ARTICLE: Relativism's Seven Fatal Flaws

[STR Ambassador]

Relativism's Seven Fatal Flaws

by Greg Koukl

600
Moral relativism is the most bankrupt of all moral systems. Here are seven compelling reasons why this is true.

600

Moral relativism is the most bankrupt of all moral systems. There are seven compelling reasons why this is true. Each of these reasons hinges on the validity of a handful of common sense notions: moral accountability, evil, praise, blame, justice, fairness, moral improvement, moral discourse, and tolerance.

Each concept seems to refer to something real in the world. For example, the existence of evil creates a problem for many who believe in a God who is both good and powerful. When a crime is committed we seek to find the one to blame, and we praise the prosecutors who put the criminal behind bars. We have debates in the public square on things like human rights. We engage in moral discourse to inform and improve our moral conduct. We especially revere the virtue of tolerance.

These notions are so fundamental to our collective human conscience that it seems no sane person would ever reject them. If this is true, though, it creates an intractable problem for moral relativism, which renders these concepts meaningless and incoherent. If these moral notions are valid, yet are inconsistent with moral relativism, then relativism must be false.

Flaw #1: Relativists Can't Accuse Others of Wrong-doing

Relativism makes it impossible to criticize the behavior of others, because relativism ultimately denies such a thing as wrong-doing.

If you believe that morality is a matter of personal definition, then you surrender the possibility of making any moral judgments on anyone else's actions ever again, no matter how offensive to your intuitive sense of right or wrong.

You can express your emotions, tastes, and personal preferences, but you can't say others are wrong.

Nor can you critique, challenge, praise, or fault them. It would be like trying to keep score in a game with no rules, or putting a criminal on trial when there are no laws.

For example, relativists cannot object on moral grounds to any form of racism or cultural imperialism if those actions were consistent with the perpetrator's own personal moral understanding of what is right and good.

What sense can be made of the judgment, "apartheid is wrong," spoken by a relativist? What justification is there to intervene? Certainly not human rights, for there are no objective rights because there are no rights or wrongs of any kind.

Former Attorney General Ramsey Clarke said that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. To some the S.S. were heroes. Who are we to make moral judgments?

It would be inconsistent, then, for the same car to sport the bumper stickers "Pro-choice" and "End Apartheid." Relativism is the ultimate pro-choice position, because it legitimizes every personal choice--even the choice to be a racist.

Nor can lying be wrong with relativism, even if the lie perverts justice and condemns an innocent man. In fact, there would be no real difference between one who is guilty and one who is innocent, because in relativism guilt and innocence are meaningless distinctions.

The notion of a promise is also empty. A promise is not just a statement of intent about the future, but also entails the moral obligation to fulfill the intent. That's why changing one's mind is different from breaking a promise. No contract could ever have any moral force. Marriage vows would be empty words, providing no comfort or protection for spouses and no stability for families.

There can be no accountability in relativism. Those who answer to themselves ultimately answer to no one of consequence. This makes it impossible to distinguish relativistic morality from self-interest or ethical egoism.

Further, if morality is an individual call, and if moral wrong is the kind of error for which punishment seems to be justified, then all punishment would have to be approved by the individual responsible for the "immoral" conduct.

This is the first flaw of relativism. When right or wrong are a matter of personal choice, we surrender the privilege of making moral judgments on other's actions ever again. But if our moral intuition rebels against these consequences of relativism--if we're sure that some things must be wrong, and that some judgments against another's conduct are justified--then relativism must be false.

Flaw #2: Relativists Can't Complain about the Problem of Evil

The reality of evil in the world is one of the first objections raised against the existence of God. The common argument says that if God is absolutely powerful and ultimately good, He would deal with evil. But since evil exists, God appears too frail to oppose it or too sinister to care.

The entire objection hinges on the observation that true evil exists. The only way one can have this complaint about God is if evil is "out there" as an objective feature of the world.

Relativism is inconsistent with the concept that true moral evil exists. For evil to exist, there must be some things that are objectively wrong. These things we call "evil." Evil as a value judgment marks a departure from some standard of moral perfection. But if there is no standard, there is no departure. As C. S. Lewis has noted, a portrait is a good or bad likeness depending on how it compares with the "perfect" original.

Relativism denies such a standard. This was a serious problem for Lewis:

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?....Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed, too--for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. [emphasis in the original]


If relativism is true, the objection against God based on evil vanishes. There is no true evil to discuss, only differing opinions about what is pleasant or unpleasant, desired or not desired. When someone says, "Murder is evil," he's reporting details of preference. He's not saying anything about the nature of murder itself.

This point was made clear in the movie, "The Quarrel." The main characters, Hersh and Chiam, grew up together but separated because of a dispute about God and evil. Then came the Holocaust, and each thought the other had perished. Reunited by chance after the war, they become embroiled once again in their boyhood quarrel. Hersh, now a rabbi, offers this challenge to the secularist Chiam:


If there's nothing in the universe that's higher than human beings, then what's morality? Well, it's a matter of opinion. I like milk; you like meat. Hitler likes to kill people; I like to save them. Who's to say which is better?

Do you begin to see the horror of this? If there is no Master of the universe, then who's to say that Hitler did anything wrong? If there is no God, then the people that murdered your wife and kids did nothing wrong.

The approach many relativists take at this point is confused. First, they say that the Holocaust was evil and ask why God would allow such depravity? Later, when the tables turn and their own behavior is in question, they argue that morality is merely a matter of opinion. This reduces their earlier objection to: "How could a good God allow things that are contrary to my opinion?"

People belie their denial of moral intuitions when they are betrayed by their own language. Sociologist Os Guinness explains:

Have you ever heard someone say, "God damn it," and really mean it? Most people use that word only casually as trivial blasphemy, but some people don't. Why? They face evil which is so evil that, however they've been trained, they've got to say "God damn it" even if they are atheists....Doesn't everything in our studies tell us that nothing is absolute, all is relative? Play those ideas out to the end of the line, if you like. There are still experiences so evil in life that people say, "God damn it." They know intuitively here is something so wrong it needs an absolute judgment, whether or not they have a philosophical basis.

Moral relativism and objective evil are strange bedfellows. They couldn't possibly both be true at the same time. If morality is ultimately a matter of personal tastes, like preferring steak over broccoli or Brussels sprouts, the argument against God's existence based on the problem of evil vanishes. Relativists must surrender this objection.

If, however, it seems legitimate to raise the issue of evil in the world, then relativism can't be true.

Flaw #3: Relativists Can't Place Blame or Accept Praise

Relativism renders the concepts of praise and blame meaningless, because no external standard of measurement defines what should be applauded or condemned.

Without absolutes, nothing is ultimately bad, deplorable, tragic, or worthy of blame. Neither is anything ultimately good, honorable, noble, or worthy of praise. It's all lost in a twilight zone of moral nothingness.

Relativists are almost always inconsistent here. They seek to avoid blame, but readily accept praise. C. S. Lewis notes that our habits of welcoming praise and of making excuses to avoid blame evidence our deep commitment to objective morality:

The truth is, we believe in decency so much--we feel the Rule or Law pressing on us so--that we cannot bear to face the fact that we are breaking it, and consequently we try to shift the responsibility. For you notice that it is only for our bad behavior that we find all these explanations. It is only our bad temper that we put down to being tired or worried or hungry; we put our good temper down to ourselves.

Psychologist B. F. Skinner argues in Beyond Freedom and Dignity that humans are simply biological machines whose conduct is determined by a mixture of biology and environment. In Walden II, his description of the brave new world founded on principles of behavior modification, praise and blame are portrayed as meaningless concepts. Morality is a fiction.

In like fashion, relativists must remove the words praise and blame from their vocabularies. But if the notions of praise and blame are valid, then relativism must be false.

Flaw #4: Relativists Can't Claim Anything is Unfair or Unjust

Justice and fairness are two more concepts that make no sense in a world devoid of moral absolutes. Under relativism, these notions are incoherent for two reasons.

First, the words themselves have no meaning. Both concepts dictate that people receive equal treatment based on an external standard of what is right. This outside standard, though, is the very thing repudiated by relativists. After all, how can there be justice or fairness if there are no moral requirements to be just and fair. In relativism there are no rules, requirements, or demands.

Second, there is no possibility of true moral guilt. Justice entails, among other things, punishing those who are guilty. Guilt, however, depends on blame, which we have seen cannot exist. If nothing is ultimately immoral, there is no blame, and subsequently no guilt worthy of punishment.

People give away their true intuitions about justice and fairness by their language. "A nation may say treaties do not matter," says Lewis, "but then, next minute, they spoil their case by saying that the particular treaty they want to break was an unfair one. But if treaties do not matter, and if there is no such thing as Right and Wrong...what is the difference between a fair treaty and an unfair one?"

If relativism is true, then there is no such thing as justice and fairness. Both concepts depend on an objective standard of what is right. If the notion of justice and fairness makes sense, though, then relativism is defeated.

Flaw #5: Relativists Can't Improve Their Morality

With moral relativism, moral improvement or reform is impossible. Relativists can change their personal ethics, but they can never become better people.

How can one get "better"? Moral reform implies an objective rule of conduct as the standard we shoot for. But this rule is exactly what relativists deny. If there is no better way, there can be no improvement.

Further, there is no motivation to improve. Relativism destroys the moral impulse that compels people to rise above themselves because there is no "above" to rise to, ethically speaking. Why change our moral point of view if it serves our self-interest and feels good for the time being?

In relativism, by definition one's ethics can never be more "moral" at one time than another. Morals can change, but they can never improve. If, however, moral improvement seems to be a concept that makes sense, then relativism can't be true.

Flaw #6: Relativists Can't Hold Meaningful Moral Discussions

Relativism makes it impossible to discuss morality. What's there to talk about? A meaningful ethical dialogue can be held only when moral principles are seen as universal action guides.

Ethical discourse involves comparing the merits of one view with another to find which is best. But if morals are entirely relative and all views are equal, then no way of thinking is better than another. No moral position can be judged adequate or deficient, unreasonable, unacceptable, or even barbaric.

Twentieth-century English philosopher A. J. Ayer agrees, arguing that ethical statements are meaningless because they are not empirically verifiable. "We find that argument is possible on moral questions only if some system of values is presupposed."

Ayer's own view, called emotivism, denies that ethical statements are anything more than raw expressions of emotion. As such, they have no more content than words like "Wow!" or "Yuck!" They simply express feelings.

If a sentence makes no statement at all, there is obviously no sense in asking whether what it says is true or false. And we have seen that sentences which simply express moral judgments do not say anything. They are pure expressions of feeling and as such do not come under the category of truth and falsehood.

If Ayer is right, then moral education is impossible, because the words themselves are meaningless. One can't even have a moral dispute. Yet quarrels seem to entail meaningful moral discussions, as Lewis points out:

Quarreling means trying to show that the other man is in the wrong. And there would be no sense in trying to do that unless you and he had some sort of agreement as to what Right and Wrong are; just as there would be no sense in saying that a footballer had committed a foul unless there was some agreement about the rules of football.

If ethical disputes only make sense when morals are objective, then relativism can only be consistently lived out in silence. For this reason, it's rare to meet a thorough-going relativist. Most are quick to impose moral rules like, "It's wrong to push your morality on others."

The best example of consistency I've encountered came from a caller on my radio show. I'd talked to Jim, a relativist, many times before. I was hoping a fair question would show the foolishness of his view. Jim surprised me with his honesty.

"Jim," I said, "are you saying there's no moral difference between feeding a starving child and murdering him?"

"I'm saying the question doesn't even make any sense," he responded. "It's as meaningless as talking about a snake with legs. It's nonsense, so you can't even get started."

Jim understood that if relativism is true, all moral categories are meaningless. He knew that any attempt at moral discourse would be silly, like talking about a snake with legs.

The only course of action truly consistent with moral relativism is complete silence. If you view all morality as relative and you're consistent, you can't ever make a moral recommendation.

This puts relativists in an untenable position, caught coming and going. If they speak, they surrender their relativism. If they do not speak, they surrender their humanity. It's inhuman to be mute in the face of egregious evil, to be silent in the presence of flagrant injustice.

Those who believe that ethical truth is relative, cannot say anything further that is morally meaningful. However, if the notion of moral discourse makes sense intuitively, then moral relativism must be false.

Flaw #7: Relativists Can't Promote the Obligation of Tolerance

Finally, there is no tolerance in relativism, because the moral obligation to be tolerant violates the rules.

The principle of tolerance is considered one of the key virtues of relativism. Morals are individual, relativists argue, and therefore we ought to tolerate others' viewpoints by not passing judgment on their behavior and attitudes.

It should be obvious that this attempt fails through contradiction. To relativists, tolerance means, "I (morally) ought to tolerate the moral opinions and behavior of others who disagree with me. I (morally) should not try to interfere with their opinions or behavior."

If there are no objective moral rules, however, there can be no rule that requires tolerance as a moral principle that applies equally to all. In fact, if there are no moral absolutes, why be tolerant at all? Why not force my morality on others if it's in my self-interest and my personal ethics allow it?

Relativists violate their own principle of tolerance when they do not tolerate people whose morality is non-relativistic. They only tolerate those who hold their ethical viewpoint. They are, therefore, just as intolerant as any objectivist appears to be.

The principle of tolerance is foreign to relativism. If, however, tolerance seems to be a virtue and we owe a measure of respect to those who differ with us, then relativism can't be true.

The Sum of All Flaws

As we have seen, moral accountability, evil, praise, blame, justice, fairness, moral improvement, moral discourse, and tolerance--depend on some objective, external moral standard for its reality and application. Relativism rejects the premise that such a standard exists. If relativism is true, then we must dismiss these apparently universal moral concepts as pointless. If, on the other hand, we have good reason to believe these concepts are true, then some external, objective standard must exist, and relativism must be false.

What kind of world would it be if relativism were true? It would be a world in which nothing is wrong--nothing is considered evil or good, nothing is worthy of praise or blame. It would be a world in which justice and fairness are meaningless concepts, in which there would be no accountability, no possibility of moral improvement, and no moral discourse. And it would be a world in which there is no tolerance.

Moral relativism produces this kind of world. The late Dr. Francis Schaeffer's remark could well apply to relativists who "...have both feet firmly planted in mid-air."


Stand to Reason - Training Christian ambassadors in the areas of knowledge, wisdom, and character - www.str.org


600

Notice - The featuring of a particular ministry does not constitute endorsement of every single item or point of view published by said ministry by each and every member of TheologyWeb leadership. We strive to have a varied cross-section of representations of differing opinions on secondary Christian issues. The only requirement for the featuring of a particular ministry is that said ministry subscribes to the essentials artictulated in the TheologyWeb statement of faith found here in our Mission Statement (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/mission/)

[Trout]

Notice – The ministries featured in this section of TheologyWeb are guests of this site and in some cases not bargaining for the rough and tumble world of debate forums, though sometimes they are. Additionally, this area is frequented and highlighted for guests who also very often are not acclimated to debate fora. As such, the rules of conduct here will be more strict than in the general forum. This will be something within the discretion of the Moderators and the Ministry Representative, but we simply ask that you conduct yourselves in a manner considerate of the fact that these ministries are our invited guests. You can always feel free to start a related thread in general forum without such extra restrictions. Thank you.

[C. D. Ward]

All in all, a relatively :wink: good article, and I would agree with Mr. Koukl that relativism (strictly construed) is incoherent, but I do have to take issue with the following:
As we have seen, moral accountability, evil, praise, blame, justice, fairness, moral improvement, moral discourse, and tolerance--depend on some objective, external moral standard for its reality and application. Relativism rejects the premise that such a standard exists. If relativism is true, then we must dismiss these apparently universal moral concepts as pointless. If, on the other hand, we have good reason to believe these concepts are true, then some external, objective standard must exist, and relativism must be false.Mr. Koukl has created a false dichotomy here. Relativism and objectivism are not the only choices available. As students of moral philosophy are aware, not all subjectivist moral systems are relativistic. The universalizability of moral values does not depend upon externality, only intersubjectivity. Thus objective, external values (if it's even coherent to speak of such things) are not necessary for universalizable values and therefore moral standards may indeed exist for non-objectivists.

[Sparko]

Mr. Koukl has created a false dichotomy here. Relativism and objectivism are not the only choices available. As students of moral philosophy are aware, not all subjectivist moral systems are relativistic. The universalizability of moral values does not depend upon externality, only intersubjectivity. Thus objective, external values (if it's even coherent to speak of such things) are not necessary for universalizable values and therefore moral standards may indeed exist for non-objectivists.
Huh? :smile:

Actually after reading what you wrote about 10 times I think I finally parsed what you meant:


We can have universal, common, subjective morals without them having to be imposed by God.



Is that a good summary (or translation) of what you were saying?


But if we all have the same subjective morals (meaning we all agree on a moral standard) and it is universal, isn't that the same thing as their being objective, whether they come from God or not? Universal Common Subjectivity seems to mean the same thing as Objectivity in semantic terms.

[C. D. Ward]

Huh? :smile:

Actually after reading what you wrote about 10 times I think I finally parsed what you meant:
We can have universal, common, subjective morals without them having to be imposed by God.
Is that a good summary (or translation) of what you were saying?
Ouch! I'm sorry if my verbiage was so difficult to translate, but yes, that's a pretty good summary of what I was saying.


But if we all have the same subjective morals (meaning we all agree on a moral standard) and it is universal, isn't that the same thing as their being objective, whether they come from God or not? Universal Common Subjectivity seems to mean the same thing as Objectivity in semantic terms.
A reasonable question. It seems to me that when most people use the term "objective", they actually mean "universal common subjectivity", or something pretty much like it. By contrast, a technical use of "objective" (in analytic philosophy) refers to something that exists independently of mind. Analytic philosophers make reference to "objective reality" indicating that reality exists independently of our perceptions. Under this definition, however, abstract ideas cannot have an objective existence.

