WHO SAYS there is no accountability in ethical decisions? You YOURSELF just summed up the survey with the words "as long as you're not hurting anybody" This IS moral accountability.
@variablast Well, yes. If I were suggesting a public policy regarding the consumption of pornography, I might consider the costs and benefits. A healthy sex life would be one of my considerations, perhaps balances against freedom of expression. And I am not attacking pornography, merely pointing at that ones inability to supply evidence in support of a claim does not mean the claim is false.
@variablast well, while I agree that someone making a positive claim should produce evidence, simply because he cannot produce evidence doesn't make the claim false. I don't feel like googling, but I thought there was a study showing a correlation between increased consumption of pornography and unsatisfactory sex life. This does not stand for the "wife/daughter" argument, but it is something worth noting.
Hah, this is a funny video. It's as if Mr. Niles doesn't realize that moral/ethical relativism is an observable fact. In fact, his angst regarding traditional liberal morals v. traditional conservative morals is ALSO in the psychological literature. John Haidt has a great discussion regarding this fact. Mr. Niles falls in the camp that privileges organization and structure over individualism. What's neat is that both are necessary.
wow that is truly an outstanding percentage. But it's like as you said that the universities are teaching(even encouraging) this relativistic worldview. I actually have a friend that is taking this required freshman course called existential imagination which is basically right and wrong is what you want it to be. Funny how this relativism is not only encouraged but required:)
Also, Niles argues that pornogrpahy is destroying our culture. Really? Where is the great stage play, the great movie, the great book, the great TV show, the great opera etc., that does not exist because of pornography on the internet?
This guy talks twaddle. Situation ethics is not based on I John 4:8, as he claims. It is based on Galatians 5:14, Matthew 22:39, Mark 12:31, Luke 10:27, Romans 13:8-10, James 2:8, 1 Peter 4:8. The idea of love as the basis for all law is supported by most major NT commentators.
His position is that some things are sins because they are sins--regardless of their outcome. Apparently God just has a down on some things, for no special reason, and His laws are based on something other than love.
God's laws are based on Love, yet true Love doesn't ignore destructive behavior.
See, God's laws are based on Love because sin is what is against God's nature (and God IS Love). What is against God's nature? Almost, if not always, self-destruction, either individually or collectively. What I mean by Individually is that you specifically are destroying yourself, while collectively is humanity destroying itself, for instance murder; you're not destroying just yourself, but others as well.
If self-destructiveness was the fundamental sin, then Christs giving Himself as a sacrifice was a sin. So is skiing, or any other even mildly dangerous sport.
My view is that the opposite of love is selfishness; that selfishness is the fundamental sin.
Oddly, Niles here argues against ethical relativism partly with meaningless loaded words ("lewdness" etc.) and partly by pointing to the destructive outcome of ethically relative behaviour—in other words, he resorts to situation ethics.
You have a good point there. Still, perhaps it's because of intent. Jesus' intent wasn't to destroy Himself, that was the means to a much greater good. It was a sacrifice, not just destroying Himself out of stupidity or selfishness.
As for your other comment about pornography, I'm not sure what you mean.
So, that is your answer 2 my questions huh? Relativism is complicated. Seems like you are exersizing faith doesn't it, an believe in something that even 2 u is complicated, something u don't even understand. I find u 2 be dodging every question I ask u. Good luck, on that whole belief in Relativism thing, though i wish u could reconsider : (
@playmaker0001 Even a cursory search of biblical stories reveals moral relativism. Very few people today believe that slavery is moral, and yet Jesus himself tacitly condoned slavery by providing instruction on how to properly be a slave.
..from social norms. Since society changes, the norms would change and so would right and wrong. If right and wrong change, then how can anyone be rightly judged for something he did wrong if that wrong might become right in the future?
Sorry, i just believe my positions/christians positions on moral is just more logical.
cognitive relativism (truth) - Cognitive relativism affirms that all truth is relative. This would mean that no system of truth is more valid than another one and that there is no objective standard of truth. It would, naturally, deny that there is a God of absolute truth.
moral/ethical relativism - all morals are relative to the social group within which they are constructed.
situational relativism - that ethics (right and wrong) are dependent upon the situation.
