The point of moral relativism isn't correctness. It's simply individual acceptance of uncertainty.
Anyone who tries to argue moral correctness is a hypocrite. Anyone who tries to argue against moral correctness with anything other than "you're wrong" is also a hypocrite, as he/she has just conceded the possibility that his/her morals may be incorrect.
It's self-refuting to argue moral relativism, but it's also self-refuting to try and refute it without making assumptions/illogical inferences.
NO, tolerance isnt a moral absolute it's simply a logical necessity of engaging in rational discourse. Most people like to be logical and engaging in debate is a great way to get points across.
No public universal actions guides were prescribed.
2). Same as tactic 1, by living in a society you are subject to the social contract of that society ie. the law. the fact the law originated via the collective agreement of particular subjective values doesnt change the fact that it is currently an objective standard that can be appealed.
The Christians actions violate the concept of right/wrong set by this standard.
- That wasnt a moral position, the idiotic christian simply cant tell him what to do ie. if he tries to physically stop him then he'll probably need to break the law.
- The video creator has confused moral relativism with subjective morality, the fact of the matter is that objective moral standards like the law are not in conflict with moral relativism and can be appealed to as an authoritative position on right/wrong.
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".
Just because there is a standard that has evolved does not mean morals are absolute. Something can be relative (subject to change and relative to the individual) and still be unanimously agreed upon by everyone. Everyone knows not to murder, but that doesn't mean the moral value attached to murder couldn't start changing tomorrow - it's still relative.
This video is retarded. It should be called retardedism... No it doesn't turn on itself. The objection is that Kurt is imposing his morality on someone else such that it changes thier actions vis a vis the objector. Kurt is trying to control the other's actions outside thier interactions whereas Mr. Afro is only trying to limit actions that directly affect himself. Me saying "don't tell me not to wear a t-shirt you don't like" isn't the same as you saying I can't wear what I want.
@sinistar99 I don't think that's the issue. Either way, there is a moral influence being applied, which does refute the claim to "be a moral relativist", but does not refute the concept of moral relativism itself. But I agree with your last point. There's a difference between saying "You can't tell me what to do" and "Don't tell me what to do": the difference between morally absolute inference and morally informed action, (respectively), the latter remaining in compliance with moral relativism.
What relativism IS (or at least as I see it) simply is the belief that ethics are, to some extent, situational. Yes, generally speaking, murder, lying and such are considered "wrong" by most people, but there may be times when it is necessary or acceptable. Aborting a fetus just for the sake of it or "for fun" probably isn't a good idea, but there are situations where one can see that it might be necessary or justifiable.
Relativism acknowledges that morality, like most things, is not black and white. You can't say "This is wrong, and the other thing is bad 100% of the time." It's an absolutist, impossible standard. Eventually you're either going to have to violate your own ironclad standard at least once in life to get something done, or you're gonna be a fucking jackass (or at least be seen as such) whose 'principles' are so rigid that he can't think outside the box and do what's necessary in important times.
What moral relativism DOESN'T say, however (at least the kind I subscribe to), that it's "ok to do anything as long as you think it's right or OK." Hell no! Of course that shouldn't be the basis of morality. But what relativism DOES say is that conservative/traditionalist ethics are too narrow-minded and can't evolve with more and better information, research, etc. I mean, who devised the idea that having sex before marriage is 'wrong'? WHY is it "wrong"? Who does it hurt?
Personally, I subscribe to generally what I call "consensual ethics" (i.e. as long as the parties involved make the informed voluntary decision to partake in it, it's morally acceptable). That seems like a pretty fair standard to me that applies to about 90% of all cases.
This eliminates the "problem of bestiality" and "problem of pedophilia" when right-wingers bring up the whole "Well, if gay marriage is legalized, then you have to legalize this other stuff..." Obviously child molestation is unwanted and abuse, and so is bestiality.
...Where exactly do conservatives get the idea that moral relativism is this ideology where EVERYTHING is permissible, and the individual can just make up his own morality? I bet you'll find HARDLY anyone who even subscribes to such a ludicrous worldview! Most of hte ones who DO probably sit in the halls of academia as philosophy professors, a pretty small population.
Do right-wingers even RESEARCH actual moral relativism before spouting nonsense about it?
Thats not moral relativism, thats moral segregationism, how homogenous a system of morals should be allowed to be in a society, moral relativism is a scrutiny on the system of morals themselves and how rigid or flexible they should be. Stupid video.
Yikes! These folks are dangerously misinformed about moral relativism. I hope the jovial nature of the video dissuades viewers from taking this project seriously. Strawman arguments are easy to lampoon, but intellectual honesty requires that they should at least research the topic.
Of course all morals are relative. Fundamentalists are big on the Ten Commandments, but they play fast and loose with their enforcement. Take "Thou shalt not Kill." Of, course they make an exception for the death penalty, or war. Absolutism is just another form of moral hypocrisy. Genuinely moral people don't go by codes or laws, but by a deep-seated sense of justice and fairness-- concepts that are too "squishy" for hard-nosed moralists who like their morals in writing.
i'm an atheist and i'm incredibly confused by this. all morality is relative yet there can be people who are deemed 'moral'?
if all morals are relative than someone could claim that rape and child molestation are ok or even that they are good actions. however, it seems clear that there is nothing positive that can come out of those actions other than the fulfillment of selfish desire. regardless of your opinion, no one ought to commit such an action. i.e. it's objectively bad.
@taylorbortnerathing There is no such thing as "objective" morality, since behavior must have a judge in order to be deemed immoral. You seem cofused about the idea of what is "relative." This simply means that an action must be judged in context, as it relates to the situation. An act of sex that is consensual is not rape, accepting a gift is not stealing, etc.
rape being objectively bad is true because there is no conceivable scenario in which rape would be beneficial to anyone or amount to anything other than a harmful act which fulfills some selfish desire. no matter what one's opinion on rape is, there is never going to be a situation in which one ought to commit the act, or even a situation where it would be deemed permissible to do so, and therefore it would be an "immoral" action.
@taylorbortnerathing Rape in the abstract is immoral for the reasons you cited, but when is rape, rape? When one is underage, or with diminished capacity to consent? When one decides after the fact that the act was not consensual? What if one changes one's mind during the act itself, has rape been commited? All morals have gray areas in actual practice that have to be sorted out individually. Moral absolutism discourages sensitive decisions and promotes immoral judgments..
@luvdomus being an extreme moral objectivist to the point of being rigid would not allow for the evolution of our understand of morality, so in that sense i can agree. i don't agree however that what constitutes rape is not definable.
for all situations listed above, it seems as though it would be clear whether or not it is rape. if a woman decided after sex started that she didn't want it, for example, she probably would put up a fight. if you kept going, it would clearly be rape.
[Of course all morals are relative. Fundamentalists are big on the Ten Commandments, but they play fast and loose with their enforcement.]
A "fundamentalist" who plays fast and loose with what is right and wrong does not prove that the position of relativism, where moral statements are true only for the individual. Concerning the "Thou Shalt Not Kill" commandment; it was prohibiting the unjustified killing of innocent persons; so more correctly translated "Thou shalt not murder"
[Absolutism is just another form of moral hypocrisy.] On relativism, what right do you have to judge me as morally hypocritical?
[Genuinely moral people don't go by codes or laws, but by a deep-seated sense of justice and fairness--]
Congratulations, you're not a moral relativist. You obviously believe in the real value in the concepts of "justice" and "fairness", concepts that can't exist outside of each person's personal opinion if relativism were true.
@calomie Just to note, I realize that you may be just defending relativism as "Devil's Advocate" and you may not even be an actual proponent of the view, but because you were attempting a kind of defense for it, I decided I'd play along. Good day to you.
Another thing to point out. If all moral statements can be reduced to a sub-category of each individuals personal preference, why should I share your view that hypocrisy is a vice? What if I find it virtuous?
@calomie Some people DO see hypocrisy as a virtue-- they believe those who are too weak to resist temptation in private should at least condemn sin in public. That at least upholds morals, as opposed to saying that since many of us sin in private we should just let it all hang out and be honest about it. In any case, moral decisions are often complex, subtle and on the surface contain contradictions. You have to think, not just be a hardliner who sticks to the rulebook.
@calomie No one takes the point of view that morality is nothing just one's own personal point of view-- that is not what "relativism" means. Only religious fundamentalists and Rightists claim that anything that deviates from their own scriptural dogma is equivalent to living purely by personal whim. This is intellectual trickery designed to de-legitimize their opponents in moral disputes and promote the lie that without 'supernatural' authoritarianism there can be no sense of right or wrong.
Pretty much every definition of relativism I've seen says something to the affect that truth, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. These weren't all found in the books of Christian Apologist. Some of them can be found in well respected dictionaries of Philosophy.
@calomie "Relativism" is a propaganda term coined by Christian Rightists in the 1970s for their ideological culture war against the liberation movements of the '60s. Blacks, women and gays were demanding changes and Rightists fought to maintain their traditional dominance by claiming that the only possible alternative to conservative dogma is chaos and individual whim. No one else uses the word "relativism." All moral issues exist relative to the situation, not supernatural edict.
Relativism is a position that has been discussed within academia. It is a real position with people who have held to the position, and those who have not. It became popular in the 20th Century, but it had its rudimentary beginnings in Ancient Greece. Take for instance Protagoras of Abdera (c. 490–420 BC) “man is the measure (metron) of all things (chremata): of the things which are that they are, and of the things which are not, that they are not.”
