Moral Relativism

[drug_mentor]

Okay, dude. Whatever.
I'm just a bid fed up with this forum.
It's all semantic crap. Nobody listens.



Like I said, I've run out of steam. I couldn't be bothered anymore.
I don't see a lot of people being influenced around here.



Well, it's my opinion nonetheless.


So, I take it you can't name five objective morals.
That's weird, huh?

And, the killing innocent persons thing.
Let's say you were talking about animals.
What about viruses?

We take pleasure in killing innocent insects (animals) and viruses. Don't we?
I don't see how you can deny that, or explain how it is wrong (objectively or otherwise).

Whether or not I could name zero objective morals would prove nothing. There are plenty of objective facts which elude most people, in fact by virtue of the fact there are facts which remain undiscovered, there are objective facts which are known by nobody. I have named a couple of things I believe to be absolute moral facts, or at least behaviours which are absolutely morally wrong.

You are clearly unfamiliar with philosophical theories of personhood. I did not say all animals were persons, I said the term was not necessarily restricted to humans. To attribute personhood to a virus or a bug is nonsensical.

I don't see the point in engaging you on your terms when you have blatantly avoided addressing the substance of a single argument presented in this thread.

Why wont you actively defend moral relativism? My guess is you wont because last time the best you could come up with was a logical fallacy (see post #2). I have defended the idea of objective morality plenty in this thread. I am happy to have a discussion but that goes both ways, you don't just get to jump in the middle and dictate the terms of the debate.

I am not sure what you mean that you can't be bothered. It seems like an intellectual cop out. You could be bothered to post an unsupported rant, bu not to advance a single argument in favour of your own perspective? That seems strange, and frankly, more than a little convenient.

I find it telling that you feel a need to disparage those who bother to defend their own views as intellectual showboats, while you put on a childish display in which you simultaneously put down those who disagree with you and have a whinge about how harmful the forum you continue to post in is. I honestly thought you were more mature than this, obviously I was wrong. It genuinely seems to me like you are just trying to drag the thread off course.

In regards to you not seeing people being influenced, I guess you just aren't looking very hard. Willow11, one of the main contributors to this thread, has seemed quite sympathetic to a number of arguments against moral relativism, which he is defending (or at least was at the outset). When you appeal to valid logic, instead of just spewing out a bunch of unsubstantiated claims, you have a good chance of influencing a reasonable person.

Please don't bother responding to me unless you plan to make an argument for your own position, as I, and others, have done throughout this thread.

 

[methamaniac]

I can't think of anything that is absolutely wrong, if you remove yourself from the human perspective.

They say killing innocents for fun is wrong

But you do agree that killing children for fun is absolutely wrong? Correct?

I haven't read this thread, and I'm not going to, so this has probably already been covered.

^ this?

But it's only wrong - I forced him to clarify - if it's done to humans.

This has been covered by DM, but I guess you can't be bothered reading thread.
Which makes me question your motives.

entire sense of right and wrong revolves around what is convenient.
The universe functions because different species have different values.
Survival is greedy and fiercely competitive: we can't all hold hands.

But why does our conscience so often stand in stark contrast with what we observe in nature?
Why do I feel being greedy is wrong if nature says it is good for survival?

Maybe everything is as it is because it needs to be that way, and there is no right and wrong.
Maybe right and wrong - like everything else - is illusory?

If you want to take the stance right and wrong doesn't exist, you better be prepared for the consequences that follow.

And, if it isn't, why assume that we have any idea yet?

Why is more rational to assume we don't have any idea yet?
What are your reasons to assume we don't have any idea of absolute truths?

There is, and there isn't, any such thing as right and wrong.

Like I said in my original post, -wants the cake and wants to eat it too.

Good and evil is an illusion, necessary for us to function as a species.

Illusions don't really "exist". So does this mean you are a moral nihilist? You seem to bit a bit wishy washy in respect. Why do yo even use the terms "right" and "wrong".

we believe in right and wrong, because we are supposed to.
But that doesn't have to be the case.

This doesn't make sense.

Although we must practice and enforce it (right/wrong), we should understand - on some level - that it, too, is illusory.

Are right and wrong figments of our imagination or not? If they are, why should I practice/buy into the Illusion?

What people don't need to know, they cannot know.
This renders the vast majority of discussions sterile.

I don't expect anything, any more, other than argument.

How about discussion? We have been having a nice
thought provoking and civil discussion throught this thread. Maybe you need to be the change in repect to your expectations/attitude.
Discussions can be fruitful.

I don't want to discuss this, back and forth.
You've been talking about moral relativism for like a year, meth.

