So what exactly is it that makes a thing it right or wrong?

If one had to choose between the rape of a single baby and the destruction of the entire human race, which choice would be “right” and which choice would be “wrong”?

What I hear you saying is that, in that particular case, both choices would be “wrong”.

In other words, in some circumstances, it is impossibile to make a “right” choice.

Is that correct?

Not to hijack your post here, but more to provide a “logically consistent” argument that arrives at the same conclusion starting from the other premise…

Now what I see is the exact opposite premise=>conclusion path.

That is, Spider’s logic starts with the premise that “God exists” and then proceeds to “therefore, right and wrong must be absolute.”

But the premise itself is faith based, and therefore all conclusions drawn from it must also be faith based.

Basically it’s simply saying “right and wrong are absolute because I believe they are.”

Thus, while it is true that all his arguments are logically consistent with the premise, the premise itself is only a personal belief. Nothing more. Which means that all conclusions arrive at based on the premise, are nothing more than personal beliefs.

And since personal beliefs can in no way be considered absolute, neither can right and wrong be considered absolute.

Yeah, the topic of right and wrong has always been a hot one for absolutists.vs.relativists.

If it keeps going at this rate, it won't be long before it surpasses the deleted "Cause and Effect" thread as the record holder for the highest post count in the Sci&Phi forum.

(I miss my Cause and Effect thread. )

I'm at an impasse. This thread just goes on and on, with me defending a belief in absolute right and wrong and everyone else claiming to be relativists.

This claim, of moral relativism, is absolutely false and cannot possibly be true. As I have pointed out the flaw again and again.

Moral Relativists cannot make such a judgments, they cannot complain about the behavior of others. The core belief of the moral relativists is that everyone's morality is right for them. You reveal the fact that you aren't moral relativists every time you say that morals aren't absolutes! Because you are JUDGING, which a moral relativism rejects as unnecessary. Moral relativism is a garbage pit of philosophy, it has no redeeming value.

That's a complete mischaracterization of what I have posted. We can infer from the existence of absolute right and wrong, that God exists. As I have pointed out, those of you who claim to be relativists reveal that you are not with your every action.

A moral relativist wouldn't say "If killing babies was absolutely wrong in any and every possible circumstance, then how can one justify the destruction of Sodom and Gamorrah?"...they would just accept that it's another's belief. But no, you question what you think isn't right. Proving that you do actually believe in moral absolutes.

A moral relativist wouldn't say "No decent God would have his mortal pets carrying out his judgments and punishments for him. " as James did, thus revealing that he believes in moral absolutes.

A moral relativist wouldn't say "Isn't it more likely that those who claim to speak for an Omnipotent One are the same ones about which philosophers have often asked "If Power corrupts, doesn't absolute Power corrupt absolutely?" " as KerryO did.

A moral relativist wouldn't say "I despise you and I urge others to never speak to you again. " as Wux did.

A moral relativist wouldn't say "Morality was determined by morons..jmo " as Ladylid2012 did.

A moral relativist wouldn't say "Society makes the morality code of it's community, whether you like that assessment or not it is the way it is. " as Dragoness did.

Do you get the picture? Judgements and disagreeing with others aren't reasonable actions if you claim to be a moral relativist.

No, in that case, it would be right to do nothing. To commit such a vile act, even in the improbable scenario that a fate of the world hangs in the balance, would be wrong.

If it was a question of lying to save lives, that's morally acceptable. But taking an action that violates the dignity of all involved is not acceptable. As I said before, my life isn't worth my soul. I would rather die than to intentionally inflict harm on an innocent person and I would rather die than rape anyone for any reason. Anyone whose standard is less than that is morally questionable to me.

Redeeming value relative to what?

You're right, if there is no God there can be no such thing as 'morality' over and above whatever some group of people decide to chose for themselves.

With that I agree.

But so what? If we look around at nature, it's a dog-eat-dog world. Animals in the wild kill, maim, and eat each other and even their own offspring in many cases.

The forces of nature will destroy entire habitats including the cities and villages of peaceful people.

We see no 'redeeming' qualities in nature at all.

Why should we believe that humans are any different from any other species on this planet?

Just because we have become self-aware and thus extremely arrogant?