My specific choice of words was intended to avoid any misunderstandings regarding the status of moral values: they do not exist independently of mind. Beyond that, the practical ramifications of my view and so-called "objectivist" views are the same: universal moral standards do exist.

I use this language because it is often presumed, as Mr. Koukl did, that Subjectivism = Relativism. This is simply untrue and needs to be pointed out whenever the mistake is noted.

I hope that clears it up! :teeth:

[Sparko]

OK. Cleared up! Thanks.

But I think that if we do all have this universal "subjective" moral code, then it means that there COULD be a real Objective source to those morals (like God) - Just MHO :-)

Later Gator.

[C. D. Ward]

OK. Cleared up! Thanks.
Good!

But I think that if we do all have this universal "subjective" moral code, then it means that there COULD be a real Objective source to those morals (like God) - Just MHO :-).
Yes, that certainly is a possibility, and one that I can't and don't rule out. I would argue, however, that the character of our moral code would be the same regardless.

[odie721]

Good!


Yes, that certainly is a possibility, and one that I can't and don't rule out. I would argue, however, that the character of our moral code would be the same regardless.
Mr. Ward:

I stumbled onto this site while researching a paper on relativism for my critical thinking class in college. I find your conversation with Mr. Sparks to be incredibly insightful, but i have a question of clarification. Your argument on the character of moral code seems to trouble me. I may have missed this point already (and i may be entirely off), but nevertheless, please clarify for me: What basis is there for arguing that the character of moral code would be the same regardless of its source?

Is it valid to argue that historical cultures (namely nations sorrounding Judah in the Bible) had a universal subjective moral code?

thank you for responding to my questions (and i apologize for my naive reasoning)

[C. D. Ward]

I stumbled onto this site while researching a paper on relativism for my critical thinking class in college. I find your conversation with Mr. Sparks to be incredibly insightful, but i have a question of clarification. Your argument on the character of moral code seems to trouble me. I may have missed this point already (and i may be entirely off), but nevertheless, please clarify for me: What basis is there for arguing that the character of moral code would be the same regardless of its source?Greetings and welcome to TWeb!

Actually, I wouldn't say that it would be the same regardless of its source. I would say that a universal moral code that is based on human nature could have the same character as a universal moral code based on God's nature.

Orthodox Christian theology seems to hold that universalizable moral values have their objective foundation in God's nature. My own moral schema posits that universalizable moral values have their objective foundation in human nature. Now, the Bible claims that humans are created in the image of God. It has also long been a tactic of apologists using the moral argument to refer to humans' innate moral sense as evidence of God's image within us (or something similar). My claim that the character of both systems could be the same is based upon this. If it is the case that humans were created in the image of God (and thus the nature of humans reflects the nature of God, albeit not perfectly), then God could have created humans with a nature that encompasses the universalizable values that comprise the foundation of His moral system.

As an example, it is an uncontroversial claim that murder is against God's moral rule. It is also possible to argue, from a purely secular POV, that murder is contra-indicated by human nature. Disregard for a moment whether or not such an argument would be successful, but consider that it could certainly be the case that God had created humans with a nature such that murder, being wrong, would be contra-indicated by human nature. Therefore, whether humans justify their moral systems by explicit reference to God or to human nature, the result could be the same. I.e, both are justified by God, either explicitly or implicitly.

In fact, I think it could be argued that such a construction is implied biblically as well as rationally. IOW, I don't see how, from either a biblical or rational standpoint, God would have done anything other than create humans in such a way as to internalize His moral schema. "Wrong" as defined by God's nature should be the same as "wrong" as defined by our own nature.

I hope that helps.
Is it valid to argue that historical cultures (namely nations sorrounding Judah in the Bible) had a universal subjective moral code?I'm not sure I understand your meaning. Culture-specific moral codes are not universalizable by definition. If you're asking is it possible that a moral code held by a particular culture could be universalizable, I would say that it's possible, but only if the foundation of such a moral code were not culture-specific.
thank you for responding to my questions (and i apologize for my naive reasoning)You're welcome, and there's no need to apologize. I wish I could recommend a good book on this topic, but unfortunately I don't know of any that expound this particular view...

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

... it is often presumed, as Mr. Koukl did, that Subjectivism = Relativism.

Well, everyone may indeed subjectively believe in one set of moral principles, but Mr. Koukl's objections still apply, for the principles are still subjective, that is the essential problem. The principles are still matters of taste, although it turns out that everyone like beets, and not broccoli.

The taste may change tomorrow, and we may have differences now, and the objection is still the same, that no one in either case, whether everyone agrees or not, has any right to say "unfair!", or suggest improvement, or discuss moral issues beyond saying, "I'll have soup, you, I know, like salad."

Blessings,
Lee

[C. D. Ward]

Well, everyone may indeed subjectively believe in one set of moral principles, but Mr. Koukl's objections still apply, for the principles are still subjective, that is the essential problem. The principles are still matters of taste, although it turns out that everyone like beets, and not broccoli.But that's not what relativism is. Relativism is the view that all points of view, all "tastes" to use your terminology, are equal; that there is no possibility of commensuration. Subjectivism does not necessitate that viewpoint at all. If it is true that "everyone likes beets and not broccoli", then everyone's view is commensurable and relativism is moot. Even if everyone should not agree, subjectivism does not necessitate incommensurability (more below).
The taste may change tomorrow, and we may have differences now, and the objection is still the same, that no one in either case, whether everyone agrees or not, has any right to say "unfair!", or suggest improvement, or discuss moral issues beyond saying, "I'll have soup, you, I know, like salad."But that doesn't follow at all. If subjective values have an objective foundation, then we should be able to demonstrate why some values are better than others.

In the same way that we can demonstrate, both rationally and empirically, why low fat diets are healthier, or why gasoline is a superior to dirt as a fuel for cars. Subjectivity does not negate the existence of an objective standard by which a value might be measured. Values are subjective by nature (i.e., they cannot be otherwise), but the facts of reality that give rise to values (biology, human nature, evolution, etc) are not.

[Augustine2004]

<snip> then everyone's view is commensurable and relativism is moot. Even if everyone should not agree, subjectivism does not necessitate incommensurability (more below)."Commensurability' seems to be a fancy word for 'comparability' or 'similarity' in some aspect.

If subjective values have an objective foundation, then we should be able to demonstrate why some values are better than others.

In the same way that we can demonstrate, both rationally and empirically, why low fat diets are healthier, or why gasoline is a superior to dirt as a fuel for cars. Subjectivity does not negate the existence of an objective standard by which a value might be measured. Values are subjective by nature (i.e., they cannot be otherwise), but the facts of reality that give rise to values (biology, human nature, evolution, etc) are not.Are you disagreeing with David Hume who said that you cannot derive 'ought' statements ('You ought to contribute to the Children Refugee Relief Fund') from 'is' statements?

[C. D. Ward]

"Commensurability' seems to be a fancy word for 'comparability' or 'similarity' in some aspect.It means what the dictionary says it means: "having a common measure." Apparently my lexicon includes some not-so-ubiquitous words; so sue me... :rasberry:
Are you disagreeing with David Hume who said that you cannot derive 'ought' statements ('You ought to contribute to the Children Refugee Relief Fund') from 'is' statements?That's not exactly what Hume said. Hume noted that one cannot get from "is" to "ought" without some form of mitigation. For him, that mitigation was human sentiment. For me, it's the material facts of human existence and those characteristics that comprise human nature.

[lee_merrill]

If subjective values have an objective foundation, then we should be able to demonstrate why some values are better than others.

Yes, I agree! I think the objection here is to those who say values are only subjective. I don't think human sentiments rescue the boat, though, for those sentiments are objective entities, but their conclusions are not. At least not necessarily objective, meaning necessary in the more philosophical sense, of having a cause here.

Blessings,
Lee

[Augustine2004]

It means what the dictionary says it means: "having a common measure." Apparently my lexicon includes some not-so-ubiquitous words; so sue me... :rasberry: I do not understand your response, unless you were only kidding. How would two things have a common measure if they are not comparable in any way?

[C. D. Ward]

I do not understand your response, unless you were only kidding. How would two things have a common measure if they are not comparable in any way?Now it's my turn not to understand. "Commensurable" means that two things have a common measure; that they are comparable (at least in respect of the measure). "Incommensurable" means, of course, the opposite.

[HRG_new]

Now it's my turn not to understand. "Commensurable" means that two things have a common measure; that they are comparable (at least in respect of the measure). "Incommensurable" means, of course, the opposite.

If I may present an illustration:

X is a powerful, but finite being.
Y is an infinitely powerful God.

Then the powers of X and Y are comparable (Y is more powerful), but not commensurable. There is no measure scale on which the powers of X and Y can be both represented.

Mathematicians call this a "non-Archimedean order" = there exist elements which are infinitely large in comparison with others.

[InHim]

If I may present an illustration:

X is a powerful, but finite being.
Y is an infinitely powerful God.

Then the powers of X and Y are comparable (Y is more powerful), but not commensurable. There is no measure scale on which the powers of X and Y can be both represented.

Mathematicians call this a "non-Archimedean order" = there exist elements which are infinitely large in comparison with others.




So what does this mean?????

[C. D. Ward]

If I may present an illustration:

X is a powerful, but finite being.
Y is an infinitely powerful God.

Then the powers of X and Y are comparable (Y is more powerful), but not commensurable. There is no measure scale on which the powers of X and Y can be both represented.

Mathematicians call this a "non-Archimedean order" = there exist elements which are infinitely large in comparison with others.I understand, but I fail to see the relevance.

I was making a point earlier that subjectivity does not necessitate incommensurability. IOW, the fact that values are subjective does not mean that they may not have a common measure. I.e., we all subjectively believe killing infants for pleasure to be wrong, but this doesn't mean that the foundations for this belief are completely different for every individual. That those reasons, subjective though they are, cannot be reconciled to a common foundation or measure.

[InHim]

I understand, but I fail to see the relevance.

I was making a point earlier that subjectivity does not necessitate incommensurability. IOW, the fact that values are subjective does not mean that they may not have a common measure. I.e., we all subjectively believe killing infants for pleasure to be wrong, but this doesn't mean that the foundations for this belief are completely different for every individual. That those reasons, subjective though they are, cannot be reconciled to a common foundation or measure.


How do we reason that killing of infants being wrong is subjective? When you wrote "we all subjectively" pretty much put it at an objective value.

We can all agree that killing a child for pleasure is wrong but not for subjective reasons but rather for objective reasons that are outside ourselves!

[C. D. Ward]

How do we reason that killing of infants being wrong is subjective? When you wrote "we all subjectively" pretty much put it at an objective value.I'm using a technical, albeit correct in the context of this discussion, definition of objective: "independent of mind". By that definition all value is subjective (value requires a valuer).
We can all agree that killing a child for pleasure is wrong but not for subjective reasons but rather for objective reasons that are outside ourselves!The reasons may be outside of ourselves, but the evaluation is not and cannot be. That's essentially what I'm saying when I argue that subjective values can be commensurable; that we can point to things outside of the subjective "worlds" we inhabit that universally inform our value systems.

[InHim]

The reasons may be outside of ourselves, but the evaluation is not and cannot be. That's essentially what I'm saying when I argue that subjective values can be commensurable; that we can point to things outside of the subjective "worlds" we inhabit that universally inform our value systems.


In this case what would that be? IOW, what can we point to here to universally conclude that infant killing is wrong?


BTW/ when you say valuer, who would this be?

[C. D. Ward]

In this case what would that be? IOW, what can we point to here to universally conclude that infant killing is wrong?I believe that moral values are grounded in human nature; in what it means to be a human being. Essentially, we are social animals who require functioning familial and societal bonds in order to survive. Killing infants for pleasure is not conducive to the development or maintenance of such bonds and thus does not contribute to our survival or flourishing. It is therefore wrong.

That's the extremely abbreviated answer. A fuller exposition would probably require a book.
BTW/ when you say valuer, who would this be?Any entity with the ability to hold values. This would include humans, possibly some other animals, and certainly God (assuming He exists).

[InHim]

I believe that moral values are grounded in human nature; in what it means to be a human being. Essentially, we are social animals who require functioning familial and societal bonds in order to survive. Killing infants for pleasure is not conducive to the development or maintenance of such bonds and thus does not contribute to our survival or flourishing. It is therefore wrong.

Well certainly this is not true because it would behoove me to kill off any infant that presents competition for me and my offspring.

After all is it not the way it goes:
Survival of self first, then progeny and finally community?

Does not seem likely that in a naturalistic framework this is a possible or even viable explanation.


That's the extremely abbreviated answer. A fuller exposition would probably require a book.
Any entity with the ability to hold values. This would include humans, possibly some other animals, and certainly God (assuming He exists).


Animals hold values?

Well if we are the recipients of these moral truths then it is no longer outside ourseleves is it?

There is nothing binding about these values or reasons for me to abide by them if after all these values are subjective to me.
Seems to me that you've contradicted yourself here.

[C. D. Ward]

Well certainly this is not true because it would behoove me to kill off any infant that presents competition for me and my offspring

After all is it not the way it goes:
Survival of self first, then progeny and finally community?

Does not seem likely that in a naturalistic framework this is a possible or even viable explanation.I think you may have misunderstood the point I was making. The society of other human beings, non-family as well as family, is essential to human flourishing. On reason this is so because we are, by nature, social animals. Another is because of our inherent limitations. The rise of civilization and society came about solely because there is advantage to living and working in numbers. A society can accomplish much more to enhance the life of an individual than an individual can accomplish by him/herself.

Your behavior would not be conducive to your own flourishing as other humans would shun you, imprison you, or terminate your life, any one of which would render you less able to flourish than the alternative.
Animals hold values?I'm agnostic on that point. There is evidence that certain other hominids, aquatic mammals, and birds may have some type of rudimentary moral sense. I included them because a valuer is any entity able to value. If other animals possess a moral sense, then they have values. If they have values, then they are valuers.
Well if we are the recipients of these moral truths then it is no longer outside ourseleves is it?I'm afraid I don't understand your objection. I'm not arguing that moral truths are "outside ourselves". Values are subjective; they cannot be otherwise. It is the foundation for the values we hold that is "outside ourselves," not the values themselves.
There is nothing binding about these values or reasons for me to abide by them if after all these values are subjective to me.
Seems to me that you've contradicted yourself here.What do you mean by "binding"? Do you mean that we have no good reason to follow the moral schema I've outlined? If so, I disagree and I think I've already explained why we do indeed have good reason to behave morally, even given that values are subjective.

Or perhaps you mean that they do not provide any guarantee that humans will behave morally? But this is unsurprising; no moral schema can guarantee human behavior.

[InHim]

I think you may have misunderstood the point I was making. The society of other human beings, non-family as well as family, is essential to human flourishing. On reason this is so because we are, by nature, social animals. Another is because of our inherent limitations. The rise of civilization and society came about solely because there is advantage to living and working in numbers. A society can accomplish much more to enhance the life of an individual than an individual can accomplish by him/herself.

Your behavior would not be conducive to your own flourishing as other humans would shun you, imprison you, or terminate your life, any one of which would render you less able to flourish than the alternative.

Yes this is all possible in a developed society like ours, but you cannot make the same assertions of any other society of animals. While animals in packs are better able to survive, this does not explain the acquiring of moral values.

BTW, I don't know of any animal that exhibits values??? other than ourselves.

Naturalism exalts the "selfish gene".


I'm afraid I don't understand your objection. I'm not arguing that moral truths are "outside ourselves". Values are subjective; they cannot be otherwise. It is the foundation for the values we hold that is "outside ourselves," not the values themselves.
What do you mean by "binding"? Do you mean that we have no good reason to follow the moral schema I've outlined? If so, I disagree and I think I've already explained why we do indeed have good reason to behave morally, even given that values are subjective.


Exactly what are these foundations that are outside ourselves? Please specify.

Yes there is no good reason to follow moral dictums other than the consequences society may impose on the individual that violates them.
IOW, you can give me no real reason for being moral other than consequentialisms and greater goods, but if I am apathetic to society then those reasons will not fly.

[C. D. Ward]

Yes this is all possible in a developed society like ours, but you cannot make the same assertions of any other society of animals. While animals in packs are better able to survive, this does not explain the acquiring of moral values.But I'm not trying to explain the acquiring of moral values; I'm offering a metaphysical warrant for universalizable values.
BTW, I don't know of any animal that exhibits values??? other than ourselves.There is evidence (from anthropology) that some non-human animals exhibit behavior of a type that would be consistent with the existence of values. Even so, I'm not claiming that any non-human animals have values, merely that it's possible that some might.
Naturalism exalts the "selfish gene".You're falsely equating a metaphysical position (Naturalism) with a biological theory (Natural Selection). They're not the same...
Exactly what are these foundations that are outside ourselves? Please specify.:huh: But I've already done so: human nature (what it means to be "human") and the objective facts of reality (rocks are hard, some mushrooms are poisonous, a fall from great height will most likely kill you, etc.).
Yes there is no good reason to follow moral dictums other than the consequences society may impose on the individual that violates them.
IOW, you can give me no real reason for being moral other than consequentialisms and greater goods, but if I am apathetic to society then those reasons will not fly.The schema I have outlined (albeit briefly and vaguely) is not motivated by societal concerns, but by concerns for one's own well-being. It doesn't matter if one is "apathetic to society", as you put it. Behaving as though the society of other individuals means absolutely nothing to you is detrimental to your own flourishing. Thus you have a purely internal reason for wanting to behave morally: your own best interests.

[Soundsurfr]

Since this is a very long essay, I'm going to address this hooey one point at a time, time permitting.



Flaw #1: Relativists Can't Accuse Others of Wrong-doing

Relativism makes it impossible to criticize the behavior of others, because relativism ultimately denies such a thing as wrong-doing.
Sorry, but this is not a flaw, it is an assett. It is far better to understand that morality cannot be dictated from one person to another, but instead is a reflection of the values of each individual. If you prefer to live in a society where someone can accuse you of "wrong-doing" and inflict consequences on you, there are many such societies on this planet that can accommodate you. I suspect most of us would not prefer it.

