Richard Dawkins says...

[claysmithr]

Are you under the impression that a moral law giver has to be God?

Ken

From https://rzim.org/just-thinking/must-the ... -lawgiver/

For most people, what we have said so far is enough to establish the dependence of morality on God. All the pieces we need to build that puzzle are not only present but in their rightful places. We know that some things are really wrong. Other things are really right, and there is an objective moral standard that helps us differentiate between the two. We also sense quite strongly that this can only be true if God exists. Morality is indeed grounded in God. Once one begins to realize that morality is not relative, that it cannot be grounded in biological evolution, and that it cannot be fully explained on the basis of social conventions or individual taste, one immediately feels drawn to the conclusion that God must exist.

Most Theists my hold that position; but I can assure you, most Atheists do not.

Ken

So then, you are a moral relativist?

What is a moral relativist?

Ken

A person who doesn't believe in an absolute morality.

Relativism is the belief that there's no absolute truth

[Kurieuo]

[Kenny]

From https://rzim.org/just-thinking/must-the ... -lawgiver/

For most people, what we have said so far is enough to establish the dependence of morality on God. All the pieces we need to build that puzzle are not only present but in their rightful places. We know that some things are really wrong. Other things are really right, and there is an objective moral standard that helps us differentiate between the two. We also sense quite strongly that this can only be true if God exists. Morality is indeed grounded in God. Once one begins to realize that morality is not relative, that it cannot be grounded in biological evolution, and that it cannot be fully explained on the basis of social conventions or individual taste, one immediately feels drawn to the conclusion that God must exist.

Most Theists my hold that position; but I can assure you, most Atheists do not.

Ken

So then, you are a moral relativist?

What is a moral relativist?

Ken

A person who doesn't believe in an absolute morality.

Relativism is the belief that there's no absolute truth

Thanks for the definition. With absolute, I assume you mean that which can be empirically verified.
I believe there are absolute truth's but not absolute morality. So where does that put me?

Ken

[claysmithr]

Most Theists my hold that position; but I can assure you, most Atheists do not.

Ken

So then, you are a moral relativist?

What is a moral relativist?

Ken

A person who doesn't believe in an absolute morality.

Relativism is the belief that there's no absolute truth

Thanks for the definition. With absolute, I assume you mean that which can be empirically verified.
I believe there are absolute truth's but not absolute morality. So where does that put me?

Ken

I'm not really sure you can separate it like that. If there is absolute truth, then there is truly a right and wrong.

For example, let's take the commandment "thou shall not kill," according to relativism this should only apply to certain cultures that believe it, but it's not an absolute moral law.

However, I think you'd agree that killing a human being is always wrong, yes? That points us toward Moral Objectivism - the position that moral truths exist independently from opinion.

To assert that there is no objective moral standard, that morality is whatever you want it to be is to make a truth claim about morality. It is proposing an objective universal moral standard (that there is no true morality.) So it is self-defeating.

[Kenny]

So then, you are a moral relativist?

What is a moral relativist?

Ken

A person who doesn't believe in an absolute morality.

Relativism is the belief that there's no absolute truth

Thanks for the definition. With absolute, I assume you mean that which can be empirically verified.
I believe there are absolute truth's but not absolute morality. So where does that put me?

Ken

I'm not really sure you can separate it like that.

Of course you can. true/false isn't the same as moral/immoral

If there is absolute truth, then there is truly a right and wrong.

I see right and wrong as judgment labels we attach to human behavior. I've got a feeling you see it differently

For example, let's take the commandment "thou shall not kill," according to relativism this should only apply to certain cultures that believe it, but it's not an absolute moral law

If an absolute moral law didn't exist, how would things be different than they are right now?

However, I think you'd agree that killing a human being is always wrong, yes? That points us toward Moral Objectivism - the position that moral truths exist independently from opinion.

I can think of a scenario where killing a human being would be the right thing to do. Can you?

To assert that there is no objective moral standard, that morality is whatever you want it to be is to make a truth claim about morality It is proposing an objective universal moral standard (that there is no true morality.) So it is self-defeating.

It's just a claim; not any type of a standard.

[claysmithr]

So then, you are a moral relativist?

What is a moral relativist?

Ken

A person who doesn't believe in an absolute morality.

Relativism is the belief that there's no absolute truth

Thanks for the definition. With absolute, I assume you mean that which can be empirically verified.
I believe there are absolute truth's but not absolute morality. So where does that put me?

Ken

I'm not really sure you can separate it like that.

Of course you can. true/false isn't the same as moral/immoral

If there is absolute truth, then there is truly a right and wrong.

I see right and wrong as judgment labels we attach to human behavior. I've got a feeling you see it differently

For example, let's take the commandment "thou shall not kill," according to relativism this should only apply to certain cultures that believe it, but it's not an absolute moral law

If an absolute moral law didn't exist, how would things be different than they are right now?

