@AllOtherNamesTaken2 "This argument wouldn't mean shit to a scientist." What? Science doesn't deal with moral matters. Scientists know this (unless you're as shallow as Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins). And morality is not based on feelings. They're discovered and they're what philosophers call a properly basic belief.
@FatGermanBastard Well if you sue the teacher in court he could just say that he doesn't concede the social contract. And if he doesn't, why would that still be a problem? It's not like everybody follows the social contract theory of morality anyway.
SBRslacker00: You seem to be missing the point. The teacher's grade is ALSO relative. The student had no right to complain because he concede there is no fairness. Listen to the video again. And child molestation would also be relative if there were no absolutes.
@FatGermanBastard yeah, thats sort of what I said. I was saying that the student realised that the concept it self is objective by definition and it only makes sense in the objective context. in other words, subjective-fairness is a contradiction. that is my point. as for it (fairness) or any other value being obligatory, that is another matter. as for social contract theory, that is a seprate ethical matter and has nothing to do with what I was talking about, at least not in a direct relation.
grits011: For one, it must be transcendent of time. Otherwise, what might be wrong one minute ago can be right now. Also, it must transcend opinion. Otherwise, the evil of molesting children is just one person's opinion over another.
@FacelessPhoenix: So, since you think it makes perfect sense that morality is relative, then molesting children is just as relatively good as feeding children then? You don't really believe that do you? Why can't child molestation be absolutely wrong no matter what?
@FatGermanBastard Why would it be irrational for the teacher to not follow the social contract if morality is relative anyway? Why can't he make up his own rules? That's what moral relativism is. The fact that you're impeding (or forcing) upon his morality shows that you aren't a moral relativist. Dude, leave the teacher alone.
@FatGermanBastard I disagree with 1 & 2. 3 is a conditional statement, and there is no evidence that the student was talking about scocial contract theory or even assuming it.
@FatGermanBastard craig was saying that the student was assuming an objective, that is universal concept of fairness. to say "that's not fair" in the context of that interchange only makes sense if fainess is "treated" as something universal. and for it to hold any weight, it must be obligatory. now that doesn't mean it is obligatory, but the student was assuming it was, otherwise it would hold no weight as a response to why the teacher gave him the F.
@FatGermanBastard I think you misunderstand how I was using the rerm nihilism. yes it can and does refer to there not being any meaning to things but I was using it specificly that there is no ethical meaning to things in the absolute sense. it's like this. relatvism boils down to subjectivism. at this point all ethics become is pereference in bavior. there is no obligation in any of that to anything. thus no absolute ethical meaning, that is a form of nihilism.
@Chessiere If you are 'certain of the inexistence of an absolute' aren't you contradicting yourself? Say it again: "I am certain that there are no absolutes." Since there is not right and wrong, how can relativism "win" over absolutism? Have you considered that because of our unique ability as humans to govern ourselves by reason instead of instinct, would not a moral code of some kind become essential to our well-being as we are social creatures?
What i think is so interesting is that Christians just assume that God is a moral absolutist. Of course, the "Christian" CHURCHES are all about moral absolutism because it helps them maintain power. However, if you look at what jesus actually taught, it sounds a LOT more like moral relativism. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" means that morality really IS "what you prefer".
@FatGermanBastard perhaps, but given that it was in the context of a philsophy class, specificly on the subject of ethical relativism. by the student saying "that isn't fair" in the context of that discussion, it is obvious the student was acting as though fairness was something objective, otherwise it would make no sense for him to even bring it up as a response to why the teacher gave him an F.
The teacher had no right to put an F on the paper, because he, as a teacher was supposed to judge the student by his "objective" skills ocncerning the work itself (even though they'd been subjective based on the nature of the teacher being human) and not by some subjective aesthetic aspects of the presented work. A really good teacher would've helped the student to point that error out and fix it instead of using it to subdue a yet developing worldview through a "backdoor" like that.
Is it wrong to kill? Under what circumstances is it right to kill? I would get a variety of answers from this question, how can that be objective? Some would say killing is always wrong, some would say it's right during war and even others would say it is right only for protection. How do these different moral perspectives arise if not from genetic or environmental factors? Certainly it is not Objective or else we would all agree on one answer. Please point out any errors if they exist.