If you believe that morality is a matter of personal definition, then you surrender the possibility of making any moral judgments on anyone else's actions ever again, no matter how offensive to your intuitive sense of right or wrong.
I cannot find the actions of others to be offensive? Of course I can. What I cannot do is impose my moral system upon you. Be thankful for that.

Nor can you critique, challenge, praise, or fault them.
Horse manure. I can critique, challenge, praise or fault whomever I please, just as well as any objectivist. When the objectivist can objectively prove that their critique, challenge, praise or fault is more legitimate than mine, then I will concede that they have the upper hand. It's never been done.

What sense can be made of the judgment, "apartheid is wrong," spoken by a relativist? What justification is there to intervene? Certainly not human rights, for there are no objective rights because there are no rights or wrongs of any kind.
The huge misunderstanding evident in this paragraph is the inability to recognize that such judgements are made by relativists and objectivists alike in terms of their own cultural value systems. Racism is a fine example to start with, and it's indicative of the objectivists dilemma in other areas. There is no discussion of racism or apartheid in the bible, nor is there a universal human aversion to it. In other words, there is no discernable "source" of an objective moral standard regarding racism. There is however, a general trend in modern society against it. According to our VERY recently acquired value system, racism is antithetical to the notion that all humans of all races share rights that are transcendent over the collective. This idea is neither objective, universal or ancient. It is decidedly Western and decidedly recent. And it is not effectively applied or enforced, even in the West.

It would be inconsistent, then, for the same car to sport the bumper stickers "Pro-choice" and "End Apartheid." Relativism is the ultimate pro-choice position, because it legitimizes every personal choice--even the choice to be a racist.
Note that the choice to be racist is legal in the United States. What is not legal is the choice to infringe on the rights of an individual due to racist bias. In other words, you are free to hold to any morality you wish, but you are not free to infringe on anyone's rights as defined in the Constitution. The Consititution framers crafted the list of rights based on the values of the society it serves, not some objective moral source. There is no objective moral source that intrinsically supports the right to free speech, freedom of religion or the right to bear arms. There's not even a biblical moral source for these things - in fact, as a moral measure, the first Amendment is in direct conflict with the first commandment. Ours is a purely secular, value-based system which is VERY cognizant of the fact that morality is in the eye of the beholder, and is based on the value judgement that equality makes for the best society.

If you want to design your society around some theological "objective" morality, you will be out of step with the writers of the Constitution.

Nor can lying be wrong with relativism, even if the lie perverts justice and condemns an innocent man.
More horse manure.

In fact, there would be no real difference between one who is guilty and one who is innocent, because in relativism guilt and innocence are meaningless distinctions.
Nonsense. Guilt and innocence are clear distinctions with respect to the law.

The notion of a promise is also empty. A promise is not just a statement of intent about the future, but also entails the moral obligation to fulfill the intent. That's why changing one's mind is different from breaking a promise.
And that distinction is between the two individuals or entities who engage in the promise.

No contract could ever have any moral force.
What is moral force?

Marriage vows would be empty words, providing no comfort or protection for spouses and no stability for families.
The suggestion that moral relativists don't have a system of morals that they live by is beyond stupid. The idea that moral objectivists do a better job of adhering to their own moral standards than moral relativists is a fallacy.

There can be no accountability in relativism. Those who answer to themselves ultimately answer to no one of consequence.
Who do we answer to, then?

Further, if morality is an individual call, and if moral wrong is the kind of error for which punishment seems to be justified, then all punishment would have to be approved by the individual responsible for the "immoral" conduct.
True, but the second "if'" is inaccurate. Moral wrongs are NOT the kind of errors for which this society justifies punishment. As a society, we don't punish homosexuals for homosexual acts. We don't punish married couples for getting a divorce. We punish people for infringing on other's rights. Period. Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.

This is the first flaw of relativism. When right or wrong are a matter of personal choice, we surrender the privilege of making moral judgments on other's actions ever again.
To what purpose do we want to put these moral judgements?

But if our moral intuition rebels against these consequences of relativism--if we're sure that some things must be wrong, and that some judgments against another's conduct are justified--then relativism must be false.
My moral intuition is not rebelling against these consequences. In fact, I see good consequences.

The moral objectivist is the unfortunate one with no leg to stand on, because no moral objectivist in my experience is able to provide an objective set of moral judgements that is consistent with those of the moral objectivist that preceeded him, or the one before that. So where does his authority to judge arise from, other than his own ego?

He cannot provide a consistent judgement on any moral matter, small or large. Is it moral or immoral to drink alcohol? Is it moral or immoral to charge interest on money? Is it moral or immoral to keep indentured servants? Is capital punishment moral or immoral? Doctor assisted suicide? Medical disposal of frozen, fertilized embryos? When we ask the objectivist for clear answers on these issues, the same inevitable debate ensues that would ensue among a group of relativists, yet the objectivist insists that he has a right to pronounce judgement while the relativist does not.

What nonsense.

[Soundsurfr]

As an example, it is an uncontroversial claim that murder is against God's moral rule. It is also possible to argue, from a purely secular POV, that murder is contra-indicated by human nature.
Yes, but this argument is largely meaningless. It is equivalent to this one -

It is an uncontroversial claim that God prefers that we don't eat things that taste terrible. It is also possible to argue, from a purely seculra POV, that eating things that taste bad is contra-indicated by human nature.

This tells us absolutely nothing about whether or not it is objectively immoral to eat a raw onion.

[InHim]

The schema I have outlined (albeit briefly and vaguely) is not motivated by societal concerns, but by concerns for one's own well-being. It doesn't matter if one is "apathetic to society", as you put it. Behaving as though the society of other individuals means absolutely nothing to you is detrimental to your own flourishing. Thus you have a purely internal reason for wanting to behave morally: your own best interests.


Well it's not as if too many have taken notice, it is the badge of society today to rebel against the status quo. Listen to some popular music today and the philosophy espoused. The general consensus agrees that there is something morally wrong with our society today...but why?

My contention is that you can be a moral person for your own selfish reasons if you want, but you cannot logically reason why be a moral person apart from an all powerful God.
The proof is in the status of our society today. You cannot logically teach another person to be moral even for reasons that will benefit the person.

Our jails are full of people who knew better and yet committed a wrong to their own detriment.

[C. D. Ward]

Yes, but this argument is largely meaningless. It is equivalent to this one -

It is an uncontroversial claim that God prefers that we don't eat things that taste terrible. It is also possible to argue, from a purely seculra POV, that eating things that taste bad is contra-indicated by human nature.

This tells us absolutely nothing about whether or not it is objectively immoral to eat a raw onion.But that wasn't the intent of that particular analogy. The intent was to introduce the idea that a secular moral system could have identical content to a religious one given that God created humans with a moral sense.

[C. D. Ward]

Our jails are full of people who knew better and yet committed a wrong to their own detriment.The same people who knew that an all-powerful deity would someday punish them for their wrongs.

What's your point? No moral schema can guarantee compliance.

[Benster]

"Flaw #1: Relativists Can't Accuse Others of Wrong-doing"

Yes they can. And they do.

"If you believe that morality is a matter of personal definition.."

I don't. Just because morals are relative does not mean that they SOLELY derive their meaning and importance from individual opinion. Their relativity or relativeness does not take away the moral power and authority of the church, the parent, the magistrate, the police officer, and the teacher to enforce society's rules. The two (moral relativeness and moral effectiveness) are completely disconnected. Absolute morals can be disregarded too...by absolutists.

"Flaw #2: Relativists Can't Complain about the Problem of Evil"

Well, we can, if we wanted to waste our time. People do bad things, yes. There are bad people, yes. There are immoral people, yes. True, I am not going to sit around and complain about the "problem of evil", as if it was a philosophical quandary, and how to eradicate it (!), if that's what you mean. It's much more productive to go out and encourage the enforcement of law and the punishment and locking up of criminals...people who "DO evil".

"Flaw #3: Relativists Can't Place Blame or Accept Praise

Relativism renders the concepts of praise and blame meaningless..."

No it doesn't. There is no external, absolutely correctly defined standard for chocolate chip cookies, either. And yet people like mine, say so and I genuinely appreciate it! That, and a thousand of other possible examples of praise being acknowledged for deeds that are appreciated by people or deeds going punished for being bad, even with varying, relatively defined standards of moral behavior show that number 3 is nonsense.

"Flaw #4: Relativists Can't Claim Anything is Unfair or Unjust"

The stealing of my car was unjust. There. I did it! So, #4 is wrong.

Are you saying that I can't appeal to an absolute moral authority, i.e. God, about the stealing of my car? Well, true, but so what. I don't believe you can do so either. You might want to invent absolute morals to make it seem like you were really really really unfairly targeted! Grade school stuff.

But God isn't going to give you or me back our car. We complain to the police, to the guy's priest, to his family, to my mom. Whoever. Everybody moral will agree that something unjust happened.

"Flaw #5: Relativists Can't Improve Their Morality

With moral relativism, moral improvement or reform is impossible. Relativists can change their personal ethics, but they can never become better people."

Whats the difference?

The grading standard for essays on English literature are partially subjective. and yet, students can improve, partly by writing papers that get better grades. BTW, this illustrates one of the grave flaws of moral absolutism, because it is analogous to moral improvement: You can't really improve simply by increasing your adherence to a set of predefined rules and formulae. That is the way of the monkey, not the man. You must improve according to YOUR OWN carefully discerned, compared set of standards that you believe accords with the highest moral standing. That is mnoral imrpovement...with conscience.

"Flaw #6: Relativists Can't Hold Meaningful Moral Discussions

Relativism makes it impossible to discuss morality. What's there to talk about?"

Again, the same fallacy as #3. The same goes for Pizza, cookies, school grades, etc.

"Flaw #7: Relativists Can't Promote the Obligation of Tolerance

Well, that's not a flaw. Tolerance should not always be obligated. The intolerant should not be tolerated. So I agree with that one, but it is a benefit, not a flaw.

[InHim]

The same people who knew that an all-powerful deity would someday punish them for their wrongs.

What's your point? No moral schema can guarantee compliance.



I agree, my point is not a sure way guarantee. My point is that in order for me to justify a moral value I have to point to a standard that is not in me, but rather outside of myself... GOD! the standard by which we measure morality.

[Soundsurfr]

I agree, my point is not a sure way guarantee. My point is that in order for me to justify a moral value I have to point to a standard that is not in me, but rather outside of myself... GOD! the standard by which we measure morality.

Maybe you should look into the Euthyphro Dilemma:

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/euthyfro.html

[C. D. Ward]

I agree, my point is not a sure way guarantee. My point is that in order for me to justify a moral value I have to point to a standard that is not in me, but rather outside of myself... GOD! the standard by which we measure morality.I'm assuming that by "God" you mean "the all-good nature of God", otherwise you're just pointing to another valuer's values and that's just as subjective as our values.

And I would agree that God's nature is an objective foundation. The problem with using it, however, is epistemic. How do you know what God's nature is? You cannot rely on God's word as your subjective bias and interpretation will become a factor. That's why I think the only way such a schema works is if you posit human nature as the created realization of God's moral nature; that God's moral schema is internalized in Creation. In that manner, humans (and any other moral agents that may exist) have direct access to the objective foundation of moral values.

[InHim]

I'm assuming that by "God" you mean "the all-good nature of God", otherwise you're just pointing to another valuer's values and that's just as subjective as our values.

And I would agree that God's nature is an objective foundation. The problem with using it, however, is epistemic. How do you know what God's nature is? You cannot rely on God's word as your subjective bias and interpretation will become a factor. That's why I think the only way such a schema works is if you posit human nature as the created realization of God's moral nature; that God's moral schema is internalized in Creation. In that manner, humans (and any other moral agents that may exist) have direct access to the objective foundation of moral values.

Yes I am saying the "all -good nature of God."

I don't see the epistemic problem; God has revealed His nature... yes through His word. There is NO bias or personal interpretation! Surely 1500 years did not confuse the Jews of what God's nature was.

I would rather argue that subjective values would reflect a bias, being that they have no grounding.

[C. D. Ward]

Yes I am saying the "all -good nature of God.":thumb:
I don't see the epistemic problem; God has revealed His nature... yes through His word. There is NO bias or personal interpretation! Surely 1500 years did not confuse the Jews of what God's nature was.Riiiiight....that's why we have Presbyterians and Methodists and Catholics and Mormons and Jehovah's Witness and Jews and Baha'i, etc. and disagreements (within and between all of these various denominations) over the morality of abortion, homosexuality, birth control, the status of woman and on and on ad nauseam.

Unless you're positing some kind of direct revelation to the mind that bypasses normal sensory perception, then bias and interpretation are unavoidable. You can't simply wave them away.
I would rather argue that subjective values would reflect a bias, being that they have no grounding.But they do (or more appropriately, can) have grounding: in human nature. And of course values are subject to bias; that's why we must constantly ask ourselves "why?" and use reason and argument to seek to eliminate it.

[Superbug]

What the author is saying is that he doesn't like the implications of moral relativism therefore moral relativism is flawed.

"Flaw #1: Relativists Can't Accuse Others of Wrong-doing."

So you'd like to be able to accuse everyone because you already feel that your opinion is superior to everyone else's. It is based on reality. If morality were relative, everyone would be entitled to his or her own opinion and you wouldn't be able to force your own moral rules down everyone's throats. Perish the thought! Thus morality can not be relative.

Well, you can accuse others of wrong-doing as long as it is wrong-doing according to your opinion. But of course it is much easier when the Ultimate Authority is backing your opinions because you don't have to take responsibility for them.

[InHim]

:thumb:
Riiiiight....that's why we have Presbyterians and Methodists and Catholics and Mormons and Jehovah's Witness and Jews and Baha'i, etc. and disagreements (within and between all of these various denominations) over the morality of abortion, homosexuality, birth control, the status of woman and on and on ad nauseam.

That is quite a foolish statement, and I don’t mean that in a derogatory way. I understand where you would make a statement like that and believe that it has weight, but let me clarify.

Denominations within the protestant faith do not mean disagreement or contradictions; conformity may come in many styles. Mainstream denominations believe the in primary doctrines of the Christian faith. That is why bible societies and even translation committees are made up of scholars of various denominations.
Now that said, denominations are completely different from cults: Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses and so forth. A cult is a clear departing of mainstream Christianity, its tenants and beliefs.

Jews would agree with the morality in the bible and Baha’i are neither a Christian denomination nor do they hold the bible as the revealed word of God.

The bible is very clear on issues such as Homosexuality and abortion.




Unless you're positing some kind of direct revelation to the mind that bypasses normal sensory perception, then bias and interpretation are unavoidable. You can't simply wave them away.
But they do (or more appropriately, can) have grounding: in human nature. And of course values are subject to bias; that's why we must constantly ask ourselves "why?" and use reason and argument to seek to eliminate it.

No need for direct revelation, we have sufficiency in His already revealed word.

But to ground values on human nature, I would ask and it follows… WHO’S human nature? Who will determine what is worth enforcing and what is an aberration? Subjectivity will produce a varied view on whatever issue is up for discussion and naturally who will determine? Homosexuality?? Abortion??

[InHim]

What the author is saying is that he doesn't like the implications of moral relativism therefore moral relativism is flawed.

But of course it is much easier when the Ultimate Authority is backing your opinions because you don't have to take responsibility for them.


It is not that relativism is flawed because one does not like it; just on a pragmatic level, it is flawed because it simply does not work.

When you denounce something you do so based on a moral law, this law is outside of yourself; it is not a matter of your personal opinion or taste. Otherwise you would not be able to denounce anything, only opine on this or that.

So the responsibility is not in blurting an opinion and have others deal with it. It is adjudicating a just decision.

[C. D. Ward]

That is quite a foolish statement, and I don’t mean that in a derogatory way. I understand where you would make a statement like that and believe that it has weight, but let me clarify.You don't mean that in a derogatory way?!? :rasberry:
Denominations within the protestant faith do not mean disagreement or contradictions; conformity may come in many styles. Mainstream denominations believe the in primary doctrines of the Christian faith. That is why bible societies and even translation committees are made up of scholars of various denominations.
Now that said, denominations are completely different from cults: Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses and so forth. A cult is a clear departing of mainstream Christianity, its tenants and beliefs.

Jews would agree with the morality in the bible and Baha’i are neither a Christian denomination nor do they hold the bible as the revealed word of God.

The bible is very clear on issues such as Homosexuality and abortion.You're missing the point and you shot yourself in the foot with that last sentence.

You do realize that there are committed Christians who believe that homosexuality is not immoral and use Scriptural exegesis to back up their belief? They may indeed be wrong, but the fact that they believe as they do, and use the Bible as evidence is proof of the point that I was making. And, of course, the Bible never speaks directly of abortion; in fact, the early church may not have believed it to be immoral at all.

Do you use the KJV or RSV? No? Maybe NASB or The NIV? No? Well, which of the dozens of different translations are you using? Are you pre- or post-lapsarian? Pre-trib or post-trib rapture? Will there even be a rapture? Are you YEC or OEC? Literal week or day-age framework? Trinitarian or non-Trinitarian? Molinist or Thomist? Salvation by faith or works? Dispensationalist or Supersessionist? Futurist or Preterist (Full or partial?)? Calvinist or Arminian? Hyper-Calvinist? Annihilationist or Traditionalist? Universalist? And so on and so on. Name your soteriological or eschatalogical stance and I will show you ten people who will disagree with you (some violently) and will show you "clear" evidence in scripture that you are wrong and possibly condemned to burnination to boot.

