Neon Genesis Posted April 30, 2010 Share Posted April 30, 2010 A common criticism of moral relativism I often hear from Christian absolutists is that if morality is relative, then all morals are merely opinions. Therefore, if morality is all opinions, you have no right to complain about murder because it's just your opinion that murder is wrong. My response to this is so what if morality is all opinions? Even if it is just all opinions, there is such a thing as an informed opinion and an uninformed opinion. For example, if one person has never seen Star Wars but says it all sucks and you shouldn't watch it, and you have another person who has seen Star Wars and loves the movies, who's opinion are you going to trust to be more reliable? They may both be opinions but one is more informed than the other because one has actually seen Star Wars to know what they're talking about. Likewise, if you have someone else who is a diehard sci-fi fan and has seen tons of sci-fi movies beyond Star Wars, their opinion is going to be taken more reliable than a newbie sci-fi fan because they have more experience with the subject. Furthermore, the argument that if something is an opinion, you can't express your outrage about it is something that doesn't happen in reality and it shows that they don't understand how opinions work. Using Star Wars as an example, it may be just their opinion that they love Star Wars, but that doesn't stop dozens of Star Wars fans from cosplaying and attending sci-fi cons and obsessing over merchandise. Likewise, just because it's only their opinion that they hate Episode I, that doesn't stop them from expressing how much they hate Jar-Jar Binks. So, even if morality is all opinions, I don't see why that should automatically mean we should go out and murder people because we still have to back our opinions up with facts and evidence and people express their opinions all the tijme in real life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted April 30, 2010 Share Posted April 30, 2010 Couldn't have said it better myself I would tack on one thing If there is absolute morals like christians claim, then wouldn't, ever culture in the world have similar views, more say christian views on morality. Last time I checked the spartans for example didn't have christian morality. You would wouldn't if we had those absolute morals, that they would be more like what the Christian God would want. At the very least moral ethics would be more similar across cultural bounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted April 30, 2010 Share Posted April 30, 2010 The problem with moral relativism, as I see it, is that it easily gives the impression that morality is arbitrary, but this cannot be the case because nothing is arbitrary. Everything exists within a web of relations to everything else. We can therefore make morality the subject of our study and ask questions such as... What is morality? What does morality entail? What entails morality. And why? There will likely be a multitude of correct answers to these questions, but they won't be arbitrary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted April 30, 2010 Author Share Posted April 30, 2010 That's nihilism, not relativism. Relativism doesn't mean morals are arbitrary. It means morals change within society and are never the same in all societies and times. One example is circumcision in the bible. In the OT, circumcision was considered moral and it was required to circumcise your children. In the NT, circumcision is immoral and it's no longer required. That doesn't mean the morals behind it are arbitrary. It simply means that society's views on circumcision were changing and these passages in the bible represent that evolving morality, contrary to Christians' claims that morals in the bible never change. If morals were absolute, wouldn't the morals about circumcision in the bible be the same in both the OT and the NT? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted April 30, 2010 Share Posted April 30, 2010 Neon, I'm not arguing for absolutes. I think everything is conditional. I guess I'm arguing that moral relativism is, in practice, indistuishable from nihilism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted April 30, 2010 Share Posted April 30, 2010 Neon, I'm not arguing for absolutes. I think everything is conditional. I guess I'm arguing that moral relativism is, in practice, indistuishable from nihilism. For all practical purposes, we have had moral relativism for as long as we have had civilization. Different circumstances prompted the passage if different laws in different places. Dracos versus Hamurrabi versus other places versus us. We have not, however, had arbitrary laws nor do we have nihilism. Conditional = relative. I think you are saying the same thing as Neon, but you don't like the word "relative." It does not mean arbitrary or nihilistic, it means conditional - dependent on the circumstances and conditions. This would also apply to punishments for different crimes as well as whether something is a crime or not. Adultery went from the death penalty to (at worst) an embarrassment while theft remained illegal with lesser (more "targetted") punishments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted April 30, 2010 Share Posted April 30, 2010 Well then, the thing should be changed to "conditional morality". And that normative statement is just my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanta Posted April 30, 2010 Share Posted April 30, 2010 A common criticism of moral relativism I often hear from Christian absolutists is that if morality is relative, then all morals are merely opinions. Therefore, if morality is all opinions, you have no right to complain about murder because it's just your opinion that murder is wrong. Yeah, well, if morality is actually relative, and there is no God, then it's all opinions all the way back in time until now. All. Including Biblical bigotry, murder and wrath-- all human creations projected by humans unwilling to own their creation onto an outside "mysterious" and "perfect" entity. Talk about a lack of accountability. Talk about irresponsibility. Talk about cowardice. None of that is good for the world and the human collective. Not one bit. Phanta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The-Captain Posted April 30, 2010 Share Posted April 30, 2010 Well then, the thing should be changed to "conditional morality". And that normative statement is just my opinion. It would certainly be more descriptive. But then we would have less to argue with theists about Yeah, well, if morality is actually