Personal blog that will cover my personal interests. I write about Christian Theology and Apologetics, politics, culture, science, and literature.
Friday, July 23, 2010
YouTube - Tactics in refuting moral relativism
Moral Relativism sickens me because of how silly it is. If people didn't actually think this way it would be funny. But I'll laugh anyway. Thanks, Mariano.
You may not like the idea of moral relativism any more than you like the idea of the sun exploding, but that doesn't mean it's not the case.
Seems to me that Christians get confused and think that “moral relativism” means “an absence of morality”. It just means morals are relative to culture and society, which is demonstrably the case.
As always, you'll need to show evidnece for objective universal morals that transcend humanity before you can proceed.
Ryan, I have never heard a Christian argue that moral relativism is an absence of morality. Moral relativism has no basis, If your morality is relative than why is it wrong to torture puppies or babies? Why do we have the right to go another country and stop genocide? What makes us right and them wrong? That is what you have to answer if you want to embrace moral relativism and be logically consistent.
Marcus, you said you've never heard a Christian argue that moral relativism is an absence of morality, and then you did just that. Too funny.
Let me ask you this, have you ever travelled abroad? Can you find me something we all universally agree is 100% always "wrong" across all cultures and times?
Even the clearest pronouncement of your decalogue, thou shall not kill (or murder if you like, I forget if you are a KJV only nut) has endless caveats, making it, well, relative...
You seem to need a "foundation" to understand morality. Just replace "God" with "Society" and it works the same. I'm sure you'll get hung up on the fact that there are multiple different societies, but hey, it is what it is.
No, Ryan. I did not say that relative morality is an absence of morality. I said that relative morality has no basis. If societies are the basis of morality then what happen when you have multiple societies that disagree? You never answered that. By what right is female circumcision wrong? Why were the Nazis wrong. By what standard do you claim that they were wrong? What makes you right and them wrong...it's it's all relative. As for murder, there are no caveats. Murder is murder. however Killing is not the same thing as murder. Murder is is 100% wrong wherever you go over all time. Societies like the Nazis change the meaning of "murder" to get around the prohibition. Just like our society does to allow abortion.
So why don't we all universally agree on morality? Simple...we need an objective standard. And not everyone agrees as to what that is. The problem isn't that we don't have an objective standard - true no matter what anyone of us thinks or feels at a particular time), the problem is when we live subjectively. If I am strong enough to take everything you have without offending my morals, why am I wrong? What reason are your morals better than mine?
And that seems like justice to you? So if you were a Nazi in 1942 it's "right" to steal property and kill men, women, and children in ovens and gas chambers?
Um no, you're not. But why were they wrong? Are you saying that in the context of their times, place, and circumstances they were right? Are you saying the Allies were wrong to stop them? I don't because they were wrong - undeniably and objectively. I take it you think that is a dodge.
You may not like the idea of moral relativism any more than you like the idea of the sun exploding, but that doesn't mean it's not the case.
ReplyDeleteSeems to me that Christians get confused and think that “moral relativism” means “an absence of morality”. It just means morals are relative to culture and society, which is demonstrably the case.
As always, you'll need to show evidnece for objective universal morals that transcend humanity before you can proceed.
Ryan, I have never heard a Christian argue that moral relativism is an absence of morality. Moral relativism has no basis, If your morality is relative than why is it wrong to torture puppies or babies? Why do we have the right to go another country and stop genocide? What makes us right and them wrong? That is what you have to answer if you want to embrace moral relativism and be logically consistent.
ReplyDeleteMarcus, you said you've never heard a Christian argue that moral relativism is an absence of morality, and then you did just that. Too funny.
ReplyDeleteLet me ask you this, have you ever travelled abroad? Can you find me something we all universally agree is 100% always "wrong" across all cultures and times?
Even the clearest pronouncement of your decalogue, thou shall not kill (or murder if you like, I forget if you are a KJV only nut) has endless caveats, making it, well, relative...
You seem to need a "foundation" to understand morality. Just replace "God" with "Society" and it works the same. I'm sure you'll get hung up on the fact that there are multiple different societies, but hey, it is what it is.
No, Ryan. I did not say that relative morality is an absence of morality. I said that relative morality has no basis. If societies are the basis of morality then what happen when you have multiple societies that disagree? You never answered that. By what right is female circumcision wrong? Why were the Nazis wrong. By what standard do you claim that they were wrong? What makes you right and them wrong...it's it's all relative. As for murder, there are no caveats. Murder is murder. however Killing is not the same thing as murder. Murder is is 100% wrong wherever you go over all time. Societies like the Nazis change the meaning of "murder" to get around the prohibition. Just like our society does to allow abortion.
ReplyDeleteSo why don't we all universally agree on morality? Simple...we need an objective standard. And not everyone agrees as to what that is. The problem isn't that we don't have an objective standard - true no matter what anyone of us thinks or feels at a particular time), the problem is when we live subjectively. If I am strong enough to take everything you have without offending my morals, why am I wrong? What reason are your morals better than mine?
Marcus said "If societies are the basis of morality then what happen when you have multiple societies that disagree?"
ReplyDeleteWars.
What about the other questions? Like who's right in those wars?
ReplyDeleteUsually, which ever side you are born on is the "right" side.
ReplyDeleteAnd that seems like justice to you? So if you were a Nazi in 1942 it's "right" to steal property and kill men, women, and children in ovens and gas chambers?
ReplyDeleteMarcus, in all seriousness, I am not a Nazi in 1942. You may see that as a dodge, but it's really the heart of the matter.
ReplyDeleteUm no, you're not. But why were they wrong? Are you saying that in the context of their times, place, and circumstances they were right? Are you saying the Allies were wrong to stop them? I don't because they were wrong - undeniably and objectively. I take it you think that is a dodge.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes you still failed to answer my questions.
ReplyDelete