As far as I can see there are no redeeming qualities in the Biblical God. Compare the Biblical God with Hitler and you'll see so many similarities that it's remarkable. They both lust to rule the world. They both decide who they will like and who they won't. They both cast the people they don't like into fiery furnaces.

The Biblical God is nothing more than a glorified Hitler. It's a demonic image of an egotistical jealous God who lusts to be the King of Kings and the Lord of Lord over a selected race of humans.

Where's the redeeming value in that?

I figure that there is most likely three possible scenarios to this reality.

1. It's an accident and truly is utterly meaningless.

2. Our true nature is spirit and there was never a time when we were naught.

3. There exist some overblown egotistical jealous Hitler-like Godhead who casts people he doesn't like into a fiery furnace.

I personally find #3 the most despicable of all. If that's the truth of reality then I am totally disappointed in our creator. It will have turned out that our creator is one sick demented puppy. There's nothing redeeming about that. That's a horror nightmare.

I fine #1 hard to believe on the simple grounds that the accident itself would have been a miraculous act of magick. Thus proven that magick is indeed possible.

This leads me to consider #2 as the most likely explanation of truth.

Of course, I don't offer this as proof of anything. I'm just offering number 2 as the scenario I feel holds the most merit.

I'd also like to add that I'd much rather #1 is true than #3.

So as far as I'm concerned the only one worthy of my faith is #2.

Anything else is a waste of my time and energy.

If we are the victims of some sick demented jealous God then there isn't much we can do about it anyway. May as well give him the finger whilst he casts us into the hell fire. Who would want to serve Hitler just to be 'saved'. Not me.

If the Biblical picture of God is true then I'm sorely disappointed in our creator. It would be the worst nightmare I can imagine, because it would mean that innocent people are being treated meanly by our creator. That's no God, that's a demon! If God's a demon then we're worse off than if we had simply been a freak accident.

Would not the destruction of the entire human race be an even more vile act???

But maybe you misunderstood the question. So lets put it in different terms.

You have the ability to prevent either one or the other of those events, but not both.

Do you spare the baby, spare the entire human race, or do nothing and let both events proceed?

And if doing nothing is “right”, then one must conclude that Pontius Pilate was “right” in washing his hands.

It appears that we have different views as to what “moral relativism” is.

To use my baby.vs.human race example (the true one relating to “choice”, not your misinterpretation relating to “action”)…

I can tell you for sure that a moral relativist would spare the entire human race at the expense of the baby.

But what would the moral absolutist do? Make no choice at all to save his own personal integrity at the expense of both the baby and the race? Or would he determine that sparing the race was more “right” than sparing the baby, just exactly as the moral relativist would do?

And that is really all moral relativism means to me. That some things are more right than others, and the degree of rightness or wrongness is entirely dependent upon the circumstances.

It is the “more right that wrong” that makes for moral relativism. Judgement is only relevant to the process of determining the degree.

Now if that’s not what moral relativism means to you then fine.

But that simply means that there is no term to describe my viewpoint, so your arguments against moral relativism cannot even be applied to me because I don’t maintain the morally relativistic stance you have defined (or not defined, as the case may be).

Just because you fail to see it, does not make it so.

No this premise is incorrect.

For one noone is claiming to be a "relativist", that is your concoction.

Morality is subjective to the humans who create it. Right and wrong is subjective to the humans who say what is right and what is wrong for their communities.

I mean right and wrong can be as simple as the choice I made today and your opinion that is was a wrong decision but that doesn't make you right or me wrong. I made the choice and I have to live with the consequences of it regardless to how you felt about it.

There is no absolute morality. Morality is subjective to the subjects who create it.

Ok, I can accept that. My apoligies for the misinterpretation and resulting mischaracterization.

You've simply extended moral relativism to societies. It's still bunk. You are saying that the Nazis were right. That Mao was right to kill 60 million of his own people. That Stalin was right to kill 40 million of his own people. Because their societies said it was right and you have already said that right and wrong are determined by societies.

That's called moral weakness, not moral relativism.



It has nothing to do with integrity, that's what you fail to understand. I believe every human life has an intrinsic value. The value of human lives cannot be weighed as you would fruit. "One life for a billion...great deal!" When you are talking about an aggressor, then killing the aggressor is acceptable morally. But killing an innocent should never be an option.