The last (and only other) thread I made on morality was almost a year ago. I would hardly say I have been "talking about moral relativism for like a year".
Even if I had been, is there something wrong with that?
Something tells me you Do want to discuss this. I have a strong feeling you will be replying.

your response simple: name five objective morals.

It is the truth in the moral that makes it objective.
Just because we can not adjudicate every circumstance in respect (because we are human), doesn't mean the truth of the matter doesn't exist. We would have to be 100% righteous ( and I would argue omniscient) to judge every action right or wrong. That doesn't mean we can't be just or correct on a judgement, just that our human nature limits us. Moreover, it doesn't mean we can't be aware of moral truths.
Anywho.....
1. Giving what you can afford to give to others in need is absolutely right.
2. Commiting an action with sole intent of malice is absolutely wrong.
3. Adultery is absolutely wrong.
4. Judging someone unjustly is absolutely wrong
5. Showing compassion is absolutely right

 

[ForEverAfter]

Like I said, I couldn't be bothered.
None of you can name five objective morals.
So, I don't even know what you're talking about.

You believe in something, but you don't know what it is.
And you can't even give half a dozen examples.
Yet I have to back up "my position"? Nonsense.

Carry on.

3. Adultery is absolutely wrong.

WTF?

 

[methamaniac]

Like I said, I couldn't be bothered.

Translation: I have no logical points to present.

none of you can name five objective morals.
So, I don't even know what you're talking about.

I named 5 morals I believe to be objectively true. I could name 25, but it wouldn't make a difference.
If all you're going to do is say something like- "you didn't name any" or "WTF" - indeed why be bothered!?
It's ironic you say you can't be bothered; when it is really those presenting sound rational points in support of there premise that should be saying that to you.

What you are doing is fallacious. You come in the thread with what amounts to nothing more than a strawman argument, drop a conclusion to an argument you never once tried to substantiate, and then pretend like you have given some sort of retort. All you have really done is demonstrate your inability to construct a logical argument for your position.

You believe in something, but you don't know what it is.

Oh the irony?
You really must be speaking internally......
You can't even decide if you believe right or wrong even exist. You haven't the integrity to admit killing children for fun is absolutely wrong.
That's actually really sad.

I have to back up "my position"? Nonsense.

No, what is nonsensical is you pretending you actually have a position to "back up".

Carry on.

I intend to. This is the second time you have tried to stifle my attempt at discussing morality. I'm not sure what your deal is. It's funny how you said no one wanted to discuss the topic, but this thread has received many replies. I guess u were wrong.
I feel I have to let you know something. When people keep referring to you as a "know it all".....it's probably not because they actually believe you are omniscient ?

 

[ForEverAfter]

Translation: I have no logical points to present.

Translation: the only possibly explanation that somebody doesn't want to have a long drawn-out circular discussion with me, that goes absolutely nowhere, is because I'm right and they're wrong (and they know it)... 8)

You can't even decide if you believe right or wrong even exist.

^This is why we keep going in circles (in all sorts of threads).
In order to respond to it, I'd have to repeat myself.
And, like I said, I couldn't be fucked.
It never ends.

RIGHT AND WRONG EXISTS, AND IT DOESN'T EXIST.
If that's too complex a paradox for you to wrap your head around, so be it.
Lots of things exist and don't exist (perhaps everything).

Time, for example, is an abstract concept.
It exists and it doesn't exist.

...

Your entire discussion is fluff.
Delude yourself into thinking otherwise.
(I don't care.)

 

[ForEverAfter]

I've already explained how (and why) right and wrong both exist and don't exist.

You don't want a conversation, you want people to blindly agree with you... you are trying to shit on this thread because you know you can't construct an intelligent argument for your own position... You think that people should just automatically swallow your dogma, without you so much as having to explain yourself.

If you think this discussion is fluff, please cease from participation, and leave it to those who are actually enjoying it.

Fuck it. I'll make a little effort.
I read the thread. It isn't all fluff.

Willow's posts are good.
You and meth are going round in circles, though.
I don't think either of you are willing to challenge your perspective on the subject.
But, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

And, I'll stop off-topic shit venting my frustrations.
(Sorry about that.)

Here goes:

Willow said that we are evidence of moral relativism and that morality is contextual.
I don't think the majority of his points have been countered effectively.
But, I'm going to focus on these two (they overlap anyway).

All examples that have been provided are contextual.
They all have clauses.

I'm going to dissect meth's five examples, one by one (even though some of them are blatantly subjective).

Giving (what you can afford to give) to others in need is absolutely right.