However, I think you'd agree that killing a human being is always wrong, yes? That points us toward Moral Objectivism - the position that moral truths exist independently from opinion.

I can think of a scenario where killing a human being would be the right thing to do. Can you?

To assert that there is no objective moral standard, that morality is whatever you want it to be is to make a truth claim about morality It is proposing an objective universal moral standard (that there is no true morality.) So it is self-defeating.

It's just a claim; not any type of a standard.

So you don't believe there is an objective right and wrong? There is no good and evil?

If an absolute moral law didn't exist, how would things be different than they are right now?

Unjustly killing people wouldn't be universally frowned upon, it would simply be "survival of the fittest," and there would be no such thing as universal justice or human rights. Additionally, if there were no moral standard, then God has no standard by which to judge us with, but I'm assuming you are an atheist.

I can think of a scenario where killing a human being would be the right thing to do. Can you?

The Torah and Hebrew Bible made clear distinctions between the shedding of innocent blood versus killing as the due consequence of a crime.

Thou shall not kill is about killing the innocent. Can you think of a scenario where this is ok? I can only think of 1: Christ.

It's just a claim; not any type of a standard.

A truth claim about morality becomes a moral standard, which is why it's hard to separate the two.

[Kenny]

What is a moral relativist?

Ken

A person who doesn't believe in an absolute morality.

Relativism is the belief that there's no absolute truth

Thanks for the definition. With absolute, I assume you mean that which can be empirically verified.
I believe there are absolute truth's but not absolute morality. So where does that put me?

Ken

I'm not really sure you can separate it like that.

Of course you can. true/false isn't the same as moral/immoral

If there is absolute truth, then there is truly a right and wrong.

I see right and wrong as judgment labels we attach to human behavior. I've got a feeling you see it differently

For example, let's take the commandment "thou shall not kill," according to relativism this should only apply to certain cultures that believe it, but it's not an absolute moral law

If an absolute moral law didn't exist, how would things be different than they are right now?

However, I think you'd agree that killing a human being is always wrong, yes? That points us toward Moral Objectivism - the position that moral truths exist independently from opinion.

I can think of a scenario where killing a human being would be the right thing to do. Can you?

To assert that there is no objective moral standard, that morality is whatever you want it to be is to make a truth claim about morality It is proposing an objective universal moral standard (that there is no true morality.) So it is self-defeating.

It's just a claim; not any type of a standard.

So you don't believe there is an objective right and wrong? There is no good and evil?

I believe right and wrong, good and evil are subjective, not objective. I believe good and evil are labels we attach to our experiences. IOW good and evil exists to the same extent that beautiful, funny, silly, or smart.
I suspect you see good & evil as objective meaning if “X” is good, it doesn’t matter who disagrees, they are wrong; because it can be objectively shown to be good.
How about beauty? Is it possible for a picture to be objectively beautiful even if I see it as ugly? If a comedian is telling jokes, and I don’t find him funny; is it possible that I could be objectively shown to be wrong because it can be proven that he is funny? Or is the label good & evil the only objective labels, and all the rest of the labels; (funny, wise, tall, etc. etc.) subjective?

If an absolute moral law didn't exist, how would things be different than they are right now?

Unjustly killing people wouldn't be universally frowned upon, it would simply be "survival of the fittest," and there would be no such thing as universal justice or human rights. Additionally, if there were no moral standard, then God has no standard by which to judge us with, but I'm assuming you are an atheist.

If an absolute moral law didn’t exist, the same people would still incorrectly believe it does! If what people believe about morality doesn’t change, do you really believe everybody will all of a sudden go crazy?

I can think of a scenario where killing a human being would be the right thing to do. Can you?

The Torah and Hebrew Bible made clear distinctions between the shedding of innocent blood versus killing as the due consequence of a crime.

Thou shall not kill is about killing the innocent. Can you think of a scenario where this is ok? I can only think of 1: Christ.

Innocent is a legal term. History is full of examples of people committing all kinds of atrocities yet still considered innocent according to the crooked laws of the land. Remember the Nazis who operated the death camp of Treblinka were considered innocent by German law at that time, because they were acting in accordance to the law of the land. Are you sure you can’t think of any other examples?

[claysmithr]

What is a moral relativist?

Ken

A person who doesn't believe in an absolute morality.

Relativism is the belief that there's no absolute truth

Thanks for the definition. With absolute, I assume you mean that which can be empirically verified.
I believe there are absolute truth's but not absolute morality. So where does that put me?

Ken

I'm not really sure you can separate it like that.

Of course you can. true/false isn't the same as moral/immoral

If there is absolute truth, then there is truly a right and wrong.