@playmaker0001 Your second clause is an incorrect conclusion. The alternative is that there might be a divine truth, but only god knows it. The rest of us are left to apply the current moral zeitgeist to assess the appropriateness of actions. And in any event, merely finding a conclusion unsettling is not a reason to reject the conclusion.
...If you use relativism to refute logic, then on what basis is relativism (that nothing is absolutely true) able to refute logic which is based upon truth.
If you use relativism to refute logic, then relativism has lost its relative status since it is used to absolutely refute the truth of something else.
Relativism itself is illogical and self-refuting.for example,the statment "all truth is relative".if all truth is relative,then that staement would be absolutely true,then not all things are relative and the statement that "All truth is relative" is false. lol. this is logic used 2 refute relativism. some say that logic can not be used 2 refute relativism, well why not? Can u give me a logical reason why logic can't be used?...
"Relativism itself is illogical and self-refuting"
Your refutation is ridiculous.
If it is true that that is a valid refutation to moral relativism, then the following must also be true: Gummyology is a branch of science that I just made up. Everything about Gummyology is false. However, the fact that Gummyology is false is a truth, therefore we have a contradiction and POOF! Gummyology must be true!
your interpretation of what i explained is so far off. I suggest u re-read it over a couple of times. As for u variablast, your insults do nothing, but further enhance your ignorance. Seriously, how much clearer could the logic of my statements be???
Ah, I think I might see the problem. You seem to think that relativism is meant to apply to EVERYTHING. Relativism ONLY applies to morality and ethics. I was under the impression that you were aware of that.
Keep this in mind, and I think you'll find that my former response makes a lot more sense. Also keep in mind that I was NOT refuting your latter point, as I was unable to make any sense of it, and so chose to leave it be.
i am fully aware of what relativism is THEKITXUNE.Relativism is the philosophical position that all points of view are equally valid and that all truth is relative to the individual. But, if we look further, we see that this proposition is not logical. In fact, it is self refuting. It seems u don't know what exactly relativism is, i suggest u research before u try 2 follow something, but let me give u some definitions 2 which my logic applies....
Okay, so we're each talking about different definitions of relativism.
I agree that the definition of relativism that you're attack is illogical, however I stand by my own, more commonly held definition.
I've never seen someone actually hold that definition of relativism to be true. Usually, relativism is only applied to arbitrary things such as morality, ethics, culture, beauty, language, ETC.
alright cool, well im glad we are on the same page. But, More questions arise. If all moral views are equally valid, then do we have the right to punish anyone? Can we ever say that something is wrong? In order to say that something is wrong we must first have a standard by which we weigh right and wrong in order to make a judgment. If that standard of right and wrong is based on relativism, then it is not a standard at all. In relativism, standards of right and wrong are derived...
Moral/ethical relativism is more complicated, less clear, and, in practice, may yield less desirable results than moral/ethical objectivity, however that does not affect whether or not it is true or logical.
It is simpler to believe that the world is flat, but that does not affect whether or not it is true or a logical concluson.
This made no sense.. what exactly are you trying to say? if I understand you correctly, you believe that people are starting to think for themselves, and that they should stop?
your sick. i have been extremely hurt by it from my relationships and so do many others that have any respect for themselves.
disgusting.
you go and have your high moral value of being demeaned to being nothing more than a sexual beast. Have your temporary sinful pleasure in life and miss out on what God has for you. Don't you want a higher standard than following the whim of your lusts, that hurt you as a person and others. Maybe there is more to life than your temporary high.
Doesn't hurt anyone? Do you have a wife? Daughters? Need I say more? Countless individuals and families have been absolutely destroyed by pornography --
Among my greatest blessings is that I was raised in the 1940's era when things were either right or wrong, black or white, and values were considered absolute. Thanks for this video.
