Evidence for God from Science

But applications are an expression of morals. We can't completely divorce the two.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:What you mentioned above is moral relativism. Because no-one would argue that the ideals are not absolutely wrong and absolutely right, they are after all abstract concepts.

I disagree that it is moral relativism. For the judgements are made on what we believe to be objective moral values, that is, moral values that are true regardless of what anything says or thinks. Let us take an analogy. Person 'A' sees a red object, whereas Person 'B' sees that same object as blue. Who is correct? The colours being perceived by each person may infact be correct, yet if the actual colour of object is indeed red, then we would assume Person 'B' was colour blind.

Thus, on moral issues such as capital punishment, euthanasia, abortion and so forth, people may see such issues differently based upon their knowledge, but this doesn't mean right and wrong become relative. If it did, then why do both sides argue so vehemently over something they believe to be truth? Because they believe they are "right". And thus, they also unconsciously believe morals are objective (that is, true regardless of what anyone says).

Now even though the waters can become unclear (or "grey") by moral dilemmas, in clearcut "black and white" situations abortion is wrong, otherwise it is alright; female circumcision (still practiced within some cultures today) is wrong, otherwise it is alright. We give our moral beliefs the status of truth, and believe people ought to behave in certain ways (e.g., with honesty, love, compassion, etc). Thus, we all act as though morals are objective not relative, and indeed I believe someone is either wrong or right when they say female circumcision is wrong.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:The issue here is moral judgement not the morals themselves. But due to different factors effecting judgement the moral code will vary from culture to culture. The reason that this distinction is important is because conflict arises from disagreement.

I agree, but going back to the example I presented of colour blindness, each person saw a different colour because they had different facts. Yet, it still remains one is right while the other is wrong. And so, the colour an object has is objective, not relative. Even better, we can shine different coloured lights on an object, and thus it appears to be a different colour to us given its environmental situation. Yet, it still has a colour even if we are unable to perceive it correctly! And so the objects colour is objective, meaning it has a certain colour regardless of what people believe. By this analogy, morals are the same and we all treat them as such.

Kurieuo

Kurieuo wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:What you mentioned above is moral relativism. Because no-one would argue that the ideals are not absolutely wrong and absolutely right, they are after all abstract concepts.

I disagree that it is moral relativism. For the judgements are made on what we believe to be objective moral values, that is, moral values that are true regardless of what anything says or thinks. Let us take an analogy. Person 'A' sees a red object, whereas Person 'B' sees that same object as blue. Who is correct? The colours being perceived by each person may infact be correct, yet if the actual colour of object is indeed red, then we would assume Person 'B' was colour blind.

Unfortunately many examples are not as simple as one party being misinformed.

Kurieuo wrote:Thus, on moral issues such as capital punishment, euthanasia, abortion and so forth, people may see such issues differently based upon their knowledge, but this doesn't mean right and wrong become relative. If it did, then why do both sides argue so vehemently over something they believe to be truth? Because they believe they are "right". And thus, they also unconsciously believe morals are objective (that is, true regardless of what anyone says).

The argument is not always on what is wrong and what is right. For example in the case of capital punishment they are weighing the value of punishment over the possibility of mistaken sentancing.
Or in the example of euthanasia the issue is the value of human life over the right of an individualto end their own life. Or even more complex the issue of prolonging of unatural life over a respectable death.

Kurieuo wrote:Now even though the waters can become unclear (or "grey") by moral dilemmas, in clearcut "black and white" situations abortion is wrong, otherwise it is alright; female circumcision (still practiced within some cultures today) is wrong, otherwise it is alright. We give our moral beliefs the status of truth, and believe people ought to behave in certain ways (e.g., with honesty, love, compassion, etc). Thus, we all act as though morals are objective not relative, and indeed I believe someone is either wrong or right when they say female circumcision is wrong.

In the United States children are dropped off in day care centers regularly, but in some cultures this separation from the parents would be shocking. Who is right or wrong or is it culture?

Kurieuo wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:The issue here is moral judgement not the morals themselves. But due to different factors effecting judgement the moral code will vary from culture to culture. The reason that this distinction is important is because conflict arises from disagreement.