All of this is not to say that there may not indeed be one correct interpretation of the Bible, but to point out that all we have are interpretations; necessarily subjective and just as prone to bias as any other. The idea that the Bible presents a clear picture of God's will is tenuous at best. It may not even be scriptural: Jesus used parables and hidden meanings in his teachings and the Bible in other places speaks of God deliberately obfuscating the truth so as to confound the wicked.
But to ground values on human nature, I would ask and it follows… WHO’S human nature? Who will determine what is worth enforcing and what is an aberration? Subjectivity will produce a varied view on whatever issue is up for discussion and naturally who will determine? Homosexuality?? Abortion??What do you mean by "who's nature?" "Human nature" is shared by all humans. We all require food, oxygen, clothing. We all feel pain when hurt and joy when happy.

"Who will determine?" is all of us. Grounding values in human nature doesn't mean that people won't disagree, just as grounding values in God's word doesn't mean that people won't disagree. However, grounding values in human nature does mean that the standards are directly accessible. I don't need for you to agree with my interpretation if I am trying to correct your irrational belief that you don't need to eat to live. All I need to do is wait...

[InHim]

You do realize that there are committed Christians who believe that homosexuality is not immoral and use Scriptural exegesis to back up their belief? They may indeed be wrong, but the fact that they believe as they do, and use the Bible as evidence is proof of the point that I was making. And, of course, the Bible never speaks directly of abortion; in fact, the early church may not have believed it to be immoral at all.

Actually you are wrong, there is no scriptural basis for homosexuality, people may employ the bible to TRY and make a case but as Peter said they twist the scriptures. The bible is clear (OLD and NEW TESTAMENT) on homosexuality.

As far as abortion, you have not read much on church history and I would not expect you to, but the early church condemned abortion and even began orphanages for children who were abandoned. It was in about the 12th century that the church eradicated abortion completely (as far as they knew) in every place the church had a footing.

Do you use the KJV or RSV? No? Maybe NASB or The NIV? No? Well, which of the dozens of different translations are you using? Are you pre- or post-lapsarian? Pre-trib or post-trib rapture? Will there even be a rapture? Are you YEC or OEC? Literal week or day-age framework? Trinitarian or non-Trinitarian? Molinist or Thomist? Salvation by faith or works? Dispensationalist or Supersessionist? Futurist or Preterist (Full or partial?)? Calvinist or Arminian? Hyper-Calvinist? Annihilationist or Traditionalist? Universalist? And so on and so on. Name your soteriological or eschatalogical stance and I will show you ten people who will disagree with you (some violently) and will show you "clear" evidence in scripture that you are wrong and possibly condemned to burnination to boot.

These are all secondary issues, inhouse debates that have nothing to do with primary doctrine. IOW, smoke and mirrors. It means nothing to the discussion we are having. If I am post-trib or pre-trib it will have no impact on #1 Salvation and secondly on MORALITY!!!!!!!! remember the issue at hand?


All of this is not to say that there may not indeed be one correct interpretation of the Bible, but to point out that all we have are interpretations; necessarily subjective and just as prone to bias as any other. The idea that the Bible presents a clear picture of God's will is tenuous at best. It may not even be scriptural: Jesus used parables and hidden meanings in his teachings and the Bible in other places speaks of God deliberately obfuscating the truth so as to confound the wicked.
What do you mean by "who's nature?" "Human nature" is shared by all humans. We all require food, oxygen, clothing. We all feel pain when hurt and joy when happy.

Nonesense, as I said before the Jews for 1500 years were not confused as to God's will and nature. That is why we have the word of God, so that no one can claim to have direct revelation from God and impose individual wills on the people.


"Who will determine?" is all of us. Grounding values in human nature doesn't mean that people won't disagree, just as grounding values in God's word doesn't mean that people won't disagree. However, grounding values in human nature does mean that the standards are directly accessible. I don't need for you to agree with my interpretation if I am trying to correct your irrational belief that you don't need to eat to live. All I need to do is wait...

Oh but we are not speaking about simplistic self-evident issues like does a body need food to live. Is it wrong to take an infants life? That was the issue was it not?

Let me give you an example:

When the Nazi's where brought to trial, they claimed that killing Jews in Germany at the time was not against the law. How is it wrong then???? How do you try them???

[InHim]

I guess that answers that!

[Soundsurfr]

When the Nazi's where brought to trial, they claimed that killing Jews in Germany at the time was not against the law. How is it wrong then???? How do you try them???
This may seem like an odd question, but when someone in the state of NY is brought to trial for operating a motor vehicle without a valid driver's license, how do you try them? Does the authority for this trial come from a biblical source? If so, explain. If not, then where does the authority for this trial come from?

[InHim]

This may seem like an odd question, but when someone in the state of NY is brought to trial for operating a motor vehicle without a valid driver's license, how do you try them? Does the authority for this trial come from a biblical source? If so, explain. If not, then where does the authority for this trial come from?



The authority comes from the government of which that state belongs to.

If you are trying to equate this to the Nazi trial's then you have to tell me on what authority and by which moral dictum did they get tried.

[Soundsurfr]

The authority comes from the government of which that state belongs to.

If you are trying to equate this to the Nazi trial's then you have to tell me on what authority and by which moral dictum did they get tried.
The Nazis were tried through the authority of an international military tribunal established by the Government of the United States of America, the Provisional Government of the French Republic, the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

The legal framework chosen was international common law, specifically as it related to crimes against humanity, war crimes, murder, etc. "whether or not in violation of domestic law of the country where perpetrated."

You can view the charter here:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/NurembergIndictments.html


So, as equated to my example, the authority came from a coalition of governments which, in the aftermath of the war, took charge of the state in which the crimes were charged.

[InHim]

The Nazis were tried through the authority of an international military tribunal established by the Government of the United States of America, the Provisional Government of the French Republic, the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

The legal framework chosen was international common law, specifically as it related to crimes against humanity, war crimes, murder, etc. "whether or not in violation of domestic law of the country where perpetrated."

You can view the charter here:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/NurembergIndictments.html


So, as equated to my example, the authority came from a coalition of governments which, in the aftermath of the war, took charge of the state in which the crimes were charged.



Here is the dilemma; the Nazi criminals were tried by an international court. The problem is that they committed these crimes in sovereign soil, namely their own (Germany)

So the problem is on what grounds do you try them in an international court being that they violated no laws in the country they committed these crimes they are accused of. Once more I remind you that Germany as a sovereign country and can effect any law is sees fit for their country.

The countries that formed this coalition decided to override Germany's laws and try them by their own dictums.

What moral grounds or right did they enforce to override a sovereign nation's laws?

I think you miss the point anyway... what did they do that was wrong???
they subjected morality to their collective views and decided to eliminate a people. What did they do that was wrong??

So if moral values are subjective and the Nazis decided killing Jews was legal based on their moral values and laws, how do YOU try these men??

[Soundsurfr]

Here is the dilemma; the Nazi criminals were tried by an international court. The problem is that they committed these crimes in sovereign soil, namely their own (Germany)
No they didn't. They went to war and committed war crimes inside and outside of their sovereign soil. Thousands of jews were executed by the Nazis in Poland an elsewhere.

So the problem is on what grounds do you try them in an international court being that they violated no laws in the country they committed these crimes they are accused of. Once more I remind you that Germany as a sovereign country and can effect any law is sees fit for their country.On what moral grounds do you make that statement?


The countries that formed this coalition decided to override Germany's laws and try them by their own dictums.

What moral grounds or right did they enforce to override a sovereign nation's laws?On the grounds that the individuals they were prosecuting started a war with the rest of the world and lost. There was no existing "state" in Germany at the time of the trials.

I think you miss the point anyway... what did they do that was wrong???I did not miss the point. The point is that legal authority is secular in nature, and biblical morals are not part of the equation. What they did wrong was they broke international laws.

[InHim]

No they didn't. They went to war and committed war crimes inside and outside of their sovereign soil. Thousands of jews were executed by the Nazis in Poland an elsewhere.

On what moral grounds do you make that statement?

They were NOT tried for crimes committed in Poland or elsewhere!!! They were crimes against JEWS!!!!

Try again.


On the grounds that the individuals they were prosecuting started a war with the rest of the world and lost. There was no existing "state" in Germany at the time of the trials.

Loosing the war was not a reason to usurp Germany's laws! As they pointed out to the court "At the time it was legal in Germany to kill Jews!" maybe not at the time they came to trial, but at the time they killed them it was lawful!

Now try them on those facts!!! How do you bring a conviction???

I did not miss the point. The point is that legal authority is secular in nature, and biblical morals are not part of the equation. What they did wrong was they broke international laws.

And what laws are these? Who makes them and who brakes them? Who decides?

You see your problem is that these trials were appealed to a HIGHER LAW higher than mans law!

Why did they have to bring in a higher law??? If morals were human convections there would be no need to appeal to a higher authority!!

[InHim]

And I guess that is that Finally!!!

[C. D. Ward]

Actually you are wrong, there is no scriptural basis for homosexuality, people may employ the bible to TRY and make a case but as Peter said they twist the scriptures. The bible is clear (OLD and NEW TESTAMENT) on homosexuality.Again, you miss the point. That there may indeed be one correct interpretation is not the issue. The issue is that no one's viewpoint has any kind of a priori epistemic privilege. That's why hermeneutics is so important. The more you argue that those whose exigesis differs from yours are wrong, the more you only prove my point.
As far as abortion, you have not read much on church history and I would not expect you to, but the early church condemned abortion and even began orphanages for children who were abandoned. It was in about the 12th century that the church eradicated abortion completely (as far as they knew) in every place the church had a footing.In fact, I have studied a bit of church history, having been raised Catholic and educated in a parochial school where it was a required subject. The reality is that the church has had no consistent position on abortion since it's founding. Early church fathers Augustine and Aquinas in particular argued that ensoulment did not occur at conception, but at some period afterwards (referred to as "the quickening"). Because of this, both argued that although abortion was a sin, it was not murder, since a human life did not yet exist. This was essentially the official church doctrine between about the 5th to almost the 17th century. In fact, the idea that ensoulment actually takes place at conception was not made part of official church doctrine until the 19th century (under Pius IX).

So you see, the issue isn't at all as cut-and-dried as you argue.
These are all secondary issues, inhouse debates that have nothing to do with primary doctrine. IOW, smoke and mirrors. It means nothing to the discussion we are having. If I am post-trib or pre-trib it will have no impact on #1 Salvation and secondly on MORALITY!!!!!!!! remember the issue at hand?But of course, some Christians do argue that some of these issues are of primary importance; that they have salvific and moral impact. Look at fundamentalist organizations like AiG for example. At any rate, you're missing the point again. The point is not specific doctrinal differences. The point is epistemic privilege. You're claiming that you have it; I've vitiated your claim.
Nonesense, as I said before the Jews for 1500 years were not confused as to God's will and nature. That is why we have the word of God, so that no one can claim to have direct revelation from God and impose individual wills on the people.:lol: Oh, the irony!!
Oh but we are not speaking about simplistic self-evident issues like does a body need food to live. Is it wrong to take an infants life? That was the issue was it not?It's certainly one of the issues, but it is the "self-evident" claim that you make and that I don't that is actually smoke and mirrors. :wink:
When the Nazi's where brought to trial, they claimed that killing Jews in Germany at the time was not against the law. How is it wrong then???? How do you try them???Well, to begin with, I don't recall reading in the transcripts of the Nuremberg trials that any of the defendants claimed that killing Jews wasn't against the law. I think that likely would have been incorrect. German law has always condemned murder. What they probably claimed is that the killing of Jews was justified for some reason or other.

And that's really what you're talking about when you ask "how is it wrong then?" Do their "reasons" truly justify the killing of six million people? I would argue that we can look to our own nature for the answers. What do humans require from each other in order to prosper? Given our need for society (in that societies promote human flourishing), wholesale slaughter of one's neighbors is not conducive to this end. Actions that prohibit or restrict this primary value are considered wrong. Examining the Nazi's claims in light of such an hermeutic enables us to consider their actions wrong and to take action accordingly.

[Soundsurfr]

They were NOT tried for crimes committed in Poland or elsewhere!!! They were crimes against JEWS!!!!

Try again.
Wrong. The first three counts against the Nazi regime were not even specific to the Jews. Here they are:



Indictments

Count One: Conspiracy to Wage Aggressive War
This count helped address the crimes committed before the war began, showing a plan to commit crimes during the war. Count Two: Waging Aggressive War, or "Crimes Against Peace"

Including “the planning, preparation, initiation, and waging of wars of aggression, which were also wars in violation of international treaties, agreements, and assurances.”
Count Three: War Crimes

These were the more “traditional” violations of the law of war including treatment of prisoners of war, slave labor, and use of outlaws weapons.

Nor were they tried for crimes committed only in Germany. I think you need to get a new argument. This one's dead on arrival.

Loosing the war was not a reason to usurp Germany's laws!I'll ask you again, since you ignored me last time. On what moral grounds do you make that statement? Are you relying on a higher authority?

As they pointed out to the court "At the time it was legal in Germany to kill Jews!" maybe not at the time they came to trial, but at the time they killed them it was lawful!Who pointed that out? When? Why?

Now try them on those facts!!! How do you bring a conviction???I answered this very clearly. You didn't like the answer. Asking me again will not change the answer. Read the Charter. It says:



The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility: .......(c) Crimes against Humanity: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war,14 or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of domestic law of the country where perpetrated.







You see your problem is that these trials were appealed to a HIGHER LAW higher than mans law! Where? I did not read that in the charter.

[InHim]

Again, you miss the point. That there may indeed be one correct interpretation is not the issue. The issue is that no one's viewpoint has any kind of a priori epistemic privilege. That's why hermeneutics is so important. The more you argue that those whose exigesis differs from yours are wrong, the more you only prove my point.

Wrong, it is good hermeneutics that will prove epistemologically. The very sad fact that our nation has moved from a solid Christian heritage to a secular one has left ( for a lack of a better word ) biblical illiterates of the general population, which in turn makes epistemology a hard concept to pin down for them, thus the proliferation of cults and bad ideas within a post-Christian culture that still can't make a break from it’s past.

In fact, I have studied a bit of church history, having been raised Catholic and educated in a parochial school where it was a required subject. The reality is that the church has had no consistent position on abortion since it's founding. Early church fathers Augustine and Aquinas in particular argued that ensoulment did not occur at conception, but at some period afterwards (referred to as "the quickening"). Because of this, both argued that although abortion was a sin, it was not murder, since a human life did not yet exist. This was essentially the official church doctrine between about the 5th to almost the 17th century. In fact, the idea that ensoulment actually takes place at conception was not made part of official church doctrine until the 19th century (under Pius IX).

Well I was raised Catholic too, so you know church history from a Catholic perspective, but I remind you of a little break called the reformation. I recommend you read Shelly.

While men have held various positions, still the bible remains clear on what it teaches. Personhood is taught in the bible to start before conception!

So you see, the issue isn't at all as cut-and-dried as you argue.
But of course, some Christians do argue that some of these issues are of primary importance; that they have salvific and moral impact. Look at fundamentalist organizations like AiG for example.
What organizations teach this? I am familiar with AIG, what about them? Be specific, don't dance around say what you mean.

Well, to begin with, I don't recall reading in the transcripts of the Nuremberg trials that any of the defendants claimed that killing Jews wasn't against the law. I think that likely would have been incorrect. German law has always condemned murder. What they probably claimed is that the killing of Jews was justified for some reason or other.

It was that Jews were not human and therefore killing them justifiable.

You see we can all agree that something’s are horrible, but we can justify an action with enough reason and motive and as Chesterton says make it excusable.

And that's really what you're talking about when you ask "how is it wrong then?" Do their "reasons" truly justify the killing of six million people? I would argue that we can look to our own nature for the answers. What do humans require from each other in order to prosper? Given our need for society (in that societies promote human flourishing), wholesale slaughter of one's neighbors is not conducive to this end. Actions that prohibit or restrict this primary value are considered wrong. Examining the Nazi's claims in light of such an hermeutic enables us to consider their actions wrong and to take action accordingly.

You see you miss the point completely; the question is how was it that the Germans with their high degree of enlightenment came to commit such atrocities? How did they excuse this?

Most people or peoples that transgress the law or laws are not asking themselves "what is best for the progress of society?" Again we can all agree that wholesale slaughter of one's neighbors is wrong, but what will drive me to excuse slaughtering my neighbor? ? ? (Retaliation? or revenge? or war or some other excuse).

[InHim]

Wrong. The first three counts against the Nazi regime were not even specific to the Jews. Here they are:



Yes, yes these are war crimes, and as nations agree on rules of engagement and so forth is not the issue.

The issue is that: What grounds did the international court provide to charge and say that the killing of Jews was wrong?

In another example: Why is the harvesting of human organs by the Chinese of jailed men and woman wrong? Will they be brought to trial? On what grounds?
It is legal in China for the government to harvest organs from so called criminals. What do you say to that?




I'll ask you again, since you ignored me last time. On what moral grounds do you make that statement? Are you relying on a higher authority?

What statement is that?


Again the issue is as I pointed out to C.D. Ward:

Chesterton said, all men agree on what crimes are evil, but they will disagree on which ones they will call excusable.

China will tell you that killing people is wrong, but if these people happen to be behind bars then it is OK for the government to kill them and harvest their organs.

Now again what do YOU do with that!!!!

