Why is moral relativism such a bad thing?

[seer]

Imagine some moderately malevolent and very powerful being creates a universe. That being proclaims sovereignty over all created creatures in it, and hands down a moral code for them to adhere to. It's a not particularly nice moral code because the creator being is moderately malevolent, and the moral code tells them to be fairly nasty to each other in various situations. That creator being creates an afterlife for the creatures in that universe and punishes/rewards them according to the moral code that being gave them to follow - if they failed to do the nasty things that the being had ordered them to do, then it punishes them. Some of the beings in that universe quite reasonably say "gosh, that moral code that the creator-being has given us isn't really all that great in our view, and we view it as quite lacking in morality actually, and we're going to be nice to each other instead".

And why would our objections have any meaning or weight? We would just be spinning our moral wheels. And if such a creator did exist your moral sense could no more rise above his than a stram could rise above its source.

In this context the Euthrypo dilemma question applies. Do we say that the moderately malevolent being's be-nasty-to-others moral code isn't truly moral for the created creatures in that universe to follow because it's not a particularly great moral code by objective standards of morality? Or do we say that in-that-universe that is the standard of morality, because whatever the creator-being decrees and enforces with its power, is what the creatures in that universe really ought to do out of self-interest?

BTW - you never showed which horn of dilemma Christians were impaled on. And there are no objective moral standards in your world, so that objection is meaningless. And in the case of Christians, at least the Christians I know, we are devoted to Christ not so much because of His moral law but because of His love and sacrifice for us.

IMO you've never given a really clear answer to this in all our discussions, though at times it seems to me you've implied you probably believe that the creator-god gets to set the rules and that if he sets those rules as 'be nasty to each other', then that is what morality is for the creatures.

No, I have, God's moral nature is immutable. He is loving, just, forgiving, gracious, truthful - and He can not violate His nature, He can not be other than He is.

[seer]

Of course, arguably the same could be true for objective morality. There could really exist a true and objective moral code and it might not matter to anyone in the slightest. One can imagine stone tablets with the Teachings of The True Morality floating through space and having no relevance to anyone.

As I have said a dozen times. Even in societies laws that have no enforcement are meaningless. Moral realism offers no enforcement mechanism and therefore not a serious player...

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

So? That was not the discussion between me and Stoic. Sticking your big nose in again.

Your contention is flawed.

Prove this using Aristotelean philosophy

God is a moral law giver.
God requires all sentient moral beings to adhere to His law.
Therefore God's moral law applies universally.

[Stoic]

That was not the discussion - do you agree that it is not circular?

Sure. As long as you never try to use the moral argument to prove that God exists.

[Stoic]

More seriously, I think moral relativism undermines the ability to significantly communicate about all sorts of issues. What can a moral relativist say about any particular moral issue, that I should care about?

It sounds like you are saying that the consequences of moral relativism would be bad, therefore moral relativism is false. Which would be a fallacy.

If MR is true, then whatever it is that they are saying ("People shouldn't own handguns") is only true for them, or their particular moral community, which I may not happen to be a member of. Even if we are in the same moral community, they are not pointing to an objective fact about reality when they make a moral argument, only to their subjective opinion on a matter. So there's a problem with the very basis for a serious conversation about any particular moral issue if we are talking to a MR. I can disagree with their moral view without even being wrong about it - we can both be correct, even if our views are contradictory. ("People should own and carry handguns, to protect themselves from wolverines and rabid squirrels"). All that remains then is force (make them agree with me about my subjective opinion), or separation (break up our community and avoid them).

If MR is true, then there are no undergirding moral principles or values that reflect the way reality really is, that we should base our own morality on. So, ultimately, anything goes. Even being completely dishonest in conversation...

If MR is true, we still have the Golden Rule, the Categorical Imperative, the veil of ignorance, etc.

Now, an individual might disregard these moral principles, or he may use them to come to a different conclusion (e.g. I would love to be tortured, so it's okay for me to torture people). But the same is true for any absolute morality (I agree with you that morality is absolute, but I disagree with you about what it says).

The bad consequences of moral relativism would only be apparent if most people couldn't come to the same conclusion using the principles above. But it turns out that in most cases, most of us agree.

