Moral Relativism and the case for theism

[Neoteny]

If your morals are determined by context and results then you're simply making a distinction based on whether you can get away with it or not. This line of thinking suggests that there are NO morals to begin with. How can there be morals if a person bends them to their own advantage?

Basically what I'm saying is that your contradictions are showing how truly desperate you are to argue this point even to the point where you lack logic.

No... I'm making a decision based on what I think is right morally. That is validated or invalidated by the context and results, not whether I can get away with it, knucklehead.

[Jenos Ridan]

I have two observations about this. The first, most common, and most relevant, I think, is that the statement that there are no moral absolutes is an absolute. I'd ask the atheist where this revelation came from. Seems to me that taking the moral high ground, as it were, and declaring that there are no moral absolutes is in itself a moral absolute. The atheist is, himself, declaring a certain and rather absolute view about morality: that it is not absolute. The argument seems to crumble upon itself from the start.

I don't think this logic follows very much. It's really just semantics. If you say, for example, "there is just one rule: there are no rules," this as it is is contradictory. However, if you adjusted it to say "There is just one rule: the only rule is this one," then you are no longer contradicting yourself. Do you see what I'm trying to say? Instead of saying there are no absolutes with morality, a moral relativist might instead say that the only absolutes with morality is that there are none. Kind of like that saying "the exception proves the rule." But, like I said, this is just semantics, and is more of an issue of language than one of philosophy.

You are, in effect, pulling a semantics game yourself: to say that there are no rules is an absolute. No means, what again? Oh, right, it means no. No = Absolute. None, a derivitive of no, is also an absolute. So, to say there are no rules (an absolute) about morals is contradictory: one cannot have an absolute when the idea is to have none.

[got tonkaed]

I think if one realizes what the semantic difficulty is and acknowledges it, you should be able to get past the difficulty. The fact that the language gets it the way shouldnt really defeat the entire concept, which is rather simple without it. To suggest that it does, is somewhat intellectually juvenile.

[MeDeFe]

Ambrose, your big mistake is that for you every statement either is an absolute or implies an absolute. I already argued against calling any statement absolute, but I'll nevertheless repeat it again in detail because a lot of people seem to be happily ingoring it.

Words refer to entities other than themselves, if they do not they are meaningless. Because they derive their meaning from external entities they are not absolute.
The same applies to statements, apart from consisting of words which are not absolute, statements are always statements about something, a statement about nothing is meaningless. Even the underlying grammatical structure of a statement is not absolute, it's completely arbitrary and relies on a consensus among the speakers of what is gramatically correct.

'Entity' is a very encompassing word that includes anything from physical phenomenon like matter or energy to thoughts, concepts, ideas and fantasies.

A statement like "there are no absolute statements" refers directly to 2 entities other than itself and implies a third, directly to the concept of 'absolute', to the concept of 'statement', and it implies that there must be a world where these statements can be uttered. 'are' and 'no' fulfill grammatical functions that are essentially arbitrary, they mean what they mean because we use them that way. It might be a universal statement about all statements, but it's far from absolute.

[Snorri1234]

To suggest that it does, is somewhat intellectually juvenile.

Indeed. It's sort of petty to dismiss such an interresting discussion by saying "well duh the statement is contradictory lol".

[suggs]

Your dick is contradictory.

[Napoleon Ier]

Your dick is contradictory.

Even Kant said so. And he had a massive one.

[Neoteny]

Your dick is contradictory.

Even Kant said so. And he had a massive one.

It's hard to argue with a massive dong. That's an argument winner there.

[Juan_Bottom]

I am a little lost here. I follow what everyone is saying,... But isn't it also possible that many creatures inherit some type of a moral compass? As in killing your own kind is wrong? I am just lobbing that out there.

But, yeah. I don't really see any other place for what we currently accept for good behavior to come from, other than from people we respect. With maybe a little inherit behavior? I don't believe that any culture enters into it at all.

Dong.

[OnlyAmbrose]

Just for the record, I haven't ditched this thread, I'm just reading MeDeFe's post over and over until I fully get it, because apparently my understanding has been falling short.

[Snorri1234]

Just for the record, I haven't ditched this thread, I'm just reading MeDeFe's post over and over until I fully get it, because apparently my understanding has been falling short.

I think the basic point is that the statement only sounds contradictory because of our language not being able to express the idea fully.

[Neoteny]

I am a little lost here. I follow what everyone is saying,... But isn't it also possible that many creatures inherit some type of a moral compass? As in killing your own kind is wrong? I am just lobbing that out there.

But, yeah. I don't really see any other place for what we currently accept for good behavior to come from, other than from people we respect. With maybe a little inherit behavior? I don't believe that any culture enters into it at all.

Dong.

Dong indeed. Sure there is some inherited behavior, but even with my genetic bias, I can't concede that even a majority of behaviors are passed sexually.