Moral Relativism and Universal Standards

Post Reply New Topic

Am getting the impression by this thread that most people are considering Ethics and Morality as relative things .
Am understanding that some religious ideas are not conducive to each other’s standards but shouldn’t there be some basic concepts of these things , ? I maybe naive but , It seems as if basic right and wrong ideas are in question.
Have had my family murdered by situational Murder, ? condoned by a defective Local Court system.
Would love to get a clearer understanding of these discrepancies. .?

(Because if these ideas are waived in reality , then very possibly , I owe many people a good comeuppance.)

What is “the beast”?

I like this response.

So I make no bones about where I stand on the issue. My particular view is this: Humans possess freedom and a rational mind. This means that life is a choice and the greatest human value. Being the greatest human value establishes life and its preservation as an objective ethical and moral standard, i.e. ethics and morality exist APART FROM the human mind. And since they are objective, they are universal.

Murder is not simply wrong in a relativistic sense. It is UNIVERSALLY wrong. EVERY culture and society forbids murder. You can try to say murder is relatively wrong, but once murder is allowed you are forced to give up your freedom in fear of retribution. You forfeit your life, in other words. No existence in hiding is really living as humans understand life. A murderer, even if he is never brought to justice, will always be a walking dead man. Therefore, murder isn’t relatively wrong. It is absolutely wrong and objectively wrong.

Not all killing is objectively wrong. Murder is objectively wrong because it is UNJUSTIFIED in all cases by definition. Not all killing is unjustified. Defending your country in wartime is justified. Defending yourself and your loved ones is justified. The death penalty for murderers is justified. Abortion to save the life of the mother is justified. Killing plants and animals for food is justified. So you could possibly make a case for killing being relativistic or situational ethics. But murder MUST be absolutely and objectively wrong.

Some things being immoral don’t make rational sense. Certain taboos don’t seem to have a rational basis, but are still objectively wrong. Sibling incest is one of the ickiest. We know it is objectively wrong because it creates genetic bottlenecks that amplify harmful, recessive traits. Yet I see the incest taboo so long as siblings consent to being together as antithetical to human freedom—what happens in the privacy of your bedroom is nobody’s business but your own. And that means it’s a logical puzzle that there are real consequences, not merely legal ones, for incest. Why does Nature impose its own law against incest? If you know your ancient history, the Egyptian and Greek pantheons are rife with incest, and it is known that Pharaohs married their sisters in imitation of the divine. Nature itself steers humans away from imitating pagan deities.

Bestiality is another one of those none-of-your-business things that has virtually zero natural consequences yet will still get you arrested and dragged in local news media. What’s so detestable about it that everyone has such a visceral response to it? Again, it has religious roots—mating with animals was known in ancient religious rites, plus it is a rejection of a natural order that humans only mate with other humans.

What fascinates me is that, as far as I’m aware, religions that normalized taboos like incest and bestiality are largely if not completely extinct. And if a religion could be objectively false or nonexistent, there could also be a religion that is objectively true. I tend to take the next step and say that since Nature is objectively true and an objective moral code is written into an objective nature, it necessarily follows that a Creator exists to write that morality into nature. Atheists and agnostics cannot exist in the truest sense because to assert that God doesn’t exist or God is unknowable is to assert that God’s Law is nonexistent or unknowable. But since it IS possible to know and obey objective laws or morals, atheists and agnostics are actually doing good things in obedience to a God they supposedly don’t believe in. It’s absurd that you’d obey a divine law and claim to not know the divine Law-giver, therefore it is absurd to say there is no God.

But that is a leap I’m willing to make. Nearly all your classic Objectivists are atheists and would probably agree with me that morality exists apart from the mind, even if we don’t agree on its origins.

The Anti-Christ in Christian eschatology, described in Revelation.

Exactly!

One advantage of atheism is that it makes finding a definitive answer to such a mind-boggling question unnecessary. Without the supernatural, without God, without spiritual authority, the question is rendered meaningless and we avoid a lot of hard work that doesn't look likely to end in a definitive conclusion of any value.

