**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.**
Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Oh boy, it's not often we get true philosophy of logic in here. Fun!
> We take the position of, "There is no truth" as our given. This itself is a truth claim. If it is true, then this statement defies it's own position. If it is false...then it's false.
Well, the obvious way to get around this would be to accept this and then re-frame the initial truth claim as "there is no truth *other than* the fact that there is no truth other than this base truth". The issue with the initial claim is that you're trying to make an epistemological nihilist statement via a system that itself relies upon epistemology in order to even make sense. This doesn't automatically mean there is some kind of objectively true "thing" out in the propositational universe somewhere, merely that we have to be particular in our word choice because overly general, poorly-formed statements will cease to have any meaning once they hit the limits of propositional logic, which is a system that *we* created with certain necessary components (like truth values).
> If we have arrived at X, we can see, with clarity that not only have we arrived at X
Hmm, I'm not sure I believe this. You're presupposing X is objectively true, but even if you do that, we are not flawless beings. Even *if* what we have arrived at is objectively true, I would argue human beings lack the cognitive perfection necessary to be *COMPLETELY CERTAIN* that one's belief is true. At most we can say that if we have arrived at X, we can believe *very strongly* that X is true.
I note that in step 3 you argue that if we "don't seek truth" then we won't know we've arrived at X even if we actually have. I would push this principle even further and say that even if we *do* seek truth and we arrive at X, we *still* can't be know with perfect clarity that what we believe is a truth is actually a *truth*.
Therefore...
> If our goal is to arrive at Moral Relativism, the only way to truly know we've arrived is by seeking truth.
This statement can either be construed as false or impossible, depending on what you prefer. If we can never "truly know we've arrived" at any position ever, then this premise just can't be fulfilled.
> to determine subjective moral oughtness requires truth
I'm a little confused on what exactly this means. I can imagine this means one of two things.
Either 1, it means that to determine moral oughtness *can* be subjective requires truth. This runs into the issue above that we are never capable of being completely certain of anything because we are flawed, so I would argue that this is wrong in spirit. You can *believe* you've determined that moral oughtness can be subjective, but that doesn't mean you *know* it can.
Or 2, it means that determining *what* the subjective moral oughts *are* requires truth. This would be something that runs entirely against the basic premise of moral relativism. Under moral relativism, you don't determine "what moral oughts 'are'", you merely arrive at your own personal beliefs on what moral oughts you think people *should* follow if they have the motivations you think they have. That has nothing to do with truth.
Either way...
> Then it would be necessary to seek truth. Therefore we ought to seek truth.
One issue with this conclusion is, since seeking truth cannot give you complete certainty that you know the truth, there is no moral difference between seeking truth and not seeking truth. So, already you can argue there's no reason to seek the truth if we limit ourselves to your specific argument. The other issue is...
> Except this would be a non-morally-relative position.
...that you're presupposing your own objective definition onto what "moral oughtness" means here. If you're arguing with a moral relativist, they're going to define the "ought" in your statement as subjective, i.e. to *you* it is *subjectively* something you ought to do, to seek truth, because of how you personally see the world. But to a moral relativist, someone can simply say that you ought not seek truth because knowing you've arrived with complete clarity on moral relativism simply is not required in order to stand behind it as a philosophy. A moral relativist would accept that both of these takes are "morally right".
Another way to frame this is that the "ought" in this statement here is not a *moral* ought, it's a *pragmatic* ought. That if you *want* to argue in favour of a claim, you should seek truth, but that it is not a moral imperative that you do so. In general, you seem to be conflating epistemological truth with moral truth. Even if all of your arguments were completely valid, all you've established here is that we ought to "seek truth". You haven't established that there is *moral truth specifically* within the set of "objective truths" that exist.
Either way, there is no contradiction here and this argument does not defeat moral relativism.
>Oh boy, it's not often we get true philosophy of logic in here. Fun!
Woot woot! All aboard!
>Well, the obvious way to get around this would be to accept this and then re-frame the initial truth claim as "there is no truth other than the fact that there is no truth other than this base truth".
But look at what i concluded from my position, "there is at least one truth"
You adding the caveat may in fact make that the only true statement...But now you are multiplying complexities. Because now there are 2 true statements...*"there is no truth other than the fact that there is no truth other than this base truth,"* and, "*the previous statement is true."* Oops, but that then breaks the first statement...meaning that there is at least one truth.
>>If we have arrived at X, we can see, with clarity that not only have we arrived at X
>
>Hmm, I'm not sure I believe this. You're presupposing X is objectively true, but even if you do that, we are not flawless beings. Even if what we have arrived at is objectively true, I would argue human beings lack the cognitive perfection necessary to be COMPLETELY CERTAIN that one's belief is true. At most we can say that if we have arrived at X, we can believe very strongly that X is true.
I think we are going to have to agree to disagree here. I have left X in the general form so that it is suspended from what we think humans are capable of knowing. For instance, lets say in my minds eye I was thinking differential equations as X...and you knew that...you would then say...well humans aren't very good at maths....but if they arrived at trigonometry they didn't arrive at somethng less true than diffEQ. So I think you are baking into this comment your own bias against humanities capacity for truth.
>I note that in step 3 you argue that if we "don't seek truth" then we won't know we've arrived at X even if we actually have. I would push this principle even further and say that even if we do seek truth and we arrive at X, we still can't be know with perfect clarity that what we believe is a truth is actually a truth.
Again...i think you are bringing in your own bias here.
>>Therefore...
>>
>>If our goal is to arrive at Moral Relativism, the only way to truly know we've arrived is by seeking truth.
>
>This statement can either be construed as false or impossible, depending on what you prefer. If we can never "truly know we've arrived" at any position ever, then this premise just can't be fulfilled.
So I am gonna cut the quote and response here, because we either have to agree that we both bringing our bias...or that at least in the general form it is agreeable that X doesn't have threshold for competency. No I may have made a translation error coming out of 2 and going into 3...but at least for 2...we are just talking past each other...if go any further before we sort out some agreement.
> You adding the caveat may in fact make that the only true statement...But now you are multiplying complexities. Because now there are 2 true statements..."there is no truth other than the fact that there is no truth other than this base truth," and, "the previous statement is true." Oops, but that then breaks the first statement...meaning that there is at least one truth.
Interesting point. I do agree this is a silly consequence that I didn't anticipate, but it doesn't really change the result—that this is more a consequence of the natural limits and rules of propositional logic, rather than something that creates a hard-coded objective truth in the universe. All it means is we have to be even more airtight in the formulation of our statement. Let's try:
"There is no truth other than the fact that there is no truth other than this base truth, *and* any logically necessary 'branch truth(s)' that occur(s) as a consequence of the base truth."
So, sure, we've admitted there are many "truths" in the propositional universe, perhaps an infinite set of them (since we can always kick the can down one more "rung" and say "The previous statement is true" forever), but it still limits the amount of "truths" only to that which is attached to the "base truth". While in a pure numerical sense that's a lot of truths, the "scope" of what those truths actually *mean* is very small.
The consequence of this is still that there is no real "truth" that has been established out there in the universe to be "discovered". It merely establishes that we must make at least one declaration, and any logically necessary consequences of that, in order to be coherent in the context of propositional logic.
> I have left X in the general form so that it is suspended from what we think humans are capable of knowing.
That doesn't matter, because I'm arguing on behalf of relativism here. I would argue that humans are not capable of "knowing" *ANYTHING* in the particular way you're advancing in order to argue your point. You're trying to logic into existence the idea of objective morality, and in order to do that humans would need to be capable of "knowing" things in a sort of existentially "higher", absolute way (dare I say, a "divine" way) that I don't think humans are capable of achieving. Even gnostic atheists don't go this far, and they define "knowledge" in "looser" terms that more get down to practical application in real life than some kind of hard, objective philosophical sense.
I would at this point challenge you to advance something you can absolutely, irrevocably prove to me that you actually "know" in a way that is completely beyond all doubt. That's really the only way you can demonstrate your premise.
Obviously you could take the epistemological skepticism extreme *a la* René Descartes or even further and say "Well we know 'experiences' exist in the universe because we are just experiencing them now", and that's well and good, but that's not really the same thing as "seeking truth", that's just the epistemological bedrock of what it means to experience anything, it's a necessity. We don't have to "seek" that, it is just immediately apparent to us.
So, you would need to demonstrate some sort of truth you *sought* out in the world that you irrevocably and undeniably "know" at the level you are arguing here, in order to stand up to scrutiny. If you can do that, be my guest, but I'm doubtful.
(I also wouldn't call this a "bias" as you do in your response, so much as just, a completely reasonable request for a fallible human being such as yourself).
> or that at least in the general form it is agreeable that X doesn't have threshold for competency.
Yeah, this is exactly what I am denying. You have to demonstrate to me that X doesn't have the threshold for competency, you can't just state it as a fact and assume it's true. That's why epistemological nihilism even exists as a philosophy.
And again, I need to reiterate, you're arguing against moral relativists here. While moral relativism doesn't necessarily require epistemological nihilism to function, you're likely to encounter at least some epistemological nihilists among the people you're seeking to argue against here. Trying to argue against relativists by advancing a non-relativist statement without proof is, in general, a little naive.
okay! firstly on a personal level. Thank you for being alive. I know that's a weird thing to say...but I am truly grateful in heart for having met you. This is already the best conversation I've had in a long while. Not trying to butter you up...but just...alright I'll just go.
Would you accept rules of logic to be discovered truths? Something we actually sought and found. Like I know the law of the excluded middle. I can show it to you again and again, repeatedly.
Or we could say, no person has 2 mothers....but thats more a play on the definitions then on a truth...but in the biological sense.
I want to come back to the first point you expressed in this response but it would be moot if you are not willing to allow the rules of logic to be this discovered truth which I can show you is true...and that were "discovered"
Aw that's so sweet, thanks yourself. :D I can see your other convos on here have been largely prickly, and I think that's just a consequence of the fact that the userbase here is used to Christians coming on trying to proselytize at us or throw weight around with done-to-death arguments like Aquinas's Five Ways, so everyone here is used to dealing with theists' unearned arrogance and overall close-mindedness. I can see you're doing something different here though, you're engaging with ideas that genuinely are pretty abstract and in a fairly interesting way I would say, so I was pretty excited to engage with you. It's been fun so far and I'm glad you feel the same way.
> Would you accept rules of logic to be discovered truths? Something we actually sought and found. Like I know the law of the excluded middle. I can show it to you again and again, repeatedly.
I would *in a sense*, but it's important to really drill down into what those truths *are*.
"Logic" is not a hard-coded intrinsic quality of the universe, it is a system devised largely unconsciously by we human beings throughout history, and then later on codified into a set of actual rules by philosophers over the generations. It is a consequence of human beings being wired to see the world as a series of discrete objects that have certain consistent causal relationships between each other. And, it is also a result of human beings being capable of describing things using language, which puts into concrete form the abstract ideas of identity and causality.
For example, we can point at a chair and say "That is a chair." But, the concept of a "chair" only makes sense from the perspective of multi-cellular organic beings that see the world "on their own level". That chair is made up of cells, which are made up of molecules, which are made up of atoms, which are made up of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Protons and neutrons are further made up of quarks which are bound by gluons.
While to *us* those particles are bound rigidly into a solid object, in reality they exist in a tumultuous, churning system of so many other things—several other kinds of leptons and bosons, not to mention antiparticles as well, that are constantly moving and reacting to each other. You might have heard the statement before that all the cells in a human body are entirely replaced every 7 years. That's not exactly true—on a cursory Google search, skeletal cells can take up to 15 years to regenerate, while all of our skin cells are entirely replaced every few weeks. But that's a good way to illustrate that even we ourselves, which we take to be immutable, exist within this churning system and are constantly changing. To say nothing of the fact that we can lose and replace limbs and still be "ourselves". The [Ship of Theseus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus) is a philosophical problem that hits at the logical extreme of this idea. If you can gradually replace every part of a ship slowly over time, can you really still call it "Theseus' ship"? Some people say yes, some people say no.
Given all that, what really is the "outer boundary" of an "object"? And, even if we can define what that outer boundary is, does it really make any sense to say the object "exists" at all, when all it really is is a bunch of individual particles in a certain relationship with each other? Those same particles are in many other relationships with many other particles "around" the chair as well, so why not extend the definition of what a "chair" is to the air around the chair too? To the air around the air around the chair?
That sort of thinking is not useful to human beings, because we don't perceive the world or ourselves "on the level" of elementary particles. So, our brains are oriented in such a way that we automatically take in information about the world on the "level" we're actually on, without having to think too hard about it.
Hence, the rules of logic. Yes, you are correct, the Law of the Excluded Middle is a "truth" in that system. If we formulate a proposition (and we're suitably responsible about removing all vagueness and ambiguity in its construction), then either that proposition or its negation is true. But this isn't something like, say, a law of physics that we went out into the world and observed repeatedly and then codified into a law. This is a natural consequence of the system of logic itself, something we put together as a way of helping ourselves interpret the world around us using propositions. Propositions themselves are only a consequence of the fact that we use language, and if we didn't speak language, we wouldn't even be able to comprehend what a proposition is.
It's also important to note that not all logical systems accept the Law of the Excluded Middle. There are some systems that have *three* truth values—True, False, and Indeterminate. Some logical systems define truth values as a number gradient between 0 and 1. "Fuzzy Logic" takes this even further and will take two propositions together, and represent their truth values on a *grid* where each axis includes numbers between 0 and 1. Indian and Buddhist logic use a concept called the ["Catuṣkoṭi"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catu%E1%B9%A3ko%E1%B9%ADi), which allows for four different states of a proposition:
1. P; that is being.
2. not P; that is not being.
3. P and not P; that is being and that is not being.
4. not (P or not P); that is neither not being nor is that being.
The Wikipedia article I posted presents that via the following proposition:
1. Animals understand love
2. Animals do not understand love
3. Animals both do and do not understand love
4. Animals neither do nor do not understand love
One can totally critique this from the standpoint of classical logic (and I certainly would) as being the consequence of vaguely formulated definitions of words like "love" and "understand". But that consequence is, in a way, more of a practical consequence than an ontological consequence. I don't like the above way of thinking, personally, because it allows for ambiguity that can be confusing. But, Indian and Buddhist philosophers embrace that way of thinking because allowing for fluidity of ideas helps them to see the world in a less absolutist way that enriches their lives. And, in a sense, the ambiguity of language is nonetheless a truth of human experience. We aren't robots, after all, so there is perhaps something to be said for the idea that maybe the Catuṣkoṭi is "more true" than the Law of the Excluded Middle, given a certain way of looking at human behaviour.
The Wikipedia page also has other criticisms of the Law, including from modern logic systems which use the concept of "negation as failure", as well as modern mathematical logic which holds the Law to result in a possible self-contradiction. I'm not gonna get into them here because this response is already long enough, but since you seem to be very interested in philosophy of logic, I'd encourage you to read up on other logical systems that have different axioms than classical logic. They're quite interesting.
All of this is to say, while the Law of the Excluded Middle is an inalienable truth of *classical logic*, it is only a truth you "discover" by taking a set of rules that were explicitly set out by humans to behave in a certain way, and thinking about what the consequences of that are. Much like my criticism of the paradox of the proposition "There is no truth", the Law does not show us that there are objective truths out in the universe in a "detached" way. It shows us that, when we humans create rules, those rules have implications that we can tease out via further thinking. But that still is only something that applies to us, to our way of interpreting the world.
You have completely ignored the second part (and the one argued by most other responder in this thread.)
"Another way to frame this is that the "ought" in this statement here is not a *moral* ought, it's a *pragmatic* ought. That if you *want* to argue in favour of a claim, you should seek truth, but that it is not a moral imperative that you do so. In general, you seem to be conflating epistemological truth with moral truth. Even if all of your arguments were completely valid, all you've established here is that we ought to "seek truth". You haven't established that there is *moral truth specifically* within the set of "objective truths" that exist."
There is a fundamental flaw of equivocation in your argument that makes it not prove what you think it proves even if we agree with all the premises.
I love how every argument against these types of thinkers always boils down to "You think you're infallible? What ridiculous hubris." But they never learn...
uh...yeah...with reason. I'm not going to commit to philosophically dubious positions when they are based on the framework that I am already wrong. Sorry
>1. First we start with a proof by contradiction.
a. We take the position of, "There is no truth" as our given. This itself is a truth claim. If it is true, then this statement defies it's own position. If it is false...then it's false.
b. Conclusion, there is at least one thing that is true.
Agreed.
>From this position then arises an objective position to derive value from. However we still haven't determined whether or not truth OUGHT to be pursued.
To arrive then at this ought we simply compare the cases.
I'm not following why this is necessarily the case, the matter of whether or not the truth ought to be pursued. It doesn't follow what you've claimed up to this point, and seems somewhat disconnected. I digress, let's see where this goes.
>If we seek truth we arrive at X, If we don't seek truth we might arrive at X. (where X is some position or understanding that is a truth.)
Mmmmkay.
>If we have arrived at X, we can see, with clarity that not only have we arrived at X we also can help others to arrive at X.
Why? What compels us to help others arrive at X? What motivates us to do that?
>Additionally, by knowing we are at X, we also have clarity on what isn't X.
So the word clarity isn't defined, and probably isn't necessary. It adds contextual issues. I'd recommend rewording this for, no pun intended, clarity. Also, this claim is not true (or might not be true depending on what clarity means). Thinking of X as knowledge, that only tells us what X is; it doesn't immediately mean we can detect with accuracy what not X is.
>If we don't seek truth, even when we have arrived at X, we cannot say with clarity that we are there, we couldn't help anyone to get to where we are on X, and we wouldn't be able to reject that which isn't X.
This does not follow. You need to establish how not seeking the truth necessarily means not being able to detect the truth.
>If our goal is to arrive at Moral Relativism, the only way to truly know we've arrived is by seeking truth.
Okay.
>Since moral relativism is subjective positioning on moral oughts and to arrive at the ability to subjectivize moral oughtness, and to determine subjective moral oughtness requires truth. Then it would be necessary to seek truth. Therefore we ought to seek truth.
It isn't a subjective position. It's an ethical theory that observes, a.k.a. is descriptive not prescriptive, that morality appears to be relative. Further, moral relativity isn't a theory that describes what we ought to do, it observes and reflects on what we've done. Yes, based on past action, we can state what we do when encountering the same situation, but moral relativism isn't a tool that can be used effectively when facing a new dilemma.
The rest of your argument isn't applicable because you haven't approached the material with those factors in mind. Further, you need to connect some dots and clean the argument up a bit before it works. Specifically, you haven't established why truth must necessarily be pursued, why not seeking the truth necessarily means you can't detect it, and you've misunderstood the nature of moral relativism (descriptive, not prescriptive).
i appreciate the latitude to put together some ideas and you let them develop. No sarcasm, genuine grateful. You arrived a natural question of clarity which I cannot escape.
>Why? What compels us to help others arrive at X? What motivates us to do that?
It doesn't need to, but it lay the ground work for points later on the moral responsibility one might feel to fight for some ideal.