I agree, but going back to the example I presented of colour blindness, each person saw a different colour because they had different facts. Yet, it still remains one is right while the other is wrong. And so, the colour an object has is objective, not relative. Even better, we can shine different coloured lights on an object, and thus it appears to be a different colour to us given its environmental situation. Yet, it still has a colour even if we are unable to perceive it correctly! And so the objects colour is objective, meaning it has a certain colour regardless of what people believe. By this analogy, morals are the same and we all treat them as such.

Unfortunately this example assumes that the situation is objective. In most cases of moral judgement it is not objective at all, if it were moral situations would be evident to all forms of life and not only human beings.

In the United States children are dropped off in day care centers regularly, but in some cultures this separation from the parents would be shocking. Who is right or wrong or is it culture?

Not a moral question

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:In the United States children are dropped off in day care centers regularly, but in some cultures this separation from the parents would be shocking. Who is right or wrong or is it culture?

Firstly, how does this defeat anything I've said? Secondly, if you even agree that there is one thing wrong for everyone regardless of what anyone thinks, than you hold to an objective morality.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Unfortunately this example assumes that the situation is objective. In most cases of moral judgement it is not objective at all, if it were moral situations would be evident to all forms of life and not only human beings.

How so? Is there no such thing as morally corrupt? Can it ever be said that what a child molestor does is "good"? I'd find it a hard place to be in if I could never classify what a child molestor does as "actually" bad.

Kurieuo

Kurieuo wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:In the United States children are dropped off in day care centers regularly, but in some cultures this separation from the parents would be shocking. Who is right or wrong or is it culture?

Firstly, how does this defeat anything I've said? Secondly, if you even agree that there is one thing wrong for everyone regardless of what anyone thinks, than you hold to an objective morality.

This is seen as morally wrong in some cultures.

Kurieuo wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Unfortunately this example assumes that the situation is objective. In most cases of moral judgement it is not objective at all, if it were moral situations would be evident to all forms of life and not only human beings.

How so? Is there no such thing as morally corrupt? Can it ever be said that what a child molestor does is "good"? I'd find it a hard place to be in if I could never classify what a child molestor does as "actually" bad.

Well thats an extreme example, however a few generations ago children married at a much younger age. Also a husband demanding sex would be charachterized as a rapist today. Switching of a child would be considered child abuse today.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:In the United States children are dropped off in day care centers regularly, but in some cultures this separation from the parents would be shocking. Who is right or wrong or is it culture?

Firstly, how does this defeat anything I've said? Secondly, if you even agree that there is one thing wrong for everyone regardless of what anyone thinks, than you hold to an objective morality.

This is seen as morally wrong in some cultures.

And this means what? To make what I'm getting at more obvious, I already provided an example of how killing ones parents was also morally acceptable within some tribes. Yet, this does nothing to prove "moral relativism"... If it does, then how? I've already provided my reasons for why it doesn't.

Kurieuo

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Unfortunately this example assumes that the situation is objective. In most cases of moral judgement it is not objective at all, if it were moral situations would be evident to all forms of life and not only human beings.

How so? Is there no such thing as morally corrupt? Can it ever be said that what a child molestor does is "good"? I'd find it a hard place to be in if I could never classify what a child molestor does as "actually" bad.

Well thats an extreme example, however a few generations ago children married at a much younger age. Also a husband demanding sex would be charachterized as a rapist today. Switching of a child would be considered child abuse today.

This extreme serves to prove my point that we cannot live as though morals are relative. We really do think there is something wrong with sexually abusing a child no matter when it happens, who does it, or what others think. And if anyone sees such a thing as "good", then we wouldn't just think that is their morality. Rather we'd call such a person morally corrupt—meaning there is some absolute moral standard they are ignoring or aren't living up to as they ought.

Kurieuo

Kurieuo wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:In the United States children are dropped off in day care centers regularly, but in some cultures this separation from the parents would be shocking. Who is right or wrong or is it culture?

Firstly, how does this defeat anything I've said? Secondly, if you even agree that there is one thing wrong for everyone regardless of what anyone thinks, than you hold to an objective morality.

This is seen as morally wrong in some cultures.

