2nd Timothy 2:24-25

"And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;"

**************

Strife, and remaining in a thread filled with strife isn't exactly what Christ asks us to do, now is it, Spider?

27 pages (now 28 pages...) of arguing seems to be a bit excessive and obsessive... aren't there more beautiful things to talk about in the universe than concentrating so much effort toward strife?

...of which I am pointing out in love... I hope you get.

One states a dependency and the other states an identity.

But that's not what your first definition states. As above, your first definition states a dependency, whereas this one states an identity.

So which is it? Dependency or identity?

You must have misread the definition. Moral relativism "depends in some way on what individuals or societies believe to be right and wrong, good and bad". Moral relativism rejects the idea of moral absolutes that apply to all people and instead everyone determines for themselves what is right or wrong. No dependencies are necessary or implied in the definition above.

I agree with whoever said that right and wrong are beliefs.

We decide to believe what we will view as right and wrong and those beliefs change over the course of our lives hopefully. I say hopefully because if a person's beliefs never change that can only mean that they aren't growing. They'd have to be pretty stagnant to always believe the same things.

Also, like Dragnoess so often points out, much of our sense of "right and wrong" was taught to us by our parents or society.

As we grow we learn to think for ourselves, and often change many of the things that we had originally been taught to believe.

I really don't see how anyone could even imagine that everyone has the same sense of absolute right and wrong. We just don't see it in society or in cultures around the world.

It just isn't there.

He picked out one statement of yours to try to legitimize his view..lol

Spider, If you are a relatavist or what ever you keep calling it and you say that a human rights violation in another country is not right by your moral code that is still not not being a relatavist or whatever. Noone said that a relativist cannot have opinions of other societies. It just says they do not believe they have a right to change the other societies moral code, right?

Your definitions only refer to views and beliefs about standards. They do not contain any references whatsoever to the application of those standards.

In other words, according to your definition, it is the “views and beliefs about” standards that makes for an absolutist or relativist, and not the “application of” those standards.

So I submit that, in ever case where you have asserted that applying moral standards to another person makes one a moral absolutist, that assertion is factually false, per your definition.

I don't know who said this originally because I got it from a quote box, but whoever said it isn't thinking very well.

Just because large groups of people get together and define something called 'basic human rights' doesn't mean that they need to believe that it is somehow innate in nature.

They can fully understand that it's just a collective position of a lot of people and stand behind in in that way.

The idea that a moral relativist could have no "right" to speak in terms of basic human rights is absurd.

Every human being knows that physical brutality, hunger, dispicable living conditions and slavery on undesirable conditions in this physical world.

The point here being that you only need to live and experience being a physical person to have an understanding of these things. It doesn't point to the need for any divine creator who instill these things in people.

If you're going to go that route then you'd be denying moral relativists the very emotions and sentiment of compassion, empathy, or feelings of any kind.

In fact, if you're going to argue for a divine being then instead of trying to argue for absolute morality (which is probably not going to get off the ground anyway), you'd probably be far better trying to argue for a creator based on the very idea that humans seem to have 'compassion' and 'empathy'.

You could try to argue that if the universe was an accident why would these behavior and feelings 'arise' from an accident.

Although, the people who have been studying evolution will have tons of reasons why they feel that compassion and empathy would have naturally evolved.

In any case, the argument that just because moral relativists don't believe in absolute morality in an innate sense, doesn't mean that they can't have compassion and empathy for others and think about that things in terms of 'democratic ideologies' where they support the 'relative human rights' of other people.

You're arguments just aren't convincing at all. They just make it sound like you're desperate to sell your opinion at all cost. You're scraping the bottom of the barrel with these arguments and coming up with nothing.

What is your grounds for criticizing another, who doesn't share your morals? On what logical grounds can you criticize someone?

Murder is wrong FOR YOU, not for everyone.
Rape is wrong FOR YOU, not for everyone.

If you judge someone for raping a woman, on what grounds do you say it's wrong? Because your morals say so? What right do you have to push your morals on others, you believe that everyone makes their own morals.

You still don't get it, do you? There is a point here and you are all missing it. Goodnight.

No you have missed it and good night even if you're ignoring me..lol

You have succeeded in completely baffling me.



That looks likes a very explicitly stated dependency to me.

But yet you say “No dependencies are necessary or implied in the definition above.”

