Post by Josh on Feb 19, 2007 7:48:00 GMT -8
6/2/06:
Some more on morality....
I think you need to decide whether or not you do indeed think morality is purely 'relative' or totally 'subjective'. I think you don't want to believe this, but you feel you must. At the same time, the notion that morality is totally relative is self-contradictory: “there are no moral absolutes” is itself an absolute, therefore contradictory.
In other words, are these two statements the same, or not: 1) I like chocolate ice cream 2) Killing people without justification is wrong. Are they both arbitrary, subjective positions, or is one an opinion and the other an absolute moral claim?
Here are some problems with common arguments morality being totally subjective, adapted from an article by Francis Beckwith (found in the book Why I Am a Christian, 2001):
1) Relativism does not follow from disagreement: the fact that different cultures disagree about something does not prove that there is no ultimate truth. We could disagree that the earth is round, but our disagreement would not mean that the earth has no shape.
2) Disagreement actually counts against relativism: According to the relativists own principle ("disagreement means there is no truth"), he ought to abandon his own opinion that relativism is the correct position, since there are those who disagree with him!
3) Disagreement is overrated. This is the argument I've been developing; that world cultures share more moral similarity than difference.
4) Absurd consequences follow from moral relativism: If it is true that no objective moral norms apply to all persons at all times and in all places, then the following moral judgments must be denied: Mother Teresa was morally better than Adolf Hitler; rape is always wrong; it is wrong to torture babies for fun. Yet to deny that these judgments are universally true certainly seems absurd.
5) Cultural relativism doesn't help: The supporter of cultural relativism maintains that there are no objective and universal moral norms and for that reason everyone ought to follow the moral norms of his or her own culture. But the cultural relativist is making an absolute and universal moral claim, namely, that everyone is morally obligated to follow the moral norms of his or her own culture. If this moral norm is absolute and universal, then cultural relativism is false. But if this moral norm is neither absolute, nor universal, then cultural relativism is still false, for in that case I would not have a moral obligation to follow the moral norms of my culture.
Second, since each of us belongs to a number of different "societies" or "cultures" there is no way to determine objectively which culture's norms should be followed when they conflict.
Third, if morality is reduced to culture, there can be no real moral progress. If what is morally good is merely what one's culture says is morally good, then we can say only that cultural norms change, not that society is progressing or getting better.
Just some stuff to chew on.... There really is no basis to argue that there are moral absolutes without an absolute lawgiver, but there must be absolutes, because relativism doesn't work.
In conclusion, the only thing I'll say is that we could argue about morality till we're blue in the face: how much of it is social convention, biology, education, etc... but at the end of the day the most unfortunate, disturbing, and ultimately defeating thing about your position is that you have no word for evil. You have no basis on which to say our moralities are any better than the Nazis. (you can argue about them going against your 'furtherance of life' worldview, but in the end that's just your relative position, not really amounting to any kind of absolute Better worldview. Who's to say that the 'furtherance of life' should be any of our goals? How about the furtherance of our own happiness instead? And you must simply say, that view is no better or worse in the final analysis than mine.
Some more on morality....
I think you need to decide whether or not you do indeed think morality is purely 'relative' or totally 'subjective'. I think you don't want to believe this, but you feel you must. At the same time, the notion that morality is totally relative is self-contradictory: “there are no moral absolutes” is itself an absolute, therefore contradictory.
In other words, are these two statements the same, or not: 1) I like chocolate ice cream 2) Killing people without justification is wrong. Are they both arbitrary, subjective positions, or is one an opinion and the other an absolute moral claim?
Here are some problems with common arguments morality being totally subjective, adapted from an article by Francis Beckwith (found in the book Why I Am a Christian, 2001):
1) Relativism does not follow from disagreement: the fact that different cultures disagree about something does not prove that there is no ultimate truth. We could disagree that the earth is round, but our disagreement would not mean that the earth has no shape.
2) Disagreement actually counts against relativism: According to the relativists own principle ("disagreement means there is no truth"), he ought to abandon his own opinion that relativism is the correct position, since there are those who disagree with him!
3) Disagreement is overrated. This is the argument I've been developing; that world cultures share more moral similarity than difference.
4) Absurd consequences follow from moral relativism: If it is true that no objective moral norms apply to all persons at all times and in all places, then the following moral judgments must be denied: Mother Teresa was morally better than Adolf Hitler; rape is always wrong; it is wrong to torture babies for fun. Yet to deny that these judgments are universally true certainly seems absurd.
5) Cultural relativism doesn't help: The supporter of cultural relativism maintains that there are no objective and universal moral norms and for that reason everyone ought to follow the moral norms of his or her own culture. But the cultural relativist is making an absolute and universal moral claim, namely, that everyone is morally obligated to follow the moral norms of his or her own culture. If this moral norm is absolute and universal, then cultural relativism is false. But if this moral norm is neither absolute, nor universal, then cultural relativism is still false, for in that case I would not have a moral obligation to follow the moral norms of my culture.
Second, since each of us belongs to a number of different "societies" or "cultures" there is no way to determine objectively which culture's norms should be followed when they conflict.
Third, if morality is reduced to culture, there can be no real moral progress. If what is morally good is merely what one's culture says is morally good, then we can say only that cultural norms change, not that society is progressing or getting better.
Just some stuff to chew on.... There really is no basis to argue that there are moral absolutes without an absolute lawgiver, but there must be absolutes, because relativism doesn't work.
In conclusion, the only thing I'll say is that we could argue about morality till we're blue in the face: how much of it is social convention, biology, education, etc... but at the end of the day the most unfortunate, disturbing, and ultimately defeating thing about your position is that you have no word for evil. You have no basis on which to say our moralities are any better than the Nazis. (you can argue about them going against your 'furtherance of life' worldview, but in the end that's just your relative position, not really amounting to any kind of absolute Better worldview. Who's to say that the 'furtherance of life' should be any of our goals? How about the furtherance of our own happiness instead? And you must simply say, that view is no better or worse in the final analysis than mine.
