Already did. Ancient Greeks did not use God to justify morality. Aristotle's "Ethics" has no reference to God. And that text is still taught in universities today.And that's just not true, because all "morality' is ultimately compared to God's standard, because it is the ultimate standard.
Prove me wrong on that.
Moral relativism
- Thread starter Hume
- Start date
I think you should live in accordance with your beliefs.
You believe nothing is real but matter and energy, and you believe you are strictly programmed by scientific principles of Darwinian evolution.
In that case talking about morality is pointless. Moral duty is just a word and a philosophical concept derived from spiritual and religious belief.
Your worldview should only be conceiving of behaviors and attributes insofar as they advantage the preservation and propagation of the genetic information of you and your kin group.
LOL. Sure you do.
HOnestly you are being SO OBTUSE about that point that I have explained to you countless times I'm assuming you are being dishonest.
Vide supra about your beliefs and living in accordance with them. You clearly have no morality of your own.
You have explained very clearly what you believe, but now maybe regret being so clear and want to walk it back.
You explicitly stated there is no absolute right and wrong, and that humans are no different than any other animal.
Since that is your worldview, try living it out.
Animals do not have moral beliefs. It's pointless for you to talk about morality. All you need to concern yourself with as an insignificant member of the animal world are behaviors insofar as they advantage the preservation and propagation of the genetic information of you and your kin.
Yet you NEVER seem to understand it. Everytime you try to tell me about what my position entails you MISS THE POINT. You missed the details, you missed everything.
Honestly, Cy, either you are really dishonest as a person or you are really dense. Given your failure to be able to complete a grad degree I'm guessing the latter.
I've already explained it to you and yet you miss the point.
HUMANS. ARE. ANIMALS. Cy, they aren't special creations of God.
I've explained that also to you many times over. You just refuse to accept it.
PLease at least be honest and say you disagree, not that I have not said anything about it.
Either certain things are objectively and absolutely wrong, or their not. You have openly aligned yourself with moral relativism.
You can't try to thread a needle and claim you believe morality is 30 percent objective, and 70 percent relative. That's like being partly pregnant.
If we are just like all the other animals, you are deluding yourself think morality is even anything real and tangible you need to talk about. Animals do not have moral beliefs.
As a strict physical materialist all you have to concern yourself with is the behaviors and attributes that will advantage the preservation and propagation of the genetic information of you and your kin group.
Moral relativism is not anything goes.
When you say "Abrahamic god"! Are you referring to Allah the Muslim God,YHWH the Jewish God, Or Jesus the Christian God? Or all three,or none of the three?
I didn't say it was. They are sets of values and principles based on opinion, cultural convention, societal norms, government edict, etc.
@murph63 actually gave a serviceable definition:
Good. So you do not refute it.I didn't say it was. They are sets of values and principles based on opinion, cultural convention, societal norms, government edict, etc.
@murph63 actually gave a serviceable definition:
You do not agree with it, but you have no argument against it.
So Christians have a moral practice. Americans have a moral practice. Absolutists do not refute this. They want a principle to justify it.I didn't say it was. They are sets of values and principles based on opinion, cultural convention, societal norms, government edict, etc.
@murph63 actually gave a serviceable definition:
But we do not need justification.
Spume’s thread is a 20-post masterclass in how not to discuss metaethics.
He opens with the classic freshman move: “Why should all morals be true every time in history and around the world?” as if that question is a gotcha instead of the starting point of the actual literature.
Then he immediately collapses three different things into one sloppy pile:
Those are not the same view. Treating them as interchangeable is how you get the rest of the thread.
When Diogenes asks for sources or specifics, Hume’s reply is “You spend your entire day on grok and you still don’t know how to get information?!” followed by “Clearly you are a troll.”
That’s not an argument.
Cypress and murph63 spend several posts talking past each other about Kant’s murderer-at-the-door case. Sex pest Cypress is right that “I would lie to Nazis” does not make you a moral relativist. It makes you someone who ranks “don’t help mass murder” above “never lie.” Spume treats that ranking as proof of relativism. It isn’t. It’s just the difference between a rigid deontologist and almost everyone else who has ever thought about the problem.
murph63’s evolutionary/social-animal line is closer to a real position (Humean sentimentalism, actually), but even that gets flattened into “therefore God is unnecessary and absolutists are scared.”
The thread never distinguishes:
So the conversation stays at the level of “some people used to own slaves, therefore morality is relative.”