@FatGermanBastard I'm not so sure about that. the student said, "that isn't fair", which implies an objective princible of judgement as opposed to a subjective one. what objection could the student rationally have? I think what the student realised was that fairness is it self an objective concept by definition. the question you are rasing I believe is, why is fairness or any value for that matter, obligatory?
Why do people even argue against this by saying it is pathetic or stupid, listen to the argument and apply it to yourself and you will come up with the same conclusion. If I hit you in the head and you got mad at me and told me to stop, I will say i think it is right and I'll keep doing it. Now you keep getting mad at me if I keep hitting you. Why do you get mad?
Interesting point on morality. The story about the paper illustrated the 'golden rule' concept, the understanding that our actions can cause suffering in others. That's empathy. It's also true that these morals come from somewhere. But from where? That is the QUESTION, not the answer. Why does the source of morality have to be 'transcendent'? Transcendent of what?
@FatGermanBastard I think craig is trying to say here that we are forced in a pragmatic way to act under the assumption (acting "as if") that there exists such objective values, and that this is something hat is embeded in us. that of course doesn't answer the question of them being obligator as I said before, but to be fair I don't think craig was trying to answer that question here. that's why he makes theological reference at the end and eludes to another argument(s).
@FatGermanBastard the reason the student was not refuting his own relativism is because he never provided a reason for the "ought". craigs point was that he was assuming one. that he could not act as though there wasn't fairness that extended beyond mere convention. the reason scocial contract theory will not help here is because it is conventional and hence subjective. there is no universal maxim or reason (kant) to say I can't opt out at any time. SCT gives way to subjectivism or nehimism.
"A relative human standard of morality is a REQUIRMENT in judgeing the ' devil bad/ God good....other wise you have Righteous Suicide Bombers". That doesn't follow. Someone who believes in moral absolute is automatically a suicide bomber? Martin Luther King, Jr. believed in moral absolutes, he wasn't a suicide bomber. You're being extremely simplistic.
@Ebuverthebicepcurler That a person wants fairness doesn't mean it exist and just "must" be followed. Things just are, and we make of them as we please. I can choose to act within a set of morality, but that doesn't mean these principles are objective. It's like asking an ex-jew to eat pork- just because he doesn't like it mean his old morals had to be objectively followed.
@FatGermanBastard that is a potential motive of the student although the way craig explained it, it seams unlikely. even treating it as a hypothetical situation, THAT interpretation would not be what craig was getting at. I don't think anyone there was thinking they were "bound" to action because human beings are autonomous.
Livable? It's necessary. If killing were always (absolute) wrong, self defense would be moot. Saving the lives of others by killing attackers would be an immoral act. Stealing bread to feed a family would be immoral. Lying to protect the innocent would be immoral. I'm not sure I'd want to live in a system of absolute morality. How terrible would it be where an absolute system existed? The penalty for adultery? Yikes!
@FatGermanBastard the reason I keep repeating this is because it is irrelevant. the diference in it being moral or not, has to do with it being obligatory or not. we both agree that fairness is an objective concept. if it is obligatory and therefore moral, is another question. Craigs answer to that question of where does the ought come from is theism.
@AtomicKinetic12, "you didn't respond to anything I posted you simply ignored it." Ok. I'll lighten up. But you made only one comment. What was I supposed to type? "Are you going to give me a counter argument that goes against my explanation of where our moral sentiments come from?" Didnt I already do that? IT comes from absolute moral codes and lessons. If your parents never indoctrinated you with moral values (whether it's relgious or not), then you have problems.
@philosophywpaul But we have a means of objectively determining truth, we have no means objectively determining morality. So if it does exist, and we can't know it, then what does it matter. How do we act like morality is objective? I certainly don't, unless you can show otherwise. Even if we did all act like morality is objective that makes no difference. It doesn't say that morality is objective, it just says that we treat it as such.
The only thing the professor made the kid believe was that he had his own moral values. He was a hypocrit. Does this prove that objective moral values exist? No. Does it mean that everyone wants morality? Yes, but they want it their own way, as they define it. So objective morality is treat others as youd want to be treated or as they would want to be treated (in cases of incompatible morals because youd want no different) An A on the paper? I wouldnt have done that.
Just because a set of morals are appealing doesn't mean they are objective. I guess one could say it is objective in that there is a objective way of reaching a certain goal, but should and should not can't exist in a vacuum. The teacher doesn't have to grade properly, but it would be the best way to recognize good work, which in turn helps society, which in turn we want for our own benefit. Should cannot exist in a vacuum- a goal must be made first.