[C. D. Ward]

Wrong, it is good hermeneutics that will prove epistemologically. The very sad fact that our nation has moved from a solid Christian heritage to a secular one has left ( for a lack of a better word ) biblical illiterates of the general population, which in turn makes epistemology a hard concept to pin down for them, thus the proliferation of cults and bad ideas within a post-Christian culture that still can't make a break from it’s past.And once again you breeze right by the point. The very existence of hermeneutics proves the point I'm making. If the Bible were "clear" and "self-evident", you wouldn't need to define rules to assist in interpretation. Does that help?
Well I was raised Catholic too, so you know church history from a Catholic perspective, but I remind you of a little break called the reformation. I recommend you read Shelly.Irrelevant. Whether it's Protestant or Catholic of which we speak, it's all Christianity. The fact that Catholic Christians didn't define abortion any any point in time as murder until the 19th century proves my point that there has been no consistent Christian definition of abortion over time.
While men have held various positions, still the bible remains clear on what it teaches. Personhood is taught in the bible to start before conception!Well, you'll need to take it up with St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas who disagreed with you. I wonder how the "clear" and "self-evident" meaning of scripture somehow evaded two of the most intelligent and influential church fathers? :wink:
What organizations teach this? I am familiar with AIG, what about them? Be specific, don't dance around say what you mean.AiG's writings are full of ridiculous "arguments" equating evolution with atheism and warning of the dire consequences of teaching evolution or not discouraging belief. It is clear that they do indeed hold YEC to be essentially a salvific issue. It's also been my extreme displeasure to come up against a Hyper-Calvinist organization known as "Outside The Camp" who believe that all non-Calvinists are unregenerate and non-elect. In addition, they believe that anyone who holds that it's possible for a non-Calvinist to be saved are also unregenerate and non-elect. Thus for them, the difference between Calvinism and even the possibility that Arminianism might be correct is a salvific issue. And there are others.
It was that Jews were not human and therefore killing them justifiable.The belief that Jews were not human would be clearly irrational and easy to disprove scientifically. Therefore, such a justification would have no possibility of standing.
You see we can all agree that something’s are horrible, but we can justify an action with enough reason and motive and as Chesterton says make it excusable.I fail to see any truth in that. The fact that some people might find a means to rationalize it doesn't make it right or our ability to condemn it as wrong any less real. Christians face the exact same difficulty WRT to hermeneutics as I've already shown.
You see you miss the point completely; the question is how was it that the Germans with their high degree of enlightenment came to commit such atrocities? How did they excuse this?

Most people or peoples that transgress the law or laws are not asking themselves "what is best for the progress of society?" Again we can all agree that wholesale slaughter of one's neighbors is wrong, but what will drive me to excuse slaughtering my neighbor? ? ? (Retaliation? or revenge? or war or some other excuse).I'm afraid I don't see what you're driving at. It seems to me that we've agreed that no moral schema can guarantee moral behavior. That the Germans (or any other peoples) can find rationalizations for their immoral behavior should therefore not entirely surprise us.

[Soundsurfr]

The issue is that: What grounds did the international court provide to charge and say that the killing of Jews was wrong?
On the grounds that it was unprovoked murder and attempted genocide.


I'll ask you again, since you ignored me last time. On what moral grounds do you make that statement? Are you relying on a higher authority?What statement is that?This one:


Loosing the war was not a reason to usurp Germany's laws!
That's a moral judgement. What is your justification for it? Is it biblical? Does it come from a higher authority? Or is it just your opinion? This is very much relevant to the discussion.

[InHim]

And once again you breeze right by the point. The very existence of hermeneutics proves the point I'm making. If the Bible were "clear" and "self-evident", you wouldn't need to define rules to assist in interpretation. Does that help?
Oh but of course you need definitions on documents of the such, otherwise we could not use the constitution

Irrelevant. Whether it's Protestant or Catholic of which we speak, it's all Christianity. The fact that Catholic Christians didn't define abortion any any point in time as murder until the 19th century proves my point that there has been no consistent Christian definition of abortion over time.
Wrong, I don't know where you got your facts on 19 century? but abortion has always been sin!

Well, you'll need to take it up with St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas who disagreed with you. I wonder how the "clear" and "self-evident" meaning of scripture somehow evaded two of the most intelligent and influential church fathers? :wink:

Well Martin Luther was an anti-Semite, but I won't throw out the baby with the bath water.
As far as I remember Christ told us to follow Him not His followers. Especially in light of the report card the church got from Jesus in the first 3 chapters of Revelation.

AiG's writings are full of ridiculous "arguments" equating evolution with atheism and warning of the dire consequences of teaching evolution or not discouraging belief. It is clear that they do indeed hold YEC to be essentially a salvific issue. It's also been my extreme displeasure to come up against a Hyper-Calvinist organization known as "Outside The Camp" who believe that all non-Calvinists are unregenerate and non-elect. In addition, they believe that anyone who holds that it's possible for a non-Calvinist to be saved are also unregenerate and non-elect. Thus for them, the difference between Calvinism and even the possibility that Arminianism might be correct is a salvific issue. And there are others.
Again my point, on the biblical illiteracy of the secular mind!!!

None of these things are impacting on issues of morality just ask any of the ones you listed if homosexuality is wrong or abortion!!!

The belief that Jews were not human would be clearly irrational and easy to disprove scientifically. Therefore, such a justification would have no possibility of standing.
Then how is it that the Germans committed these crimes? Are you saying that they lacked scientific knowledge?
One more time, they excused their actions!!!They rationalized values away!
And that has been my point!!!
Without a standard we can excuse any crime we want!!! GOT IT!!!


I'm afraid I don't see what you're driving at. It seems to me that we've agreed that no moral schema can guarantee moral behavior. That the Germans (or any other peoples) can find rationalizations for their immoral behavior should therefore not entirely surprise us.

No it should not, as the Chinese harvesting organs either, but the thing is that you have no grounds to call their action wrong!because at anytime they can rationalize it away!!

[InHim]

On the grounds that it was unprovoked murder and attempted genocide.

According to who? The Germans did not think so!


This one:


That's a moral judgement. What is your justification for it? Is it biblical? Does it come from a higher authority? Or is it just your opinion? This is very much relevant to the discussion.
[/indent]

If we are talking about rules of conduct in war then we have the Geneva Convention, but of course to the winner belong the spoils and if it was that the US and Great Britan were to conquer and occupy well then they would just make law. It was not their intent to conquer Germany.



Now answer the question I posed to you:

How do YOU condemn China for harvesting the organs of prisoners? Again China acknowledges that murder is wrong except when they can profit from it.

WHAT DO YOU DO WITH THAT!!!

[C. D. Ward]

Oh but of course you need definitions on documents of the such, otherwise we could not use the constitutionDoes this mean you finally get it? I don't think so...
Wrong, I don't know where you got your facts on 19 century? but abortion has always been sin!From church history? At any rate, I never claimed that the church taught that it wasn't sin, but that it wasn't murder.
Well Martin Luther was an anti-Semite, but I won't throw out the baby with the bath water.
As far as I remember Christ told us to follow Him not His followers. Especially in light of the report card the church got from Jesus in the first 3 chapters of Revelation.And? You've already stipulated that you don't get your knowledge of God's will directly from him, that you've got to read and interpret.
Again my point, on the biblical illiteracy of the secular mind!!!

None of these things are impacting on issues of morality just ask any of the ones you listed if homosexuality is wrong or abortion!!!Irrelevant to the point. The point is an epistemic one, not of specific beliefs. And there are Christians who believe that neither homosexuality nor abortion are absolutely wrong. You will of course disagree and have an hermeneutic to back you up, but so do they. That your hermeneutic is right and theirs is wrong is irrelevant to the issue. Your continued inability to grasp this point seems to me to doom this discussion to petty bickering.
Then how is it that the Germans committed these crimes? Are you saying that they lacked scientific knowledge?
One more time, they excused their actions!!!They rationalized values away!
And that has been my point!!!
Without a standard we can excuse any crime we want!!! GOT IT!!!What has been your point? I'm not even sure you know what it is anymore.

I've never denied that a standard is necessary; all I'm advocating is where that standard should be placed. It is clear that the Nazis did not share your standard or mine. It is also clear that our respective standards cannot guarantee behavior. I have explained how I can label their behavior wrong. What point are you actually attempting to make?
No it should not, as the Chinese harvesting organs either, but the thing is that you have no grounds to call their action wrong!because at anytime they can rationalize it away!!Multiple exclaimation points won't make your argument any more effective than it actually is (which isn't very). The ability to rationalize immoral behavior does not mean that we do not have grounds to label it immoral. I have no idea where you get that idea as I explicitly rejected it in the previous post.

I am advocating a standard and I have stated clearly what that standard is. I have indicated how an hermeneutic can be developed to aid in interpreting it and why I feel it should be easier (viz other standards) to overcome innate bias and prejudice in implementing it. Apparently, however, you'd rather blather on about how my standard doesn't guarantee that people can't rationalize away their crimes or prevent them from committing them. Well, of course neither does yours. What's the point you're trying to make, anyway?

[Superbug]

It is not that relativism is flawed because one does not like it; just on a pragmatic level, it is flawed because it simply does not work.

Morality is not a tool. If a tool doesn't work, you can throw it away. Moral relativism is a theory. You throw a theory away if it is false. The fact that it doesn't have the practical consequences you want it to have is irrelevant.


When you denounce something you do so based on a moral law, this law is outside of yourself; it is not a matter of your personal opinion or taste. Otherwise you would not be able to denounce anything, only opine on this or that.


So if there is no law outside yourself, don't denounce anything. Only opine on this or that. To decide that there is a law outside yourself just because you want to justify your actions is dishonest.

So the responsibility is not in blurting an opinion and have others deal with it. It is adjudicating a just decision.

You wish you have been adjudicating a just decision. But are you adjudicating a just decision? The answer to this question shouldn't depend on your wishes.

[Soundsurfr]

According to who? The Germans did not think so!
According to the tribunal. What the Germans who were on trial thought about legality/illegality was treated the same way as any person who is on trial's thoughts are treated.

If we are talking about rules of conduct in war then we have the Geneva Convention,
We're not talking about the rules of conduct in war. We're talking about YOUR assertion that it was not justified for the tribunal to supercede the laws of a sovereign country. Where do you get the authority to make that statement??????? (By the way, the Geneva Convention was ratified in 1949, which was after the Nuremberg trials.)

Once you answer that question, we can go on to the question of whether or not a higher power is required to justify the trials of those Germans in question.


Now answer the question I posed to you:

How do YOU condemn China for harvesting the organs of prisoners. Again China acknowledges that murder is wrong except when they can profit from it.

WHAT DO YOU DO WITH THAT!!!
If you're asking me where I get my moral tenets from, I will respond that I get them the same place you do - from my social and cultural conditioning. If you can just make a blanket statement that it's wrong to supercede the laws of a sovereign country and not back it up with a higher authority, then why are you requiring me to?

[InHim]

Does this mean you finally get it? I don't think so...
From church history? At any rate, I never claimed that the church taught that it wasn't sin, but that it wasn't murder.
And? You've already stipulated that you don't get your knowledge of God's will directly from him, that you've got to read and interpret.

No,no I did not say that. The bible says that the natural (unconverted) man cannot understand the things of the Spirit. We need to as the Bereans (Acts 17:11) examine the scriptures.


Irrelevant to the point. The point is an epistemic one, not of specific beliefs. And there are Christians who believe that neither homosexuality nor abortion are absolutely wrong. You will of course disagree and have an hermeneutic to back you up, but so do they. That your hermeneutic is right and theirs is wrong is irrelevant to the issue. Your continued inability to grasp this point seems to me to doom this discussion to petty bickering.
Oh but it’s not irrelevant, on the contrary it is my point. If I say to you that the constitution says I can kill my neighbor on the fact that it would produce my happiness; all you would have to do is point out my error and misapplication of the constitution.

Do you now understand this?


I am advocating a standard and I have stated clearly what that standard is. I have indicated how an hermeneutic can be developed to aid in interpreting it and why I feel it should be easier (viz other standards) to overcome innate bias and prejudice in implementing it. Apparently, however, you'd rather blather on about how my standard doesn't guarantee that people can't rationalize away their crimes or prevent them from committing them. Well, of course neither does yours. What's the point you're trying to make, anyway?

Well you know we are not far off on our assertions. We both know that a standard is needed and that it is not foolproof. So far so good.

I believe that the system you propose can lend itself to be very bias. Because your system is from within, a system of likes and dislikes, personal opinions and human deductions, then it is destined to meet the needs of both the strongest and loudest advocates, subject to change at anytime and no one person or government retaining sovereignty therefore relative to the changes of the human will.

Thus we can therefore produce a Nazi Germany with all of its logical out- workings, because no one person or government retains sovereignty.

I say that moral values are outside of my personal will and taste; that these are true despite my own biases. The standard is therefore outside of me, a standard I can point to and say there is the canon!

Case and point:

China and the harvesting of human organs!

[InHim]

We're not talking about the rules of conduct in war. We're talking about YOUR assertion that it was not justified for the tribunal to supercede the laws of a sovereign country. Where do you get the authority to make that statement??????? (By the way, the Geneva Convention was ratified in 1949, which was after the Nuremberg trials.)

I am not asserting that it is either right or wrong! I’m asking you by what right did these coalition of countries bring the Nazi’s to trial? Was it that Germany lost the war and therefore the winning countries able to usurp and or override that country’s standing law?

Is it that all countries agree to a given code of treatment of their citizens and Germany was found in violation?

Can a group of countries invade a sovereign nation and make law or prosecute according to the invading country’s law?


Once you answer that question, we can go on to the question of whether or not a higher power is required to justify the trials of those Germans in question.

Very well now answer my question!



If you're asking me where I get my moral tenets from, I will respond that I get them the same place you do - from my social and cultural conditioning. If you can just make a blanket statement that it's wrong to supercede the laws of a sovereign country and not back it up with a higher authority, then why are you requiring me to?

I don’t get my morals from social conditioning!

I am requiring you to state by which moral dictum a country can violate a country’s sovereign law!

I am also requiring you to answer how you deal with China harvesting human organs!
In other words how do you condemn them!

[InHim]

Morality is not a tool. If a tool doesn't work, you can throw it away. Moral relativism is a theory. You throw a theory away if it is false. The fact that it doesn't have the practical consequences you want it to have is irrelevant.

What?????



So if there is no law outside yourself, don't denounce anything. Only opine on this or that. To decide that there is a law outside yourself just because you want to justify your actions is dishonest.

Again, I have no idea what you mean??



You wish you have been adjudicating a just decision. But are you adjudicating a just decision? The answer to this question shouldn't depend on your wishes.

It is very hard to understand your responses. Justice is measured by a standard that is outside of myself!

[Soundsurfr]

I am not asserting that it is either right or wrong! But you did. YOU said:



Loosing the war was not a reason to usurp Germany's laws!
So perhaps I'm a little slow. Humor me and let's take this one baby step at a time.

Is it your moral position that losing the war is not sufficient justification to ignore Germany's internal laws? If so, how did you arrive at this position?

If it's not your position, then what is the moral dilemma you're claiming exists with regard the Nuremberg trials?

You see, InHim, I'm worried that you are doing what a lot of moral objectivists do - You claim that moral subjectivists (like myself) obtain their moral tenets out of thin air, then you proceed to offer moral tenets out of thin air yourself.

Prove me wrong. Give me some justification for the assertion you made.

Can a group of countries invade a sovereign nation and make law or prosecute according to the invading country’s law?My answer - sure they can. Now I'd like to hear your answer, in accordance with your higher than man moral standard.

Very well now answer my question!I will, but I'm counting on you to play fair and answer mine as well.

I don’t get my morals from social conditioning!You think you don't. But you do.

I am requiring you to state by which moral dictum a country can violate a country’s sovereign law!I don't quite know what a moral dictum is, but I can give you the rationale that was used in the specific situation of Germany in 1949. The way sovereignty works is that the sovereignty of a nation state is respected provided that the nation state also respects the sovereignty of its sister nations within international community. Clearly, Germany violated the sovereignty rights of others when it chose to invade them and in so doing forfeited their own sovereignty rights.

I am also requiring you to answer how you deal with China harvesting human organs!
In other words how do you condemn them!Like this: The Chinese practice of harvesting of human organs is ultimately in violation of my personal values, specifically my belief in individual human rights. Therefore, I condemn them.

How do you condemn them?

[C. D. Ward]

No,no I did not say that. The bible says that the natural (unconverted) man cannot understand the things of the Spirit. We need to as the Bereans (Acts 17:11) examine the scriptures.Ah, so you are claiming some sort of extrasensory perception? That God feeds the correct interpretation infallibly to the regenerate?

How are we the unregenerate to know the difference? With so many claiming to be Christians and yet having different opinions as to "Truth", you can imagine it's more than a little confusing.
Oh but it’s not irrelevant, on the contrary it is my point. If I say to you that the constitution says I can kill my neighbor on the fact that it would produce my happiness; all you would have to do is point out my error and misapplication of the constitution.

Do you now understand this?That's not what you appeared to be saying before, but I have no problem with that. In fact, it's no more than what I've been arguing all along: a common hermeneutic is required.

But I'm somewhat confused. If God implants the correct interpretation directly into your brain, why do you need a hermeneutic at all? :huh:
Well you know we are not far off on our assertions. We both know that a standard is needed and that it is not foolproof. So far so good.

I believe that the system you propose can lend itself to be very bias. Because your system is from within, a system of likes and dislikes, personal opinions and human deductions, then it is destined to meet the needs of both the strongest and loudest advocates, subject to change at anytime and no one person or government retaining sovereignty therefore relative to the changes of the human will.I don't think you've been reading my posts very carefully or you would have seen that the standard I believe exists has nothing to do with personal likes or dislikes, exists regardless of opinion, and isn't subject to change "at anytime" without some kind of corresponding change in the standard.

IOW, it's not relative to changes of the human will.
I say that moral values are outside of my personal will and taste; that these are true despite my own biases. The standard is therefore outside of me, a standard I can point to and say there is the canon!And I agree to a point. Values cannot be outside will and taste by definition. Period. This is regardless of whether or not we're talking about your standard or my standard, regardless of whether or not God exists or not. This is a matter of the definition of value. Value requires a valuer, it is therefore subjective by definition. We've been through all this before.

I agree with you in the sense that the foundation for all value is outside personal will and taste. It exists regardless of the opinion of any individual. I can point to it and say, here is why X is good/bad.
China and the harvesting of human organs!And to the extent that China's actions violate individual freedoms and restrict the ability of individuals to flourish, they are wrong by my standard.

[Superbug]

It is very hard to understand your responses. Justice is measured by a standard that is outside of myself!