Even if I tried to take biblical guidance on morality literally as absolute truth, it seems very partial to me, as I don't see anything in it that takes this kind of thing into account:

You cannot separate the just from the unjust and the good from the wicked;
For they stand together before the face of the sun even as the black thread and the white are woven together.
And when the black thread breaks the weaver shall look into the whole cloth, and he shall examine the loom also. [Kahlil Gibran]

Utilitarianism: I find it useful, though I think it has its limits in deciding the "right thing to do." The "Wiccan Rede" (do what you will, harm no one) is I suppose much the same thing, only it's more simply and accessibly expressed. When I make moral decisions I find it tends to harmonise with my gut reactions quite well. Sometimes I don't know what the kindest thing to do is, so I guess. Just like any other decision, we don't always have enough information to be sure of being correct. Sometimes I don't see a thing as the right or wrong thing to do, it feels more like the only thing I can do. It's enough for my conscience and sense of self-worth that I've been relatively harmless so far. As for judging others, I try to avoid doing that, and I just focus on the question of whether or not they're a threat to me or to the people or animals I care about, and try to plan my reaction accordingly.

What a beautiful answer, TD.

The ones who exist are known as implicit atheists:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_ ... it_atheism

I would think that the reason they become explicit atheists is that they've been encouraged to become theists but haven't chosen to do so, and then they may wish to express their view if theists express theirs. I don't assert that God doesn't exist unless the assertion that God exists comes to my attention, and I have that Aspie tendency to point out errors in any line of reasoning that's presented to me. There's good and bad in that tendency.

I have a tiny grain of doubt about my atheism, but a grain of doubt would at the most make me an agnostic instead of an atheist. The argument could be applied the other way round, i.e. believers cannot exist in the truest sense because they're only pretending to know what they don't know. Unless their deity has given them physical, tangible proof.

But that's all based on degrees of doubt, which might not be what you meant at all. Your sentence doesn't make sense to me so I found the most sensible argument I could that might support your assertion. If you could rephrase your sentence to make it more clear, that would be helpful.



Why absurd? Different codes of conduct coincide quite often. I'd avoid killing people whether scripture told me to or not. I'm reminded of a friend who followed fashion avidly. When hippie clothes were all the rage, he wore hippie clothes, much to the chagrin of his parents. When the Gatsby trend started he took to wearing sharp suits. His parents congratulated him for seeing the light and conforming to their wishes, but he replied that it was only a coincidence, and he was right, as was demonstrated when punk came into fashion and he followed that.


I'm not sure if I'm an objectivist or not, as I don't know the term, but as an atheist (or hard agnostic if you prefer), I don't think morality exists outside of the mind.

Thank you Isabella. Gibran is one of very few people who can reduce me to tears in a good way.

It can be argued that nothing exists outside of the mind. ^

Morality and ethical thought existed long before Christ.

Religion can attempt to organise or personify good vs evil, but it did not create them.


* I adore Gibran. I had several readings at my wedding.

Agrees with these posts …

AngelRho, here is the problem.

1. I do acknowledge that murder is universally wrong. This is a tautology.

2. Murder by definition is the unauthorized taking of a human life whether it is by the legal system, a deity, etc.

3. Now, not all cultures agree universally what is the authorized vs the unauthorized taking of a human life. In some cultures human sacrifice was not even seen as murder but other cultures would see it as murder.

4. Those who are pro-choice in the abortion debate do not see abortion as murder but they would see shooting someone in the head as murder. Yet, those who are pro-life sees abortion as the unauthorized taking of human life. Both sides would agree that murder is wrong but disagree as to what is considered murder.

5. I do have a question about Christian eschatology. In Christian eschatology when the body dies one can either go to heaven or hell. One's final destination is determined by if you accept Jesus as your lord and savior and beg for his forgiveness for your sins. But, here is what I don't understand. Let's say person A kills person B. All person A did was kill the body. The soul exists so therefore person B still exists albeit in a different form. So, how was person B killed? According to the logic of Christian eschatology no one can really die since everyone still exists albeit in a spiritual form instead of a physical body. So, if death does not exist except for the physical body (sort of like destroying a remote controlled drone) so by logic how can there be an authorized or unauthorized taking of human life at all?

