In a nutshell, you hold two conflicting beliefs:
One, that morality is relative.
Two, that it is not. Because you are not able to admit without using qualifying words like “sick” that the act of raping a baby is ever okay.
Get back to me when you can devise a situation where the act of raping a baby is okay.
Until then, you are a flaming moral absolutist, just as I am.
And I didn’t know the difference between sex and gender? Says the guy who tried further up the page to imply that “arrogance” is some kind of moral transgression.
Forgive me for not taking you very seriously sometimes.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]batman730 wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]batman730 wrote:
DB,
Regarding equating humility with weakness and subserviance: I completely disagree. Humility is extremely useful. It’s an effective inoculation against overconfidence and complacency, both of which can get you killed both literally and figuratively. Humility allows you to see your where your weaknesses lie, own them and begin to work on them without needing to wrestle with your ego. It allows you to be realistic with yourself because were all flawed and fallible. If pride makes you blind to this, you will be less effective in your life. Nemisis follows hubris and all. That’s not a human construct, it’s a description of a natural process at work that would happen whether or not one believed it would. In fact, it usually DOES happen to people who don’t believe it does.
The harder you push your limits the more likely you are to be exposed to people who are more talented than you, to have failures, setbacks and other “humbling” experiences. If those experiences don’t teach you that you are not perfect, invincible or even that big a deal then you are just not that bright IMO. Some of the most capable, competent people you will ever meet will often be the most humble, especially if their area of competency involves significant physical risk where overestimating your capabilities can have disastrous consequences.
Humility has the added benefit of causing you to tend to under-promise and over-deliver which I find to be extremely useful both in professional and personal settings. The guy who thinks he’s awesome and talks a great game will always come up short more often because reality doesn’t care how great you think you are. This is true so often that in my experience the more a guy talks himself up, the less I actually expect him to accomplish and I am rarely disappointed.
I don’t think humility is an artificial construct thrust upon us by our theoretical “betters” so much as it is the logical and intelligent conclusion to any honest self-assessment.[/quote]
All you’ve done is explain why humility is a virtue when it is in our best interests. Sure, humility is a virtue when it is good for me. Again, master morality.[/quote]
Most commonly held virtues also happen good for us, IMO just as most vices are self-injurious. I find this to be unsurprising.
Integrity/Fortitude is good for us because it allows us and those around us to trust ourselves to see things through in the face of adversity and hold true to our values and beliefs.
Wisdom is good for us because it helps us to understand the world and our place in it. It also helps us do fewer dumb things.
Fairness is good for us because human beings are wired with an innate sense of justice and equity. Whether this is a result of the design of a Creator or just a random fluke of evolution is irrelevant. If we treat others unjustly, it will cause us problems.
Temperance is good for us because it prevents us from destroying ourselves with our own excesses. Again, whether some Higher Power wills it or not, it’s a good idea.
Self-sacrifice is good for us because we need others in our lives, both for practical and mental health reasons. Altruism provides a tremendous survival benefit for us as a species and pays us emotional and personal dividends.
So whether or not there is any absolute morality, it is generally to our benefit to behave as though there was, so who cares? Having a code allows us to make the right (or more advantageous in the long term if you prefer) when our impulses in the moment may run in another direction. A very similar code will be applicable to 99.99999% of people as similar consequences will flow from similar actions. It may not be absolute morality, but it’s close enough to make no practical difference.
[/quote]
I disagree with virtually everything you’ve put forth here. Unfortunately, I don’t have time to address any of this in detail since it’s my favorite day of the week (snatch-grip high pull day) and it’s time to hit the gym. I’ll go into detail about why I disagree later.[/quote]
Sorry for the delay in responding.
I don’t think it’s a coincidence at all that most commonly-held virtues are also good for us. I don’t know what vices has to do with any of this. Regardless, my point is only strengthened by your argument here. What is moral is what is good for us, perhaps not collectively, but on an individual basis. I make my own morality because I deem what is good for me to be moral.
“Fairness is good for us because human beings are wired with an innate sense of justice and equity”
I don’t know what to say about this one. I suppose you’re the neurological expert if you know how we’re “wired”. An innate sense of justice and equity? If we’re all wired with a sense of equity, then why do we spend so much time trying to avoid equitable circumstances? How often do we REALLY seek equity in our lives, especially if it means less for yourself so that others may have more? How often do we REALLY seek justice if it comes at our own expense? If we were wired this way, all of us, the world would not be what it is today. I think the fact that we have these massively detailed systems of law and government pretty much destroys any argument that we are wired with a sense of equity and justice. Either that or, despite our atavistic sense of those virtues, we ignore them on a regular basis.
I agree that we cannot live outside of society and that interaction with others is good for us. But you’re really starting to make my point for me with all these virtues you’re listing off. Of course self-sacrifice, temperance, fairness and so forth are virtues. You’ve said yourself now on several occasions that they are virtues and that they are good for us. THAT is what makes them virtuous, in my opinion. How often do we pursue these virtues at our own expense? If the fair thing to do is not good for me and so I do not act fairly, is this immoral? And if it IS immoral, doesn’t that mean that acting in one’s own self-interest rather than out of purely altruistic reasons is immoral as well? And if acting out of self-interest is immoral, and it can be agreed upon that disregarding self-interest is damaging to one’s life, does this “morality” eventually celebrate death and not life?
I think your logic necessarily leads to a celebration of death, or other less drastic results regarding our lives, rather than life. Without life, there is no morality. Morality did not exist on this planet before humans came along. Was it immoral for a dinosaur to prey on smaller, weaker dinosaurs in order to eat and survive?
Also, let’s dispense with the whole altruism-as-a-virtue thing. Altruism doesn’t exist, and it certainly doesn’t exist when we do “altruistic” things out of self-preservation. That isn’t what altruism is about.[/quote]
I don’t really see the practical value of the distinction you are trying to draw between “good” and “good for us”. Virtuous behaviour tends to benefit both ourselves, others and society as a whole. We, as individuals don’t have the power to determine that X is good for us and therefore “good” if it is in fact not. Enter the baby rape example. I reserve the right to deprive baby raper of his liberty to do what he deems “good” and am absolutely justified/right in doing so. What sane person could argue otherwise without turning it into some pointless intellectual exercise?
Nope, not a neurological expert. Just seems to me that people, without being taught, have an inherent desire to seek justice. In grade school when I would see a big kid picking on a little kid on the school yard it would piss me off even if I had no personal interest in the kid being picked on. As I got older it would piss me off enough that I would actually stick my nose in occasionally, even if it was contrary to my self interest. Much of our cultural mythology is based around this concept because it has inherent emotional resonance for us, not the other way around.
It seems to me that the fact “that we have these massively detailed systems of law and government” (however misguided they may be at times) would indicate that we, as a species, are very much concerned with equity, peace, justice, civil order etc otherwise, why would we bother going to all the effort to promote and preserve them? These systems are intended to protect the vast majority of us who would voluntarily live justly and peaceably with our neighbours from the few who would not. They exist as a (flawed) attempt to express our desire for equity and justice, not as an artificial imposition of those values from without.
Speaking for myself, I try to be fair and ethical in all my dealings, even if it’s not to my immediate advantage and sometimes very much to my detriment. Even if I “can” bill someone more for a job than it’s really worth I won’t do it and if someone really needs a break I’ll try to give it to them, just as others have given me breaks at times when I needed them. If I catch myself in a self-serving lie, I’ll go back and set the record straight, even if there’s nothing to gain but embarrassment. Not patting myself on the back at all, just a fact. Justice is good, regardless of whether it’s good for me in the moment or not. What I gain is the ability to sleep nights and look myself in face and like what I see, so maybe it is self serving in the end…
Comparing humans to dinosaurs or bears or whatever is not analogous. We are possessed of the faculties of reason and choice. The animals are at the mercy of instinct and necessity so no morality can be attached to their actions. Whether morality can be applied to non-human creatures has no bearing on a discussion between humans about human conduct. We can find ways to prosper without preying on our fellow man, so it is immoral to do so. When we lie, cheat and harm others, we harm ourselves. It’s inescapable regardless of whether you believe in it. This may be a little kindergarten for an educated guy like you, but there it is.
Regarding altruism: the word itself is admittedly problematic. If someone does something that benefits another (i.e. volunteers with disadvantaged kids or seeks to return found property to it’s owner) with no expectation of reward beyond the intrinsic sense of happiness they gain from the act itself, that is close enough to being altruistic for the purpose of discussion IMO. Society as a whole benefits from acts of kindness and generosity that bring no direct reward to the doer of the deed. We each in turn benefit from living in a stronger, more harmonious society. This does not, however, reduce kindness to self-preservation.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Natural law, such as the laws of science, are about as absolute as it gets. The laws of gravity, for instance, always exist. Those laws existed long before humans discovered them. They aren’t a human construct. The existence of the solar system and the gravitational fields of the planets within it prove as much. The same cannot be said about morality.
[/quote]
So you say.
And yet, somehow, we all know, and all societies have always known, that bearing false witness, cheating, stealing, backstabbing, and robbing others of their rights are evils.
You can even say this about state institutionalized evils, such as slavery, or the genocide of the Tutsi “cockroaches” or the Jews. In every case, that group being disenfranchised or murdered was first systematically dehumanized, because we, as humans, KNOW, INHERENTLY, that to do things kinds of things to other humans is evil.
If anything, the onus is upon you, DB, to provide evidence that morality is a human construct. Because in every instance that I can possibly come up with, it is a LAW that has been discovered, not constructed.
If what you were saying were really true, then why do we see such across the board homogeneity of thought among every major society that has ever been? Why then do we not see different constructions? Ever.
All of the great stories, for as long as we have told stories, have featured a strong, courageous, brave, righteous, usually virtuous, stolid hero, and an opposite enemy for him to defeat. We unanimously root for the good guy and against the bad guy. Why do we not see some societies do the opposite, and celebrate the murderous, lying, backstabbing, conniving, turncoat? Ever.
Well, because these virtues are UNIVERSAL. That’s why.
And in case it’s not clear, universal is another word for absolute.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
And I didn’t know the difference between sex and gender? Says the guy who tried further up the page to imply that “arrogance” is some kind of moral transgression.
Forgive me for not taking you very seriously sometimes. [/quote]
I tried no such thing and you know it.
I don’t think you understand my argument at all, and it’s not for lack of clarity. There is morality that exists. It is different for everyone. The idea of morality exists. It cannot exist without humans to quantify it, however, and therefore it is not absolute. Absolute implies that it ALWAYS exists and always WILL exist, regardless of human life. My argument is that morality will not exist when humans do not exist.
For morality to be a “law” that always exists no matter what, it must be applicable beyond humans, or else it requires humans to exist and cannot be absolute. Name one thing other than humans that morality exists for. Do animals have systems of morality? Do inert objects have morality?
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
My argument is that morality will not exist when humans do not exist.
[/quote]
Why does this matter?
I’ve never understood philosophy. It always ends up seeming like a waste of time.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
And I didn’t know the difference between sex and gender? Says the guy who tried further up the page to imply that “arrogance” is some kind of moral transgression.
Forgive me for not taking you very seriously sometimes. [/quote]
I tried no such thing and you know it.
I don’t think you understand my argument at all, and it’s not for lack of clarity. There is morality that exists. It is different for everyone. The idea of morality exists. It cannot exist without humans to quantify it, however, and therefore it is not absolute. Absolute implies that it ALWAYS exists and always WILL exist, regardless of human life. My argument is that morality will not exist when humans do not exist.
For morality to be a “law” that always exists no matter what, it must be applicable beyond humans, or else it requires humans to exist and cannot be absolute. Name one thing other than humans that morality exists for. Do animals have systems of morality? Do inert objects have morality?[/quote]
How come I have to answer a rapidfire gunburst of your questions while you ignore everything I say?
[quote]csulli wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
My argument is that morality will not exist when humans do not exist.
[/quote]
Why does this matter?
I’ve never understood philosophy. It always ends up seeming like a waste of time.[/quote]
You know what, I kinda wish I’d just said this instead of typing out all that crap I did last night when I should have been sleeping.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
And I didn’t know the difference between sex and gender? Says the guy who tried further up the page to imply that “arrogance” is some kind of moral transgression.
Forgive me for not taking you very seriously sometimes. [/quote]
I tried no such thing and you know it.
I don’t think you understand my argument at all, and it’s not for lack of clarity. There is morality that exists. It is different for everyone. The idea of morality exists. It cannot exist without humans to quantify it, however, and therefore it is not absolute. Absolute implies that it ALWAYS exists and always WILL exist, regardless of human life. My argument is that morality will not exist when humans do not exist.
For morality to be a “law” that always exists no matter what, it must be applicable beyond humans, or else it requires humans to exist and cannot be absolute. Name one thing other than humans that morality exists for. Do animals have systems of morality? Do inert objects have morality?[/quote]
I don’t feel I have too much trouble with reading comprehension when I’m reading the words of somebody who knows how to write, so maybe you can explain to me how you are NOT implying arrogance can be somehow moral or immoral. That something is good or bad is not the same as its being moral or immoral.
[quote]DB Cooper wrote:
Your later post about arrogance essentially proves this point. Sometimes arrogance is good, sometimes it is not. It can be moral or immoral, but it depends on US as humans to be one or the other. It is not absolutely moral or immoral. [/quote]
*edited for clarity
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Morality is in the eye of the beholder.
[/quote]
No it is not. The reason it is not is because it requires you to be able to hypothetically, at least, justify even the most horrific acts. And simply because you like them, does not mean that you did not cause grievous harm to somebody else. Morality is a social problem, not an individual one. You cannot harm somebody and say, “Well it’s cool with me.” That’s not how morality works. Such mindsets lead to the most depraved behaviour imagined and some that are unintelligible.
Moral relativism is the great fallacy that won’t die. And fallacy means it’s false. I can only imagine that it’s championed by people looking to justify their own depravity and supported by people who don’t understand metaphysics very well.
This does not mean there are not man made rules that people have adopted as morality when it fact it’s just man made rules. But the fact that some people make up stuff does not snuff out the fact the morality at it’s core is fixed, unalterable, eternal and concrete.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
@Pat and Cortes:
You guys both argue that moral relativism is a myth, meaning that morality is definite and absolute instead. I know that you guys are Christians, and I assume this is the source of what you hold up as absolute morality. Tell me something. How do reconcile “thou shalt not kill” with the right to self-defense? How do you reconcile “thou shalt not kill” with your support of war, any war? Have you ever told a lie in your professional lives that was in pursuance of something good for you, your company, your paycheck, your earning potential, etc? How do reconcile that with “thou shalt not lie”? Has there ever been a time where you knew without a doubt that lying in a particular scenario was not bad at all, not immoral in that specific setting?[/quote]
You assume too much. The argument is a philosophical one, not religious. The fact that our perspective faiths compel us to act morally is not withstanding to morality itself. Morality is it’s own entity. Now we could discuss the moral argument for the existence of God, but that’s not really the scope of this conversation. The argument is for the existence of morality.
Morality is rooted in ‘Good’ and ‘Evil’, good and evil are entities attained by the affects of will and intent.
Moral relativism necessarily posits that there is no good or evil, there is just behaviour and all behaviour therefore has no moral consequence if morality is relative.
[quote]pat wrote:
This does not mean there are not man made rules that people have adopted as morality when it fact it’s just man made rules. But the fact that some people make up stuff does not snuff out the fact the morality at it’s core is fixed, unalterable, eternal and concrete.[/quote]
This speaks to the core of the matter: The source of your morality- God.
Other people do not use God or some other concept of a higher external being as the axiom of their morality, therefore their morality is somewhat more plastic.
I know that neither you of Cortes are shy about expressing your beliefs, so why the dancing around the source of your morality?
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
@ Pat:
I know that you support some sort of military intervention in Syria. How do you hold those views and still claim to be a Christian man who ultimately must look to the Bible as the manuscript for what is moral and immoral? Intervention in Syria would lead to death and people being killed by the U.S. Armed Forces. How do believe in what the Ten Commandments say and then support such intervention? The Ten Commandments do not say “thou shalt not kill” and then go on to list all the possible exceptions to that rule. It does not say it is alright to kill a thousand to save ten thousand, either. But I doubt that you would argue that any and all forms of killing people are inherently immoral. Was it immoral to kill Osama bin Laden? Would it have been immoral to kill Hitler? Who decides when killing DOES become moral?[/quote]
This is good Ethics 101 stuff.
Now my statements about Syria were very specific in what I believe the goal is. So it’s not correct to say I want to intervene in Syria to kill a whole bunch of people for a desired result. My belief in that situation is we want to reduce casualties and leave the Syrians, the ME as a whole and the U.S. in a better situation than before the revolt started. The Syrian situation is a complicated one and there are thousands of micro-ethical issues riddled throughout the larger problem as whole. There is no conflict morally or religiously based on the perspective I am taking on the situation. My goal is to reduce the length of the conflict, reduce the amount of casualties, and improve the situation for the people there and everywhere else as a whole.
Bloodshed is a foregone conclusion. There have been thousands of casualties already and the situation as it stands without any intervention from anybody is destined for a great deal more bloodshed and overall suffering. My stance on it, is with the interest of reducing all of that in as much as it can be done. Based on the facts I know at the moment, getting Assad the hell out of there ASAP and helping the Syrians rebuild their country is the fastest way to stop the attrocities and begin the healing. I don’t know all the facts and maybe I am wrong, but based on what I know, there is no ethical conflict for me. I want a mutually beneficial result as quickly as possible.
