What if two people have faith in contradicting ideas? Both ideas cannot be the truth.

Moral relativism doesn't make sense at all. Saying that there is no moral truth implies that it would be a lie to say that there is a moral truth. See the contradiction?

Choosing morality is not like choosing your favorite color.



No. If your beliefs don't line up with the Catholic Catechism, your beliefs are not Catholic beliefs.

Actually, it does make sense. Perfect sense.
I strongly believe that Morality is subjective just for the simple fact that it exists dependent of the intellectual observer. X is not bad, we only think it to be bad. And, since I don't believe in a God, I do not believe in a divine and objective moral code.

Your example of a contradiction is awful.
The problem is that you are imposing your own moral conceptions of what a lie is.
You are pretty much trying to pove that there is moral truth, by using a premise that relies on moral truth. It's circular reasoning.

A lie is neither "right" nor "wrong." A lie is simply the act of making an untrue statement. You believe, as a moral truth, that making untrue statements is immoral, not everyone believes this. And clearly, a moral relativist would say that there is no absolute moral truth. If there truly were no moral truth, I suppose it would be a lie to say that there is. But, that doesn't demonstrate, in anyway, a contradiction in the theory, especially given that you provide the fact of no moral truth as a premise.

BUMP. =)

I'm agnostic. I don't care what anyone else believes and I don't know what I believe. I don't care. I'm just trying to live a very good, eventful life. Might as well.

I'll find out when I find out. Maaaaybe. I think that's a good way to go. I question everything all the time. XD

I don't know. I guess I'm halfway between atheism and agnosticism, mainly because I just wasn't brought up to believe in God or anything like that. I remember when I was little, I would question myself, what if there really is God? But now, I'm getting more and more skeptical about the existence of Heaven or Hell or God. I mean, all these religions, only one can be true, if any.

I think I'm totally off topic but that's okay, I guess.

I love how it is clear that no one has read the few posts at the end of the topic. Take some time to read some of the thread before making comments.

if ur gonna be an atheist like me then u must be ready for the pummeling of poeple making random comments about you for one
i hate it when ppl say "o u believe in the devil then" how the f*** can i believe in the devil if i dont believe in god
the reason i dont believe is becuz i was shown things that completely support the fact of there being no god
the thing is around in fram. most ppl think that since we dont believe in god that we hate him and want to kill every idea and object that is about or symbolizes him
we are like that
just becuz im an ateist doesnt mean im gonna kill ppl for their ideas
another reason i have begun to despise any form of religion is becuz i had gona to a kids church to listen to the kind of stuff they said, the preist had said that "In the year 2006 all of those who dont have faith in the holy lord will die!!!! I will personally go out and kill...kill those who contradict us in any way. we are a the army of christ and this year all those non believers will die!!!!
now for a person who should be talking in a formal way to children
this certainly wasnt formal.
if someone is going to try to kill me for their petty ideas then thats purely just being insane. there is on other reason. i think that nowadays there are ppl who say the belive but thats just so they can rise up. they could care less about anyone. all ppl care about them selves nowadays.
i think atheists are the only rational ppl in the world and its up to us to try to make the world a more rational place
see i bet that after this is posted the is going to be a big repsonse but im sick and tired of holding my say in. each side deserves to let their voice be heard. soon ppl u will see more and moer will change until this world turns into one big government under one law one ruler one god and anyone who contradicts those ideas will be killed or punished for that reason.it shouldnt be that way




(s.i.b. will help to speed things along in our part of the world. we dont joke. we are going to help those in need. we are the superiors)

You see, not all atheists are calm, rationalist, and introspective people like ourselves. Sometimes, they are unlearned, rash, and make sweeping generalizations.

Oh, I agree, Nate.

and oh yes is it quite annoying lol
wanna know what else I noticed
we who are rational atheists are most of the time the smartest ppl
not to be boasting or anything but you know it true

I'm so sorry. But I did try reading it, and I didn't really get it, so I decided to just comment on the original post.

Sorry again. I beg forgiveness. :]

I'm Buddhist













iono I felt like saying something....

Dude, he was making fun of you because you were generalizing and stereotyping all theists based on one or two encounters. No.

I, as an adherent, know your statement is false. You use a false premise to prove your point.

Relativism is wrong simply because making the statement that there is no such thing as absolute morality is an absolute statement in itself. It's self defeating. No circular logic there.

The only way to prove moral relativism is correct would be to prove that there is no absolute standard. The person I was replying to (xnofearx) believes in both Buddhism and Catholicism. It is contradictory to believe in God (provider of moral standard) and moral relativism at the same time.

i'm a christian & even ive questioned things.
but i know what i believe is true.

Great! The book of James tells us that questioning our faith allows us to strengthen it. Just make sure you understand the truth that Jesus taught, not what men teach.

You are confusing Moral Relativism with an "absolute" Relativism. I'm saying, morality, and aesthetics, among other things, are entirely subjective matters and have no real truth value. However, there are many things which are objective matters. Including the empiracle and the existential.