I see right and wrong as judgment labels we attach to human behavior. I've got a feeling you see it differently

For example, let's take the commandment "thou shall not kill," according to relativism this should only apply to certain cultures that believe it, but it's not an absolute moral law

If an absolute moral law didn't exist, how would things be different than they are right now?

However, I think you'd agree that killing a human being is always wrong, yes? That points us toward Moral Objectivism - the position that moral truths exist independently from opinion.

I can think of a scenario where killing a human being would be the right thing to do. Can you?

To assert that there is no objective moral standard, that morality is whatever you want it to be is to make a truth claim about morality It is proposing an objective universal moral standard (that there is no true morality.) So it is self-defeating.

It's just a claim; not any type of a standard.

So you don't believe there is an objective right and wrong? There is no good and evil?

I believe right and wrong, good and evil are subjective, not objective. I believe good and evil are labels we attach to our experiences. IOW good and evil exists to the same extent that beautiful, funny, silly, or smart.
I suspect you see good & evil as objective meaning if “X” is good, it doesn’t matter who disagrees, they are wrong; because it can be objectively shown to be good.
How about beauty? Is it possible for a picture to be objectively beautiful even if I see it as ugly? If a comedian is telling jokes, and I don’t find him funny; is it possible that I could be objectively shown to be wrong because it can be proven that he is funny? Or is the label good & evil the only objective labels, and all the rest of the labels; (funny, wise, tall, etc. etc.) subjective?

If an absolute moral law didn't exist, how would things be different than they are right now?

Unjustly killing people wouldn't be universally frowned upon, it would simply be "survival of the fittest," and there would be no such thing as universal justice or human rights. Additionally, if there were no moral standard, then God has no standard by which to judge us with, but I'm assuming you are an atheist.

If an absolute moral law didn’t exist, the same people would still incorrectly believe it does! If what people believe about morality doesn’t change, do you really believe everybody will all of a sudden go crazy?

I can think of a scenario where killing a human being would be the right thing to do. Can you?

The Torah and Hebrew Bible made clear distinctions between the shedding of innocent blood versus killing as the due consequence of a crime.

Thou shall not kill is about killing the innocent. Can you think of a scenario where this is ok? I can only think of 1: Christ.

Innocent is a legal term. History is full of examples of people committing all kinds of atrocities yet still considered innocent according to the crooked laws of the land. Remember the Nazis who operated the death camp of Treblinka were considered innocent by German law at that time, because they were acting in accordance to the law of the land. Are you sure you can’t think of any other examples?

Like I said moral relativism is indefensible because it claims no truth claims can be made morally, which is itself a truth claim.

[Kenny]

A person who doesn't believe in an absolute morality.

Relativism is the belief that there's no absolute truth

Thanks for the definition. With absolute, I assume you mean that which can be empirically verified.
I believe there are absolute truth's but not absolute morality. So where does that put me?

Ken

I'm not really sure you can separate it like that.

Of course you can. true/false isn't the same as moral/immoral

If there is absolute truth, then there is truly a right and wrong.

I see right and wrong as judgment labels we attach to human behavior. I've got a feeling you see it differently

For example, let's take the commandment "thou shall not kill," according to relativism this should only apply to certain cultures that believe it, but it's not an absolute moral law

If an absolute moral law didn't exist, how would things be different than they are right now?

However, I think you'd agree that killing a human being is always wrong, yes? That points us toward Moral Objectivism - the position that moral truths exist independently from opinion.

I can think of a scenario where killing a human being would be the right thing to do. Can you?

To assert that there is no objective moral standard, that morality is whatever you want it to be is to make a truth claim about morality It is proposing an objective universal moral standard (that there is no true morality.) So it is self-defeating.

It's just a claim; not any type of a standard.

So you don't believe there is an objective right and wrong? There is no good and evil?

I believe right and wrong, good and evil are subjective, not objective. I believe good and evil are labels we attach to our experiences. IOW good and evil exists to the same extent that beautiful, funny, silly, or smart.
I suspect you see good & evil as objective meaning if “X” is good, it doesn’t matter who disagrees, they are wrong; because it can be objectively shown to be good.
How about beauty? Is it possible for a picture to be objectively beautiful even if I see it as ugly? If a comedian is telling jokes, and I don’t find him funny; is it possible that I could be objectively shown to be wrong because it can be proven that he is funny? Or is the label good & evil the only objective labels, and all the rest of the labels; (funny, wise, tall, etc. etc.) subjective?

If an absolute moral law didn't exist, how would things be different than they are right now?

Unjustly killing people wouldn't be universally frowned upon, it would simply be "survival of the fittest," and there would be no such thing as universal justice or human rights. Additionally, if there were no moral standard, then God has no standard by which to judge us with, but I'm assuming you are an atheist.

If an absolute moral law didn’t exist, the same people would still incorrectly believe it does! If what people believe about morality doesn’t change, do you really believe everybody will all of a sudden go crazy?

