This no good or evil

Originally posted by Ristar
My apologies if I expressed myself badly. I was indeed referring to moral relativism. And since the idea of morality is not monolithic, we are not critiquing "morality" as a whole, we are only commenting on moral systems. Thus we are comparing multiple sets of ideas. By saying "all systems of morality are relative to my preference or yours," you are, in e ...[text shortened]... t least "true for you and not for me"😉. I hope that clears things up.

Regards,
R

Your preferences are certainly not the same as mine (e.g. you are a theist and I'm a atheist) and sometimes they are not in accord. Does it prevent you from living in a society where I live?

Different does not mean incompatible. If they are contradictory, well, that's why we need laws.

The conclusion that it is self-defeating is again false. If a moral jugdement is true for you and false for me that serves as evidence for and not against relativistic morals.
The wording "meaning that it isn't always true" is misleading, since it's the moral jugdments which would not be true universally, not relativistic morals.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I personally differentiate right and wrong based upon the moral framework developed by me over the last 26 years. This framework is based upon three key elements; 1) my parents' teaching of right and wrong, (2) societal preferences about right and wrong, (3) my own thinking about what I personally think is morally permissable. For example, whilst soci ...[text shortened]... that, whilst I am not gay, it is not morally wrong to be gay - people should have that choice.

In the end it all boils down to your personal preference, based purely on your own feelings?

Originally posted by Palynka
No, you cannot acknowledge them. I could cite many other monstrosities done under religion and make blanket statements about the consequences of belief in an absolutist moral standard. It's just not intellectually honest.

Edit - The key here is that relativism can logically lead to a "saint" or "serpent," whereas a benevolent and transcendant ethic can t and transcendant ethics can lead to the 'serpent'. History is again full of examples.

Notice I said "benevolent" as well as "transcendent." Christ would not have endorsed the atrocities done in His name; they are contrary to His teaching.

Nihilism can logically work out into barbarity, on the other hand. It gives you an out with which to perform such heinous acts.

Originally posted by Palynka
Your preferences are certainly not the same as mine (e.g. you are a theist and I'm a atheist) and sometimes they are not in accord. Does it prevent you from living in a society where I live?

Different does not mean incompatible. If they are contradictory, well, that's why we need laws.

The conclusion that it is self-defeating is again false. If a moral nce it's the moral jugdments which would not be true universally, not relativistic morals.

In a pluralistic society any number of people may live together and espouse different beliefs. This is a good thing as it allows for freedom of choice.

True, different does not necessarily mean incompatible. I am speaking only of contradictory belief systems. The law of non-contradiction rules over these.

The statement "true for you and not true for me" is an interesting slogan, but it suffers from a flaw, I'm afraid. You have assumed a universal truth that says something is true for one person and not for another. If we are consistent in that belief, then I see no reason why it must apply to me.

Originally posted by Ristar
Notice I said "benevolent" as well as "transcendent." Christ would not have endorsed the atrocities done in His name; they are contrary to His teaching.

Nihilism can logically work out into barbarity, on the other hand. It gives you an out with which to perform such heinous acts.

Are you speaking in Christ's name? Do think you know what he meant? Well...so did those that committed such 'barbarities' that you now judge as unchristian by today's christian standards.

And again you reduce relativism to nihilism. In this discussion it's like me criticizing moral absolutism and theism by reducing it to Satan worshipping.

Originally posted by Ristar
In a pluralistic society any number of people may live together and espouse different beliefs. This is a good thing as it allows for freedom of choice.

True, different does not necessarily mean incompatible. I am speaking only of contradictory belief systems. The law of non-contradiction rules over these.

The statement "true for you and not true for ...[text shortened]... another. If we are consistent in that belief, then I see no reason why it must apply to me.

The law of contradiction applies only under moral absolutism. Only then moral judgements have universal truth values.

Originally posted by Palynka
Are you speaking in Christ's name? Do think you know what he meant? Well...so did those that committed such 'barbarities' that you now judge as unchristian by today's christian standards.

And again you reduce relativism to nihilism. In this discussion it's like me criticizing moral absolutism and theism by reducing it to Satan worshipping.

I don't have to speak in His name. He did that Himself. For example we read in the gospels "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven."

These words stands in direct contradiction to all the atrocities done in His name, do they not? Even under modern sensibilities, I fail to see how this can be interpreted as anything but benevolent.

As for nihilism vs. relativism, all I am saying is that relativism gives you an out for nihilism; whereas an absolute, benevolent, transcendent ethic does not. You can believe in anything under relativism. Once again, please note the use of the word 'benevolent.' Satan worship can work out into horrific things that chill the blood. Christianity (when not politicized) cannot.