Tell me something, hyrcan. Why was it wrong for Hitler to do what he did? If you reject God and hence absolute morality, it is consistent for Hitler (or anyone else)to have the right to set his own rules and his own agenda. He got most of Germany agreeing with his ethics, which he sincerely believed were good and right. Because of this, many people perished. Are you willing to say that he was right? If you think he was wrong, on what basis are you deciding that it is wrong?
This is good, but I would want you to read or re-read Francis Schaeffer's "A Christian Manifesto" to get a strong foundation for this argument. A study of this would help us all articulate this subject better. Freshmen students coming into secular or even Christian colleges most often lose their faith over the situational ethics trap. Knowing how to explain that we are people of faith, and that we serve a living God will make all the difference here.
WHO SAYS there is no accountability in ethical decisions? You YOURSELF just summed up the survey with the words "as long as you're not hurting anybody" This IS moral accountability.
Hufflewaffle 8 months ago
@variablast Well, yes. If I were suggesting a public policy regarding the consumption of pornography, I might consider the costs and benefits. A healthy sex life would be one of my considerations, perhaps balances against freedom of expression. And I am not attacking pornography, merely pointing at that ones inability to supply evidence in support of a claim does not mean the claim is false.
cdog4100 1 year ago
@variablast well, while I agree that someone making a positive claim should produce evidence, simply because he cannot produce evidence doesn't make the claim false. I don't feel like googling, but I thought there was a study showing a correlation between increased consumption of pornography and unsatisfactory sex life. This does not stand for the "wife/daughter" argument, but it is something worth noting.
cdog4100 1 year ago
Hah, this is a funny video. It's as if Mr. Niles doesn't realize that moral/ethical relativism is an observable fact. In fact, his angst regarding traditional liberal morals v. traditional conservative morals is ALSO in the psychological literature. John Haidt has a great discussion regarding this fact. Mr. Niles falls in the camp that privileges organization and structure over individualism. What's neat is that both are necessary.
cdog4100 1 year ago
It means whatever I want it to mean man. That's ethical reletivism.
ToxicOdiousOne 1 year ago
@ToxicOdiousOne haha thats the fun part about ethics. you can not be right or wrong as long as you can make up enough BS to sound good
37blahblah 5 months ago
Randall,
wow that is truly an outstanding percentage. But it's like as you said that the universities are teaching(even encouraging) this relativistic worldview. I actually have a friend that is taking this required freshman course called existential imagination which is basically right and wrong is what you want it to be. Funny how this relativism is not only encouraged but required:)
God bless
a2dac4christ 2 years ago
Also, Niles argues that pornogrpahy is destroying our culture. Really? Where is the great stage play, the great movie, the great book, the great TV show, the great opera etc., that does not exist because of pornography on the internet?
NevilleRhysBarnes 2 years ago
This guy talks twaddle. Situation ethics is not based on I John 4:8, as he claims. It is based on Galatians 5:14, Matthew 22:39, Mark 12:31, Luke 10:27, Romans 13:8-10, James 2:8, 1 Peter 4:8. The idea of love as the basis for all law is supported by most major NT commentators.
His position is that some things are sins because they are sins--regardless of their outcome. Apparently God just has a down on some things, for no special reason, and His laws are based on something other than love.
NevilleRhysBarnes 3 years ago
God's laws are based on Love, yet true Love doesn't ignore destructive behavior.
See, God's laws are based on Love because sin is what is against God's nature (and God IS Love). What is against God's nature? Almost, if not always, self-destruction, either individually or collectively. What I mean by Individually is that you specifically are destroying yourself, while collectively is humanity destroying itself, for instance murder; you're not destroying just yourself, but others as well.
kiante9 2 years ago
If self-destructiveness was the fundamental sin, then Christs giving Himself as a sacrifice was a sin. So is skiing, or any other even mildly dangerous sport.
My view is that the opposite of love is selfishness; that selfishness is the fundamental sin.