Aside from that, from the 19th Century you have thinkers like Michel Foucault and Fredrick Nietzsche, who while they may not have been full-blown adherents of relativism they were certainly an inspiration for it, especially for the Postmodernists.
@calomie That's true IN A SENSE-- we are all the final authority on what authority we are willing to accept, so morality always comes down to a personal choice, even if you are following some leader or philosophy. But morals always derive from society, as we are social animals & do not live our lives in isolation. All creeds have a little "give" in them, even if they won't admit to it. How can any moral action be divorced from the situation in which it is performed?
@luvdomus -actually,the original commandment was "thou shalt not commit murder".
there are other distortions incorporated in the bible by the early catholic church that were not accurate to the original scrolls. christianity had already been in practice by non catholics +300 years before a very ugly confrontation by the papal emporer justinian who quashed all suggestions in the possibility of reincarnation, amongst other eastern ideas.
however, why would an omnipresent god allow a faulty bible?
Dogmatic rules are not the same as a sense of right and wrong. Absolutism is not moral, and usually leads to cruel behavior and injustice. The most moralistic people usually have the most to hide.
Extreme religious conservatives have their own private definition of "moral relativism" that has nothing to do with anybody else's. To them the phrase means, "no morals at all, just do what you wanna do and make uyp any excuse for it." In this way rightwingers can pretend that they are moral and anyone not part of their cult is immoral. And yet everyone's morals are situation dependent, including those of the most ardent fundamentalist. The most "absolute" moralists are the most heartless.
@haterbasher4sho QUOTE: "How is it every atheist or whatever else on youtube find their way to these videos? do you spend time searching youtube for Christian videos you can bash? i mean seriously! it's really annoying!"
If you are annoyed by opinions you disagree with, perhaps you should stick to the 700 Club or FoxNews where you need never be exposed to opinions that aren't just like yours.
Morals are the product of cultural evolution, which is the product of biological evolution. No moral law is absolute-- all human behavior comes with some built in give-and-take. Absolutism is a symptom of limited intelligence and psychological distress. Morals can be firm without being absolute. Gods come from human culture just as customs, laws, art, clothing styles and other fashions do. The right-wingers' obsession with absolutes is a ploy for political power.
@haterbasher4sho It's about constantly and consistently testing our views on a rational basis. If we do not look for opposing views to compare to our own then how will we know if we are wrong? Once here, we see the many fallacies and, in correcting them, hope others won't make the same mistakes. Like in this video i counted ten fallacies, most of them straw men. I wont point them out because this video has been up for four years, the views are probably already expressed.
Moral relativism is merely an observation about human behavior. It's not a law, or an absolute truth or a moral judgment. We just have no reason to believe there are any absolute moral judgments beyond our own subjective ones (who would be making them and why wouldn't that just be a subjective perspective anyway?).
This is a poor strawman. A moral relativist understands that there is no objective morality but that everyone has a subjectively chosen morality. Moral relativists may push their ideas for the same reason that moral absolutists push their ideas: They both have a subjective morality. It is not a contradiction for someone to both understand that there are no objective morals while at the same time hold subjective morals. It just means that someone can think for themselves.
@demandevidence Adam and Eve thought that it was morally wrong to be naked after eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Morals are changing throughout human hystory. That's what is reletive. What was good at one point is now evil. What was evil at one point is now good. Moral absolutes have to have an authority. Saying that homosexuality is wrong has to be backed up by authority. Who says that it is wrong? Christians are not the moral authority. God is the moral authority.
@saved03 Thanks for the response. A thought: It is true that morals are changing and this idea is also what makes them relative. However, because someone - authority or not - has decreed something is wrong, seems insufficient reasoning to make that something wrong. The next question, if indeed God is the moral authority, is why did God say it was wrong. If the answer is similar to why anyone else says its wrong, then it seems the title 'authority' is somewhat arbitrary.
@demandevidence Do you follow the laws of your land? If so why? If authority is a subject that can be reletive according to you. Why follow what that authority commands you to follow? To make this claim you have to be reletive in all areas not just one. Reletivism contradicts it's self time after time.
@saved03 It is safe to say that human beings will make their decisions regardless of the 'laws of their land'. In any situation humans follow only those rules with which they agree. Relativists (and all others) take authority's 'rules' as suggestions. They carefully weigh cost versus benefit and act on what they think is most beneficial. If you can name a true authority at all, it is the self: That is the one you will obey in every circumstance regardless of rules, laws, or mandates.
«the idea that morals are made up by the individual» is a ethical (relativistic subjectivistic) individualism. There are non-subjectivistic relativistic ethics; eg: for instance, an act is good or bad depending on the consequences: eg - if it makes someone suffer, is bad - no matter what's your opinion. So, how thinks like the dope character in green? By the way, the Divine Commands Theorya is subjectivist...
Slavery is wrong! (unless God does it). Genocide is wrong! (unless God does it). Killing one person for the deeds of another is wrong! (unless God does it). Talk about flexible ethics! If God can do anything and that makes it moral, then then christians have the most relative ethics of all!
It's subjective to say there is a "scale" of relativism, by saying Aetheism has a small amount of relativism while Christianity has a large amount of relativism. Criticizing the moral relativity of other religions does not defend the moral relativity of Aetheism. Statements don't take meaning by prefixing them with "If God can". The God of the Bible tried waking up His creation, and then took their punishment in His own crucifixion.
@DeaconVerter -yes, jewish prophets of the old testament and mohammad in the hadiths clearly made war and took slaves, but where in the new testament did christ kill anyone or take a slave?
saying " all religions are the same" is a form of relativism.
@ApostateltsopA -i recall that he drove the merchants out with a whip for turning a temple into a flea market-hardly an act of war much less comparable to mohammad's having critics assassinated or authorizing followers to rape female captives taken from military conquests.
@bademoxy You do know there is nothing in the Koran about Mohamed having critics assassinated or women raped right? The Koran was one of the first systems of government to offer any woman's rights at all, then again you did just agree that Christ attacked people with a whip for selling stuff by a building and, handily, all sin is equal in the eyes of the christian god. What was your point again?
@ApostateltsopA -so you think the quran is the only islamic book written back in mohammad's time?
i guess you never heard of the Hadiths, have you? unlike the quran(which is a book of mohammad's sayings), the hadiths are accounts of the prophet's actual deeds.
this is the dark side of islam which moderate muslims deny(even to themselves, otherwise they would have to admit that their moon god is nonexistent at best or satanic if anything).
@bademoxy I never suggested any such thing, however Mohammad was a man, the Koran, if you believe in holy books, was divinely inspired. By reference to the Koran the hadiths can not be holy books. Having been written from the start and not an oral tradition the Koran has that in much better shape than the bible which is a hodgepodge of many teachings with too many editors to count.
In either case a true god needs no book or prophet so I fail to see the benefit of maligning Islam. pots & kettles
@ApostateltsopA -perhaps we'll agree that we don't owe any religion a free pass. however the topic of this column is on relativity-in our present day. so a lone christian moron in florida in florida burns a quran and so thousands of muslims attack and murder innocent westerners in retaliation- you want to present a rational argument that massacre is equivalent to the burning of a mass produced copy of a book? btw; the quran is BASED on the old testament (the torah) so how is it less flawed?
@bademoxy I think it's fair any religious idea be put to the test of reason. As for the moron in FL or the morons hell bent on violence elsewhere, there is a lot more at work in that scenario than which religious book the extremists favor. It's why I wish we'd spend more time building schools, pushing for equal rights within the sexes and getting those kids some art and a better vision of the future.
As for the last comments, modern cars are based on the old cars you don't see the improvement?
@DeaconVerter atheists must invest in barns in which they keep all the straw with which they use to build their arguements against Christianity. It's amazing!
@DeaconVerter What people fail to realize is why God is the ultimate authority and why God is justified when he makes the decisions concerning life and death. For all the intellectual prowess and mental exercises that's put into these arguments its disappointing that the answer to the premise of the argument is missed.
Does God command morality because it is good, or is morality good because God commands it?
If Morality is good because God commands it, it is arbitrary, and you can hardly say someone is acting altruistically when they are merely acting out of self interest. Either fear of punishment or desire of reward.
On the other hand, if God commands it because it is Good, God isn't the source.
It even helps relativism, no matter how you look at it, these two guys have differing viewpoints (morals), it is impossible to determine which one is the right one.
Hence it is moral is relative.
Xtians like to use the bible and god like some absolute moral or truth, there is no evidence for that "viewpoint" either.
Religion is for people that can't think for themselves, they need guidance.
#1-If I took your wallet I wouldn't try to justify it at all. I would either run away with it, or try to incapacitate you so you couldn't take it back. Any moral arguments I gave would be deception or distraction.
#2- Similarly if you did something disagreeable to me I wouldn't argue against you morally but would fight you, or try to appeal to your own morality as a tactic.
#3- There is a difference between truth arguments and moral arguments.
So... the gist of the entire video is that 'The argument against absolute morality must in itself be a form of absolute morality, therefore it does not work.' right?
Could a person not just argue that absolute morality always ends up having a damaging effect on society and individuals, therefore a lack of it would benefit us all? Moral relativism is not an attempt at absolute moral truth, it is the complete absence of absolute moral truth as a superior form of society...
Your confusing..........Tolerance with Relativism. You can be a Tolerant Absolutist. Tolerance and Relativism are not one in the same. In fact many people that classify themselves as Relativists are merely Tolerant Absolutists and just dont know it because they dont understand the scope of relativism.
In finding Social contracts people trying to find the correct one, not trying to find the one that is likable. So : there must be something that is absolutely correct. Whether it is found in our mind, or find in popular ideology or found in so-called 'outdated?' faith.
That's a bullshit argument. If I measured my height, it might be accurate to a centimetre, but not a millimetre. But it wouldn't be incorrect for me to give my height in centimetres. However, saying that relativism is incorrect is like saying that you already know my height and will reject any measurement that I present to you that might say otherwise, because they will all be inaccurate. And since I can only have one height, and since you presuppose you are correct, then your value is right.
there are better moral systems in philosophy than in religion."
I couldnt agree more.
This vid is really not very realistic. duh!
moral relativism is not "making up" morals. It is clearly the net result of your upbringing and education.. It really should have little to do with religious dogma.
ever heard of social contract? you live in a democratic government system which the majority agree with and is therefore representative. this government makes the laws. if you break the laws you go to jail as you have broken your social contract. if you don't agree with laws of the land then you need to find another society to live in or try and change the society you live in, in a lawful way. there are better moral systems in philosophy than in religion. untilitarianism? categorical imperative?
anyway, you have freedom of speech and can therefore try to change the system through argument. it is ok to judge others. you have freedom of association and you can tell people that you think they are immoral. what do you want? to use violence against someone you think is immoral by your standards , but who has not broke the law of the land?
one more thing. plato talks about this in cato. your country feeds you and your family. it educates them. it takes care of them when they become sick. it houses them etc etc. therefore it is immoral to break its laws along with the social contract, so. as people have pointted out, this video is clearly a strawman argument.
sorry, the book is called 'five dialogues' by plato and the dialogue is either apologue or crito lol. the one where socrates refuses to escape from prison and the death sentence.
Congratulations! You have successfully defeated your strawman! Suggestion: spend some time outside of your little circle to figure out what's really out there.
I, as a moral relativist, have no problem with people forcing their morals on other people or having a collective morality as we do now. And I seriously doubt the majority of relativists oppose this because the opposite is complete anarchy.
And the arguments fail to look for any truth value in the statements and simply argue over which is "better." Wrong direction, people.
I'll argue right now that moral absolutes are impossible, for further detail I have a video on it.
I am a relativist, I am always right and if you do something I dislike, you are wrong. Morals and Ethics come down to this, Who's got the biggest B*lls.
This entire argument is diffused the moment the relativist stops morally prescribing "oughts" and "ought nots", and simply states what he values and then fights for it (via voting, arguing, persuading, or even physically fighting).
The objective rightness or wrongness of something has absolutely no bearing on whether or not that thing gets done or is prohibited. Hence America goes to war with its ideological opponents and is subdivided by political parties.
But you got moral relativism all wrong. Moral relativism is not a moral. In other words, the claim that it is wrong to be moral, or to not be a moral relativist, is not moral relativism. And that's all you've proven in your video. Moral relativism is different. 'All morals are relative' only means that we are in control of our morality. After all, did God ever say that child molestation is a sin? It's not in the bible, we made that up too! And yet it's a good moral. ;)
Microwave ovens aren't in the Bible either. So what? We use our God-given intellects to ***INFER*** that child molestation is wrong. Would that be loving our children? Being pure? Being holy as He is holy? Now, try and show that child molestation is wrong from a secular/atheist worldview.
But that's the whole point! Our intellect is what creates morals in the first place, and that's all moral relativism is saying. And here's how I, an atheist, can believe child molestation is wrong: I want to live in a world with minimal sexual trauma, and minimal need to focus on how to salvage our mentalities. I would be even happier if sexual taboos brought about by religious afterthoughts didn't drive our minds to such a degree that makes us feel so much trauma from child sexual abuse.
Even if there IS a god, HIS(/her/its) morals are completely irrelevant to the discussion of whether morals are subjective or objective. If there is a god, with a penis so that we can call him "he", and he has morals, those are just his subjective morals, and the only argument for agreeing with him would be in terms of rewards and punishment. Not because it was OBJECTIVELY right.
I realise that the relativist does have standards - namely those generated by himself or his group. I don't see how the video ignores this. Care to elaborate? As far as I can tell, the point the video makes is that the relativist in the clip is insisting that others that adopt his stance, which contradicts that stance itself.
The people who made this video have no idea what moral relativism is. I think it is sad that the church went from the center of advances in philosophy and thought to a group of people clinging to the dark ages.
That's not right at all. Moral Relativism (whether personal subjectivism or conventionalism) is the view that morality is not objective at all, but is legitimately different for each person and culture. That's not objectivism, and the first point works just fine. It's easy for people to brush it off saying "they don't understand," but that is not correct. The video does represent relativism (in this case, subjectivism) just fine.
I agreed with pretty much everything you said, berettaNZ, until you contradicted yourself by saying:
"The video does represent relativism (in this case, subjectivism) just fine."
Because it most certainly does not. A relativist believes in right and wrong every bit as much as an absolutist, he just recognizes that there is no outside, objective source of morality. Whether morals are objective or subjective is irrelevant to what morals one has, nor any bearing on how strongly they are held.
The fact that this video deals with "tactics" rather than "a valid argument" for refuting moral relativism tells me the video, and it's author have a dishonest intent.
Relativists cannot claim that your morals are "wrong," and truly wouldn't do so anyhow, because they do not speak in terms of such absolutes. But as they believe in the validity of the morals at which they have arrived, they will (clearly) try to bring about the manifestation of those morals in the world around them.
Note that in not accepting absolutes a relativist cannot claim that his own morals are absolutely the best, either, but is convinced for whatever reasons that they are the best available.
This video was myopic and unjustifiably self-righteous, and it didn't address my "little" comment, or I wouldn't have made that comment.
If everyone is relative, and no truth is bases then relativism in it self can not be relative to the anything because that "anything" would have to be the truth. or.. you would have to use the relativism of the many, that have found a common factor of "right" to base your new relativism on. Relativism can only be even referenced if a "truth" factor exists; so to even bring up relativism of anyones pure value of accountability is in of it's self contradictory.
That is mistaken. The relativist cannot say that his morals are the "best available." For him to say that, he would need a point of reference. If that point of reference is merely himself, then all he can say is that they are the values that he personally prefers the most. If that reference point is outside of himself, then he has given up moral relativism.
True relativists must recognize their inherent isolation, because they cannot "push their ideals on other people." But this is not inconsistent or problematic in any way. In demanding to be allowed to maintain their own stance on the matter of morals, they are trying to pursue the practical realization of those morals.
Consider MR; it says:"X is morally right provided that the person doing X approves of X." MR implies P should take the wallet as long as P approves of doing so. If Q disapproves of P's act, MR does not imply anything as silly as the idea that Q shouldn't disapprove or that Q shouldn't force Q's morals on P. In fact, MR implies that Q should disapprove if Q approves of disapproving. Nor does MR imply that P can expect that Q will approve of P's act. So Moral Relativism needn't be self-refuting.
Yes it is ! There is no such thing as subjective morals. I am saying this as a moral relativist. Watch my videos and you will realize subjective morals are no morals !
gkir, "own moral code?" Everyone has there own views about morality but everyone shares a common morality despite race, religion or culture. I suggest you read "The abolition of man" by C.S. Lewis and see what Greg Koukl says on relativism. Especially the parts about metanarratives that relativists appeal to tell us how we ought to behave.
Words have no bearing on reality, they either accurately describe reality or they do not. We do not create with our words, we merely describe. gkir, you seem to think that your view is the right view and those who disagree with you are wrong. That's not moral relativism. You also seem to be implying that our minds cannot be trusted, if so why should we trust your observations? Your world-view ends in meaninglessness and despair.
You wrote, "Truth is relative to the system that proves it." How is one to make a judgement about the system and make improvements to it if there is not an objective "better and worse"? The system either accurately measures reality or it doesn't.Whether people say a thing is true or not does not change the fact that reality does exist and that which corresponds to reality is true, even if there were no minds to observe the fact.
gkir, very interesting but not quite right. Beliefs are either true or false. You have said that beliefs are neither true or false which is faulty reasoning. We can investigate beliefs to find out if they are true or false. For example, a person might look at the historical events around Jesus death to determine whether the resurrection is the best possible explanation or not given the available facts.
This video has nothing to do with relative morality. It merely shows the author has no clue about they are talking about. No moral is shown to exist that isn't relative to the individual, decided by an individual based on their own moral code. Nor is any moral proven true objectively, they are beliefs and not assumptions or myths, they are of the opinion variety... for theists or atheists.
I have an exam on Relativism tomorrow and this video is the most unhelpful study aid ever. Why are these braindamaged Christians allowed to upload this junk?
He said universal not Christian. Hmmm what color is Jesus? He's a a variety of colors depending on the church I enter. How abot accusing thousands of witchcraft and then murdering them? What about stealing the land others occupy because they are heathens, infidels, or heretics? What about impregnating a virgin betrothed to a carpenter? Sounds like moral actions to me (sarcasm). Two mellenia of Christian mercy and lies has proven them to be the most immoral of all religions and philosophies.
I guess the amount of time and levels of atrocities don't matter. Let me know the next time you see an Aztec....oh yeah you can't they were converted or murdered by christian conquistadors and missonaries by the thousands for over a century until they were extinct. I would love to hear some of your poignant comments on Islam, the Qurran, the Bible and the Torah.
Why don't you take a look at the middle east where you can see Islam and how is is practiced. I guess you could get in a time machine and go see these evil christians you talk about. But hey....i dont see whats so 'wrong' with what these christians did, given your likely views on moral relativity.