I've been to church before and heard sermons talk about the physical body vs the spiritual body. If person A killed the physical body of B then as an analogy all person A did was destroy a remote controlled drone. This is extremely confusing for me.

If human beings truthfully possess a rational mind then why do we have discipline our children into doing right and actually teach them right from wrong and punish them if they do wrong. Children contradict the idea that humans possess a rational mind. If children naturally had a rational mind then no one would have to raise them. Wouldn't they be able to make financial decisions for themselves or would children let their base desires take over like children of pleasure island in the story of Pinocchio?

People don't automatically possess a rational mind if that is what you're implying or saying but humans do have the potential to develop a rational mind. This is why we have schools (it is debatable whether they do a good job or not). This is why we have parents who parent their children. The mind has to have ability to be trained and actually trained to be rational.

Now, can a rational mind and the ability to choose be bound?

In Christian eschatology, some Christians claim and state that the natural state of human kind is sin. In other words, our free will and our rationality is bounded by sin and the sinful nature. If we're bound to our sinful nature and only Jesus Christ can free us from our sinful nature then until Jesus frees us then how are we fully rational and truthfully free?

Let's take another point of view. Let's say we have a person who is schizophrenic. Isn't this person bound to his skewed way of thinking because of the very nature of schizophrenic and if he is then how can he be truthfully rational and free?

Different codes of conduct coincide because of certain behaviors consistently result in achieving our rational self-interest. As long as those behaviors are consistent with an objective standard, they are objectively good.

I should add that I don’t deny that someone can follow a subjective standard (only exists in the mind) and that there is relativistic morality or good/evil. My criticism is in one’s ability to hold others to subjective measure of good/evil. You see examples of the problems of subjective, relative morality in law and politics all the time.

I also take a presuppositionalist worldview—people bring their biases or preferences to every argument they make. It’s no use for a Christian to “convert” an atheist or an atheist to “deconvert” a Christian. Everyone’s mind is already made up. You can only be correct about something if your presuppositions are correct. Rather than explain why my position is correct, I prefer to look at why, for example, atheism is incorrect from a Christian perspective. My comment on absurdity is built on the irony that morality is written into nature, can be demonstrated by evidence, but to assert morality as purely subjective requires the subjective moralist to stand on the foundation of objective morality. As I said before, there is no Law without a Lawgiver. Obedience to natural law requires obedience to God’s law, meaning atheists obey a God they claim to disbelieve. If it’s not absurd, it’s ironic and paradoxical.

If morality is built into nature then let me ask you this. Why do we need a book that is filled with 1,281 pages to tell all of us what is moral and what is not? Why is the Bible even needed if morality is truthfully built into nature? Why do any of us need and are required to go to church? And, why are we required to have faith in Jesus Christ and accept him as our lord and savior if morality is built into nature?

And, if morality is built into nature then why do animals kill other animals for food? Why do some animal species kill and eat their young? And, is the nature of the Frog vs. Seagull vs. Dog the same or are they different because they're different species?

If morality can be derived from nature then what specifically can we derive from nature?

According to Christian eschatology more specifically Genesis 3
https://biblehub.com/bsb/genesis/3.htm

If the ground is considered cursed then how can we derive any kind of morality from what is cursed?

I don’t think you’re an objectivist. Objectivism emphasizes objective reality, and external reality which the mind perceives and which frames how we see and respond to the world around us. For the Objectivist, the assertion that this is moral or that is moral but has no basis in external reality is sketch and probably motivated by an agenda lacking in the best interest of anyone except the one making the assertion.

Example: You go to church. Preacher preaches on and on about how selfish we all are. So to get right with God, we need to empty our pockets and give more to the church. If we don’t give tithes and gifts to the church, we aren’t being faithful. Perhaps we aren’t even saved at all. But if you faithfully give to the church, you’ll be saved.