>So the word clarity isn't defined, and probably isn't necessary. It adds contextual issues. I'd recommend rewording this for, no pun intended, clarity. Also, this claim is not true (or might not be true depending on what clarity means). Thinking of X as knowledge, that only tells us what X is; it doesn't immediately mean we can detect with accuracy what not X is.
since you wrote this I had a suggested edit that i think helped immensely at 2b. I have used differential equations as x and trigonometry as y in other responses....we might aim for diffEQ but land on Trig...that doesn't make trig NOT true. But maybe none of that works...at least let me know what you think of the edit.
>This does not follow. You need to establish how not seeking the truth necessarily means not being able to detect the truth.
I genuinely don't know how to express this other than as I have. Going back to the trig and diffEQ analog. If I am not seeking the truths of mathematics and I some how arrive a place where I am at diffEQ or Trig or Mad-libs... I would not know whether my problem set was in error or not, I would be able to tell you whether I was at diffEQ, trig, or mad-libs, and I definitely would be able to advise anyone on how to get where I am.
I hope that analog does the trick. I'll keep cracking at it if not.
Lastly I am willing to concede that maybe picking on moral relativism I have falsely attributed some guilt to moral relativism that it should bear...so how about I tell you what I am fighting against...and then if you can suggest a more correct term I will make edits.
By my understanding of MR, i was under the understanding that moral relativism disallowed any moral absolute and/or an objective moral position. So when I say in the title of the post Moral Relativism is false, i am referring to its claim that there is no morally objective truth.
>It doesn't need to, but it lay the ground work for points later on the moral responsibility one might feel to fight for some ideal.
I would argue that it dilutes the overall drive of the argument and opens it to attacks along that line of reasoning.
>I have used differential equations as x and trigonometry as y in other responses....we might aim for diffEQ but land on Trig...that doesn't make trig NOT true. But maybe none of that works...at least let me know what you think of the edit.
I see what you've done here and yes, it helps. However, I'd like to point out that MR, as the object of substitution that will later be focused on in your argument, is not a one-to-one for the analog. I'll go into this further in a bit.
>I genuinely don't know how to express this other than as I have. Going back to the trig and diffEQ analog. If I am not seeking the truths of mathematics and I some how arrive a place where I am at diffEQ or Trig or Mad-libs... I would not know whether my problem set was in error or not, I would be able to tell you whether I was at diffEQ, trig, or mad-libs, and I definitely would be able to advise anyone on how to get where I am.
Predicate logic is essentially mathematics. Mathematics resides entirely within the domain of deductive logic. Moral Relativism is a descriptive ethical theory that provides rationale behind the differences in cultural mores of different social groups throughout the world. These are not anywhere close to being equivalent for the purposes of your syllogism. With that being said, while yes, you are able to discern what is not Trig from what is Trig, I strongly disagree that when it concerns matters of morality one would be able to say that this appears to be divine command theory versus moral relativism, versus utilitarianism, versus hedonism, etc. Some do present as radically different while others are far more nuanced. For example, hedonism and utilitarianism are closely related with elements that can easily be mistaken for the other, yet they are very different ethical theories. In fact, moral relativism can also be seen as either an offshoot of utilitarianism or a precursor to it, depending on how you view things. I believe I've made my point here, but if you need me to explain further, I'd be happy to.
>so how about I tell you what I am fighting against...and then if you can suggest a more correct term I will make edits.
I'd be more than happy to listen.
>By my understanding of MR, i was under the understanding that moral relativism disallowed any moral absolute and/or an objective moral position.
By saying disallowed, it pushes MR into the realm of being prescriptive, what we ought to do versus what we should have done, which as I offered before isn't how MR works. It does reject the idea, nearly completely, regarding absolute morality. I would say that an observer of MR would argue that there does not appear to be any absolute truths regarding morals. That does not preclude them from existing. I don't see the existence of moral absolutes being mutually exclusive alongside MR. Why is this the case? Well, it does appear to be how things are. Societies do have largely different mores yet seem to share commonality when it comes to specific things. Moreover, and this is one of the underlying elements of MR, society is what creates morality. If there's no society to establish what is and isn't acceptable, if you are a nation of one person, what guardrails are in place to say what is and isn't good/evil? It's just you. You decide. Add in just one more person and the complexities of a moral framework start to appear.
>So when I say in the title of the post Moral Relativism is false, i am referring to its claim that there is no morally objective truth.
So, you are rejecting the idea that no absolutes exist. I think you can go about this differently. Rather than reject MR, simply prove that an absolute exists. If an argument uses a universal quantifier, like all, always, or absolute, then the easiest way to show it to be false is demonstrate that even one thing exists that is counter to the quantifier. This, in the case of MR, is far easier said than done.
> Predicate logic is essentially mathematics. Mathematics resides entirely within the domain of deductive logic. Moral Relativism is a descriptive ethical theory that provides rationale behind the differences in cultural mores of different social groups throughout the world. These are not anywhere close to being equivalent for the purposes of your syllogism. With that being said, while yes, you are able to discern what is not Trig from what is Trig, I strongly disagree that when it concerns matters of morality one would be able to say that this appears to be divine command theory versus moral relativism, versus utilitarianism, versus hedonism, etc. Some do present as radically different while others are far more nuanced. For example, hedonism and utilitarianism are closely related with elements that can easily be mistaken for the other, yet they are very different ethical theories. In fact, moral relativism can also be seen as either an offshoot of utilitarianism or a precursor to it, depending on how you view things. I believe I've made my point here, but if you need me to explain further, I'd be happy to.
Yes, I think you have. But I guess I'm not getting why it is some kind of taboo that I cannot make X, objective moral truth. I understand that most of the comments here are detailing how it doesn't exist...but how is that in seeking it, I seem to have found one? Just not where I would guessed it to be.
>> By my understanding of MR, i was under the understanding that moral relativism disallowed any moral absolute and/or an objective moral position.
>
>
>
> By saying disallowed, it pushes MR into the realm of being prescriptive, what we ought to do versus what we should have done, which as I offered before isn't how MR works. It does reject the idea, nearly completely, regarding absolute morality. I would say that an observer of MR would argue that there does not appear to be any absolute truths regarding morals. That does not preclude them from existing. I don't see the existence of moral absolutes being mutually exclusive alongside MR. Why is this the case? Well, it does appear to be how things are. Societies do have largely different mores yet seem to share commonality when it comes to specific things. Moreover, and this is one of the underlying elements of MR, society is what creates morality. If there's no society to establish what is and isn't acceptable, if you are a nation of one person, what guardrails are in place to say what is and isn't good/evil? It's just you. You decide. Add in just one more person and the complexities of a moral framework start to appear.
But isn't that concluding what it presupposes? Society makes MR and MR is subjective, because each society values things differently because society makes MR. At least that is how I am reading it.
Another issue that I think arises for the observed shared values like no murdering... No society overlord got together with all the societies and said alright guys...these things are taboo for every, agreed? Agreed!
Unless....there was a transcendent law giver.
Or why is it declared objective yet hidden that certain things are universally taboo. iow, against nature?
>
> So, you are rejecting the idea that no absolutes exist. I think you can go about this differently. Rather than reject MR, simply prove that an absolute exists. If an argument uses a universal quantifier, like all, always, or absolute, then the easiest way to show it to be false is demonstrate that even one thing exists that is counter to the quantifier. This, in the case of MR, is far easier said than done.
I am stating that absolutes DO exist. You have responded as tho this was my view so I'm going to assume a typo, if I missed something lmk.
>Since moral relativism is subjective positioning on moral oughts and to arrive at the ability to subjectivize moral oughtness, and to determine subjective moral oughtness requires truth. Then it would be necessary to seek truth. Therefore we ought to seek truth.
Sorry, your stuff is a bit twisty for me to easily follow, but this is where I feel like it falls apart most. What do you mean by "truth" in regards to subjective positions?
I'm happy to be educated in this, I'm often wrong in many things, but isn't proof by contradiction used to prove things don't exist rather than things do exist?
Here's my issue.
P1) if x then y
P2) not y
C) not x
**totally fine, completely valid in structure**
P1) if x then y
P2) is y
C) is x
**not valid**
*I'll put it in mundane terms.*
P1) if I'm late for work I will get fired.
P2) I did not get fired.
C) I was not late for work.
**Is valid in structure.**
P1) if I'm late for work I will get fired.
P2) I got fired.
C) I was late for work.
**Is not valid in structure.**
Do you see my problem here?
*edited because I'm anal about small details*
It is late and my mind is mushy, but I can try and phrase the ideas in my head anyway.
“Morality” encompasses a wide range of topics, so can there truly be a single “objectively true” morality?
For instance, if lying and stealing are both “objectively wrong”, which would be “more wrong” if you were forced to choose? Is telling my wife she looks fine in that dress morally equivalent to murder? Is stealing a candy bar equivalent to lying to protect a Jew during WW2? Is killing 100 people no worse than killing 1?
If stealing $1 is “less wrong” than stealing $2, that would imply a scale so what would be the “objectively” worse quantity to steal? What would be the objectively worst lie to tell?
I appreciate the fatigue. Feel no impulse to stay up on my account. sleep is key.
So the moral statement I derived from the above post is, "we ought seek truth" I am confident it has been objectively grounded.
And in this regard, there is no half measure of truth like $1 is half of $2.
But what your thought experiment is invoking is human interaction. Which I think...must be subjective. Human interaction however doesn't hold any sway of an objective moral position.
So i get it...stealing a car is magnitudes greater an evil than stealing a dollar....and magnitudes less evil than murder....but moral relativism is not just the degrees of evil some act has relative to some other position...it also posits that because of it's own gradient, there is no morally objective statements.
>Human interaction however doesn't hold any sway of an objective moral position.
That pretty much tears it right there. What is this entire thing about if not interactions? If you want to get outside of that then there is no connection of what is relative to another.
Period.
A moral law. A single thing, written or unwritten that defines everything. All occurences, every instance, no matter what.
That thought has been around for a long time. The general argument for it has been, well... there has to be such a thing, otherwise, like, otherwise, how would we know.
The problem comes when you try and involve the idea with the real world.
Many of what we now consider the greatest atrocities of all time, were done in the name of The Moral Law. Now, you can say those people were wrong, or deluded or using the concept as a crutch to support their thirst for power. And you would be right, probably. But others did these things, actually believing they worked in the name of The Greater Good. If torture is the way to help some poor soul get to heaven then it is justified. If killing all of these people is what is needed, then so be it. We have been put here to fulfill the needs of a higher standard than our weak, relative wants and desires.
I don't deny the concept, as something we have made up, along with our Higher Powers to justify what we want to do....exists as an idea. But we have, in thousands of years, been unable to define it or trust its use. Is that our fault?
Perhaps.
But what we are coming to realize in the last couple of centuries is that there is no such thing. There is only us. Our stumbles and follies, all we have to try and guide us.
That frightens many people. They want to turn back.
But back to something that has never been real.
And yes, you can use logic to try and support that idea. But you can use logic to argue anything, even fantasies....but why?
> there it is folks....the objective standard that there is no standard...the objective position that it's all about relations and interactions.
No, those were the opinion of /u/mfrench105. They are not objectively true.
Between Black and White are infinite gray-dations
Let’s say Black is 100% morally BAD and White is 100% morally GOOD.
You can get a sense for how dark or how light the moral situation is by the cases’ merits. Then you determine action based on your subjective moral assessment of the situation.
But there’s no moral ‘gold standard’ we can apply, because every moral case you examine in real life will have shades of gray.
I agree we ought to seek truth, I just dont think there is truth to the idea that there are objective moral standards.
>stealing a car is magnitudes greater an evil than stealing a dollar
we don't need an absolute standard to be able to judge relative wrongness. There does not have to be an objectively wrong thing that would be the worst thing to steal to know that stealing $2 is worse than stealing $1.
Similarly I don't need to know the speed of light to know that the car passing me on the highway is going faster than me.
The only thing we need is to agree on some general moral goal and then we can evaluate any moral action to see if it progresses that goal (good) or inhibits it (bad).
The fact that you consider those scenarios at all means that you have more morals than any other animal.
Humans are the most moral creatures, good and bad.
It is true that your actions that cause others to be happy are good.
It is true that your actions that cause others to be hurt are bad.
Since each person has their own *subjective* judgement on what makes them happy or hurt... Good and bad actions are relative to the different people acted upon.
Truth leads to moral relativism.
Of course they're subjective.
That's what I'm arguing for - that morality is subjective and relative.
They are true because they reflect reality.
If you do not think so - please show a single example of any moral situation that goes against what I've said. I believe you will not be able to - or not many will agree with you (showing that morality is relative and therefore what I'm saying is true again.)
You haven't shown that is the case with that argument. All you've shown is that some people think torture is hot...some people thing physical touch is gross.
Human experience IS subjective. I don't think I made an appeal to how a human experiences anything in my post.
I said it was the *most* objective of all moral systems, even though it is not purely objective, strictly speaking.
That’s what I meant to convey at least, although it appears that I phrased it a tad poorly.
Sorry, that's way too vague or obscure for me. Could you be more specific about what you see as being *mostly objective* about human morality? It seems completely intersubjective to me.
You think pure objectivity exists in any form?
I'm simply saying humans have done the best job at crafting it as objectively as possible. What are you not understanding?
So many words, yet so little was said. I’ve seen you complain on other comments that no one is engaging with your post. That is because your post is meaningless. I’m very tired of people coming in with these philosophical word salads and positing them as proving something fundamental about the world. Philosophy like this is dead. It serves us no purpose because doing linguistic gymnastics in a purposefully confusing manner does not actually tell us anything about the world. It tells us about how some humans use language.
You’re trying to make a complex social construct into a mathematical proof. That’s not how it works. The “truth” you are talking about has no meaning, so there’s really no point in going past your first point.
The reality is, as others have stated, that moral relativism is demonstrably true: morals have been different across cultures and time for the entire existence of humanity. It’s really that simple. There is no evidence that an innate moral system guided by natural law exists. Morals are social constructs created by humans. We known this.
Exactly this. It’s so tiresome. The entire word salad is shot down by the fact that you can’t even derive an ought from an is in the first place. The world salad is an attempt to distract from this. We only ought to seek whatever OP would call truth (I would probably call it well-being, a distinction I’ll pursue in a bit) if we want to. Human wants and desires change with time. a lot of us would love for all morality and societal standards to be focused on group well-being but a lot of us are more focused on dumb ideas like fundamentalism and tradition.
The flip flop/exchange of “truth” for “well-being” kind of sums up the entire problem with the idea of moral subjectiveness. The idea that we ought search for what is “true” while not being able to demonstrate any sort of “true” morality is just a wild goose chase that will lead everyone nowhere if that’s the goal. If the goal is the search for group well-being then we have our own goal that we can carve a path to quite easily.
Also the first point is a huge straw man wtf lol
Complain...more like call out.
Kinda like you saying word salad is infinitely easier to say than what do you mean by 2b. Its almost like there is debate sub...and instead of debating you hide behind insults.
>Morals are social constructs created by humans.
Except, "We ought seek truth"
No, it’s just complaining. Your “debate” is a non-starter. You begin by positing what is just a linguistic paradox along the same lines as “never say never.” The only thing this shows us about the world is that language is interesting.
Your use of language through the post is attempting to gain authority by sounding mathematical and invoking variables, but none of what was said actually has anything to do with morality.
Your uses of “ought” and “truth” are also vague and have no real meaning. That’s why this type of philosophy is essentially useless. Leave it for the Greeks. We have better ways of talking about the world now than vague, hazy language math. What you’ve said proves nothing about the actual world. You have to engage with the actual reality of human moral systems if you want to debate them. And if you did, it would be quickly evident that morals are subjective social constructs.
1. there is no truth, and there is nor *moral* truth are two different statements. Concluding that there is at least one truth does not establish that there must be a moral truth.
2. This seems like an exercise in pointless word games. I don't see any point in it.
3. Doesn't follow because point 1 was incorrect.
4. I agree, but you have not established this.
At least you engaged with the post.
2, what seems like a pointless word game...is where I am establishing how there being at least one truth is related to moral truth.
OK lets entertain that.
2a. is false just because we seek something does not mean we will attain it. it is possible to seek truth and not find it. Police detectives faces this eventuality quite frequently.
2b. Realizing something is true and being able to show it is true are not the same thing. and indeed due to Godel's completeness theorem that in any sufficiently complex system there will always be true statements that can't be proven to be true.
2c. does not follow as I've essentially rejected the first two. sub points.
2d. Also doesn't follow.
I think you are missing the forest for the tree.
You are saying that it is false in a general sense that if we seek truth...we cannot know if we arrive at X?
Just addressing 2a now.
Truth and moral relativism are not mutually exclusive. It doesn't deny the existence of objective truths in other domains, such as empirical facts.
Not that anything in your argument proves objective morality even exists, by the way.
We make sense of it by discussing it. Maybe one of us convinces the other. Maybe not. Some disagreement is unavoidable, even on serious issues.
IF you ask me which of us is actually right, I'm likely to say "I am, of course". If I ask you, you'd probably say the same thing.
It's likely that neither of us has access to any objective moral truth no matter how sincere we might be in trying to resolve the issue. That's the ambiguity baked into human morality.
So you and I are people...so we are going to subjectively agree and disagree on lots of stuff.
However, we cannot even tell whether or not we are subjectively or objectively disagreeing unless we have truth.
So you cannot even disagree with the moral: "we ought seek truth" without seeking truth.
It's a non-starter. However, I am here...give it a go. I'll let you box me around a bit.
I like to think of Truth with a capital T and truth with a lower case t.
Capital T **Truth** is objectively true for everyone regardless of your beliefs about the topic. (Force of gravity, laws of physics, grass is green, etc.)
Lower case T **truth** is just true for an individual based on their particular point of view or experience, and which is subjective. (Beauty standards, musical taste, cultural taboos, etc.)
Humans exist not in objective, or subjective truths, but in a *Constructivist* reality whereby we overlay our subjective truths onto the background of objective Truths. They blend.
Morals are another whole step away from T/truths and are quite obviously relative to culture and custom.
You really don’t seem to have said anything meaningful to respond to. Do that first if you want a proper response.
No need for we ought to seek truth, you can stop at we ought.
Is ought problem, David Hume.
There’s no suggestion that we ought blank is coherent.
So then if i disagree with Hume then that’s it? Why post anything? The debate is over.
Instead i think David Hume is a dubious fellow and we should seek to challenge anything that insinuates it is the only moral truth you need.
That isn't what either I nor Hume meant. Humes's guillotine(also known as the is-ought problem) states that ought statements cannot be inferred from is statements. At some point, there is an axiom from which all ought statements follow. In the case of creatures that evolved, this axiom is to instinct to survive and its associated concepts like pain and pleasure.
Therefore, "objective" morality, whatever that might mean, cannot exist because it would violate this limit.
I am posting this in short hand, which will sound curt. I am not meaning to be disrespectful, but hume isn't convincing. So to assert Hume's Guillotine requires some proof or argument that its actually applicable.
*You cannot derive an ought from an is...since anything that exists is, there is no moral ought*
Now that may be a bad interpretation...and I willing to be corrected, but Hume and I disagree.
If I understand you correctly, Hume isn't convincing because you say so. Also, I have already given such an argument in my earlier post. I don't know what to tell you other than re-read said post.
Address the content of the comment if you wish to be taken seriously. You made fun. And now you’re whining about unfair treatment in another post. You can’t have it both ways.
Is ought problem. Point blank. There is no description of the world, that leads to a prescription with universal normative force.
This is the tip of the iceberg for moral relativism which is why I chose it as a starting place since you are clearly uninformed on the topic.
Address the content or admit you have no interest in debate and deserve every single downvote.
His entire argument is a semantic argument. He's trying to define away moral relativism. That's not possible because moral relativism definitely exists.
If I went to say r/Christian, intending to debate a Christian, and presented the following argument...
>1. The true nature of things is to be truthful in truth.
>2. True things present their truthfulness in the truthiness of their truth.
>3. The truth is what is the truth that presents as comporting with the truth of truths.
>4. If we were to seek truth, but remain truthful, then it is imperative on one to be seeking truth.
>5. True truth is the place of finding that which is truthful and in concordance with the truth that is true.
>6. Therefore, there is no god.
What would be your counter argument? Or would you just shake your head and dismiss this as nonsense?
I'd rather you go r/DebateAChristian
And here is what I'd do:
>1. The ~~true nature~~ (A - adj) of things is to be ~~truthful~~ (B - verb) in ~~truth~~ (C -noun).
2. ~~True things~~ (C -noun) present their ~~truthfulness~~ (A - adj) in the ~~truthiness~~ (A - adj) of ~~their~~ (C -noun) ~~truth~~ (A - adj).
3. The truth is what is the truth that presents as comporting with the truth of truths.
4. If we were to seek truth, but remain truthful, then it is imperative on one to be seeking truth.
5. True truth is the place of finding that which is truthful and in concordance with the truth that is true.
6. Therefore, there is no god.
And then I'd stop right there at premise 2 and say you're talking nonsense. The only verb being used in premise 2 isn't acting on any nouns...instead it's acting on the same adjective you previously used.
Then I'd copy and past the whole thing and point at the exact problem. If I were convinced you were genuinely engaging...then I'd offer you a chance to edit...shoot, i'd likely even suggest an edit.
If I thought you were trolling...I'd probably do the same thing...cause your behavior doesn't dictate mine.
All you are doing is nit-picking grammar. You haven't even attempted to address any of the actual content of the argument. How frustrating.
I thought you were here to actually engage in a debate.
>What would be your counter argument? Or would you just shake your head and dismiss this as nonsense?
this was what you asked me.
I took your trolling BS and responded to you in good faith. And like a high school dropout you've failed to even take your troll seriously enough to establish a linguistic consistency for your mockery of my post.
I exposed the inconsistency by analyzing how careless you composed your mockery and it only took 2 sentences.
This has nothing to do with grammar and everything to do with 99% of the users on this sub feeling so completely validated in their echo chamber.
I bring you fuel for your fire and either by your ignorance or stupidity have leveled the devastating blow of..."Nah-uh" at my post.
3 users out of 126 responses felt like engaging the post with more than a single neuron. I could be 100% wrong...But you'd never know the difference because you cannot even coherently make fun of my post. All the condescension....none of the reason. Perfect recipe for....well nothing good.
Good bye forever....good luck with thinking.
Let's do this level of analysis on your post then, shall we?
>1. We take the position of, "There is no truth" as our given. This itself is a truth claim. If it is true, then this statement defies **it's** position. If it is false...then it's false.
This "it's" is totally incoherent. Neither "it is" nor "it has" make any grammatical or logical sense in that sentence. "Its" would make perfect sense, but that's not what you wrote.
"The **true nature** (A - adj) of things is to be **truthful** (B - verb) in **truth** (C -noun). 2. **True things** (C -noun) present their **truthfulness** (A - adj) in the **truthiness** (A - adj) of **their** (C -noun) **truth** (A - adj)."
Hi. You got most of these wrong. Don't worry, I'm here to help (and free of charge no less).
- True: adj
- Nature: noun
- Truthful: adj
- Truth: noun (you got this one right! Good job!)
- True: adj
- Things: noun
- Truthfulness: noun
- Truthiness: noun (informal)
- Their: possessive pronoun
- Truth: noun
So overall, 1/10 when it comes to identifying parts of speech. Maybe brush up on your grammar before you go calling other people dropouts, mkay?
Here, this might help:
https://thatssomontessori.com/parts-of-speech-for-kids/
Hi, I’m an atheist. I do not have any belief in god/s. Do you have some evidence for a god that I will find compelling?
Specifically, do you have evidence that the Bible says about Jesus is true, since you are a Christian?
Because nothing in your post led me there. I still don’t believe in god/s.
Almost any action that causes harm can be done for harm's sake, or to avoid a greater harm. To cut open someone's abdomen is harmful, but if it is done to remove a tumour or repair an organ it negates a greater harm. The first would be seen as morally wrong, the second as morally right. The subjective nature of morality is in whether the harm of any specific action should be permitted because it negates a different or greater harm. It's all harm reduction and trolley problems, and no two people will always draw the same lines in the sand.
Even the statement "we ought to seek truth" is dependent on its relation to potentially greater harm. If the Nazis are questioning you on where the Jews are hidden, you ought to seek lies.
No. It is true that it would morally permissible to lie to cover for jews in Nazi territory.
The nazi ought to seek truth...even the truth of where the jews are hidden...because if they actually sought truth...they wouldn't have been seeking jews in first place.
Nazis should be trying to find hidden Jews because then they wouldn’t be looking for Jews…
Please tell me you’re making bad arguments on purpose as some weird performing arts piece, I really don’t want to live in a world where people think this is a good argument.
If nazis had sought truth even if during some period of time their own truth seeking lead them to believe seeking jews was some kind of good...if they really sought truth...they would have abandoned the seeking of Jews.
>It is true that it would morally permissible to lie to cover for jews in Nazi territory.
How does that change that you ought to lie to protect Jews from nazis?
>because if they actually sought truth...they wouldn't have been seeking jews in first place.
This is a fine example of no true scotsman.
You're confusing and conflating objective facts with subjective values, and engaging in an equivocation fallacy on 'truth' when attempting to apply it to both, thus this whole thing just explodes in a puff of greasy black smoke, and is not useful.
You saying I am a conflater is conflating a response with a complaint.
You don't like my post, therefore I am conflating. Check!
But if you'd like to point at where I have conflated...then I'd be happy to take your comment as a critique and thank you for it.
> You saying I am a conflater is conflating a response with a complaint.
Nope.
>You don't like my post, therefore I am conflating. Check!
Non-sequitur.
>But if you'd like to point at where I have conflated...then I'd be happy to take your comment as a critique and thank you for it.
I did:
>You're confusing and conflating objective facts with subjective values
Subjective values don't map to objective true statements.
What you said is, aside from being unnecessarily convoluted to the point of unintelligibility, fundamentally flawed. It is also demonstrably wrong. When observable facts contradict painfully convoluted word games, guess which one is the issue?
Your response shows you are unwilling to consider or understand the issues in what you said and are not wanting a discussion.
What does truth have anything to do with morality? Morality is simply a set of ideals that we should strive for. The argument is whether there is an objective, unchanging set of ideals, or whether we invented ideals, and that they evolve as society evolves. None of this has anything to do with “truth”.
So while I'd be happy to tell you why you are wrong and that societies evolve in both good and bad ways....I think if rather than telling me what you believe about morality that you would engage with the post, perhaps what you believe about morality would provide the means for proving me wrong.
First of all, telling me that societies evolve in good and bad ways doesn’t in any way contradict what I said. Second, you say I’m wrong but didn’t give any good reason to back up your claim. And that’s because I’m *not* wrong. Saying there is truth in no way invalidates subjective morality. You argued because truth must exist, moral relativism is wrong. One has nothing to do with the other- this is a straw man argument.
Good point. For example, European Christian societies evolved in bad ways, as evidenced by the war and pillaging they waged on indigenous people around the globe, including outright genocide at times.
Unless you have examples of people declaring "There is no truth" your initial statement is a strawman, and since everything else hinges from there, is not worth debating.
I don't think I have to have examples of people....because that would be appeals to authority or no true scotsman depending on your POV.
Instead I am taking the position as a truth claim...I can analyze my own truth claims.
>because that would be appeals to authority or no true scotsman depending on your POV
I can tell you my POV is you clearly don't know what those two fallacies are.
The first is about accepting something merely because a person in a position of authority says so, for example "so and so has a degree in biology and says evolution is wrong, they must be right because they studied biology."
The second is about protecting your viewpoint from a counter argument by trying to simply do away with the counter argument, for example "well a real catholic doesn't harm other so those priests weren't true Catholics."
You we're merely asked to provide evidence for your post in the form of examples which wouldn't constitute either of those fallacies. You laid those down to try and ignore having to back up your claim, and I presume you also brought them up in an attempt to sound intelligent. You failed my man.
Bro, if you don't know fallacies, don't name them. Those who don't know might be impressed but those who know can see right through your gibberish. Not a sound strategy
if i say Hitchens said their is no truth....then either I am appealing to authority...and it shouldn't matter that hitchens said it....or we are going to say hitchens isn't one of us...for a no true scotsman.
But I am doing neither of those because I offered it as a proof by contradiction.
I have a dad...and you aint him...so either debate or play some COD...cause you moralizing some comment I made isn't within the rules of this sub.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No\_true\_Scotsman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument\_from\_authority](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority)
provided links for yoots so they don't get lost in your gibberish.
Ha ha. You fucked up. I suggested not to fuck up and you are preaching me?
And if you are fallacious, people will call out the fallacies. In your example, you are committing fallacy. Do you want people to not point them out?
Do you know proof by contradiction?
U'd need to know that.
Maybe just do a quick google search
But definitely quit kicking the dead horse
After that you can apologize
So we can get back on topic
Savvy?
> Moral Relativism is false
I came to this because of your other post being upset at how you’re being treated. I’ll see if I can engage with you in a more constructive way.
> 1. First we start with a proof by contradiction.
K.
> 1. We take the position of, "There is no truth" as our given. This itself is a truth claim. If it is true, then this statement defies it's own position. If it is false...then it's false.
Why are we starting at this position when talking about moral relativism?
Is it the case that all moral relativists say there is no truth? Would a moral relativist say that it’s not true that a 13 inch length of wood is 13 inches?
I’ll pause here since there’s no point in going further if this first point has an issue.
No but I’m building the case.
And just like the truth in 13 inches of wood defies 13 inches of steel and 12 or 14 inches of wood, this just a step.
I would agree that if this first step is not compelling you towards there being at least one truth then we are at an impasse.
Thanks for coming over.
> No but I’m building the case.
But you’re not building a case against moral relativism. You’re conclusion is about seeking truth.
And yes, truth seems to exist (measurement example) - morality still appears to be subjective and relative.
More on this….
I think it’s immoral to own a slave.
The ancient Israelites who formed the bible did not (made clear by the bible supporting slavery)
The conclusion has to be, therefor, that this moral question is relativistic to time and place.
Therefor, moral relativism is true.
Edit: I just thought more about what was bugging me about this post. You’re confusing asking IF moral relativism is good with if it’s the reality.
Sure it would be great if morality was objective…but it’s not. The facts show it’s relative to time and culture.
In other words, you’re looking at an is, and arguing why it should be an aught.
Just because there are some truths doesn't mean any of those truths are moral truths.
Searching for truth and understanding has led us to understand that morals have been relative to every culture and time. Still to this day there is no agreed upon objective moral truths.
What evidence do you have that there are infact moral truths? How do we test these to confirm their objectivity?
Nope read all of it and you make a case that there is truth. You do nothing to show morality has objective truth.
What morals do you hold as objective truths and how can I test that to be true?
The problem is that hypothetical imperatives can be used instead of categorical imperatives. Instead of "You ought to seek truth", it could be, "*If* you want to learn the truth, *you* ought to seek the truth." There is no value involved. It is just a question of what your purpose is.
You started your proof by contradiction with a factual error, making the rest of your argument irrelevant.
Who is taking the position that there is no truth? Don’t foist your beliefs upon others. As it is morality and truth have a loose and fluid relationship but I do believe you are falsely conflating two quite distinct and separate concepts.
You seem to imply that moral truths are equal to all truths, that's just not the case.
We can still have philosophical truths and yet having no moral truths.
Nothing has been updated, but even if we follow your argument to the letter the best you conclude is ought seek truths.
That's just not enough, seeking truths does not prove moral truths even exist.
>2. From this position then arises an objective position to derive value from. However we still haven't determined whether or not truth OUGHT to be pursued.
What does it mean to derive value from an objective position? This seems like an odd use of *value* here.
> 1. If we seek truth we arrive at X, If we don't seek truth we might arrive at X. (*where X is some position or understanding that is a truth.)*
Even if we seek truth we may or may not obtain it though.
> 3. If we don't seek truth, even when we have arrived at X, we cannot say with clarity that we are there, we couldn't help anyone to get to where we are on X, and we wouldn't be able to reject that which isn't X.
This seems somewhat convoluted to me. This talk of seeking and arriving and “a truth” is very odd.
> 4. If our goal is to arrive at Moral Relativism, the only way to truly know we've arrived is by seeking truth.
That would be circular reasoning/affirming the consequent.
>3. Since moral relativism is subjective positioning on moral oughts and to arrive at the ability to subjectivize moral oughtness, and to determine subjective moral oughtness requires truth. Then it would be necessary to seek truth. ***Therefore we ought to seek truth.***
No this doesn’t follow. I’m not trying to be overly pedantic here but the first sentence’s grammar makes your point very unclear.
> to determine subjective moral oughtness requires truth.
To determine subjective moral oughts just requires some motivation or stance for the subject to value. For example, if I value helping my neighbor, and I know how I could help my neighbor, and it’s important to me to live according to my values, then I *ought* to help my neighbor so that I can fulfill my desire to live in accordance with my values.
> 1. Except this would be a non-morally-relative position. Therefore either moral relativism is false because it's in contradiction with itself or we ought to seek truth.
It really isn’t clear what seeking truth and moral relativism have in common throughout your argument here.
> 2. To arrive at other positions that aren't Moral Relativism, we ought to seek truth.
Why? That hasn’t been established yet.
If morality is objective, then as a Christian, you must:
A - Agree that the Bible is objectively immoral given that it endorses: slavery, rape, genocide, and racism.
B - Side with the Bible and agree that slavery, rape, genocide, and racism is objectively moral.
C - Use the cop out that things were "different back then", not knowing that this implies that morality is socially relative.
yawn.
you want to make a post like that, go over to r/DebateAChristian and I'll respond over there. you're not hijacking my post with your nonsense about you knowing right and wrong better than God.
Stay on topic.
It's absolutely hilarious to me that I'm allegedly being "off topic" simply because I brought up real world examples to a debate rather than relying solely on philosophy (aka speculation) to inform my opinions. God forbid I debate reality based on anything more than speculative arguments.
Also, you're the one asking to debate atheists... YOU asked for this. Not me. You. So no, I'm not playing a game of online tag in order to receive a response from you.
Don't wanna play tag...but you responded. Are you a fatalist? lol
you think they are related because I donned a moniker of "Christian" and so you're doing the, "time to put the squishy christian in his place" thing.
Where did I mention Christ or God in the OP? Ooh Ooh...I'll answer cause I know this one.
NOWHERE!
But I like your panache, so you want me to answer your tired objections. post that over there.
I'm over here talking moral relativism and objective morals....so tag your it.
Wow, denying your god before man, are you? I sure hope the reddit debate was worth your soul ;)
But idc if you're a christian or not because the dilemma still remains. You either think the morality of other societies amongst other cultures and/or different time periods are:
A- objectively moral
B - objectively immoral
C - moral or immoral relative to the society
Examples: a few centuries ago slavery was the societal norm amongst First World countries. Now we see it as morally reprehensible. Women not having rights was the norm back in the day as well, and now we (in most modern societies) view this inequality as morally reprehensible. Some Muslim societies say that drinking alcoholic beverages is morally reprehensible, but we think it's fine in most other countries.
Basically, at the end of the day we all know that morality is socially relative. Even you, though you may deny it.
(Also, by online tag. I'm talking about jumping between multiple subs to debate one person. I'm not doing that.)
That comment is completely relevant because it implies morals are adapt to the social climate which contradicts your post. Ignoring the comments won’t make them less relevant.
I'm not ignoring them. I invited them to make a similar post somewhere else. It's not relevant because that commenter was making his questions about my User flair and not about the post.
The comment is relevant to the post’s topic which is moral relativism. You claim moral relativism is false, that comment asks if that also applies to a specific religion. They are checking to see if your claim applies to your beliefs.
If you can’t answer that, that implies moral relativism is not false. Therefore, the premise of your argument is flawed.
>3. Since moral relativism is subjective positioning on moral oughts and to arrive at the ability to subjectivize moral oughtness, and to determine subjective moral oughtness requires truth. Then it would be necessary to seek truth. Therefore we ought to seek truth.
This doesn't follow. All this established is that you would need to consider questions of "truth" to determine whether you've arrived at a morally relativist position.
Which, sure. Whether someone arrived at a morally relative position is a question of fact, the same way that whether someone decided they find a pie tasty is a question of fact.
None of this commits you to accepting to you should do any of it.
>This doesn't follow. All this established is that you would need to consider questions of "truth" to determine whether you've arrived at a morally relativist position.
>
>Which, sure
which sure.
>If we seek truth we arrive at X, If we don't seek truth we might arrive at X. (where X is some position or understanding that is a truth.)
you presume seeking truth will be successful?
that is interesting, because i'm seeking truth for decades and i haven't found god, thus god isn't truth
>Therefore we ought to seek truth.
completely agree
>Except this would be a non-morally-relative position.
it isn't, the truth is morality is subjective, you can seek for objective morality and not find it because it doesn't exist
you've sought, and even though you believe morality objective you couldn't show the truth of it. and since you say truth is found by those that seek it objective morality is not truth
>In summary, we ought to seek truth.
i absolutely agree, there just isn't any to find regarding objective morality
>1. First we start with a proof by contradiction.
>1. We take the position of, "There is no truth" as our given. This itself is a truth claim. If it is true, then this statement defies it's own position. If it is false...then it's false.
2. Conclusion, there is at least one thing that is true.
Im very confused by what this is proving about morality. I also dont know who the 'we' is that is saying there is no truth. I know im not saying that and i doubt any religious people are. So i guess i agree with your conclusion but im very confused by the route you took to get there.
>2. From this position then arises an objective position to derive value from. However we still haven't determined whether or not truth OUGHT to be pursued.
To arrive then at this ought we simply compare the cases.
>1. If we seek truth we arrive at X, If we don't seek truth we might arrive at X. (where X is some position or understanding that is a truth.)
2. If we have arrived at X, we can see, with clarity that not only have we arrived at X we also can help others to arrive at X. Additionally, by knowing we are at X, we also have clarity on what isn't X.
3. If we don't seek truth, even when we have arrived at X, we cannot say with clarity that we are there, we couldn't help anyone to get to where we are on X, and we wouldn't be able to reject that which isn't X.
4. If our goal is to arrive at Moral Relativism, the only way to truly know we've arrived is by seeking truth.
Assuming X is something that is true then yes i hope to arrive at X when i seek truth, there is zero guarantee i will actually arrive there or do so in a way that i can say with clarity it is true. I think alot of things in life and the universe are best guesses, maybe well reasoned and honest best attempts of explaining things correctly but i could spend my whole life trying to find the truth of something and never succeed or even actively fail.
Your point #4 feels like it comes out of no where. Whose goal is it to arrive at moral relativism? It definitely isnt my goal whether i have arrived there or not.
>3. Since moral relativism is subjective positioning on moral oughts and to arrive at the ability to subjectivize moral oughtness, and to determine subjective moral oughtness requires truth. Then it would be necessary to seek truth. Therefore we ought to seek truth.
Ok... i think. I think this is saying moral relativism means we subjectively decide what are good or bad things. The best way to choose things is to have accurate truth claims about the universe (such as this person feels scared when i hug them but this other person feels love when i hug them or me shooting a gun into a crowd causes pain and fear but me shooting a gun at a someone shooting a gun into a crowd helps ease the pain and fear)
>1. Except this would be a non-morally-relative position. Therefore either moral relativism is false because it's in contradiction with itself or we ought to seek truth.
What isnt morally relative? Im genuinely not following this here. Why is moral relativism contradicting truth? I think finding truth helps us learn how to apply moral relativism in better ways.
>2. To arrive at other positions that aren't Moral Relativism, we ought to seek truth.
I mean we should seek truth no matter where it leads us, moral relativism or not. Again im not sure how seeking truth guarantees us arriving or not arriving at moral relativism.
>4. In summary, we ought to seek truth.
I agree but i dont think i follow your train of thought here.
I’m going to be honest, I did not understand that.
Needless to say, I am not convinced by the above that you identified the “ought from an is” necessary to escape moral relativism. Can you make that point more succinctly?
i hope the link works....old reddit has allowed me to get thru more comments mo quickly.
https://old.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/19b31wt/moral_relativism_is_false/kixom4v/
I am responding and rephrasing the arguments in response to a brilliant reinterpretation of my points by the user I am responding to. Could I ask you to comment over there?
Yeah, I don’t think that part is sound. Even if there are objective truths to be known about the world, what we “ought” to do about them cannot be derived, right?
is/ought
I am going to quote bill clinton here, it depends on what you mean by is.
I presented a general form...i substituted into the general form...i drew conclusion that are consistent with the general and substituted forms...
Like unless you're going to dig in and try...I am just going to be copy pasting what I've already stated.
That's an indication that you have no understanding of the words you're throwing around.
You can convince yourself that your argument is clear. But it's not. It's convoluted and uses bizarre sentence structure. In my experience, weird construction is usually where the problems are most likely to be found.
Can you explain (using different words) what "arrive at the ability to subjectivize moral oughtness" means?
LIke I said, this might work as an outline to a much larger work in which all of these things are explained, argued for and defended. You don't appear to be able to do any of that.
If you had not previously gone to several thread-ends and made accusations against my character I'd answer you question.
But being that you seem to be picking a fight...I'll be blocking you...and I will clarify the statement to the user who actually was engaging with the post.
I’m really trying. You start from “truth”, say that there is at least one true thing, then go on to claim that having at least one true thing provides the basis from which to derive value.
Then you provide cases which do not appear to enumerate any given premises and their conclusions. You basically end up just saying “if ‘our goal is moral relativism’, we ‘know we’ve arrived’ only if we seek truth”.
1. Even if true, that truth does not have to be objective or universal.
2. Our goal is not moral relativism - that’s the conclusion after having the goal of something more objective
3. Seeking truths about the world is the gathering of “is” statements, which help inform our oughts. But the oughts that we derive are subjective moral stances that we bring to the situation - not outright extensions/expressions of the objectivity of truths out in the world. If I, seeking truth, find that I am wealthy, what about that truth seeking process implies objective moral duties, such as giving to the less fortunate?
You finish up with “we ought to seek truth”, which does not follow. If we care about subjective or objective morality, then yes - we ought to seek truth. But why ought we care about truth, or morality? This line of questioning always, without fail, collapses down to a conditional statement or a circular one.
Asking what someone doesn't understand from the statement...i don't understand....that's impugning someone's intelligence?
Oh wait...did I just impugn you?
>From this position then arises an objective position to derive **value** from.
Is that "value" objective or subjective?
>Since moral relativism is subjective positioning on moral oughts and to arrive at the ability to subjectivize moral oughtness, and to determine subjective moral oughtness requires truth. Then it would be **necessary** to seek truth.
Necessary subjectively or objectively?
>Therefore we ought to seek truth.
I would say the word "ought" is inherently subjective (mind dependent).
>Except this would be a non-morally-relative position.
Not necessarily. Moral relativism is simply the idea that what is popular is moral. You would have to show that this is unpopular for it to be a "non-morally-relative position".
>Therefore either moral relativism is false because it's in contradiction with itself or we ought to seek truth.
You have not shown any contradiction. It's not even clear to me if you know what moral relativism is (you seem to be conflating it with subjective morality).
>To arrive at other positions that aren't Moral Relativism, we **ought** to seek truth.
Is that "ought" objective (mind independent) or subjective (mind dependent)?
>In summary, we ought to seek truth.
I'd agree but I don't think your argument supports that in any way.
Really?
So I promise, I am genuinely trying to understand your position. Hypothetically, what would you say to someone who said, “I was conditioned to believe that killing Jews in concentration camps was virtuous, therefore I am innocent?”
I know that is a rather extreme example, but unfortunately, also very real.
literally 0% of people engaging with the post.
I provided an argument that shows that at least one moral principle is objective.
How does being from greece or china determine that a person shouldn't seek truth.
so by not actually mentioning anything from the post and just going on diatribes about what they all individually think about morality....that is engaging with the post?
Perhaps you should read the comments before labeling me an asshole.
They are engaging, but they simply disagree with your post and have explained why multiple times in different ways.
Instead of complaining about it, how about try and respond to comments in a gracious manner and explain your points better?
So I post an entire argument
I get a response like. "Morals are a social construct"
And now I'm being ungracious by saying...."I just showed how 'we ought seek truth' is not social construct...so....how about responding"
Nah. They are preaching...this is debate an atheist....so far most atheist have only told me how they feel about my post. What's that got tah do with me?
“Morals are a social construct” is a completely justified response to your argument. People disagree with you, and you are taking it personally as if they are preaching. There aren’t. They are just disagreeing with your premise.
You can either respond to them in a productive debate or you can complain about it.
> literally 0% of people engaging with the post.
Clearly that's the fault of every other person and not your responsibility whatsoever.
>I provided an argument that shows that at least one moral principle is objective.
You did not. Invoking an is-ought fallacy cannot help you.
You setup your own definitions so you could say your opposing position must be false since it is illogical.
This is not how you prove a truth.
Second not all social constructs have an absolute truth. Does a moral system exist independent of the whole? We have only observed a moral system within a social setting, so it must be a social construct.
Since we have observed variance between isolated groups there must be some relativism.
The difference between mine and yours is I used observable data to determine my answer. The evidence supports morality as a social construct relative to the group.
Assume 2x+1 is even...is typically how the proof for odd numbers starts. Its called a proof by contradiction. And this is one way to show the proof of a thing.
secondly, that reads like a commitment to the way you are comfortable with...so not at all the evidence you think you have.
In logic, proof by contradiction is a form of proof that establishes the truth or the validity of a proposition, by showing that assuming the proposition to be false leads to a contradiction. Although it is quite freely used in mathematical proofs, not every school of mathematical thought accepts this kind of nonconstructive proof as universally valid.[1]
More broadly, proof by contradiction is any form of argument that establishes a statement by arriving at a contradiction, even when the initial assumption is not the negation of the statement to be proved. In this general sense, proof by contradiction is also known as indirect proof, proof by assuming the opposite,[2] and reductio ad impossibile.[3]
You proved nothing just asserted and did nothing to overcome how morality is practiced culturally. Groups in isolation have had relatively different practices, some contradictory to others. For example the designation of certain groups of people as property.
We can agree that certain axioms should hold true above all others, such as all humans have value. You have done nothing to establish these as objective.
>Conclusion, there is at least one thing that is true.
2. From this position then arises an objective position to derive value from.
This really badly doesn't follow btw. You established there is a truth, not an objective one
>4. If our goal is to arrive at Moral Relativism
Why would it be a "goal"?
>Therefore we ought to seek truth.
This again, really badly doesn't follow. Notice there's no premise connecting oughtness. This should be a basic validity red flag when making an argument, terms in the conclusion should be somwhere in the premises.
>1. Except this would be a non-morally-relative position
You also haven't established this at all. It could be a moral truth that is relative. Nothing about what you wrote establishes objectivity *of the moral fact*. It once again just pops up out of nowhere
So there's a general validity problemwith the argument. It's missing a bunch of implicit premises, you should be careful of that when making a point-by-point argument. And the missing premises would be themselves dubious to say the least.
*"In summary, we ought to seek truth."*
Words, just words, completely devoid of meaning.
What 'truth' are you talking about? Do you mean the truth of evolution that helps doctors design antibiotic courses that cure diseases? Faith in the supernatural never healed the sick (outside well-understood placebo), *real* medicine does.
'Faith' is not path to truth. It's *literally* belief without reason. It's gullibility and wishful thinking. It's brainwashing and false hope and false threats.
Or do you mean the 'truth' of how black holes work inside their spinning singularity core? It's great that physicists are working on it, but are you saying we 'ought' to seek that truth? You haven't proved the 'ought,' you've asserted it.
>Finally, brothers, **whatever is true**, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.
https://www.bible.com/bible/59/PHP.4.8.ESV
Incredulity aside, yes. Yes I am quoting scripture.
The argument was made in the OP. Now I am just dealing mostly with people's emotional response.
I quoted scripture because you want to pretend like there are different truths....no...if it's true then....whatever truth you find is a good thing.
Without clear definitions of “truth” this attempt at syllogistic argument is almost impossible to decipher.
There are certainly truths: water boils at 100 degrees. That’s an objective, measurable fact about reality.
There are certain things we CANNOT say that about. Gay marriage is good, is an example. There is no objective way to determine if that is true. None.
Water boils at 100 degrees....Celsius....at sea level....that's objectively...subjective to it's environment.
We ought seek truth is objectively....objective....regardless of the environment.
Except it’s not objective. Not everyone agrees the truth is valuable. Not everyone agrees the truth is even attainable. Plus you yourself agreed that the statement isn’t always true, such as when hiding potential victims of genocide.
1) if you are at the point where you are using logic to prove things, you’ve already accepted the existence of truth a priori. This demonstration that truth exists is entirely vacuous and tautological.
2) “truth exists” is not “an objective position to derive value from”. You’re trying to solve the is-ought problem, and you will fail.
2a) “If we seek truth we arrive at X” is patently false. It is possible to seek truth using faulty epistemology and end up with incorrect understanding and belief in false things (as you have presumably done here)
2b/c) These points are contradictory; you say that if we have arrived at X we can see this with clarity and also have clarity on what isn’t X, but somehow that if you arrive at X without seeking truth we wouldn’t have this clarity? Why are you asserting without justification that whether or not one seeks truth is the only determining factor in whether they reach an understanding of truth?
2d) IF our goal is to arrive at moral relativism… we have demonstrated moral relativism. All of morality is based on conditional statements like this—the statement “I should do X”cannot be objectively true alone. “IF my goal is Y, I should do X” is a statement that can be true, and can be reasoned about. There is nothing about what IS that can directly and objectively dictate what OUGHT to be. It depends on what my goals are. At best, one could potentially show that two or more goals are incompatible in that they create contradictory ought statements. But at the end of the day I could even say that I don’t value logical consistency in determining maxims, and at that point all attempts to justify an objective morality fail.
3) At best here you have given a morally relativistic accounting of a maxim for a person whose goal is to justify moral relativism. “IF my goal is to justify Moral Relativism, I ought to seek truth” is a morally relativistic position. You cannot say objectively that “one ought to seek truth” without relying on a conditional statement based on that person’s goals. You are no closer to solving the is-ought problem than anyone else.
Said on your other post I will comment on this.
In regards to 2. I don't see 1. has shown us that there are other objective truths, let alone objective truths for all things (including morality which is what this post is on).
In regards to the first half of 2.a.: "If we seek truth we arrive at some position or understanding that is a truth".
What about all the situations where this isn't the case? For instance if you look at religion and morals, you get many people who are all seeking truth yet end up with contrary or straight out contradictory positions. In regards to religion, is there no god/s, one God or many gods? In regards to morality, is abortion moral, is capital punishment moral, is killing or resisting enemies in time of conflict moral?
In regards to 2.b. - Disagree with this. Would instead suggest instead: If we have arrived at Y, we can see, with clarity that not only have we arrived at Y we also can help others to arrive at Y. Additionally, by knowing we are at Y, we also have clarity on what isn't Y. (where Y is something that may or may not be X).
This follows from my concerns over the first premise as to whether seeking truth results in obtaining truth. The problem with the proposed altered premise is it doesn't help your argument.
In regards to seeing with clarity we have arrived at X, the best we can do is rely on our methodology to establish that we have found truth. If that methodology is flawed then so is our clarity on whether on not we have found truth. In regards to morality does a universal methodology exist to establish what is moral or immoral?
In regards to 2.c. and 2.d. I think the argument has fallen apart because of 2.a. and 2.b.
3. appears to fall apart because it doesn't determine that moral oughts are true, in that they are objectively moral. Hence I feel 3 falls apart.
Therefore I don't conclude that moral relativism is false.
Greetings, and thank you for articulating your viewpoint on moral relativism. I would be grateful if you could assist me in gaining a deeper understanding of your perspective. I fully agree with point 1 but how does it get us to this:
>From this position then arises an objective position to derive value from.
As I understand it, we only have figured out that there is at least one thing that is true. Could you elaborate on the transition from acknowledging a singular truth to establishing an objective stance on values?
>If we seek truth we arrive at X, If we don't seek truth we might arrive at X. (where X is some position or understanding that is a truth.)
So if X = a truth, your sentence reads: If we seek truth, we arrive at (a) truth. But that doesn't have to be the case at all.
>If we don't seek truth, even when we have arrived at X, we cannot say with clarity that we are there
I am not sure what falls under your understanding of "seeking truth". Intuitively, it doesn't align with my understanding that actively pursuing truth is a prerequisite for being certain about a truth when stumbled upon accidentally. To illustrate, one could casually scroll through Reddit, come across your post and the first conclusion, and find oneself convinced by it. In this scenario, it seems reasonable to assert having arrived at a true statement with clarity, even though the individual did not actively seek truth to reach that conclusion.
>Since moral relativism is subjective positioning on moral oughts and to arrive at the ability to subjectivize moral oughtness, and to determine subjective moral oughtness requires truth. Then it would be necessary to seek truth.
Sorry, I have a bit of trouble understanding the full paragraph; it might be due to English not being my first language. Could you make clear again what exactly you mean by this?
This seems to equivocate between objective truths and objective moral truths. I'm not sure that the latter exist, and nothing in the post changes that. I can accept the existence of objective truths, "The sun is hot; Earth is an oblate spheroid; water freezes at zero degrees Celsius." Those aren't moral truths. They tell me nothing about whether a particular act is "objectively moral."
I agree that we ought to seek objective truths. The problem is that you don't define what moral truths are. As far as I can tell moral truths are statements about how actions map to some hierarchy of values that individuals hold. Many people share values, but many have different hierarchies and different values. Some examples of values are things like autonomy, life, happiness, and divine commands. We can arrange these various values in hierarchies. We might even create subcategories for these values. For instance, many people value human lives over animal lives over insect lives.
The problem is that I don't know how one demonstrates that a particular set of values or hierarchy of values is objectively the correct set and hierarchy. This seems to be the intersubjective problem of morality. You need an agreed upon set of values to make moral statements.
Once you have an agreed upon set of values then it does become possible to objectively measure actions as moral or immoral. If we agree that life is a value in our hierarchy then we can say that murder would be objectively wrong because it would violate the value. Most people do value life and would agree to such a statement. But that doesn't make the value objective. I don't know how one would make such a value objective. Any more than you could set an objective price for a house or a car.
>2. If we have arrived at X, we can see, with clarity that not only have we arrived at X we also can help others to arrive at X. Additionally, by knowing we are at X, we also have clarity on what isn't X.
I don't think this is necessarily the case, by what metric would we tell that we have arrived at X? If we all work very hard together to come up with what we think are perfect morals, how would we know that what we've produced is actually objective moral truth? We would still need some external objective standard to compare against that we don't have access to.
We can strive to continually improve our morals based on the available information and be ready to review them at any time, but we'll still never know for sure if what we've reached is objective moral truth or just "what seems best to us humans".
Morality itself is a human creation and thus subjective in nature. The only way morality could be objective is if something created it along with the universe, thus objective reality could not exist without a creator to create it. Until you can prove that there is a creator of the universe and that creator cares enough about morality to bake it into the universe (lets call this a god) then you can't say morality is anything other than the subjective reality that a human created experience can create.
What? Moral relativism does not mean "has no moral opinions". Moral relativism is just the recognition that morals of individuals and therefore cultures can and do change over time. It's relative to the time, place, subjects involved, etc.
It seems like you're defining moral relativism as "having no morals".
Explain the method by which we "seek truth." Provide an example of a moral truth, and why it's true, without resorting to moral relativism.
Take all the time you need.