@FatGermanBastard yes, but sinse there is no "ought" relativism gives way to subjectivism (obviously) but ultimately reduces to nihilism. social contract at first seams to be coherent but ultimately reduces to subjectivism and hence nihilism at the meta-level, at which point, fairness has no meaning. yes things can be fair or unfair if we agree to act in this or that way, but if there is nothing obligatory that would make such contracts binding, there is no reason to honor them.
There exists absolutely no reason why any of the RUclips videos regarding "relativism", should have comments that do anything other than agree with the Absolutist position that is presented within the video. Meaning that only other Absolutists should be posting comments, expressing their like-minded views Any self professed relativists would most effectively put their relativism into practise by not posting any opposing arguments whatsoever. For a Relativist must not assert anything absolutely
Because you think it is wrong. So how do you live this out then, do I keep hitting you cause it is right to me yet you want me to stop cause you think it is wrong?
@NetIncarnate And the objective moral system cannot be trusted because even in the case of hypothetical inquisition there would've been at least two different moral systems (one of the church, and one of the people who don't like it), and the more powerful one would've simply come out to be more "objective" by the use of that very power.
@FatGermanBastard social contract has nothing to do with this. the teacher was acting in accordence with relativism, for which the student can have no objection. yet he did. that is what craig is saying. that despite what we might claim, we act as though there are objective values. your talking about the question of something being obligatory or not, which is a seprate question. again craig was not even trying to answer that here. he is talking strictly about the practical aspects.
"The student argues moral relativism in terms of there being NO moral values. haha" And no fairness too. You haven't listened to the video close enough, did you?
@FatGermanBastard right right, but that is craigs point. as for the "ought", that would be another matter, which he claims comes from a transendent god.
The fact that the student and most people would feel like it is unfair to give an F to the paper does not make that act absolute truth(linked to God) it just means that our intrinsic moral systems make us think that it is wrong to do that
(continued)... Also, Darwin may not have been a racist, but his theories sure led his scientific peers to make racist theories. Take Ernst Haekel for example: "Haeckel also applied the hypothesis of polygenism to the modern diversity of human groups. He became a leading proponent of scientific racism, stating for instance: The Caucasian, or Mediterranean man..., as the most highly developed and perfect." (Wikipedia[13]) IT also states that he promoted eugenics. NOW WHO'S RIGHT? :P
@bogusnachos, (continued)....And I looked over some of the WW2 chapters, and it does say that Hitler justified eugenics and his theories of the pure "aryan" race through his promotion of darwinsim. So IN YOUR FACE. :P
@bogusnachos, Actually I read it in the Complete Idiot's Guide to World History. So I guess it's the books fault. But Charles Darwin expressed his theory well before the 1840s and the Origin of Species was published in 1859.
(continued)... Ancient civilizations always used pagan religions as their prime way to unite a culture in morality. IT was the building block of a moral society. If we take religion out of the formula, we would still be living like cavemen. Religion helped start ancient cultures. A morally relativistic society is a danger to the wellbeing of a nation, as time continues to progress. Almost every historian will tell you this.
What a strawman. Moral agreement with others with the same morality doesn't amount to moral absolutes. Elsewhere geographically or historically where morals are different, you won't necessarily find someone who objects to that F. That's moral relativism. This "doctor" is arguing arbitrary moral inconsistency or even a lack of morality altogether. Even within moral relativism, there is consistency within groups, just not necessarily *between* all groups.
Differences between cultures are no more an argument for moral relativism than differences in beliefs about the origin of the universe are evidence that the origin of the universe is relative.
@@kenandzafic3948 Well yes, because of the obvious false equivalence fallacy that you've just made? For your dismissal of moral relativism to be valid, by virtue of your universe origin analogy being dismissable, you would already have to be assuming morals were as absolute as a physical occurance in nature, such as the origin of the universe. Thus you are assuming your conclusion that morals aren't relative in order to conclude that morals aren't relative. Circular reasoning.
@@Nyghl0 That is not true, I just said that there is no evidence for moral relativism and there is evidence for moral realism: - Intuition -Epistemic duties - The fact that people fight for human rights -Moral progress -The fact that people talk as if moral realism is correct
@@kenandzafic3948 unfortunately what I said is true, and no you weren't saying that there's evidence for one and not the other, you were trying to dismiss moral relativism by drawing a false equivalence with something that's easier to dismiss. But now that you're trying to change your argument to "evidence for one and not the other", all I have to do is go back to pointing out the fact that different peoples historically/geographically have different ways of enacting what you listed, relative to other peoples (i.e. moral relativism). So now the issue with what you're saying is going in a different kind of circle.
@@Nyghl0 Nothing you've said is true, you've offered no evidence for moral relativism. Your argument is terrible, differences in nations are not evidence for moral relativism, just as differences in beliefs about the shape of the earth are not evidence that the shape of the earth is not objective. That argument only works if you already assume in advance that relativism is correct, which is begging the question. Here it is in logical form. 1) Nations do not agree on moral facts. Conclusion: Moral facts do not exist I'm sorry but this is a non sequitur.
(continued)....Also on page 287, the book says the following: Drawing on Social darwinism, hitler believed that superior races and nations.. BLA BLA BLA. You should understand the rest. IN YOUR FACE.
Me:So you believe in moral relativism, Mr Atheist? Atheist: Yes Me. Oh Ok.... (grabs a bat a strikes it on his head until blood drips from his head, while swearing insults) Atheist: WTH are you doing? That's CRUEL! Me: Yeah..... Whatever idiot.
@AtomicKinetic12, Oh... So I'M not understanding after I completely took care of your stupidity? YOU'RE FULL OF CRAP. If you say killing and raping someone is wrong, and if an entire group of people condone it, what moral basis would you tell them that it's wrong, if youre presenting only morally relativistic ideas? Can you answer that question and try not to avoid it and find a loop hole? Religion was the tool that helped expand awareness to the concept of moral values.
@AtomicKinetic12, There are cutural differences and traditional barriers of morality, but those differences dont negate the immorality of gangraping somebody. If a society endorces sacrificing someone and then raping their dog, does that prove that it's right, since it's cultural? You sound like a moron right about now...
Craig is right when he says there is objective morality, but he is mistaken when he says there is no such thing under atheism or that atheists cannot ground objective morality. Erik Wielenberg's account of objective morality under atheism is a formidable piece of work.
The story with the student getting an F is pretty funny. However, I'm a moral relativist, and I'd argue that we all are as well. The laws that govern our society depend upon the society and the time that we live. However, that doesn't mean I have to agree with those laws, or with what you think is right or wrong, or with what the bible says is right or wrong (after being saved as the only righteous man, Lott got drunk with his daughters and had sex with them --- that differs with my moral values). A lot of academics make the mistake in thinking moral relativists must tolerate the moral beliefs of others. That's not even remotely true. I live by my moral code and do not give a crap about your moral beliefs. It is kind of like tastes in regards to food. I love a proper pizza, and I think you're an idiot if you put pineapples are yours. We just happen to get along as a society if most of us have similar moral beliefs, and some times we need to literally battle it out over moral conflicts like slavery or gassing the Jews.
Who would argue against the claim that the laws that govern society depend upon society and the time? That’s not relativism. Relativism is the view that moral facts themselves are relative, not the laws that a society functions by. A non-relativist would agree that the laws society is governed by depend upon society but would disagree that these are moral facts.
![Why Moral Relativism Is Dangerous [And Disproves Itself!]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vnxGWlciHI4/mqdefault.jpg)
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
@AllOtherNamesTaken2 "This argument wouldn't mean shit to a scientist." What? Science doesn't deal with moral matters. Scientists know this (unless you're as shallow as Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins). And morality is not based on feelings. They're discovered and they're what philosophers call a properly basic belief.
@FatGermanBastard Well if you sue the teacher in court he could just say that he doesn't concede the social contract. And if he doesn't, why would that still be a problem? It's not like everybody follows the social contract theory of morality anyway.
SBRslacker00: You seem to be missing the point. The teacher's grade is ALSO relative. The student had no right to complain because he concede there is no fairness. Listen to the video again. And child molestation would also be relative if there were no absolutes.