Ok, I don’t know of many churches that ACTUALLY teach this, but televangelists are notorious for this kind of thing. And the only people who benefit are the televangelists. I worked for what had been a large church for a long time, somewhere
around 14 years, and all I really heard was guilt guilt guilt, shame shame shame, you’re not doing enough for the church/Lord, and if you ever need help, just ask.

Where was the church when my wife and I
lost our jobs and were homeless? Hey, someone told me you had an extra room. We won’t be any trouble, we just need a little time to get back on our feet. “Oh no,
I’m so sorry. I can’t do anything for you, but we will keep you in our prayers.”

I remember another time our A/C kept going out and we’d payed a crap ton of money getting it fixed. In the end we decided to just deal with it. I remember having a conversation with someone having A/C trouble and how we conditioned ourselves to live without it a number of years. They were in utter shock and asked why we never said anything before. I explained that we’d asked for help NUMEROUS times and literally NOBODY from the church would help us. We’d have those conversations and all we’d get was someone’s thoughts and prayers. By the time someone decided to stop by our house and see how we actually lived firsthand, we were already taking steps to leave the area and start a new life elsewhere. We’d given up on the church, the people, the pastor, the staff...and the whole damned town.

I lost a lot of faith in “good people” and “the church.” I learned the only person I could consistently rely on was myself. I learned that many people I was around calling themselves Christians weren't simply unkind--they were outright hostile and threatening. It didn't shake my faith in God. But it did challenge my view of reality and who the real enemies were in my life. I became instantly suspicious of anyone lauding self-sacrifice and service to others.

It's not that kindness is bad, or compassion is out of place. I do love other people besides myself. It's just that I’m not going to help people who mean nothing to me. I’m not going to spend the rest of my life in poverty because other people are more important than me. I’m not going to put my own family second place behind anyone besides myself, and I certainly won't tolerate my family coming under attack from others. If I’m going to care about another person, I’m going to want a REASON first, not “Jesus said” or “Moses said.” People who use the words of Jesus to convince you to do their bidding with no reward for you are not people to be trusted.

I believe that Jesus is the Son of God who died on the cross to atone for the sins of all humanity, past, present and future. What Jesus did on the cross was not a selfless act. It was done in order to pay a ransom to rescue those God loves—ALL of us. That’s not an altruistic sacrifice. It’s an exchange, giving up what God didn’t need but had in exchange for the souls God wanted in His presence for all eternity. If God considers me worth enough to give up His own Son, what purpose does it serve to sit through sermons about how worthless human beings are to God? So a lot of the guilt and shaming that happens in many churches is in reality horrible theology.

Part of the reason why Objectivism is atheistic is because Objectivism rejects the idea that human beings are worthless creatures. Christians are seen as self-hating, altruistic, collectivist slaves. I don’t share the typical Christian view, obviously, but neither do I blindly accept the Objectivist view that God has no existence in objective reality. Objectivists would require objective evidence and proof that God exists. I would argue that they already know that God exists.

And that leads to my final point: The flaw in Objective reasoning that rejects all faith. SOME faith is required for everything. The scientific method requires faith—you assume or presuppose the scientific method as axiomatic. It is impossible to objectively evaluate the scientific method itself since to evaluate something by its own methods is circular reasoning.

Despite that central error in all reasoning, we have to make those assumptions. That is essentially what faith really is. It does no good to attempt to objectively prove God exists since an unbeliever won’t be convinced by evidence anyway. For a believe to put faith in evidence because there no threshold for how much evidence is required to believe anything. I can quote proofs if God’s existence all day long. But if someone comes along and blows the lid off a logical proof or some other evidence, am I not compelled to reject my faith in God because evidence so? And if I become an unbeliever, what happens when the next guy shows me evidence that God exists? Say oops, my mistake, I’m gonna be a Christian again? So demanding evidence when you aren’t going to accept it anyway is just immature. I prefer to accept God on faith and allow God to prove Himself to me rather than feel obligated to prove something on evidence that nobody is going to accept.

While I agree with a number of Objectivist positions, their position on God and faith falls way short of anything I consider reasonable.