If morality is relative how can Christian morals be criticised? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For discussion of moral and ethical issues.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14972607
Pants-of-dog wrote:
For example, you could look at impact and judge morality according to said impact.



That would still be an objective measure. Relativists can't meaningfully criticize the morals of others. They can subjectively approve or disapprove but they can't say anything is objectively right or wrong.
#14973055
Pants-of-dog wrote:A criticism of morality can be meaningful even if the criticism does not discuss if the morality is objectively wrong.



How? If there are no objective moral facts then it's all just a matter of preference and taste. When properly understood moral relativism just collapses into nihilism.


Nobody really holds to moral relativism anyway, it's just something smug liberals indulge in to convince themselves that they're intellectually sophisticated.
#14973060
One Degree wrote:What example can anyone give of an action that is always morally correct?


Not molesting infant children would be accepted by most, but ultimately, this depends on the ethical school. Obeying Christian law is obviously an absolute standard in my own system which likewise correlates to my discourse ethics which exist as a logical demonstration of what I already know by faith.

Sivad wrote:Nobody really holds to moral relativism anyway, it's just something smug liberals indulge in to convince themselves that they're intellectually sophisticated.


This is correct.

Sivad wrote:How? If there are no objective moral facts then it's all just a matter of preference and taste. When properly understood moral relativism just collapses into nihilism.


Excellent. Well Said.

Pants-of-dog wrote:All morality is relative, but it still can be judged. A morality does not heed tombe objective in order to be criticised.

For example, you could look at impact and judge morality according to said impact.


Sivad wrote:That would still be an objective measure. Relativists can't meaningfully criticize the morals of others. They can subjectively approve or disapprove but they can't say anything is objectively right or wrong.


:lol:

Chris Tucker has a message for Pants:

Image
#14973090
Sivad wrote:How? If there are no objective moral facts then it's all just a matter of preference and taste. When properly understood moral relativism just collapses into nihilism.


No. Like I already said, there can be real and intelligent criticisms made of morality that have nothing to do with whether or not it is subjective or objective.

For example, traditional Christian morality says we should stone all teenagers who talk back. This moral precept has a negative impact insofar as teenagers then die because of this moral norm, and we could look at those deaths and use that to say that that particular moral norm is wrong.
#14973145
Pants-of-dog wrote:For example, traditional Christian morality says we should stone all teenagers who talk back. This moral precept has a negative impact insofar as teenagers then die because of this moral norm, and we could look at those deaths and use that to say that that particular moral norm is wrong.


That's just kicking the can down the road, the question then becomes why is killing teenagers wrong?
#14973147
Pants-of-dog wrote:This moral precept has a negative impact insofar as teenagers then die because of this moral norm, and we could look at those deaths and use that to say that that particular moral norm is wrong.


Thats an objective criteria; namely you have determined that something is wrong if it causes "harm."

That is a form of utilitarianism and is not a relativist school of morality.

You clearly don't know what you are talking about.

Unless you can PROVE to me why harm is wrong. Maybe harm is proof of good?

:lol:


Pants-of-dog wrote: traditional Christian morality says we should stone all teenagers who talk back.


This is a caricature btw. Straw-Man Fallacy.

The Law is not about simple back-talking, its about open-rebellion against one's patriarch, which was seen as the same as treason in a microcosm.
#14973152
Sivad wrote:That's just kicking the can down the road, the question then becomes why is killing teenagers wrong?


No, that is not the point.

The point is that we can critically analyse moral principles by their impact on people. And this is true regardless of whether or not the moral principle is objective or not.

-----------------

Victoribus Spolia wrote:Thats an objective criteria; namely you have determined that something is wrong if it causes "harm."


It is an objective criterion. But that has nothing to do with whether or not killing teenagers for being rebellious is objective or not.

That is a form of utilitarianism and is not a relativist school of morality.

You clearly don't know what you are talking about.

Unless you can PROVE to me why harm is wrong. Maybe harm is proof of good?

:lol:


This seems more like a laundry list of assumptions you are making than an actual argument.

I do not think you need to be someone who believes in utilitarian philosophy in order to point out that moral norms can be criticised according to their impact on others.

Nor do I have to prove that harm is bad, if I am simply making the conditional statement that following that specific moral precept causes these specific impacts.

The reason I am using an objective criterion is because I like to use logic and facts in my criticisms. I could just as easily make a subjective criticism: that Christianity has many incorrect moral claims because those claims contradict my belief in egalitarianism. But that would be a weak criticism. As weak as someone telling me i am wrong because God does not like what I said.

This is a caricature btw. Straw-Man Fallacy.

The Law is not about simple back-talking, its about open-rebellion against one's patriarch, which was seen as the same as treason in a microcosm.


This is just an example. The Bible is full of absurd moral claims. Feel free to choose another one if you wish.
#14973154
I actually like the symbolism of ‘stoning teenagers’ as what is necessary for them.
My wife had a friend (who I did not like) who called it ‘roostering’. It requires being slapped down hard (stoning).
#14973164
Pants-of-dog wrote:It is an objective criterion.


which was the point and why you were wrong.