@FatGermanBastard yeah, thats sort of what I said. I was saying that the student realised that the concept it self is objective by definition and it only makes sense in the objective context. in other words, subjective-fairness is a contradiction. that is my point. as for it (fairness) or any other value being obligatory, that is another matter. as for social contract theory, that is a seprate ethical matter and has nothing to do with what I was talking about, at least not in a direct relation.
grits011: For one, it must be transcendent of time. Otherwise, what might be wrong one minute ago can be right now. Also, it must transcend opinion. Otherwise, the evil of molesting children is just one person's opinion over another.
This reminds me of what JBP said. You can say you believe something but when you act it out, it can be completely different.
I don't think you'd be able to understand that much at all, BrainlessPhoenix.
@FacelessPhoenix: So, since you think it makes perfect sense that morality is relative, then molesting children is just as relatively good as feeding children then? You don't really believe that do you? Why can't child molestation be absolutely wrong no matter what?
@FatGermanBastard Why would it be irrational for the teacher to not follow the social contract if morality is relative anyway? Why can't he make up his own rules? That's what moral relativism is. The fact that you're impeding (or forcing) upon his morality shows that you aren't a moral relativist. Dude, leave the teacher alone.
@FatGermanBastard I disagree with 1 & 2. 3 is a conditional statement, and there is no evidence that the student was talking about scocial contract theory or even assuming it.
@FatGermanBastard craig was saying that the student was assuming an objective, that is universal concept of fairness. to say "that's not fair" in the context of that interchange only makes sense if fainess is "treated" as something universal. and for it to hold any weight, it must be obligatory. now that doesn't mean it is obligatory, but the student was assuming it was, otherwise it would hold no weight as a response to why the teacher gave him the F.
@FatGermanBastard I think you misunderstand how I was using the rerm nihilism. yes it can and does refer to there not being any meaning to things but I was using it specificly that there is no ethical meaning to things in the absolute sense. it's like this. relatvism boils down to subjectivism. at this point all ethics become is pereference in bavior. there is no obligation in any of that to anything. thus no absolute ethical meaning, that is a form of nihilism.
@Chessiere If you are 'certain of the inexistence of an absolute' aren't you contradicting yourself? Say it again: "I am certain that there are no absolutes." Since there is not right and wrong, how can relativism "win" over absolutism? Have you considered that because of our unique ability as humans to govern ourselves by reason instead of instinct, would not a moral code of some kind become essential to our well-being as we are social creatures?
@AtomicKinetic12, The comments are starting to mess up. I'll chat later. Take care.
What i think is so interesting is that Christians just assume that God is a moral absolutist. Of course, the "Christian" CHURCHES are all about moral absolutism because it helps them maintain power. However, if you look at what jesus actually taught, it sounds a LOT more like moral relativism. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" means that morality really IS "what you prefer".
@FatGermanBastard perhaps, but given that it was in the context of a philsophy class, specificly on the subject of ethical relativism. by the student saying "that isn't fair" in the context of that discussion, it is obvious the student was acting as though fairness was something objective, otherwise it would make no sense for him to even bring it up as a response to why the teacher gave him an F.
The teacher had no right to put an F on the paper, because he, as a teacher was supposed to judge the student by his "objective" skills ocncerning the work itself (even though they'd been subjective based on the nature of the teacher being human) and not by some subjective aesthetic aspects of the presented work.
A really good teacher would've helped the student to point that error out and fix it instead of using it to subdue a yet developing worldview through a "backdoor" like that.
Is it wrong to kill? Under what circumstances is it right to kill? I would get a variety of answers from this question, how can that be objective? Some would say killing is always wrong, some would say it's right during war and even others would say it is right only for protection. How do these different moral perspectives arise if not from genetic or environmental factors? Certainly it is not Objective or else we would all agree on one answer. Please point out any errors if they exist.
@FatGermanBastard I'm not so sure about that. the student said, "that isn't fair", which implies an objective princible of judgement as opposed to a subjective one. what objection could the student rationally have? I think what the student realised was that fairness is it self an objective concept by definition. the question you are rasing I believe is, why is fairness or any value for that matter, obligatory?
Why do people even argue against this by saying it is pathetic or stupid, listen to the argument and apply it to yourself and you will come up with the same conclusion. If I hit you in the head and you got mad at me and told me to stop, I will say i think it is right and I'll keep doing it. Now you keep getting mad at me if I keep hitting you. Why do you get mad?
@philosophywpaul Ok, What do you mean by objective morals?
