Concerning the supposed self-repudiating nature of relativism, what's wrong with the relativist imposing his moral view onto you, since as far as I understand it, relativism describes the nature of morality, as opposed to an actual position that a person can hold?
i have nothing to argue, cause you are right in the way you think and have learnt and i am right in the way i think. can you prove to me that God loves you more than he loves me?
i didn't even know about relativism? i was a Christian who broke away from Christianity build a personal connect with God devoid of any religious practices. all i could understand God is Love and when God is love personified, there's no question of Good/Evil. now you want to call me a relativist and have a theory to counter argue with me, good for you.
@Eabranth your beliefs are all based on preconditions that humans have constructed and decided to be true, such as objectivity and logic. there's no absolute reason to believe in objective truths, though there is no absolute reason not to either. so believe what you want to believe, that's what we always did.
@Eabranth''by it's very nature objective truths have to be true because they are objective and not subject to opinions''.It is like saying a ball is a ball because it is round.You are stating something that has it's basis in language, and philosophy has been struggling for a long time to show that the existence of mental concepts TRULY corresponds IN REALITY to objects or relations. And ontological arguments based on dictionaries don't hold a solution to the problem.
i've now watched the first 5 minutes of this video and it's very clear that this guy simply doesn't know what relativism is about. relativism proclaims that objective truths do not exist, only subjective ones, including the relativist's. you can still be against racism, abortion, and farting in elevators and a relativist at the same time as long as you appreciate the fact that all of these opinions are relative/subjective and hold no absolute/objevtive value.
@JWHurwitz yes, you can hold relative opinions. i can believe and proclaim stuff while at the same time knowing that i don't have insight into some objective truth. it's about how serious you are in regard to your own opinion.
what is being said here is not quite logical, actually sometimes in an attempt to refute one thing, they refute another - as in the case of Koukl's first speech, when trying to refute moral relativism he obviously comes to refuting the opinion that people shouldn't project their viewpoints on others, which however is slightly different. I wonder how many science people would object that - guess none - keeping on mind that science being opposed to both - absolute relativism and to abs moral laws.
what? Like their is a red sky on a bright sunny day. C'mon their are absolutes in every arena. Oh yeah except for truth. 1+1= what ever your flavor. Repent before it's too late
Besides, if these guys have PhDs in philosophy then this is pretty embarrassing. Moral relativism is not self-refuting. Something is self-refuting when its truth implies its negation. What these guys are showing is that the truth of relativism is inconsistent with other beliefs--such as a belief in the absolute goodness of tolerance--that self-professed relativists implicitly hold.
You stated that relativism is not self-refuting. Yet, the very fact that you posted an argument, is in itself, evidence to the contrary. This video noted the fact that true relativism is not even possible to achieve. That is true, due to reasons such as the fact that relativism specifically asserts that no particular determination is inherently more objectively correct than any other determination. Yet, that assertion in itself, is proclaimed in
First, because I dispute that moral relativism is self-refuting does not make me a relativist. What I'm defending here is good thinking, not relativism. Second, your argument works only against global relativism, where relativism itself is said to be, in some sense, relative. It does not work, however, against moral relativism (which is my position). A moral relativist simply says that all moral property are relative to something such a valuing subject or community.
In other words, moral relativism amounts to a denial that there are objective moral facts. Plenty of smart people in philosophy, both in history and today, have held this opinion (Protagoras, Hobbes, Nietzsche, Mackie). It may be wrong, but it is not self-refuting. To say otherwise is bad philosophy.
@Bauwurst It seems to me that your objection is being misapplied to this video. The speakers aren't directly addressing the philosophical form of moral relativism but a populist version. As such I don't think you're grasping the intent of the authors but attacking their criticisms based on a sophisticated version of moral relativism which they leave untouched.
