Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

Moral Relativism

Phoenix_Reaper
Posts: 318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 2:45:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
"Why should we accept moral relativism when it leads to conclusions that are counterintuitive? "

http://www.debate.org...

I merely want to bring a point to this. Five rounds would become repetitive and I do not want to spam his comments.

The problem with that statement alone is that it claims common sense is always correct. Common sense is subjective.

Moral relativism accurately depicts what the world is which is dictated by social norms.
Phoenix Reaper - To rise from the ashes of defeat and claim your soul.

: At 3/15/2011 4:23:07 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
: Taste is for pussïes. Be a nihilist. Drink vodka.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 4:10:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Go right ahead and spam the comments.

My first debate had 198 comments, which I thought was rather sexy. Most of them from an obvious alt account of the guy debating me, but it was still entertaining.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Contradiction
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 4:37:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/26/2011 2:45:45 PM, Phoenix_Reaper wrote:

The problem with that statement alone is that it claims common sense is always correct. Common sense is subjective.



No. Recall that the proposition being debated is "God is the best explanation for morality." If something is counterintuitive, then it doesn't make for the best explanation. It doesn't require that common sense is always correct, only that human minds are generally geared toward the production of true beliefs.
Phoenix_Reaper
Posts: 318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 6:43:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/26/2011 4:37:24 PM, Contradiction wrote:
At 4/26/2011 2:45:45 PM, Phoenix_Reaper wrote:

The problem with that statement alone is that it claims common sense is always correct. Common sense is subjective.



No. Recall that the proposition being debated is "God is the best explanation for morality." If something is counterintuitive, then it doesn't make for the best explanation. It doesn't require that common sense is always correct, only that human minds are generally geared toward the production of true beliefs.

When you use the word geared I read it as made to work in such a way. I refer back to moral relativism accurately depicts what the world is which is dictated by social norms.
Phoenix Reaper - To rise from the ashes of defeat and claim your soul.

: At 3/15/2011 4:23:07 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
: Taste is for pussïes. Be a nihilist. Drink vodka.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 11:49:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/26/2011 2:45:45 PM, Phoenix_Reaper wrote:

The problem with that statement alone is that it claims common sense is always correct. Common sense is subjective.

Yes but you would have to take care to ignore common sense when you are dealing with issues of social agreement.

Moral relativism accurately depicts what the world is which is dictated by social norms.

Social contracts do not imply moral contracts.

Most people also do not ascribe to moral relativism, especially normative (theists would not usually). At most (usually atheists) you will get a sense that people believe that morals are relative, but everyone else just gets it wrong but them - which is where the contradiction comes in.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2011 8:53:56 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/26/2011 11:49:46 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At most (usually atheists) you will get a sense that people believe that morals are relative, but everyone else just gets it wrong but them -

if morals are Relative.. then there are Different "rights and wrongs" depending upon the Subject who's judging things.

which is where the contradiction comes in.

there's no "getting morality wrong" if morals are relative...
There's My "Right's and Wrongs" and then there's Your's

If your "Rights" are my "Wrongs" I'll treat what you do as "wrong"

I might even try to get others to see it is wrong. I might even try to get You to see it as "wrong".. that is, Try to get you to "wrong" it.

but given that 'morality' is wholly relative to/dependent upon the given perspective... One perspective's Morality has no more claim to "Truth" than another.

That said... I'd still support My Right's and Wrong's over your's.. They're Mine!
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Phoenix_Reaper
Posts: 318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2011 9:53:17 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/27/2011 8:53:56 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 4/26/2011 11:49:46 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At most (usually atheists) you will get a sense that people believe that morals are relative, but everyone else just gets it wrong but them -

if morals are Relative.. then there are Different "rights and wrongs" depending upon the Subject who's judging things.

which is where the contradiction comes in.

there's no "getting morality wrong" if morals are relative...
There's My "Right's and Wrongs" and then there's Your's

If your "Rights" are my "Wrongs" I'll treat what you do as "wrong"

I might even try to get others to see it is wrong. I might even try to get You to see it as "wrong".. that is, Try to get you to "wrong" it.

but given that 'morality' is wholly relative to/dependent upon the given perspective... One perspective's Morality has no more claim to "Truth" than another.

That said... I'd still support My Right's and Wrong's over your's.. They're Mine!

+1
Phoenix Reaper - To rise from the ashes of defeat and claim your soul.

: At 3/15/2011 4:23:07 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
: Taste is for pussïes. Be a nihilist. Drink vodka.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2011 10:14:18 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/27/2011 8:53:56 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:

there's no "getting morality wrong" if morals are relative...

that is why I noted there was a contradiction only if one asribed to moral relativism but still held to the assertion that Their view was "Right"..

as the predicate is that the truth is "SubJective" then an objective claim can not be made and thus any claim to "eXclusive" paradigms are contradictory

suCh a claim violates the very "Presupposition" that one would be holding ...
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2011 10:30:16 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/27/2011 10:14:18 AM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 4/27/2011 8:53:56 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:

there's no "getting morality wrong" if morals are relative...

that is why I noted there was a contradiction only if one asribed to moral relativism but still held to the assertion that Their view was "Right"..

I wouldn't claim My oughts extend beyond myself...

but I would affirm what I would have.. and Truly am of the perspective that certain things Ought, or Ought Not happen.

NOT b/c I'm claiming to some Objective/Independent standard which I'm affirming.. but b/c I naturally take My Own perspective.

Things are labelled "right" or "wrong" GIVEN valuations rooted in a certain perspective.

So, I'm not "claiming my view is right".. Rather, I would suggest that Given what I care about, Given what I value, I would have certain things be certain ways...

and, since I identify with my perspective Fully ;) , I would speak from it.. and have no problem saying this "ought" be done.
If you ask "why?" I'd say b/c it helps make things as I would have it.

as the predicate is that the truth is "SubJective" then an objective claim can not be made and thus any claim to "eXclusive" paradigms are contradictory

suCh a claim violates the very "Presupposition" that one would be holding ...

"right/wrong" in ethics are terms Affirming/Speaking From a perspective... an action/event being labelled "right" if works toward/gets at what is valued.

Otherwise these terms make no sense.

I have no problem using these terms.. and I'm not claiming my "rights/wrongs" get at some Universal/Transcendent Values.

anyone who claims to That does so has no basis whatsoever for claiming such things.

My having and speaking from/affirming my Perspective-Based "rights/Wrongs" in no way contradicts the idea that such "rights/wrongs" do not extend beyond the given perspective.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2011 11:23:20 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Well the debate in the OP is over.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp