Is Rape just relatively wrong? Or ABSOLUTELY WRONG?

[logical bob]

No absolute standard is like trying to play a game where each player can make up the rules that they want to play by. No player can accuse any other player of breaking the rules and the game becomes pointless.

In this game of life there's certainly no rulebook, but the game is far from pointless. We prove that by living.

logical bob, if i had it my way, many in the world would be dead.i'm glad that i dont set the standard. for me the the punishment for adultery is death

In that case I'm equally glad that you don't set the standard!

 

[jasoncran]

No absolute standard is like trying to play a game where each player can make up the rules that they want to play by. No player can accuse any other player of breaking the rules and the game becomes pointless.

In this game of life there's certainly no rulebook, but the game is far from pointless. We prove that by living.

logical bob, if i had it my way, many in the world would be dead.i'm glad that i dont set the standard. for me the the punishment for adultery is death

In that case I'm equally glad that you don't set the standard!

but in your world i could by simple vote and enough military might in said country or empire

add golfing would be outlawed, lol
and the only way to say i'm wrong is by a group of said persons that just decide i'm wrong.
again opinions.

 

[Danus]

Bob, I'm not sure that I can address anymore of your points since we seem to be looping back to what was discussed.

From your point of view morality (right and wrong) are relative to the individual. You would say that's true based on what we've discussed. The problem with that is that you have your own standard for right and wrong that does not include the standard others have. So, on one hand you say there are not absolutes but on the other you state absolutes...... See the conundrum in that logic? It's not in fact logical at all. How can you live up to your name with that thinking my brother?

 

[logical bob]

but in your world i could by simple vote and enough military might in said country or empire

An armed group can make adultery a capital crime - the Taliban did just that.

add golfing would be outlawed, lol

Oh well, in that case I'm with you. Pass the ammo.

and the only way to say i'm wrong is by a group of said persons that just decide i'm wrong.
again opinions.

Yes.

 

[jasoncran]

and if the whole world says i'm right then what?

would the world be a nice place to live in?

 

[logical bob]

Bob, I'm not sure that I can address anymore of your points since we seem to be looping back to what was discussed.

Yes, this has perhaps run its course.

From your point of view morality (right and wrong) are relative to the individual. You would say that's true based on what we've discussed.

I wouldn't phrase it quite lack that, but essentially yes.

The problem with that is that you have your own standard for right and wrong that does not include the standard others have.

Well, most people agree on the essentials but on some points that's true, yes.

So, on one hand you say there are not absolutes but on the other you state absolutes...... See the conundrum in that logic? It's not in fact logical at all. How can you live up to your name with that thinking my brother?

It would only be a contradiction if I were asserting that my moral ideas were objectively true. The whole point of moral anti-realism is that they aren't.

I had hoped that we'd talked enough for you to realise that however much you disagree with me my view isn't just a simple logical error, but I guess not.

 

[logical bob]

and if the whole world says i'm right then what?

Then you wouldn't meet any opposition.

would the world be a nice place to live in?

Something isn't true just because you think it would be nice.

 

[jasoncran]

who says? you, theres no standard i say and the whole world in this situation does, save the victims.

why do you say rape is bad then, what makes it bad?

think about it bob, you made the contradiction here again. you have claimed that just because i say the world in which rape is legal makes it nice, doenst ,make it so. so how can it be relative then, one of must be wrong, either rape is good or evil. there has to be a truth.

the book called the hookup cultrure written by a christian m.d who did a study on brain chemistry of teens that had premaritial sex and also studied each time they produced the drug oxcetin in the brain after sex was less then the first time and that they had a hard time bonding with the next partner after the first and so on. it seems biology says in this case monogamous marriage is the best.

 

[Free]

No absolute standard is like trying to play a game where each player can make up the rules that they want to play by. No player can accuse any other player of breaking the rules and the game becomes pointless.

In this game of life there's certainly no rulebook, but the game is far from pointless. We prove that by living.

Again, you don't seem to be following what I am saying. I have not at all said that life is pointless.

Morality that is determined by the individual is analogous to players playing a game by their own rules. No one can win, no one can lose. It cannot even be said that one is doing better than the other nor can any player accuse another of cheating.

In the same way, moral judgments are meaningless to everyone but yourself with no absolute standard. You cannot even meaningfully say Hilter was evil or what he did was evil since he, and at least some of his followers, obviously thought he was in the right. You both have your opinions on the matter and that is all. He lived by his own morality and you will live by yours.

The problem comes in when you try and attribute meaning, when you make a moral pronouncement in saying what Hitler did was evil as though society should believe you. If it indeed was truly evil, then there must by necessity be a standard beyond both you and Hitler by which you can say meaningfully that it was evil. How can one win a game if there is no agreement on the rules, no agreement on how to play and how to determine when someone wins?

If there is no absolute moral standard, any moral judgment is meaningless. An act is evil to the one who thinks it evil and good to the one who thinks it good. Whether or not some people or a lot of people agree with your moral judgment, it is only meaningful to the individual since there are likely people who would disagree.

I can guarantee that although you espouse moral relativity, you live as though it is absolute. That you do indeed prove by living.

 

[Danus]

So, on one hand you say there are not absolutes but on the other you state absolutes...... See the conundrum in that logic? It's not in fact logical at all. How can you live up to your name with that thinking my brother?

It would only be a contradiction if I were asserting that my moral ideas were objectively true. The whole point of moral anti-realism is that they aren't.

I had hoped that we'd talked enough for you to realise that however much you disagree with me my view isn't just a simple logical error, but I guess not.

I'm sure your view is much more than a simple logical error. What more, I can't say, but it still does not get beyond a critical logical test considering the definition of Absolute and Relative. It stalls at that point if its attempting to somehow disprove God.

 

[logical bob]

OK, a simple two part question for the absolutists. Plese be as specific as you can.

If I say F Scott Fitzgerald was the greatest American writer ever and you disagree, is this meaningless because there's no absolute standard to decide the question?

If it isn't meaningless, exactly how are moral judgments different? Why do they need an absolute standard when other questions don't?

I've asked this a number of times and nobody's answered fully.

 

[jasoncran]

because of this, bob. would you call the world where rape is fine a nice place to live.

your answer bob, just because YOU SAY it is doenst make it so.

you have claimed that my statment is wrong, and your own view right. we cant be both right. violates simple logic.

both must be wrong,or one right and the other wrong.

which is it.

 

[logical bob]

Thanks Jason. To stick with my specific question - if I say Fitzgerald was the greatest American writer and you disagree does "simple logic" mean that one of us must be wrong?

 

[Danus]

OK, a simple two part question for the absolutists. Plese be as specific as you can.

If I say F Scott Fitzgerald was the greatest American writer ever and you disagree, is this meaningless because there's no absolute standard to decide the question?

If it isn't meaningless, exactly how are moral judgments different? Why do they need an absolute standard when other questions don't?

I've asked this a number of times and nobody's answered fully.

Yes, you have to have a standard to say F Scott Fitzgerald was or was not the greatest writer ever. the standard would be among the greatest writers, to which there would have to be some agreement, but it would be relative since there is no "perfect" standard.
However, morality is different. There is a clear standard. Christ for example. That's the absolute standard and there is a vast agreement on that standard.

 

[logical bob]

Yes, you have to have a standard to say F Scott Fitzgerald was or was not the greatest writer ever. the standard would be among the greatest writers, to which there would have to be some agreement, but it would be relative since there is no "perfect" standard.

I agree. We can make and defend judgements when there's no absolute standard. So I'm asking why morality is different and why it need does need an absolute standard.

However, morality is different. There is a clear standard.

And you say this is because there is a standard. So we know there must be standard because there's a standard. Danus, this is entirely circular reasoning.

Christ for example. That's the absolute standard and there is a vast agreement on that standard.

If you're making the judgement that Christ is morally perfect and that we should emulate him then that makes perfect sense. You just need to drop the absolute part because it's your judgement.

 

[Danus]

If you're making the judgement that Christ is morally perfect and that we should emulate him then that makes perfect sense. You just need to drop the absolute part because it's your judgement.

Dead wrong. It's not my judgment. It's Gods word.

That's a hump your not able to get over. Philosophically your like the overweight recruit who can't make that part of the obstacle course, but with training we're going to get you there.

 

[Bent Radar]

If I say F Scott Fitzgerald was the greatest American writer ever and you disagree, is this meaningless because there's no absolute standard to decide the question?

If it isn't meaningless, exactly how are moral judgments different? Why do they need an absolute standard when other questions don't?

Because there's such a strong innate human tendency to perceive morality as a fact that can be ascertained.

When people change their views on a moral issue, they tend to say that they were previously mistaken. This is contrasted to art or taste, where they would be unlikely to say such a thing. If I stop liking strawberry flavored ice cream, I would not say I was mistaken for liking it.

If I stop being a racist, I would probably say I was wrong when I was a racist. Not just a different taste.

In other words, I would believe that I had gotten closer to what is moral.

This is something that relativists must deal with--why such thinking seems to be so natural.

Similar to historical fact. People may differ on what happened, but they all know there is a truth that they are trying to get at.