Interesting point on morality. The story about the paper illustrated the 'golden rule' concept, the understanding that our actions can cause suffering in others. That's empathy. It's also true that these morals come from somewhere. But from where? That is the QUESTION, not the answer. Why does the source of morality have to be 'transcendent'? Transcendent of what?
@FatGermanBastard I think craig is trying to say here that we are forced in a pragmatic way to act under the assumption (acting "as if") that there exists such objective values, and that this is something hat is embeded in us. that of course doesn't answer the question of them being obligator as I said before, but to be fair I don't think craig was trying to answer that question here. that's why he makes theological reference at the end and eludes to another argument(s).
@FatGermanBastard the reason the student was not refuting his own relativism is because he never provided a reason for the "ought". craigs point was that he was assuming one. that he could not act as though there wasn't fairness that extended beyond mere convention. the reason scocial contract theory will not help here is because it is conventional and hence subjective. there is no universal maxim or reason (kant) to say I can't opt out at any time. SCT gives way to subjectivism or nehimism.
"A relative human standard of morality is a REQUIRMENT in judgeing the ' devil bad/ God good....other wise you have Righteous Suicide Bombers". That doesn't follow. Someone who believes in moral absolute is automatically a suicide bomber? Martin Luther King, Jr. believed in moral absolutes, he wasn't a suicide bomber. You're being extremely simplistic.
@Ebuverthebicepcurler That a person wants fairness doesn't mean it exist and just "must" be followed. Things just are, and we make of them as we please. I can choose to act within a set of morality, but that doesn't mean these principles are objective.
It's like asking an ex-jew to eat pork- just because he doesn't like it mean his old morals had to be objectively followed.
this is a really good lecture :) really understandable, love the example :)
@FatGermanBastard that is a potential motive of the student although the way craig explained it, it seams unlikely. even treating it as a hypothetical situation, THAT interpretation would not be what craig was getting at.
I don't think anyone there was thinking they were "bound" to action because human beings are autonomous.
Livable? It's necessary.
If killing were always (absolute) wrong, self defense would be moot. Saving the lives of others by killing attackers would be an immoral act.
Stealing bread to feed a family would be immoral.
Lying to protect the innocent would be immoral.
I'm not sure I'd want to live in a system of absolute morality. How terrible would it be where an absolute system existed? The penalty for adultery? Yikes!
@FatGermanBastard the reason I keep repeating this is because it is irrelevant. the diference in it being moral or not, has to do with it being obligatory or not. we both agree that fairness is an objective concept. if it is obligatory and therefore moral, is another question. Craigs answer to that question of where does the ought come from is theism.
@AtomicKinetic12, "you didn't respond to anything I posted you simply ignored it."
Ok. I'll lighten up. But you made only one comment. What was I supposed to type?
"Are you going to give me a counter argument that goes against my explanation of where our moral sentiments come from?"
Didnt I already do that? IT comes from absolute moral codes and lessons. If your parents never indoctrinated you with moral values (whether it's relgious or not), then you have problems.
@philosophywpaul But we have a means of objectively determining truth, we have no means objectively determining morality. So if it does exist, and we can't know it, then what does it matter. How do we act like morality is objective? I certainly don't, unless you can show otherwise. Even if we did all act like morality is objective that makes no difference. It doesn't say that morality is objective, it just says that we treat it as such.
The only thing the professor made the kid believe was that he had his own moral values. He was a hypocrit. Does this prove that objective moral values exist? No. Does it mean that everyone wants morality? Yes, but they want it their own way, as they define it. So objective morality is treat others as youd want to be treated or as they would want to be treated (in cases of incompatible morals because youd want no different) An A on the paper? I wouldnt have done that.
Just because a set of morals are appealing doesn't mean they are objective. I guess one could say it is objective in that there is a objective way of reaching a certain goal, but should and should not can't exist in a vacuum.
The teacher doesn't have to grade properly, but it would be the best way to recognize good work, which in turn helps society, which in turn we want for our own benefit. Should cannot exist in a vacuum- a goal must be made first.
@FatGermanBastard yes, but sinse there is no "ought" relativism gives way to subjectivism (obviously) but ultimately reduces to nihilism. social contract at first seams to be coherent but ultimately reduces to subjectivism and hence nihilism at the meta-level, at which point, fairness has no meaning. yes things can be fair or unfair if we agree to act in this or that way, but if there is nothing obligatory that would make such contracts binding, there is no reason to honor them.
There exists absolutely no reason why any of the RUclips videos regarding "relativism", should have comments that do anything other than agree with the Absolutist position that is presented within the video. Meaning that only other Absolutists should be posting comments, expressing their like-minded views
Any self professed relativists would most effectively put their relativism into practise by not posting any opposing arguments whatsoever. For a Relativist must not assert anything absolutely
Because you think it is wrong. So how do you live this out then, do I keep hitting you cause it is right to me yet you want me to stop cause you think it is wrong?
@NetIncarnate And the objective moral system cannot be trusted because even in the case of hypothetical inquisition there would've been at least two different moral systems (one of the church, and one of the people who don't like it), and the more powerful one would've simply come out to be more "objective" by the use of that very power.
@FatGermanBastard social contract has nothing to do with this. the teacher was acting in accordence with relativism, for which the student can have no objection. yet he did. that is what craig is saying. that despite what we might claim, we act as though there are objective values. your talking about the question of something being obligatory or not, which is a seprate question. again craig was not even trying to answer that here. he is talking strictly about the practical aspects.
@FatGermanBastard Well then, the student described in the video deserved an "F".
"The student argues moral relativism in terms of there being NO moral values. haha" And no fairness too. You haven't listened to the video close enough, did you?
What is fair? Try defining it in concrete terms. I’ll wait for an answer…
@@ronishchaudhary why are you replying to a comment written 12 years ago
@@chapter404th the same reason why you’re commenting on something written 2 months ago.
@@ronishchaudhary because it’s relatively modern and young enough to warrant a reply. 12 years ago though? No.
@@chapter404th do you have a response for my original question? What is fair?
@FatGermanBastard I don't see cocial contract having anything to do with this discussion, again, not directly anyhow.
Great story. But changing the F back to an A kind of defeated the point the professor was making.
"By how he treats Him!"
So, you mean, in RELATION to him? Y'know... moral RELATIVISM? :P
@FatGermanBastard right right, but that is craigs point. as for the "ought", that would be another matter, which he claims comes from a transendent god.
The fact that the student and most people would feel like it is unfair to give an F to the paper does not make that act absolute truth(linked to God) it just means that our intrinsic moral systems make us think that it is wrong to do that
And proven that our intrinsic moral systems are not relative from individual to individual. They are mostly the same
(continued)... Also, Darwin may not have been a racist, but his theories sure led his scientific peers to make racist theories. Take Ernst Haekel for example: "Haeckel also applied the hypothesis of polygenism to the modern diversity of human groups. He became a leading proponent of scientific racism, stating for instance: The Caucasian, or Mediterranean man..., as the most highly developed and perfect." (Wikipedia[13]) IT also states that he promoted eugenics. NOW WHO'S RIGHT? :P
@bogusnachos, (continued)....And I looked over some of the WW2 chapters, and it does say that Hitler justified eugenics and his theories of the pure "aryan" race through his promotion of darwinsim. So IN YOUR FACE. :P
@bogusnachos, Actually I read it in the Complete Idiot's Guide to World History. So I guess it's the books fault. But Charles Darwin expressed his theory well before the 1840s and the Origin of Species was published in 1859.
Is this always easy in practice? No. Humans will always be hypocrits no matter what they try to aspire to be.
@drcraigvideos But where does morality come from, assuming God doesn't exist. It's all based on emotions.
(continued)... Ancient civilizations always used pagan religions as their prime way to unite a culture in morality. IT was the building block of a moral society. If we take religion out of the formula, we would still be living like cavemen. Religion helped start ancient cultures. A morally relativistic society is a danger to the wellbeing of a nation, as time continues to progress. Almost every historian will tell you this.
So he got an 'A' for his moral relativism paper? Great :)
I think that God treats people badly. What's up with that?
Your head
free will?
If you don't have an objective standard by which you can measure 'bad', then it's just your opinion.
What a strawman. Moral agreement with others with the same morality doesn't amount to moral absolutes. Elsewhere geographically or historically where morals are different, you won't necessarily find someone who objects to that F. That's moral relativism. This "doctor" is arguing arbitrary moral inconsistency or even a lack of morality altogether. Even within moral relativism, there is consistency within groups, just not necessarily *between* all groups.
