[luffyplayaz]

What do you guys think about the objections to the arguments for relativism? Do they work? How would you respond to what two others have told me [at the bottom]?


ARGUMENTS FOR ETHICAL RELATIVISM AND OBJECTIONS


1. THE ARGUMENT FROM MORAL DISAGREEMENT: Many Sociologists and Anthropologists point out the fact that individuals, as well as whole societies, sometimes disagree about moral issues (Descriptive Fact). From this fact, some conclude that therefore, principles regarding moral right and wrong are purely relative, i.e., ethical relativism is true and there is no objective moral truth (Philosophical Claim).

OBJECTION #1: Even if we do find moral disagreement, so what? It does not follow from the mere fact of disagreement about an issue that there is no objective truth regarding that issue. For example, suppose we disagreed on the date of Barrack Obama’s birthday. The mere fact of such disagreement does not prove that there is no objective truth on this issue. That is, it does not follow that Barrack Obama wasn’t born on a certain date, or worse, that he was never born at all! So why should it be any different with respect to moral issues? The mere fact that people disagree about moral issues does not alone prove that there is no objective truth in morality.

OBJECTION #2: Suppose the Ethical Relativist insists that the mere fact of disagreement regarding the objectivity of moral principles does prove that ethical objectivism cannot be true, and that there is therefore no objective truth in morality. In saying this, the ethical relativist is affirming the principle: “Disagreement about X implies that there is no objective truth about X.” The problem is that this negates the relativist’s own position. For there is clearly no universal agreement regarding the truth of ethical relativism! Hence, according to the ethical relativists own principle [that disagreement about X implies there is no objective truth about X] it follows that ethical relativism cannot be objectively true!

OBJECTION #3: Disagreement is over-rated: In many cases disagreements are not moral disagreements at all, but rather, factual disagreements. For example, many people who live in India do not eat cows because they believe in reincarnation. That is, they believe that cows may possess the souls of deceased human beings. In the U.S. we do not tend to believe cows have human souls. For this reason, we eat cows -
but we do not eat Grandma. It appears on the surface that there is a fundamental disagreement in moral principle between Indians and Americans. This is a hasty conclusion, however, for both cultures believe it is wrong to eat Grandma; it is just that the Indians believe the cow may actually be Grandma, while we do not. Thus it is a disagreement regarding the facts and not a disagreement in fundamental moral principles that divides our culinary habits. (Francis J. Beckwith, "Philosophical Problems With Moral Relativism." (Christian Research Journal, Fall 1993, pp. 20.)

2. THE TOLERANCE ARGUMENT: Relativists often defend their position by claiming they are more tolerant of other people and other cultures. In a multicultural society it is better to be tolerant rather than intolerant. Since the ethical relativist does not believe his moral beliefs and practices are any truer than the moral beliefs of others, he can be tolerant in a way that the ethical objectivist cannot. Hence, ethical relativism is preferable to ethical objectivism.

OBJECTION: In putting forth tolerance as a virtue that everyone ought to adopt, it seems that the ethical relativist is putting forth tolerance as an objective, universal value. But this is inconsistent with his relativist position that denies any objective, universal moral truths. Why should everyone take tolerance as a virtue to be valued if all values are relative? Furthermore, suppose a relativist belongs to a society whose moral code requires one to be intolerant of other cultures. Then it would follow that he should be intolerant, not tolerant!


ARGUMENTS THAT ATTEMPT TO SHOW THE ABSURDITY OF ETHICAL RELATIVISM


1. ETHICAL RELATIVISM IS ABSURD BECAUSE IT CANNOT MAKE RELEVANT MORAL
DISTINCTIONS. Consider these two arguments:

1. If Ethical Relativism were true, then Mother Theresa is no better than Hitler.
2. But it is absurd to believe that Mother Theresa is no better than Hitler.
3. Therefore, Ethical Relativism is not true.

1. If Ethical relativism is true, then no culture’s ethical beliefs are better or worse than any other.
2. But then the random torture of small children is perfectly right for no other reason than that it is believed by the culture that tortures the children.
3. But this is irrational and absurd!
4. Therefore, ethical relativism is not true.