And even if that wasn't the case, it would be fallacious to argue from that that moral relativism is false.

[seer]

Sure. As long as you never try to use the moral argument to prove that God exists.

You mean like Kant?

(1) Moral behaviour is rational.
(2) Morality behaviour is only rational if justice will be done.
(3) Justice will only be done if God exists.
Therefore:
(4) God exists.

[seer]

Your contention is flawed.

Prove this using Aristotelean philosophy

God is a moral law giver.
God requires all sentient moral beings to adhere to His law.
Therefore God's moral law applies universally.

My discussion with Stoic was whether my argument was circular or not. I already said that no atheist would accept the premises.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

As I have said a dozen times. Even in societies laws that have no enforcement are meaningless. Moral realism offers no enforcement mechanism and therefore not a serious player...

But that appears to be your contention, namely that an objective moral value is something apart from us and simply "out there" entirely independent of human beings. You define this objective moral value in terms of your specific deity and the moral properties you ascribe to it but you cannot show where such moral properties are derived without resorting to your theistic beliefs

To make a moral judgement is to make a claim, and that claim if true, is made true by a fact. However, the only fact that makes the claim true is not "out there" entirely independent of us. The fact is a fact about ourselves and how we see the world and according to such theories moral value is not a feature of objective reality but is premised on our subjective feelings about certain actions.

[seer]

But that appears to be your contention, namely that an objective moral value is something apart from us and simply "out there" entirely independent of human beings. You define this objective moral value in terms of your specific deity and the moral properties you ascribe to it but you cannot show where such moral properties are derived without resorting to your theistic beliefs

To make a moral judgement is to make a claim, and that claim if true, is made true by a fact. However, the only fact that makes the claim true is not "out there" entirely independent of us. The fact is a fact about ourselves and how we see the world and according to such theories moral value is not a feature of objective reality but is premised on our subjective feelings about certain actions.

Hypatia the bottom line is that either universal moral truths (God's law) exists or not. Either we live in a moral universe or in an amoral universe. Mine or your subjective beliefs has no bearing on that question. Now go haunt someone else...

[Stoic]

You mean like Kant?

(1) Moral behaviour is rational.
(2) Morality behaviour is only rational if justice will be done.
(3) Justice will only be done if God exists.
Therefore:
(4) God exists.

No, I mean something like this:

1) Universal moral rules exist
2) Universal moral rules could not exist without God
3) Therefore God exists

[seer]

No, I mean something like this:

1) Universal moral rules exist
2) Universal moral rules could not exist without God
3) Therefore God exists

I like Kant's better:


(1) Moral behaviour is rational.
(2) Morality behaviour is only rational if justice will be done.
(3) Justice will only be done if God exists.
Therefore:
(4) God exists.

[Stoic]

I like Kant's better:


(1) Moral behaviour is rational.
(2) Morality behaviour is only rational if justice will be done.
(3) Justice will only be done if God exists.
Therefore:
(4) God exists.

I don't doubt that you like it.

Personally, I'm not sure that moral behavior is always rational. But it can be rational even if you aren't absolutely sure that justice will be done. And of course, justice can be done even if God does not exist.

So it doesn't do much for me.

[seer]

I don't doubt that you like it.

Personally, I'm not sure that moral behavior is always rational. But it can be rational even if you aren't absolutely sure that justice will be done. And of course, justice can be done even if God does not exist.

So it doesn't do much for me.

Really? Say there was a society that did not enforce its laws, no justice for offenses, for those harmed. Would you consider that rational?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Hypatia the bottom line is that either universal moral truths (God's law) exists or not.

You are still, in my opinion, holding to a moral realism viewpoint. Your either/or contention that there is "a universal moral truth (God's laws)" entirely independent of human beings or that we live in "an amoral universe" is premised on your belief/claim that your god's laws do exist and totally ignores the fact that the universe is inanimate. It can have no moral truths

[Stoic]

Really? Say there was a society that did not enforce its laws, no justice for offenses, for those harmed. Would you consider that rational?

I'm not sure "rational" is an adjective that can apply to a society. I think it would be irrational for an individual to want to be part of such a society, unless maybe he was bigger and stronger than everyone else, or at least part of a group that could take over.

But I don't see how your question is relevant to the discussion.