relative, and there is no God, then it's all opinions all the way back in time until now. All. Only if there were in fact no real ramifications to an action. There are effects to judge by and set standards, just not any contained in the head of an outside being as near as I can tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skepticalme Posted May 1, 2010 Share Posted May 1, 2010 A common criticism of moral relativism I often hear from Christian absolutists is that if morality is relative, then all morals are merely opinions. Therefore, if morality is all opinions, you have no right to complain about murder because it's just your opinion that murder is wrong. Murder is, by definition, the wrongful killing of another person so murder is always wrong. What IS subject to opinion is "What constitutes murder?" A century and a half ago a duel to the death was considered a moral civilized, even gentlemanly, way of settling disputes. Now it is considered murder. Capital punishment is an example of killing that is in transition between being moral and immoral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancey Posted May 1, 2010 Share Posted May 1, 2010 Morality never seems to be exactly objective- and does change with time. to think that a book written 2,000+ years ago constitutes the same morals of the average person today is wrong. Several centuries ago, it did not matter if the average child was sold into sex slavery; the moral outlook on the innocence of children has changed with the understanding of how a child thinks (a result of scientific advancement) and how that child will grow up after traumatic events. Children used to be tried as adults in court, but now we also realize that a child's brain is undeveloped and growing, and it's not always necessarily that they understand what they were doing if they stole or committed some petty crime. Punishment differs between a child and adult now. Several centuries ago, slavery was very much the norm- it existed throughout Europe during the middle-ages and in America until the Civil War. We now consider it wrong to enslave another being- the moral norm has shifted. Morality does indeed shift over time- what may have been acceptable a long time ago is not today. In fact, I'd say the average person today is more morally good than a person 1,000 years ago. It's likely because a change in communication, policing, government, and science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.W. Posted May 24, 2010 Share Posted May 24, 2010 A common criticism of moral relativism I often hear from Christian absolutists is that if morality is relative, then all morals are merely opinions. Therefore, if morality is all opinions, you have no right to complain about murder because it's just your opinion that murder is wrong. My response to this is so what if morality is all opinions? Even if it is just all opinions, there is such a thing as an informed opinion and an uninformed opinion. For example, if one person has never seen Star Wars but says it all sucks and you shouldn't watch it, and you have another person who has seen Star Wars and loves the movies, who's opinion are you going to trust to be more reliable? They may both be opinions but one is more informed than the other because one has actually seen Star Wars to know what they're talking about. Likewise, if you have someone else who is a diehard sci-fi fan and has seen tons of sci-fi movies beyond Star Wars, their opinion is going to be taken more reliable than a newbie sci-fi fan because they have more experience with the subject. Furthermore, the argument that if something is an opinion, you can't express your outrage about it is something that doesn't happen in reality and it shows that they don't understand how opinions work. Using Star Wars as an example, it may be just their opinion that they love Star Wars, but that doesn't stop dozens of Star Wars fans from cosplaying and attending sci-fi cons and obsessing over merchandise. Likewise, just because it's only their opinion that they hate Episode I, that doesn't stop them from expressing how much they hate Jar-Jar Binks. So, even if morality is all opinions, I don't see why that should automatically mean we should go out and murder people because we still have to back our opinions up with facts and evidence and people express their opinions all the tijme in real life. I think the only way to do it is to side step right and wrong. They will run circles around you. Go with consequences- the self evident- and social contract. Survival after all usually rewards life promoting with pleasure and life destroying with pain. Life destroying should be avoided. With killing the consequences are severe and can not be undone therefore it should not be avoided and requires justification. You also may want to trap them by asking a series of questions. Is killing wrong? yes. So if someone broke in your house and wanted to rape your wife? No, well I mean you can kill in self defense. I thought you said killing was wrong? It is. But you just promoted it.. Thats different.. No its not. If the ACT of killing is wrong than it is not justified in any circumstance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lunaticheathen Posted May 28, 2010 Share Posted May 28, 2010 A common criticism of moral relativism I often hear from Christian absolutists is that if morality is relative, then all morals are merely opinions. Therefore, if morality is all opinions, you have no right to complain about murder because it's just your opinion that murder is wrong. Murder is, by definition, the wrongful killing of another person so murder is always wrong. What IS subject to opinion is "What constitutes murder?" A century and a half ago a duel to the death was considered a moral civilized, even gentlemanly, way of settling disputes. Now it is considered murder. Capital punishment is an example of killing that is in transition between being moral and immoral. This. This is why all arguments (mostly from christians) that go against relative (or conditional, if you prefer) morality piss me off, they pull out the "murder is ALWAYS wrong, neener, my god is real!" No, the fucking DEFINITION of murder says it's wrong, you retard. How about what IS murder? I also find it amusing that most "pro-lifers" are for the death penalty. How do they get away with that logic? "Killing is wrong!" No shit. I suppose an argument could be made for the "innocence" of the fetus, but then they'd have to admit that some killing isn't murder. So the whole commandment to not kill isn't absolute. Oops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts