NationStates Jolt Archive

Here is a story, from a web page which explains the problem with the idea that everything is reletive


The setting: A thief is casing a jewelry store so he can rob it. He has entered it to check out any visible alarm settings, locks, layout, etc. In the process, he has unexpectedly gotten involved in a discussion with the owner of the jewelry store whose hobby is the study of philosophy and believes that truth and morals are relative.

"So," says the owner, "everything is relative. That is why I believe that all morals are not absolute and that right and wrong is up to the individual to determine within the confines of society. But there is no absolute right and wrong."
"That is a very interesting perspective," says the thief. "I was brought up believing that there was a God and that there was right and wrong. But I abandoned all of that and I agree with you that there is no absolute right and wrong and that we are free to do what we want."
The thief leaves the store and returns that evening and breaks in. He has disabled all the alarms and locks and is in the process of robbing the store. That is when the owner of the store enters through a side door. The thief pulls out a gun. The owner cannot see the man's face because he is wearing a ski mask.
"Don't shoot me," says the owner. "Please take whatever you want and leave me alone."
"That is exactly what I plan to do," says the thief.
"Wait a minute. I know you. You are the man that was in the store earlier today. I recognize your voice."
"That is very unfortunate for you," says the thief. "Because now you also know what I look like. And since I do not want to go to jail I am forced to kill you."
"You cannot do that," says the owner.
"Why not?"
"Because it is not right," pleads the desperate man.
"But did you not tell me today that there is no right and wrong?"
"Yes, but I have a family, children, that need me, and a wife."
"So? I am sure that you are insured and that they will get a lot of money. But since there is no right and wrong it makes no difference whether or not I kill you. And since if I let you live you will turn me in and I will go to prison. Sorry , but that will not do."
"But it is a crime against society to kill me. It is wrong because society says so."
"As you can see, I don't recognize society's claim to impose morals on me. It's all relative. Remember?"
"Please do not shoot me. I beg you. I promise not to tell anyone what you look like. I swear it!"
"I do not believe you and I cannot take that chance."
"But it is true!" I swear I'll tell no one."
"Sorry, but it cannot be true because there is no absolute truth, no right and wrong, no error, remember? If I let you live and then I left, you will break your so-called promise because it is all relative. There is no way I could trust you. Our conversation this morning convinced me that you believe everything is relative. Because of that, I cannot believe you will keep your word. I cannot trust you.
"But it is wrong to kill me. It isn't right!"
"It is neither right or wrong for me to kill you. Since truth is relative to the individual, if I kill you, that is my truth. And, it is obviously true that if I let you live I will go to prison. Sorry, but you have killed yourself."
"No. Please do not shoot me. I beg you."
"Begging makes no difference."
.... Bang....

If relativism is true, then was it wrong to pull the trigger? Perhaps someone might say that it is wrong to take another life needlessly. But why is that wrong, if there is no standard of right or wrong? Others have said that it is a crime against society. But, so what? If what is true for you is simply true, then what is wrong with killing someone to protect yourself after you have robbed him? If is true for you that to protect yourself you must kill, then who cares what society says? Why is anyone obligated to conform to social norms? Doing so is a personal decision.
Though not all relativists will behave in an unethical manner, I see relativism as a contributor to overall anarchy. Why? Because it is a justification to do whatever you want.

http://www.carm.org/relativism/illustration.htm

http://www.carm.org/relativism/relativism_dialogue.htm

http://www.carm.org/relativism/relativism_refute.htm

Other web sites on the same issue

Here is a story, from a web page which explains the problem with the idea that everything is reletive



http://www.carm.org/relativism/illustration.htm

http://www.carm.org/relativism/relativism_dialogue.htm

http://www.carm.org/relativism/relativism_refute.htm

Other web sites on the same issue

Do you have a point? Oh, and I don't like the way you go and say that truth is not absolute. Nobody claims that truth is relative. Just that a moral statement reveals no truth.

The problem with reletivisim

... is that it is misspelt. Oh, and I think the term "Christian Apologetics" speaks for itself.

HAHA what a peice of shit.

I believe what we do is right relitive to circumstances sure.

A blackbelt running away and leaving his friend to get mugged by a guy when he could have stopped it no problem is wrong, while a small guy who would get beaten up has little choice but to run away.

As for the robber looking at his circumstances he has to reason to steal, he realises killing for money he doesn't need is wrong so relitivism holds up and the theif can be punnished.

Do you have a point? Oh, and I don't like the way you go and say that truth is not absolute. Nobody claims that truth is relative. Just that a moral statement reveals no truth.

I did not say the truth is not absolute. I said that morality IS absolute.

Right or wrong, the shop owner would be dead and the thief would walk free. That is moral relativism.

"As you can see, I don't recognize society's claim to impose morals on me.

There's the problem. Society will punish him regardless.

Why not pull the trigger? Self-intrest.

HAHA what a peice of shit.

I believe what we do is right relitive to circumstances sure.

A blackbelt running away and leaving his friend to get mugged by a guy when he could have stopped it no problem is wrong, while a small guy who would get beaten up has little choice but to run away.

As for the robber looking at his circumstances he has to reason to steal, he realises killing for money he doesn't need is wrong so relitivism holds up and the theif can be punnished.

What the hell are you on about? Right and wrong relative to the person, not the circumstances. What you're claiming isn't relativistic.

A blackbelt running away and leaving his friend to get mugged by a guy when he could have stopped it no problem is wrong, while a small guy who would get beaten up has little choice but to run away.

If moral reletivism is ture, and there is no right or wrong (basicly if you believe it then it is true) if the black belt thought it was ok for him to run away then it is


As for the robber looking at his circumstances he has to reason to steal, he realises killing for money he doesn't need is wrong so relitivism holds up and the theif can be punnished.

But if there is no right or wrong then why should the thief be punished?

I said that morality IS absolute.

Bwahahahaha!

But if there is no right or wrong then why should the thief be punished?

Because society has said that it is a crrime to kill.

I did not say the truth is not absolute. I said that morality IS absolute.

"Sorry, but it cannot be true because there is no absolute truth"
Relative truth?

Again, do you have a point?

If moral reletivism is ture, and there is no right or wrong (basicly if you believe it then it is true) if the black belt thought it was ok for him to run away then it is



But if there is no right or wrong then why should the thief be punished?


The laws we make are not made because they are morally right or wrong. We make them because it's in the best interest of the society.

I did not say the truth is not absolute. I said that morality IS absolute.

Which it isn't. Society just has norms which serve to make life as pleasant as possible, based on certain standards on what "pleasurable"(or liveable) is, for as many people as possible. The thief has decided to act against society, and society will fight him. That however does not mean that the thief is "wrong" and society is "right" under some grand scheme of absolute morality.

"Sorry, but it cannot be true because there is no absolute truth"
Relative truth?

Again, do you have a point?

Yes.

It is that there must be a universal moral truth, else people like the thief are entitled to do exactly what they did. Think about the idea of a world where right and wrong are just vague human concepts without any actual meaning.

Yes.

It is that there must be a universal moral truth, else people like the thief are entitled to do exactly what they did. Think about the idea of a world where right and wrong are just vague human concepts without any actual meaning.

"Entitled" by whom?

Yes.

It is that there must be a universal moral truth, else people like the thief are entitled to do exactly what they did. Think about the idea of a world where right and wrong are just vague human concepts without any actual meaning.

You can't trust your intuition. It's too frequently wrong. Intuition does not reveal truth. So it doesn't matter what you think, only what you can prove.

Keep in mind that this is just as difficult to swallow for somebody that has accepted it as truth. No morality is by no means desireable. It's something that we as humans need to live a happy life. But when you look at the evidence you find that morality, like many other things, is an illusion. This situation with the robber is just one of the awful truths we have to accept. Not thaqt it make any difference. If, say, morality does exist. Then it is morally wrong for the robber to kill the man. What meaning does that have? What if the man doesn't want to be moral? All that will happen is that we will despise him and, if a God exists, he will be punished. This is going to happen even if we have no morality. We despise them for not wanting to maintain the stability of society, the law, and if he exists, god, will punish the man. It makes no difference wether we have morality or not.

Yes.

It is that there must be a universal moral truth, else people like the thief are entitled to do exactly what they did. Think about the idea of a world where right and wrong are just vague human concepts without any actual meaning.

The theif is entitled to go and kill a person if they wish. But as a society we have laws and restrictions on what we tollerate (no because God said so) but because it benefits everyone as a whole.

If you fail to honour a contract you singed to sell something with your free will its not ultimatly wrong in every circumstance when they don't follow through but we still punnish them because if we didn't people would be more tempted to do it. Just like murder.

This shit's as funny as "Objectivism".

This shit's as funny as "Objectivism".

At least we've got logical conclusions. All objectivists have is wild speculation.:rolleyes:

At least we've got logical conclusions. All objectivists have is wild speculation.:rolleyes:

And a huge superiority complex over everybody else. Never forget that objectivism requires one to be a narcissist.

"So," says the owner, "everything is relative. That is why I believe that all morals are not absolute and that right and wrong is up to the individual to determine within the confines of society. But there is no absolute right and wrong."

*snip*
"Because it is not right," pleads the desperate man.
"But did you not tell me today that there is no right and wrong?"
No, he didn't. He said there are no absolute right and wrong (though, no doubt due to the misunderstanding of the author, what he really meant was that there are no objective right and wrong), that there ARE right and wrong, and that they are relative.

The rest of the story continues with this misunderstanding.

Moral relatively does not mean, "Do whatever you like and it's right." If it meant that, there would be no "morality" at all because it would all be "right".

I can't say I've ever heard anyone seriously argue that truth itself is relative, though I tend to be skeptical of the notion that the modern West has finally discovered the Truth that is finally the one that we will never see replaced by a new paradigm. Such relativism is not self-refuting as many claim (as even objective rules of logic would no longer hold true in relativism), though it is refuted by everyday experience.

Moral relativism, unfortunately, seems to be true as far as I can tell. Ultimately, there isn't a real difference between morality and personal preference, though the choice of whether to kill or not is much weightier than whether classical is better than rap.

I can't say I've ever heard anyone seriously argue that truth itself is relative, though I tend to be skeptical of the notion that the modern West has finally discovered the Truth that is finally the one that we will never see replaced by a new paradigm.

You obviously haven't got round to reading any of that Nietzsche, then.

Such relativism is not self-refuting as many claim (as even objective rules of logic would no longer hold true in relativism), though it is refuted by everyday experience.

Since when were the rules of logic 'objective', and which exact set of rules of logic are we using here?

It is that there must be a universal moral truth, else people like the thief are entitled to do exactly what they did. Think about the idea of a world where right and wrong are just vague human concepts without any actual meaning.
Relativism in terms of morality simply adds a "for me" to morality; what is right and wrong is right and wrong "for me". This does not preclude other societally-determined right and wrong from existing. There is still a "right" and a "wrong" determined by society in terms of laws and mores, and a "right" and "wrong" determined by rights, like 'human rights' and 'property rights'. Those are still there, they don't go away. Relativism just looks at them from a different perspective, the perspective of "me".

In other words, for the shopowner it was wrong of the thief to shoot him. Does that make it universally wrong? No. It only makes it wrong to the shopowner. Does that preclude universal wrong from existing? No. The universal wrong is still there, which is what the shopowner is drawing on in order to label this deed "wrong to me".

While the thief may acknowledge that what he is doing is wrong, obviously there is a greater need, whatever the reasons, to do it. So for the thief there is a greater need that overcomes "right and wrong", which leads him to steal. He may even think that what he is doing is the right thing to do, though that's unlikely based on the fact that he is labeled a "thief" and a criminal by his actions. There is nothing in 'relative moralism', though, that suggests that the thief is right in what he is doing because he believes it to be right. That suggests that people only do right things, and only do things because they think they are right. It doesn't work that way.

Why give Carm.org the time of day.

If this guy can sway you it's no wonder the Bible did.

This person very clearly does not understand what moral relativism is. It only applies when different cultures collide. This theif circumvented his society's standards, and on that criteria alone he can be labeled a reprobate. It is only if he was doing something that, in his culture, he believed to be right would moral relativism even enter the equation. To put it simpler, moral relativism does not say that morality is relative to individuals; they are relative to societies.

The thief is obviously right. To continue to steal and take care of himself he needs to kill the man. To trust him would obviously mean to go to jail in his mind, and killing the guy would give the guy's family life insurance as well, and the man didn't dispute that claim. Thus, they were both right. Though hes breaking the laws of society by killing the man, I can see why he would need to kill the guy.

I like to think that the thief found his "own" culture through thievery. >_>

This person very clearly does not understand what moral relativism is. It only applies when different cultures collide. This theif circumvented his society's standards, and on that criteria alone he can be labeled a reprobate.

But only because the society he lives in calls it "wrong" - not because some "divine being" or "ultimate absolute morality" says so.
However, you are right - this is a nonissue.

EDIT: I see you already added a sentence roughly saying the same. Nevermind then :)

The thief is obviously right. To continue to steal and take care of himself he needs to kill the man. To trust him would obviously mean to go to jail in his mind, and killing the guy would give the guy's family life insurance as well, and the man didn't dispute that claim. Thus, they were both right. Though hes breaking the laws of society by killing the man, I can see why he would need to kill the guy.

I like to think that the thief found his "own" culture through thievery. >_>

as many criminals do. those who commit crime for a living feel they are justified in doing so.

no matter what religious background they might have. consider,for example, those mafia dons who go to church every sunday.

morality comes and goes. for most people they use whatever moral standard justifies what they are doing now. its not new. its been done ever since the notion of morality has existed.

and that is why morality is relative.

Right or wrong, the shop owner would be dead and the thief would walk free. That is moral relativism.

Amen. Right is what those that are in points of authority deem to be right, and wrong what the deem to be wrong.

Stealing is considered wrong because our leaders said so. Widespread theft is not good for the economy. Period.

You obviously haven't got round to reading any of that Nietzsche, then.

You must be joking. Nietzsche thought truth was relative? How could he seriously believe that? I mean, isn't the existance of objective truth obvious even to laypeople, to say nothing of philosophers who have studied the issue for years?

No, he didn't. He said there are no absolute right and wrong (though, no doubt due to the misunderstanding of the author, what he really meant was that there are no objective right and wrong), that there ARE right and wrong, and that they are relative.

The rest of the story continues with this misunderstanding.

Moral relatively does not mean, "Do whatever you like and it's right." If it meant that, there would be no "morality" at all because it would all be "right".

So it was "Right" for the robber to kill the man, in the eyes of the robber

And it is "Wrong" for society to impose its punishment on him because the robber believes that soceity does not have that right.

So what does reletive morality mean? If its not that every belief is right for the person that holds that belief?

So it was "Right" for the robber to kill the man, in the eyes of the robber

Not necessarily, but lets assume the robber was sincere with his argumentation.

And it is "Wrong" for society to impose its punishment on him because the robber believes that soceity does not have that right.

From the point of view of the society it is right. From the point of view of the robber it is wrong. Since the robber is living in the society he therefor has a problem. But not because morality is absolute.

So it was "Right" for the robber to kill the man, in the eyes of the robber

And it is "Wrong" for society to impose its punishment on him because the robber believes that soceity does not have that right.

So what does reletive morality mean? If its not that every belief is right for the person that holds that belief?

No - moral relativism is the thought that no one ethical system is 'better' than another. It stems from the fact that to judge an ethical system, it must be judged by a moral standard - and as, after all, each ethical system judges _itself_ as the best possible system of moral belief, so every other system must be inferior, and therefore unable to judge the original 'superior' ethical system. Ergo, if one could magically step outside of all ethical systems, he wouldn't be able to see which one was 'best' - they can only be judged by their own criteria.

Moral relativism is a way of thinking about the different ways human societies bind themselves in rules, like sociologists do, and explaining the differences. It doesn't say which system is right and which is wrong, it just tries to look for a way to examine them objectively.

It's like that social sciences guy, forgotten his name, who says an individual cannot 'see through' (in the sense of 'objectively examine') his own society's ideology because it's ideology is the thing he 'sees through' (in the sense of 'perceive through', e.g. a pair of glasses)!

A moral absolute does exist. It is a very poor philosophy, though.

The reason?

The only absolute we know is the I. We cannot be completely convinced that anything other than the I exists, thus to claim absolution requires dependency wholly on the self.

Any sense of morality that doesn't lead to one solely indulging in one's own wants and desires is a relative one. We consider the action from the perspective of another and look at how the morals are perceived by them. The very action of subconscious empathy is itself an example of relative morals.

This thief is therefore an absolutist. Had he engaged in a relative morality, he would have given more concern to the morality of the action from the side of the shopkeeper rather depending solely on his one truth; "I am".

the thief doesnt believe that killing is OK. if the store owner disarmed the thief and put that gun to the thiefs head, the thief would have the very strong feeling that killing is wrong.

relativism is not about "is killing wrong?" but "WHEN is killing wrong?" and "killing WHAT is wrong?"

everyone agress that killing babies is wrong but there are many societies that practice infanticide on deformed children. for some it must be that the child is in terrrible pain and will die shortly anyway. for some its the killing of twins.

killing PEOPLE is wrong but the USA executes certain criminals. we have no problem with the idea that its ok to kill SOME people. the same goes for "the enemy" in times of war. we knew that the bombing of iraq would involve the killing of civilians but that was OK as long as we tried to avoid it.

we feel that killing PEOPLE is wrong but that killing animals is OK. but even then, the killing of animals is wrong in certain circumstances. torturing animals is wrong. for some, hunting animals is wrong. for some the killing of excess animals in animal shelters is wrong.

for some people killing ANYTHING is wrong and they go to great lengths to avoid even the killing of insects.

these rules are what are relative. its in the details. these vary from place to place and are perfectly fine as long as we follow our own morality.

A moral absolute does exist. It is a very poor philosophy, though.

The reason?

The only absolute we know is the I. We cannot be completely convinced that anything other than the I exists, thus to claim absolution requires dependency wholly on the self.

Okay firstly, what do you mean by claiming that the 'I' is an absolute? It is a thing in a constant state of flux, and I have yet to see any really strong philosophical arguments for its existence as a unity.

Secondly, seems to me that even if we do accept the existence of the 'I' as some kind of absolute, you're still falling into the old trap of trying to get an 'ought' from an 'is'. We may know what exists, but that does not tell us what ought to be done.

the thief doesnt believe that killing is OK. if the store owner disarmed the thief and put that gun to the thiefs head, the thief would have the very strong feeling that killing is wrong.

This is an unwarrented assumption, some do in fact believe in the might is right ideology. The thief might just, after futile attempts to escape being killed, think 'ah, well, live by the sword die, die by the sword.' You are mistaking the thief's probable will to go on living for the existence of a set of moral beliefs.

Say, for example, that this same thief found himself in a situation where he was cast adrift in an open boat with others, and they had to draw lots to see who would go into the cooking pot. If we follow your model, then the only time the thief has a 'very strong feeling that killing is wrong' is if he ends up with the shortest straw.

What a stupid little story. So moral relativism is wrong because some thief kills some jewelry store owner? OHNOES I better start believing in an absolute moral truth or else I'll either kill, or be killed! OHNOES!

That story proves absolutely nothing. Now I'll address the smarmy after-picture commentary the poster places.

If relativism is true, then was it wrong to pull the trigger?

Yes, because it's illegal to murder someone. Perhaps you've heard of the justice system?

Perhaps someone might say that it is wrong to take another life needlessly. But why is that wrong, if there is no standard of right or wrong?

Strawman. There IS a standard of right and wrong even if morality is not absolute. Standard=/=absolute.

Others have said that it is a crime against society. But, so what? If what is true for you is simply true, then what is wrong with killing someone to protect yourself after you have robbed him?

Because it may be true for "someone" to protect themselves after robbing. And it is equally true for the rest of society to protect itself by locking such people up in prison.

If is true for you that to protect yourself you must kill, then who cares what society says?

It is usually not true. But one would think that since "society" has a definite and real impact on your self interest, one might care indeed.

Why is anyone obligated to conform to social norms? Doing so is a personal decision.

Hey, I agree.


Though not all relativists will behave in an unethical manner, I see relativism as a contributor to overall anarchy. Why? Because it is a justification to do whatever you want.

Bullshit. GOD is also a justification to do whatever you want. Because any religious text, any religion, any sect or clan or cult can justify any violent or depraved actions.

For example.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/911/images/01810r.jpg

The people who did this believed in absolute morality.

Have a nice day.

This is an unwarrented assumption, some do in fact believe in the might is right ideology. The thief might just, after futile attempts to escape being killed, think 'ah, well, live by the sword die, die by the sword.' You are mistaking the thief's probable will to go on living for the existence of a set of moral beliefs.

Say, for example, that this same thief found himself in a situation where he was cast adrift in an open boat with others, and they had to draw lots to see who would go into the cooking pot. If we follow your model, then the only time the thief has a 'very strong feeling that killing is wrong' is if he ends up with the shortest straw.
given that we cant know the internal motivation of a fictional thief, i dont think its a huge jump to suggest that a man who would kill to avoid prison isnt all that deep a thinker and that he would probably object to his own death even more than potential prison.

we can suppose anything you want, its not important to me. i was merely illustrating what moral relativity is.

and yes, i think that a man who feels he needs to kill the witness to a fairly minor crime would in fact only find drawing lots to be morally wrong when HE gets the short straw.

What a stupid little story. So moral relativism is wrong because some thief kills some jewelry store owner? OHNOES I better start believing in an absolute moral truth or else I'll either kill, or be killed! OHNOES!

Its a scenerio proving the implications of an idea


Yes, because it's illegal to murder someone. Perhaps you've heard of the justice system?

But what if someones morality says that they should not listen to the justice system. What right do you have (if morality is subjcetive) to over rule his morality


Strawman. There IS a standard of right and wrong even if morality is not absolute. Standard=/=absolute.

But what if his standard is diffrent to yours. What right do you have to impose yours on him and vice versa


Because it may be true for "someone" to protect themselves after robbing. And it is equally true for the rest of society to protect itself by locking such people up in prison.

But what if your morality says that its not equally true and that their morallity is superior?


Bullshit. GOD is also a justification to do whatever you want. Because any religious text, any religion, any sect or clan or cult can justify any violent or depraved actions.

For example.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/911/images/01810r.jpg

The people who did this believed in absolute morality.

Have a nice day.

I didnt say everyone who believed in objective morality was perfect. I simpley said that their must be an objective morality

Here is a story...

Adriatitca, I make it a rule not to put anyone down for their beliefs. It's just not like me (just go take a look at my nation -- and my region for that matter). In fact I enjoy a good debate when it is a well-reasoned and informed one.
Debate and discussion opens us to other viewpoints and new possible solutions to old problems.
But the discussion must be a substantive one to be productive.
I will trust that you've given this topic considerable thought and performed due diligence in your research. You certainly seem to be passionate enough.
The story that you've chosen to illustrate your viewpoint, however, is trite. I'm happy to see that you weren't the one who authored it.
Perhaps if you come back with a more complex, less predictable, and less deus ex machina infected tale we could embark upon the intelligent discussion your argument deserves.
As it stands, that story is doing you a disservice. It, frankly, makes you look juvenile in your reasoning... which I'm sure you are not.

Its a scenerio proving the implications of an idea


Hmm, nope, it doesn't prove a damn thing. It implies yes, but it does not prove.


But what if someones morality says that they should not listen to the justice system. What right do you have (if morality is subjcetive) to over rule his morality

What you fail to see is that peoples morality ALREADY differ from yours, or mine.

So if someone's "absolute morality" tells them it's OK to kill people who look like you, and your absolute morality tells you it's not, what right do you have to assert the dominance of your version of absolute morality over theirs? Or are you so blind you think that anyone who believes a different 'absolute' than you, is just plain wrong and you're just plain right?



But what if his standard is diffrent to yours. What right do you have to impose yours on him and vice versa

Well, the justice system is produced by a government which is elected by a people in this thing called society. Last I heard, most people are still opposed to the idea that robbing people is OK. So the 'right' I, and you too, impose is a legal one.


But what if your morality says that its not equally true and that their morallity is superior?

You mean... people like you? Who tell me that there is an absolute morality (and that you have a handle on it, unlike me)? What if, indeed. What happens is I get annoyed.


I didnt say everyone who believed in objective morality was perfect. I simpley said that their must be an objective morality

Yeah. That's what you're saying. I get it. But you're incorrect because morality is a construct of humans, it doesn't exist in a vacuum, it only exists because people say it does.

But what if someones morality says that they should not listen to the justice system. What right do you have (if morality is subjcetive) to over rule his morality

Philosophically ? He is part of my society. Either he conforms to its rules or places himself outside it - but in the latter case he should not be allowed any benefits of being a member either nor be surprised that the society tries to protect itself against him.
So in practice: the right of the strongest. A society can beat an individual.

But what if his standard is diffrent to yours. What right do you have to impose yours on him and vice versa
None - unless he wants to benefit from your system or vice versa.

I didnt say everyone who believed in objective morality was perfect. I simpley said that their must be an objective morality

What for ? You do not need it to have laws.

Its a scenerio proving the implications of an idea

And a bad one at that.

But what if someones morality says that they should not listen to the justice system. What right do you have (if morality is subjcetive) to over rule his morality

You implicitly accept the rule of society by living in it, and accepting its benefits. If you don't agree with the rules of a society, you can leave it. Swim out into the ocean far enough, and no society will have rule over you.

But what if his standard is diffrent to yours. What right do you have to impose yours on him and vice versa

Again, the rule of society. Societies create laws for their mutual benefit, and these laws are created by the majority of people(in most countries, or by representatives voted in by the people). It has nothing to do with objective morality. Society agree's upon what laws and norms to follow. If you don't agree, then you can leave, both the societal morals and the benefits you gain from being in a society.

But what if your morality says that its not equally true and that their morallity is superior?

Thats good for them. If they want to practice their own set of morals, they can leave the society, or try to change the society.

I didnt say everyone who believed in objective morality was perfect. I simpley said that their must be an objective morality

And you have given no proof whatsoever for this. All you have given is very bad counter-arguments to relative morals.

It seems pretty obvious that this example from this website is simply demonstrating what would happen if you carried compleate and total moral relatavism to its logical conclusion, generally speaking, it seems to me that, for now anyway, there's a line that everyone draws, (I.E. it's bad to kill, rape, etc. etc. just because) no matter how relative and tolerant many people think they are. The situation in the original article here seems to simply be demonstrating what might happen should relativism and the new tolerance gain total control and proceed to it's logical conclusion, but it doesn't seem to me we're that close to it.....yet :(

Okay firstly, what do you mean by claiming that the 'I' is an absolute? It is a thing in a constant state of flux, and I have yet to see any really strong philosophical arguments for its existence as a unity.
It's not a unity in the sense of a indeconstructable unit, which is perhaps why some may choose to question its existence. However, the state of being is universal truth, in the sense that in the universe we see and perceive, we know that there is a seeing and perceiving entity. Namely, me. Or you. Depending on what perspective you're seeing it from.

The existence of the perceiver is the one thing a perceiver can definitely assume no matter what the circumstance. Regardless of what its form may be, my own conscious awareness is proof enough that I exist in the universe that I see. It may change - all things that exist do - but it is still at its core a sense of awareness and cognitive response. Even if the universe around us is all an illusion, I exist within that illusion, because the I is the means by which I decrypt that which is around me. Cogito; Ergo, Sum.
Secondly, seems to me that even if we do accept the existence of the 'I' as some kind of absolute, you're still falling into the old trap of trying to get an 'ought' from an 'is'. We may know what exists, but that does not tell us what ought to be done.
No, it doesn't, you're entirely right. This is why I feel that relative morality is so important.

I know my I exists. If I was being absolutist, this would be how I define all actions - whether or not it is beneficial according to the rule of 'I'. It just so happens that this is exactly how some people approach theology; following a precise set of legislation is in some way beneficial to me, so I do so to the letter. These are not in themselves absolutes, as their perceptual origins indicate - we did not know about them until they were told to us and we modified our behaviour accordingly.

On the other hand, moral relatives take into account a hypothetical sense of 'I' that those subject to our actions might posess. "What response would that person's sense of Right and Wrong generate to my actions?" This is the question that drives the moral relativist; a consideration of the possibility that what might be good and right for me might not be good and right for other senses of Self, if indeed they do exist.

We call this Empathy. It isn't a moral absolute either due to the immense variation of Selves we come across. But it doesn't need to be. Empathy approaches each problem by analysing the hypothetical selves outside of our own and acting according to what we know of their sense of self.

Why we do this varies from person to person. I do it for several reasons. Firstly, what I have perceived gives me a model of what my Self is, and I see repetitions of this structure all around me. Secondly, and probably more importantly, I care about what I perceive. If it is of external origin, then my existence of self is systemic, and it's my place to engage, help and encourage those around me in whatever ways I can. If it is of internal origin, then I am tackling various expressions of my own self, and would benefit greatly by engaging with the process rather than trying to go against it.

I'm not too fussed about the absolute of my existence. As far as I can tell, the existence of others in my life is enough to consider their own sense of morality as equally valid to my own. Doing so innately prohibits me from adopting a single inflexible moral code.

I think and I relate to others. Therefore, I am, and I am a relativist.

The situation in the original article here seems to simply be demonstrating what might happen should relativism and the new tolerance gain total control and proceed to it's logical conclusion

Eehmm.. no, it doesn't. It mistakenly assumes that not believing your morals are objectively superior to those of someone else means you cannot demand them to live by them. This can be argued for individuals, but not for societies.

Eehmm.. no, it doesn't. It mistakenly assumes that not believing your morals are objectively superior to those of someone else means you cannot demand them to live by them. This can be argued for individuals, but not for societies.

But since in the example the other person died, wouldn't that mean the theif was demanding the other person die instead of live by his compleate disregard for a moral standard?

But since in the example the other person died, wouldn't that mean the theif was demanding the other person die instead of live by his compleate disregard for a moral standard?

Sure - but the society as a whole does (I assume) not agree with the thief.

This discussion is making me dizzy.

I don't think moral reletivism is what this Carm guy was out to challenge.

His little parable suggests that without God there is no morals. Not to mention how the Carm guy glossed over the do unto others thing that is commonly aplied by even atheist in terms of morality. This is a straw man argument and it is no wonder Carm dude kicked its' butt. No one ever needed God to tell them right from wrong. God would have been no more a fix for this situation than the Easter Bunny.

the thief doesnt believe that killing is OK. if the store owner disarmed the thief and put that gun to the thiefs head, the thief would have the very strong feeling that killing is wrong.
Really? If I were the thief, I don't think I'd feel that killing was wrong. I would feel that the shopowner's killing of me was wrong, of course, but not that killing itself was wrong. For instance, if there was a way for me to overpower the shopowner and get rid of him, I doubt I'd think that was any more or less wrong than before.

I didnt say everyone who believed in objective morality was perfect. I simpley said that their must be an objective morality
But why would the story prove that there has to be an objective morality? If it proved anything, wouldn't it just have proved that people could do whatever they wish, even if it harms others?
I don't see what would take it from that conclusion to the conclusion that things musn't be that way. Isn't it possible that we do live in a world in which thievery, murder, rape, etc., aren't morally prevented?

Isn't it possible that we do live in a world in which thievery, murder, rape, etc., aren't morally prevented?

It is, but my question is do you really believe that. Because if you do, then the only reason you feel revultion for when you hear about those crimes is that it has been socially conditioned into you. And if thats the case, if it was socially conditioned into you that those crimes were ok would it make them right?

You implicitly accept the rule of society by living in it, and accepting its benefits. If you don't agree with the rules of a society, you can leave it. Swim out into the ocean far enough, and no society will have rule over you.

Again, the rule of society. Societies create laws for their mutual benefit, and these laws are created by the majority of people(in most countries, or by representatives voted in by the people). It has nothing to do with objective morality. Society agree's upon what laws and norms to follow. If you don't agree, then you can leave, both the societal morals and the benefits you gain from being in a society.


Says who? You and soceity? What if someone's morality says that society doesnt matter and that they have a right to do it and they refuse to recognise society. You must realise that if morality is reletive then the only reason that someone has to listen to soceity is that the forces of the status quo can enforce their will onto that person. Not because its right or has any moral value. So thats not only power flowing from the barrel of a gun. But morality too. And can you really accept that. Is something only right because the majority of the society believe it and it is enforced? Of course not. Many people beleving soemthing foolish doesnt mean its not foolish.

It is, but my question is do you really believe that. Because if you do, then the only reason you feel revultion for when you hear about those crimes is that it has been socially conditioned into you.
Why can't I feel revulsion because I don't want people doing that to me?
And if thats the case, if it was socially conditioned into you that those crimes were ok would it make them right?
No, nothing would make them right. Nothing would make them wrong either.

Says who? You and soceity? What if someone's morality says that society doesnt matter and that they have a right to do it and they refuse to recognise society.

Then he s an enemy of the society, and society will fight him if he does not conform or leave. No problem there.

You must realise that if morality is reletive then the only reason that someone has to listen to soceity is that the forces of the status quo can enforce their will onto that person. Not because its right or has any moral value. So thats not only power flowing from the barrel of a gun. But morality too.

Well, it *is* right from the societies/forces of status quo point of view. But yes, you are correct.

And can you really accept that. Is something only right because the majority of the society believe it and it is enforced? Of course not.

Who says it has to be the majority ? Society is simply a *system*. A system which protects itself against threats. Your "of course not" is therefor a bit odd since it is how every society works...

Many people beleving soemthing foolish doesnt mean its not foolish.
True. Which is why one could try to change society.

Says who? You and soceity? What if someone's morality says that society doesnt matter and that they have a right to do it and they refuse to recognise society. You must realise that if morality is reletive then the only reason that someone has to listen to soceity is that the forces of the status quo can enforce their will onto that person. Not because its right or has any moral value. So thats not only power flowing from the barrel of a gun. But morality too. And can you really accept that. Is something only right because the majority of the society believe it and it is enforced? Of course not. Many people beleving soemthing foolish doesnt mean its not foolish.

Societies work because people mutually agree on laws, to work together, etc.

You cann't say a society doesn't exist, because it is an actual thing. Thats like saying a rock doesn't exist, or a tree. It exists whether or not you like it.

I don't have to realize any of your flawed logic. A person must follow a society if they wish to gain the benefits of the society. Nobody is forced to accept the morality of a society(Its not like this is the USSR). Again, nobody is making you follow societies laws. You implicitly agree to follow society's morals, by accepting their benefits, such as living within them, on their land, etc.

And societies laws aren't right or wrong. They are simply what the societies have decided to follow.

You have yet to give any argument to absolute morals. You talk about why people should accept others morals, but no argument against relative morals.

And to end this: I am not an orthodox moral objectivist. I believe that there isn't anything moral at all, except that which is beneficial. People must decide if they care more about whats beneficial to themselves, or to society, but I believe the closest thing to morals are beneficial and not-beneficial actions, etc.

So it was "Right" for the robber to kill the man, in the eyes of the robber

And it is "Wrong" for society to impose its punishment on him because the robber believes that soceity does not have that right.

So what does reletive morality mean? If its not that every belief is right for the person that holds that belief?
No, it might have been "believed" right for the robber to kill the man; whether it was "right" in his yes or not was never made clear in the story.

Why is it "wrong" for society to impose any punishment on him? I don't follow. What does the robber's beliefs have to do with that?

Relative morality is morality viewed form the perspective of the individual. Beliefs are another matter.

From the point of view of the society it is right. From the point of view of the robber it is wrong. Since the robber is living in the society he therefor has a problem. But not because morality is absolute.
Aye; the individual is not the only one with a relative viewpoint. Society also has a relative viewpoint.

Bullshit. GOD is also a justification to do whatever you want. Because any religious text, any religion, any sect or clan or cult can justify any violent or depraved actions.

For example.

...

The people who did this believed in absolute morality.

Have a nice day.
Wow!

I've never before seen a picture of the Twin Towers digitally enhanced. That's interesting.

Adriatitca, I make it a rule not to put anyone down for their beliefs. It's just not like me (just go take a look at my nation -- and my region for that matter). In fact I enjoy a good debate when it is a well-reasoned and informed one.
Debate and discussion opens us to other viewpoints and new possible solutions to old problems.
But the discussion must be a substantive one to be productive.
I will trust that you've given this topic considerable thought and performed due diligence in your research. You certainly seem to be passionate enough.
The story that you've chosen to illustrate your viewpoint, however, is trite. I'm happy to see that you weren't the one who authored it.
Perhaps if you come back with a more complex, less predictable, and less deus ex machina infected tale we could embark upon the intelligent discussion your argument deserves.
As it stands, that story is doing you a disservice. It, frankly, makes you look juvenile in your reasoning... which I'm sure you are not.
You, sir or madam, are a great diplomat.

It seems pretty obvious that this example from this website is simply demonstrating what would happen if you carried compleate and total moral relatavism to its logical conclusion, generally speaking, it seems to me that, for now anyway, there's a line that everyone draws, (I.E. it's bad to kill, rape, etc. etc. just because) no matter how relative and tolerant many people think they are. The situation in the original article here seems to simply be demonstrating what might happen should relativism and the new tolerance gain total control and proceed to it's logical conclusion, but it doesn't seem to me we're that close to it.....yet :(
No, it's not logical, not by any stretch of the imagination.

The "line" that people draw is the law. Society's law.

The situation in the original post is simply demonstrating an incorrect understanding of moral relativism, with characters acting in unbelievable roles.

It's not logical at all.

Says who? You and soceity? What if someone's morality says that society doesnt matter and that they have a right to do it and they refuse to recognise society. You must realise that if morality is reletive then the only reason that someone has to listen to soceity is that the forces of the status quo can enforce their will onto that person.
Of course! Unless, of course, we actually believe that too.

Not because its right or has any moral value.
D'uh. It has no value in and of itself. It has no value apart from a human mind.

So thats not only power flowing from the barrel of a gun. But morality too. And can you really accept that. Is something only right because the majority of the society believe it and it is enforced? Of course not. Many people beleving soemthing foolish doesnt mean its not foolish.
Gun. Or pen.

Something is right because it feels right, based on society or whatever values you contrive. That is the relativism of morality.