Heh. I could continue arguing with you within the 500 character limit but it would be futile. This video and fundamentalists who think their flavor of religion is better then another can continue killing each other are jokes. Who needs to be a good person or make amends with those you have wronged when you can live a paltry, trifling, intolerant hate filled life cause God's got your back right?
@nmvonminden BARFO! How is "keep the sabbath" universal? lol And you're going to define your sexual code a little better than just one word "adultery", because when your invisible entity supposedly drown everyone but 1 family where was your universal objective morality when they were banging there daughters, neices, and cousins to repop the Earth. What universally immoral invisible entity would set up a situation like that? Or is it OK to have sex with your children? Can't have it both ways.
How do you propose to prove anything at all if you believe that truth cannot be discovered? Whatever evidence is given you will reject because you have already decided to. Only when we put truth before loyalty to out beliefs are we are able to accept it. I'm assuming you want answer? Do you want a true answer or a false one? Do you want a coherent answer or an incoherent one?
A good test for any theory is this. Try out the theory on those who hold it. Buddha said to test the truth claims of anyone laying claim to truth. Which is what the honest claimant of truth wants. So if someone claims they have the truth test those claims objectively. In the case of relativism you will notice that relativists relativise the past but not the present. They relativize others but not themselves. They don't like it when their standards are used against them which this video shows.
I am very glad you brought up the Buddha, as I am myself Buddhist AND a moral relativist. Buddha actually said that truth is different from one person to the next, which is observably true: we all take different paths toward happiness. By being a moral relativist, I am rejecting the notion that objective good and objective bad exists; that it is all in the eye of the beholder.
so the atrocities of Hitler were all just events no more meaningfull than my breakfast? is there realy no distinction between Stalin and Mother Tereasa other than personal preference. Suposing I took a young baby and killed it infront of you would you tell me that you couldn't judge that action to be wrong? Even if you didn't like what I had done personaly the fact that you feel that way deep down means your subconsious doesn't agree whith what opinions and mind is telling it.
The universe cares as little for Hitler's atrocities as it does for your breakfast. Just because there is no objective right or wrong, however, does not mean there is no <i>subjective</i> right or wrong. Supposing you killed a baby in front of me, naturally I would judge it as morally wrong. But without considering both my perspective, yours, the baby's and the baby's kin's, as well as any legal rammifications, there would not be anything "wrong" with it, no.
The only way to arrive at a subjective right or wrong is to use objective right and wrongs and the circumstances of whatever the situation is. Otherwise subjective right and wrong would be totally meaningless. The idea of right and wrong would be meaningless....and you wouldn't be getting upset about people telling you there are absolute right and wrongs.
"The only way to arrive at a subjective right or wrong is to use objective right and wrongs and the circumstances of whatever the situation is. Otherwise subjective right and wrong would be totally meaningless."
Not at all. I arrive at subjective wrong because it clashes with my subjective right, which has been taught me through my upbringing by my family, friends and society at large.
And subjective opinions are very deeply felt, which is why people DO get upset when certain buttons are pushed. But this has absolutely nothing to do with objectivity - quite the opposite, in fact. It has all to do with preferential differences.
For example, a professor I talked to related to me his experience working in Africa (don't remember where), where a collegue invited him to dinner at his place.
Now, in that particular culture, they are big on matriarchal figures, and consequently invitations could only be given with the mother's approval. When the professor arrived, he was greeted by his collegue's mother, who opened her arms as a welcoming gesture. The professor, however, interpreted this as an invitation to a hug, and gave her a big one. Everyone was shocked, naturally, because for a stranger to even <i>touch</i> the mother was unthinkable.
But his collegue told him not to worry about it, because "everybody knows you Europeans have no manners". This goes to show that there are strong feelings surrounding even everyday, demonstrably subjective things such as manners.
Morality has no bearing on truth, or relative truth, since morality is always a statement of belief. Beliefs are not truths. Relative morality is far different than relative truth, as relative morality is subjective and relative truth is objective.
But man, being a social animal, will tend to adapt to his fellow man, and so we see morals formed by cultures and only to a lesser extent by the individual. People can't help but make rules. So there IS right and wrong, but only within the confines of specific cultures.
There's a deeper right and wrong, one which is not taught to us. A right and wrong everyone knows about despite culture, religion or era. A right and wrong which parents appeal to when they say things like, "how would you like it if someone did that to you?" Note, they are not telling their children about right and wrong but appealing to it. Without that sense they could teach their children nothing about morals.
I agree that there are certain basics to all cultures, and the "do unto others" is the most obvious. However, people violate this rule all the time, and it is mainly appeal to consequences which help. Often, people will do wrong if they are certain they can get away with it. If there is something universal, it is our herd mentality, which makes practical rules as a matter of nature. "Do unto others&quo
Insultingly stupid.
sqlblindman 3 weeks ago
Too stupi
sqlblindman 3 weeks ago
This is so stupid I can't even begin to explain.
seblasian 1 month ago
this video is proof that christians are complete morons. lol.
shockoflogic 2 months ago 2
eeeh like it or not, it's all relative. Especially when you use circular reasoning to justify your point.
coyoteself 2 months ago
The point of moral relativism isn't correctness. It's simply individual acceptance of uncertainty.
Anyone who tries to argue moral correctness is a hypocrite. Anyone who tries to argue against moral correctness with anything other than "you're wrong" is also a hypocrite, as he/she has just conceded the possibility that his/her morals may be incorrect.
It's self-refuting to argue moral relativism, but it's also self-refuting to try and refute it without making assumptions/illogical inferences.
ZomBLord 2 months ago
3).
NO, tolerance isnt a moral absolute it's simply a logical necessity of engaging in rational discourse. Most people like to be logical and engaging in debate is a great way to get points across.
No public universal actions guides were prescribed.
types10000 5 months ago
2). Same as tactic 1, by living in a society you are subject to the social contract of that society ie. the law. the fact the law originated via the collective agreement of particular subjective values doesnt change the fact that it is currently an objective standard that can be appealed.
The Christians actions violate the concept of right/wrong set by this standard.
types10000 5 months ago
1).
- That wasnt a moral position, the idiotic christian simply cant tell him what to do ie. if he tries to physically stop him then he'll probably need to break the law.
- The video creator has confused moral relativism with subjective morality, the fact of the matter is that objective moral standards like the law are not in conflict with moral relativism and can be appealed to as an authoritative position on right/wrong.
types10000 5 months ago
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".
squirc 5 months ago
Whatever value these arguments have, they are lost in the general stupidity of the video.
Kirkwood2020 6 months ago
Just because there is a standard that has evolved does not mean morals are absolute. Something can be relative (subject to change and relative to the individual) and still be unanimously agreed upon by everyone. Everyone knows not to murder, but that doesn't mean the moral value attached to murder couldn't start changing tomorrow - it's still relative.
PhilipGregory1981 7 months ago
This video is retarded. It should be called retardedism... No it doesn't turn on itself. The objection is that Kurt is imposing his morality on someone else such that it changes thier actions vis a vis the objector. Kurt is trying to control the other's actions outside thier interactions whereas Mr. Afro is only trying to limit actions that directly affect himself. Me saying "don't tell me not to wear a t-shirt you don't like" isn't the same as you saying I can't wear what I want.
sinistar99 7 months ago
@sinistar99 I don't think that's the issue. Either way, there is a moral influence being applied, which does refute the claim to "be a moral relativist", but does not refute the concept of moral relativism itself. But I agree with your last point. There's a difference between saying "You can't tell me what to do" and "Don't tell me what to do": the difference between morally absolute inference and morally informed action, (respectively), the latter remaining in compliance with moral relativism.
ZomBLord 2 months ago
What relativism IS (or at least as I see it) simply is the belief that ethics are, to some extent, situational. Yes, generally speaking, murder, lying and such are considered "wrong" by most people, but there may be times when it is necessary or acceptable. Aborting a fetus just for the sake of it or "for fun" probably isn't a good idea, but there are situations where one can see that it might be necessary or justifiable.
whoo689 8 months ago
Relativism acknowledges that morality, like most things, is not black and white. You can't say "This is wrong, and the other thing is bad 100% of the time." It's an absolutist, impossible standard. Eventually you're either going to have to violate your own ironclad standard at least once in life to get something done, or you're gonna be a fucking jackass (or at least be seen as such) whose 'principles' are so rigid that he can't think outside the box and do what's necessary in important times.
whoo689 8 months ago
What moral relativism DOESN'T say, however (at least the kind I subscribe to), that it's "ok to do anything as long as you think it's right or OK." Hell no! Of course that shouldn't be the basis of morality. But what relativism DOES say is that conservative/traditionalist ethics are too narrow-minded and can't evolve with more and better information, research, etc. I mean, who devised the idea that having sex before marriage is 'wrong'? WHY is it "wrong"? Who does it hurt?
whoo689 8 months ago
Personally, I subscribe to generally what I call "consensual ethics" (i.e. as long as the parties involved make the informed voluntary decision to partake in it, it's morally acceptable). That seems like a pretty fair standard to me that applies to about 90% of all cases.
whoo689 8 months ago
This eliminates the "problem of bestiality" and "problem of pedophilia" when right-wingers bring up the whole "Well, if gay marriage is legalized, then you have to legalize this other stuff..." Obviously child molestation is unwanted and abuse, and so is bestiality.
whoo689 8 months ago
...Where exactly do conservatives get the idea that moral relativism is this ideology where EVERYTHING is permissible, and the individual can just make up his own morality? I bet you'll find HARDLY anyone who even subscribes to such a ludicrous worldview! Most of hte ones who DO probably sit in the halls of academia as philosophy professors, a pretty small population.