But is there such a standard? You wish there was one but you don't know if there is one. If morality is relative, you are not going to be just according to an objective standard. That's bad but you can't believe in something just because you like its consequences. You can't conclude that morality is absolute just because you want to be able to be just according to an objective standard.

According to a doctor you shouldn't exercize because you have a heart condition. According to another doctor's point of view you should exercize because you are perfectly healthy. The first theory can be used to justify your laziness while the second can't but you shouldn't choose your beliefs because the practical consequences of a belief allows you to justify your actions. Only truth matters.

Analogously, objective moral standards might not exist. And if they don't exist, you are never objectively just. That's life, you have to accept it. You can't satisfy everyone's sense of justice. Sometimes you won't know what to do because every possibility is wrong according to someone's morality. But you can't deny a theory just because it's going to make your life more difficult. You deny a theory because when you think it's false.

Most people share common moral concepts and what I usually consider good is what you usually consider good because we have similar brains. But if someone else has a different brain and thinks that what we consider good is actually bad, how are we going to persuade that person that our opinions are superior to his or her? Even if there are objective moral standards, you can't prove that they exist. You just want to think that they exist because it makes you feel right, it would mean that you are doing the Right Thing according to the Ultimate Authority. But nothing guarantees that these principles exist and, if they exist, that they are identical to your own principles. If morality is relative, no one is objectively right and it means that everyone's opinion is equally relevant. You'd have to admit that you don't have the answers because there are no answers. But if it's true, we'd better admit it.

[Augustine2004]

... it means that everyone's opinion is equally relevant. Equally relevant? Is the idiot's opinion relevant? Are Jesus Christ's teachings (whether they are based on opinion or not I don't want to debate now) no more relevant than Hitler's? However, I think you should have used the word 'correct.' Then you would have written, 'equally correct,' which looks like nonsense and probably is. For one thing, you seem to have overlooked the point that relativitism is self-refuting. You surely can see that the proposition that no moral system is objectively true, refutes itself.

Granted very few facts can be established with certainty. You live, you sleep, eat, go to work, etc., but other 'facts' have to be assumed or deduced to some extent. The proposition that an objective ethical/moral system exist may be such a fact. However, why should we assume that such a system does not exist? Let us try to deduce what consequences would ensue if everyone based his life on the assumption that no objective ethical system exists.

It does seem objectively true that the world would be a much worse place in which to live if everyone lived by his own rules. By analogy, the traffic lights that regulate the flow of cars and other vehicles would be ineffective. Superbug, do you know about the Law of Association?

[InHim]

But you did. YOU said:




So perhaps I'm a little slow. Humor me and let's take this one baby step at a time.

Is it your moral position that losing the war is not sufficient justification to ignore Germany's internal laws? If so, how did you arrive at this position?


Oh I was just trying to finish your sentences, I'm sorry. My position is that if a nation is sovereign and makes its own laws; then what country can come and say that it is wrong and therefore charge this country in an international court.

If it's not your position, then what is the moral dilemma you're claiming exists with regard the Nuremberg trials?

Well I just explained it, but I guess you pretty much answered that if a nation violates a neighbor nations rights and laws then it is subject to be charged. So I'll bring the thought together at the bottom.

You see, InHim, I'm worried that you are doing what a lot of moral objectivists do - You claim that moral subjectivists (like myself) obtain their moral tenets out of thin air, then you proceed to offer moral tenets out of thin air yourself.

Oh not at all, my morality is clear and unchanging; it is God's values and unchanged.



Like this: The Chinese practice of harvesting of human organs is ultimately in violation of my personal values, specifically my belief in individual human rights. Therefore, I condemn them.

How do you condemn them?

So in following your value system, China can be tried in an international court because it is in violation of your personal values and your belief in individual human rights? Or wait a minute... China can only be tried if and when it violates it's neighbors?

Gee somehow your value system cannot peg down morality very well, other than opine of your own personal beliefs and ideas.

Who gives these individual human rights? If government gives these rights then government can take away these rights. if society gives these rights then it is dependent on what society deems a right. If these rights come from your own personal beliefs then everyone's beliefs are just as valid.

Thin air is right!

[Superbug]

Equally relevant? Is the idiot's opinion relevant? Are Jesus Christ's teachings (whether they are based on opinion or not I don't want to debate now) no more relevant than Hitler's?

Not objectively, yes. To me Jesus Christ's teachings are more relevant than Hitler's but not to Hitler. You don't like that, do you? But not liking something doesn't make it false.

However, I think you should have used the word 'correct.' Then you would have written, 'equally correct,' which looks like nonsense and probably is.

No, if A is correct then not A is incorrect. But in morality A and not A are neither correct nor incorrect, if morality is relative. A might be correct to someone, not A might be correct to someone else, and to a third person A and not A are morally neutral.

For one thing, you seem to have overlooked the point that relativitism is self-refuting. You surely can see that the proposition that no moral system is objectively true, refutes itself.

No, I can't see it. Relativism refutes objective justice, the possibility of being right according to an objective moral system but it doesn't refute itself because relativism isn't a moral system itself, it's a theory. A theory can be objectively true. Relativism says that there are no objective moral principles. It is not a moral principle, it's a statement about reality. (Objective: existing outside the mind, real.)

However, why should we assume that such a system does not exist?

Because no one has shown me an objective moral system. People claim that their moral systems are objective but they are all different. On the other hand, if morality is a result of evolution, our moral instincts are relative to our evolutionary history and it really explains why most people agree on moral issues and other psychological observations. And, finally, I always favor scientific theories over theological theories (why I prefer science would be off-topic).

It does seem objectively true that the world would be a much worse place in which to live if everyone lived by his own rules.

Would the world be a better place if people lived by common rules? Maybe. But you can't pretend that objective moral standards exist just because you think that the world would be a worse place if everyone lived by his own rules.

Maybe the world would be a better place if there was free food for everyone. But we are not going to pretend that there is free food if there isn't.

By the way, people do live by their own rules except when they are afraid of the police or another authority that makes them behave according to different rules. My own rules are probably a lot like your own rules, what makes you think that maybe we are all living by a set of objective rules. But there is an alternative explanation: our rules are similar because we have similar brains.

There is a big difference between an objective moral system and a common moral system that was established by tradition or agreement.

By analogy, the traffic lights that regulate the flow of cars and other vehicles would be ineffective.

Moral relativism is not a moral system. It doesn't say that we shouldn't obey traffic laws or act only according to our own immediate interests. It doesn't say how we should behave at all. The only think it says is that morality is not objective. Traffic lights are effective because most people make an effort to behave according to social standards. We are social animals, with social instincts.

Superbug, do you know about the Law of Association?

Law of Association in Psychology?

[Soundsurfr]

Oh I was just trying to finish your sentences, I'm sorry. My position is that if a nation is sovereign and makes its own laws; then what country can come and say that it is wrong and therefore charge this country in an international court.Fair enough. And so do you reach this moral position through an appeal to a higher power? If so, how does that work?


Oh not at all, my morality is clear and unchanging; it is God's values and unchanged.Good. Then you can explain to me how you know that the moral position stated above represents God's values.

So in following your value system, China can be tried in an international court because it is in violation of your personal values and your belief in individual human rights? Or wait a minute... China can only be tried if and when it violates it's neighbors?You asked me how I can codemn them, and I told you, that I condemn them based on my personal values. Now you are asking a different question. You are asking under what circumstances can they be tried. I would like you to answer that question first.

I'm assuming your position is that China's actions in this regard are against God's moral code. Should China be tried for its transgressions? If so, by whom?

Gee somehow your value system cannot peg down morality very well, other than opine of your own personal beliefs and ideas.I agree. Let's see how well yours does.

Who gives these individual human rights?Society, based on its value system. Every society has a fundamental value system that it is built upon. In American society, we value the idea that each individual has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

If government gives these rights then government can take away these rights.That's a fact. In fact, government is historically the biggest violator of individual rights. The framers of the Constitution knew that well and went through great pains to create checks and balances to try to prevent that.


if society gives these rights then it is dependent on what society deems a right.Indeed it is. I know you don't like that fact, but it's a fact nonetheless.

[Augustine2004]

No, I can't see it. Relativism refutes objective justice, the possibility of being right according to an objective moral system but it doesn't refute itself because relativism isn't a moral system itself, it's a theory.
I suspect my argument could be better, Well, probably it can be better. However your rebuttal, if it could be called that, is illogical. I wish I know how to respond. Perhaps you have a question or two?

[InHim]

Ah, so you are claiming some sort of extrasensory perception? That God feeds the correct interpretation infallibly to the regenerate?

How are we the unregenerate to know the difference? With so many claiming to be Christians and yet having different opinions as to "Truth", you can imagine it's more than a little confusing.
That's not what you appeared to be saying before, but I have no problem with that. In fact, it's no more than what I've been arguing all along: a common hermeneutic is required.

No I am not claiming any such thing. I am saying that the bible says that the unregenerate cannot understand God's word. The Christian is told to study His word and show him/herself approved. We know God and His nature and will through His word. God reveals His truth.


But I'm somewhat confused. If God implants the correct interpretation directly into your brain, why do you need a hermeneutic at all? :huh:
I don't think you've been reading my posts very carefully or you would have seen that the standard I believe exists has nothing to do with personal likes or dislikes, exists regardless of opinion, and isn't subject to change "at anytime" without some kind of corresponding change in the standard.

Again God does not download His instructions; we study and He reveals. James says we do not need to be taught truth.

IOW, it's not relative to changes of the human will.
And I agree to a point. Values cannot be outside will and taste by definition. Period. This is regardless of whether or not we're talking about your standard or my standard, regardless of whether or not God exists or not. This is a matter of the definition of value. Value requires a valuer, it is therefore subjective by definition. We've been through all this before.

I agree with you in the sense that the foundation for all value is outside personal will and taste. It exists regardless of the opinion of any individual. I can point to it and say, here is why X is good/bad.
And to the extent that China's actions violate individual freedoms and restrict the ability of individuals to flourish, they are wrong by my standard.

Yes, yes we have been here, but if values are outside ourselves then have they always existed or were they human inventions? To what exactly do you point to, where is x that I can see for myself that it is good/bad?

You say China is wrong by your standard; is there other standards then? I thought you said you can point to x and say it is wrong? In China's case what do you point to to say it is wrong and more importantly show the world and the chinese it is wrong?

[InHim]

Fair enough. And so do you reach this moral position through an appeal to a higher power? If so, how does that work?[quote]

Do I reach this opinion through appeal? No God's standard is His word, life is precious and to be guarded and protected. The sixth commandment is you shall not murder. God is the author of life and only God can command a life.


[quote]
Good. Then you can explain to me how you know that the moral position stated above represents God's values.

I just did.

You asked me how I can codemn them, and I told you, that I condemn them based on my personal values. Now you are asking a different question. You are asking under what circumstances can they be tried. I would like you to answer that question first.

Well if there is an unchanging standard we can point to (God) then China is guilty of violating not only human rights, rights given to all by God; but they are guilty of violating God's law(commandments). So these values are not my own, I can't change them, they are not my personal convictions but rather God's universal standards.

I'm assuming your position is that China's actions in this regard are against God's moral code. Should China be tried for its transgressions? If so, by whom?

You assume correctly in part, China did violate God's moral code, but can a Godless world and a secular/relativistic world at that bring a charge against China? I don't think so.


Society, based on its value system. Every society has a fundamental value system that it is built upon. In American society, we value the idea that each individual has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.


So we cannot try China by an American value system can we? My point exactly. If American society writes it's own value system then so can China and how do we say it is wrong without a standard outside ourselves?

That's a fact. In fact, government is historically the biggest violator of individual rights. The framers of the Constitution knew that well and went through great pains to create checks and balances to try to prevent that.



So government being the giver of values can give and take away values as it sees fit. It can grant rights to individuals and take them away?

[InHim]

But is there such a standard? You wish there was one but you don't know if there is one. If morality is relative, you are not going to be just according to an objective standard. That's bad but you can't believe in something just because you like its consequences. You can't conclude that morality is absolute just because you want to be able to be just according to an objective standard.

According to a doctor you shouldn't exercize because you have a heart condition. According to another doctor's point of view you should exercize because you are perfectly healthy. The first theory can be used to justify your laziness while the second can't but you shouldn't choose your beliefs because the practical consequences of a belief allows you to justify your actions. Only truth matters.

Analogously, objective moral standards might not exist. And if they don't exist, you are never objectively just. That's life, you have to accept it. You can't satisfy everyone's sense of justice. Sometimes you won't know what to do because every possibility is wrong according to someone's morality. But you can't deny a theory just because it's going to make your life more difficult. You deny a theory because when you think it's false.

Most people share common moral concepts and what I usually consider good is what you usually consider good because we have similar brains. But if someone else has a different brain and thinks that what we consider good is actually bad, how are we going to persuade that person that our opinions are superior to his or her? Even if there are objective moral standards, you can't prove that they exist. You just want to think that they exist because it makes you feel right, it would mean that you are doing the Right Thing according to the Ultimate Authority. But nothing guarantees that these principles exist and, if they exist, that they are identical to your own principles. If morality is relative, no one is objectively right and it means that everyone's opinion is equally relevant. You'd have to admit that you don't have the answers because there are no answers. But if it's true, we'd better admit it.


Your ideas are very scattered. If what you say is true then my opinions on morality are just as true as yours and you cannot say I'm wrong! because after all no one is right certainly not you or me.

So by that standard I'm right.

[Soundsurfr]

Good. Then you can explain to me how you know that the moral position stated above represents God's values.

I just did.
No you did not, and I must confess I'm disappointed that you are choosing to avoid my question. I asked specifically how you reached the moral conclusion that it is inappropriate for one nation to breach the sovereignty of another. Is this biblical? If so, then please give me bible references for it. If it is not, please explain the process by which you reach this conclusion. Otherwise, I have to conclude that your moral proclamations are no more or less valid than mine.

Well if there is an unchanging standard we can point to (God) then China is guilty of violating not only human rights, rights given to all by God; but they are guilty of violating God's law(commandments).
Yes, if there is an unchanging standard. Which commandments are the Chinese guilty of violating? Which human rights have been given to us by God? Please be specific.

You assume correctly in part, China did violate God's moral code, but can a Godless world and a secular/relativistic world at that bring a charge against China? I don't think so.
Again, you seem to be avoiding the question. The question is whether or not China can be tried for its crimes and if so, by whom? Is your answer, no, China cannot be tried either under your system or mine? Again, you lead me to the conclusion that your moral code is no more or less effective than mine. Is your answer, yes, under a non-secular system, China could be tried, and this is how it would be done ____________? (Please fill in the blank if this is your position.) In other words, is there a non-secular solution that you would propose to handle the "China problem"? Please describe it.

So we cannot try China by an American value system can we?
Not at this time, because we do not have power over China. If we did, we could certainly try China's officials.


If American society writes it's own value system then so can China and how do we say it is wrong without a standard outside ourselves?
You have not shown how you say it is wrong WITH a standard outside ourselves.

So government being the giver of values can give and take away values as it sees fit. It can grant rights to individuals and take them away?
No, the government is not the giver of values. It is the enforcer of values. The Chinese enforce their values, we enforce ours. The range of enforcement of each corresponds to the power each weilds.

Government can and does grant rights to individuals and takes them away. That is true in this country and every other.

[InHim]

No you did not, and I must confess I'm disappointed that you are choosing to avoid my question. I asked specifically how you reached the moral conclusion that it is inappropriate for one nation to breach the sovereignty of another. Is this biblical? If so, then please give me bible references for it. If it is not, please explain the process by which you reach this conclusion. Otherwise, I have to conclude that your moral proclamations are no more or less valid than mine.

Is it Biblical? No. Governments are human agencies and especially secular governments as the world is. As a Christian and follower of Christ then I have guidelines by which I live and act. Jesus said "love your neighbor". That sounds very clear to me.

When the framers looked at the theocracy of Israel they formulated a government based on the government Israel enjoyed.


Yes, if there is an unchanging standard. Which commandments are the Chinese guilty of violating? Which human rights have been given to us by God? Please be specific.

China is guilty of commandment # 6 you shall not murder! guilty of commandment # 9 you shall not lie, I can go on.

Based on those commandments God gives us the principles of human rights:

no coveting = private property is to be respected

no stealing = people have the right to ownership

and on and on.


Again, you seem to be avoiding the question. The question is whether or not China can be tried for its crimes and if so, by whom? Is your answer, no, China cannot be tried either under your system or mine? Again, you lead me to the conclusion that your moral code is no more or less effective than mine. Is your answer, yes, under a non-secular system, China could be tried, and this is how it would be done ____________? (Please fill in the blank if this is your position.) In other words, is there a non-secular solution that you would propose to handle the "China problem"? Please describe it.


China cannot be tried by yours or mine; this is a secular world, but that is not my point. My point is that in your system of subjectivity you can only say that what China has done is wrong according to you and your values.

In my system I say China is wrong according to God's laws that supercede man's law.
In my system justice will eventually be served.

You have not shown how you say it is wrong WITH a standard outside ourselves.

I just pointed it out above.


No, the government is not the giver of values. It is the enforcer of values. The Chinese enforce their values, we enforce ours. The range of enforcement of each corresponds to the power each weilds.

Government can and does grant rights to individuals and takes them away. That is true in this country and every other.

Then who gives the values that government enforces? If we prescribe our own values then a majority can lobby and change and impose new values and no one can say it is wrong, only that they don't agree.

If values come from God then even the government can be called on a violation of these values.

You see we all agree pretty much on what is right or wrong, but the foundation of those rights and wrongs cannot be from within us but rather from outside ourselves. Transcendent and apart from man, unchanging and perpetual.

[Soundsurfr]

Is it Biblical? No.
Ok, so it's just your opinion. Same as mine.

Governments are human agencies and especially secular governments as the world is. As a Christian and follower of Christ then I have guidelines by which I live and act. Jesus said "love your neighbor". That sounds very clear to me.
But if we're to be following a higher authority than you, it really doesn't matter what it sounds like to you, right? Which leads us to the REALLY BIG question - who decides what the correct interpretation of the higher moral code is?

