[Victoribus Spolia]

No. Something can be relative and at the same time have at least some basis in evidence or logic.

Please provide an example. Thanks.

The second floor is higher than the first floor. This is a description of their positions relative to one another. The numbering system and the faxt that the floors are vertically stacked is based on structural physics, and the logic of how humans use builidings.

Your are equivocating on the term "relative". Relative in that usage is referring to a proximate comparison, not mutually exclusive claims being equally valid and invalid at the same time.



You have just discredited yourself in a way that I could never have predicted. LOL

s that unless you have some historical evidence to support your claims, you only have a hypothesis and not a verifiable or verified claim.

That is not how philosophy works, philosophy takes claims based on definitions and analyzes them through the laws of logic.

The claim that moral relativism can make critiques of other moral systems on the basis of logic and evidence is assessed by this same criterion and it does not matter what has happened or what people have claimed historically, not one bit.

To say otherwise is a fallacy.

This position of yours would require that all the arguments for moral relativism are necessarily subjective and not based on rational thought. If this were the case, moral relativism would not even be a philosophical position that could be debated. But it is.

People do act inconsistently, which is why the matter is debated, for people can claim that morality is simply a matter of personal preference, but then act like that views itself isn't a matter of preference but of objective fact; however, that is itself showing that the moral belief in moral relativism is not morally relative (contradiction).

Other problems with it could be produced, but ultimately the point is that just because people claim an argument for moral relativism does not mean that moral relativism is a valid or consistent theory.

There are people that deny logic as well, but they are using logic in making that very claim and are therefore self-contradictory, this is the same with moral relativism.

that different cultures and people follow different moral norms, and even the same group or individual can follow different moral norms at different times.

That is not moral relativism though; that is not even a moral claim at all, that is an observation of divergent patterns in human behavior that no one denies. Hell, I would even make that claim in agreement with you, does that make me a moral relativist?

Pants, a moral claim is always about obligation, the "ought," thus moral relativism claims that there is no "ought" upon anyone in any objective manner whatsoever; rather, moral relativism teaches that people only ought to do what they themselves believe they ought to do and no other person's moral system is any more right or wrong than anyone elses.

Thus, If person X believes in molesting children and Person A believes in protecting children from molestation, under moral relativism; both claims are equally valid and invalid at the same time. They are relative and subjective; neither person X or A is right or wrong.

That is moral relativism.

What you are talking about something that is not even a moral or ethical statement at all, just an observation of historical patterns.

Now, you can choose to infer from that observation of different cultures in different times that different cultures ought to behave as they wish and that their cultural morality is no better or worse than that of other cultures; that still would not be moral relativism, but moral particularism (as @Sivad has pointed out).

However, if you "attempted" to infer from that same observation the system of moral relativism, what would that claim even look like? That because other cultures in different times had different norms that individuals "ought" to have their own preferred morality of their own choosing? Well that would be a contradiction because you are claiming that morality is relative but that everyone "ought" to act/believe that relative morality which is not a morally relative claim in itself due to its scope.

Likewise, if you infer ANY ethical or moral statement from that observation, it would ALWAYS be a fallacy anyway; the is-ought fallacy (also called the naturalistic fallacy), for you cannot logically infer from historic observation of what people did (the is), what people should do or believe (the ought).

If you are merely stating what people do and are making no "ought" claims at all, then you are not talking about morality in any sense whatsoever; only what people do or have done.

That is sociology, not morality or ethics.

[Pants-of-dog]

Please provide an example. Thanks.

Your are equivocating on the term "relative". Relative in that usage is referring to a proximate comparison, not mutually exclusive claims being equally valid and invalid at the same time.

No. Instead I am going to ask you to support your assumption that claims cannot be partly relative and also partly based on logic or evidence at the same time.

That is not how philosophy works, philosophy takes claims based on definitions and analyzes them through the laws of logic.

The claim that moral relativism can make critiques of other moral systems on the basis of logic and evidence is assessed by this same criterion and it does not matter what has happened or what people have claimed historically, not one bit.