Do right-wingers even RESEARCH actual moral relativism before spouting nonsense about it?
whoo689 8 months ago
Whoever made this doesn't understand moral relativism... or good acting.
SteinUndStahl666 9 months ago
Wow, the author of this does realize that the video is in fact self defeating as well doesn't he?
dibaterman 11 months ago
Thats not moral relativism, thats moral segregationism, how homogenous a system of morals should be allowed to be in a society, moral relativism is a scrutiny on the system of morals themselves and how rigid or flexible they should be. Stupid video.
gunninlinguist 1 year ago
I see you guys read Beckwith's and Koukl's "Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air"
calomie 1 year ago
"Tolerate people, but not their stupid ideas."
The irony of these words coming from christians. Mind blowing.
Mathenaut 1 year ago
Yikes! These folks are dangerously misinformed about moral relativism. I hope the jovial nature of the video dissuades viewers from taking this project seriously. Strawman arguments are easy to lampoon, but intellectual honesty requires that they should at least research the topic.
1stAnimalTamed 1 year ago
@haterbasher4sho as opposed to everytime i watch a science video theists begin with the 'repent or die in lakes of fire' theme.
janto58 1 year ago
Of course all morals are relative. Fundamentalists are big on the Ten Commandments, but they play fast and loose with their enforcement. Take "Thou shalt not Kill." Of, course they make an exception for the death penalty, or war. Absolutism is just another form of moral hypocrisy. Genuinely moral people don't go by codes or laws, but by a deep-seated sense of justice and fairness-- concepts that are too "squishy" for hard-nosed moralists who like their morals in writing.
luvdomus 1 year ago
@luvdomus what?
i'm an atheist and i'm incredibly confused by this. all morality is relative yet there can be people who are deemed 'moral'?
if all morals are relative than someone could claim that rape and child molestation are ok or even that they are good actions. however, it seems clear that there is nothing positive that can come out of those actions other than the fulfillment of selfish desire. regardless of your opinion, no one ought to commit such an action. i.e. it's objectively bad.
taylorbortnerathing 1 year ago
@taylorbortnerathing There is no such thing as "objective" morality, since behavior must have a judge in order to be deemed immoral. You seem cofused about the idea of what is "relative." This simply means that an action must be judged in context, as it relates to the situation. An act of sex that is consensual is not rape, accepting a gift is not stealing, etc.
luvdomus 1 year ago
@luvdomus
rape being objectively bad is true because there is no conceivable scenario in which rape would be beneficial to anyone or amount to anything other than a harmful act which fulfills some selfish desire. no matter what one's opinion on rape is, there is never going to be a situation in which one ought to commit the act, or even a situation where it would be deemed permissible to do so, and therefore it would be an "immoral" action.
taylorbortnerathing 1 year ago
@taylorbortnerathing Rape in the abstract is immoral for the reasons you cited, but when is rape, rape? When one is underage, or with diminished capacity to consent? When one decides after the fact that the act was not consensual? What if one changes one's mind during the act itself, has rape been commited? All morals have gray areas in actual practice that have to be sorted out individually. Moral absolutism discourages sensitive decisions and promotes immoral judgments..
luvdomus 1 year ago
@luvdomus being an extreme moral objectivist to the point of being rigid would not allow for the evolution of our understand of morality, so in that sense i can agree. i don't agree however that what constitutes rape is not definable.
for all situations listed above, it seems as though it would be clear whether or not it is rape. if a woman decided after sex started that she didn't want it, for example, she probably would put up a fight. if you kept going, it would clearly be rape.
taylorbortnerathing 1 year ago
@luvdomus
[Of course all morals are relative. Fundamentalists are big on the Ten Commandments, but they play fast and loose with their enforcement.]
A "fundamentalist" who plays fast and loose with what is right and wrong does not prove that the position of relativism, where moral statements are true only for the individual. Concerning the "Thou Shalt Not Kill" commandment; it was prohibiting the unjustified killing of innocent persons; so more correctly translated "Thou shalt not murder"
calomie 1 year ago
@luvdomus
[Absolutism is just another form of moral hypocrisy.] On relativism, what right do you have to judge me as morally hypocritical?
[Genuinely moral people don't go by codes or laws, but by a deep-seated sense of justice and fairness--]
Congratulations, you're not a moral relativist. You obviously believe in the real value in the concepts of "justice" and "fairness", concepts that can't exist outside of each person's personal opinion if relativism were true.
calomie 1 year ago
@calomie Just to note, I realize that you may be just defending relativism as "Devil's Advocate" and you may not even be an actual proponent of the view, but because you were attempting a kind of defense for it, I decided I'd play along. Good day to you.
calomie 1 year ago
@calomie
Another thing to point out. If all moral statements can be reduced to a sub-category of each individuals personal preference, why should I share your view that hypocrisy is a vice? What if I find it virtuous?
calomie 1 year ago
@calomie Some people DO see hypocrisy as a virtue-- they believe those who are too weak to resist temptation in private should at least condemn sin in public. That at least upholds morals, as opposed to saying that since many of us sin in private we should just let it all hang out and be honest about it. In any case, moral decisions are often complex, subtle and on the surface contain contradictions. You have to think, not just be a hardliner who sticks to the rulebook.
luvdomus 1 year ago
@calomie No one takes the point of view that morality is nothing just one's own personal point of view-- that is not what "relativism" means. Only religious fundamentalists and Rightists claim that anything that deviates from their own scriptural dogma is equivalent to living purely by personal whim. This is intellectual trickery designed to de-legitimize their opponents in moral disputes and promote the lie that without 'supernatural' authoritarianism there can be no sense of right or wrong.
luvdomus 1 year ago
Pretty much every definition of relativism I've seen says something to the affect that truth, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. These weren't all found in the books of Christian Apologist. Some of them can be found in well respected dictionaries of Philosophy.
So, what do you think "relativism" means?
calomie 1 year ago
@calomie "Relativism" is a propaganda term coined by Christian Rightists in the 1970s for their ideological culture war against the liberation movements of the '60s. Blacks, women and gays were demanding changes and Rightists fought to maintain their traditional dominance by claiming that the only possible alternative to conservative dogma is chaos and individual whim. No one else uses the word "relativism." All moral issues exist relative to the situation, not supernatural edict.
luvdomus 1 year ago
@luvdomus
Relativism is a position that has been discussed within academia. It is a real position with people who have held to the position, and those who have not. It became popular in the 20th Century, but it had its rudimentary beginnings in Ancient Greece. Take for instance Protagoras of Abdera (c. 490–420 BC) “man is the measure (metron) of all things (chremata): of the things which are that they are, and of the things which are not, that they are not.”
calomie 1 year ago
@luvdomus
Aside from that, from the 19th Century you have thinkers like Michel Foucault and Fredrick Nietzsche, who while they may not have been full-blown adherents of relativism they were certainly an inspiration for it, especially for the Postmodernists.
calomie 1 year ago
@luvdomus
And besides that, I have talked to people myself who adhere to the view that each man is the measure of his own moral truth.
calomie 1 year ago
@calomie That's true IN A SENSE-- we are all the final authority on what authority we are willing to accept, so morality always comes down to a personal choice, even if you are following some leader or philosophy. But morals always derive from society, as we are social animals & do not live our lives in isolation. All creeds have a little "give" in them, even if they won't admit to it. How can any moral action be divorced from the situation in which it is performed?
luvdomus 1 year ago
@luvdomus -actually,the original commandment was "thou shalt not commit murder".
there are other distortions incorporated in the bible by the early catholic church that were not accurate to the original scrolls. christianity had already been in practice by non catholics +300 years before a very ugly confrontation by the papal emporer justinian who quashed all suggestions in the possibility of reincarnation, amongst other eastern ideas.
however, why would an omnipresent god allow a faulty bible?
bademoxy 10 months ago
Dogmatic rules are not the same as a sense of right and wrong. Absolutism is not moral, and usually leads to cruel behavior and injustice. The most moralistic people usually have the most to hide.
HPoelzig 1 year ago
Extreme religious conservatives have their own private definition of "moral relativism" that has nothing to do with anybody else's. To them the phrase means, "no morals at all, just do what you wanna do and make uyp any excuse for it." In this way rightwingers can pretend that they are moral and anyone not part of their cult is immoral. And yet everyone's morals are situation dependent, including those of the most ardent fundamentalist. The most "absolute" moralists are the most heartless.
eatmylogic 1 year ago 2
@haterbasher4sho QUOTE: "How is it every atheist or whatever else on youtube find their way to these videos? do you spend time searching youtube for Christian videos you can bash? i mean seriously! it's really annoying!"
If you are annoyed by opinions you disagree with, perhaps you should stick to the 700 Club or FoxNews where you need never be exposed to opinions that aren't just like yours.
pwnUgood 1 year ago
Morals are the product of cultural evolution, which is the product of biological evolution. No moral law is absolute-- all human behavior comes with some built in give-and-take. Absolutism is a symptom of limited intelligence and psychological distress. Morals can be firm without being absolute. Gods come from human culture just as customs, laws, art, clothing styles and other fashions do. The right-wingers' obsession with absolutes is a ploy for political power.
pwnUgood 1 year ago
wat is this, lol
Mathenaut 1 year ago
@haterbasher4sho It's about constantly and consistently testing our views on a rational basis. If we do not look for opposing views to compare to our own then how will we know if we are wrong? Once here, we see the many fallacies and, in correcting them, hope others won't make the same mistakes. Like in this video i counted ten fallacies, most of them straw men. I wont point them out because this video has been up for four years, the views are probably already expressed.