2. ETHICAL RELATIVISM AND THE PROBLEM OF MORAL REFORM: Suppose an activist sees a society in need of improvement and feels compelled to propose certain changes to improve the lives of its citizens. There have been times throughout human history where we find such reformers –indeed, these include many great moral reformers such as Jesus Christ, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, etc. We admire these people precisely because they did not simply accept society as it is, but dared to change and improve it.

PROBLEM: Cultural Ethical Relativism prohibits such action because it requires the acceptance of society as it is. This is because what is morally right is defined in relation to a society’s moral beliefs and practices. Hence, anyone who advocates moral reform is not only mistaken but morally wrong! But this is absurd. Hence, Ethical Relativism is unacceptable.

3. ETHICAL RELATIVISM AND IRRATIONALITY: According to Individual Ethical Relativism, whatever I choose to believe is right or wrong just because I believe it. I may have reasons to support my belief, but then again I may not. In other words, it really does not matter whether I have reasons to support my moral beliefs. For it is consistent with the theory to assert that whatever moral beliefs I hold, they are true simply because I believe them. Similarly for Cultural Ethical Relativism. The only difference is that we are dealing with what a Culture believes is right, instead of a single individual.

PROBLEM: The problem is that this is completely irrational! Think about it. Imagine an Ethical Relativist (or a Culture of Relativists) who really believes that he has the moral right to do whatever he wants to do. Thus, he rapes, kills and tortures people -and he can justify all of this by appeal to the pleasure he gets out of it, or his
need for power and control, or for no reason at all! Of course, we might respond by saying that he does not have any right to harm others like that. But what’s the point? There is no reasoning with such a person (or group of persons) because he does not have to listen to or provide any reasons! And that is precisely the problem. Ethical Relativism ultimately condemns itself to being a purely irrational (and dangerous) ethical theory. And that is why a reasonable person cannot accept it.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


CONCLUSION: Taken together, the above arguments present us with a cumulative case against Ethical Relativism. If the ethical relativist disagrees, then he must rebut these arguments by presenting reasons why these arguments are flawed and unacceptable. In the absence of such rebuttal, it is more reasonable to reject Ethical Relativism in favor of some form of Ethical Objectivism.


Here's two responses I've gotten before:
1.
"First, you made a very basic mistake by asserting that moral relativism and moral objectivism are opposites. They are not. The proper dichotomies are: moral relativism vs. moral absolutism, and moral subjectivism vs. moral objectivism. It is possible for something to be both objective and relative, or subjective and absolute.
Examples:
We can define the term "long" as meaning "of a greater length than average." As such, 2 feet is objectively long for a pencil, but objectively not long for a sofa. While "longness" is an objective quality, it is relative to that to which it is applied. Objective/relative.

That the color "red" is beautiful is a subjective judgment. But it is absolute in that, according to this subjective judgment, all instantiations of "redness" are beautiful- ie, true in all cases. Absolute/subjective.

So in order to demonstrate objective morality, you would have to defeat moral subjectivism, not moral relativism.

The arguments you present in your post don't apply to all forms of moral subjectivism- including mine. Let me demonstrate. The first two objections don't apply to my position, since I don't base my belief in moral subjectivism on the fact that people disagree, nor is "tolerance" my standard. The key to understanding my position, is to understand that a single word can be used to refer to different concepts (which is why dictionaries include multiple definitions for most words). When I use the words "morality" and "goodness," I am using them to refer to a particular concept. This concept cannot be instantiated in the random torture of small children- this act is contradictory to my concept of "goodness," just like squares cannot fit the definition of "circle." This is an objective fact.

Similarly, the judgment that Mother Theresa is morally no better than Hitler cannot be made, with reference to my concepts of "goodness" and "morality." This, too, is an objective fact.

Where subjectivity comes into play is in the selection of the concept itself. Concepts are not "true" or "false." There is no "correct" or "incorrect" concept of morality or goodness. The concept to which I refer with these words are subjectively chosen, and therefore I am not "right" or "wrong" in selecting a particular concept. But once I've selected the concept, it becomes a matter of objectivity. I am under no obligation to consider the concept chosen by another person, when making moral judgments. Just because someone has chosen to use the word "moral" to refer to a concept which is compatible with the random torture of children, doesn't somehow mean that it is compatible with MY concept of morality."

and 2.

"One problem is that different people mean different things when they talk about Moral Relativism.

I think you have provided a pretty good case against Normative Relativism, but that may just be because I disagree with it myself.