I can think of a scenario where killing a human being would be the right thing to do. Can you?

The Torah and Hebrew Bible made clear distinctions between the shedding of innocent blood versus killing as the due consequence of a crime.

Thou shall not kill is about killing the innocent. Can you think of a scenario where this is ok? I can only think of 1: Christ.

Innocent is a legal term. History is full of examples of people committing all kinds of atrocities yet still considered innocent according to the crooked laws of the land. Remember the Nazis who operated the death camp of Treblinka were considered innocent by German law at that time, because they were acting in accordance to the law of the land. Are you sure you can’t think of any other examples?

Like I said moral relativism is indefensible because it claims no truth claims can be made morally, which is itself a truth claim.

If that is true, then to answer your question; I am not a moral relativist.

Ken

[RickD]

Kenny wrote:
I believe right and wrong, good and evil are subjective, not objective.

Kenny wrote:
I am not a moral relativist.

Moral Relativism (or Ethical Relativism) is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances.

Kenny,

You're the textbook definition of a moral relativist.

[Kenny]

Kenny wrote:
I believe right and wrong, good and evil are subjective, not objective.

Kenny wrote:
I am not a moral relativist.

Moral Relativism (or Ethical Relativism) is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances.

Kenny,

You're the textbook definition of a moral relativist.

Well! I guess it all depends on how one defines "moral relativist" huh?

Ken

[RickD]

Kenny wrote:
I believe right and wrong, good and evil are subjective, not objective.

Kenny wrote:
I am not a moral relativist.

Moral Relativism (or Ethical Relativism) is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances.

Kenny,

You're the textbook definition of a moral relativist.

Well! I guess it all depends on how one defines "moral relativist" huh?

Ken

Sure, I guess. If one defines a moral relativist as someone who holds to moral relativism, then you're a moral relativist.

But, if someone thinks that word definitions are subjective, then you could make up any definition.

[Kenny]

Kenny wrote:
I believe right and wrong, good and evil are subjective, not objective.

Kenny wrote:
I am not a moral relativist.

Moral Relativism (or Ethical Relativism) is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances.

Kenny,

You're the textbook definition of a moral relativist.

Well! I guess it all depends on how one defines "moral relativist" huh?

Ken

Sure, I guess. If one defines a moral relativist as someone who holds to moral relativism, then you're a moral relativist.

But, if someone thinks that word definitions are subjective, then you could make up any definition.

Like I told BW (BavarianWheels) rather than going back and fourth over the definition of words, I would rather respond in the context of how the person I am responding to defines the term. The way Claysmiter described the term, it doesn’t describe me.

[RickD]

Kenny wrote:
I believe right and wrong, good and evil are subjective, not objective.

Kenny wrote:
I am not a moral relativist.

Moral Relativism (or Ethical Relativism) is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances.

Kenny,

You're the textbook definition of a moral relativist.

Well! I guess it all depends on how one defines "moral relativist" huh?

Ken

Sure, I guess. If one defines a moral relativist as someone who holds to moral relativism, then you're a moral relativist.

But, if someone thinks that word definitions are subjective, then you could make up any definition.

Like I told BW (BavarianWheels) rather than going back and fourth over the definition of words, I would rather respond in the context of how the person I am responding to defines the term. The way Claysmiter described the term, it doesn’t describe me.

Of course it does. He said:

claysmithr wrote: ↑Fri Jun 08, 2018 6:42 am
Like I said moral relativism is indefensible because it claims no truth claims can be made morally, which is itself a truth claim.

Moral relativism says that as far as morality, no truth claims can be made, because in moral relativism, morals are believed to be subjective. So, the claim that no truth claims can be made, is in itself a truth claim. Claysmithjr is saying that it's a self defeating argument. Surely you can see that, right?

[Kenny]

Kenny,

You're the textbook definition of a moral relativist.

Well! I guess it all depends on how one defines "moral relativist" huh?

Ken

Sure, I guess. If one defines a moral relativist as someone who holds to moral relativism, then you're a moral relativist.

But, if someone thinks that word definitions are subjective, then you could make up any definition.

Like I told BW (BavarianWheels) rather than going back and fourth over the definition of words, I would rather respond in the context of how the person I am responding to defines the term. The way Claysmiter described the term, it doesn’t describe me.

Of course it does. He said:

claysmithr wrote: ↑Fri Jun 08, 2018 6:42 am
Like I said moral relativism is indefensible because it claims no truth claims can be made morally, which is itself a truth claim.

Moral relativism says that as far as morality, no truth claims can be made, because in moral relativism, morals are believed to be subjective. So, the claim that no truth claims can be made, is in itself a truth claim. Claysmithjr is saying that it's a self defeating argument. Surely you can see that, right?

Subjective truth claims are still truth claims.