TheWordsNotSpoken 1 year ago
This is... lacking intelligence.
Mrsexypants88 1 year ago
Moral relativism is merely an observation about human behavior. It's not a law, or an absolute truth or a moral judgment. We just have no reason to believe there are any absolute moral judgments beyond our own subjective ones (who would be making them and why wouldn't that just be a subjective perspective anyway?).
Culiccidae 1 year ago
This is a poor strawman. A moral relativist understands that there is no objective morality but that everyone has a subjectively chosen morality. Moral relativists may push their ideas for the same reason that moral absolutists push their ideas: They both have a subjective morality. It is not a contradiction for someone to both understand that there are no objective morals while at the same time hold subjective morals. It just means that someone can think for themselves.
demandevidence 1 year ago
@demandevidence Adam and Eve thought that it was morally wrong to be naked after eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Morals are changing throughout human hystory. That's what is reletive. What was good at one point is now evil. What was evil at one point is now good. Moral absolutes have to have an authority. Saying that homosexuality is wrong has to be backed up by authority. Who says that it is wrong? Christians are not the moral authority. God is the moral authority.
saved03 1 year ago
@saved03 Thanks for the response. A thought: It is true that morals are changing and this idea is also what makes them relative. However, because someone - authority or not - has decreed something is wrong, seems insufficient reasoning to make that something wrong. The next question, if indeed God is the moral authority, is why did God say it was wrong. If the answer is similar to why anyone else says its wrong, then it seems the title 'authority' is somewhat arbitrary.
demandevidence 1 year ago
@demandevidence Do you follow the laws of your land? If so why? If authority is a subject that can be reletive according to you. Why follow what that authority commands you to follow? To make this claim you have to be reletive in all areas not just one. Reletivism contradicts it's self time after time.
saved03 1 year ago
@saved03 It is safe to say that human beings will make their decisions regardless of the 'laws of their land'. In any situation humans follow only those rules with which they agree. Relativists (and all others) take authority's 'rules' as suggestions. They carefully weigh cost versus benefit and act on what they think is most beneficial. If you can name a true authority at all, it is the self: That is the one you will obey in every circumstance regardless of rules, laws, or mandates.
demandevidence 1 year ago
Racist much?
IamLiterallyRetarded 1 year ago
This is complete rubbish!
Hotwatty 1 year ago
«the idea that morals are made up by the individual» is a ethical (relativistic subjectivistic) individualism. There are non-subjectivistic relativistic ethics; eg: for instance, an act is good or bad depending on the consequences: eg - if it makes someone suffer, is bad - no matter what's your opinion. So, how thinks like the dope character in green? By the way, the Divine Commands Theorya is subjectivist...
pedroamaralcouto 1 year ago
Points of this video? Moral Relativism bad? Cocaine awsome?
atheistATTACK 1 year ago
this video is stupid ....really stupid
ajdenisari 1 year ago 2
Slavery is wrong! (unless God does it). Genocide is wrong! (unless God does it). Killing one person for the deeds of another is wrong! (unless God does it). Talk about flexible ethics! If God can do anything and that makes it moral, then then christians have the most relative ethics of all!
DeaconVerter 1 year ago 20
@DeaconVerter lol so true - all chrsitains have to say is "well god told me to do it" and they can get away with anytihng
badpanda84 1 year ago
@DeaconVerter I agree, and I'm shocked that they don't realize this.
jacarandas82 1 year ago
@DeaconVerter
It's subjective to say there is a "scale" of relativism, by saying Aetheism has a small amount of relativism while Christianity has a large amount of relativism. Criticizing the moral relativity of other religions does not defend the moral relativity of Aetheism. Statements don't take meaning by prefixing them with "If God can". The God of the Bible tried waking up His creation, and then took their punishment in His own crucifixion.
roadie50 1 year ago
@DeaconVerter -yes, jewish prophets of the old testament and mohammad in the hadiths clearly made war and took slaves, but where in the new testament did christ kill anyone or take a slave?
saying " all religions are the same" is a form of relativism.
bademoxy 11 months ago
@bademoxy Christ did attack a bunch of merchants for providing necessary temple items on temple grounds.
ApostateltsopA 10 months ago
@ApostateltsopA -i recall that he drove the merchants out with a whip for turning a temple into a flea market-hardly an act of war much less comparable to mohammad's having critics assassinated or authorizing followers to rape female captives taken from military conquests.
bademoxy 10 months ago
@bademoxy You do know there is nothing in the Koran about Mohamed having critics assassinated or women raped right? The Koran was one of the first systems of government to offer any woman's rights at all, then again you did just agree that Christ attacked people with a whip for selling stuff by a building and, handily, all sin is equal in the eyes of the christian god. What was your point again?
ApostateltsopA 10 months ago
@ApostateltsopA -so you think the quran is the only islamic book written back in mohammad's time?
i guess you never heard of the Hadiths, have you? unlike the quran(which is a book of mohammad's sayings), the hadiths are accounts of the prophet's actual deeds.
this is the dark side of islam which moderate muslims deny(even to themselves, otherwise they would have to admit that their moon god is nonexistent at best or satanic if anything).
mohammad- "do as i say, not as i do".
bademoxy 10 months ago
@bademoxy I never suggested any such thing, however Mohammad was a man, the Koran, if you believe in holy books, was divinely inspired. By reference to the Koran the hadiths can not be holy books. Having been written from the start and not an oral tradition the Koran has that in much better shape than the bible which is a hodgepodge of many teachings with too many editors to count.
In either case a true god needs no book or prophet so I fail to see the benefit of maligning Islam. pots & kettles
ApostateltsopA 10 months ago
@ApostateltsopA -perhaps we'll agree that we don't owe any religion a free pass. however the topic of this column is on relativity-in our present day. so a lone christian moron in florida in florida burns a quran and so thousands of muslims attack and murder innocent westerners in retaliation- you want to present a rational argument that massacre is equivalent to the burning of a mass produced copy of a book? btw; the quran is BASED on the old testament (the torah) so how is it less flawed?
bademoxy 10 months ago
@bademoxy I think it's fair any religious idea be put to the test of reason. As for the moron in FL or the morons hell bent on violence elsewhere, there is a lot more at work in that scenario than which religious book the extremists favor. It's why I wish we'd spend more time building schools, pushing for equal rights within the sexes and getting those kids some art and a better vision of the future.
As for the last comments, modern cars are based on the old cars you don't see the improvement?
ApostateltsopA 10 months ago
@DeaconVerter poor tactics.....tsk tsk tsk
surgicalbassist 10 months ago
@DeaconVerter What about muslims?
Fajjani 9 months ago
@DeaconVerter atheists must invest in barns in which they keep all the straw with which they use to build their arguements against Christianity. It's amazing!
db247310 8 months ago
@DeaconVerter What people fail to realize is why God is the ultimate authority and why God is justified when he makes the decisions concerning life and death. For all the intellectual prowess and mental exercises that's put into these arguments its disappointing that the answer to the premise of the argument is missed.
BuzWeaver 6 months ago
Does God command morality because it is good, or is morality good because God commands it?
If Morality is good because God commands it, it is arbitrary, and you can hardly say someone is acting altruistically when they are merely acting out of self interest. Either fear of punishment or desire of reward.
On the other hand, if God commands it because it is Good, God isn't the source.
Godlessons 1 year ago
This video is really pathetic.
It even helps relativism, no matter how you look at it, these two guys have differing viewpoints (morals), it is impossible to determine which one is the right one.
Hence it is moral is relative.
Xtians like to use the bible and god like some absolute moral or truth, there is no evidence for that "viewpoint" either.
Religion is for people that can't think for themselves, they need guidance.
Swecan76 2 years ago
Moral is relative, no matter how hard anyone try and dispute it.
It is also just in the 'eye of the beholder'.
Just because the majority think one thing is right or wrong morally doesn't make it objective and absolutely correct.
Swecan76 2 years ago
2:58 I love this video
bakedorfriedman 2 years ago
You guys dance well.
#1-If I took your wallet I wouldn't try to justify it at all. I would either run away with it, or try to incapacitate you so you couldn't take it back. Any moral arguments I gave would be deception or distraction.
#2- Similarly if you did something disagreeable to me I wouldn't argue against you morally but would fight you, or try to appeal to your own morality as a tactic.
#3- There is a difference between truth arguments and moral arguments.
Grayto 2 years ago
So... the gist of the entire video is that 'The argument against absolute morality must in itself be a form of absolute morality, therefore it does not work.' right?
Could a person not just argue that absolute morality always ends up having a damaging effect on society and individuals, therefore a lack of it would benefit us all? Moral relativism is not an attempt at absolute moral truth, it is the complete absence of absolute moral truth as a superior form of society...
StillRimmo 2 years ago
Your confusing..........Tolerance with Relativism. You can be a Tolerant Absolutist. Tolerance and Relativism are not one in the same. In fact many people that classify themselves as Relativists are merely Tolerant Absolutists and just dont know it because they dont understand the scope of relativism.
UltimoLatino 2 years ago
In finding Social contracts people trying to find the correct one, not trying to find the one that is likable. So : there must be something that is absolutely correct. Whether it is found in our mind, or find in popular ideology or found in so-called 'outdated?' faith.