Originally posted by Palynka
The law of contradiction applies only under moral absolutism. Only then moral judgements have universal truth values.

Would I be correct in saying that you are taking the dialectic view, i.e. "both you and I are right?"

Originally posted by Ristar
Would I be correct in saying that you are taking the dialectic view, i.e. "both you and I are right?"

Not at all. I'm saying that I judge according to my standards and you judge according to yours.

An action that is right under your moral standards might be wrong under mine. Like I said, there is no universal truth value on moral judgements, but there obviously is individual truth value.

Let's take a dichotomical (for simplicity I leave out grey areas) example:

We have two moral standards (S1 and S2)
Action C is 'good by S1 and 'not good' by S2

Under S1 action C is good. This statement has an universal (positive) truth value.
Under S2 action C is good. This statement also has an universal (negative) truth value.

And, more to the point of our discussion:
Action C is good.
This statement has no universal truth value, but has a positive truth value under S1 and a negative truth value under S2.

Originally posted by Palynka
Not at all. I'm saying that I judge according to my standards and you judge according to yours.

An action that is right under your moral standards might be wrong under mine. Like I said, there is no universal truth value on moral judgements, but there obviously is individual truth value.

Let's take a dichotomical (for simplicity I leave out grey areas) ...[text shortened]... l truth value, but has a positive truth value under S1 and a negative truth value under S2.

Would I be making a true statement, then, in saying that you believe your system of each of us judging according to our own standards is universally right?

Originally posted by Ristar
Would I be making a true statement, then, in saying that you believe your system of each of us judging according to our own standards is universally right?

Yes, but it is an axiom that I feel justified by my interpretation of the evidence.

Again, your question is about a truth value, not about a moral value. It's like asking if there are three knives in my kitchen. The statement is either true or false. There's nothing evil or good about it.

Edit - If by 'right', you mean correct. Not if you mean 'good'.

Originally posted by Palynka
Yes, but it is an axiom that I feel justified by my interpretation of the evidence.

Again, your question is about a truth value, not about a moral value. It's like asking if there are three knives in my kitchen. The statement is either true or false. There's nothing evil or good about it.

Then, if I were to say, "Your system is absolutely wrong and my system is absolutely right," would I be making a true statement?

Agreed about the knives. Knives cannot be evil or good because they are not moral agents. We speak of people, however, which is another matter. It's probably good to avoid the "undistributed middle" error.

Originally posted by Ristar
Then, if I were to say, "Your system is absolutely wrong and my system is absolutely right," would I be making a true statement?

Agreed about the knives. Knives cannot be evil or good because they are not moral agents. We speak of people, however, which is another matter. It's probably good to avoid the "undistributed middle" error.

Rephrase that question, please. Do you mean that you believe that my system is wrong, that you know that my system is wrong or that under your system, my system is absolutely wrong?

As for your last comment, the nature of morals is also not a moral agent, nor a moral action. I have to say you are an excellent sophist, but I'm getting tired of your word play forcing me to point it out at every moment.

Same thing with right/wrong. If you use true/false and good/bad(evil) there can be no misunderstanding. Right can mean both true and good (righteous). Was this wording an innocent accident?

Originally posted by Palynka
Rephrase that question, please. Do you mean that you believe that my system is wrong, that you know that my system is wrong or that under your system, my system is absolutely wrong?

As for your last comment, the nature of morals is also not a moral [b]agent, nor a moral action. I have to say you are an excellent sophist, but I'm getting tired o ...[text shortened]... standing. Right can mean both true and good (righteous). Was this wording an innocent accident?[/b]

The phrase "the system is absolutely wrong" is what I would use.

Forgive me if I seem to be attempting to obfuscate the truth. That is not my intent. Instead, I am trying to demonstrate how the relativist belief system (moral or otherwise) cannot be sustained either logically or existentially. You must understand that we are detailing chains of reasoning here and I wish us to be precise in our language.

Sophistry, by definition, is an attempt to deceive. Please believe me when I say that have no intention whatever of attempting to foist upon anyone through trickery that which I do not even believe myself. All that is being utilized here is the Socratic method of asking questions, receiving answers, and drawing the appropriate conclusions. You may not agree with my conclusions and you have that right. But please let us not be unkind to one another.

Originally posted by Ristar
Sophistry, by definition, is an attempt to deceive. Please believe me when I say that have no intention whatever of attempting to foist upon anyone through trickery that which I do not even believe myself. All that is being utilized here is the Socratic method of asking questions, receiving answers, and drawing the appropriate conclusions. You may not agree with my conclusions and you have that right. But please let us not be unkind to one another.

Then I'm (honestly) sorry I misread your intents. I'll be back on this subject latter, if you are still interested in discussing it with me.

Be well,
N