And this means what? To make what I'm getting at more obvious, I already provided an example of how killing ones parents was also morally acceptable within some tribes. Yet, this does nothing to prove "moral relativism"... If it does, then how? I've already provided my reasons for why it doesn't.

Kurieuo

I understand that you have no problems with moral judgement being relative to a situation. But then you go on to say that everything is objective and that someone is always wrong in a situation. How can that be if the situation can sometimes blur the picture somewhat. In the case of the Inuit tribe they see it as wrong to refuse a request for assisted suicide. There are those who were in Florida who would object. Who is right in this situation? Is this a result of cultural?

As stated earlier it is the practice of moral judgement which is the issue here. This is what causes conflict, and therefore a subject of interest to sociologists. Sometimes neither party is right, or wrong yet the conflict exists because both sides see it as right.

I am arguing for the sake of intellectual growth, I hope I am doing a good job.

Personally I beleive that a dogmatic approach to situations like these are wrong. That one should approach it with compassion and understanding. This to me is right. Not the issue itself, we cannot be like children bickering amongst one another, because we have the ability to destroy the whole world.

For me, the answer is to always try and understand what God's decision in a similar situation will be. Since He is the moral law giver, we should always defer to Him. To turn this into a relativist human argument is futile, and can never arrive at a conclusion.

In the case of assisted suicide, for example, we are giving man dominion over life which God tells us is His. The response I always get to that is why God would want to see someone suffer? My answer is that God has a purpose for everything, even suffering, and we know that we get our reward in the next life. We know that everyone suffers at some time or another, and to suffer with dignity and faith is a testimony to the power of God. (I have close personal experience of this....right now.)

August wrote:For me, the answer is to always try and understand what God's decision in a similar situation will be. Since He is the moral law giver, we should always defer to Him. To turn this into a relativist human argument is futile, and can never arrive at a conclusion.

In the case of assisted suicide, for example, we are giving man dominion over life which God tells us is His. The response I always get to that is why God would want to see someone suffer? My answer is that God has a purpose for everything, even suffering, and we know that we get our reward in the next life. We know that everyone suffers at some time or another, and to suffer with dignity and faith is a testimony to the power of God. (I have close personal experience of this....right now.)

But with modern medicine it is possible to maintain the body even though the soul may have departed. At what point do you say enough is enough?

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: But with modern medicine it is possible to maintain the body even though the soul may have departed. At what point do you say enough is enough?

Does modern medicine tell you when the soul has departed?

In the interest of answering the question, when there is an absence of whole brain and brainstem activity, and certainty of irreversability, then I think it is safe to assume that the soul is gone too. With the absence of brainstem activity, asystole is inevitable.

August wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: But with modern medicine it is possible to maintain the body even though the soul may have departed. At what point do you say enough is enough?

Does modern medicine tell you when the soul has departed?

No

August wrote:In the interest of answering the question, when there is an absence of whole brain and brainstem activity, and certainty of irreversability, then I think it is safe to assume that the soul is gone too. With the absence of brainstem activity, asystole is inevitable.

With any line there are areas of dispute. But I agree with you in principal.

Hello,
I was instantly attracted to this topic. Not quite sure what was meant by 'Moral Relativism' (haven't really studied philosophy) but, from what I have read, I take it that to some extent different 'rule' apply for different people.

...What is my take on this: COULDN"T AGREE MORE!!!!!

It is exactly how I understand Christianity and Jesus' message (which, I realise, must be somewhat controversial to state). In fact, as with the very big moral questions of the right/wrong of abortion (for example) I believe that, whilst the decision is a black & white one, the answer is found in the grey.

I have often described (my) God as : A God of Relative values; since I believe that to define God in any other way, is to limit God. This is to live in strict/structured values, which defeats others, but also defeats the self.
'The tree that doe not learn how to bend will break'.

I'll keep reading what everyone has written...
bye for now

Just one other thing:

I see 'Moral Relativism' (presuming my definition is the same as others) as being the best (and even the only) way of finding solutions. My belief is that life and situations have great diversity; and that making morals as relative as possible allows for this diversity as much as possible.

Surely I am right believing that one type of person/characteristic exists only because that which it is not exists also ...the universe already works according to this concept of all things being relative to one another.
So therefore, why don't we-?