MrBillgate 2 years ago
That's a bullshit argument. If I measured my height, it might be accurate to a centimetre, but not a millimetre. But it wouldn't be incorrect for me to give my height in centimetres. However, saying that relativism is incorrect is like saying that you already know my height and will reject any measurement that I present to you that might say otherwise, because they will all be inaccurate. And since I can only have one height, and since you presuppose you are correct, then your value is right.
supermagicmilk 1 year ago
Is this a parody making fun of Christians, or was this a sincere effort on the part of Christians?
Though I suspect the former, if it really IS the latter, they need not use pretend "dumb" voices to seem ignorant.
ksmartialarts 2 years ago
I'm noticing a common trend here, that people who try to "refute" moral relativism have no fucking idea what moral relativism even is.
caelestis356 2 years ago
do you even know what it is?
samdiego 2 years ago
there are better moral systems in philosophy than in religion."
I couldnt agree more.
This vid is really not very realistic. duh!
moral relativism is not "making up" morals. It is clearly the net result of your upbringing and education.. It really should have little to do with religious dogma.
foamulator 2 years ago 2
ever heard of social contract? you live in a democratic government system which the majority agree with and is therefore representative. this government makes the laws. if you break the laws you go to jail as you have broken your social contract. if you don't agree with laws of the land then you need to find another society to live in or try and change the society you live in, in a lawful way. there are better moral systems in philosophy than in religion. untilitarianism? categorical imperative?
BooRadley007 2 years ago
anyway, you have freedom of speech and can therefore try to change the system through argument. it is ok to judge others. you have freedom of association and you can tell people that you think they are immoral. what do you want? to use violence against someone you think is immoral by your standards , but who has not broke the law of the land?
BooRadley007 2 years ago
one more thing. plato talks about this in cato. your country feeds you and your family. it educates them. it takes care of them when they become sick. it houses them etc etc. therefore it is immoral to break its laws along with the social contract, so. as people have pointted out, this video is clearly a strawman argument.
BooRadley007 2 years ago
sorry, the book is called 'five dialogues' by plato and the dialogue is either apologue or crito lol. the one where socrates refuses to escape from prison and the death sentence.
BooRadley007 2 years ago
fuck i can't spell
BooRadley007 2 years ago
What?
Alaron251 2 years ago
Nice dancing
CheekyVimto08 2 years ago
i don't think they do understand moral relativism, if i was them i would take that ethics class again.
iceefreet 2 years ago 10
You took that strawman DOWN!
TheKitXune 3 years ago 3
hahahahaha, I was thinking the same thing
Heyaitsjohn 2 years ago
Congratulations! You have successfully defeated your strawman! Suggestion: spend some time outside of your little circle to figure out what's really out there.
Funny video though.
commie84 3 years ago 4
Minstrel show?
ElTeo 3 years ago
I CALL STRAWMAN!
I, as a moral relativist, have no problem with people forcing their morals on other people or having a collective morality as we do now. And I seriously doubt the majority of relativists oppose this because the opposite is complete anarchy.
And the arguments fail to look for any truth value in the statements and simply argue over which is "better." Wrong direction, people.
I'll argue right now that moral absolutes are impossible, for further detail I have a video on it.
Orygyn 3 years ago
@Orygyn "I CALL STRAWMAN"
Yes, Strawman here... How can I help you? ;)
sinistar99 2 months ago
I believe violence is one of the best convincers in logic. Sorry if my morals clash with yours.
markgilbert1 3 years ago
I am a relativist, I am always right and if you do something I dislike, you are wrong. Morals and Ethics come down to this, Who's got the biggest B*lls.
Always out numbered, never out gunned.
markgilbert1 3 years ago
So... relativists are jerks?
odge99 3 years ago
This entire argument is diffused the moment the relativist stops morally prescribing "oughts" and "ought nots", and simply states what he values and then fights for it (via voting, arguing, persuading, or even physically fighting).
The objective rightness or wrongness of something has absolutely no bearing on whether or not that thing gets done or is prohibited. Hence America goes to war with its ideological opponents and is subdivided by political parties.
Ready, set, try to refute!
BeauClayton 3 years ago
Very funny video. =)
But you got moral relativism all wrong. Moral relativism is not a moral. In other words, the claim that it is wrong to be moral, or to not be a moral relativist, is not moral relativism. And that's all you've proven in your video. Moral relativism is different. 'All morals are relative' only means that we are in control of our morality. After all, did God ever say that child molestation is a sin? It's not in the bible, we made that up too! And yet it's a good moral. ;)
goph000 3 years ago
Microwave ovens aren't in the Bible either. So what? We use our God-given intellects to ***INFER*** that child molestation is wrong. Would that be loving our children? Being pure? Being holy as He is holy? Now, try and show that child molestation is wrong from a secular/atheist worldview.
apologeticsnz 3 years ago
But that's the whole point! Our intellect is what creates morals in the first place, and that's all moral relativism is saying. And here's how I, an atheist, can believe child molestation is wrong: I want to live in a world with minimal sexual trauma, and minimal need to focus on how to salvage our mentalities. I would be even happier if sexual taboos brought about by religious afterthoughts didn't drive our minds to such a degree that makes us feel so much trauma from child sexual abuse.
goph000 3 years ago
Even if there IS a god, HIS(/her/its) morals are completely irrelevant to the discussion of whether morals are subjective or objective. If there is a god, with a penis so that we can call him "he", and he has morals, those are just his subjective morals, and the only argument for agreeing with him would be in terms of rewards and punishment. Not because it was OBJECTIVELY right.
Gilmaris 3 years ago
I realise that the relativist does have standards - namely those generated by himself or his group. I don't see how the video ignores this. Care to elaborate? As far as I can tell, the point the video makes is that the relativist in the clip is insisting that others that adopt his stance, which contradicts that stance itself.
berettaNZ 3 years ago
lol, nice video. Moral relativism is ridiculous.
David999999 3 years ago
The people who made this video have no idea what moral relativism is. I think it is sad that the church went from the center of advances in philosophy and thought to a group of people clinging to the dark ages.
zurosek 3 years ago
Cleverly witty, and good points, all!! Great video..
broj8s8n79 3 years ago
In other words STFU.
BIZKID25 3 years ago
The first point made no sense whatsoever. Relativism is not a moral point, it is a means of getting to an objectivist logical point. Sigh...
RamzGT 4 years ago
That's not right at all. Moral Relativism (whether personal subjectivism or conventionalism) is the view that morality is not objective at all, but is legitimately different for each person and culture. That's not objectivism, and the first point works just fine. It's easy for people to brush it off saying "they don't understand," but that is not correct. The video does represent relativism (in this case, subjectivism) just fine.
berettaNZ 3 years ago
I agreed with pretty much everything you said, berettaNZ, until you contradicted yourself by saying:
"The video does represent relativism (in this case, subjectivism) just fine."
Because it most certainly does not. A relativist believes in right and wrong every bit as much as an absolutist, he just recognizes that there is no outside, objective source of morality. Whether morals are objective or subjective is irrelevant to what morals one has, nor any bearing on how strongly they are held.
Gilmaris 3 years ago 2
I love this stuff!
Good job guys...
shepherd78 4 years ago
You're thinking too theoretically. I think its more of a "to each his own" kind of thing, rather than a power-struggle with non-relativist beliefs.
xclassflare 4 years ago
Brilliant, and soooo true!
robocopnz 4 years ago
The fact that this video deals with "tactics" rather than "a valid argument" for refuting moral relativism tells me the video, and it's author have a dishonest intent.
johntheother 4 years ago
Really, moral relativism is another face of pragmatism, which is also a wholly reasonable stance to take.
schmiggen 4 years ago
Relativists cannot claim that your morals are "wrong," and truly wouldn't do so anyhow, because they do not speak in terms of such absolutes. But as they believe in the validity of the morals at which they have arrived, they will (clearly) try to bring about the manifestation of those morals in the world around them.
schmiggen 4 years ago
and this is why this video was made... answers your little comment very well!
shepherd78 4 years ago
Note that in not accepting absolutes a relativist cannot claim that his own morals are absolutely the best, either, but is convinced for whatever reasons that they are the best available.
This video was myopic and unjustifiably self-righteous, and it didn't address my "little" comment, or I wouldn't have made that comment.
schmiggen 4 years ago
If everyone is relative, and no truth is bases then relativism in it self can not be relative to the anything because that "anything" would have to be the truth. or.. you would have to use the relativism of the many, that have found a common factor of "right" to base your new relativism on. Relativism can only be even referenced if a "truth" factor exists; so to even bring up relativism of anyones pure value of accountability is in of it's self contradictory.
shepherd78 4 years ago
That is mistaken. The relativist cannot say that his morals are the "best available." For him to say that, he would need a point of reference. If that point of reference is merely himself, then all he can say is that they are the values that he personally prefers the most. If that reference point is outside of himself, then he has given up moral relativism.
berettaNZ 3 years ago
True relativists must recognize their inherent isolation, because they cannot "push their ideals on other people." But this is not inconsistent or problematic in any way. In demanding to be allowed to maintain their own stance on the matter of morals, they are trying to pursue the practical realization of those morals.
schmiggen 4 years ago
Consider MR; it says:"X is morally right provided that the person doing X approves of X." MR implies P should take the wallet as long as P approves of doing so. If Q disapproves of P's act, MR does not imply anything as silly as the idea that Q shouldn't disapprove or that Q shouldn't force Q's morals on P. In fact, MR implies that Q should disapprove if Q approves of disapproving. Nor does MR imply that P can expect that Q will approve of P's act. So Moral Relativism needn't be self-refuting.
deigond 4 years ago
If relativists disagree with this video, they are not relativists, for why should they disagree?
reyesb88 4 years ago
Moral relativism is not the same thing as amoralism.