First, this isn't an example of an absolute moral wrong.
Although I wasn't entirely clear, I wanted five examples of things that are wrong.

Second, the clause.
Who determines what one can afford?
At the expense of what? Our lifestyle?

It's too vague, as it stands, to be an absolute moral value (right or wrong).
And, don't bother trying to make it more specific.
I mean you can if you want.
But, it'll just keep going.
I've done this before.

You know what you're going to end up with, if you dissect everything: law and government.
Our laws (like everything) are a work in progress, but they represent our interests.
They are not absolute... The Christian God's laws are not absolute either.

D_M, you said you don't believe in God.
And meth said that objective values come from God.
The latter (meth's position) makes sense to me, but your position is baffling.

You have faith that the laws of God exist, but not God?
I, honestly, don't see how that makes any sense.

There is no evidence of objective morality.
As willow said, the only evidence we have (of morality) is human-specific.
So, there is no reason to assume it is universal.

I think, d_m, that - for whatever reason - you want/need it to be universal.

Commiting an action with (sole) intent of malice is absolutely wrong.

There needs to be more clauses. As it stands, this (again) is not absolutely wrong.
And, I don't see how you could possibly determine that malice is the sole factor in any act.

I don't know what absolutely wrong means.
I think we tend to simplify contexts to suit morals.
We label people monsters, because we don't want to understand.
It's easier to approach it like a fundamentalist.

All actions are committed because people are influenced to commit them.
If we have difficult childhoods / if we are abused / if we abuse drugs.
The statistics clearly show cause and effect.

People don't just wake up one day and inflict pain on others, spontaneously.
We should stop focusing on right and wrong / good and evil.
It is a lousy shortcut.

Nothing is absolutely anything. The word absolute is a dead end.
If we start approaching shit fundamentally, we're never going to get anywhere.
If there are absolute moral values, we should never define them (absolutely).
You should not (and I'm speaking to meth, here) presume to know.

Adultery is absolutely wrong.

I'll say it again: What-the-fuck?!?
And I'll re-arrange it, so the clause is apparent:

(Extra-marital) sex is absolutely wrong.

I don't know where to begin with this.
You weren't going to come up with five examples. I knew that.
But I never expected you to list adultery as a filler.
Do you really believe that?

And, again, it needs more clauses.
Are you talking about the Christian attitude towards adultery?
What about if I chose to have sex with another woman and my wife knows about it?
What about if we have group sex with other couples?

What about a woman in an abusive relationship who has been threatened not to leave?
Is it absolutely wrong for her to find some comfort outside her horrible marriage?

Adultery?!? What the fuck are you talking about?

(NOTE: I don't mean any offense by using the f-word; I'm Australian)

Judging someone (unjustly) is absolutely wrong

This one is funny, because judgement is all about right and wrong.
And (as far as this clause goes) who determines what is just and what isn't?
Let's add some more clauses! (Let's not.)

Showing compassion is absolutely right

Another example of something that is right.
It's much easier to say things that are right, then it is to say things that are wrong.

"Why," you ask?
Because everything is right!
It is not a parallel system.
There is no absolute right / wrong.
There is only absolute right.

(Otherwise not showing compassion would be absolutely wrong.)

...

So you've got 3 examples of moral wrongs, and they're all bullshit except for the malice one.
This is where I always get to with this discussion. It boils down to the one absolute wrong.
And that is: causing harm to another for no reason other than recreation.
(Recreation isn't the right word, exactly, but you know what I mean.)

Like I said, above, I don't see how anyone can render any situation in this extremely complex universe down to having a single contributing influential factor... Please, prove me wrong. Go ahead...

Give me some examples of real-world situations in which people do terrible things ONLY for the fun of it.
I think you'll find that they don't exist and you've been having an entirely theoretical conversation that has no real-world counterpart.
But, I could be wrong.

 

[swilow]

Crikey, that got strange.

There's no point in having discussions about each other's personalities and shit. Those conversations go nowhere generally. Let's play nice...

1. Giving what you can afford to give to others in need is absolutely right.

Yeah, I can agree that is the right thing to do.

2. Commiting an action with sole intent of malice is absolutely wrong.

I agree here too.

3. Adultery is absolutely wrong.

Why?

4. Judging someone unjustly is absolutely wrong

How would you define "justly"? By what standards?

5. Showing compassion is absolutely right.

Again, I agree. But I actually believe that absolute morality can promote the opposite of compassion. It can promote the unjust judgement of others through inflexibility. History has shown how potentially disruptive rigid moral codes can be.