No, that's Moral objectivism. But you and I disagree on where the line of acceptable immorality exists. I refuse to commit murder, sexual immorality or worship idols, there appear to be no moral lines, which you wouldn't cross.



That's simply not what it means. Words and terms have meanings.



You are a moral relativist. There are only two options: Relativist (meaning right and wrong change from one time period or society or culture or religion or individual to another) or you are an absolutist (meaning you believe that right and wrong do not change). There is no middle ground. And a moral relativist who judges other's morals proves himself to be a moral absolutist in relativist's clothing.

Basically, your position is that you are right and I am wrong. That position is a position of absolute morality. Meaning that in stating that I am wrong, you are actually confirming that thesis that absolute morality exists and therefore God exists.

Yes, the destruction of the entire human race would be a vile act. But I don't believe that innocent lives can be weighted by humans. I cannot say to you that one child's life can be traded for a billion. There is no way for a man to know that. Every life has an intrinsic value, which makes comparisons impossible.



You must not understand the situation Pontius Pilate was in. He had the choice of executing an innocent man or allowing him to live. His choices were immoral vs moral. He choose the immoral action. It's nothing like the analogy that is being discussed.

What it makes is an absolute morality or right, incorrect. You give examples and examples but they are still not proving that there is an absolute morality.

I agree with Abra on this one. If there were an absolute morality it would have to come from a being that out shines humans in moralistic knowledge, who all humans agree has that power. That doesn't exist so morality and right and wrong will continue to be determined by groups of people.

Morality has seen many different levels in this country and it will continue to change as humans change and grow.

As a philosophy. Moral relativists talk a good game, but they can't play. Moral relativists complain when they are victimized. They complain when they feel wronged. Every complaint reveals that they actually believe in a natural law that applies to all and they demand that they are treated fairly. That's why moral relativism has no redeeming value, because it only exists in the minds of those who claim to believe it.



I do! Nature is beautiful.



We are the only species that is inherently aware of morality. If you think it's societal, the result of evolution, of your own making...you must realize that we are the only beings we know of that have a concept of morality.

At this point you lost focus and ranted against Christianity and I quit reading as anyone with an ounce of sense would do.

The examples were showing the kind of behavior that you must admit is right, in order to logically hold your belief that right and wrong are determined by the society. If German society said that it was right to kill Jews, then you MUST say they were right to do that or you are logically inconsistent. I can't be any more clear than that.



Oh, not at all. Such a being could have given us a conscience to guide us, we wouldn't need to be aware of the being.



I'm not talking about morality, I'm talking about right and wrong. Need I say it again? Slavery has always been wrong. It will always be wrong. No matter what society or culture says that it is right. It is simply a weakened moral system that allows slavery. And as a matter of a fact, every society has said that slavery is wrong. Every single one. If a society truly believed that slavery was right, then it would be right to do to anyone. Societies have always made exceptions for enemies of war or people of another color or women, etc. They create the exceptions in their morality, so that they can still feel moral, but do what they want. If slavery had been truly right during the civil war, what would have prompted the people to change it? According to you, they knew it was right. I think it's obvious that they knew it was wrong and made excuses for their sins. In time, enough people were outraged at slavery that it was outlawed. The only way to account for that outrage is if the people were aware of an underlying greater morality, the true right and wrong, which was already in their hearts.

I "must admit" nothing but my opinion to dispute your opinion and we are still at the point of morality and right and wrong being decided by the group of humans in control of the society. You have not proven the absolute morality still.

The being doesn't exist so there is no unknown conscience to discuss.

You don't have to admit it. You have to in order to be intellectually consistent, but there is nobody who is going to force you. You have absolutely no refutations for my logic on this point. If societies determine what is right and wrong for that society, then you cannot judge another society. If that is truly what you believe, how can you justifying judging one society by your own societies morals? It's an intellectually inconsistent philosophy.

You can't prove absolute morality any more than you can prove that gravity exists. It's plainly obvious that both absolute morality and gravity exist, but neither can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Morality wouldn't change, if there weren't an underlying impetus for change. I posit that the impetus for moral change is God's law. What do you believe prompts societal changes in morality?



You don't have or believe in a conscience?