By the way, I take it you consider the US war in Iraq to be immoral as well, for the same reasons? (Just curious).

China is guilty of commandment # 6 you shall not murder!
China was executing prisoners who were found guilty of crimes. Are you saying capital punishment is a violation of commandment #6?

Based on those commandments God gives us the principles of human rights:

no coveting = private property is to be respected

no stealing = people have the right to ownership

and on and on.
No, human rights as they are practiced in our culture have nothing to do with the commandments. In fact, the First Amendment to the Constitution directly contradicts the first Commandment of the God of Abraham. How is it that I have the right practice Hinduism or Buddhism or atheism in this country when your God commands that I worship Him and only Him? Shouldn't you be arguing against this law?

China cannot be tried by yours or mine; this is a secular world, but that is not my point.
Oh, but it is EXACTLY your point. You even bring it up again at the end of this post. Throughout this exchange you have been asking me the question "how can you try these people under your system?" and now this is not your point? You have just agreed that they cannot be tried under any system. So at this stage you have shown me no practical or theoretical application that differentiates your philosophy from mine.

My point is that in your system of subjectivity you can only say that what China has done is wrong according to you and your values.
And my point is that you are in exactly the same situation. The only difference is your unsupportable claim that your moral judgements are in agreement with those of a supreme being. I personally don't believe you. I believe you are extracting your moral attitudes from your societal and cultural conditioning, and I can give you lots of evidence for that. This is further complicated by your inability to point to any identifyable higher moral standard that is in any way specific to situations at hand, such as the right of the tribunal to prosecute Germans at Nuremberg.

In summary, when you take the emperor's clothes off, your system is no different than mine.

In my system I say China is wrong according to God's laws that supercede man's law.
Congratulations. That and a metro card will get you on the subway.

I ask you for a "higher authority" moral stance on a given issue, and you give me your opinion. So...That's what I do too. Then you say, "But my opinion is in line with God's laws." So....That's what Osama bin Laden says too. How do I differentiate his appeal to authority from yours?

In my system justice will eventually be served.
That remains to be seen. Or not seen.

Then who gives the values that government enforces?
The society. It's a collective. That's how the world works, InHim. You have not been able to show otherwise.

If we prescribe our own values then a majority can lobby and change and impose new values and no one can say it is wrong, only that they don't agree.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this happens all the time. It's exactly how this country was started, by the way. Plenty of people didn't agree and still don't. So....?

If values come from God then even the government can be called on a violation of these values.
But you already admitted that it can't, as in the case of China. Forgive me, but I'm confused by the contradictions you present.

You see we all agree pretty much on what is right or wrong,
We do? Who is "we all"? I don't see that worldwide we agree at all on what is right or wrong. I don't even see it locally. I personally don't think homosexuality is "wrong". You do. I personally think capital punishment is wrong. Lots of Christians don't. In my opinion, we don't really agree at all on moral issues. What we do agree upon to some extent, is that we should all have the right to disagree. And we are lucky enough to have a secular institution that is set up to protect our right to disagree.

but the foundation of those rights and wrongs cannot be from within us but rather from outside ourselves. Transcendent and apart from man, unchanging and perpetual.
And imaginary and completely unidentifyable. This is what perplexes me about the moral absolutists. Your philosophy seems to amount to "Our moral code comes from outside ourselves, and if you want to know what it is, here's my opinion as to what it is."

It's a self-defeating argument.

[btboy500]

And imaginary and completely unidentifyable. This is what perplexes me about the moral absolutists. Your philosophy seems to amount to "Our moral code comes from outside ourselves, and if you want to know what it is, here's my opinion as to what it is."

It's a self-defeating argument.


Not at all, for all that's necessary is the existence of an absolute morality, not our complete ability to understand it. Obviously, we can only give our opinion of what it is, but that doesn't dissolve its existence.

[Benster]

"...all that's necessary is the existence of an absolute morality, not our complete ability to understand it. Obviously, we can only give our opinion of what it is, but that doesn't dissolve its existence."

In other words, you don't know what this absolute morality code is, or what exactly is in it, but you merely have some good idea what it's about, based on your imagined relationship with God, the author. Nevertheless, you firmly believe it to be the unchanging moral law for all of us...whatever it is...Thanks for clearing that up.

[Soundsurfr]

Not at all, for all that's necessary is the existence of an absolute morality, not our complete ability to understand it.
All that's necessary for what? If you're talking about practical application to the human condition, I would heartily disagree.

Obviously, we can only give our opinion of what it is, but that doesn't dissolve its existence.
I did not refute the possible existence of an absolute moral standard. What I am saying is that if an absolute moral standard is to be invoked and applied as superceding "mere human opinion", one must first be able to differentiate it from "mere human opinion".

[InHim]

Ok, so it's just your opinion. Same as mine.


But if we're to be following a higher authority than you, it really doesn't matter what it sounds like to you, right? Which leads us to the REALLY BIG question - who decides what the correct interpretation of the higher moral code is?

This question I don't follow very well? Correct interpretation? If you mean by this, what does God mean by...you shall not murder? I think it is very clear don't you?

By the way, I take it you consider the US war in Iraq to be immoral as well, for the same reasons? (Just curious).

Well I believe it is a little more complex than just black and white yes and no. I don't want to get sidetracked but to be brief, I don't agree with everything that was done in Iraq.


China was executing prisoners who were found guilty of crimes. Are you saying capital punishment is a violation of commandment #6?

No not at all, commandment #6 is not claiming to be against capital punishment. Capital punishment was instituted by God and even required.


No, human rights as they are practiced in our culture have nothing to do with the commandments. In fact, the First Amendment to the Constitution directly contradicts the first Commandment of the God of Abraham. How is it that I have the right practice Hinduism or Buddhism or atheism in this country when your God commands that I worship Him and only Him? Shouldn't you be arguing against this law?

That is not what I am saying. The framers instituted biblical principles of individual rights and protections into a human government that could support both people of faith and those who are not. If God grants free will it only follows that this constitution would reflect equal protection to peoples who reject God. Jesus said that the Father causes the rain to come down on the believer as well as the unbeliever.

I am not advocating for a theocracy, you worship what you want that is why we are a democracy.


Oh, but it is EXACTLY your point. You even bring it up again at the end of this post. Throughout this exchange you have been asking me the question "how can you try these people under your system?" and now this is not your point? You have just agreed that they cannot be tried under any system. So at this stage you have shown me no practical or theoretical application that differentiates your philosophy from mine.

My point is not their trial, my point is the universal recognition that their actions are wrong. Wrong not because I think so, wrong not because the culture I grew up in says so. It is wrong because there is a standard apart from me, unchanging and fixed, ergo God. If you choose to believe in God or not, still my standard is external and not subject to change or human wills.

The fact that we can all agree that a thing is wrong and point to injustices is evidence that we all have a law written in our hearts, that when transgressed
Produces guilt, shame, the need to justify, excuse.
I am not advocating for a theocracy, you worship what you want that is why we are a democracy.



And my point is that you are in exactly the same situation. The only difference is your unsupportable claim that your moral judgements are in agreement with those of a supreme being. I personally don't believe you. I believe you are extracting your moral attitudes from your societal and cultural conditioning, and I can give you lots of evidence for that. This is further complicated by your inability to point to any identifyable higher moral standard that is in any way specific to situations at hand, such as the right of the tribunal to prosecute Germans at Nuremberg.

Oh but not so; what I say is that the fact that we call for justice, universally to a heinous crime is evidence that we ascribe to the same moral code, but we find the need to separate this code written in our conscience from an Almighty God, so we produce and prescribe subjectivity to values and morals.

When taken to its logical limits these subjectivities fall apart and inevitably the conversation ends with:

Well for me...

I think it is wrong for me personally...

According to my standards...

So you see while we all outspokenly agree to evils and goods, if we separate God from these values then we are forced to admit it is only our own likes and dislikes. The fact that we can all agree that a thing is wrong and point to injustices is evidence that we all have a law written in our hearts, that when transgressed
Produces guilt, shame, the need to justify, excuse. I am not advocating for a theocracy, you worship what you want that is why we are a democracy.



I ask you for a "higher authority" moral stance on a given issue, and you give me your opinion. So...That's what I do too. Then you say, "But my opinion is in line with God's laws." So....That's what Osama bin Laden says too. How do I differentiate his appeal to authority from yours?

The problem here is that you equate Allah with Jehovah. Here is where you have to use your mind and weigh what is truth, what conforms to truth and weed out everything that is not. But this is a whole other issue.



The society. It's a collective. That's how the world works, InHim. You have not been able to show otherwise.

I agree, so why do we not behave in a collective manner?


Correct me if I'm wrong, but this happens all the time. It's exactly how this country was started, by the way. Plenty of people didn't agree and still don't. So....?

Explain



We do? Who is "we all"? I don't see that worldwide we agree at all on what is right or wrong. I don't even see it locally. I personally don't think homosexuality is "wrong". You do. I personally think capital punishment is wrong. Lots of Christians don't. In my opinion, we don't really agree at all on moral issues. What we do agree upon to some extent, is that we should all have the right to disagree. And we are lucky enough to have a secular institution that is set up to protect our right to disagree.

Oh I agree with you, I don't want a theocracy. I think that in a pluralistic society secularism is the best form of government.


And imaginary and completely unidentifyable. This is what perplexes me about the moral absolutists. Your philosophy seems to amount to "Our moral code comes from outside ourselves, and if you want to know what it is, here's my opinion as to what it is."

It's a self-defeating argument.

Not at all, it is in black and white and has not changed for 3000 years.

[btboy500]

All that's necessary for what?


Moral intelligibility.

[Soundsurfr]

Which leads us to the REALLY BIG question - who decides what the correct interpretation of the higher moral code is?This question I don't follow very well? Correct interpretation?
Yes, correct interpretation. There are a hundred moral issues that are not clearly agreed upon among Christians, let alone among everyone.

You asked the question yourself in an earlier post on this thread:

Who will determine what is worth enforcing and what is an aberration?Enforcement of the code requires interpretation of the code. It is not always black and white, as you indicate yourself. So...who will? Isn't that the main point of this thread? Or are we just arguing over whether I'm "denouncing" or "opining" when I take a moral position?

If you mean by this, what does God mean by...you shall not murder? I think it is very clear don't you?No, it is not at all clear. In fact, to quote a friend:

Well I believe it is a little more complex than just black and white yes and no.:wink:

No not at all, commandment #6 is not claiming to be against capital punishment. Capital punishment was instituted by God and even required. So then we need to reconsider your statement that the Chinese are guilty of violating commandment #6. You see? Not at all clear.

That is not what I am saying. The framers instituted biblical principles of individual rights and protections into a human government that could support both people of faith and those who are not.I'm sorry, but I have been able to find nothing in the bible pertaining to individual human rights. If you are somehow able to extrapolate "Thou shalt not steal" and "Thou shalt not covet" into the right to a fair trial, the right to bear arms and freedom of the press, that's your business. But as far as I can discern the stated human rights we enjoy in this country are not biblical in nature. If they are, then I have to ask why it took a secular government, and not the church to fight for them? Why were they never introduced into Christian society until 1,796 years after Christ? This is the track record the Christian moralist has to work with.

If God grants free will it only follows that this constitution would reflect equal protection to peoples who reject God. Boy, that's quite a stretch in light of the first commandment. The commandment is clear. But we both know that our country doesn't base its legal system on the commandments after all. And it sounds like you're agreeing it shouldn't.

I am not advocating for a theocracy, you worship what you want that is why we are a democracy.Good. So now I am confused as to what exactly you are advocating for when you say:

It is not that relativism is flawed because one does not like it; just on a pragmatic level, it is flawed because it simply does not work...So the responsibility is not in blurting an opinion and have others deal with it. It is adjudicating a just decision.Are you saying that you are in position to adjucate a just decision and I am not? Just decisions on what? Legal matters? Or just decisions on whether or not so-and-so has lousy morals?

Earlier you said: When you denounce something you do so based on a moral law, this law is outside of yourself; it is not a matter of your personal opinion or taste. Otherwise you would not be able to denounce anything, only opine on this or that.So is your point merely that you are in position to denounce something as immoral, but I am not? Maybe as an atheist I shouldn't be allowed vote either, eh? After all, how can I be expected to make a proper decision concerning a moral issue, such as the war in Iraq?

You see, I'm searching for the practical application of your argument to real life situations. You seem reluctant to provide one.

My point is not their trial, my point is the universal recognition that their actions are wrong.What universal recognition? There was not and never will be universal recognition of anything.


The fact that we can all agree that a thing is wrong and point to injustices is evidence that we all have a law written in our hearts, that when transgressed Produces guilt, shame, the need to justify, excuse. On the contrary - the fact that we can not all agree that a thing is wrong is evidence that there is no law written in our hearts, etc., etc.

I am not advocating for a theocracy, you worship what you want that is why we are a democracy.OK. I'm just trying to figure out what you're advocating for, then.

Oh but not so; what I say is that the fact that we call for justice, universally to a heinous crime is evidence that we ascribe to the same moral code,That is not a fact. We do not universally call for justice. The Chinese are about a billion people and quite a few of them do no consider the harvesting of organs from executed criminals be a heinous crime. Millions of Arabs did not consider the attack on the world trade center to be a heinous crime. WE HUMANS DO NOT ALL ASCRIBE TO THE SAME MORAL CODE.

So the rest of your paragraph collapses under the emptiness of your opening

The problem here is that you equate Allah with Jehovah. I think that would be your problem, not mine.

Here is where you have to use your mind and weigh what is truth, what conforms to truth and weed out everything that is not. But this is a whole other issue.So what your saying is, the whole thing boils down to a reasoning exercise. Guess what. That's my position. You've just reached the top of the mountain and found me sitting there. :wink:


I agree, so why do we not behave in a collective manner?Because collectively, we agree on very general values as a society, but we're individuals and we're each as different as night and day.



Explain

You said: If we prescribe our own values then a majority can lobby and change and impose new values and no one can say it is wrong, only that they don't agree.And I say, yes. That's true. That's how our country started. We had a string of colonies under British rule enforcing British values. A majority lobbied and prescribed a new set of values for the society. The British and a whole lot of colonists and a heck of a lot of native Americans disagreed, but they lost the fight. Now we have this society. That's how things work.


Not at all, it is in black and white and has not changed for 3000 years.First it's not black and white, then it's black and white, then it's not, then it is. Oy. I would say pretty clearly it's not.

[Soundsurfr]

Moral intelligibility.
I don't know what this means.

[Superbug]

I suspect my argument could be better, Well, probably it can be better. However your rebuttal, if it could be called that, is illogical. I wish I know how to respond. Perhaps you have a question or two?

I don't know how to explain my ideas better, I thought you would understand it.

Let me write it again with only a few sentences. Are there objective moral standards? The answer to this question should not be based on our wishes. Maybe we will conclude that there are no objective moral standards. According to evolutionary psychology, everyone has moral instincts as a result of evolution in social groups. So you can still be moral according to almost everyone because our brains are very similar. But if our opinions differ, there is no way to decide who is right according to an objective standard because there is no objective standard. This situation might be unsatisfactory but if there are no objective moral standards there is nothing we can do about it.

Your ideas are very scattered. If what you say is true then my opinions on morality are just as true as yours and you cannot say I'm wrong! because after all no one is right certainly not you or me.

My opinions on morality are not moral. I'm proposing a theory about the world, that there are no objective moral standards. I'm telling you how the world is, which is objective, not what you should do, which is subjective. What you should do can only be right or wrong according to someone's opinion. It's relative to the person. But objective theories such as "morality is not objective" might be true or false and the answer doesn't depend on our thoughts about it. Either objective morality exists or it doesn't. The answer doesn't depend on our opinions. But is abortion right or wrong? The answer depends on our opinions.

[lee_merrill]

Either objective morality exists or it doesn't. The answer doesn't depend on our opinions.

That's true...

But is abortion right or wrong? The answer depends on our opinions.

But I think Greg Koukl's point is that if morality is relative, then there is no answer at all, like asking which way the wind is blowing in Montana...

Blessings,
Lee

[Soundsurfr]

But is abortion right or wrong? The answer depends on our opinions.

But I think Greg Koukl's point is that if morality is relative, then there is no answer at all, like asking which way the wind is blowing in Montana...


Agree, but there is still an answer to the question "Is it in our best interests to regulate it?"

[Superbug]

"But I think Greg Koukl's point is that if morality is relative, then there is no answer at all, like asking which way the wind is blowing in Montana..."

I can still give you my opinion. That and what Soundsurfr wrote. But of course there is no definitive answer.

[InHim]

Yes, correct interpretation. There are a hundred moral issues that are not clearly agreed upon among Christians, let alone among everyone.



I've been through this with C.D.Ward already. If you need to go into this further read the thread.



Enforcement of the code requires interpretation of the code. It is not always black and white, as you indicate yourself. So...who will? Isn't that the main point of this thread? Or are we just arguing over whether I'm "denouncing" or "opining" when I take a moral position?



The code provides generalities, like murder is it wrong? Yes, that will include: abortion(at any stage of development), infanticide, taking of innocent life.





No, it is not at all clear. In fact, to quote a friend:



:wink:



So then we need to reconsider your statement that the Chinese are guilty of violating commandment #6. You see? Not at all clear.



Very clear actually, what is not clear about murder? The chinese kill their prisoners for gain; that is murder. when someone in the States is executed they are executed after at least 10 years of appeals and man’s best effort to not put to death only those who have committed crimes so heinous that are deserving of termination.
If you cannot see the difference, then your whole world is askew.



I'm sorry, but I have been able to find nothing in the bible pertaining to individual human rights. If you are somehow able to extrapolate "Thou shalt not steal" and "Thou shalt not covet" into the right to a fair trial, the right to bear arms and freedom of the press, that's your business. But as far as I can discern the stated human rights we enjoy in this country are not biblical in nature. If they are, then I have to ask why it took a secular government, and not the church to fight for them? Why were they never introduced into Christian society until 1,796 years after Christ? This is the track record the Christian moralist has to work with.


Implicit in the commandments and the laws given to Israel and even in light of the New testament we derive our own laws. The majority of the framers were very much Christian followers, members and even presidents of their states bible societies.

For example:

the system of judges derives from Jethro asking Moses to appoint Godly men to judge among the peoples and leaving the heftier matters to Moses himself. (our court system).

Now when God says no stealing and no coveting, several things are implied:

1- property is to be respected
2- not all property is equal, IOW some people will have more property than some(God is not a Communist)
3-you can through work accumulate and prosper.



Are you saying that you are in position to adjucate a just decision and I am not? Just decisions on what? Legal matters? Or just decisions on whether or not so-and-so has lousy morals?



Earlier you said: So is your point merely that you are in position to denounce something as immoral, but I am not? Maybe as an atheist I shouldn't be allowed vote either, eh? After all, how can I be expected to make a proper decision concerning a moral issue, such as the war in Iraq?

I am not saying you cannot be moral. I am saying you cannot give a reason why to be moral other than you personal convictions and tastes.



You see, I'm searching for the practical application of your argument to real life situations. You seem reluctant to provide one.


On the contrary - the fact that we can not all agree that a thing is wrong is evidence that there is no law written in our hearts, etc., etc.

OK. I'm just trying to figure out what you're advocating for, then.

That is not a fact. We do not universally call for justice. The Chinese are about a billion people and quite a few of them do no consider the harvesting of organs from executed criminals be a heinous crime. Millions of Arabs did not consider the attack on the world trade center to be a heinous crime. WE HUMANS DO NOT ALL ASCRIBE TO THE SAME MORAL CODE.

Well your thoughts are getting sporadic. let me clarify.

I am saying that relativism does not work, not that we should scrap our justice system and adopt a theocracy!

You are wrong when you claim we disagree. If we were to go to Mecca and drop a bomb and wipe out 3000 innocent people, there is not a single Arab that will say that was a good thing. When the WTC came down because of the terrorists we all agreed in the US that is was wrong.

We all agree that killing people, especially our own is wrong. So as I said in the beginning when I quoted Chesterton, we all agree on what things are evil, we differ on what things we will excuse from evils.

IOW, Arabs agree that killing is wrong especially their own, but when it comes to killing their own by us then they will denounce it as wrong. However if it was ours that are being killed, then they will excuse that wrong and say it is right!

Did you understand this now?



So what your saying is, the whole thing boils down to a reasoning exercise. Guess what. That's my position. You've just reached the top of the mountain and found me sitting there. :wink:

Not quite, you are on a hill, the mountain is behind you and you have no way up.



Because collectively, we agree on very general values as a society, but we're individuals and we're each as different as night and day.


Wrong as I pointed out above. We agree on what is evil but without a transcendent value and moral system, the excuses will abound on the evils.


First it's not black and white, then it's black and white, then it's not, then it is. Oy. I would say pretty clearly it's not.

I don’t recall saying it is not black and white, it has been for centuries!

[Augustine2004]

I see four possible situations, mutually exclusive and exhaustive:

1. A system of objective moral standards do exist, namely God's. (At this point, the question of what God is -- the God of the Bible, the Koran, or something else -- can be deferred.) Every reasonable human being can discern it, however imperfectly, by oneself.
2. Like above, except one needs to decide which system is the true one. Is it in the Bible? The Koran? Something else? Then one study it (Bible, Koran, something else) as though it were the true source of true morality.
3. Like above, except there is no rational way to determine which system is the true one.
4. No such system exist.

#1 does not seem to fit our existence, so we can tentatively reject it. #4 is to be rejected for the simple reason that of course there is an infinity of systems that are possible. A few of them are being effected even now, and always at least one is in effect. One version of relativism simply says that one system is as valid as any other. In fact, #3 is a version of relativism.

So, what we have left are #2 and #3. I have more to offer, but let me now ask, do you see anything wrong with my reasoning so far?

[HRG_new]

That's true...



But I think Greg Koukl's point is that if morality is relative, then there is no answer at all, like asking which way the wind is blowing in Montana...

False. There are many answers: one answer per moral system.

Just as there are many answers to the question "How much pot may you own": one answer per legal system; or to "What is the sum of angles in a triangle": one answer per geometry.

IOW, Koukl confuses the existence of several answers with the non-existence of any answer.

Having realized this, we can then notice that most moral systems agree on some of the important topics; but there are also important topics on which they disagree (for instance, assuming a supernatural being exists, is it morally entitled to commit or order genocide?).

[HRG_new]

I see four possible situations, mutually exclusive and exhaustive:

1. A system of objective moral standards do exist, namely God's. (At this point, the question of what God is -- the God of the Bible, the Koran, or something else -- can be deferred.)

Why would it have to be "God's" - i.e. the one of a personal entity ? An objective morality should be independent of any mind, including divine ones.



Every reasonable human being can discern it, however imperfectly, by oneself.
2. Like above, except one needs to decide which system is the true one. Is it in the Bible? The Koran? Something else? Then one study it (Bible, Koran, something else) as though it were the true source of true morality.
3. Like above, except there is no rational way to determine which system is the true one.
4. No such system exist.

#1 does not seem to fit our existence, so we can tentatively reject it. #4 is to be rejected for the simple reason that of course there is an infinity of systems that are possible.

Of course, and that's exactly why #4 should not be rejected. It seems to conform to reality better than #1-#3.

[Augustine2004]

I see four possible situations, mutually exclusive and exhaustive:
. . .
I see now that that is half-baked. Any moral system that can be conceived by a mind -- be it the Creator's or a human mind -- is objective, just as any number or a Platonic ideal is objective. That a particular moral system has yet to be conceived by a human mind does not mean it is less objective than say Jesus Christ's.

The question to be answered then becomes this: Which moral system is the best or the true one? The answer is of course the Creator's. Now the question to answer becomes this: Exactly what is the Creator? (I include the naturalist's universe as a possible answer.)

[Superbug]

OK, now why do you think that any moral system that can be conceived by a mind is objective and why the Creator's moral system is the best or the true one?

[HRG_new]

I see now that that is half-baked. Any moral system that can be conceived by a mind -- be it the Creator's or a human mind -- is objective, just as any number or a Platonic ideal is objective. That a particular moral system has yet to be conceived by a human mind does not mean it is less objective than say Jesus Christ's.

I agree with you that all those moral systems are of equal level on the objective/subjective scale. I just wonder whether there are any subjective moral systems in your classification (if there aren't any, the classification becomes rather trivial).

The question to be answered then becomes this: Which moral system is the best or the true one?

1) I do not think a moral system can be called "true" in the first place, no more than Euclidean geometry can be called "true".

2) Which meta-moral system do you propose, in order to tell whether moral system M1 is better than moral system M2 or not ? You'll need such a standard of comparison if you speak about one moral system being "best".

The answer is of course the Creator's.

And exactly why, pray tell ? What if a creator created a universe with the explicit purpose of seeing sentient beings suffer ?

Now the question to answer becomes this: Exactly what is the Creator? (I include the naturalist's universe as a possible answer.)

I thank you for your kind inclusion of naturalism :), but the "creator" of naturalism, not being endowed with a mind, personality, intelligence, volition etc. cannot generate a moral system.

[Augustine2004]

I just wonder whether there are any subjective moral systems in your classification (if there aren't any, the classification becomes rather trivial).None. Some people might be thinking that moral systems can be subjective. Not so.

I do not think a moral system can be called "true" in the first place, no more than Euclidean geometry can be called "true". Yeah, but could we not call the 'best' moral system the 'true' one?

Which meta-moral system do you propose, in order to tell whether moral system M1 is better than moral system M2 or not ? You'll need such a standard of comparison if you speak about one moral system being "best".I would suggest that any moral system that leads to the extinction of the human race ought to be rejected, but there does seem to be some people who would disagree.


And exactly why, pray tell ? What if a creator created a universe with the explicit purpose of seeing sentient beings suffer ?

I thank you for your kind inclusion of naturalism :), but the "creator" of naturalism, not being endowed with a mind, personality, intelligence, volition etc. cannot generate a moral system.I need to give more thought to the definition of the best moral system.

[Hoosier]

Ouch! I'm sorry if my verbiage was so difficult to translate, but yes, that's a pretty good summary of what I was saying.



A reasonable question. It seems to me that when most people use the term "objective", they actually mean "universal common subjectivity", or something pretty much like it. By contrast, a technical use of "objective" (in analytic philosophy) refers to something that exists independently of mind. Analytic philosophers make reference to "objective reality" indicating that reality exists independently of our perceptions. Under this definition, however, abstract ideas cannot have an objective existence.

My specific choice of words was intended to avoid any misunderstandings regarding the status of moral values: they do not exist independently of mind. Beyond that, the practical ramifications of my view and so-called "objectivist" views are the same: universal moral standards do exist.

I use this language because it is often presumed, as Mr. Koukl did, that Subjectivism = Relativism. This is simply untrue and needs to be pointed out whenever the mistake is noted.

I hope that clears it up! :teeth:

Hi C. D.,

Clear here ... maybe not so clear there. I think that you're arguing that abstract ideas are in fact objective. That there is something like 'two-ness', 'under-ness', nearness, etc., which actually, objectively exists. If you haven't implied that, please correct me (and ignore the rest of this post).

If that is, in fact, your position, why create and plead a special case for moral abstractions? What would make moral abstractions different than any others?

[Hoosier]

I believe that moral values are grounded in human nature; in what it means to be a human being. Essentially, we are social animals who require functioning familial and societal bonds in order to survive. Killing infants for pleasure is not conducive to the development or maintenance of such bonds and thus does not contribute to our survival or flourishing. It is therefore wrong.

Aren't you begging the question, C. D.? How have you jumped from individual survival (which does not require social interactions expressed in terms of morality as much as in terms of power) to the idea of species survival, and the resulting abstract standard of 'wrong-ness'?

[Hoosier]

The schema I have outlined (albeit briefly and vaguely) is not motivated by societal concerns, but by concerns for one's own well-being. It doesn't matter if one is "apathetic to society", as you put it. Behaving as though the society of other individuals means absolutely nothing to you is detrimental to your own flourishing. Thus you have a purely internal reason for wanting to behave morally: your own best interests.

I'm afraid I think you're begging the question once again, C. D., and creating a false dilemna as well. If your own best interests were indeed the fount from which the 'ought' flows, then the accumulation of power would become the highest moral ideal. The question would not be whether I should go kill some babies for pleasure, but whether I could get away with it. Might would determine right, and morality simply a panacea granted to the lesser, 'joe-sixpack' commoners, but something in no way binding upon the powerful.

[C. D. Ward]

Hi C. D.,

Clear here ... maybe not so clear there. I think that you're arguing that abstract ideas are in fact objective. That there is something like 'two-ness', 'under-ness', nearness, etc., which actually, objectively exists. If you haven't implied that, please correct me (and ignore the rest of this post).It was not my intention to convey that meaning either explicitly or implicitly. IMO, abstract ideas are subjective. That they can be nevertheless universalizable is due to the objectivity of the particulars upon which they are based.

[C. D. Ward]

Aren't you begging the question, C. D.? How have you jumped from individual survival (which does not require social interactions expressed in terms of morality as much as in terms of power) to the idea of species survival, and the resulting abstract standard of 'wrong-ness'?I don't see any reason to grant your premise that individual survival does not require social interaction. Who stands a better chance of living to old age, the man who courts his neighbors' friendship and support or the man who attempts to enslave his neighbors? History is replete with examples of tyrants who gained temporary advantage only to be cast down and trampled by the very people they had sought to rule. The accumulation of power without regard to its proper use or consequences thereof is not truly in an individual's best interests; temporary advantage tenuously held by the continued exertion of force only works as long as one is able to hold the upper hand. Hardly a long-term strategy.

In addition, to force an individual to serve against his/her will is itself an immoral violation of autonomy, the very existence of which must be granted if morality is to exist at all. The "accumulation of power" for the purpose of enslaving others cannot therefore be moral as it implies from the start the rejection of the possibility of morality.

[Augustine2004]

The Calvinist position is that God created the universe as it is, including its future (yours, mine, that of the fella behind the tree). God created Hitler. God created the conditions that led to the great earthquake. Why? This is like asking Picasso why he painted his famous painting "Guernica" in such a strange way. Whatever answer he could give, no answer can be better than, "Because I wanted to do it that way."

Clear and straight thinking without emotion clouding our reasoning is especially needed regarding theodicy.

God is neither responsible nor sinful, even though he is the only ultimate cause of everything. He is not sinful because in the first place whatever God does is just and right. It is just and right simply in virtue of the fact he does it. Justice or righteousness is not a standard external to God to which God is obligated to submit. Righteousness is what God does. Since God caused Judas to betray Christ, this causal act is righteous and not sinful. By definition God cannot sin. At this point it must be particularly pointed out that God's causing a man to sin is not sin. There is no law, superior to God, which forbids him to decree sinful acts. Sin presupposes a law, for sin is lawlessness. . . . But God is "Ex lex."

Why God created this universe and no other, I do not know. What answer could be given, I suspect, would be no better, can be no better, than, "Because I wanted to do it that way." As for the morality of the universe or of events in it, it does not apply to God, nor is he obligated to conform to whatever moral system we think he should conform.

[HRG_new]

The Calvinist position is that God created the universe as it is, including its future (yours, mine, that of the fella behind the tree). God created Hitler. God created the conditions that led to the great earthquake. Why? This is like asking Picasso why he painted his famous painting "Guernica" in such a strange way. Whatever answer he could give, no answer can be better than, "Because I wanted to do it that way."

Unlike Guernica, the great earthquake made sentient beings suffer.

Clear and straight thinking without emotion clouding our reasoning is especially needed regarding theodicy.

God is neither responsible nor sinful, even though he is the only ultimate cause of everything. He is not sinful because in the first place whatever God does is just and right. It is just and right simply in virtue of the fact he does it.

A is true because A is true because A is true because A is true ....

Justice or righteousness is not a standard external to God to which God is obligated to submit. Righteousness is what God does.


At least, Clark openly declares that he redefines "just", "good" and "righteous": from their ordinary meanings to "whatever God does". But why doesn't he coin new words for those new concepts ?

The answer is simple: because he - and every other apologists - wants to enjoy the brand values (as marketing managers would call them) and highly positive emotional haloes of the words "just" etc. He sells his homemade brew under the name of Carlsberg and hopes to participate in the brand values of the famous Danish beer.

I regard such acts as less than honest; the law calls them "passing off".

Since God caused Judas to betray Christ, this causal act is righteous and not sinful. By definition God cannot sin. At this point it must be particularly pointed out that God's causing a man to sin is not sin. There is no law, superior to God, which forbids him to decree sinful acts.

There is no logical principle either which forbids us to characterize such decrees as hypocrisy.

If sin is a disobedience to the general law laid down by God, then a decree in a special case overrules the general law as a lex specialis and makes the act sinless. I always wonder how far apologists are willing to remove themselves from logic.

Sin presupposes a law, for sin is lawlessness. . . . But God is "Ex lex."

Thus God is lawless, ergo the ultimate of sin. Right ?

Why God created this universe and no other, I do not know. What answer could be given, I suspect, would be no better, can be no better, than, "Because I wanted to do it that way." As for the morality of the universe or of events in it, it does not apply to God,

Why, if the morality is supposed to be absolute ? An absolute morality applies to every moral (=sentient, self-aware, intelligent and volitional) being. Singling out a specific being as "beyond the law" (legibus solutus) makes a morality relative - relative to the identity of the actor.



nor is he obligated to conform to whatever moral system we think he should conform.

If so, why should we be obligated to conform to whatever moral system he thinks we should conform ? Because he is stronger ?

[C. D. Ward]

The Calvinist position is that God created the universe as it is, including its future (yours, mine, that of the fella behind the tree). God created Hitler. God created the conditions that led to the great earthquake. Why? This is like asking Picasso why he painted his famous painting "Guernica" in such a strange way. Whatever answer he could give, no answer can be better than, "Because I wanted to do it that way."That's an interesting take on the issue that I've not seen before. Morality as a type of aesthetic is exactly what Nietszche proposed. Nothing necessarily wrong with that, it's just that I've never seen a Christian put it exactly that way.

Does this make God the Uebermensch? :hehe:

[Richbee]

Does this make God the Uebermensch? :huh:

:hi:

That would be Übermensch to Nietzsche and Adolf Hitler! :wink:

Peter Kreeft writes:

In his book:“The Genealogy of Morals”, Nietzsche claimed that morality was an invention of the weak (especially the Jews, and then the Christians) to weaken the strong. The sheep convinced the wolf to act like a sheep. This is unnatural, argues Nietzsche, and seeing morality's unnatural origin in resentment at inferiority will free us from its power over us.

What would replace God?

The same being who will replace man; the Superman or Übermensch Nietzsche's magnum opus and masterpiece, “Thus Spake Zarathustra”, celebrates this new god.

Nietzsche call “Zarathustra” the new Bible, and told the world to “throw away all other books; you have my “Zarathustra.” It is intoxicating rhetoric, and it has captivated adolescents for generations. It was written in only a few days, in a frenzy, perhaps of literally demon-inspired “automatic writing.” No book ever written contains more Jungian archetypes, like a fireworks display of images from the unconscious.

Nietzsche wrote of his: superman (Übermensch) or Overman -- humanity that had evolved beyond our current state into a more powerful and more awesome form. Thus humanity was between superman and beast. Nietzsche wrote:What is the ape to man? A laughingstock or a painful embarrassment. And man shall be just that for Overman…[We] have made our way from worm to man, and much in [us] is still worm…[So] man is a rope tied between beast and Overman…[and so] what is great in man is that he is bridge and not an end.

Thus Nietzsche looked forward to man evolving into superman.