I feel like people might be saying that because they find a particular act wrong, it follows that others will. I think there is no way of really knowing whether others share your views, and basing a rigid code on that assumption is futile. It is possible for a human to perform an immoral act, for a just cause. The capriciousness of humans almost makes absolute morality a wasted endeavour.

 

[ForEverAfter]

Crikey, that got strange.

I edited my last post.

...

d_m, meth, willow, me: the only moral wrong we all acknowledge is harming others for fun.
Unless anyone can come up with any other moral values that we can agree upon, that remains the sole absolute moral (by consensus).
And, I don't see how anyone could possibly provide a single real world example to back it up.

?[/thread]?

I actually believe that absolute morality can promote the opposite of compassion. It can promote the unjust judgement of others through inflexibility. History has shown how potentially disruptive rigid moral codes can be.

Yep. We shouldn't approach anything fundamentally.
Even if there is a bunch of moral absolutes, we should NEVER settle on them.
There is always room for improvement and if we settle, we cannot improve.

 

[drug_mentor]

Fuck it. I'll make a little effort.
I read the thread. It isn't all fluff.

Willow's posts are good.
You and meth are going round in circles, though.
I don't think either of you are willing to challenge your perspective on the subject.
But, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

I hope you realise how off putting condescending remarks like one this are...

What a shocker, the person who agrees with you made good posts, everybody else not so much. It is a little ironic for you to be painting others as closed minded here.

Willow said that we are evidence of moral relativism and that morality is contextual.
I don't think the majority of his points have been countered effectively.
But, I'm going to focus on these two (they overlap anyway).

All examples that have been provided are contextual.
They all have clauses.

What you call a clause I call specificity. How we perceive and/or judge just about anything is contingent upon contextual factors, the only way around this is to define actions within their specific context. Taking a shit on the kitchen floor isn't the same thing as taking a shit in a toilet. Similarly, killing an 8 year old girl for no reason isn't the same thing as killing an axe wielding nut job in self-defense. I think it is a cop out to call that a clause, instead of acknowledging that they are two distinctly different actions which share a fundamental property.

If you want to say that there is no such thing as objective morality that isn't defined within a certain context, then (obviously) I agree. However, I think this statement is so obviously true as to be almost meaningless. To take this statement and twist it into evidence that there is no such thing as objective morality is begging the question.

D_M, you said you don't believe in God.
And meth said that objective values come from God.
The latter (meth's position) makes sense to me, but your position is baffling.

You have faith that the laws of God exist, but not God?
I, honestly, don't see how that makes any sense.

I didn't say anything about the laws of God, I am not sitting here talking about the ten commandments. It is pretty narrow minded to conceive of morality as a purely religious construct, people had views on morality before the Bible was written, and many atheists have morals. I have explained in this thread where I think morality might come from, and that explanation did not rely on any religious doctrine of the existence of any deity. In fact, I was explicit in stating that I believed it relied on neither.

It comes across as a cheap dig when you make comments like this, without bothering to explain why my views on morality must necessarily come from God.

There is no evidence of objective morality.
As willow said, the only evidence we have (of morality) is human-specific.
So, there is no reason to assume it is universal.

I think, d_m, that - for whatever reason - you want/need it to be universal.

If you accept that rationality is necessary to grasp morality then the fact morality is mostly human-specific makes perfect sense. I have stated clearly this is what I believe, so I don't see how this line of reasoning works to undermine my argument. Obviously, right and wrong are standards which can only be applied to beings capable of understanding it.

If your argument is that morality is relative because it only applies to one species, that belongs in another thread. Moral relativism is not the view that morality is relative between species, and nobody in this thread has argued that morality applies universally to all animals.

I don't get your attempt to psycho analyse me. I have a view which I have formed based on logic and reason. Don't mistake my lengthy contributions to this thread as some desperate attempt to convince myself (or anyone else) that morality is true. My contributions to this thread are motivated purely by a love of philosophy and an interest in ethics.

I don't know what absolutely wrong means.
I think we tend to simplify contexts to suit morals.
We label people monsters, because we don't want to understand.
It's easier to approach it like a fundamentalist.

So, you admit that context is important when it comes to morality. With this cleared up, there should be no more ambiguity between contextual specificity and "clauses".

All actions are committed because people are influenced to commit them.
If we have difficult childhoods / if we are abused / if we abuse drugs.
The statistics clearly show cause and effect.

People don't just wake up one day and inflict pain on others, spontaneously.
We should stop focusing on right and wrong / good and evil.
It is a lousy shortcut.

I think you make the mistake of thinking that cause and effect can't factor in to morality. Of course they can, again this ties in to contextual specificity.

When you say it is a shortcut, I am not sure what you mean. I am inclined to think you are alluding to the notion that morality can be used as a needless tool to attribute blame to people, and this is counter productive. If I haven't misinterpreted you, I am very inclined to agree. However, this does not mean that there is no such thing as objective morality, it just means that some people choose to use it in ways which aren't productive.

We can accept that condemnation of many people who have acted wrongly might be a less beneficial approach than help and understanding. However, if we are to consistently identify those who need help and understanding to manage through their issues, we need to be able to acknowledge that certain behaviours are wrong. There is no contradiction between absolute morality and extending compassion to those who behave immorally, in fact one could argue the complete opposite.

Another example of something that is right.
It's much easier to say things that are right, then it is to say things that are wrong.

"Why," you ask?
Because everything is right!
It is not a parallel system.
There is no absolute right / wrong.
There is only absolute right.

(Otherwise not showing compassion would be absolutely wrong.)

I am not being uncharitable here, I am being honest when I say I am genuinely having trouble identifying the argument you are making to establish that there is no such thing as wrong. However, it is worth noting that your conclusion here contradicts your later concession that there is a single absolute moral wrong.

I think you might mean that moral wrongness is a problematic concept, because from there we would logically conclude that everything which was not right was wrong? Assuming that is what you are trying to say, I believe this is a false dichotomy. For example, I believe most wrongs to derive from violations of persons rights, whilst it is morally wrong to violate someones right, respecting peoples rights is not praiseworthy, it is simply a fulfillment of a moral duty. Similarly, while we may say that it is objectively good to be generous or compassionate, it doesn't follow that it is morally wrong not to be generous or compassionate, so long as we conduct ourselves in accordance with our moral duties.

Right and wrong do not necessarily operate on the basis of excluded middle. It might be really nice of me to give a homeless lady on the street a hundred dollars, it would undoubtedly be terrible of me to shoot her in the head, but for me to simply walk past her is not a moral matter, at least not in a sense of right and wrong.

So you've got 3 examples of moral wrongs, and they're all bullshit except for the malice one.
This is where I always get to with this discussion. It boils down to the one absolute wrong.
And that is: causing harm to another for no reason other than recreation.
(Recreation isn't the right word, exactly, but you know what I mean.)

If you acknowledge the existence of a single absolute wrong, then you acknowledge moral relativism to be false by definition. Since this thread is about moral relativism, it seems you are in agreement with methamaniac and I.

Like I said, above, I don't see how anyone can render any situation in this extremely complex universe down to having a single contributing influential factor... Please, prove me wrong. Go ahead...

Give me some examples of real-world situations in which people do terrible things ONLY for the fun of it.
I think you'll find that they don't exist and you've been having an entirely theoretical conversation that has no real-world counterpart.
But, I could be wrong.

You are taking the term "for fun" so literally that you are arguably committing an equivocation fallacy. Of course, we can seldom (if at all) whittle any action down to a single contributing factor, generally when I describe someone as doing something "for fun" I mean that the persons primary conscious motivation in performing an action was to have fun, not that no other factor was at play.

Even if I took this criticism seriously, the problem is easily remedied by augmenting "for fun" to "without adequate justification".

name five objective morals

You have requested this repeatedly.

I have provided examples of absolute morals. What you seem to fundamentally misunderstand, is that I am not for one second claiming to know what all (or most, or even many) of them are. The following is a definition for the word objective: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

I could be unable to provide a single example of an objective moral, but seeing as how I have repeatedly stated that my personal view on morality is that it is a prescription for acting in a way which does not violate the rights of anyone else affected without adequate justification,whilst also paying sufficient regard to their relevant interests. It is a rational principle based on the realisation that nobody is fundamentally superior to anyone else. On this view, I don't need to provide examples of objective morality to argue that it exists.

I know you are going to come back and ask me to define sufficient, define adequate justification, etc. I make no claim to know what these are absolutely, again, the definition of the word objective does not require that I know these things, it just requires that there is a rational truth of the matter.

Crikey, that got strange.

There's no point in having discussions about each other's personalities and shit. Those conversations go nowhere generally. Let's play nice...

If this was directed at me in any way, I would like to point out that my intention was not to comment on FEA's personality, but rather his behaviour.

The manner in which he initially approached this thread was at best discourteous, and arguably inappropriate. I don't see how pointing out this fact was a failure on my part to "play nice".

Again, I agree. But I actually believe that absolute morality can promote the opposite of compassion. It can promote the unjust judgement of others through inflexibility. History has shown how potentially disruptive rigid moral codes can be.

Some things can be inflexibly bad, it is helpful to have some way of acknowledging this.

Moral relativism means one can't say that bigotry, discrimination or unjust judgement are wrong. If you believe in moral relativism, there is no such thing as unjust.

I feel like people might be saying that because they find a particular act wrong, it follows that others will. I think there is no way of really knowing whether others share your views, and basing a rigid code on that assumption is futile. It is possible for a human to perform an immoral act, for a just cause. The capriciousness of humans almost makes absolute morality a wasted endeavour.

I have stated over and over again that opinion has nothing to do with morality. As an oversimplification (this post is long enough and I have argued along these lines throughout the thread) morality is simply acting in a way that does not unjustly violate anyone else's rights. We can squabble over the notion that just and unjust are relative ideas, but I have already explained how they can be determined from the universal perspective.

Also, I don't think anyone is arguing that absolute morality is something which will be adopted by everyone. I am pretty sure I have stated the opposite view in this thread. That does not mean there is no value in discussing these matters, and it certainly doesn't prove that there is no such thing as objective morality.

 

[methamaniac]

because everything is right!
It is not a parallel system.
There is no absolute right / wrong.
There is only absolute right

I don't see how just stating this is proof of anything.
I see evidence of absolute wrong (and right) in my life.
You haven't presented me anything that would cause me to believe otherwise.
If you believe abusing (sexually will do)and killing innocent children for amusement is not absolutely wrong, then you need to do something like provide a scenario where it would not be wrong to torture and kill a child for amusement.
(I only use this example because it is so dam obviously objectively wrong)
If you can't do something like this, it only seems logical to me to concede an absolute moral wrong exists. And by extension moral relativism is false.
You just said there is no "absolute anything"
But you then go on to concede there is absolute right. Do you see the contradiction?
We can get into some of your relevant questions after you address this.
I don't like to be " Gish Galloped". I prefer to take things a point or two at a time.

 

[ForEverAfter]

If you believe abusing and killing innocent children for amusement is not absolutely wrong, then you need to do something like provide a scenario where it would not be (absolutely) wrong to torture and kill a child (only) for amusement.

You're claiming something exists, not me.
So: you provide a real-world (non-hypothetical) scenario, that includes my edit to the above quote.
If you can't, then your claims of evidence are false.

I can't be asked to prove something that you claim exists doesn't exist.
Your making the claim!

(I only use this example because it is so dam obviously objectively wrong

What is, precisely?

You just said there is no "absolute anything"
But you then go on to concede there is absolute right. Do you the contradiction?

There is no right, without wrong.
So - if everything is right - then, nothing is right or wrong.
(You've taken it out of context.)

Everything is the way it is supposed to be.
Child abuse has a function.

 

[methamaniac]

You're claiming something exists, not me.
So: you provide a real-world (non-hypothetical) scenario, that includes my edit to the above quote.
If you can't, then your claims of evidence are false.

can't be asked to prove something that you claim exists doesn't exist.
Your making the claim!

(Unfortunately ) I could cite dozens and dozens of cases of beatiful innocent children being sexually abused, physically tortured, and then subsequently murdered. Are you honestly trying to say this doesn't happen in the real world? Stop with this ridiculous avoidance tatic.

I did make a claim. Which I have supported.
You have also made a claim i.e. an absolute wrong doesn't exist. So I then gave you an example of an absolute wrong. It is your claim that my example isn't an absolute wrong (because you claim they don't exist) you need to support that with an example that shows my example to be false.
The only way you do not to do this is if you claim there is absolutely no such thing as right or
wrong at all. It's pretty simple.

(You've taken it out of context.)

I took nothing out of context. You are just backpedaling with respect.

Everything is the way it is supposed to be.
Child abuse has a function.

This is very disturbing to me.

 

[ForEverAfter]

You have also made a claim i.e. an absolute wrong doesn't exist. So I then gave you an example of an absolute wrong. It is your claim that my example isn't an absolute wrong (because you claim they don't exist) you need to support that with an example that shows my example to not be wrong... I could cite dozens and dozens of cases of beatiful innocent children being sexually abused, physically tortured, and then subsequently murdered. Are you honestly trying to say this doesn't happen in the real world? Stop with this ridiculous avoidance tatic.

But there's a reason you're not doing so, isn't there?
Just humor me. Do it.

(Wrong and absolute wrong are not interchangeable.)
(You gave me an example of a theoretical wrong.)

I took nothing out of context. You are just backpedaling with respect.

No. I was being colorful, with my wording.
You knew what I meant. It was obvious, in context.
And I've already explained it. You're being pedantic.
This will be my last post for the night.
I shouldn't have bothered.

This is very disturbing to me.

Murder has a function. War has a function.
Serial killers have a function. Rape has a function.
The world is the way it is. Deal with it.

As someone who believes in God, I don't see how you can think the world isn't the way it is supposed to be.

It's pretty simple.

No, it isn't.
(Or, only when it's convenient perhaps.)
Everything is actually extremely complicated.
Right and wrong both exist and do not exist.

 

[methamaniac]

there's a reason you're not doing so, isn't there?

I have/had no reason other than the fact I honestly don't think you haven't ever heard of a real life example.
http://m.nydailynews.com/news/world...d-raped-shot-charity-report-article-1.1287096

First one popped up on google when I typed in said
example

Murder has a function. War has a function.
Serial killers have a function. Rape has a function.
The world is the way it is. Deal with it

I'm pretty sure if you were being raped and tortured by a serial killer and about to be murdered.......
You would agree it was absolutely wrong.
?

 

[ForEverAfter]

I'm pretty sure if you were being raped and tortured by a serial killer and about to be murdered.......
You would agree it was absolutely wrong.

It's difficult to see clearly when you're in the middle of something.
(But, often, easier in retrospect than it is beforehand.)

I have/had no reason other than the fact I honestly don't think you haven't ever heard of a real life example.
http://m.nydailynews.com/news/world/...icle-1.1287096

I was expecting an example of an individual doing something.
I've really got to be more specific.

Can you give me an example of a person (who is not sick) in a western society doing something to children or a serial killer that eats people (who doesn't have mental problems)? If not, are absolute wrongs only committed by full-blown psychopaths? And, if so, isn't "absolute wrong" a symptom of psychopathy (or whatever other disorder/s) rather than a universal (let alone human) trait?

Why are people doing things if they're absolutely wrong?
And, why - do you think - that is happening in Syria (rather than here)?

What does it say about someone if they've done something absolutely wrong?
And, what does it say about a country if so many absolutely wrong acts are being committed there?

What does absolutely wrong mean?
And, what is the significance of it?

 

[methamaniac]

It's difficult to see clearly when you're in the middle of something.

You crack me up

was expecting an example of an individual doing something.
I've really got to be more specific.

Why does it matter if was one person is doing it or three people are doing it. Why are you trying obfuscate something that is so clear?
I gave you a perfect example of what you asked for.

Can you give me an example of a person (who is not sick) in a western society doing something to children or a serial killer that eats people.......blah blah blah

Just deal with the example I gave you.

Why are people doing things if they're absolutely wrong?

Probably for the same reason I've done things that are absolutely wrong. Selfish indulgence.

What does absolutely wrong mean?
What is the significance of it?

It means it is immoral.
The significance is for you to determine.

( please stop for a minute with the twenty questions and deal with the point I presented to you)

 

[methamaniac]

feel like people might be saying that because they find a particular act wrong, it follows that others will. I think there is no way of really knowing whether others share your views, and basing a rigid code on that assumption is futile. It is possible for a human to perform an immoral act, for a just cause. The capriciousness of humans almost makes absolute morality a wasted endeavour

Willow, I just wanted to say I appreciate your (and everyone else's) contribution to this thread .
I know we might not always (ok , almost never☺) agree, but I do respect your opinions and your thought process.
Srry, I missed your response to me. I was busing dealing with a "carpet bombing" of (mostly) irrlevant questions and unsubstantiated claims .
But I digress.....
I think I addressed most of your points in other posts less one or two.

I would like to bring this back to how this thread was going the first couple of pages.
At this point I would like to focus for a minute on what I think most of us have common ground on- Objective truth in respect to what is right.
As was previously pointed out, it's much easier to swallow the idea of objective right than objective wrong. Like I stated, I feel it's because objective wrong comes with the "baggage" of conviction. I don't think this point should be ignored/overlooked.
I think the process of self-conviction with respect should be explored in more depth.
But if we can at least agree there are some absolute right behaviours and values, then this is significant IMO.
It gets us a step closer to determining what we ought to be doing. And possibly a step closer to what we ought not to be doing.