The thing is, there is also Meta-ethical relativism, which I don't think you have really touched at all."

[spravka.ua]

Well, this is a pretty big topic. I have a B.A. in philosophy, but I didn't get involved in much high-level ethics or meta-ethics.

2. THE TOLERANCE ARGUMENT: Relativists often defend their position by claiming they are more tolerant of other people and other cultures. In a multicultural society it is better to be tolerant rather than intolerant. Since the ethical relativist does not believe his moral beliefs and practices are any truer than the moral beliefs of others, he can be tolerant in a way that the ethical objectivist cannot. Hence, ethical relativism is preferable to ethical objectivism.

OBJECTION: In putting forth tolerance as a virtue that everyone ought to adopt, it seems that the ethical relativist is putting forth tolerance as an objective, universal value. But this is inconsistent with his relativist position that denies any objective, universal moral truths. Why should everyone take tolerance as a virtue to be valued if all values are relative? Furthermore, suppose a relativist belongs to a society whose moral code requires one to be intolerant of other cultures. Then it would follow that he should be intolerant, not tolerant!

I would add a second objection here. The ethical relativist's argument seems to run something like this: "Having property X allows a person to function better in all societies Y", "people who hold belief Z tend to have property X", therefore "belief Z is true". There seems to be a sort of hidden utilitarianism here; a certain belief is true if it allows the people who hold it to function better. Yet I see no reason to suppose this to be true. The fact that tolerant people tend to function better in multicultural societies does not imply that the beliefs leading to their tolerance are true.

ARGUMENTS THAT ATTEMPT TO SHOW THE ABSURDITY OF ETHICAL RELATIVISM

I think that I agree with your objectors that you tend to argue against a straw-dog version of ethical relativism here. Perhaps there are versions of ethical relativism that can make the relevant moral distinctions here. Perhaps a moral relativist could argue that Mother Teresa is morally better than Hitler because most cultures, or most individuals, would tend to say that she is. Perhaps a precise definition of ethical relativism(s) could help here.

The thing is, there is also Meta-ethical relativism, which I don't think you have really touched at all."

If I'm not mistaken, meta-ethical relativism would say that, when two people call something morally good, they each mean something different by it, and neither of their definitions are false. This, of course, would be well beyond the scope of what you've presented so far, and need not really be your concern.

[zueqhbyhp]

Sorry? How does this relate to Orthodoxy?

[tgs]

Sorry? How does this relate to Orthodoxy?

How does it not?

[cjOTw7ov]

If relativism is true, Orthodoxy is just one of the many truths out there in moral matters (since truth is relative to place and time in relativism, every truth is relative and only true for the culture you are in). If relativism is false, then there is objective moral truth out there that is true for all times and all places, now the Orthodox can make his or her case that the truth can be found in Christianity, as opposed to it being in any religion or culture. Of course, no one is obligated to make a case, or talk with a relativist, but if one finds himself or herself in a discussion it would be beneficial to know how to respond (and maybe win them over), instead of saying "that's just the way it is".

So that's why I ask. I posted it in the "General / other casual topics
Casual discussion that just doesn't seem to fit anywhere else." because it didn't seem to fit anywhere else, since it's more of a philosophy question (it could have gone in an apologetics forum, but I couldn't find one). You seem concerned that I posted it since it doesn't seem to "relate to Orthodoxy," but it does if you understand relativism/subjectivism. If I shouldn't of posted I apologize.

[kHy87gPC]

The truth can be found in the Orthodox Faith alone. The Orthodox Faith is a way of life not just like any "religion"

The fathers of the church have given us their precious writtings that no "great words of Philosophy" can compare to their simple faith and love for our Lord that gave them the revelation of His Word, which we enjoy today.

Please read the 'Synodikon of Orthodoxy" which clearly condemns philosophy in the way it refers and presents God.

I see you enjoy philosophy, but I also see how the Truth of the Church can be distorted using words of philosophy and cause one to fall away from the true Faith into herecy.

[realfan87]

The truth can be found in the Orthodox Faith alone. The Orthodox Faith is a way of life not just like any "religion"

The fathers of the church have given us their precious writtings that no "great words of Philosophy" can compare to their simple faith and love for our Lord that gave them the revelation of His Word, which we enjoy today.

Please read the 'Synodikon of Orthodoxy" which clearly condemns philosophy in the way it refers and presents God.