My apologies spider, I suppose I was mistaken.

After thumbing through a book of Witt's, I failed to find that particular defintion of truth. However, it does hold true, and every proposition or statement which has truth value fits that description, and can be applied to it. That is another topic though...

Back to this one... moral absolutes - do they exist?

Yes! ...in some people's mind. No! ...in the world as we know it.

Spider your trying so hard to equate the existence of *any* moral standard to a justification in the belief that all moral standards are absolute, because most people have a fair amount of confidence that what they morally believe is correct. Belief that one is right does not constitute sufficient grounds for concluding that absolute morals exist. It does not follow.

What is that confidence grounded by?

The answer to that will show the relative foundation of morality, and fits into any imaginable scenario which is consistent with the facts as we know them. The confidence is grounded by all that lies around that particular moral belief. It is affirmed within the belief system by all of the accompanying relative beliefs, whether they be Eastern, Western, philosophical, dogmatic, or any other world-view which one possesses.

A single statement or assertion does not, cannot, reasonably stand alone. It must have backing of some sort or another. Belief is always grounded by other beliefs and/or knowledge. The correctness of that grounding directly correlates with the correctness of the belief which stands upon it for support.

I am still waiting for logical grounds for your claim of absolute morals. I asked you - several times - how it goes from what is to what ought to be, and you readily admit that you cannot objectively show how that happens. Do you not see that that is the only way to prove absolute morality? It is impossible because it(morality) does not happen objectively! We are all taught what is to be considered right, what is to be considered wrong - and why. Experience and experience alone is what teaches us all things moral.

Moral standards are used by each individual for value judgment. Those standards obviously differ between indivuals and societies. Just because I think 'so and so' is wrong, it does not follow that that is an absolute moral standard. Just because there exists *some* common ground between many or most standards, it does not follow that that common ground is absolute... it is just a shared belief.

To reasonably(logically) prove/demonstrate the existence of an absolute moral, one must show how an action which is deemd as immoral/wrong goes from what is(objective) to what ought to be(right or wrong). It cannot be done.

Clearly there exists different standards, and all experience and history shows this. That alone is objective grounds for establishing justification of the existence of moral relativism.

Just because I think your assertion goes unsupported by the evidence presented, holds no truth, and therefore is incorrect, does not make that an absolute any more than your belief in absolute morality makes all morality absolute.

Spider, I was curious about something, and failed to express my curiosity in a well defined question; however I think you addressed it, anyway, in your responses, five pages ago.

I was curious about the relationship between (a) 'knowing that there is an absolute 'right and wrong' and (b) 'knowing what is the absolute 'right and wrong'.

I had first assumed that we needed a hypothetical (b), to discuss whether that (b) might qualify as an (a), before one could conclude that any (a) exists. I think most of us have taken similar view at some point in this thread.

"You say moral absolutes exist? Give me an example.... Oh, well, that just an a bundle of semantic issues, isn't it? Couldn't be an absolute. And how can we test whether that example is 'absolute'? What, we can't come up with an true absolute, universal test against that particular 'expressions of hypothetical absolute', either? Well then... there must not be any moral absolutes."

All of this is bogged down in (b), on the side of 'deriving a statement of a moral absolute' - I was curious about your view of how that process relates to the actual 'knowing' of (a).

In your statements, it seems you are comfortable with allowing your personal understanding of 'what might be' a moral absolute evolve, while having a pre-existing belief that they exist. This suggests to me that in your view one need not 'fully resolve' the question of (b) before coming to believe (a). I think that was my question, five pages back.

Of the sun, a blind person in a blind society (likely) knows less than a sighted person; and an uneducated sighted person (likely) knows less than a physicist. But all three know something of the sun's existence, something of its nature. They know 'it' exists, despite different degrees of relative ignorance of its true nature.

Oh - and I suppose the other part of my curiosity was related to whether or not the absolute 'right and wrong' is a statement. (Or statements.)

Hypothetically, what if moral absolutes exist, but are not perfectly expressible in words? This would render the entire '(b) first, then (a)' approach futile, without diminishing the reality of (a).

I can imagine a universe that does have 'moral absolutes' outside of language, unrelated to the verbal, 'legalistic' approach that humans may have invented onto themselves. In that universe, people who look for statements of absolute 'right and wrong' in would be guaranteed to always miss the truth.