You were claiming to be able to critique morality from the basis of subjectivity and demonstrated why such is not possible.

Good job.

Pants-of-dog wrote:This seems more like a laundry list of assumptions you are making than an actual argument.


False.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I do not think you need to be someone who believes in utilitarian philosophy in order to point out that moral norms can be criticised according to their impact on others.


False, that is exactly what utilitarianism in fact does, its a consequentialist ethic that regards an action as right or wrong based on the assessment of whether or not the "good" (defined as pleasure) of an action outweighs the bad (pain/harm) for the most people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism

So you are engaging is bad reasoning on two levels: One, if you appeal to a consequentialist standard, then you contradict your claim that morality is relative or subjective; however, if your abandon the dogmas (or lack thereof) of relativism and accept consequentialism, then you will be involved in the fallacy of all consequentialist schools; namely, that of the is-ought fallacy.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Nor do I have to prove that harm is bad, if I am simply making the conditional statement that following that specific moral precept causes these specific impacts.


But that would not be a critique then, as nothing morally negative can be demonstrated.

If you are simply saying that "Moral Belief A results in Physical Pain or Harm X" then you have said something that is denied by no one and is a critique of nothing.

Obviously moral systems will often advocate for harm, whether its stoning teenagers or executing mass murderers, you simply pointing this out is nothing the advocates of such wouldn't readily admit.

But once again, this is not a critique in any meaningful sense, unless you wish to argue that those who would advocate the stoning of the teenager in question in fact deny that the teenager is being harmed. :lol:

Pants-of-dog wrote:The reason I am using an objective criterion is because I like to use logic and facts in my criticisms.


Except that using an objective criterion in a moral judgement is what is required of an objective moral system, which you deny; hence the contradiction.

The irony of this is quite astounding.

Pants-of-dog wrote:This is just an example. The Bible is full of absurd moral claims. Feel free to choose another one if you wish.


That would be off-topic, I was merely pointing out that you used a straw-man.

Glad we agree.
#14973200
Victoribus Spolia wrote:which was the point and why you were wrong.

You were claiming to be able to critique morality from the basis of subjectivity and demonstrated why such is not possible.

Good job.


No, that is not what I claimed.

For the third or fourth time, my claim was that you can criticise a moral norm regardless if the moral norm is objective or subjective.

False.

False, that is exactly what utilitarianism in fact does, its a consequentialist ethic that regards an action as right or wrong based on the assessment of whether or not the "good" (defined as pleasure) of an action outweighs the bad (pain/harm) for the most people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism

So you are engaging is bad reasoning on two levels: One, if you appeal to a consequentialist standard, then you contradict your claim that morality is relative or subjective; however, if your abandon the dogmas (or lack thereof) of relativism and accept consequentialism, then you will be involved in the fallacy of all consequentialist schools; namely, that of the is-ought fallacy.


Since this is all based on your misunderstanding if my claim, I will simply ignore it.

But that would not be a critique then, as nothing morally negative can be demonstrated.

If you are simply saying that "Moral Belief A results in Physical Pain or Harm X" then you have said something that is denied by no one and is a critique of nothing.

Obviously moral systems will often advocate for harm, whether its stoning teenagers or executing mass murderers, you simply pointing this out is nothing the advocates of such wouldn't readily admit.

But once again, this is not a critique in any meaningful sense, unless you wish to argue that those who would advocate the stoning of the teenager in question in fact deny that the teenager is being harmed. :lol:


You seem really stuck on this example.

Anyway, your opinion on the meaningfulness of my example is not a contradiction of my claim.

You are not denying that Christian morals can still be criticised if all morals are relative. You just think my example is not a big deal.

Except that using an objective criterion in a moral judgement is what is required of an objective moral system, which you deny; hence the contradiction.

The irony of this is quite astounding.


I am not denying anything about how objective moral standards supposedly use objective criteria.

Please note that even subjective moral codes are capable of using objective criteria.

Also, how many objective moralities are there?

That would be off-topic, I was merely pointing out that you used a straw-man.

Glad we agree.


I am simply using the words of the Bible. We could use the one about parapets if you want. Did you know the Bible says that you have to have one, in order to avoid the guilt of bloodshed if someone falls off your roof?
#14973206
Pants-of-dog wrote:For the third or fourth time, my claim was that you can criticise a moral norm regardless if the moral norm is objective or subjective.


On what basis? Your ability to type?

Because so long as that critique rests on an objective basis, you are making an objective moral value judgement, by definition.

......unless of course, you deny these judgements have any moral content, in which case, what the fuck are you even talking about?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Since this is all based on your misunderstanding if my claim, I will simply ignore it.


You claimed that your consideration of the consequence of harm was not utilitarian (an objective moral system); hence this section you are ignoring is a salient rebuttal that you have just dismissed without warrant. Thus, the point stands unchallenged.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Anyway, your opinion on the meaningfulness of my example is not a contradiction of my claim.