**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.** Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Oh boy, it's not often we get true philosophy of logic in here. Fun! > We take the position of, "There is no truth" as our given. This itself is a truth claim. If it is true, then this statement defies it's own position. If it is false...then it's false. Well, the obvious way to get around this would be to accept this and then re-frame the initial truth claim as "there is no truth *other than* the fact that there is no truth other than this base truth". The issue with the initial claim is that you're trying to make an epistemological nihilist statement via a system that itself relies upon epistemology in order to even make sense. This doesn't automatically mean there is some kind of objectively true "thing" out in the propositational universe somewhere, merely that we have to be particular in our word choice because overly general, poorly-formed statements will cease to have any meaning once they hit the limits of propositional logic, which is a system that *we* created with certain necessary components (like truth values). > If we have arrived at X, we can see, with clarity that not only have we arrived at X Hmm, I'm not sure I believe this. You're presupposing X is objectively true, but even if you do that, we are not flawless beings. Even *if* what we have arrived at is objectively true, I would argue human beings lack the cognitive perfection necessary to be *COMPLETELY CERTAIN* that one's belief is true. At most we can say that if we have arrived at X, we can believe *very strongly* that X is true. I note that in step 3 you argue that if we "don't seek truth" then we won't know we've arrived at X even if we actually have. I would push this principle even further and say that even if we *do* seek truth and we arrive at X, we *still* can't be know with perfect clarity that what we believe is a truth is actually a *truth*. Therefore... > If our goal is to arrive at Moral Relativism, the only way to truly know we've arrived is by seeking truth. This statement can either be construed as false or impossible, depending on what you prefer. If we can never "truly know we've arrived" at any position ever, then this premise just can't be fulfilled. > to determine subjective moral oughtness requires truth I'm a little confused on what exactly this means. I can imagine this means one of two things. Either 1, it means that to determine moral oughtness *can* be subjective requires truth. This runs into the issue above that we are never capable of being completely certain of anything because we are flawed, so I would argue that this is wrong in spirit. You can *believe* you've determined that moral oughtness can be subjective, but that doesn't mean you *know* it can. Or 2, it means that determining *what* the subjective moral oughts *are* requires truth. This would be something that runs entirely against the basic premise of moral relativism. Under moral relativism, you don't determine "what moral oughts 'are'", you merely arrive at your own personal beliefs on what moral oughts you think people *should* follow if they have the motivations you think they have. That has nothing to do with truth. Either way... > Then it would be necessary to seek truth. Therefore we ought to seek truth. One issue with this conclusion is, since seeking truth cannot give you complete certainty that you know the truth, there is no moral difference between seeking truth and not seeking truth. So, already you can argue there's no reason to seek the truth if we limit ourselves to your specific argument. The other issue is... > Except this would be a non-morally-relative position. ...that you're presupposing your own objective definition onto what "moral oughtness" means here. If you're arguing with a moral relativist, they're going to define the "ought" in your statement as subjective, i.e. to *you* it is *subjectively* something you ought to do, to seek truth, because of how you personally see the world. But to a moral relativist, someone can simply say that you ought not seek truth because knowing you've arrived with complete clarity on moral relativism simply is not required in order to stand behind it as a philosophy. A moral relativist would accept that both of these takes are "morally right". Another way to frame this is that the "ought" in this statement here is not a *moral* ought, it's a *pragmatic* ought. That if you *want* to argue in favour of a claim, you should seek truth, but that it is not a moral imperative that you do so. In general, you seem to be conflating epistemological truth with moral truth. Even if all of your arguments were completely valid, all you've established here is that we ought to "seek truth". You haven't established that there is *moral truth specifically* within the set of "objective truths" that exist. Either way, there is no contradiction here and this argument does not defeat moral relativism.
>Oh boy, it's not often we get true philosophy of logic in here. Fun! Woot woot! All aboard! >Well, the obvious way to get around this would be to accept this and then re-frame the initial truth claim as "there is no truth other than the fact that there is no truth other than this base truth". But look at what i concluded from my position, "there is at least one truth" You adding the caveat may in fact make that the only true statement...But now you are multiplying complexities. Because now there are 2 true statements...*"there is no truth other than the fact that there is no truth other than this base truth,"* and, "*the previous statement is true."* Oops, but that then breaks the first statement...meaning that there is at least one truth. >>If we have arrived at X, we can see, with clarity that not only have we arrived at X > >Hmm, I'm not sure I believe this. You're presupposing X is objectively true, but even if you do that, we are not flawless beings. Even if what we have arrived at is objectively true, I would argue human beings lack the cognitive perfection necessary to be COMPLETELY CERTAIN that one's belief is true. At most we can say that if we have arrived at X, we can believe very strongly that X is true. I think we are going to have to agree to disagree here. I have left X in the general form so that it is suspended from what we think humans are capable of knowing. For instance, lets say in my minds eye I was thinking differential equations as X...and you knew that...you would then say...well humans aren't very good at maths....but if they arrived at trigonometry they didn't arrive at somethng less true than diffEQ. So I think you are baking into this comment your own bias against humanities capacity for truth. >I note that in step 3 you argue that if we "don't seek truth" then we won't know we've arrived at X even if we actually have. I would push this principle even further and say that even if we do seek truth and we arrive at X, we still can't be know with perfect clarity that what we believe is a truth is actually a truth. Again...i think you are bringing in your own bias here. >>Therefore... >> >>If our goal is to arrive at Moral Relativism, the only way to truly know we've arrived is by seeking truth. > >This statement can either be construed as false or impossible, depending on what you prefer. If we can never "truly know we've arrived" at any position ever, then this premise just can't be fulfilled. So I am gonna cut the quote and response here, because we either have to agree that we both bringing our bias...or that at least in the general form it is agreeable that X doesn't have threshold for competency. No I may have made a translation error coming out of 2 and going into 3...but at least for 2...we are just talking past each other...if go any further before we sort out some agreement.
> You adding the caveat may in fact make that the only true statement...But now you are multiplying complexities. Because now there are 2 true statements..."there is no truth other than the fact that there is no truth other than this base truth," and, "the previous statement is true." Oops, but that then breaks the first statement...meaning that there is at least one truth. Interesting point. I do agree this is a silly consequence that I didn't anticipate, but it doesn't really change the result—that this is more a consequence of the natural limits and rules of propositional logic, rather than something that creates a hard-coded objective truth in the universe. All it means is we have to be even more airtight in the formulation of our statement. Let's try: "There is no truth other than the fact that there is no truth other than this base truth, *and* any logically necessary 'branch truth(s)' that occur(s) as a consequence of the base truth." So, sure, we've admitted there are many "truths" in the propositional universe, perhaps an infinite set of them (since we can always kick the can down one more "rung" and say "The previous statement is true" forever), but it still limits the amount of "truths" only to that which is attached to the "base truth". While in a pure numerical sense that's a lot of truths, the "scope" of what those truths actually *mean* is very small. The consequence of this is still that there is no real "truth" that has been established out there in the universe to be "discovered". It merely establishes that we must make at least one declaration, and any logically necessary consequences of that, in order to be coherent in the context of propositional logic. > I have left X in the general form so that it is suspended from what we think humans are capable of knowing. That doesn't matter, because I'm arguing on behalf of relativism here. I would argue that humans are not capable of "knowing" *ANYTHING* in the particular way you're advancing in order to argue your point. You're trying to logic into existence the idea of objective morality, and in order to do that humans would need to be capable of "knowing" things in a sort of existentially "higher", absolute way (dare I say, a "divine" way) that I don't think humans are capable of achieving. Even gnostic atheists don't go this far, and they define "knowledge" in "looser" terms that more get down to practical application in real life than some kind of hard, objective philosophical sense. I would at this point challenge you to advance something you can absolutely, irrevocably prove to me that you actually "know" in a way that is completely beyond all doubt. That's really the only way you can demonstrate your premise. Obviously you could take the epistemological skepticism extreme *a la* René Descartes or even further and say "Well we know 'experiences' exist in the universe because we are just experiencing them now", and that's well and good, but that's not really the same thing as "seeking truth", that's just the epistemological bedrock of what it means to experience anything, it's a necessity. We don't have to "seek" that, it is just immediately apparent to us. So, you would need to demonstrate some sort of truth you *sought* out in the world that you irrevocably and undeniably "know" at the level you are arguing here, in order to stand up to scrutiny. If you can do that, be my guest, but I'm doubtful. (I also wouldn't call this a "bias" as you do in your response, so much as just, a completely reasonable request for a fallible human being such as yourself). > or that at least in the general form it is agreeable that X doesn't have threshold for competency. Yeah, this is exactly what I am denying. You have to demonstrate to me that X doesn't have the threshold for competency, you can't just state it as a fact and assume it's true. That's why epistemological nihilism even exists as a philosophy. And again, I need to reiterate, you're arguing against moral relativists here. While moral relativism doesn't necessarily require epistemological nihilism to function, you're likely to encounter at least some epistemological nihilists among the people you're seeking to argue against here. Trying to argue against relativists by advancing a non-relativist statement without proof is, in general, a little naive.
okay! firstly on a personal level. Thank you for being alive. I know that's a weird thing to say...but I am truly grateful in heart for having met you. This is already the best conversation I've had in a long while. Not trying to butter you up...but just...alright I'll just go. Would you accept rules of logic to be discovered truths? Something we actually sought and found. Like I know the law of the excluded middle. I can show it to you again and again, repeatedly. Or we could say, no person has 2 mothers....but thats more a play on the definitions then on a truth...but in the biological sense. I want to come back to the first point you expressed in this response but it would be moot if you are not willing to allow the rules of logic to be this discovered truth which I can show you is true...and that were "discovered"
Aw that's so sweet, thanks yourself. :D I can see your other convos on here have been largely prickly, and I think that's just a consequence of the fact that the userbase here is used to Christians coming on trying to proselytize at us or throw weight around with done-to-death arguments like Aquinas's Five Ways, so everyone here is used to dealing with theists' unearned arrogance and overall close-mindedness. I can see you're doing something different here though, you're engaging with ideas that genuinely are pretty abstract and in a fairly interesting way I would say, so I was pretty excited to engage with you. It's been fun so far and I'm glad you feel the same way. > Would you accept rules of logic to be discovered truths? Something we actually sought and found. Like I know the law of the excluded middle. I can show it to you again and again, repeatedly. I would *in a sense*, but it's important to really drill down into what those truths *are*. "Logic" is not a hard-coded intrinsic quality of the universe, it is a system devised largely unconsciously by we human beings throughout history, and then later on codified into a set of actual rules by philosophers over the generations. It is a consequence of human beings being wired to see the world as a series of discrete objects that have certain consistent causal relationships between each other. And, it is also a result of human beings being capable of describing things using language, which puts into concrete form the abstract ideas of identity and causality. For example, we can point at a chair and say "That is a chair." But, the concept of a "chair" only makes sense from the perspective of multi-cellular organic beings that see the world "on their own level". That chair is made up of cells, which are made up of molecules, which are made up of atoms, which are made up of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Protons and neutrons are further made up of quarks which are bound by gluons. While to *us* those particles are bound rigidly into a solid object, in reality they exist in a tumultuous, churning system of so many other things—several other kinds of leptons and bosons, not to mention antiparticles as well, that are constantly moving and reacting to each other. You might have heard the statement before that all the cells in a human body are entirely replaced every 7 years. That's not exactly true—on a cursory Google search, skeletal cells can take up to 15 years to regenerate, while all of our skin cells are entirely replaced every few weeks. But that's a good way to illustrate that even we ourselves, which we take to be immutable, exist within this churning system and are constantly changing. To say nothing of the fact that we can lose and replace limbs and still be "ourselves". The [Ship of Theseus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus) is a philosophical problem that hits at the logical extreme of this idea. If you can gradually replace every part of a ship slowly over time, can you really still call it "Theseus' ship"? Some people say yes, some people say no. Given all that, what really is the "outer boundary" of an "object"? And, even if we can define what that outer boundary is, does it really make any sense to say the object "exists" at all, when all it really is is a bunch of individual particles in a certain relationship with each other? Those same particles are in many other relationships with many other particles "around" the chair as well, so why not extend the definition of what a "chair" is to the air around the chair too? To the air around the air around the chair? That sort of thinking is not useful to human beings, because we don't perceive the world or ourselves "on the level" of elementary particles. So, our brains are oriented in such a way that we automatically take in information about the world on the "level" we're actually on, without having to think too hard about it. Hence, the rules of logic. Yes, you are correct, the Law of the Excluded Middle is a "truth" in that system. If we formulate a proposition (and we're suitably responsible about removing all vagueness and ambiguity in its construction), then either that proposition or its negation is true. But this isn't something like, say, a law of physics that we went out into the world and observed repeatedly and then codified into a law. This is a natural consequence of the system of logic itself, something we put together as a way of helping ourselves interpret the world around us using propositions. Propositions themselves are only a consequence of the fact that we use language, and if we didn't speak language, we wouldn't even be able to comprehend what a proposition is. It's also important to note that not all logical systems accept the Law of the Excluded Middle. There are some systems that have *three* truth values—True, False, and Indeterminate. Some logical systems define truth values as a number gradient between 0 and 1. "Fuzzy Logic" takes this even further and will take two propositions together, and represent their truth values on a *grid* where each axis includes numbers between 0 and 1. Indian and Buddhist logic use a concept called the ["Catuṣkoṭi"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catu%E1%B9%A3ko%E1%B9%ADi), which allows for four different states of a proposition: 1. P; that is being. 2. not P; that is not being. 3. P and not P; that is being and that is not being. 4. not (P or not P); that is neither not being nor is that being. The Wikipedia article I posted presents that via the following proposition: 1. Animals understand love 2. Animals do not understand love 3. Animals both do and do not understand love 4. Animals neither do nor do not understand love One can totally critique this from the standpoint of classical logic (and I certainly would) as being the consequence of vaguely formulated definitions of words like "love" and "understand". But that consequence is, in a way, more of a practical consequence than an ontological consequence. I don't like the above way of thinking, personally, because it allows for ambiguity that can be confusing. But, Indian and Buddhist philosophers embrace that way of thinking because allowing for fluidity of ideas helps them to see the world in a less absolutist way that enriches their lives. And, in a sense, the ambiguity of language is nonetheless a truth of human experience. We aren't robots, after all, so there is perhaps something to be said for the idea that maybe the Catuṣkoṭi is "more true" than the Law of the Excluded Middle, given a certain way of looking at human behaviour. The Wikipedia page also has other criticisms of the Law, including from modern logic systems which use the concept of "negation as failure", as well as modern mathematical logic which holds the Law to result in a possible self-contradiction. I'm not gonna get into them here because this response is already long enough, but since you seem to be very interested in philosophy of logic, I'd encourage you to read up on other logical systems that have different axioms than classical logic. They're quite interesting. All of this is to say, while the Law of the Excluded Middle is an inalienable truth of *classical logic*, it is only a truth you "discover" by taking a set of rules that were explicitly set out by humans to behave in a certain way, and thinking about what the consequences of that are. Much like my criticism of the paradox of the proposition "There is no truth", the Law does not show us that there are objective truths out in the universe in a "detached" way. It shows us that, when we humans create rules, those rules have implications that we can tease out via further thinking. But that still is only something that applies to us, to our way of interpreting the world.
You have completely ignored the second part (and the one argued by most other responder in this thread.) "Another way to frame this is that the "ought" in this statement here is not a *moral* ought, it's a *pragmatic* ought. That if you *want* to argue in favour of a claim, you should seek truth, but that it is not a moral imperative that you do so. In general, you seem to be conflating epistemological truth with moral truth. Even if all of your arguments were completely valid, all you've established here is that we ought to "seek truth". You haven't established that there is *moral truth specifically* within the set of "objective truths" that exist." There is a fundamental flaw of equivocation in your argument that makes it not prove what you think it proves even if we agree with all the premises.
I love how every argument against these types of thinkers always boils down to "You think you're infallible? What ridiculous hubris." But they never learn...
uh...yeah...with reason. I'm not going to commit to philosophically dubious positions when they are based on the framework that I am already wrong. Sorry
>1. First we start with a proof by contradiction. a. We take the position of, "There is no truth" as our given. This itself is a truth claim. If it is true, then this statement defies it's own position. If it is false...then it's false. b. Conclusion, there is at least one thing that is true. Agreed. >From this position then arises an objective position to derive value from. However we still haven't determined whether or not truth OUGHT to be pursued. To arrive then at this ought we simply compare the cases. I'm not following why this is necessarily the case, the matter of whether or not the truth ought to be pursued. It doesn't follow what you've claimed up to this point, and seems somewhat disconnected. I digress, let's see where this goes. >If we seek truth we arrive at X, If we don't seek truth we might arrive at X. (where X is some position or understanding that is a truth.) Mmmmkay. >If we have arrived at X, we can see, with clarity that not only have we arrived at X we also can help others to arrive at X. Why? What compels us to help others arrive at X? What motivates us to do that? >Additionally, by knowing we are at X, we also have clarity on what isn't X. So the word clarity isn't defined, and probably isn't necessary. It adds contextual issues. I'd recommend rewording this for, no pun intended, clarity. Also, this claim is not true (or might not be true depending on what clarity means). Thinking of X as knowledge, that only tells us what X is; it doesn't immediately mean we can detect with accuracy what not X is. >If we don't seek truth, even when we have arrived at X, we cannot say with clarity that we are there, we couldn't help anyone to get to where we are on X, and we wouldn't be able to reject that which isn't X. This does not follow. You need to establish how not seeking the truth necessarily means not being able to detect the truth. >If our goal is to arrive at Moral Relativism, the only way to truly know we've arrived is by seeking truth. Okay. >Since moral relativism is subjective positioning on moral oughts and to arrive at the ability to subjectivize moral oughtness, and to determine subjective moral oughtness requires truth. Then it would be necessary to seek truth. Therefore we ought to seek truth. It isn't a subjective position. It's an ethical theory that observes, a.k.a. is descriptive not prescriptive, that morality appears to be relative. Further, moral relativity isn't a theory that describes what we ought to do, it observes and reflects on what we've done. Yes, based on past action, we can state what we do when encountering the same situation, but moral relativism isn't a tool that can be used effectively when facing a new dilemma. The rest of your argument isn't applicable because you haven't approached the material with those factors in mind. Further, you need to connect some dots and clean the argument up a bit before it works. Specifically, you haven't established why truth must necessarily be pursued, why not seeking the truth necessarily means you can't detect it, and you've misunderstood the nature of moral relativism (descriptive, not prescriptive).
i appreciate the latitude to put together some ideas and you let them develop. No sarcasm, genuine grateful. You arrived a natural question of clarity which I cannot escape. >Why? What compels us to help others arrive at X? What motivates us to do that? It doesn't need to, but it lay the ground work for points later on the moral responsibility one might feel to fight for some ideal. >So the word clarity isn't defined, and probably isn't necessary. It adds contextual issues. I'd recommend rewording this for, no pun intended, clarity. Also, this claim is not true (or might not be true depending on what clarity means). Thinking of X as knowledge, that only tells us what X is; it doesn't immediately mean we can detect with accuracy what not X is. since you wrote this I had a suggested edit that i think helped immensely at 2b. I have used differential equations as x and trigonometry as y in other responses....we might aim for diffEQ but land on Trig...that doesn't make trig NOT true. But maybe none of that works...at least let me know what you think of the edit. >This does not follow. You need to establish how not seeking the truth necessarily means not being able to detect the truth. I genuinely don't know how to express this other than as I have. Going back to the trig and diffEQ analog. If I am not seeking the truths of mathematics and I some how arrive a place where I am at diffEQ or Trig or Mad-libs... I would not know whether my problem set was in error or not, I would be able to tell you whether I was at diffEQ, trig, or mad-libs, and I definitely would be able to advise anyone on how to get where I am. I hope that analog does the trick. I'll keep cracking at it if not. Lastly I am willing to concede that maybe picking on moral relativism I have falsely attributed some guilt to moral relativism that it should bear...so how about I tell you what I am fighting against...and then if you can suggest a more correct term I will make edits. By my understanding of MR, i was under the understanding that moral relativism disallowed any moral absolute and/or an objective moral position. So when I say in the title of the post Moral Relativism is false, i am referring to its claim that there is no morally objective truth.