Dashitall 4 years ago
Yes it is ! There is no such thing as subjective morals. I am saying this as a moral relativist. Watch my videos and you will realize subjective morals are no morals !
FatGermanBastard 4 years ago
gkir, "own moral code?" Everyone has there own views about morality but everyone shares a common morality despite race, religion or culture. I suggest you read "The abolition of man" by C.S. Lewis and see what Greg Koukl says on relativism. Especially the parts about metanarratives that relativists appeal to tell us how we ought to behave.
BBBradH 4 years ago
Words have no bearing on reality, they either accurately describe reality or they do not. We do not create with our words, we merely describe. gkir, you seem to think that your view is the right view and those who disagree with you are wrong. That's not moral relativism. You also seem to be implying that our minds cannot be trusted, if so why should we trust your observations? Your world-view ends in meaninglessness and despair.
BBBradH 4 years ago
You wrote, "Truth is relative to the system that proves it." How is one to make a judgement about the system and make improvements to it if there is not an objective "better and worse"? The system either accurately measures reality or it doesn't.Whether people say a thing is true or not does not change the fact that reality does exist and that which corresponds to reality is true, even if there were no minds to observe the fact.
BBBradH 4 years ago
gkir, very interesting but not quite right. Beliefs are either true or false. You have said that beliefs are neither true or false which is faulty reasoning. We can investigate beliefs to find out if they are true or false. For example, a person might look at the historical events around Jesus death to determine whether the resurrection is the best possible explanation or not given the available facts.
BBBradH 4 years ago
This video has nothing to do with relative morality. It merely shows the author has no clue about they are talking about. No moral is shown to exist that isn't relative to the individual, decided by an individual based on their own moral code. Nor is any moral proven true objectively, they are beliefs and not assumptions or myths, they are of the opinion variety... for theists or atheists.
gklr 4 years ago 4
I have an exam on Relativism tomorrow and this video is the most unhelpful study aid ever. Why are these braindamaged Christians allowed to upload this junk?
jamiemn37 4 years ago 2
So pointing out that pushing relativism on others isn't very relativist is braindead. Sounds like you took a 50 foot plunge and landed on your jaw.
Closetscholar 4 years ago
ok then, whats the universal moral set of ideas?
CarlPlaysMusic 4 years ago
don't lie, steal, murder, covet, commit adultery, disobey your parents, you must put God 1st, no idols, keep the sabbath, and no blasphemy.
nmvonminden 4 years ago
He said universal not Christian. Hmmm what color is Jesus? He's a a variety of colors depending on the church I enter. How abot accusing thousands of witchcraft and then murdering them? What about stealing the land others occupy because they are heathens, infidels, or heretics? What about impregnating a virgin betrothed to a carpenter? Sounds like moral actions to me (sarcasm). Two mellenia of Christian mercy and lies has proven them to be the most immoral of all religions and philosophies.
Mephistophilus 4 years ago
You obviously dont know anything about the aztecs ho used to eat prisoners of war. You must know nothing about islam.
Closetscholar 4 years ago
I guess the amount of time and levels of atrocities don't matter. Let me know the next time you see an Aztec....oh yeah you can't they were converted or murdered by christian conquistadors and missonaries by the thousands for over a century until they were extinct. I would love to hear some of your poignant comments on Islam, the Qurran, the Bible and the Torah.
Mephistophilus 4 years ago
Why don't you take a look at the middle east where you can see Islam and how is is practiced. I guess you could get in a time machine and go see these evil christians you talk about. But hey....i dont see whats so 'wrong' with what these christians did, given your likely views on moral relativity.
Closetscholar 4 years ago
Heh. I could continue arguing with you within the 500 character limit but it would be futile. This video and fundamentalists who think their flavor of religion is better then another can continue killing each other are jokes. Who needs to be a good person or make amends with those you have wronged when you can live a paltry, trifling, intolerant hate filled life cause God's got your back right?
Mephistophilus 4 years ago
@nmvonminden BARFO! How is "keep the sabbath" universal? lol And you're going to define your sexual code a little better than just one word "adultery", because when your invisible entity supposedly drown everyone but 1 family where was your universal objective morality when they were banging there daughters, neices, and cousins to repop the Earth. What universally immoral invisible entity would set up a situation like that? Or is it OK to have sex with your children? Can't have it both ways.
snaboofypopable 1 year ago
no answer to my question?
socialmarty 4 years ago
How do you propose to prove anything at all if you believe that truth cannot be discovered? Whatever evidence is given you will reject because you have already decided to. Only when we put truth before loyalty to out beliefs are we are able to accept it. I'm assuming you want answer? Do you want a true answer or a false one? Do you want a coherent answer or an incoherent one?
BBBradH 4 years ago
i think u got me confused, im not a relativist. i posed the question to the relativist who said
"it is unprovable that any "universal" truth exists"..which is an absolutele statement, inconsistentn with relativism
socialmarty 4 years ago
Sorry.
BBBradH 4 years ago
A good test for any theory is this. Try out the theory on those who hold it. Buddha said to test the truth claims of anyone laying claim to truth. Which is what the honest claimant of truth wants. So if someone claims they have the truth test those claims objectively. In the case of relativism you will notice that relativists relativise the past but not the present. They relativize others but not themselves. They don't like it when their standards are used against them which this video shows.
BBBradH 5 years ago
I am very glad you brought up the Buddha, as I am myself Buddhist AND a moral relativist. Buddha actually said that truth is different from one person to the next, which is observably true: we all take different paths toward happiness. By being a moral relativist, I am rejecting the notion that objective good and objective bad exists; that it is all in the eye of the beholder.
Gilmaris 4 years ago
so the atrocities of Hitler were all just events no more meaningfull than my breakfast? is there realy no distinction between Stalin and Mother Tereasa other than personal preference. Suposing I took a young baby and killed it infront of you would you tell me that you couldn't judge that action to be wrong? Even if you didn't like what I had done personaly the fact that you feel that way deep down means your subconsious doesn't agree whith what opinions and mind is telling it.
grahamatfreaklizard 4 years ago
The universe cares as little for Hitler's atrocities as it does for your breakfast. Just because there is no objective right or wrong, however, does not mean there is no <i>subjective</i> right or wrong. Supposing you killed a baby in front of me, naturally I would judge it as morally wrong. But without considering both my perspective, yours, the baby's and the baby's kin's, as well as any legal rammifications, there would not be anything "wrong" with it, no.
Gilmaris 4 years ago
The only way to arrive at a subjective right or wrong is to use objective right and wrongs and the circumstances of whatever the situation is. Otherwise subjective right and wrong would be totally meaningless. The idea of right and wrong would be meaningless....and you wouldn't be getting upset about people telling you there are absolute right and wrongs.
Closetscholar 4 years ago
"The only way to arrive at a subjective right or wrong is to use objective right and wrongs and the circumstances of whatever the situation is. Otherwise subjective right and wrong would be totally meaningless."
Not at all. I arrive at subjective wrong because it clashes with my subjective right, which has been taught me through my upbringing by my family, friends and society at large.
Gilmaris 4 years ago
And subjective opinions are very deeply felt, which is why people DO get upset when certain buttons are pushed. But this has absolutely nothing to do with objectivity - quite the opposite, in fact. It has all to do with preferential differences.
Gilmaris 4 years ago
For example, a professor I talked to related to me his experience working in Africa (don't remember where), where a collegue invited him to dinner at his place.
Gilmaris 4 years ago
Now, in that particular culture, they are big on matriarchal figures, and consequently invitations could only be given with the mother's approval. When the professor arrived, he was greeted by his collegue's mother, who opened her arms as a welcoming gesture. The professor, however, interpreted this as an invitation to a hug, and gave her a big one. Everyone was shocked, naturally, because for a stranger to even <i>touch</i> the mother was unthinkable.
Gilmaris 4 years ago
But his collegue told him not to worry about it, because "everybody knows you Europeans have no manners". This goes to show that there are strong feelings surrounding even everyday, demonstrably subjective things such as manners.
Gilmaris 4 years ago
Morality has no bearing on truth, or relative truth, since morality is always a statement of belief. Beliefs are not truths. Relative morality is far different than relative truth, as relative morality is subjective and relative truth is objective.
gklr 4 years ago
But man, being a social animal, will tend to adapt to his fellow man, and so we see morals formed by cultures and only to a lesser extent by the individual. People can't help but make rules. So there IS right and wrong, but only within the confines of specific cultures.
Gilmaris 4 years ago
There's a deeper right and wrong, one which is not taught to us. A right and wrong everyone knows about despite culture, religion or era. A right and wrong which parents appeal to when they say things like, "how would you like it if someone did that to you?" Note, they are not telling their children about right and wrong but appealing to it. Without that sense they could teach their children nothing about morals.
BBBradH 4 years ago
I agree that there are certain basics to all cultures, and the "do unto others" is the most obvious. However, people violate this rule all the time, and it is mainly appeal to consequences which help. Often, people will do wrong if they are certain they can get away with it. If there is something universal, it is our herd mentality, which makes practical rules as a matter of nature. "Do unto others&quo