Why is moral relativism such a bad thing?

[seer]

But atheists agree that it's all culturally dependent.

So the Maoist who was executing political dissidents was morally virtuous then.

[Stoic]

Again Stoic, one can make a deductive argument for moral universals if you start with a Moral Creator. But that is not a premise you would except.

Yeah, I have a problem with circular arguments.

[seer]

Yeah, I have a problem with circular arguments.

It is not circular, but deductive. The first premise is the only real contention.

[Stoic]

It is not circular, but deductive. The first premise is the only real contention.

Can you spell out the premises, so that we can see that they don't presume the conclusion?

[Machinist]

So the Maoist who was executing political dissidents was morally virtuous then.

Apparently:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/23685952?seq=1

[seer]

Can you spell out the premises, so that we can see that they don't presume the conclusion?

something like this, though it probably needs to be tweaked....

1. A moral God exists.

2. His moral nature is immutable (absolute).

3. God is by nature omnipresent (universal influence).

4. God's law proceeds from His unchanging moral nature.

5. God as creator, and by intention, claims sovereign authority over all He has created.

5. Therefore said law exists, and God requires adherence to said moral law from all moral beings (universally).

[lee_merrill]

Is there a logical argument as to why moral relativism is a bad thing?

Well, it's self-defeating, saying "all moral principles are relative" is a moral principle, which is evidently being taken as non-relative.

Blessings,
Lee

[Machinist]

Well, it's self-defeating, saying "all moral principles are relative" is a moral principle, which is evidently being taken as non-relative.

Blessings,
Lee

I was under the impression that we had all agreed the argument for universals was valid.

[lee_merrill]

I was under the impression that we had all agreed the argument for universals was valid.

I'm coming late to the party, so I missed that part of the discussion. I would hold however that universal moral principles are still moral principles.

Blessings,
Lee

[Stoic]

something like this, though it probably needs to be tweaked....

1. A moral God exists.

2. His moral nature is immutable (absolute).

3. God is by nature omnipresent (universal influence).

4. God's law proceeds from His unchanging moral nature.

5. God as creator, and by intention, claims sovereign authority over all He has created.

5. Therefore said law exists, and God requires adherence to said moral law from all moral beings (universally).

The conclusion looks to me like a rephrasing of premises 4 and 5.

I think that counts as circular reasoning.

[seer]

The conclusion looks to me like a rephrasing of premises 4 and 5.

I think that counts as circular reasoning.

No it doesn't, since the first premise is not the same as the conclusion. An 4+5 are not the same, they are not saying the same exact same thing. Though the second *5* should be number 6.

[Stoic]

No it doesn't, since the first premise is not the same as the conclusion. An 4+5 are not the same, they are not saying the same exact same thing. Though the second *5* should be number 6.

Perhaps you could explain how the first half of 6 is not contained in 4, and the second half of 6 is not contained in 5.

[seer]

Perhaps you could explain how the first half of 6 is not contained in 4, and the second half of 6 is not contained in 5.

Six is the conclusion that is why it starts with therefore. If you don't like them take them out - it would remain a non-circular argument from God to universal moral truths...

[Stoic]

Six is the conclusion that is why it starts with therefore. If you don't like them take them out - it would remain a non-circular argument from God to universal moral truths...

4 could not be true if God's law does not exist. So it presumes that God's law exists, which is the first half of your conclusion.

The second half of your conclusion, that God requires adherence to his law from all moral beings, is only supported by 5, if it is supported at all.

It looks to me like you have two conclusions, each of which is contained within a single premise.

That just makes it two circular arguments, rather than a non-circular argument.


Another way to look at it: Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument fails to persuade.

[Starlight]

something like this, though it probably needs to be tweaked....

1. A moral God exists.

2. His moral nature is immutable (absolute).

3. God is by nature omnipresent (universal influence).

4. God's law proceeds from His unchanging moral nature.

5. God as creator, and by intention, claims sovereign authority over all He has created.

[6]. Therefore said law exists, and God requires adherence to said moral law from all moral beings (universally).

I don't mind this argument too much*, but it fundamentally doesn't get you where you need to go. My neighbor says he requires adherence to his moral law from all moral beings. God can have a requirement all he likes and I can shrug and say 'whatever' in the same way I would if my neighbor told me his requirements.

Now it's possible that if I don't do what my neighbor says and he might buy a gun and break down my door and shoot me for it. Likewise it's possible that if I don't do what God says he might do something nasty to me too. But in neither case does might make right in any way that's philosophically interesting.


* though I don't see #3 as relevant, or #5 as moral - my parents created me but them claiming full sovereignty over me would be child abuse (or adult abuse in my case) because as a moral being I possess free will and am my own moral agent not under their control, so likewise God if he is moral as stated in #1 cannot claim sovereignty over free willed moral agents he has created.