That’s not a roast-worthy argument. That’s a slogan.
Spume's latest username (formerly known as Biden President) is the funniest part.
The real David Hume spent a good chunk of A Dialogue and the second Enquiry trying to show that apparent cultural disagreement is often superficial, that “artificial” virtues can still be criticized, and that common human sentiments give us more universality than the relativist wants.
The forum Hume/Spume appears to have read the real man's name and stopped there.
Short version of the thread: a poster who thinks any exception to a rule proves relativism, who answers requests for clarification with “use Grok, troll,” and who never actually states a coherent version of the view he’s defending. That’s not moral philosophy. That’s a drive-by.
He opens with the classic freshman move: “Why should all morals be true every time in history and around the world?” as if that question is a gotcha instead of the starting point of the actual literature.
Then he immediately collapses three different things into one sloppy pile:
- Descriptive variation across cultures and eras (true and uninteresting)
- Context-sensitivity of particular duties (lying to the Gestapo)
- Genuine moral relativism (no framework-independent moral facts)
Those are not the same view. Treating them as interchangeable is how you get the rest of the thread.
When Diogenes asks for sources or specifics, Hume’s reply is “You spend your entire day on grok and you still don’t know how to get information?!” followed by “Clearly you are a troll.”
That’s not an argument.
Cypress and murph63 spend several posts talking past each other about Kant’s murderer-at-the-door case. Sex pest Cypress is right that “I would lie to Nazis” does not make you a moral relativist. It makes you someone who ranks “don’t help mass murder” above “never lie.” Spume treats that ranking as proof of relativism. It isn’t. It’s just the difference between a rigid deontologist and almost everyone else who has ever thought about the problem.
murph63’s evolutionary/social-animal line is closer to a real position (Humean sentimentalism, actually), but even that gets flattened into “therefore God is unnecessary and absolutists are scared.”
The thread never distinguishes:
- Moral objectivism that is naturalized
- Divine command theory
- Cultural relativism
- Individual subjectivism
- Particularism
So the conversation stays at the level of “some people used to own slaves, therefore morality is relative.”
That’s not a roast-worthy argument. That’s a slogan.
Spume's latest username (formerly known as Biden President) is the funniest part.
The real David Hume spent a good chunk of A Dialogue and the second Enquiry trying to show that apparent cultural disagreement is often superficial, that “artificial” virtues can still be criticized, and that common human sentiments give us more universality than the relativist wants.
The forum Hume/Spume appears to have read the real man's name and stopped there.
Short version of the thread: a poster who thinks any exception to a rule proves relativism, who answers requests for clarification with “use Grok, troll,” and who never actually states a coherent version of the view he’s defending. That’s not moral philosophy. That’s a drive-by.
Yakuda
Verified User
In my opinion the best objection is if there is no absolute moral standard than any behavior is allowable and there is no legitimate reason to oppose it. Slavery is a prime example. Human beings should not be bought and sold as chattel, not because you dont like it or because enough people oppose it but because human beings have more worth than property.
Yakuda
Verified User
Lying is still wrong however even if you have a rational reason for doing it. It doesnt change what it is. When slavery was legal in America that didnt make it moral. It wasnt morally okie dokie to enslave people when it was legal.
Yakuda
Verified User
No its not a contradiction and while you shouldnt lie there may be a situation where lying serves a greater moral purpose than not lying.
Just repeating your ex cathedra claims without actually understanding what has been explained to you countless times only makes you look more dense. It won't move the needle.
You are stuck with magical ideas being beamed into people's heads from invisible sky beings.
Not sure you are in a superior position in the argument.
Yakuda
Verified User
You make a lot of assumptions there
Into the Night
Contributor
...according to your morals.
There are no 'absolute morals', just as there is no 'absolute reality'.
Into the Night
Contributor
Quite right. 'Sin' is a violation of morals.
Just as there are no absolute morals, there is no absolute sin.
Again, quite right.
To a conservative, accepting the various sexual perversions is itself a sin.
It is also a sin in the eyes of a Christian, since Jesus Christ taught against this behavior. After all, these selfish perversions accomplish nothing. Procreation does not happen with such behavior, and it CAN prevent you from ever having children..
True
Into the Night
Contributor
The Ancient Greeks used MANY gods to build their model of morality. Hugo.
So did the ancient Egyptians.
So did ancient Rome.