In a morally relative world, none of this matters. Murder? So what it seems good to me. Chemical attacks, who cares it didn’t hit me. And that’s where relativism fails. What Assad did and is doing to his own folks is fine with him, so there is no moral conflict. Suffering or causing others to suffer means nothing in a relativist world.
Different ethical principles apply the Syrian situation, which is also, within the larger ethical scope of Utilitarianism, there are thousands of micro-ethical ‘Golden rule’ issues riddled throughout. But the focus needs to be, right now doing to most good that can be done from a terrible situation.
As far as killing people. People have the right to defend themselves and others. If that requires the other person to be killed that would be a morally neutral act. As your will and intent isn’t/ wasn’t to take a life, but faced in a situation where you could die, or others could die, it’s incumbant upon you to protect yourself and others.
Killing violent murderers is a morally neutral act if not killing them will result in the harm and death of many. It’s neutral because it’s not good to kill, but if you have no choice then you have to do what needs to be done.
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
This does not mean there are not man made rules that people have adopted as morality when it fact it’s just man made rules. But the fact that some people make up stuff does not snuff out the fact the morality at it’s core is fixed, unalterable, eternal and concrete.[/quote]
This speaks to the core of the matter: The source of your morality- God.
Other people do not use God or some other concept of a higher external being as the axiom of their morality, therefore their morality is somewhat more plastic.
I know that neither you of Cortes are shy about expressing your beliefs, so why the dancing around the source of your morality?
[/quote]
Again you assume too much. We’re talking about the existence of morality, not God. Morality can be argued to exist without the need to invoke God. While morality can be argued to be sourced from God, it’s not necessary to invoke God to prove morality exists.
Even if you do not believe in God, it does not excuse you from acting morally. You cannot do harm because you feel like it.
The inherent flaw to relativism is being able to justify horrific acts because relatively speaking, it doesn’t bother somebody.
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
This does not mean there are not man made rules that people have adopted as morality when it fact it’s just man made rules. But the fact that some people make up stuff does not snuff out the fact the morality at it’s core is fixed, unalterable, eternal and concrete.[/quote]
This speaks to the core of the matter: The source of your morality- God.
Other people do not use God or some other concept of a higher external being as the axiom of their morality, therefore their morality is somewhat more plastic.
I know that neither you of Cortes are shy about expressing your beliefs, so why the dancing around the source of your morality?
[/quote]
Just as it is possible to show evidence of a Prime Mover without just saying “God did it,” it is possible to show evidence of an absolute morality without just saying, “God did it.”
I don’t think this is what you have in mind, Skyz, but to give you what you and DB are asking for is a lose-lose for us. Those on the other side of the argument would just turn it back around on us and say, “Well see now, there IS no God, therefore your entire argument is invalid.”
If I’m arguing with religious folk, I’ll bring the religious arguments. What’s the point of bringing them to people who see them as fairy tales? That’d be like your dad trying to bond with you and asking if everything is “groovy.”
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
This does not mean there are not man made rules that people have adopted as morality when it fact it’s just man made rules. But the fact that some people make up stuff does not snuff out the fact the morality at it’s core is fixed, unalterable, eternal and concrete.[/quote]
This speaks to the core of the matter: The source of your morality- God.
Other people do not use God or some other concept of a higher external being as the axiom of their morality, therefore their morality is somewhat more plastic.
I know that neither you of Cortes are shy about expressing your beliefs, so why the dancing around the source of your morality?
[/quote]
Just as it is possible to show evidence of a Prime Mover without just saying “God did it,” it is possible to show evidence of an absolute morality without just saying, “God did it.”
I don’t think this is what you have in mind, Skyz, but to give you what you and DB are asking for is a lose-lose for us. Those on the other side of the argument would just turn it back around on us and say, “Well see now, there IS no God, therefore your entire argument is invalid.”
If I’m arguing with religious folk, I’ll bring the religious arguments. What’s the point of bringing them to people who see them as fairy tales? That’d be like your dad trying to bond with you and asking if everything is “groovy.”[/quote]
I think I understand what you’re saying. The thing is, when you boil it down to the essence or source of morality, belief in a higher power or lack there of is what determines which way someone goes with regard to absolute or relative morality.
When morality is based on social norms and those norms change, so goes the morality. Same with people who are a disciple of their own philosophy- They feel differently than before, so goes their morality. It is only when there is something greater than that person or society that is the axiom about which a morality or philosophy can be constructed that you can have an absolute morality.