I did not mean to imply that all killings must be 'wrong' before any 'killing related dictum' could quality as a moral absolute, in the sense that 'absolute' is being primarily used in this conversation.

I do not believe that 'in order for moral absolutes to exist, they must be absolute in extent'. One use of the word 'absolute' is related to universality (amongst humans, I assume), and the other is is related to 'pushing to the full meaning of a particular word'.

I only made the 'all killings might be wrong' comment as an example a possible 'right and wrong' whose existence would imply that ''most other supposed 'right and wrong' dictums related to killing'' would be mistaken - and actually be matters of morality, unknown to the people who believed it to be 'rigth and wrong'. In other words, I was just trying to emphasize the importance of the difference between (a) and (b).

Its obvious to me that spider's 'ignore list' is not based on whether others agree with him.

Personally, I think more pairings of people should just ignore each other on these threads - we'd have less pointless drawn out go-nowhere bickering. JMO. (And I'm not talking about this thread.)

I ain't arguing with James anymower...

Massage,

Rgarding your (a) and (b) scenario. I actually see where that plays a role regarding the identification of actuality. It is logical to conclude that it exists, because of empirical evidence's history of showing us that we have been incorrect in our certainty regarding what we had once believed to be true.

However, regarding that use in attempting to say that we know absolute morals exist, but we cannot show what is or is not absolutely moral simply admits that we do not know. That works regarding the actuality case, but does it not directly deny the absolute morality case?

What would it mean to say that absolute morals exist, but we cannot say what they are or what that is? If we cannot say what they are or what that is, then how could the conclusion possibly be drawn that they exist?

I don't even think in terms of "judging" anyone. That's the furthest thought from my mind.

When people argue for basic 'human rights' they aren't thinking about condemning the 'wrongdoers' (of even suggesting that's it's necesasrily 'wrong' in a moral sense).

What they are actually thinking about is protecting the people who are being hurt

I would argue for basic human (and animal) rights! And not even think in terms of 'morality' at all.

I'm beginning to see that everything you consider is entirely based on a concept of "judging" the actions of others.

I don't think in terms of judging others. That's not even a concept that I entertain.

I was just thinking about the "God" concept tonight with respect to all of this. Actually if there is a God then we shouldn't judge anyone in anyway, or even necessarily try to help someone from a harmful situation. After all, if an all-knowing, all-powerful God is allowing it to happen then it must be ok with that God.

Who are we to intervene in situations where even God won't?

A plea for "human rights" actually makes more sense from an athestic point of view than it does if there is a God.

If there exists an all-powerful, all-knowing, God who can intervene, and it doesn't intervene, then that God must be fine with seeing people hurt.

I want to recant an earlier statement of mine, which upon re-reading became problematic.



This should not include the "and why". I say that because it is not true in all cases. Often things are simply taught as 'wrong' without the further clarification and grounding of "why" they are wrong. This actually adds a little something to my own thinking. For it is when the "why" has been taught and accepted in faith that blanket judgment can and has come.

An absolute example would be...

All 'so and so' is wrong. Why? Because it is so and so. That is just like calling an apple good, and when asked why is it good saying because it is an apple. It does not follow. It is good for different reasons, one of which is because one thinks so. The same holds true for this morality argument...

That is harming another, and harming another is bad. The harming is the most objective evidence that can be given. We can show harm, just like we can show an apple, however we cannot show good or bad, all we can do is agree or disagree on that. Harming does not equate to immorality in an absolute sense any more than an apple equates to good in one.

There is an inherent illogical standpoint that reminds me of the apple case above, which equates morality with faith in some, if not most cases. Now this is not meant to imply only those of religious faith. I think it probably applies to most, if not all of us. We all take our first right and wrong lessons on faith, and faith alone. That which is taken purely upon faith is taken upon the trust of the initial teacher(s), whether that be soley or any combination of parents, siblings, friends, teachers, etc. Should that *something* be later contradicted in some way, then the strength of what has been taken upon faith comes into play. When I say strength, I mean the direct influence that that which has been taken upon faith, and faith alone has upon that person's ability to reasonably contemplate contradictory information.

