A shared challenge regarding the foundation of ethics

[Charles]

Yes. There is a tendency among many to believe that relativism exists due to the lack of faith in a God or something divine. However, it is important to remember that you can find (so called) divine standards of morality pointing in every directory. So even among these theories relativism is as present as everywhere else.

[Jim B.]

Why one would think the difference existsThe difference only exists between extremist and non-extremists

Sounds like you're describing divine command theory. I would guess that not that many theists subscribe to this theory. A more widely held theory is that God would be the embodiment or the instantiation of the good, that the good coincides with his nature as much as necessity does, not that God can will the good to be good, anymore than he can will himself to be.

[Tassman]

Yes. There is a tendency among many to believe that relativism exists due to the lack of faith in a God or something divine. However, it is important to remember that you can find (so called) divine standards of morality pointing in every directory. So even among these theories relativism is as present as everywhere else.

Exactly. So a code of behaviour based on "divine revelation" or based upon cultural tradition will be equally relative, because social mores keep changing and will require reinterpretation in both instances.

[Charles]

Exactly. So a code of behaviour based on "divine revelation" or based upon cultural tradition will be equally relative, because social mores keep changing and will require reinterpretation in both instances.

Yep. Equally as relative and then often more harmful because as soon as it becomes a part of a "divine revelation" people are very reluctant to change their ideas even if very good reason exists for doing so.

[shunyadragon]

Yep. Equally as relative and then often more harmful because as soon as it becomes a part of a "divine revelation" people are very reluctant to change their ideas even if very good reason exists for doing so.

Yes, unfortunately by far the majority rarely do so.

[Jim B.]

Yes. There is a tendency among many to believe that relativism exists due to the lack of faith in a God or something divine. However, it is important to remember that you can find (so called) divine standards of morality pointing in every directory. So even among these theories relativism is as present as everywhere else.

Forgive this "drive by" post, since I haven't read most of it. It's possible to believe in moral objectivism that has nothing to do with God. Man ahteist and agnostic moral philosophers believe in moral objectivism and many theists believe in determinism. There are good arguments against relativism and in favor of objectivism that don't rely on a belief in God.

[Charles]

Forgive this "drive by" post, since I haven't read most of it. It's possible to believe in moral objectivism that has nothing to do with God. Man ahteist and agnostic moral philosophers believe in moral objectivism and many theists believe in determinism. There are good arguments against relativism and in favor of objectivism that don't rely on a belief in God.

I agree with you on that. That is what I have stated all along in this thread (which I believe you would take interest in reading). I don't see how the lines you refer to would contradict that. Have I expressed myself unclearly? At least now you know my position on this.

[siam]

Exactly. So a code of behaviour based on "divine revelation" or based upon cultural tradition will be equally relative, because social mores keep changing and will require reinterpretation in both instances.

Yep. Equally as relative and then often more harmful because as soon as it becomes a part of a "divine revelation" people are very reluctant to change their ideas even if very good reason exists for doing so.

So if all ethical/moral principles/codes are relative---not universal---then whichever principle/code is used---it will need to be forcefully imposed on a large group of people who do not agree with it....Which then makes the nature of such a code/set of principles the same---that is they need to be forced to be accepted by people who do not give assent to them regardless of the label (religious/secular)used....

If ethical/moral codes are universal---not relative---then again---it does not matter what label is used as large groups of people around the world will give assent to them anyway, regardless of what label they are---"Christian" values will not differ greatly from "Hindu" values which will be similar to "Buddhist" values---etc....

In either case (universal/relative)---the difference will only be in the issuing authority---Secular values issued by State institution whereas non-secular values (theistic/non-theistic) issues by non-state institutions such as Sangha (Buddhism) Ulama (Islam), Church (Christianity), Rabbis (Judaism), and other such groupings of philosopher-scholars....

Reason is not a good excuse to change ethico-moral principles---it is a straight path to hypocrisy---for example, the U.S. declares that everyone is "equal" but when it comes to some of its territories neither the constitution nor the bill of rights applies---the "reason' being that these peoples are not "civilized" enough for American laws.....

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...n-samoa-tuaua/

The decisions, known as the Insular Cases, date back to the early 20th century, when the US had just won the Spanish-American War and acquired Puerto Rico and the far-flung new territories of Guam and the Philippines. The US acquired American Samoa in two parts in 1900 and 1904 as part of its continued expansion. But American political leaders had a problem: Tnonwhite residents of the new territories.

In fact--the U.S. and U.K. courts/judiciary systems are a laboratory of how "reason" is abused for the whims/convenience of the powerful.....

It is not that ethico-moral principles should change or remain static---what is important is that they remain consistent. For this, a paradigm/meta-narrative is required that spells out the nature, purpose and meaning of human beings and living here on earth. (Such a meta-narrative does not need to be theistic) only then can one develop consistency.....(to that meta-narrative/paradigm).

[siam]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MCkvt9y46o

[shunyadragon]

So if all ethical/moral principles/codes are relative---not universal---then whichever principle/code is used---it will need to be forcefully imposed on a large group of people who do not agree with it....Which then makes the nature of such a code/set of principles the same---that is they need to be forced to be accepted by people who do not give assent to them regardless of the label (religious/secular)used....

First before we go any further I do not believe anyone proposes that all ethical/moral principles/codes are relative---not universal---, except maybe anarchist libertarians. This is absolutely NOT TRUE. Even humanist secular systems of morals and ethics have principles that are considered universal such as wrongful death and theft of another persons property. Even concepts of adultery are pretty much universal in all cultures Theist and secular. Before you argue further you need to come back to reality and realize this.

It is the nature of different cultures and religions over the history of humanity that ALL morals and ethics are not universal. This is an interesting point to begin with. For example: The scripture of Judaism, Christianity and Islam is ambiguous as to whether slavery in all cases is unethical and immoral, but in the Baha'i Faith all forms of slavery are forbidden by spiritual law.

[shunyadragon]

Reason is not a good excuse to change ethico-moral principles---it is a straight path to hypocrisy---for example, the U.S. declares that everyone is "equal" but when it comes to some of its territories neither the constitution nor the bill of rights applies---the "reason' being that these peoples are not "civilized" enough for American laws.....

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...n-samoa-tuaua/

The decisions, known as the Insular Cases, date back to the early 20th century, when the US had just won the Spanish-American War and acquired Puerto Rico and the far-flung new territories of Guam and the Philippines. The US acquired American Samoa in two parts in 1900 and 1904 as part of its continued expansion. But American political leaders had a problem: Tnonwhite residents of the new territories.

In fact--the U.S. and U.K. courts/judiciary systems are a laboratory of how "reason" is abused for the whims/convenience of the powerful.....

It is not that ethico-moral principles should change or remain static---what is important is that they remain consistent. For this, a paradigm/meta-narrative is required that spells out the nature, purpose and meaning of human beings and living here on earth. (Such a meta-narrative does not need to be theistic) only then can one develop consistency.....(to that meta-narrative/paradigm).

Your description of the history of the American legal and constitutional system is highly biased and bogus as a three dollar bill.

Your seriously neglecting the enormous problems of the Islamic world that almost all Islamic countries severely restrict religious diversity, and most forbid the Baha'i Faith and in some to be a Baha'i is punishable by death. The minority religions and Judaism and Christianity are leaving Islamic countries for good reasons they are being driven out.

An honest less biased comparison of secular and religious systems of government would be appreciated. Your diatribe against secular governments is uncalled for when compared to Islam today.

[Anomaly]

Coming in late and not sure the thread is still alive, but been reading here and wanted to share an idea aimed to these comments from post #25.

Seer:

God constitutes moral values through his perfect nature

Charles:

You have given no account as to why this is good.

I've been working on a hypothesis following Avicenna that truth is in the essence of things. [Bear with me, this is actually going somewhere pertinent to the op.] I broaden this to the notion that from a reductive point of view, essence contains value or one of two possible denominations--true or false. Following traditional Christian thinking, human choice has the power to fragmentally falsify what was originally a wholly true creation.

Presuppositions relevant to the discussion are:
1) All goods are derivatives of truth. Degrees of falsification produce degrees of good; perfect is an interchangeable term with wholly true. This works for moral and material things, i.e., the value of a bar of gold (in reference to the assigner(s) of gold's value) is relative to its impurities. Impurity is a falsification of the purity or truth of gold.
2) Truth has two aspects, descriptive (virtually inert) and prescriptive (forceful).
3) Descriptive truth in convergence with descriptive falsity produces a mild tension in intellectual apprehension, as in 2+3=6. Prescriptive truth and falsity create a more robust resistance. The moral sense is in effect our perception of fragmentally falsified truth in reference to an external standard, in this case absolute prescriptive truth. For example the willful torture of an innocent human being for pleasure is a falsification of the good of that person's mental and physical health. Health is a good we possess relative to our biological system's truth value; hence, the falsification of truth in the state of affairs in which the torture took place.
4) To say God is perfect or entirely good is simply to say He is wholly True. The Gen story of creation presents the proper standard, that all things conform to truth.

From within the model above Seer would be correct that moral value references the perfection (Truth) of God's nature. Why this is good is because we know intuitively and experientially that the true is in all ways and at all times better [in all those ways better can be construed] than the false.

An interesting feature of this idea is that because truth itself is the simple standard for all good, it's available to and can be seen to operate equally within theist and atheist minds; both either resist or unite with moral truths to the extent essence and cognitive functions are falsified. Disagreements are between persons in possession of various degrees of falsification relative to standards external to the conversation--moral discussions ebb and flow in degrees of variance with truth itself. My two cents worth anyway.

[seer]

Coming in late and not sure the thread is still alive, but been reading here and wanted to share an idea aimed to these comments from post #25.

Seer:
Charles:

I've been working on a hypothesis following Avicenna that truth is in the essence of things. [Bear with me, this is actually going somewhere pertinent to the op.] I broaden this to the notion that from a reductive point of view, essence contains value or one of two possible denominations--true or false. Following traditional Christian thinking, human choice has the power to fragmentally falsify what was originally a wholly true creation.

Presuppositions relevant to the discussion are:
1) All goods are derivatives of truth. Degrees of falsification produce degrees of good; perfect is an interchangeable term with wholly true. This works for moral and material things, i.e., the value of a bar of gold (in reference to the assigner(s) of gold's value) is relative to its impurities. Impurity is a falsification of the purity or truth of gold.
2) Truth has two aspects, descriptive (virtually inert) and prescriptive (forceful).
3) Descriptive truth in convergence with descriptive falsity produces a mild tension in intellectual apprehension, as in 2+3=6. Prescriptive truth and falsity create a more robust resistance. The moral sense is in effect our perception of fragmentally falsified truth in reference to an external standard, in this case absolute prescriptive truth. For example the willful torture of an innocent human being for pleasure is a falsification of the good of that person's mental and physical health. Health is a good we possess relative to our biological system's truth value; hence, the falsification of truth in the state of affairs in which the torture took place.
4) To say God is perfect or entirely good is simply to say He is wholly True. The Gen story of creation presents the proper standard, that all things conform to truth.

From within the model above Seer would be correct that moral value references the perfection (Truth) of God's nature. Why this is good is because we know intuitively and experientially that the true is in all ways and at all times better [in all those ways better can be construed] than the false.

An interesting feature of this idea is that because truth itself is the simple standard for all good, it's available to and can be seen to operate equally within theist and atheist minds; both either resist or unite with moral truths to the extent essence and cognitive functions are falsified. Disagreements are between persons in possession of various degrees of falsification relative to standards external to the conversation--moral discussions ebb and flow in degrees of variance with truth itself. My two cents worth anyway.

That was interesting, though I may need to read it a couple of more times.

[Charles]

From within the model above Seer would be correct that moral value references the perfection (Truth) of God's nature. Why this is good is because we know intuitively and experientially that the true is in all ways and at all times better [in all those ways better can be construed] than the false.

I may have missed some details, however, I don't feel too certain this makes much sence. You say "[...] we know intuitively and experientially that the true is in all ways and at all times better [in all those ways better can be construed] than the false." This sound something along the lines, though not identical, to Kant's statement that you can never lie. I guess both seer and I would agree that this is not the case. You can lie to a nazi if you are hiding jews in your basement. Telling him the truth would be a catastrophe in most cases (unless he decided he was actually doing something morally wrong).

If we don't know that God exists, then how do we know that moral value referenes the perfection (Truth) of God's nature? And how do we know that we know God's nature, when so many suggestions of God's nature are given, and the claim seems to be that there are no objective values without God by whom we can determine that God is good? I don't really see how this gets us anywhere beyond the problem I pointed to initially, but I may have missed something along the way, it was a rather complex and detailed presentation. Perhaps you will share some more words on this?

[Anomaly]

I may have missed some details, however, I don't feel too certain this makes much sence. You say "[...] we know intuitively and experientially that the true is in all ways and at all times better [in all those ways better can be construed] than the false." This sound something along the lines, though not identical, to Kant's statement that you can never lie. I guess both seer and I would agree that this is not the case. You can lie to a nazi if you are hiding jews in your basement. Telling him the truth would be a catastrophe in most cases (unless he decided he was actually doing something morally wrong).

normal life circumstances, we could hardly be expected to perform perfectly in extreme situations.

If we don't know that God exists, then how do we know that moral value referenes the perfection (Truth) of God's nature?

does exist and there exist sufficient evidences to warrant this belief, why do some who obtain these same evidences believe and others not? Of course if God does not existgood but trueseek true propositions united with the internally formulated proposition not in spite of its resistance to the external truth, but specifically because of it.search for true propositions