You are not denying that Christian morals can still be criticised if all morals are relative. You just think my example is not a big deal.


I am using the term "meaningless" in the actual dialectical sense.

That is, you have not offered any REAL or meaningful critique, because critiques by definition offer a "criticism" of something negative in the argument; however, you have only stated that moral systems often advocate for physical harm, but as that is not something under contention, but merely a matter of fact, and given that you have no moral grounds for saying that physical harm is even bad or wrong to begin with, your "so-called" critique is really NO CRITIQUE AT ALL.

For it to be so, you would need to demonstrate how causing harm is bad, but that would require an appeal to objective standard for making such a moral judgment, a standard which you have denied to even exists as a proponent of moral relativism.

Please go home and quit embarrassing yourself here.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Please note that even subjective moral codes are capable of using objective criteria.


Please provide evidence for this claim. Thanks.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Also, how many objective moralities are there?


There are many "schools of moral philosophy" and "ethical systems" that appeal to some criteria outside of subjective preference.

However, there is only ONE absolute moral system that is both objective and lacking in logical error. That would be my own. :excited:

Pants-of-dog wrote:I am simply using the words of the Bible.


Oh really?

Please show me the text where it says this EXACT phrase: "Thou shalt stone teenagers for back-talking." Which is what you said. :lol:

No.

What you said was your own interpretive paraphrase of that law. Not the law itself.

Pants-of-dog wrote:We could use the one about parapets if you want. Did you know the Bible says that you have to have one, in order to avoid the guilt of bloodshed if someone falls off your roof?


Sure, the case law requires that people who entertain others at dangerous heights should have railing. I believe this and practice it.

When I build a deck, I put on railing; however, with steep-pitch roofs in PA that law obviously does not apply, as the law was implemented to prevent liability against homeowners if a guest were to fall.
#14973218
Victoribus Spolia wrote:On what basis? Your ability to type?

Because so long as that critique rests on an objective basis, you are making an objective moral value judgement, by definition.

......unless of course, you deny these judgements have any moral content, in which case, what the fuck are you even talking about?


No. The judgement is not objective just because it has an objective basis.

All judgements are, at least partly, based on objective things. That does not mean all judgements are objective.

You claimed that your consideration of the consequence of harm was not utilitarian (an objective moral system); hence this section you are ignoring is a salient rebuttal that you have just dismissed without warrant. Thus, the point stands unchallenged.


Not as far as I can tell. If you want, you can explain why.

I am using the term "meaningless" in the actual dialectical sense.

That is, you have not offered any REAL or meaningful critique, because critiques by definition offer a "criticism" of something negative in the argument; however, you have only stated that moral systems often advocate for physical harm, but as that is not something under contention, but merely a matter of fact, and given that you have no moral grounds for saying that physical harm is even bad or wrong to begin with, your "so-called" critique is really NO CRITIQUE AT ALL.

For it to be so, you would need to demonstrate how causing harm is bad, but that would require an appeal to objective standard for making such a moral judgment, a standard which you have denied to even exists as a proponent of moral relativism.

Please go home and quit embarrassing yourself here.


No, I can demonstrate how killing is bad without appealing to an objective stance and appeal to the very subjective attachment we have for our own children.

And there you have a critique of Christianity based on a subjective value.

Please provide evidence for this claim. Thanks.


Okay. First of all, do you think my moral code is a subjective one?

I will assume that you think my moral code is sbjand proceed from there.

Now, my moral code states that people who build buildings should follow the latest local regulations in terms of occupant safety. And these regulations are based on objective and verifiable analyses of building materials and types of construction.

There are many "schools of moral philosophy" and "ethical systems" that appeal to some criteria outside of subjective preference.

However, there is only ONE absolute moral system that is both objective and lacking in logical error. That would be my own. :excited:


Okay, and I will assume that all these other moral codes that try to be objective are not actually objective and are, instead, subjective. So my moral code is subjective.

I doubt that @Sivad agrees with you that your particular interpretation of Bronze age myths is objectively correct.

Oh really?

Please show me the text where it says this EXACT phrase: "Thou shalt stone teenagers for back-talking." Which is what you said. :lol:

No.

What you said was your own interpretive paraphrase of that law. Not the law itself.


    If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and who, when they have chastened him, will not heed them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city, to the gate of his city. And they shall say to the elders of his city, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.” Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death with stones; so you shall put away the evil from among you, and all Israel shall hear and fear. (Deuteronomy 21:18–21

Sure, the case law requires that people who entertain others at dangerous heights should have railing. I believe this and practice it.

When I build a deck, I put on railing; however, with steep-pitch roofs in PA that law obviously does not apply, as the law was implemented to prevent liability against homeowners if a guest were to fall.


Yes, the authors of the Bible obviously did not know about pitched roofs.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7

And since there is no profit, capitalism has no s[…]

The US military leadership says that to protect th[…]

Apparently Hindsite is a true American, and defin[…]

EU-BREXIT

Three Years On: Still Divided Today marks […]