To your point of committing an immoral act for a just cause-
As I mentioned in an earlier post, I believe this is the most valid objection to the idea of moral absolutes . I don't believe it disproves objective morality, but it does raise some reasonable questions to consider. My only real answer in respect is- I just don't have all the answers ?
I'm not so arrogant to presume I have all the answers, but I am also not so naive to conclude I haven't discovered any.
IMHO I don't think we are suppose to have all the answers. But as long as we are going down the path of honesty and truth, we are going in the right direction. This can be hard at times because sometimes the hardest person to be honest with is yourself. Or maybe I should say the easiest person to fool is oneself. Either way, the point is not to dupe yourself with faulty logic. ☺
If there is one thing I can say for sure, we humans yearn for truth. I would also argue we demand justice. Both of which are cornerstones of the idea of objectively morality.

 

[ForEverAfter]

Fine, fucking cut everything I said out.

All examples of moral absolute wrongs are either committed in times of war or by the mentally ill.
I want to discuss what absolute wrong means in the real world, but nobody else does.
I don't want to have a theoretical fluff conversation.
So, I'm happy to be removed from this discussion.
(If that's what it is limited to.)

Just deal with the example I gave you.

I was trying to make a point, but nobody wants to touch it. All individual actions that are absolutely wrong are committed by pyschopaths (or the mentally ill)... and, therefore, fun (or whatever you want to call it) is not the only motivating factor... So the one absolute moral wrong doesn't exist, outside of war...?

Go back to your fake intellectual discourse, if nobody can address this.
Otherwise give me an example of an individual (not yourself) doing something absolutely wrong.
I want to dissect it. Just humor me. Again, what are you afraid of?

I've done things that are absolutely wrong.

Hold on a second...
What have you done that is absolutely wrong?

...

edit: I feel like I should say sorry, but I'm not sorry.
This is something that happens all the time on this forum.
I end up apologizing, here, more than anywhere else.

Philosophy isn't reserved for the upper class or the educated.
I don't see why I have to translate my manner of speech.

NSFW:

When engaging in philosophical debate, I prefer to stick to clear, concise and polite language... If you think use of vulgar or imprecise language makes you tough, I guess that is your complex. If you hadn't done so already, you have well and truly demonstrated your immaturity with this comment.

Would you say that in a pub?
And, if not, why does everyone have to conform to your expectations?

Vulgar language?
You're not the Queen of England.
I'm tired of repressing myself on this forum.
I fucking hate politeness and etiquette.

Polite people are just as rude.
It's all just pretense.

Snip this out, willow, along with everything else.
I don't give a shit.

 

[swilow]

So I removed a few really off-topic posts. Its broken up the continuity of the discussion a bit but no more then the personal arguments themselves.

 

[methamaniac]

Fine, fucking cut everything I said out.

Forever, Might I suggest you take the advice you have so often gave others-
sit back for a minute and take a deep breath!
I think this debate will go a lot better if you would.

All examples of moral absolute wrongs are either committed in times of war or by the mentally ill.

It seems like you now don't really reject the idea of a behaviour being absolutely wrong, but that you are more concerned with the condemnation of the action.
I have done many actions with the specific intention to harm another purely of malice. (e.g I once knocked a guy out I thought was flirting with my old lady) I was absolutely wrong for doing this. I was completely aware of what I was doing at the time I did the action. I wasn't mentally ill or in the midst of a war either.
So this kinda shoots your logic right out of the sky.

I want to discuss what absolute wrong means in the real world, but nobody else does.

You have crafted yourself a nice delusion there.
Unfortunately for you, I don't think any rational person will buy it.

I don't want to have a theoretical fluff conversation.
So, I'm happy to be removed from this discussion.
(If that's what it is limited to.)

You're the one limiting yourself.

I was trying to make a point, but nobody wants to touch it. All individual actions that are absolutely wrong are committed by pyschopaths (or the mentally ill)... and, therefore, fun (or whatever you want to call it) is not the only motivating factor... So the one absolute moral wrong doesn't exist, outside of war...?

I just gave you an example of an absolute wrong I commited outside of war time whilst I was completely mentally sound.

Otherwise give me an example of an individual (not yourself) doing something absolutely wrong
I want to dissect it. Just humor me. Again, what are you afraid of?

You are the one afraid.
Why are you so afraid of the idea of something being morally absolutely wrong? You accept absolute rights with no problem. What gives?

And there is no reason at all I can not use myself in my example. Who are you trying to convince in your argument? That would be me. Who better to know my intentions then I?

Let me ask you something, if you believe everything in respect is morally relative than you and I can disagree on a particular action/value at the exact same time and both be correct. This means that an action/value can be both right and wrong at the exact same time.
This ultimately means right and wrong are really meaningless with respect. So why do you even use the terms? Better yet, why even debate the issue?
Logically, at the end of it all......your opposition is right.
Why are you wasting time trying to persuade them otherwise?