A moral relativist is not saying that there is no objective truth, he is simply saying that moral propositions have no truth value or that they are subjective.



Again, I still don't see the contradiction. Explain yourself.
Remember, we are talking about morality as relative or subjective, not the entire universe.

I guess the "smartest" people forget to put punctuation in their sentences then.



This is absolutely ridiculous. In subscribing to moral relativism, you give up the ability to debate the morality of an issue or impose your moral standards on other people. Thus, moral relativists would be hypocrites if they voted based on legislation, because they would be attempting to impose their beliefs on others.



Ok, let's dissect it. MR for Moral Relativist, MA for Moral Absolutist.

MR: There is no moral truth.
MA: There is moral truth. Saying otherwise would be a lie.
MR: But I don't belive that it is wrong to lie. Therefore your arguement fails.
MA: If you don't believe that is wrong to lie, how do I know you are not lying about lack of moral truth to justify other behavior?

One who argues that there is no immorality in lying defeats the original arguement. However, he who argues that lying is not wrong loses credibility.

Not true at all. You could still very well impose your moral standards on another. You could also argue as to why one should value one moral choice over another. However, what you could not do is argue that one moral choice is right, while another is wrong. You could not say that there is an objective moral system.

It's no different then explaining why one character is more appealing than any other. Or, why one book is better than the next. They are subjective matters and only relative to our desires and tastes.



Wow. That is an awful argument. It's utterly non sequitur.
Nothing in that conversation proves either side or even presents a single ounce of evidence.
Logical arguments are not based on "credibility" of speaker. Not to mention, imagine if the MR said, "There is no moral truth. Saying otherwise would be a lie."
Then, are we to assume that the MA is lieing?
Your argument makes no sense.
It has presented no contradiction.
If anything, you are simply saying that no one can have a judgement call on a subjective matter, which is entirely absurd. Unless, of course, you believe aesthetics are objective. In which case, I think I might laugh.

This makes no sense. Believing in subjective moral truths means that "opinion" on moral belief must be accepted, even if it differs from your own. Moral relativists have no right to tell others that any of their behavior is wrong, because by their standards, the moral beliefs of the other people are right simply because that's what they believe in.



Absolutely not. If someone says that one book is better than another, you can disagree with them, you can try to prove them wrong, but you can't do much else. What if one was to say that genocide is ok? Are you limited to disagreement and debate only, since it is a subjective matter?



Ok...

Do you accept the Bible as historical truth?

I must say your view of ethics is rather unsophisticated. The moral relativist is simply making a metaethical statement. There is no moral truth, moral propositions are not objective, the origins of morality are our tastes, desires, evolution, and society (among other things). There is no "right" or "wrong." All there truly is is "good for me, bad for me, good for you, bad for you." These are ideas based on our values and tastes. We value our lives so we perceive it as "wrong" (or against that value) to harm life. It's very basic. Coupled upon are Enlightened-Selfishness and Self-Hypocrisy theories.

No one is required to accept a certain moral standard. They can recognize it, evaluate it, and determine its usefulness, rational backing, consequence, and practicality. The moral relativist has the "right" consider a moral choice "wrong" or "right" and voice his opinion just as much as anyone has the "right" to consider an aesthetic point poor or agreeable.

The moral relativist makes rational judgements on what kind of moral choices he wants to make as well as what he believes other should make in relation to the human condition.



I was simply talking about the metaphysical aspect of appealing literature, art, or music. I was comparing the existence of these subjective matters to the matter of deciding moral guidelines and making ethical decisions. You went so far as to discuss how we treat the two matters differently, which we clearly do, and understandably so.

A debate among many people on which film is the best movie of all time will not likely result in serious authority being invoked or disorder breaking out. This is because, although everyone is drawing from different values in making their opinion, none of their values are at risk. When debating a moral issue, if someone is going to do something that you consider immoral, chances are they are breaking some kind of value you hold. This is far more threatening than an aesthetic debate. For example, if someone wants to kill people, the value you hold for your life may be threatened, most people hold this same value and would not like their lives threatened either so the act of murder becomes "bad." Unless of course, we live in a society which feels safe only killing certain people, like serial murders, witches, and other sorts of heathens. These acts of murder, which are indeed the same act as any murder (taking ones life) are considered moral because they are perceived not to threaten our values, rather enforce them.

In either case (genocide, or literature) we are not limited to debate. We could lock someone up for liking certain literature (and we have before) or we could politely disagree with someone who is down with genocide (which we have) however, the values at risk, in each case, are both very different. So, in general, books are politely debated, and people are thrown in jail for genocide.



This seems almost as non sequitur as your argument. Why are you asking me this? I can only speculate. However, I will answer your question.

No, I do not accept the Bible as historical truth. I could go into detail, because the answer is far more complex than that, but let's keep it short and sweet as I would imagine you have a point.