To say otherwise is a fallacy.

Well, I disagree with your defintion of moral relativiism as a philosophical outlook that does not use logic or evidence.

Please show how this definition of yours is supoorted by evidence.

People do act inconsistently, which is why the matter is debated, for people can claim that morality is simply a matter of personal preference, but then act like that views itself isn't a matter of preference but of objective fact; however, that is itself showing that the moral belief in moral relativism is not morally relative (contradiction).

Other problems with it could be produced, but ultimately the point is that just because people claim an argument for moral relativism does not mean that moral relativism is a valid or consistent theory.

There are people that deny logic as well, but they are using logic in making that very claim and are therefore self-contradictory, this is the same with moral relativism.

Please show examples of moral relativist arguments that are free of logic and evidence.

That is not moral relativism though; that is not even a moral claim at all, that is an observation of divergent patterns in human behavior that no one denies. Hell, I would even make that claim in agreement with you, does that make me a moral relativist?

I do not share your incorrect assumption that merely discussing a subject makes ine an advicate of that subject, or that criticisms of Christianity must be based on a system of thought.

And I never said it was a claim. I said it was a premise. And it is. One that could be used in a claim of moral relativism and it is also based on evidence.

Pants, a moral claim is always about obligation, the "ought," thus moral relativism claims that there is no "ought" upon anyone in any objective manner whatsoever; rather, moral relativism teaches that people only ought to do what they themselves believe they ought to do and no other person's moral system is any more right or wrong than anyone elses.

Thus, If person X believes in molesting children and Person A believes in protecting children from molestation, under moral relativism; both claims are equally valid and invalid at the same time. They are relative and subjective; neither person X or A is right or wrong.

That is moral relativism.

What you are talking about something that is not even a moral or ethical statement at all, just an observation of historical patterns.

Actually, the position that people hold different moral values is called descriptive moral relativism.

You seem to be confusing that with meta-ethical moral relativism, which is as you deacribe here.

Now, you can choose to infer from that observation of different cultures in different times that different cultures ought to behave as they wish and that their cultural morality is no better or worse than that of other cultures; that still would not be moral relativism, but moral particularism (as @Sivad has pointed out).

However, if you "attempted" to infer from that same observation the system of moral relativism, what would that claim even look like? That because other cultures in different times had different norms that individuals "ought" to have their own preferred morality of their own choosing? Well that would be a contradiction because you are claiming that morality is relative but that everyone "ought" to act/believe that relative morality which is not a morally relative claim in itself due to its scope.

Likewise, if you infer ANY ethical or moral statement from that observation, it would ALWAYS be a fallacy anyway; the is-ought fallacy (also called the naturalistic fallacy), for you cannot logically infer from historic observation of what people did (the is), what people should do or believe (the ought).

If you are merely stating what people do and are making no "ought" claims at all, then you are not talking about morality in any sense whatsoever; only what people do or have done.

That is sociology, not morality or ethics.

Please note that we are not discussing the moral claims of moral relativism. We are discussing whether or not it is possible to criticise Christianity from a standpoint of moral relativism.

And that is relatively easy to do.

[Rugoz]

Thus, If person X believes in molesting children and Person A believes in protecting children from molestation, under moral relativism; both claims are equally valid and invalid at the same time. They are relative and subjective; neither person X or A is right or wrong.

If both are motivated by compassion, they can both be right or wrong. Otherwise it has nothing to do with morality in the first place.

[Pants-of-dog]

Also, in VS’s example there, they would not be objectively right or wrong, but they would be right or wrong according to cultural norms.

[B0ycey]

If both are motivated by compassion, they can both be right or wrong. Otherwise it has nothing to do with morality in the first place.

They both can only be right and wrong because of morality actually. Depending on their personal principles of what is right and wrong is, this will determine whether child molestation is right or wrong to the individual. After all, as there are no universal laws to say what right and wrong is (right and wrong are a human construct) it has to be subjective to the individual and not objective to the collective because it is thought concept and not an absolute fact. We have objective laws that determine whether this practice is right and wrong for society as a whole however, nonetheless the law has nothing to do with morality as it is a legal practice. For example is abortion morally right or wrong? Well that depends on your morals because under UK law it is right, despite many saying it is wrong.