Oddly, Niles here argues against ethical relativism partly with meaningless loaded words ("lewdness" etc.) and partly by pointing to the destructive outcome of ethically relative behaviour—in other words, he resorts to situation ethics.
NevilleRhysBarnes 2 years ago
You have a good point there. Still, perhaps it's because of intent. Jesus' intent wasn't to destroy Himself, that was the means to a much greater good. It was a sacrifice, not just destroying Himself out of stupidity or selfishness.
As for your other comment about pornography, I'm not sure what you mean.
kiante9 2 years ago
"Tolerance is the last virtue of a dying people." Aristotle
PatriotKS1975 3 years ago
So, that is your answer 2 my questions huh? Relativism is complicated. Seems like you are exersizing faith doesn't it, an believe in something that even 2 u is complicated, something u don't even understand. I find u 2 be dodging every question I ask u. Good luck, on that whole belief in Relativism thing, though i wish u could reconsider : (
playmaker0001 3 years ago
@playmaker0001 Even a cursory search of biblical stories reveals moral relativism. Very few people today believe that slavery is moral, and yet Jesus himself tacitly condoned slavery by providing instruction on how to properly be a slave.
cdog4100 1 year ago
..from social norms. Since society changes, the norms would change and so would right and wrong. If right and wrong change, then how can anyone be rightly judged for something he did wrong if that wrong might become right in the future?
Sorry, i just believe my positions/christians positions on moral is just more logical.
playmaker0001 3 years ago
@playmaker0001 Answer: the person is judged by the societal values of the time and place in which he lived. Simple.
cdog4100 1 year ago
cognitive relativism (truth) - Cognitive relativism affirms that all truth is relative. This would mean that no system of truth is more valid than another one and that there is no objective standard of truth. It would, naturally, deny that there is a God of absolute truth.
moral/ethical relativism - all morals are relative to the social group within which they are constructed.
situational relativism - that ethics (right and wrong) are dependent upon the situation.
understand now???
playmaker0001 3 years ago
@playmaker0001 Your second clause is an incorrect conclusion. The alternative is that there might be a divine truth, but only god knows it. The rest of us are left to apply the current moral zeitgeist to assess the appropriateness of actions. And in any event, merely finding a conclusion unsettling is not a reason to reject the conclusion.
cdog4100 1 year ago
...If you use relativism to refute logic, then on what basis is relativism (that nothing is absolutely true) able to refute logic which is based upon truth.
If you use relativism to refute logic, then relativism has lost its relative status since it is used to absolutely refute the truth of something else.
playmaker0001 3 years ago
Relativism itself is illogical and self-refuting.for example,the statment "all truth is relative".if all truth is relative,then that staement would be absolutely true,then not all things are relative and the statement that "All truth is relative" is false. lol. this is logic used 2 refute relativism. some say that logic can not be used 2 refute relativism, well why not? Can u give me a logical reason why logic can't be used?...
playmaker0001 3 years ago
"Relativism itself is illogical and self-refuting"
Your refutation is ridiculous.
If it is true that that is a valid refutation to moral relativism, then the following must also be true: Gummyology is a branch of science that I just made up. Everything about Gummyology is false. However, the fact that Gummyology is false is a truth, therefore we have a contradiction and POOF! Gummyology must be true!
TheKitXune 3 years ago
your interpretation of what i explained is so far off. I suggest u re-read it over a couple of times. As for u variablast, your insults do nothing, but further enhance your ignorance. Seriously, how much clearer could the logic of my statements be???
playmaker0001 3 years ago
Ah, I think I might see the problem. You seem to think that relativism is meant to apply to EVERYTHING. Relativism ONLY applies to morality and ethics. I was under the impression that you were aware of that.
Keep this in mind, and I think you'll find that my former response makes a lot more sense. Also keep in mind that I was NOT refuting your latter point, as I was unable to make any sense of it, and so chose to leave it be.
