By request and because I promised, I'll start with the key mistakes of moral relativism. What is moral relativism? "There are no absolutes!," they'll say. Penny, my Mom, is a moral relativist. To her, life is not black and white, but shades of grey, up to the indiviual to decide. Moral Relativists believe that the concept of truth is not absolute but that it's relative to each individual in all cases. By adhering to this errant concept and trying to argue it's merits, they subsequently commit a few logical flaws which you can point out one by one as they go along defending themselves.
Flaw Number 1: Relativists can't ever accuse others of wrongdoing.
If you believe morality is a matter of personal definition, you surrender the possibility of ever making any moral judgements about others' actions, no matter how offensive they are to your intuitive sense of right or wrong. You may express your emotions, tastes, or personal preferences, but you can't ever say they are wrong. You can't have it both ways. September 11? Eh, just another Tuesday.
Flaw Number 2: Relativists can't complain about the problem of evil.
Evil is a value judgement that marks a deviation and departure from some standard of moral perfection. If there is no standard, then there can be no deviation or departure. If their concept of relativism is true, the objection against God based on evil also vanishes. There is no evil to discuss, only differing opinions of what is pleasant and unpleasant, desired or undesired. An argument of this sort is thus reduced to "How could a good God allow things which are contrary to my opinion?" Moral relativism and objective evil could not possibly both be true at the same time.
Flaw Number 3: Relativists can't place blame or accept praise.
Without absolutes, nothing is ultimately bad, deplorable, tragic, or worthy of blame. Neither is anything ultimately good, honorable, noble, or worthy of praise. It's all lost in a twilight zone of moral nothingness. Relativists are almost always inconsistent here. They must remove the words praise and blame, credit and fault from their vocabularies. But, if the notions of praise and blame are valid, then relativism must be false.
Flaw Number 4: Relativists can't make charges of unfairness or injustice.
Both concepts dictate that people recieve equal treatments based on external standards of right and wrong. No absolutes? No standards. No standards? No fairness or justice.
Flaw Number 5: Relativists can't improve their morality.
How can one get "better" ? If there is no better way, there can be no improvement. Ask a relativist, "Do you think it's important to improve oneself?" No matter what their answer, ask, "Why?". In relativism, by definition, one's ethics can never become "moral" at one time or another. They may change, but they can never improve. If, however, moral improvement seems to be a concept that makes sense, relativism can not be true.
Flaw Number 6: Relativists can't hold meaningful moral discussions.
Relativism makes it impossible to discuss morality. What's there to talk about? Arguement is possible on moral questions only if some sytem of values is presupposed. Debate belies the desire to show the other guy is wrong. There is no sense in trying to do that unless you and he had some sort of agreement as to what Right and Wrong are. Football without rules is just 22 guys in tight pants slapping each other on the ass.
Flaw Number 7: Relativists can't promote the obligation of tolerance.
There is no claim to tolerance in relativism, because the relativists moral obligation to be tolerant is self-refuting. This, even though the principle of tolerance is considered one of the key virtues of relativism. Ironic, huh? To relativists, tolerance means, "I (morally) ought to tolerate the moral opinions and behaviors of others who disagree with me. I (morally) should not try to interefere with their opinions and behaviors." If there are no absolutes, why be tolerant at all? Why not force my morality on others if it is in my best self-interests and my personal ethics allow it? Relativists violate their own sense of tolerance when they do not tolerate the views of those whose morality is in fact Non-Relativistic. They only tolerate those who hold their relativistic viewpoint. They are, therefore, just as intolerant as any objectivist appears to be. The principle of tolerance is foriegn to relativism. If, however, tolerance seems to be a virtue and we owe a measure of respect to those who differ with us, then relativism can not be true.
The point? Relativism is a crock of shit. There ARE absolutes. (By the way, the statement, "There are no absolutes!" is also laughably self-refuting but they say it all the time anyways.) If relativism is true, then we must live in a world where there can be no right or wrong, no good or bad, no fairness, no justice, no praise, no blame, no improvemnet, no accountability, and no tolerance.
That world does not, has not, and will never exist.
There is good and bad, right and wrong, all of it. In other words, there ARE absolutes. For example, abortion ends a human life. Simply an almost irrefutable biological fact. A relativist would argue that abortion only ends the possibility of a potential human life and it's not our place to judge someone if that is what their choice is, we need to be more tolerant because there are no absolutes in this world, who are we to say what is right and wrong, we'll never know what it's like to be that person and have to make that decision, etc., etc., etc. Bullshit. It's wrong and you know it down to the deepest fiber of your soul.
Any questions?
Flaw Number 1: Relativists can't ever accuse others of wrongdoing.
If you believe morality is a matter of personal definition, you surrender the possibility of ever making any moral judgements about others' actions, no matter how offensive they are to your intuitive sense of right or wrong. You may express your emotions, tastes, or personal preferences, but you can't ever say they are wrong. You can't have it both ways. September 11? Eh, just another Tuesday.
Flaw Number 2: Relativists can't complain about the problem of evil.
Evil is a value judgement that marks a deviation and departure from some standard of moral perfection. If there is no standard, then there can be no deviation or departure. If their concept of relativism is true, the objection against God based on evil also vanishes. There is no evil to discuss, only differing opinions of what is pleasant and unpleasant, desired or undesired. An argument of this sort is thus reduced to "How could a good God allow things which are contrary to my opinion?" Moral relativism and objective evil could not possibly both be true at the same time.
Flaw Number 3: Relativists can't place blame or accept praise.
Without absolutes, nothing is ultimately bad, deplorable, tragic, or worthy of blame. Neither is anything ultimately good, honorable, noble, or worthy of praise. It's all lost in a twilight zone of moral nothingness. Relativists are almost always inconsistent here. They must remove the words praise and blame, credit and fault from their vocabularies. But, if the notions of praise and blame are valid, then relativism must be false.
Flaw Number 4: Relativists can't make charges of unfairness or injustice.
Both concepts dictate that people recieve equal treatments based on external standards of right and wrong. No absolutes? No standards. No standards? No fairness or justice.
Flaw Number 5: Relativists can't improve their morality.
How can one get "better" ? If there is no better way, there can be no improvement. Ask a relativist, "Do you think it's important to improve oneself?" No matter what their answer, ask, "Why?". In relativism, by definition, one's ethics can never become "moral" at one time or another. They may change, but they can never improve. If, however, moral improvement seems to be a concept that makes sense, relativism can not be true.
Flaw Number 6: Relativists can't hold meaningful moral discussions.
Relativism makes it impossible to discuss morality. What's there to talk about? Arguement is possible on moral questions only if some sytem of values is presupposed. Debate belies the desire to show the other guy is wrong. There is no sense in trying to do that unless you and he had some sort of agreement as to what Right and Wrong are. Football without rules is just 22 guys in tight pants slapping each other on the ass.
Flaw Number 7: Relativists can't promote the obligation of tolerance.
There is no claim to tolerance in relativism, because the relativists moral obligation to be tolerant is self-refuting. This, even though the principle of tolerance is considered one of the key virtues of relativism. Ironic, huh? To relativists, tolerance means, "I (morally) ought to tolerate the moral opinions and behaviors of others who disagree with me. I (morally) should not try to interefere with their opinions and behaviors." If there are no absolutes, why be tolerant at all? Why not force my morality on others if it is in my best self-interests and my personal ethics allow it? Relativists violate their own sense of tolerance when they do not tolerate the views of those whose morality is in fact Non-Relativistic. They only tolerate those who hold their relativistic viewpoint. They are, therefore, just as intolerant as any objectivist appears to be. The principle of tolerance is foriegn to relativism. If, however, tolerance seems to be a virtue and we owe a measure of respect to those who differ with us, then relativism can not be true.
The point? Relativism is a crock of shit. There ARE absolutes. (By the way, the statement, "There are no absolutes!" is also laughably self-refuting but they say it all the time anyways.) If relativism is true, then we must live in a world where there can be no right or wrong, no good or bad, no fairness, no justice, no praise, no blame, no improvemnet, no accountability, and no tolerance.
That world does not, has not, and will never exist.
There is good and bad, right and wrong, all of it. In other words, there ARE absolutes. For example, abortion ends a human life. Simply an almost irrefutable biological fact. A relativist would argue that abortion only ends the possibility of a potential human life and it's not our place to judge someone if that is what their choice is, we need to be more tolerant because there are no absolutes in this world, who are we to say what is right and wrong, we'll never know what it's like to be that person and have to make that decision, etc., etc., etc. Bullshit. It's wrong and you know it down to the deepest fiber of your soul.
Any questions?
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home