IMHO… 
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
This does not mean there are not man made rules that people have adopted as morality when it fact it’s just man made rules. But the fact that some people make up stuff does not snuff out the fact the morality at it’s core is fixed, unalterable, eternal and concrete.[/quote]
This speaks to the core of the matter: The source of your morality- God.
Other people do not use God or some other concept of a higher external being as the axiom of their morality, therefore their morality is somewhat more plastic.
I know that neither you of Cortes are shy about expressing your beliefs, so why the dancing around the source of your morality?
[/quote]
Again you assume too much. We’re talking about the existence of morality, not God. Morality can be argued to exist without the need to invoke God. While morality can be argued to be sourced from God, it’s not necessary to invoke God to prove morality exists.
Even if you do not believe in God, it does not excuse you from acting morally. You cannot do harm because you feel like it.
The inherent flaw to relativism is being able to justify horrific acts because relatively speaking, it doesn’t bother somebody.[/quote]
You can prove that morality exists by being a moral person, regardless of the belief which that morality stems from. The difference is in what is thought to be moral.
But trying to build one without a starting point or foundation, like God, a given society, or some core belief is like trying to build a sky scraper from the top down.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Time, dude. I’m prioritizing right now. This thread is not at the top of the list.
You know me well enough to know I don’t shy from an argument. Come on.
And nice try with the “I won the gender thread,” line. [/quote]
I never said I “won” the gender thread. Is that how you look at discussions, as something to win? Since no one likes to lose I assume that means if you find yourself agreeing with me when you originally did not then you must have “lost”. Under those circumstances I can’t imagine it’s even possible for you to look at my argument from anything close to an objective standpoint, since doing so would risk “losing”.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
@Pat and Cortes:
You guys both argue that moral relativism is a myth, meaning that morality is definite and absolute instead. I know that you guys are Christians, and I assume this is the source of what you hold up as absolute morality. Tell me something. How do reconcile “thou shalt not kill” with the right to self-defense? How do you reconcile “thou shalt not kill” with your support of war, any war? Have you ever told a lie in your professional lives that was in pursuance of something good for you, your company, your paycheck, your earning potential, etc? How do reconcile that with “thou shalt not lie”? Has there ever been a time where you knew without a doubt that lying in a particular scenario was not bad at all, not immoral in that specific setting?[/quote]
You assume too much. The argument is a philosophical one, not religious. The fact that our perspective faiths compel us to act morally is not withstanding to morality itself. Morality is it’s own entity. Now we could discuss the moral argument for the existence of God, but that’s not really the scope of this conversation. The argument is for the existence of morality.
Morality is rooted in ‘Good’ and ‘Evil’, good and evil are entities attained by the affects of will and intent.
Moral relativism necessarily posits that there is no good or evil, there is just behaviour and all behaviour therefore has no moral consequence if morality is relative.[/quote]
Morality is rooted in Good and Evil, yet another human construct. What is “good” is what is good for me, or, in a democratic society like ours, what is good for the collective whole more than the individual. What is “evil” is what is not good for me. There is no absolute Good and Evil. It’s all relative. What is good to me may be evil for someone else and vice versa. Even an otherwise justifiable act can be evil to many people. Executing a murderer may seem good to most people, and completely within the boundaries of justice, but it may be entirely evil to opponents of capital punishment or the murderer’s family or anyone else who believes in forgiveness over revenge.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Morality is in the eye of the beholder.
[/quote]
No it is not. The reason it is not is because it requires you to be able to hypothetically, at least, justify even the most horrific acts. And simply because you like them, does not mean that you did not cause grievous harm to somebody else. Morality is a social problem, not an individual one. You cannot harm somebody and say, “Well it’s cool with me.” That’s not how morality works. Such mindsets lead to the most depraved behaviour imagined and some that are unintelligible.
Moral relativism is the great fallacy that won’t die. And fallacy means it’s false. I can only imagine that it’s championed by people looking to justify their own depravity and supported by people who don’t understand metaphysics very well.
This does not mean there are not man made rules that people have adopted as morality when it fact it’s just man made rules. But the fact that some people make up stuff does not snuff out the fact the morality at it’s core is fixed, unalterable, eternal and concrete.[/quote]
My argument is that morality is a man-made concept, and therefore it is not absolute. Even 100% agreement on what is and is not moral does not mean it is absolute.
edit: the reality is that even if you use the argument that something is inherently moral because everyone agrees that it is, and by everyone literally Every. Single. Person. Ever. that really only fortifies my argument that morality is a man-made concept.