TheKitXune 3 years ago
i am fully aware of what relativism is THEKITXUNE.Relativism is the philosophical position that all points of view are equally valid and that all truth is relative to the individual. But, if we look further, we see that this proposition is not logical. In fact, it is self refuting. It seems u don't know what exactly relativism is, i suggest u research before u try 2 follow something, but let me give u some definitions 2 which my logic applies....
playmaker0001 3 years ago
Okay, so we're each talking about different definitions of relativism.
I agree that the definition of relativism that you're attack is illogical, however I stand by my own, more commonly held definition.
I've never seen someone actually hold that definition of relativism to be true. Usually, relativism is only applied to arbitrary things such as morality, ethics, culture, beauty, language, ETC.
TheKitXune 3 years ago
alright cool, well im glad we are on the same page. But, More questions arise. If all moral views are equally valid, then do we have the right to punish anyone? Can we ever say that something is wrong? In order to say that something is wrong we must first have a standard by which we weigh right and wrong in order to make a judgment. If that standard of right and wrong is based on relativism, then it is not a standard at all. In relativism, standards of right and wrong are derived...
playmaker0001 3 years ago
Moral/ethical relativism is more complicated, less clear, and, in practice, may yield less desirable results than moral/ethical objectivity, however that does not affect whether or not it is true or logical.
It is simpler to believe that the world is flat, but that does not affect whether or not it is true or a logical concluson.
TheKitXune 3 years ago
This made no sense.. what exactly are you trying to say? if I understand you correctly, you believe that people are starting to think for themselves, and that they should stop?
dropshotcop 3 years ago
I've seen both of your videos on moral relativism...but what is your argument ? That we know that morality exists intuitively ?
FatGermanBastard 3 years ago
either way, you can't say pornography is intrinsically right or wrong, it depends on the situation/consequences
zacharyvince 3 years ago
your sick. i have been extremely hurt by it from my relationships and so do many others that have any respect for themselves.
disgusting.
you go and have your high moral value of being demeaned to being nothing more than a sexual beast. Have your temporary sinful pleasure in life and miss out on what God has for you. Don't you want a higher standard than following the whim of your lusts, that hurt you as a person and others. Maybe there is more to life than your temporary high.
CaseForTheCreator 4 years ago
"i have been extremely hurt by it from my relationships."
Some could say the same of hot coffee. Does that mean we should ban it?
TheKitXune 3 years ago
Actually, the beauty of my argument for universal ethical norms is that everyone else reading this thread knows this truth (OK, nearly everyone).
reflect7 4 years ago 2
Doesn't hurt anyone? Do you have a wife? Daughters? Need I say more? Countless individuals and families have been absolutely destroyed by pornography --
reflect7 4 years ago
Among my greatest blessings is that I was raised in the 1940's era when things were either right or wrong, black or white, and values were considered absolute. Thanks for this video.
dovad16 4 years ago
Newsflash. Things have -never- been right or wrong, black/white. Even in the 40s. Anyone who things so is only fooling themselves.
hyrcan 4 years ago
Tell me something, hyrcan. Why was it wrong for Hitler to do what he did? If you reject God and hence absolute morality, it is consistent for Hitler (or anyone else)to have the right to set his own rules and his own agenda. He got most of Germany agreeing with his ethics, which he sincerely believed were good and right. Because of this, many people perished. Are you willing to say that he was right? If you think he was wrong, on what basis are you deciding that it is wrong?
JonathanMcLatchie 4 years ago
Wow, Hitler? That's the best you can come up with. That strawman has been burnt to the ground so many time it's not even funny any more. Try again.
hyrcan 4 years ago 2
"Why was it wrong for Hitler to do what he did?"
I don't need to think that his actions were "wrong" to hate them.
TheKitXune 3 years ago
This is good, but I would want you to read or re-read Francis Schaeffer's "A Christian Manifesto" to get a strong foundation for this argument. A study of this would help us all articulate this subject better. Freshmen students coming into secular or even Christian colleges most often lose their faith over the situational ethics trap. Knowing how to explain that we are people of faith, and that we serve a living God will make all the difference here.
DeBunker7 4 years ago
Good video. 5 stars.
tabasca36 4 years ago