call someone a Christian if they purported to be one, but didn't understand the theology and didn't adhere to the teachings?
I think not. Here endeth the lesson.
A born-again Christian? No. But a cultural Christian - not Biblical but what western civilization calls a christian? Yes. Someone who was a "christian" and left would fit this second definition. However I think trying to parallel moral relativism with what what it means to be a Christian is not good at all because it makes no sense.
Face facts the reason you are so up and arms about this is because you think Greg Koukl is saying that because you are an atheist you are a moral relativist and even you can see how problematic moral relativism is. He's not saying that you are a moral relativist.