Furthermore, it might very well be that global relativism also isn't self-refuting. Your talk of becoming a vegetable (probably taken from Aristotle) really means that global relativism puts an end to rational discourse about the true structure of reality. Okay, that just shows that global relativism is inconsistent with philosophical argument. Fine, but it doesn't mean you can't live. Animals, babies, and some college students do quite well without any rational discourse.
absolute terms & implicitly states that it is objectively correct, while any opposition to it, is inversely incorrect
The simplest way to demonstrate the self-refutation of relativism is by revealing that relativists, such as yourself, will assert the validity of relativism, in absolute terms
There exist only 2 ways in which a person can be a true relativist - 1) as a vegetable. 2) by not forming any opinions whatsoever, regarding absolutely everything. All others are inescapably absolutists
Considering these facts, the social-political actions & impositions from supposed relativists, are nothing more than severe injustices. In effect, the supposed relativists condemn self professed absolutists as tyrants who seek to impose their views upon others & that it, as well as intolerance, are evidenced by the uncompromising rigidity of their absolutism. This is executed by supposed relativists, despite the fact that such assertions are based upon their own rigidly enforced moral absolutism
Fine, but this is a different point. Anyway, you're conflating the inconsistent relativists of today with a consistent relativist like Hobbes. Usually, and this is what the video rightly points out, relativism is adopted by people committed to an underlying set of moral principles, usually the protection of historically oppressed minority groups (very much in the spirit of Christianity!), to attack a morality that they see as really a means to justify to the continuing...
oppression these groups. There is a lot of evidence to back this up--slavery/colonialism, for instance, was often justified in these terms. Anyway, these types are different from the relativists I noted below. Hobbes wouldn't find any of this activity as an injustice per se. He would, however, note that such structures are contrary to rational self-interest because they create a constant state of war, even where there seems to be peace.
Well, maybe they have read Kant in the literal sense, but they certainly haven't understood him. A central point of Kant's philosophy is that morality can be established independently of God. True, morality does give us grounds to postulate the existence of God, but it does not allow us to conclude that God exists.
@Bauwurst I would imagine that ppl with masters and phd's in philosophy have probably read Kant. Perhaps they don't think he's said anything that negates the belief that morality entails God.
choice does not have significant evolutionary favoritism over the other. If you chose to kill one, you would be proclaimed as making the best decision in a difficult situation, but you would not be considered a hero. If you chose to do nothing, most people could still forgive you on the grounds that killing is indeed wrong, and that lack of action is somehow different from actively deciding to kill someone. So you see no real favor is given to either side, and so evolution has not acted
Consider the classic trolley dilemma: you are operating a trolley that is headed toward 5 workers, and they will all die if you do not switch tracks. However there is another worker on the alternative track who will die if you do switch over. Is it permissible to save the five at the cost of one? Most people would say yes, even though they believe it "wrong" to kill. Evolution can explain why this situation is a dilemma, rather than being black and white. It is simply the fact that either
develop into is a state in which people both exile (or otherwise punish) murderers, and who are opposed to the idea of committing murder themselves, in order to avoid losing the benefits afforded by inclusion in society. Not surprisingly, this is exactly the situation we find ourselves in, and the conclusion was drawn without need to refer to an "objective" morality. Evolution can also explain the gray areas that we discover when looking at more difficult moral questions.
is beneficial in an evolutionary sense. Murder, for example, is completely detrimental to the evolutionary success of the victim. Therefore individuals should over time develop motivations to avoid being murdered, including exiling the murderer. Being included in a human community is also extremely beneficial, because it affords strength in numbers as well as allowing higher efficiency through specialization of profession. Therefore the only stable configuration for a society to
Relativism is laughable, but the negation of relativism is not sufficient to prove objectivity. If you look at morality with a perspective on evolution things become very clear. On one hand morality is not objective because human morality is an evolutionary artifact, and therefore does not exist in the absence of man. However morality is not relative because morality does have a basis; "moral truths" which we know from intuition have developed as a method of guiding behavior which
I loved this video and was planning on mirroring it until Beckwith opened his mouth and ruined it. What a shame. Maybe I'll edit him out and leave in the good parts. LOL
"there is only one possible source of that morality . . . god" - actually, morals, at least the objective ones, could be genetic. Others may stem from social norms and mores. To conclude that objective morals must flow from a god is premature.
