If this were a theological debate, I'll gladly tell you. Since it isn't, I won't make it one, and I suggest you stop trying to make it one too.
That you dodged my question and went on the offensive tells me a lot.
You are misinterpreting what I said, and on top of that, you're adding words into my mouth. Please don't do that. It quite hurts your credibility in a discussion.
You seem to keep ignoring the important points of my replies while quickly attacking the less important details, such as syntax and diction.
And unsubstantiated claims do little on your part too.
Where am I putting words in your mouth?
As far as I'm concerned, this was a matter of semantics, not diction. If anything, it's a mistaken choice of words on your part in that, as I implied,
valued opinions=morality
Valued opinions, or
values, dictate how one discerns what is right or wrong, ie the source of morality.
Whether you believe a God or a Transcendent Being dictated or created it, power to you. I frankly don't find the need of making a connection according to the argumentation I have used thus far.
Which is...
what?
I'm still sitting here with no conceivable idea of how morality can exist outside the individual's mind without involving some religious or supernatural dynamic to the argument.
There are unwavering laws in the universe, that I'll concede, but these are
natural, not
metaphysical.
Your view of morality obviously makes Morality itself self-defeating. That's the biggest problem I have with relativism.
I'm going to assume you're referring to the classic argument against relativism here- it is self-refuting, as the statement "all truth is relative" must fall under the scrutiny of relativism as well.
That is the subject of an entirely different debate. That's not what we're talking about here. We're referring specifically to
moral relativism.
Hence, saying, "All morals are relative" is not self defeating. It is axiomatic, true, but the statement itself would have to be moral or immoral, which it is not, merely declarative. It is an absolute truth about morality.
Were I to believe in epistemological relativism and state that, then it would be contradictory since it would be an absolute claim.
Get it?
If morality was based upon man's interpretation then we wouldn't feel as guilty as killing a man as we do in playing 6 innings of baseball instead of 9.
"I don't see how moral overlap necessitates the existence of an absolute morality. Were there none, it would be a useless function. The point in discerning between what is "right" and "wrong" is instinctive for the betterment of humanity. Were we to all have entirely different views on this, it would be, as I said, useless."
There's an evolutionary reason why we feel more guilty about murder than sloth, though the degree of guilt varies with each person.
If we could easily change the rules at will, what's the point of having rules in the first place?
The answer is in the question.
We have rules because they can be changed at will, since there is no absolute morality.
By collaborating and reaching a consensus through establishing rules, it is for the betterment of humanity.
To this problem, Absolutists such as myself, propose the fact that morality has to be unwavering.
The beauty of morality though is that, through choice, man has the capability to ignore such rules and act according to however they want. Like every good rule, they have the capability of being broken.
Just because we're capable of breaking the rules of morality doesn't mean that the rules don't exist. To the contrary. They are further proven by the persistent breaking of them. Humans are imperfect and equally so, they will continue breaking such rules despite anything. That is why it is so noble to act Morally.
Faulty logic. You assume that the variation in morality is a breaking of the rules rather than... just a variation in morality.
That is, deeming it as "breaking the rules" implies in itself that there is an absolute morality. You're sneaking in the existence of an absolute morality in your premise to reach the conclusion that there is absolute morality, it's circuitous cause and consequence.
Saying that morality doesn't exist is quite dangerous.
Because it entails nihilism?
Not at all. In fact, the opposite may be true. I suggest you read up on Friedrich Nietzche and Richard Dawkin (particularly the Moral Zaitgeist).
Doing so would point you as a hypocrite when attempting to make any sort of moral claim, something I'm sure is not in your best of interests.
See earlier comment about self-refuting concept.
If you wish to argue the justice and rightness of "Tolerating" Homosexuality, you are officially arguing the premise that "Tolerance" is thus inherently good, and that we should follow it. As a relativist, you can't afford to make such claims, because ultimately, you're supporting one ideal over another (the other being injustice)
You're misrepresenting my argument.
I am not claiming that tolerance is
inherently good and that, therefore, we should employ it in the case of homosexuality.
Homosexuality isn't a good or bad thing as I see it, but at the very least it is not detrimental to society and should thus be tolerated, in that intolerance would be absurd/devoid of any legitimate reason.
If I were to ever claim that either homosexuality or even tolerance were good or just or right, it would be with a big fat "imo" plastered there.
There has never been a successful society of relativists. Just pointing that out there.
Because there has never been a complete society of relativists, last I checked.
There have been, however, very successful individual relativists throughout history, though that's neither here nor there.
Every society has had a basic foundation of rules upon which individuals are expected to follow. we have always valued virtue over vice. Right versus Wrong.
Correct, and virtue and vice are ambiguous, ever-changing terms.
Just because people wrong each other isn't enough proof to support Relativism. As a society as a whole, we still look down upon those who wrong.
Uh, that's not all I said to support moral relativism- not just that people wrong each other, but that what is deemed right changes between cultures and time.
Tell me of a society in history where:
1) Running away from battle was deemed honorable.
2) Going behind the backs of those who are dearest to you was deemed reasonable
3) Stealing was supported
See quote on moral overlap.
Poor examples anyway, even though I know what you're trying to say.
1. Not in the most literal sense, but running away from Vietnam/Iraq.
2. "Reasonable?" There's a plethora of examples. One stands out- Abraham and Isaac, even if he did not kill Isaac, Abraham was willing. In fact, I recommend you read Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling on this.
3. The classic "Your wife is dying and needs meds" scenario.
Relativism entails leaving individuals to chose what they deem to be morally right and morally wrong.
No it doesn't. As I said earlier, read up on Nietzche and Dawkin.
Admittedly too lazy at the moment to put down their ideas, but if you'd like, I will later or at least give you some links.
I fail to follow the correlation you are trying to make here.
My claim is based on the fundamental foundations of absolute morality. If you can't abide by an absolute law, how can you abide by any law whatsoever, if they are constantly "evolving" or changing, as you say.
Because you do it in your own best interest and for the betterment of humanity- you acknowledge the absurdity of it without resignation. Above all, though, it's really for its own sake.
We are social creatures, and constructing moral laws only naturally follows from this (reaching a consensus from relativism).
But even if you're aware of the relativity, that doesn't mean you should go against this nature. It would be an absurdity in the face of absurdity, so it is hence best to go along with it, advocating your own moral ideas in the process.
Comparing a logical claim with two fallacies to attempt to debunk it's logic is a fairly childish form of argumentation. Even sophists would be ashame.
I thought the examples would make it self evident what I was arguing- the examples in themselves were not the proof.
But cool style over substance fallacy/dressed up ad hominem bro.
I think by now I've done a fairly good job at making this point.
If you're the only one in disagreement, that would be a shame. If you aren't however, I would like to hear from others about it too : )
But by all means, continue if you don't believe I've given this enough justice.
I do not think you have given it enough justice.
I've been doing my best to support my claim. If you don't believe I have, by all means, you have my gravest apologies.
I did support the Absolutist argument during the course of the introduction of my dissertation however. If you failed to read it, or simply forgot about it by the end of the paper, I am sorry to hear, but the information is in fact there.
The further argumentation sprung upon your misunderstanding of my idea. Hence I've tried to clarify such to the best of my ability.
I didn't fail to read it, I failed to read an establishment of moral absolutism. I really haven't heard your explanation at all, you're still being circuitous. All you have to do is, answer, "How can there be absolute morality without religious connotation?" Do not dodge the question by going on the offensive and dismissing relativism.
I don't in fact believe that this is to the best of your capabilities.
Abused meme.