If that moral baseline/system includes the primaryfoundational element that it is the one and only 'Truth', and that any and all information contradictory to it constitutes 'wrong' and subsequently comes from the deceptive enemy who is out to destroy that person through trickery, then it becomes nearly impossible for fact and reason to stand a chance. For that kind of absolute belief system previously assigns a negative and damning value to any contrary events which have yet to come, so that when they do come, they cannot be consciously considered as anything other than 'wrong'.

It is in the face of proven contradictory evidence that faith sometimes overrides reason and critical thinking skills. It is when this kind of faith is held as virtuous behaviour that it becomes extremely dangerous.

I am reminding myself of Russell...

Spider,

To directly answer your questions...



The personal sense of ought is always the grounds for a moral argument. It is establishing exactly what grounds that which requires the logical assessment.



Your equivocating between being fair and equal(universal) judgment and absolute morality. If there is one moral case that I would say is always wrong, it would be hypocrisy about any moral case. It is when a subject attributes an immoral value to another's action(s) when they justify the same actions for themself. I feel that it is always wrong, none-the-less. I say that because of the fact that I cannot envision a scenario in which I would find it necessarily acceptable. That, in and of itself, does not necessarily imply nor require harming another.



Again, just because most people would agree upon these things being 'wrong' does not constitute logical grounds that those particular moral beliefs are, in fact, absolute. You cannot equate majority or even total agreement with the existence of an absolute moral. It does not follow.



Because I believe it is wrong.

nonsense. were that the case then you would get it right after "what you are saying it...." nof one of your "rhetorical techniques" has even come close to the end points of my statement. your "rhetorical technique" is indeed used around the world and such "techniques" are much the problem in understanding among different cultures. it is the very definition of straw man argument. do you even know what a straw man argument is????



there are no such things as an absolute right as there is no such thing as an absolute moral. that's what you don't get. rights are stepped on all the time by governments. a woman has the right to drive in the US but if that same woman goes to saudi arabia she loses that right. the topic of this thread concerns right and wrong and the author said there are no absolutes either way. i agree, right and wrong are based on each of our individual moral standard. my morals are relative to me and use i them to define right and wrong for me. i define human rights as i see it. many in china don't define human rights as i do and they violate what i see are human rights while thinking nothing wrong about it. i say they violate human rights. they say they violate no human rights. in this country we enjoy the right to a trial by jury. that right doesn't exist in china. rights are no more absolute than are morals. you have the right to free speech and practicing your religion in your church and many other place. you lose that right when you enter my home.




yes you have tried and have failed miserably because you use straw man arguments thinking it will get your point accross. even after i've told you it ain't workin.

because i point out what i see as a personal offense that in no way helps to make your point, doesn't mean i'm offended. indeed, i'm amuzed when i see such personal attacts on the forums, especialy from a christian who bases his moral values on jesus christ's teachings. you could fire a shot at me and miss and i might say to you, "you could have killed me with that gun and that wouldn't make your point would it?" but you missed anyway so i wasn't killed. a gun is leathal and often used for that purpous. but never does a gun settle an arguement other than to eliminate the opposition. when you make an offending remark, it almost always misses as you could with a gun. you fired the shot and missed, so i was not offended. and it did nothing to make your point. straw man again.





i cannot apply them in the sense that they must comply with my morals but i sure can use my morals to judge their behavior. we all judge based on our own moral compass. now i can only repeat myself and i really don't care in the least that you think i'm illogical. in fact having read your posts and being exposed to YOUR logic i consider myself on the right track as long as we disagree. the thought of taking your side on this issue against all who oppose you here is shuddering. so continuing to question my statements as illogical as you see it, goes more to solidifying my position than helping me to understand yours.

for everybody else here that likewise cannot see the logic in what spyder is saying, please, please slap me silly if i ever say he's making sense to me. sorry, couldn't help myself. i realize it's a personal attack but sometimes people ask for it and besides i'm not trying to make a point. i'm debunk your point that moral absolutes exist. they don't. lol. hey, whose perfect anyway?



if i'm outraged why do i smile so much when replying to your posts. you keep saying it's impossible to communicate with me and then go on to use one of the most vile "rhetorical techqniques" ever developed for debate by man, the straw man arguement. look it up. you accused me of using it. copy and paste one passage that i wrote on any forum here that meets the definition. i can find several of your statements that meet it. of course you call it "rhetorical technique".