"Natural aversion to homosexuality" - How does Dr. Beckwith know that the student in his anecdote didn't learn his dislike of homosexuality from society.1 Has Dr. Beckwith been able to separate "natural" and socially learned aversions to homosexuality?
I think it is a good point also that it is because of Christianity that we live in a tolerant society. We can look to other societies, based not just on Islam but also hindu fundamentalism and atheistic communism where dissent is very much NOT tolerated. As Christians we can recognize that worshipping a Hindu god is evil, yet we tolerate it because we know that person must choose of his own free will to worship the one true God. Christianity emphasizes respect for individual freedom.
@Eabranth 2+2 equals 4 relative to a non-modulo arithmetic system. 2+2=0 relative to a modulo 2 system. 2+2=1 relative to a modulo 3 system.
warranyu 4 weeks ago
Concerning the supposed self-repudiating nature of relativism, what's wrong with the relativist imposing his moral view onto you, since as far as I understand it, relativism describes the nature of morality, as opposed to an actual position that a person can hold?
deityvishnu 1 month ago
i have nothing to argue, cause you are right in the way you think and have learnt and i am right in the way i think. can you prove to me that God loves you more than he loves me?
joybobby 1 month ago
i didn't even know about relativism? i was a Christian who broke away from Christianity build a personal connect with God devoid of any religious practices. all i could understand God is Love and when God is love personified, there's no question of Good/Evil. now you want to call me a relativist and have a theory to counter argue with me, good for you.
joybobby 1 month ago
@Eabranth your beliefs are all based on preconditions that humans have constructed and decided to be true, such as objectivity and logic. there's no absolute reason to believe in objective truths, though there is no absolute reason not to either. so believe what you want to believe, that's what we always did.
ShowtekGER 2 months ago
@Eabranth''by it's very nature objective truths have to be true because they are objective and not subject to opinions''.It is like saying a ball is a ball because it is round.You are stating something that has it's basis in language, and philosophy has been struggling for a long time to show that the existence of mental concepts TRULY corresponds IN REALITY to objects or relations. And ontological arguments based on dictionaries don't hold a solution to the problem.
TheStefanNestor 2 months ago
i've now watched the first 5 minutes of this video and it's very clear that this guy simply doesn't know what relativism is about. relativism proclaims that objective truths do not exist, only subjective ones, including the relativist's. you can still be against racism, abortion, and farting in elevators and a relativist at the same time as long as you appreciate the fact that all of these opinions are relative/subjective and hold no absolute/objevtive value.
ShowtekGER 5 months ago
@ShowtekGER Can you really be said to hold those opinions if you simultaneously acknowledge that they have no validity or truth?
JWHurwitz 5 months ago in playlist Relativism
@JWHurwitz yes, you can hold relative opinions. i can believe and proclaim stuff while at the same time knowing that i don't have insight into some objective truth. it's about how serious you are in regard to your own opinion.
ShowtekGER 5 months ago
he is right about the emptiness of relativism.
doesn't mean christianity is right.
there are way better ways to establish morals.
masusomasuso 5 months ago
what is being said here is not quite logical, actually sometimes in an attempt to refute one thing, they refute another - as in the case of Koukl's first speech, when trying to refute moral relativism he obviously comes to refuting the opinion that people shouldn't project their viewpoints on others, which however is slightly different. I wonder how many science people would object that - guess none - keeping on mind that science being opposed to both - absolute relativism and to abs moral laws.
miostio 7 months ago
Nice series... but the videos are out of order.
ricardo527 8 months ago
The best film - a family about moral relativism is "The Godchild". You can see it if you search for the film on the web. "The truth never changes".
huntergrantzuzana 1 year ago
what? Like their is a red sky on a bright sunny day. C'mon their are absolutes in every arena. Oh yeah except for truth. 1+1= what ever your flavor. Repent before it's too late
tbot01 1 year ago
Besides, if these guys have PhDs in philosophy then this is pretty embarrassing. Moral relativism is not self-refuting. Something is self-refuting when its truth implies its negation. What these guys are showing is that the truth of relativism is inconsistent with other beliefs--such as a belief in the absolute goodness of tolerance--that self-professed relativists implicitly hold.
Bauwurst 1 year ago
@Bauwurst
{Moral relativism is not self-refuting}
You stated that relativism is not self-refuting. Yet, the very fact that you posted an argument, is in itself, evidence to the contrary. This video noted the fact that true relativism is not even possible to achieve. That is true, due to reasons such as the fact that relativism specifically asserts that no particular determination is inherently more objectively correct than any other determination. Yet, that assertion in itself, is proclaimed in
Chuichupachichi 11 months ago
@Chuichupachichi
First, because I dispute that moral relativism is self-refuting does not make me a relativist. What I'm defending here is good thinking, not relativism. Second, your argument works only against global relativism, where relativism itself is said to be, in some sense, relative. It does not work, however, against moral relativism (which is my position). A moral relativist simply says that all moral property are relative to something such a valuing subject or community.
Bauwurst 11 months ago
@Chuichupachichi
In other words, moral relativism amounts to a denial that there are objective moral facts. Plenty of smart people in philosophy, both in history and today, have held this opinion (Protagoras, Hobbes, Nietzsche, Mackie). It may be wrong, but it is not self-refuting. To say otherwise is bad philosophy.
Bauwurst 11 months ago
@Bauwurst It seems to me that your objection is being misapplied to this video. The speakers aren't directly addressing the philosophical form of moral relativism but a populist version. As such I don't think you're grasping the intent of the authors but attacking their criticisms based on a sophisticated version of moral relativism which they leave untouched.
MrDrichards85 11 months ago
@Chuichupachichi
Furthermore, it might very well be that global relativism also isn't self-refuting. Your talk of becoming a vegetable (probably taken from Aristotle) really means that global relativism puts an end to rational discourse about the true structure of reality. Okay, that just shows that global relativism is inconsistent with philosophical argument. Fine, but it doesn't mean you can't live. Animals, babies, and some college students do quite well without any rational discourse.
Bauwurst 11 months ago
absolute terms & implicitly states that it is objectively correct, while any opposition to it, is inversely incorrect
The simplest way to demonstrate the self-refutation of relativism is by revealing that relativists, such as yourself, will assert the validity of relativism, in absolute terms
There exist only 2 ways in which a person can be a true relativist - 1) as a vegetable. 2) by not forming any opinions whatsoever, regarding absolutely everything. All others are inescapably absolutists
Chuichupachichi 11 months ago
Considering these facts, the social-political actions & impositions from supposed relativists, are nothing more than severe injustices. In effect, the supposed relativists condemn self professed absolutists as tyrants who seek to impose their views upon others & that it, as well as intolerance, are evidenced by the uncompromising rigidity of their absolutism. This is executed by supposed relativists, despite the fact that such assertions are based upon their own rigidly enforced moral absolutism
Chuichupachichi 11 months ago
@Chuichupachichi
Fine, but this is a different point. Anyway, you're conflating the inconsistent relativists of today with a consistent relativist like Hobbes. Usually, and this is what the video rightly points out, relativism is adopted by people committed to an underlying set of moral principles, usually the protection of historically oppressed minority groups (very much in the spirit of Christianity!), to attack a morality that they see as really a means to justify to the continuing...
Bauwurst 11 months ago
@Chuichupachichi
oppression these groups. There is a lot of evidence to back this up--slavery/colonialism, for instance, was often justified in these terms. Anyway, these types are different from the relativists I noted below. Hobbes wouldn't find any of this activity as an injustice per se. He would, however, note that such structures are contrary to rational self-interest because they create a constant state of war, even where there seems to be peace.
Bauwurst 11 months ago
Well, maybe they have read Kant in the literal sense, but they certainly haven't understood him. A central point of Kant's philosophy is that morality can be established independently of God. True, morality does give us grounds to postulate the existence of God, but it does not allow us to conclude that God exists.
Bauwurst 1 year ago
Wait--moral objectivism is true therefore there is God? These guys should try reading Kant. I think he has something to say about this somewhere....
Bauwurst 1 year ago
@Bauwurst I would imagine that ppl with masters and phd's in philosophy have probably read Kant. Perhaps they don't think he's said anything that negates the belief that morality entails God.
veritaslogos 1 year ago
The big problem of this video is that they do not distinguish between different uses of the word "absolute" and "relative".
There are of course no absolute morals in an universal way. On this scale they are arbitrary and relative.
But on the scale of society, psychology and biology we can find some very basic and "absolute" standards of morality.
Conclusion: Their arguments sounds intelligent, but are stupid...
naturemath 1 year ago
strongly on this question, leaving it to be a dilemma for us.
Just remember, negating relativism does not necessitate objective morality.
gorobar001 1 year ago
choice does not have significant evolutionary favoritism over the other. If you chose to kill one, you would be proclaimed as making the best decision in a difficult situation, but you would not be considered a hero. If you chose to do nothing, most people could still forgive you on the grounds that killing is indeed wrong, and that lack of action is somehow different from actively deciding to kill someone. So you see no real favor is given to either side, and so evolution has not acted
gorobar001 1 year ago
Consider the classic trolley dilemma: you are operating a trolley that is headed toward 5 workers, and they will all die if you do not switch tracks. However there is another worker on the alternative track who will die if you do switch over. Is it permissible to save the five at the cost of one? Most people would say yes, even though they believe it "wrong" to kill. Evolution can explain why this situation is a dilemma, rather than being black and white. It is simply the fact that either
gorobar001 1 year ago
develop into is a state in which people both exile (or otherwise punish) murderers, and who are opposed to the idea of committing murder themselves, in order to avoid losing the benefits afforded by inclusion in society. Not surprisingly, this is exactly the situation we find ourselves in, and the conclusion was drawn without need to refer to an "objective" morality. Evolution can also explain the gray areas that we discover when looking at more difficult moral questions.
gorobar001 1 year ago
is beneficial in an evolutionary sense. Murder, for example, is completely detrimental to the evolutionary success of the victim. Therefore individuals should over time develop motivations to avoid being murdered, including exiling the murderer. Being included in a human community is also extremely beneficial, because it affords strength in numbers as well as allowing higher efficiency through specialization of profession. Therefore the only stable configuration for a society to
gorobar001 1 year ago
Relativism is laughable, but the negation of relativism is not sufficient to prove objectivity. If you look at morality with a perspective on evolution things become very clear. On one hand morality is not objective because human morality is an evolutionary artifact, and therefore does not exist in the absence of man. However morality is not relative because morality does have a basis; "moral truths" which we know from intuition have developed as a method of guiding behavior which
gorobar001 1 year ago
I loved this video and was planning on mirroring it until Beckwith opened his mouth and ruined it. What a shame. Maybe I'll edit him out and leave in the good parts. LOL
Purushadasa 1 year ago
great video
iToyRobot 1 year ago
"there is only one possible source of that morality . . . god" - actually, morals, at least the objective ones, could be genetic. Others may stem from social norms and mores. To conclude that objective morals must flow from a god is premature.
"Natural aversion to homosexuality" - How does Dr. Beckwith know that the student in his anecdote didn't learn his dislike of homosexuality from society.1 Has Dr. Beckwith been able to separate "natural" and socially learned aversions to homosexuality?
s3tione 1 year ago
As a Muslim, I'd like to thank you for this video. Excellent material!
tabrizi79 1 year ago
I think it is a good point also that it is because of Christianity that we live in a tolerant society. We can look to other societies, based not just on Islam but also hindu fundamentalism and atheistic communism where dissent is very much NOT tolerated. As Christians we can recognize that worshipping a Hindu god is evil, yet we tolerate it because we know that person must choose of his own free will to worship the one true God. Christianity emphasizes respect for individual freedom.
urbanh196398105 1 year ago 2
Great video!
XXXFirebird76XXX 1 year ago