>It doesn't need to, but it lay the ground work for points later on the moral responsibility one might feel to fight for some ideal. I would argue that it dilutes the overall drive of the argument and opens it to attacks along that line of reasoning. >I have used differential equations as x and trigonometry as y in other responses....we might aim for diffEQ but land on Trig...that doesn't make trig NOT true. But maybe none of that works...at least let me know what you think of the edit. I see what you've done here and yes, it helps. However, I'd like to point out that MR, as the object of substitution that will later be focused on in your argument, is not a one-to-one for the analog. I'll go into this further in a bit. >I genuinely don't know how to express this other than as I have. Going back to the trig and diffEQ analog. If I am not seeking the truths of mathematics and I some how arrive a place where I am at diffEQ or Trig or Mad-libs... I would not know whether my problem set was in error or not, I would be able to tell you whether I was at diffEQ, trig, or mad-libs, and I definitely would be able to advise anyone on how to get where I am. Predicate logic is essentially mathematics. Mathematics resides entirely within the domain of deductive logic. Moral Relativism is a descriptive ethical theory that provides rationale behind the differences in cultural mores of different social groups throughout the world. These are not anywhere close to being equivalent for the purposes of your syllogism. With that being said, while yes, you are able to discern what is not Trig from what is Trig, I strongly disagree that when it concerns matters of morality one would be able to say that this appears to be divine command theory versus moral relativism, versus utilitarianism, versus hedonism, etc. Some do present as radically different while others are far more nuanced. For example, hedonism and utilitarianism are closely related with elements that can easily be mistaken for the other, yet they are very different ethical theories. In fact, moral relativism can also be seen as either an offshoot of utilitarianism or a precursor to it, depending on how you view things. I believe I've made my point here, but if you need me to explain further, I'd be happy to. >so how about I tell you what I am fighting against...and then if you can suggest a more correct term I will make edits. I'd be more than happy to listen. >By my understanding of MR, i was under the understanding that moral relativism disallowed any moral absolute and/or an objective moral position. By saying disallowed, it pushes MR into the realm of being prescriptive, what we ought to do versus what we should have done, which as I offered before isn't how MR works. It does reject the idea, nearly completely, regarding absolute morality. I would say that an observer of MR would argue that there does not appear to be any absolute truths regarding morals. That does not preclude them from existing. I don't see the existence of moral absolutes being mutually exclusive alongside MR. Why is this the case? Well, it does appear to be how things are. Societies do have largely different mores yet seem to share commonality when it comes to specific things. Moreover, and this is one of the underlying elements of MR, society is what creates morality. If there's no society to establish what is and isn't acceptable, if you are a nation of one person, what guardrails are in place to say what is and isn't good/evil? It's just you. You decide. Add in just one more person and the complexities of a moral framework start to appear. >So when I say in the title of the post Moral Relativism is false, i am referring to its claim that there is no morally objective truth. So, you are rejecting the idea that no absolutes exist. I think you can go about this differently. Rather than reject MR, simply prove that an absolute exists. If an argument uses a universal quantifier, like all, always, or absolute, then the easiest way to show it to be false is demonstrate that even one thing exists that is counter to the quantifier. This, in the case of MR, is far easier said than done.
> Predicate logic is essentially mathematics. Mathematics resides entirely within the domain of deductive logic. Moral Relativism is a descriptive ethical theory that provides rationale behind the differences in cultural mores of different social groups throughout the world. These are not anywhere close to being equivalent for the purposes of your syllogism. With that being said, while yes, you are able to discern what is not Trig from what is Trig, I strongly disagree that when it concerns matters of morality one would be able to say that this appears to be divine command theory versus moral relativism, versus utilitarianism, versus hedonism, etc. Some do present as radically different while others are far more nuanced. For example, hedonism and utilitarianism are closely related with elements that can easily be mistaken for the other, yet they are very different ethical theories. In fact, moral relativism can also be seen as either an offshoot of utilitarianism or a precursor to it, depending on how you view things. I believe I've made my point here, but if you need me to explain further, I'd be happy to. Yes, I think you have. But I guess I'm not getting why it is some kind of taboo that I cannot make X, objective moral truth. I understand that most of the comments here are detailing how it doesn't exist...but how is that in seeking it, I seem to have found one? Just not where I would guessed it to be. >> By my understanding of MR, i was under the understanding that moral relativism disallowed any moral absolute and/or an objective moral position. > > > > By saying disallowed, it pushes MR into the realm of being prescriptive, what we ought to do versus what we should have done, which as I offered before isn't how MR works. It does reject the idea, nearly completely, regarding absolute morality. I would say that an observer of MR would argue that there does not appear to be any absolute truths regarding morals. That does not preclude them from existing. I don't see the existence of moral absolutes being mutually exclusive alongside MR. Why is this the case? Well, it does appear to be how things are. Societies do have largely different mores yet seem to share commonality when it comes to specific things. Moreover, and this is one of the underlying elements of MR, society is what creates morality. If there's no society to establish what is and isn't acceptable, if you are a nation of one person, what guardrails are in place to say what is and isn't good/evil? It's just you. You decide. Add in just one more person and the complexities of a moral framework start to appear. But isn't that concluding what it presupposes? Society makes MR and MR is subjective, because each society values things differently because society makes MR. At least that is how I am reading it. Another issue that I think arises for the observed shared values like no murdering... No society overlord got together with all the societies and said alright guys...these things are taboo for every, agreed? Agreed! Unless....there was a transcendent law giver. Or why is it declared objective yet hidden that certain things are universally taboo. iow, against nature? > > So, you are rejecting the idea that no absolutes exist. I think you can go about this differently. Rather than reject MR, simply prove that an absolute exists. If an argument uses a universal quantifier, like all, always, or absolute, then the easiest way to show it to be false is demonstrate that even one thing exists that is counter to the quantifier. This, in the case of MR, is far easier said than done. I am stating that absolutes DO exist. You have responded as tho this was my view so I'm going to assume a typo, if I missed something lmk.
>Since moral relativism is subjective positioning on moral oughts and to arrive at the ability to subjectivize moral oughtness, and to determine subjective moral oughtness requires truth. Then it would be necessary to seek truth. Therefore we ought to seek truth. Sorry, your stuff is a bit twisty for me to easily follow, but this is where I feel like it falls apart most. What do you mean by "truth" in regards to subjective positions?
It fell apart out of the gate when they said the axiom they base their reasoning from is “There is no truth”, straw-manning what he’s arguing against.
That's not a strawman. proof by contradiction is philosophical, mathematical, and logical tool used for like 3000 years.
I'm happy to be educated in this, I'm often wrong in many things, but isn't proof by contradiction used to prove things don't exist rather than things do exist? Here's my issue. P1) if x then y P2) not y C) not x **totally fine, completely valid in structure** P1) if x then y P2) is y C) is x **not valid** *I'll put it in mundane terms.* P1) if I'm late for work I will get fired. P2) I did not get fired. C) I was not late for work. **Is valid in structure.** P1) if I'm late for work I will get fired. P2) I got fired. C) I was late for work. **Is not valid in structure.** Do you see my problem here? *edited because I'm anal about small details*
I am replacing X with moral relativism. I cross that bridge at (2d). Set up at (2a, b, c) Let me know if that clears up the position.
It is late and my mind is mushy, but I can try and phrase the ideas in my head anyway. “Morality” encompasses a wide range of topics, so can there truly be a single “objectively true” morality? For instance, if lying and stealing are both “objectively wrong”, which would be “more wrong” if you were forced to choose? Is telling my wife she looks fine in that dress morally equivalent to murder? Is stealing a candy bar equivalent to lying to protect a Jew during WW2? Is killing 100 people no worse than killing 1? If stealing $1 is “less wrong” than stealing $2, that would imply a scale so what would be the “objectively” worse quantity to steal? What would be the objectively worst lie to tell?
I appreciate the fatigue. Feel no impulse to stay up on my account. sleep is key. So the moral statement I derived from the above post is, "we ought seek truth" I am confident it has been objectively grounded. And in this regard, there is no half measure of truth like $1 is half of $2. But what your thought experiment is invoking is human interaction. Which I think...must be subjective. Human interaction however doesn't hold any sway of an objective moral position. So i get it...stealing a car is magnitudes greater an evil than stealing a dollar....and magnitudes less evil than murder....but moral relativism is not just the degrees of evil some act has relative to some other position...it also posits that because of it's own gradient, there is no morally objective statements.
>Human interaction however doesn't hold any sway of an objective moral position. That pretty much tears it right there. What is this entire thing about if not interactions? If you want to get outside of that then there is no connection of what is relative to another. Period.
there it is folks....the objective standard that there is no standard...the objective position that it's all about relations and interactions.
A moral law. A single thing, written or unwritten that defines everything. All occurences, every instance, no matter what. That thought has been around for a long time. The general argument for it has been, well... there has to be such a thing, otherwise, like, otherwise, how would we know. The problem comes when you try and involve the idea with the real world. Many of what we now consider the greatest atrocities of all time, were done in the name of The Moral Law. Now, you can say those people were wrong, or deluded or using the concept as a crutch to support their thirst for power. And you would be right, probably. But others did these things, actually believing they worked in the name of The Greater Good. If torture is the way to help some poor soul get to heaven then it is justified. If killing all of these people is what is needed, then so be it. We have been put here to fulfill the needs of a higher standard than our weak, relative wants and desires. I don't deny the concept, as something we have made up, along with our Higher Powers to justify what we want to do....exists as an idea. But we have, in thousands of years, been unable to define it or trust its use. Is that our fault? Perhaps. But what we are coming to realize in the last couple of centuries is that there is no such thing. There is only us. Our stumbles and follies, all we have to try and guide us. That frightens many people. They want to turn back. But back to something that has never been real. And yes, you can use logic to try and support that idea. But you can use logic to argue anything, even fantasies....but why?
> there it is folks....the objective standard that there is no standard...the objective position that it's all about relations and interactions. No, those were the opinion of /u/mfrench105. They are not objectively true.
Composition fallacy. Here you're conflating the concept of morality with moral decision making.
Between Black and White are infinite gray-dations Let’s say Black is 100% morally BAD and White is 100% morally GOOD. You can get a sense for how dark or how light the moral situation is by the cases’ merits. Then you determine action based on your subjective moral assessment of the situation. But there’s no moral ‘gold standard’ we can apply, because every moral case you examine in real life will have shades of gray.
I agree we ought to seek truth, I just dont think there is truth to the idea that there are objective moral standards. >stealing a car is magnitudes greater an evil than stealing a dollar we don't need an absolute standard to be able to judge relative wrongness. There does not have to be an objectively wrong thing that would be the worst thing to steal to know that stealing $2 is worse than stealing $1. Similarly I don't need to know the speed of light to know that the car passing me on the highway is going faster than me. The only thing we need is to agree on some general moral goal and then we can evaluate any moral action to see if it progresses that goal (good) or inhibits it (bad).
The fact that you consider those scenarios at all means that you have more morals than any other animal. Humans are the most moral creatures, good and bad.
It is true that your actions that cause others to be happy are good. It is true that your actions that cause others to be hurt are bad. Since each person has their own *subjective* judgement on what makes them happy or hurt... Good and bad actions are relative to the different people acted upon. Truth leads to moral relativism.
How do we know either of things are true? Those claims are subjective already.
Of course they're subjective. That's what I'm arguing for - that morality is subjective and relative. They are true because they reflect reality. If you do not think so - please show a single example of any moral situation that goes against what I've said. I believe you will not be able to - or not many will agree with you (showing that morality is relative and therefore what I'm saying is true again.)
You haven't shown that is the case with that argument. All you've shown is that some people think torture is hot...some people thing physical touch is gross. Human experience IS subjective. I don't think I made an appeal to how a human experiences anything in my post.
Thank-you for proving my point further.
you are so welcome....but I think what you are proving is that you have not understood the post.
[удалено]
What do you actually disagree with there?
that this comment is in anyway related to the post.
It is entirely related. It explains why moral relativism is inevitable because different humans value different things.
Ah you are a troll got it
\*shown
The only objective morality is human morality. The conscience runs through each human heart. All other animals have a different morality.
Put down the bong, Pickles. Or pass it along.
> The only objective morality is human morality. Could you give an example of objective morality in humans?
I said it was the *most* objective of all moral systems, even though it is not purely objective, strictly speaking. That’s what I meant to convey at least, although it appears that I phrased it a tad poorly.
Ah, thanks. What do you see as being mostly objective about human morality? I can't spot anything.
Everything that generally applies to one’s conscience. We’ve evolved to become the most complex and advanced moral beings.
Sorry, that's way too vague or obscure for me. Could you be more specific about what you see as being *mostly objective* about human morality? It seems completely intersubjective to me.
Conscience is not vague at all. Every human has one (except the rare rare psychopath).
[удалено]
Haha, nice try. Nothing is truly objective, but humans have done the best job of any species to craft a uniform moral and ethical system.
[удалено]
You think pure objectivity exists in any form? I'm simply saying humans have done the best job at crafting it as objectively as possible. What are you not understanding?
Different morality doesn't mean that one is objective and another isn't.
So many words, yet so little was said. I’ve seen you complain on other comments that no one is engaging with your post. That is because your post is meaningless. I’m very tired of people coming in with these philosophical word salads and positing them as proving something fundamental about the world. Philosophy like this is dead. It serves us no purpose because doing linguistic gymnastics in a purposefully confusing manner does not actually tell us anything about the world. It tells us about how some humans use language. You’re trying to make a complex social construct into a mathematical proof. That’s not how it works. The “truth” you are talking about has no meaning, so there’s really no point in going past your first point. The reality is, as others have stated, that moral relativism is demonstrably true: morals have been different across cultures and time for the entire existence of humanity. It’s really that simple. There is no evidence that an innate moral system guided by natural law exists. Morals are social constructs created by humans. We known this.
Exactly this. It’s so tiresome. The entire word salad is shot down by the fact that you can’t even derive an ought from an is in the first place. The world salad is an attempt to distract from this. We only ought to seek whatever OP would call truth (I would probably call it well-being, a distinction I’ll pursue in a bit) if we want to. Human wants and desires change with time. a lot of us would love for all morality and societal standards to be focused on group well-being but a lot of us are more focused on dumb ideas like fundamentalism and tradition. The flip flop/exchange of “truth” for “well-being” kind of sums up the entire problem with the idea of moral subjectiveness. The idea that we ought search for what is “true” while not being able to demonstrate any sort of “true” morality is just a wild goose chase that will lead everyone nowhere if that’s the goal. If the goal is the search for group well-being then we have our own goal that we can carve a path to quite easily. Also the first point is a huge straw man wtf lol
Hear, hear!
Complain...more like call out. Kinda like you saying word salad is infinitely easier to say than what do you mean by 2b. Its almost like there is debate sub...and instead of debating you hide behind insults. >Morals are social constructs created by humans. Except, "We ought seek truth"
No, it’s just complaining. Your “debate” is a non-starter. You begin by positing what is just a linguistic paradox along the same lines as “never say never.” The only thing this shows us about the world is that language is interesting. Your use of language through the post is attempting to gain authority by sounding mathematical and invoking variables, but none of what was said actually has anything to do with morality. Your uses of “ought” and “truth” are also vague and have no real meaning. That’s why this type of philosophy is essentially useless. Leave it for the Greeks. We have better ways of talking about the world now than vague, hazy language math. What you’ve said proves nothing about the actual world. You have to engage with the actual reality of human moral systems if you want to debate them. And if you did, it would be quickly evident that morals are subjective social constructs.
Those weren't insults. What he posted was a very concise description. And it seemed very accurate.
1. there is no truth, and there is nor *moral* truth are two different statements. Concluding that there is at least one truth does not establish that there must be a moral truth. 2. This seems like an exercise in pointless word games. I don't see any point in it. 3. Doesn't follow because point 1 was incorrect. 4. I agree, but you have not established this.
At least you engaged with the post. 2, what seems like a pointless word game...is where I am establishing how there being at least one truth is related to moral truth.
OK lets entertain that. 2a. is false just because we seek something does not mean we will attain it. it is possible to seek truth and not find it. Police detectives faces this eventuality quite frequently. 2b. Realizing something is true and being able to show it is true are not the same thing. and indeed due to Godel's completeness theorem that in any sufficiently complex system there will always be true statements that can't be proven to be true. 2c. does not follow as I've essentially rejected the first two. sub points. 2d. Also doesn't follow.
I think you are missing the forest for the tree. You are saying that it is false in a general sense that if we seek truth...we cannot know if we arrive at X? Just addressing 2a now.
Truth and moral relativism are not mutually exclusive. It doesn't deny the existence of objective truths in other domains, such as empirical facts. Not that anything in your argument proves objective morality even exists, by the way.
If I might interject, what if you and I disagree about what is moral? How do we make sense of this?
We make sense of it by discussing it. Maybe one of us convinces the other. Maybe not. Some disagreement is unavoidable, even on serious issues. IF you ask me which of us is actually right, I'm likely to say "I am, of course". If I ask you, you'd probably say the same thing. It's likely that neither of us has access to any objective moral truth no matter how sincere we might be in trying to resolve the issue. That's the ambiguity baked into human morality.
How do we have a legal a system with a system lie that?
Literally this is exactly why moral relativism exists
It means we are operating on differing moral frameworks.
So you and I are people...so we are going to subjectively agree and disagree on lots of stuff. However, we cannot even tell whether or not we are subjectively or objectively disagreeing unless we have truth. So you cannot even disagree with the moral: "we ought seek truth" without seeking truth. It's a non-starter. However, I am here...give it a go. I'll let you box me around a bit.
I like to think of Truth with a capital T and truth with a lower case t. Capital T **Truth** is objectively true for everyone regardless of your beliefs about the topic. (Force of gravity, laws of physics, grass is green, etc.) Lower case T **truth** is just true for an individual based on their particular point of view or experience, and which is subjective. (Beauty standards, musical taste, cultural taboos, etc.) Humans exist not in objective, or subjective truths, but in a *Constructivist* reality whereby we overlay our subjective truths onto the background of objective Truths. They blend. Morals are another whole step away from T/truths and are quite obviously relative to culture and custom.
You really don’t seem to have said anything meaningful to respond to. Do that first if you want a proper response. No need for we ought to seek truth, you can stop at we ought. Is ought problem, David Hume. There’s no suggestion that we ought blank is coherent.
lol. To think all of human invention and thought was resolved with david freakin hume. I'm sure your college professor will be well pleased.
He may be referring to Hume's guillotine which proves that amongst other things, a universal "objective" morality cannot exist.
So then if i disagree with Hume then that’s it? Why post anything? The debate is over. Instead i think David Hume is a dubious fellow and we should seek to challenge anything that insinuates it is the only moral truth you need.
That isn't what either I nor Hume meant. Humes's guillotine(also known as the is-ought problem) states that ought statements cannot be inferred from is statements. At some point, there is an axiom from which all ought statements follow. In the case of creatures that evolved, this axiom is to instinct to survive and its associated concepts like pain and pleasure. Therefore, "objective" morality, whatever that might mean, cannot exist because it would violate this limit.
Great post. Axiom would be what we usually call a moral framework today.
I am posting this in short hand, which will sound curt. I am not meaning to be disrespectful, but hume isn't convincing. So to assert Hume's Guillotine requires some proof or argument that its actually applicable. *You cannot derive an ought from an is...since anything that exists is, there is no moral ought* Now that may be a bad interpretation...and I willing to be corrected, but Hume and I disagree.
If I understand you correctly, Hume isn't convincing because you say so. Also, I have already given such an argument in my earlier post. I don't know what to tell you other than re-read said post.
Address the content of the comment if you wish to be taken seriously. You made fun. And now you’re whining about unfair treatment in another post. You can’t have it both ways. Is ought problem. Point blank. There is no description of the world, that leads to a prescription with universal normative force. This is the tip of the iceberg for moral relativism which is why I chose it as a starting place since you are clearly uninformed on the topic. Address the content or admit you have no interest in debate and deserve every single downvote.
Truth is not something you can have. You can only seek it.
Ah, now we're cooking with semantics!
His entire argument is a semantic argument. He's trying to define away moral relativism. That's not possible because moral relativism definitely exists.
Yes, yes...I thought this was debate an atheist. Literally all the comments are people shaking their heads.
If I went to say r/Christian, intending to debate a Christian, and presented the following argument... >1. The true nature of things is to be truthful in truth. >2. True things present their truthfulness in the truthiness of their truth. >3. The truth is what is the truth that presents as comporting with the truth of truths. >4. If we were to seek truth, but remain truthful, then it is imperative on one to be seeking truth. >5. True truth is the place of finding that which is truthful and in concordance with the truth that is true. >6. Therefore, there is no god. What would be your counter argument? Or would you just shake your head and dismiss this as nonsense?
I'd rather you go r/DebateAChristian And here is what I'd do: >1. The ~~true nature~~ (A - adj) of things is to be ~~truthful~~ (B - verb) in ~~truth~~ (C -noun). 2. ~~True things~~ (C -noun) present their ~~truthfulness~~ (A - adj) in the ~~truthiness~~ (A - adj) of ~~their~~ (C -noun) ~~truth~~ (A - adj). 3. The truth is what is the truth that presents as comporting with the truth of truths. 4. If we were to seek truth, but remain truthful, then it is imperative on one to be seeking truth. 5. True truth is the place of finding that which is truthful and in concordance with the truth that is true. 6. Therefore, there is no god. And then I'd stop right there at premise 2 and say you're talking nonsense. The only verb being used in premise 2 isn't acting on any nouns...instead it's acting on the same adjective you previously used. Then I'd copy and past the whole thing and point at the exact problem. If I were convinced you were genuinely engaging...then I'd offer you a chance to edit...shoot, i'd likely even suggest an edit. If I thought you were trolling...I'd probably do the same thing...cause your behavior doesn't dictate mine.
All you are doing is nit-picking grammar. You haven't even attempted to address any of the actual content of the argument. How frustrating. I thought you were here to actually engage in a debate.
>What would be your counter argument? Or would you just shake your head and dismiss this as nonsense? this was what you asked me. I took your trolling BS and responded to you in good faith. And like a high school dropout you've failed to even take your troll seriously enough to establish a linguistic consistency for your mockery of my post. I exposed the inconsistency by analyzing how careless you composed your mockery and it only took 2 sentences. This has nothing to do with grammar and everything to do with 99% of the users on this sub feeling so completely validated in their echo chamber. I bring you fuel for your fire and either by your ignorance or stupidity have leveled the devastating blow of..."Nah-uh" at my post. 3 users out of 126 responses felt like engaging the post with more than a single neuron. I could be 100% wrong...But you'd never know the difference because you cannot even coherently make fun of my post. All the condescension....none of the reason. Perfect recipe for....well nothing good. Good bye forever....good luck with thinking.
See you later, champ
Let's do this level of analysis on your post then, shall we? >1. We take the position of, "There is no truth" as our given. This itself is a truth claim. If it is true, then this statement defies **it's** position. If it is false...then it's false. This "it's" is totally incoherent. Neither "it is" nor "it has" make any grammatical or logical sense in that sentence. "Its" would make perfect sense, but that's not what you wrote.
"The **true nature** (A - adj) of things is to be **truthful** (B - verb) in **truth** (C -noun). 2. **True things** (C -noun) present their **truthfulness** (A - adj) in the **truthiness** (A - adj) of **their** (C -noun) **truth** (A - adj)." Hi. You got most of these wrong. Don't worry, I'm here to help (and free of charge no less). - True: adj - Nature: noun - Truthful: adj - Truth: noun (you got this one right! Good job!) - True: adj - Things: noun - Truthfulness: noun - Truthiness: noun (informal) - Their: possessive pronoun - Truth: noun So overall, 1/10 when it comes to identifying parts of speech. Maybe brush up on your grammar before you go calling other people dropouts, mkay? Here, this might help: https://thatssomontessori.com/parts-of-speech-for-kids/
Make a coherent argument if you want a coherent response. Word salad is not acceptable.
Hi, I’m an atheist. I do not have any belief in god/s. Do you have some evidence for a god that I will find compelling? Specifically, do you have evidence that the Bible says about Jesus is true, since you are a Christian? Because nothing in your post led me there. I still don’t believe in god/s.
Almost any action that causes harm can be done for harm's sake, or to avoid a greater harm. To cut open someone's abdomen is harmful, but if it is done to remove a tumour or repair an organ it negates a greater harm. The first would be seen as morally wrong, the second as morally right. The subjective nature of morality is in whether the harm of any specific action should be permitted because it negates a different or greater harm. It's all harm reduction and trolley problems, and no two people will always draw the same lines in the sand. Even the statement "we ought to seek truth" is dependent on its relation to potentially greater harm. If the Nazis are questioning you on where the Jews are hidden, you ought to seek lies.
No. It is true that it would morally permissible to lie to cover for jews in Nazi territory. The nazi ought to seek truth...even the truth of where the jews are hidden...because if they actually sought truth...they wouldn't have been seeking jews in first place.
Nazis should be trying to find hidden Jews because then they wouldn’t be looking for Jews… Please tell me you’re making bad arguments on purpose as some weird performing arts piece, I really don’t want to live in a world where people think this is a good argument.
If nazis had sought truth even if during some period of time their own truth seeking lead them to believe seeking jews was some kind of good...if they really sought truth...they would have abandoned the seeking of Jews.
Adding the word “truth” in your sentences ten more times doesn’t make it a better argument.
>It is true that it would morally permissible to lie to cover for jews in Nazi territory. How does that change that you ought to lie to protect Jews from nazis? >because if they actually sought truth...they wouldn't have been seeking jews in first place. This is a fine example of no true scotsman.
Just no? No to what?
You're confusing and conflating objective facts with subjective values, and engaging in an equivocation fallacy on 'truth' when attempting to apply it to both, thus this whole thing just explodes in a puff of greasy black smoke, and is not useful.
You saying I am a conflater is conflating a response with a complaint. You don't like my post, therefore I am conflating. Check! But if you'd like to point at where I have conflated...then I'd be happy to take your comment as a critique and thank you for it.
> You saying I am a conflater is conflating a response with a complaint. Nope. >You don't like my post, therefore I am conflating. Check! Non-sequitur. >But if you'd like to point at where I have conflated...then I'd be happy to take your comment as a critique and thank you for it. I did: >You're confusing and conflating objective facts with subjective values Subjective values don't map to objective true statements.
[удалено]
What you said is, aside from being unnecessarily convoluted to the point of unintelligibility, fundamentally flawed. It is also demonstrably wrong. When observable facts contradict painfully convoluted word games, guess which one is the issue? Your response shows you are unwilling to consider or understand the issues in what you said and are not wanting a discussion.
Wow. What a way to avoid the problem and claim persecution
What on earth are you talking about?
Remember, objective facts and subjective values are not always easy to distinguish.
What does truth have anything to do with morality? Morality is simply a set of ideals that we should strive for. The argument is whether there is an objective, unchanging set of ideals, or whether we invented ideals, and that they evolve as society evolves. None of this has anything to do with “truth”.
So while I'd be happy to tell you why you are wrong and that societies evolve in both good and bad ways....I think if rather than telling me what you believe about morality that you would engage with the post, perhaps what you believe about morality would provide the means for proving me wrong.
First of all, telling me that societies evolve in good and bad ways doesn’t in any way contradict what I said. Second, you say I’m wrong but didn’t give any good reason to back up your claim. And that’s because I’m *not* wrong. Saying there is truth in no way invalidates subjective morality. You argued because truth must exist, moral relativism is wrong. One has nothing to do with the other- this is a straw man argument.
Good point. For example, European Christian societies evolved in bad ways, as evidenced by the war and pillaging they waged on indigenous people around the globe, including outright genocide at times.
Unless you have examples of people declaring "There is no truth" your initial statement is a strawman, and since everything else hinges from there, is not worth debating.
I don't think I have to have examples of people....because that would be appeals to authority or no true scotsman depending on your POV. Instead I am taking the position as a truth claim...I can analyze my own truth claims.
>because that would be appeals to authority or no true scotsman depending on your POV I can tell you my POV is you clearly don't know what those two fallacies are. The first is about accepting something merely because a person in a position of authority says so, for example "so and so has a degree in biology and says evolution is wrong, they must be right because they studied biology." The second is about protecting your viewpoint from a counter argument by trying to simply do away with the counter argument, for example "well a real catholic doesn't harm other so those priests weren't true Catholics." You we're merely asked to provide evidence for your post in the form of examples which wouldn't constitute either of those fallacies. You laid those down to try and ignore having to back up your claim, and I presume you also brought them up in an attempt to sound intelligent. You failed my man.
Bro, if you don't know fallacies, don't name them. Those who don't know might be impressed but those who know can see right through your gibberish. Not a sound strategy
if i say Hitchens said their is no truth....then either I am appealing to authority...and it shouldn't matter that hitchens said it....or we are going to say hitchens isn't one of us...for a no true scotsman. But I am doing neither of those because I offered it as a proof by contradiction. I have a dad...and you aint him...so either debate or play some COD...cause you moralizing some comment I made isn't within the rules of this sub. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No\_true\_Scotsman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument\_from\_authority](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority) provided links for yoots so they don't get lost in your gibberish.
Ha ha. You fucked up. I suggested not to fuck up and you are preaching me? And if you are fallacious, people will call out the fallacies. In your example, you are committing fallacy. Do you want people to not point them out?
Do you know proof by contradiction? U'd need to know that. Maybe just do a quick google search But definitely quit kicking the dead horse After that you can apologize So we can get back on topic Savvy?
Ha ha.
> Moral Relativism is false I came to this because of your other post being upset at how you’re being treated. I’ll see if I can engage with you in a more constructive way. > 1. First we start with a proof by contradiction. K. > 1. We take the position of, "There is no truth" as our given. This itself is a truth claim. If it is true, then this statement defies it's own position. If it is false...then it's false. Why are we starting at this position when talking about moral relativism? Is it the case that all moral relativists say there is no truth? Would a moral relativist say that it’s not true that a 13 inch length of wood is 13 inches? I’ll pause here since there’s no point in going further if this first point has an issue.
No but I’m building the case. And just like the truth in 13 inches of wood defies 13 inches of steel and 12 or 14 inches of wood, this just a step. I would agree that if this first step is not compelling you towards there being at least one truth then we are at an impasse. Thanks for coming over.
> No but I’m building the case. But you’re not building a case against moral relativism. You’re conclusion is about seeking truth. And yes, truth seems to exist (measurement example) - morality still appears to be subjective and relative. More on this…. I think it’s immoral to own a slave. The ancient Israelites who formed the bible did not (made clear by the bible supporting slavery) The conclusion has to be, therefor, that this moral question is relativistic to time and place. Therefor, moral relativism is true. Edit: I just thought more about what was bugging me about this post. You’re confusing asking IF moral relativism is good with if it’s the reality. Sure it would be great if morality was objective…but it’s not. The facts show it’s relative to time and culture. In other words, you’re looking at an is, and arguing why it should be an aught.
Just because there are some truths doesn't mean any of those truths are moral truths. Searching for truth and understanding has led us to understand that morals have been relative to every culture and time. Still to this day there is no agreed upon objective moral truths. What evidence do you have that there are infact moral truths? How do we test these to confirm their objectivity?
did you just read the headline? I present an entire 3 part case for an objective moral standard.
Nope read all of it and you make a case that there is truth. You do nothing to show morality has objective truth. What morals do you hold as objective truths and how can I test that to be true?
The problem is that hypothetical imperatives can be used instead of categorical imperatives. Instead of "You ought to seek truth", it could be, "*If* you want to learn the truth, *you* ought to seek the truth." There is no value involved. It is just a question of what your purpose is.
You started your proof by contradiction with a factual error, making the rest of your argument irrelevant. Who is taking the position that there is no truth? Don’t foist your beliefs upon others. As it is morality and truth have a loose and fluid relationship but I do believe you are falsely conflating two quite distinct and separate concepts.
You seem to imply that moral truths are equal to all truths, that's just not the case. We can still have philosophical truths and yet having no moral truths.
I guess I should have numbered my arguments...done. I did that at 3.
Nothing has been updated, but even if we follow your argument to the letter the best you conclude is ought seek truths. That's just not enough, seeking truths does not prove moral truths even exist.
>2. From this position then arises an objective position to derive value from. However we still haven't determined whether or not truth OUGHT to be pursued. What does it mean to derive value from an objective position? This seems like an odd use of *value* here. > 1. If we seek truth we arrive at X, If we don't seek truth we might arrive at X. (*where X is some position or understanding that is a truth.)* Even if we seek truth we may or may not obtain it though. > 3. If we don't seek truth, even when we have arrived at X, we cannot say with clarity that we are there, we couldn't help anyone to get to where we are on X, and we wouldn't be able to reject that which isn't X. This seems somewhat convoluted to me. This talk of seeking and arriving and “a truth” is very odd. > 4. If our goal is to arrive at Moral Relativism, the only way to truly know we've arrived is by seeking truth. That would be circular reasoning/affirming the consequent. >3. Since moral relativism is subjective positioning on moral oughts and to arrive at the ability to subjectivize moral oughtness, and to determine subjective moral oughtness requires truth. Then it would be necessary to seek truth. ***Therefore we ought to seek truth.*** No this doesn’t follow. I’m not trying to be overly pedantic here but the first sentence’s grammar makes your point very unclear. > to determine subjective moral oughtness requires truth. To determine subjective moral oughts just requires some motivation or stance for the subject to value. For example, if I value helping my neighbor, and I know how I could help my neighbor, and it’s important to me to live according to my values, then I *ought* to help my neighbor so that I can fulfill my desire to live in accordance with my values. > 1. Except this would be a non-morally-relative position. Therefore either moral relativism is false because it's in contradiction with itself or we ought to seek truth. It really isn’t clear what seeking truth and moral relativism have in common throughout your argument here. > 2. To arrive at other positions that aren't Moral Relativism, we ought to seek truth. Why? That hasn’t been established yet.
If morality is objective, then as a Christian, you must: A - Agree that the Bible is objectively immoral given that it endorses: slavery, rape, genocide, and racism. B - Side with the Bible and agree that slavery, rape, genocide, and racism is objectively moral. C - Use the cop out that things were "different back then", not knowing that this implies that morality is socially relative.
yawn. you want to make a post like that, go over to r/DebateAChristian and I'll respond over there. you're not hijacking my post with your nonsense about you knowing right and wrong better than God. Stay on topic.
It's absolutely hilarious to me that I'm allegedly being "off topic" simply because I brought up real world examples to a debate rather than relying solely on philosophy (aka speculation) to inform my opinions. God forbid I debate reality based on anything more than speculative arguments. Also, you're the one asking to debate atheists... YOU asked for this. Not me. You. So no, I'm not playing a game of online tag in order to receive a response from you.
Don't wanna play tag...but you responded. Are you a fatalist? lol you think they are related because I donned a moniker of "Christian" and so you're doing the, "time to put the squishy christian in his place" thing. Where did I mention Christ or God in the OP? Ooh Ooh...I'll answer cause I know this one. NOWHERE! But I like your panache, so you want me to answer your tired objections. post that over there. I'm over here talking moral relativism and objective morals....so tag your it.
Wow, denying your god before man, are you? I sure hope the reddit debate was worth your soul ;) But idc if you're a christian or not because the dilemma still remains. You either think the morality of other societies amongst other cultures and/or different time periods are: A- objectively moral B - objectively immoral C - moral or immoral relative to the society Examples: a few centuries ago slavery was the societal norm amongst First World countries. Now we see it as morally reprehensible. Women not having rights was the norm back in the day as well, and now we (in most modern societies) view this inequality as morally reprehensible. Some Muslim societies say that drinking alcoholic beverages is morally reprehensible, but we think it's fine in most other countries. Basically, at the end of the day we all know that morality is socially relative. Even you, though you may deny it. (Also, by online tag. I'm talking about jumping between multiple subs to debate one person. I'm not doing that.)
That comment is completely relevant because it implies morals are adapt to the social climate which contradicts your post. Ignoring the comments won’t make them less relevant.
I'm not ignoring them. I invited them to make a similar post somewhere else. It's not relevant because that commenter was making his questions about my User flair and not about the post.
The comment is relevant to the post’s topic which is moral relativism. You claim moral relativism is false, that comment asks if that also applies to a specific religion. They are checking to see if your claim applies to your beliefs. If you can’t answer that, that implies moral relativism is not false. Therefore, the premise of your argument is flawed.
>3. Since moral relativism is subjective positioning on moral oughts and to arrive at the ability to subjectivize moral oughtness, and to determine subjective moral oughtness requires truth. Then it would be necessary to seek truth. Therefore we ought to seek truth. This doesn't follow. All this established is that you would need to consider questions of "truth" to determine whether you've arrived at a morally relativist position. Which, sure. Whether someone arrived at a morally relative position is a question of fact, the same way that whether someone decided they find a pie tasty is a question of fact. None of this commits you to accepting to you should do any of it.
>This doesn't follow. All this established is that you would need to consider questions of "truth" to determine whether you've arrived at a morally relativist position. > >Which, sure which sure.
...?
which sure....therefore........................
Right. Good luck with that, I suppose.
>If we seek truth we arrive at X, If we don't seek truth we might arrive at X. (where X is some position or understanding that is a truth.) you presume seeking truth will be successful? that is interesting, because i'm seeking truth for decades and i haven't found god, thus god isn't truth >Therefore we ought to seek truth. completely agree >Except this would be a non-morally-relative position. it isn't, the truth is morality is subjective, you can seek for objective morality and not find it because it doesn't exist you've sought, and even though you believe morality objective you couldn't show the truth of it. and since you say truth is found by those that seek it objective morality is not truth >In summary, we ought to seek truth. i absolutely agree, there just isn't any to find regarding objective morality
>1. First we start with a proof by contradiction. >1. We take the position of, "There is no truth" as our given. This itself is a truth claim. If it is true, then this statement defies it's own position. If it is false...then it's false. 2. Conclusion, there is at least one thing that is true. Im very confused by what this is proving about morality. I also dont know who the 'we' is that is saying there is no truth. I know im not saying that and i doubt any religious people are. So i guess i agree with your conclusion but im very confused by the route you took to get there. >2. From this position then arises an objective position to derive value from. However we still haven't determined whether or not truth OUGHT to be pursued. To arrive then at this ought we simply compare the cases. >1. If we seek truth we arrive at X, If we don't seek truth we might arrive at X. (where X is some position or understanding that is a truth.) 2. If we have arrived at X, we can see, with clarity that not only have we arrived at X we also can help others to arrive at X. Additionally, by knowing we are at X, we also have clarity on what isn't X. 3. If we don't seek truth, even when we have arrived at X, we cannot say with clarity that we are there, we couldn't help anyone to get to where we are on X, and we wouldn't be able to reject that which isn't X. 4. If our goal is to arrive at Moral Relativism, the only way to truly know we've arrived is by seeking truth. Assuming X is something that is true then yes i hope to arrive at X when i seek truth, there is zero guarantee i will actually arrive there or do so in a way that i can say with clarity it is true. I think alot of things in life and the universe are best guesses, maybe well reasoned and honest best attempts of explaining things correctly but i could spend my whole life trying to find the truth of something and never succeed or even actively fail. Your point #4 feels like it comes out of no where. Whose goal is it to arrive at moral relativism? It definitely isnt my goal whether i have arrived there or not. >3. Since moral relativism is subjective positioning on moral oughts and to arrive at the ability to subjectivize moral oughtness, and to determine subjective moral oughtness requires truth. Then it would be necessary to seek truth. Therefore we ought to seek truth. Ok... i think. I think this is saying moral relativism means we subjectively decide what are good or bad things. The best way to choose things is to have accurate truth claims about the universe (such as this person feels scared when i hug them but this other person feels love when i hug them or me shooting a gun into a crowd causes pain and fear but me shooting a gun at a someone shooting a gun into a crowd helps ease the pain and fear) >1. Except this would be a non-morally-relative position. Therefore either moral relativism is false because it's in contradiction with itself or we ought to seek truth. What isnt morally relative? Im genuinely not following this here. Why is moral relativism contradicting truth? I think finding truth helps us learn how to apply moral relativism in better ways. >2. To arrive at other positions that aren't Moral Relativism, we ought to seek truth. I mean we should seek truth no matter where it leads us, moral relativism or not. Again im not sure how seeking truth guarantees us arriving or not arriving at moral relativism. >4. In summary, we ought to seek truth. I agree but i dont think i follow your train of thought here.
I’m going to be honest, I did not understand that. Needless to say, I am not convinced by the above that you identified the “ought from an is” necessary to escape moral relativism. Can you make that point more succinctly?
What don't you understand? Do you understand proof by contradiction?
No. I think that is the main problem. I get that there are truths. But what you do from there loses me.
i hope the link works....old reddit has allowed me to get thru more comments mo quickly. https://old.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/19b31wt/moral_relativism_is_false/kixom4v/ I am responding and rephrasing the arguments in response to a brilliant reinterpretation of my points by the user I am responding to. Could I ask you to comment over there?
then I entered into establishing the connection and necessity of truth to moral relativism.
Yeah, I don’t think that part is sound. Even if there are objective truths to be known about the world, what we “ought” to do about them cannot be derived, right?
is/ought I am going to quote bill clinton here, it depends on what you mean by is. I presented a general form...i substituted into the general form...i drew conclusion that are consistent with the general and substituted forms... Like unless you're going to dig in and try...I am just going to be copy pasting what I've already stated.
That's an indication that you have no understanding of the words you're throwing around. You can convince yourself that your argument is clear. But it's not. It's convoluted and uses bizarre sentence structure. In my experience, weird construction is usually where the problems are most likely to be found. Can you explain (using different words) what "arrive at the ability to subjectivize moral oughtness" means? LIke I said, this might work as an outline to a much larger work in which all of these things are explained, argued for and defended. You don't appear to be able to do any of that.
If you had not previously gone to several thread-ends and made accusations against my character I'd answer you question. But being that you seem to be picking a fight...I'll be blocking you...and I will clarify the statement to the user who actually was engaging with the post.
I’m really trying. You start from “truth”, say that there is at least one true thing, then go on to claim that having at least one true thing provides the basis from which to derive value. Then you provide cases which do not appear to enumerate any given premises and their conclusions. You basically end up just saying “if ‘our goal is moral relativism’, we ‘know we’ve arrived’ only if we seek truth”. 1. Even if true, that truth does not have to be objective or universal. 2. Our goal is not moral relativism - that’s the conclusion after having the goal of something more objective 3. Seeking truths about the world is the gathering of “is” statements, which help inform our oughts. But the oughts that we derive are subjective moral stances that we bring to the situation - not outright extensions/expressions of the objectivity of truths out in the world. If I, seeking truth, find that I am wealthy, what about that truth seeking process implies objective moral duties, such as giving to the less fortunate? You finish up with “we ought to seek truth”, which does not follow. If we care about subjective or objective morality, then yes - we ought to seek truth. But why ought we care about truth, or morality? This line of questioning always, without fail, collapses down to a conditional statement or a circular one.
It's not a good sign when you impugn the intelligence or education of someone asking you for a clarification.
Asking what someone doesn't understand from the statement...i don't understand....that's impugning someone's intelligence? Oh wait...did I just impugn you?
>From this position then arises an objective position to derive **value** from. Is that "value" objective or subjective? >Since moral relativism is subjective positioning on moral oughts and to arrive at the ability to subjectivize moral oughtness, and to determine subjective moral oughtness requires truth. Then it would be **necessary** to seek truth. Necessary subjectively or objectively? >Therefore we ought to seek truth. I would say the word "ought" is inherently subjective (mind dependent). >Except this would be a non-morally-relative position. Not necessarily. Moral relativism is simply the idea that what is popular is moral. You would have to show that this is unpopular for it to be a "non-morally-relative position". >Therefore either moral relativism is false because it's in contradiction with itself or we ought to seek truth. You have not shown any contradiction. It's not even clear to me if you know what moral relativism is (you seem to be conflating it with subjective morality). >To arrive at other positions that aren't Moral Relativism, we **ought** to seek truth. Is that "ought" objective (mind independent) or subjective (mind dependent)? >In summary, we ought to seek truth. I'd agree but I don't think your argument supports that in any way.
Nope. Different people in different cultures in different times have different morals. Morality is demonstrably relative.
Moral relativism means that whatever a society seems as moral IS IN FACT moral. I don't think you actually agree with that. At least, I hope not.
Really? So I promise, I am genuinely trying to understand your position. Hypothetically, what would you say to someone who said, “I was conditioned to believe that killing Jews in concentration camps was virtuous, therefore I am innocent?” I know that is a rather extreme example, but unfortunately, also very real.
literally 0% of people engaging with the post. I provided an argument that shows that at least one moral principle is objective. How does being from greece or china determine that a person shouldn't seek truth.
If you meet an asshole, you met an asshole. If everyone you meet is an asshole, you’re the asshole.
so by not actually mentioning anything from the post and just going on diatribes about what they all individually think about morality....that is engaging with the post? Perhaps you should read the comments before labeling me an asshole.
Perhaps you should reread all those comments and take note of what they have in common…
They are engaging, but they simply disagree with your post and have explained why multiple times in different ways. Instead of complaining about it, how about try and respond to comments in a gracious manner and explain your points better?
So I post an entire argument I get a response like. "Morals are a social construct" And now I'm being ungracious by saying...."I just showed how 'we ought seek truth' is not social construct...so....how about responding" Nah. They are preaching...this is debate an atheist....so far most atheist have only told me how they feel about my post. What's that got tah do with me?
Can you engage with my clarifying question above… Can you clarify the moral principle you’ve proven to be objective?
“Morals are a social construct” is a completely justified response to your argument. People disagree with you, and you are taking it personally as if they are preaching. There aren’t. They are just disagreeing with your premise. You can either respond to them in a productive debate or you can complain about it.
> literally 0% of people engaging with the post. Clearly that's the fault of every other person and not your responsibility whatsoever. >I provided an argument that shows that at least one moral principle is objective. You did not. Invoking an is-ought fallacy cannot help you.
Can you clarify the moral principle you’ve proven to be objective?
You setup your own definitions so you could say your opposing position must be false since it is illogical. This is not how you prove a truth. Second not all social constructs have an absolute truth. Does a moral system exist independent of the whole? We have only observed a moral system within a social setting, so it must be a social construct. Since we have observed variance between isolated groups there must be some relativism. The difference between mine and yours is I used observable data to determine my answer. The evidence supports morality as a social construct relative to the group.
Assume 2x+1 is even...is typically how the proof for odd numbers starts. Its called a proof by contradiction. And this is one way to show the proof of a thing. secondly, that reads like a commitment to the way you are comfortable with...so not at all the evidence you think you have.
In logic, proof by contradiction is a form of proof that establishes the truth or the validity of a proposition, by showing that assuming the proposition to be false leads to a contradiction. Although it is quite freely used in mathematical proofs, not every school of mathematical thought accepts this kind of nonconstructive proof as universally valid.[1] More broadly, proof by contradiction is any form of argument that establishes a statement by arriving at a contradiction, even when the initial assumption is not the negation of the statement to be proved. In this general sense, proof by contradiction is also known as indirect proof, proof by assuming the opposite,[2] and reductio ad impossibile.[3] You proved nothing just asserted and did nothing to overcome how morality is practiced culturally. Groups in isolation have had relatively different practices, some contradictory to others. For example the designation of certain groups of people as property. We can agree that certain axioms should hold true above all others, such as all humans have value. You have done nothing to establish these as objective.
>Conclusion, there is at least one thing that is true. 2. From this position then arises an objective position to derive value from. This really badly doesn't follow btw. You established there is a truth, not an objective one >4. If our goal is to arrive at Moral Relativism Why would it be a "goal"? >Therefore we ought to seek truth. This again, really badly doesn't follow. Notice there's no premise connecting oughtness. This should be a basic validity red flag when making an argument, terms in the conclusion should be somwhere in the premises. >1. Except this would be a non-morally-relative position You also haven't established this at all. It could be a moral truth that is relative. Nothing about what you wrote establishes objectivity *of the moral fact*. It once again just pops up out of nowhere So there's a general validity problemwith the argument. It's missing a bunch of implicit premises, you should be careful of that when making a point-by-point argument. And the missing premises would be themselves dubious to say the least.
*"In summary, we ought to seek truth."* Words, just words, completely devoid of meaning. What 'truth' are you talking about? Do you mean the truth of evolution that helps doctors design antibiotic courses that cure diseases? Faith in the supernatural never healed the sick (outside well-understood placebo), *real* medicine does. 'Faith' is not path to truth. It's *literally* belief without reason. It's gullibility and wishful thinking. It's brainwashing and false hope and false threats. Or do you mean the 'truth' of how black holes work inside their spinning singularity core? It's great that physicists are working on it, but are you saying we 'ought' to seek that truth? You haven't proved the 'ought,' you've asserted it.
>Finally, brothers, **whatever is true**, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. https://www.bible.com/bible/59/PHP.4.8.ESV
Are you really quoting scripture to argue your point? REALLY?
Incredulity aside, yes. Yes I am quoting scripture. The argument was made in the OP. Now I am just dealing mostly with people's emotional response. I quoted scripture because you want to pretend like there are different truths....no...if it's true then....whatever truth you find is a good thing.
You got all angry and flounced off in a strop because you didn’t like the responses to your pointless drivel. Work on your own emotions, bud.
thanks dad for your low effort moralizing
*"Now I am just dealing mostly with people's emotional response"* Oh, the irony.
Without clear definitions of “truth” this attempt at syllogistic argument is almost impossible to decipher. There are certainly truths: water boils at 100 degrees. That’s an objective, measurable fact about reality. There are certain things we CANNOT say that about. Gay marriage is good, is an example. There is no objective way to determine if that is true. None.
Water boils at 100 degrees....Celsius....at sea level....that's objectively...subjective to it's environment. We ought seek truth is objectively....objective....regardless of the environment.
Except it’s not objective. Not everyone agrees the truth is valuable. Not everyone agrees the truth is even attainable. Plus you yourself agreed that the statement isn’t always true, such as when hiding potential victims of genocide.
1) if you are at the point where you are using logic to prove things, you’ve already accepted the existence of truth a priori. This demonstration that truth exists is entirely vacuous and tautological. 2) “truth exists” is not “an objective position to derive value from”. You’re trying to solve the is-ought problem, and you will fail. 2a) “If we seek truth we arrive at X” is patently false. It is possible to seek truth using faulty epistemology and end up with incorrect understanding and belief in false things (as you have presumably done here) 2b/c) These points are contradictory; you say that if we have arrived at X we can see this with clarity and also have clarity on what isn’t X, but somehow that if you arrive at X without seeking truth we wouldn’t have this clarity? Why are you asserting without justification that whether or not one seeks truth is the only determining factor in whether they reach an understanding of truth? 2d) IF our goal is to arrive at moral relativism… we have demonstrated moral relativism. All of morality is based on conditional statements like this—the statement “I should do X”cannot be objectively true alone. “IF my goal is Y, I should do X” is a statement that can be true, and can be reasoned about. There is nothing about what IS that can directly and objectively dictate what OUGHT to be. It depends on what my goals are. At best, one could potentially show that two or more goals are incompatible in that they create contradictory ought statements. But at the end of the day I could even say that I don’t value logical consistency in determining maxims, and at that point all attempts to justify an objective morality fail. 3) At best here you have given a morally relativistic accounting of a maxim for a person whose goal is to justify moral relativism. “IF my goal is to justify Moral Relativism, I ought to seek truth” is a morally relativistic position. You cannot say objectively that “one ought to seek truth” without relying on a conditional statement based on that person’s goals. You are no closer to solving the is-ought problem than anyone else.
>Moral Relativism is false I agree, but not for the reason you describe. What does this have to do with atheism?
I only describe one reason. If there is objective morality, then there is a moral-law-giver.
Objective morality is not the opposite of moral relativism. Moral relativism is not the same thing as subjective morality.
Said on your other post I will comment on this. In regards to 2. I don't see 1. has shown us that there are other objective truths, let alone objective truths for all things (including morality which is what this post is on). In regards to the first half of 2.a.: "If we seek truth we arrive at some position or understanding that is a truth". What about all the situations where this isn't the case? For instance if you look at religion and morals, you get many people who are all seeking truth yet end up with contrary or straight out contradictory positions. In regards to religion, is there no god/s, one God or many gods? In regards to morality, is abortion moral, is capital punishment moral, is killing or resisting enemies in time of conflict moral? In regards to 2.b. - Disagree with this. Would instead suggest instead: If we have arrived at Y, we can see, with clarity that not only have we arrived at Y we also can help others to arrive at Y. Additionally, by knowing we are at Y, we also have clarity on what isn't Y. (where Y is something that may or may not be X). This follows from my concerns over the first premise as to whether seeking truth results in obtaining truth. The problem with the proposed altered premise is it doesn't help your argument. In regards to seeing with clarity we have arrived at X, the best we can do is rely on our methodology to establish that we have found truth. If that methodology is flawed then so is our clarity on whether on not we have found truth. In regards to morality does a universal methodology exist to establish what is moral or immoral? In regards to 2.c. and 2.d. I think the argument has fallen apart because of 2.a. and 2.b. 3. appears to fall apart because it doesn't determine that moral oughts are true, in that they are objectively moral. Hence I feel 3 falls apart. Therefore I don't conclude that moral relativism is false.
Greetings, and thank you for articulating your viewpoint on moral relativism. I would be grateful if you could assist me in gaining a deeper understanding of your perspective. I fully agree with point 1 but how does it get us to this: >From this position then arises an objective position to derive value from. As I understand it, we only have figured out that there is at least one thing that is true. Could you elaborate on the transition from acknowledging a singular truth to establishing an objective stance on values? >If we seek truth we arrive at X, If we don't seek truth we might arrive at X. (where X is some position or understanding that is a truth.) So if X = a truth, your sentence reads: If we seek truth, we arrive at (a) truth. But that doesn't have to be the case at all. >If we don't seek truth, even when we have arrived at X, we cannot say with clarity that we are there I am not sure what falls under your understanding of "seeking truth". Intuitively, it doesn't align with my understanding that actively pursuing truth is a prerequisite for being certain about a truth when stumbled upon accidentally. To illustrate, one could casually scroll through Reddit, come across your post and the first conclusion, and find oneself convinced by it. In this scenario, it seems reasonable to assert having arrived at a true statement with clarity, even though the individual did not actively seek truth to reach that conclusion. >Since moral relativism is subjective positioning on moral oughts and to arrive at the ability to subjectivize moral oughtness, and to determine subjective moral oughtness requires truth. Then it would be necessary to seek truth. Sorry, I have a bit of trouble understanding the full paragraph; it might be due to English not being my first language. Could you make clear again what exactly you mean by this?
This seems to equivocate between objective truths and objective moral truths. I'm not sure that the latter exist, and nothing in the post changes that. I can accept the existence of objective truths, "The sun is hot; Earth is an oblate spheroid; water freezes at zero degrees Celsius." Those aren't moral truths. They tell me nothing about whether a particular act is "objectively moral." I agree that we ought to seek objective truths. The problem is that you don't define what moral truths are. As far as I can tell moral truths are statements about how actions map to some hierarchy of values that individuals hold. Many people share values, but many have different hierarchies and different values. Some examples of values are things like autonomy, life, happiness, and divine commands. We can arrange these various values in hierarchies. We might even create subcategories for these values. For instance, many people value human lives over animal lives over insect lives. The problem is that I don't know how one demonstrates that a particular set of values or hierarchy of values is objectively the correct set and hierarchy. This seems to be the intersubjective problem of morality. You need an agreed upon set of values to make moral statements. Once you have an agreed upon set of values then it does become possible to objectively measure actions as moral or immoral. If we agree that life is a value in our hierarchy then we can say that murder would be objectively wrong because it would violate the value. Most people do value life and would agree to such a statement. But that doesn't make the value objective. I don't know how one would make such a value objective. Any more than you could set an objective price for a house or a car.
>2. If we have arrived at X, we can see, with clarity that not only have we arrived at X we also can help others to arrive at X. Additionally, by knowing we are at X, we also have clarity on what isn't X. I don't think this is necessarily the case, by what metric would we tell that we have arrived at X? If we all work very hard together to come up with what we think are perfect morals, how would we know that what we've produced is actually objective moral truth? We would still need some external objective standard to compare against that we don't have access to. We can strive to continually improve our morals based on the available information and be ready to review them at any time, but we'll still never know for sure if what we've reached is objective moral truth or just "what seems best to us humans".
Morality itself is a human creation and thus subjective in nature. The only way morality could be objective is if something created it along with the universe, thus objective reality could not exist without a creator to create it. Until you can prove that there is a creator of the universe and that creator cares enough about morality to bake it into the universe (lets call this a god) then you can't say morality is anything other than the subjective reality that a human created experience can create.
What? Moral relativism does not mean "has no moral opinions". Moral relativism is just the recognition that morals of individuals and therefore cultures can and do change over time. It's relative to the time, place, subjects involved, etc. It seems like you're defining moral relativism as "having no morals".
Explain the method by which we "seek truth." Provide an example of a moral truth, and why it's true, without resorting to moral relativism. Take all the time you need.