I see you enjoy philosophy, but I also see how the Truth of the Church can be distorted using words of philosophy and cause one to fall away from the true Faith into herecy.

I don't understand how you can "see that [I] enjoy philosophy" when I haven't stated that. This encounter with relativists happens everyday, and what am I to do, never give a response and just go my way? We see Paul taking the time to discuss with the Hellenists. I'm not particularly fond of philosophy, in that it tries to make sense of the world without Christ, but I do have discussions with these philosophy people and so was trying to get an Orthodox perspective to this issue. Thanks for the recommendation of the book, I'll look into it. I'm approaching this topic not from a philosophical point of view necessarily, but from a Christian point of view, although I'm having the dialogue in a philosophical arena. My ultimate attempt is not to make the case for "any religion" but to combat a lie that is very prevalent in our society.

I'm not sure if your last line is targeted at me (you go from me "enjoying philosophy" to mentioning how it ruins people) because I don't raise philosophy above the Christian religion or try to distort anything, let me assure you of that. (I don't know exactly how you meant this or if you're implying that I'm somehow a worldly philosopher trying to explain things). I'm honestly asking all these questions.

[ANCETPYNCTEXT]

Last post on here.

If I knew this thread would cause so much animosity I wouldn't have posted it. Forgive me guys. I'll stop here before I get accused of heresy or anything else (more than I have already). It's probably better to talk with my priest about these issues (I'm a catechumen) instead of bringing up discussions on the forum that give people the wrong impression. Again, thank you all for the input I've received over the last few months but it's probably better for me to read than to write on here. I'll continue to follow the discussions, they've helped me a lot in my path to Orthodoxy.

[Qrhzbadu]

Whenever I see a huge cut and paste article, I ask myself "what's this person trying to say?" I saw nothing of Orthodoxy in your post, so that is why I asked.

Of course, no one is obligated to make a case, or talk with a relativist, but if one finds himself or herself in a discussion it would be beneficial to know how to respond (and maybe win them over), instead of saying "that's just the way it is".

I have also found it fruitless trying to talk to someone who is trying to use their "intelligence" to refute the Christian faith. SO my position is just to say " so you believe" and turn and walk away. I don't waste my time with someone who is trying to be smarter than they are or who has an agenda. This would be the relativist or athiest or most any other (ist).

St. Paul talking to the Hellenists is much different from you or I talking to a modern day "whatever". He was also much more knowledgeable on his subject as he himself said "I was more zealous than any other my own age for the traditions of our fathers". If people feel the need to use big words and show off their vast knowledge of intellect, I'll listen; then I will just say "so you believe" and walk away. I don't win anyone over. I dare say no one ever does. All we do is plant seeds and God does the sowing. Thats just the way it is.

Paul

[affewheillMapew]

I'm afraid there's need for some discernment here that most of us lack. Using philosophical language doesn't necessarily mean that a person is trying show off or make a spectacle of himself. It could simply mean that he is trying, as best he knows, to discover truth. Similarly, a person who is an atheist or a relativist or a nihilist does not necessarily hold his views in order to spite the traditions of the Church. He may hold these views simply because he believes them to be true. We need to remember here that phrases like "traditions of the Fathers" or "wisdom of the Church" or "the light of the knowledge of Christ" are literally meaningless to those who have not seen, with their own eyes, that Truth that resides in the Church, toward which the Fathers point, which is Christ in His merciful dispensation. Those still in darkness may light their own torches and make their own tedious way through the night; this does not mean that they spite the sun.

Jeremy

[VQdeochratis]

I'm afraid there's need for some discernment here that most of us lack.

Yup, that's me

similarly [...] He may hold these views simply because he believes them to be true.

Doh, That's me too. Now where do we go from here?

1 Corinthians 12:27 Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 28 And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues[d]? Do all interpret? 31 Now eagerly desire the greater gifts. I don't interpret tongues, I don't speak other languages, I can't heal, I don't work miracles, I am a terrible teacher and I am not a prophet. But I can sure root out someone trying to make a spectacle of themselves. I get paid to "read" people in my profession. I can see them coming a mile away.

I am very open and receptive to true seekers of "Truth". But I have no time for intellectual mind games. Like "if God were all powerful he could make a round square." And how about the intolerance of tolerance advocates?

Paul