[Victoribus Spolia]

No. Instead I am going to ask you to support your assumption that claims cannot be partly relative and also partly based on logic or evidence at the same time.

That actually something entirely different from what I claimed; If you support your claim that something is wrong with an objective criteria; then the claim is no longer subjective or relative; because if you have two mutually exclusive claims that both supposedly relative, but one has more "logic and evidence" behind it; wouldn't you argue that such a claim is to be preferred? If that is the case, the two claims are not relative because you are claiming one to be superior on an objective basis.

Which is the point.

However, if you are only saying that you have separate logical reasons for critiquing a position as distinct from your subjective moral sentiments about it; that is a different claim entirely and I have no problem with that; because in such an instance you are not claiming your evidential arguments as the basis for your moral views or that such moral views are superior because of such evidence.

Well, I disagree with your defintion of moral relativiism as a philosophical outlook that does not use logic or evidence.

Please show how this definition of yours is supoorted by evidence.

You as the one making the claim have the right to define your own definitions; however, I am referring specifically to the consistent moral relativist position of meta-ethical normative moral relativism.

Moral relativism may be any of several philosophical positions concerned with the differences in moral judgments across different people and cultures. Descriptive moral relativism holds only that some people do in fact disagree about what is moral; meta-ethical moral relativism holds that in such disagreements, nobody is objectively right or wrong; and normative moral relativism holds that because nobody is right or wrong, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when we disagree about the morality of it.

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

Please show examples of moral relativist arguments that are free of logic and evidence.

So you just want me to quote your claims then?

I do not share your incorrect assumption that merely discussing a subject makes ine an advicate of that subject, or that criticisms of Christianity must be based on a system of thought.

Please provide evidence for your contrary claim. Thanks.

Actually, the position that people hold different moral values is called descriptive moral relativism.

That is correct, which is not an actual moral position at all, as I have proven; because it makes no obligatory claims (Ought-statements).

Like I said, if you are only saying that people act differently from each other, that is not a relativist argument, that is merely an observation (hence, descriptive).

You seem to be confusing that with meta-ethical moral relativism, which is as you deacribe here.

That is correct, do you reject meta-ethical moral relativism and normative moral relativism then?

For that is what I mean by moral relativism and have meant through-out. If this is not your position then there is essentially little disagreement as I don't even fully deny descriptive moral relativism or observational cultural relativism (basically the same thing, except from a socio-historical perspective).

Please note that we are not discussing the moral claims of moral relativism. We are discussing whether or not it is possible to criticise Christianity from a standpoint of moral relativism.

If you hold to meta-ethical and normative moral relativism, you cannot consistently criticize Christianity from that stand-point. That has been my argument through-out and I would debate any challenge to that proposition; which can be refuted with ease. Keep in mind; that when most people think of moral relativism or claim to critique it; this is what they are referring.

If you are only claiming descriptive moral relativism; that we observe people following their own moral convictions as they choose them; well then there is little debate here because that is something we seem to plainly observe; which the possible exception of moral actions deeply rooted in what might be called "instinct" or "economic-law."

Thus, if you are claiming that someone who holds to descriptive moral relativism can critique Christianity; I have no disagreement on that as your belief regarding how people tend to behave based on observation has nothing to do with moral premises themselves as to their validity or invalidity.

That being said, such critiques made by a descriptive moral relativist are not themselves relative arguments, for reasons I have demonstrated as such would be ought statements related to normative and meta-ethical claims.

If both are motivated by compassion, they can both be right or wrong. Otherwise it has nothing to do with morality in the first place.

Nonsense.

Also, in VS’s example there, they would not be objectively right or wrong, but they would be right or wrong according to cultural norms.

Correct, that is what I am mocking.

They both can only be right and wrong because of morality actually. Depending on their personal principles of what is right and wrong is, this will determine whether child molestation is right or wrong to the individual.