Differences between cultures are no more an argument for moral relativism than differences in beliefs about the origin of the universe are evidence that the origin of the universe is relative.
@@kenandzafic3948 Well yes, because of the obvious false equivalence fallacy that you've just made?
For your dismissal of moral relativism to be valid, by virtue of your universe origin analogy being dismissable, you would already have to be assuming morals were as absolute as a physical occurance in nature, such as the origin of the universe. Thus you are assuming your conclusion that morals aren't relative in order to conclude that morals aren't relative. Circular reasoning.
@@Nyghl0
That is not true, I just said that there is no evidence for moral relativism and there is evidence for moral realism:
- Intuition
-Epistemic duties
- The fact that people fight for human rights
-Moral progress
-The fact that people talk as if moral realism is correct
@@kenandzafic3948 unfortunately what I said is true, and no you weren't saying that there's evidence for one and not the other, you were trying to dismiss moral relativism by drawing a false equivalence with something that's easier to dismiss.
But now that you're trying to change your argument to "evidence for one and not the other", all I have to do is go back to pointing out the fact that different peoples historically/geographically have different ways of enacting what you listed, relative to other peoples (i.e. moral relativism).
So now the issue with what you're saying is going in a different kind of circle.
@@Nyghl0 Nothing you've said is true, you've offered no evidence for moral relativism.
Your argument is terrible, differences in nations are not evidence for moral relativism, just as differences in beliefs about the shape of the earth are not evidence that the shape of the earth is not objective.
That argument only works if you already assume in advance that relativism is correct, which is begging the question.
Here it is in logical form.
1) Nations do not agree on moral facts.
Conclusion: Moral facts do not exist
I'm sorry but this is a non sequitur.
(continued)....Also on page 287, the book says the following: Drawing on Social darwinism, hitler believed that superior races and nations.. BLA BLA BLA. You should understand the rest. IN YOUR FACE.
Me:So you believe in moral relativism, Mr Atheist?
Atheist: Yes
Me. Oh Ok.... (grabs a bat a strikes it on his head until blood drips from his head, while swearing insults)
Atheist: WTH are you doing? That's CRUEL!
Me: Yeah..... Whatever idiot.
(continued)... It probably helped fuel more racism. I think that's what the book is saying.
@AtomicKinetic12, Oh... So I'M not understanding after I completely took care of your stupidity? YOU'RE FULL OF CRAP. If you say killing and raping someone is wrong, and if an entire group of people condone it, what moral basis would you tell them that it's wrong, if youre presenting only morally relativistic ideas? Can you answer that question and try not to avoid it and find a loop hole? Religion was the tool that helped expand awareness to the concept of moral values.
@AtomicKinetic12, There are cutural differences and traditional barriers of morality, but those differences dont negate the immorality of gangraping somebody. If a society endorces sacrificing someone and then raping their dog, does that prove that it's right, since it's cultural? You sound like a moron right about now...
Craig is right when he says there is objective morality, but he is mistaken when he says there is no such thing under atheism or that atheists cannot ground objective morality. Erik Wielenberg's account of objective morality under atheism is a formidable piece of work.
@bogusnachos, Forget it. You're in loser denial. You clearly suffer from sociopathy. Take care and GOODBYE.
funny but true
מצחיק אבל נכון
The story with the student getting an F is pretty funny. However, I'm a moral relativist, and I'd argue that we all are as well. The laws that govern our society depend upon the society and the time that we live. However, that doesn't mean I have to agree with those laws, or with what you think is right or wrong, or with what the bible says is right or wrong (after being saved as the only righteous man, Lott got drunk with his daughters and had sex with them --- that differs with my moral values). A lot of academics make the mistake in thinking moral relativists must tolerate the moral beliefs of others. That's not even remotely true. I live by my moral code and do not give a crap about your moral beliefs. It is kind of like tastes in regards to food. I love a proper pizza, and I think you're an idiot if you put pineapples are yours. We just happen to get along as a society if most of us have similar moral beliefs, and some times we need to literally battle it out over moral conflicts like slavery or gassing the Jews.
Your personal "moral code" is meaningless trash
Who would argue against the claim that the laws that govern society depend upon society and the time? That’s not relativism. Relativism is the view that moral facts themselves are relative, not the laws that a society functions by.
A non-relativist would agree that the laws society is governed by depend upon society but would disagree that these are moral facts.