Into the Night
Contributor
Yes you do, Hugo. Anyone that disagrees with your morals is a 'sinner' in your eyes.
Moral relativism
- Thread starter Hume
- Start date
Torturing children, burning babies alive, liquidating the disabled in a eugenics program are always absolutely and objectively wrong, for all time and all place.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
Really? So, Jews can't sin in their religion, that pre-dates Christianity by millennia? Muslims can't sin? How about Buddhists? Shinto? Even the non-religious have a concept of sin.
Take for example, the Left. If you don't accept the whole LGBTPDARSTUV+- thing, you are an evil person and in effect, a sinner.
Sin is a universal human concept.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
I agree here. There are universal concepts of sin, evil, and right and wrong. ITN is wrong, like ITN often is.
What is the difference between "It is absolutely and objectively wrong" and "It is wrong"?
It is exclusively a religious concept.
And it seems to be a Christian concept.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
You are wrong on both counts.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
The first is a declarative statement. The second is a question.
Both are declarative statements.
I never heard any non-Christian use the word sin.
Because this whole thread makes the claim that morals are subjective, relative, and subject to opinion.
Objective morality asserts an absolute and eternal standard for right and wrong.
I think burning babies alive is absolutely and objectively always wrong by a universal eternal standard transcending human opinion.
Some humans had the opinion that ritual burning of babies was perfectly okay. The Cannanites for example.
No, I just said they relative. Not subjective or subject to opinion.
I said, "Why should all morals be true every time in history and around the world?"
And some humans had the opinion a person walked on water and died and did not die.
Burning babies alive is either wrong in an absolute, eternal, and objective sense. Or it's it's only a matter of opinion and cultural convention, aka it's subjective.
It has to be either absolute and objective, or it has to be subjective and relative.
It can't be somewhere in between - like partially subjective; or one-quarter objective.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
Well, here. Two seconds of research and...
How Do Different Religions Define “Sin”?
A spiritual look at how world religions view sin, repentance, and the path to restore harmony with the Divine across religious traditions.
spiritualculture.org
What Is Sin? How 5 Major World Religions Define Moral Wrongdoing | IsItASin
An academic comparison of how Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism understand sin, moral transgression, and wrongdoing — common threads and key differences.
isitasin.org
...now you have.
No, more generally moral relativism is only the claim that morality is not absolute or universal but is relative to the traditions and practices of a group. But point taken, indeed I believe what you are have espoused is actually, technically, "situational morality" or "conditional morality".
It is hard to understand conditional morality as being derived from absolute morality. (But then again I'm not arguing that side of the case)
It CERTAINLY isn't wrong per much of the Abrahamic religions. Or wasn't at one time. One can assume that the author (God) of all morality in the universe just changed one day but that's also hard to imagine being the basis of an "objective morality".
Clearly it is subjective and relative. If we are to believe the Bible at one point it was A-OK to conduct a genocide if it got you some free land. It was also OK to beat and murder gay people for being gay, killing women who were kinda slutty, the list goes on.
Today the same people who believe that THAT is the origin of morality in the universe no longer hold those morals.
Ergo morality changes and is a function of time and place and social convention.
Correct. Which leaves only subjective.
One need only look at human history to see that no such thing ever existed.
The people who actually AGREE WITH YOU on the existence of eternal objective morality just as often murdered and lied as the people who didn't. Arguably sometimes even moreso. It's easy to get someone to kill another if you convince them that it is part of the plan of the author of the universe.
Burning babies alive, torturing children, liquidating the disabled in a program of eugenics are absolutely and objectively wrong for all time and place.
On this there can be no compromise nor any psycho-babble about how morals are just merely subjective and based on cultural convention.
Exactly. Cannanite society thought it was perfectly okay to ritually burn babies alive.
Cannanite opinion/cultural norm is wrong. Burning babies alive is absolutely and objectively wrong in all time and place.
Relative is not subjectivism. It is like Einstein's notion of frames of reference. Nothing to do with opinion.