Is Child Molestation (as an act of pedophilia) right or wrong?

[B0ycey]

Is Child Molestation (as an act of pedophilia) right or wrong?

To me and most other people it is wrong. But it depends who you ask. A pedophilia would think it is right. Is his morality any less acceptable to nature?

[Victoribus Spolia]

A pedophilia would think it is right.

Do you believe he is right to think that its right and practice such?

[Rancid]

Morals are just social constructs. Most people will bend them to fit whatever personal agendas they may have.

[B0ycey]

Do you believe he is right to think that its right and practice such?

Of course not. But my morality is different to his.

[Victoribus Spolia]

But my morality is different to his.

So you think he should be allowed to molest children then?

[One Degree]

The disagreement comes in defining pedophilia. It would appear nature objects to it, but it is difficult to determine when that objection begins.

[B0ycey]

So you think he should be allowed to molest children then?

As my morality is different to his the answer should be obvious VS.

NOOOOOOO!!!!!!

[Victoribus Spolia]

As my morality is different to his the answer should be obvious VS.

NOOOOOOO!!!!

If your morality is different than his, then what right do you have to judge his morality? What right do you have to punish his morality based on your morality?

[Rancid]

Anyone that things Child molestation is ok, should be shot.

[B0ycey]

If your morality is different than his, then what right do you have to judge his morality? What right do you have to punish his morality based on your morality?

Morals are not punishments VS. I cannot punish the pedophile because of my morals. Only the law can do that based on legislation. So what I think is right might not be what he thinks is right but that doesn't prevent me judging his morality by my own morality FYI.

[Pants-of-dog]

That actually something entirely different from what I claimed; If you support your claim that something is wrong with an objective criteria; then the claim is no longer subjective or relative; because if you have two mutually exclusive claims that both supposedly relative, but one has more "logic and evidence" behind it; wouldn't you argue that such a claim is to be preferred? If that is the case, the two claims are not relative because you are claiming one to be superior on an objective basis.

Which is the point.

However, if you are only saying that you have separate logical reasons for critiquing a position as distinct from your subjective moral sentiments about it; that is a different claim entirely and I have no problem with that; because in such an instance you are not claiming your evidential arguments as the basis for your moral views or that such moral views are superior because of such evidence.

I believe you did claim that moral relativism required solely subjective and relative claims and arguments.

Is this the claim you made?

No, I did not claim that “that something is wrong with an objective criteria”. I have no idea how you got that.

You as the one making the claim have the right to define your own definitions; however, I am referring specifically to the consistent moral relativist position of meta-ethical normative moral relativism.

As far as I can tell, you have redefined “criticism” to mean “a criticism that is solely objective and logical” and you redefined “meta-ethical normative moral relativism” to mean “a moral system that does not use objectivity or logic”.

I disagree with both of these definitions.


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

So you just want me to quote your claims then?

If you cannot show that meta-ethical normative moral relativism does not use objectivity and logic, then your definition of this system is false.

Please provide evidence for your contrary claim. Thanks.

No. I will do so after you support your claim that moral relativism required solely subjective and relative claims and arguments.

That is correct, which is not an actual moral position at all, as I have proven; because it makes no obligatory claims (Ought-statements).

Like I said, if you are only saying that people act differently from each other, that is not a relativist argument, that is merely an observation (hence, descriptive).

If you hold to meta-ethical and normative moral relativism, you cannot consistently criticize Christianity from that stand-point. That has been my argument through-out and I would debate any challenge to that proposition; which can be refuted with ease. Keep in mind; that when most people think of moral relativism or claim to critique it; this is what they are referring.

If you are only claiming descriptive moral relativism; that we observe people following their own moral convictions as they choose them; well then there is little debate here because that is something we seem to plainly observe; which the possible exception of moral actions deeply rooted in what might be called "instinct" or "economic-law."

Thus, if you are claiming that someone who holds to descriptive moral relativism can critique Christianity; I have no disagreement on that as your belief regarding how people tend to behave based on observation has nothing to do with moral premises themselves as to their validity or invalidity.

That being said, such critiques made by a descriptive moral relativist are not themselves relative arguments, for reasons I have demonstrated as such would be ought statements related to normative and meta-ethical claims.

Please provide a link to a moral relativist or a set of arguments from moral relativism and then we can see if the arguments are as you claim.

That is correct, do you reject meta-ethical moral relativism and normative moral relativism then?

For that is what I mean by moral relativism and have meant through-out. If this is not your position then there is essentially little disagreement as I don't even fully deny descriptive moral relativism or observational cultural relativism (basically the same thing, except from a socio-historical perspective).

I am merely correcting your confusion here. There is no reason for you to think that I now think Christianity is actually objective.

Nonsense.

Correct, that is what I am mocking.

Is Child Molestation (as an act of pedophilia) right or wrong?

According to the Bible, child molestation is fine under certain circumstances.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Morals are not punishments VS. I cannot punish the pedophile because of my morals. Only the law can do that based on legislation. So what I think is right might not be what he thinks is right but that doesn't prevent me judging his morality by my own morality FYI.

But you said that you think he should not be permitted to practice his morality? How is that different than punishment and what right do you have to make that claim?

I believe you did claim that moral relativism required solely subjective and relative claims and arguments.

Meta-ethical normative relativism yes, but you now seem to be saying that is not your position.

As far as I can tell, you have redefined “criticism” to mean “a criticism that is solely objective and logical” and you redefined “meta-ethical normative moral relativism” to mean “a moral system that does not use objectivity or logic”.

I disagree with both of these definitions.

Neither of these are true. I provided public definitions with links both for meta-ethical and normative relativism and of critique.

Please refer to those.

Please provide a link to a moral relativist or a set of arguments from moral relativism and then we can see if the arguments are as you claim.

The definition of meta-ethical and normative relativism provide this:

per you link, which was the same as the one I cited.

Lets look at an exact quote from the link.

meta-ethical moral relativism holds that in such disagreements, nobody is objectively right or wrong; and normative moral relativism holds that because nobody is right or wrong, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when we disagree about the morality of it.

If this is the case, on what basis can you make a critique? If you believe there is nothing objectively right or wrong about (meta-ethical relativism); then it would be contradictory to your own position to say that there was something wrong about the position based on objective evidence.

Likewise, if you held to normative relativism; you would have to tolerate this contrary practice even if you didn't like it; namely stoning rebellious sons, but you obviously don't hold to either of those views; so you cannot be a meta-ethical or normative moral relativist.

If this is the case, and you are only a descriptive moral relativist, you are free to make critiques based on an objective criteria; however, basing those critiques on descriptive moral relativism itself would be a fallacy (is-ought fallacy).

I am merely correcting your confusion here. There is no reason for you to think that I now think Christianity is actually objective.

Irrelevant. This is a red-herring fallacy and an evasion.

I asked you a question.

do you reject meta-ethical moral relativism and normative moral relativism then?

According to the Bible, child molestation is fine under certain circumstances.

Please provide evidence for the claim that the bible permits or promotes sexual intercourse with pre-pubescent children (pedophilia). Thanks.

I think you might have the Bible confused with the qu'ran.

[B0ycey]

But you said that you think he should not be permitted to practice his morality? How is that different than punishment and what right do you have to make that claim?

Am I going to have to repeat myself over and over?

Based on my morals, the pedophile should not practice molestation. It is the law that would punish him.

And my right to make that claim is via freedom of speech.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Am I going to have to repeat myself over and over?

Relax, I am just asking questions here. No need to get touchy.

Based on my morals, the pedophile should not practice molestation. It is the law that would punish him.

So you do think that child molestors should be punished, morally speaking, even if they hold to a different morality than you do?

Yes or No?

And my right to make that claim is via freedom of speech.

What if the pedophile argues that criticizing his sexual attraction is hate speech based on a impulse he was born with?

Should you still be free to say such things? Didn't you say to me in another thread that Christians should NOT be able to criticize homosexuality as being morally wrong for similar reasons? Why should it be different with you? Just curious.