"Are you high? I asked explicit questions and you talked around them. You said "you know what murder and rape are" when I asked you to define them. A three year old knows that's not an answer. It's simply avoiding answering explicitly for fear of being pinned down."
No, I'm not high. When I use a word, I'm going by the common dictionary definition of the word. It's not talking around your question by assuming that when discussing a word to assume that the common, dictionary definition of the word is being used. Which is why I said "you know what murder and rape are". Do I need to explain every single commonly used term that I use, or can we assume that when I use a word, that I am using the commonly definition? Moreover, I provided the definition of "murder" later on. So perhaps I should ask, are you high?
"What is there to even say to this? Who am I? I'm a human being who has experienced purest civilization and purest barbarism, and in both environments the situations were considered normal and right. If morality is baked in, why is there so much disagreement?"
Asked and answered. For the third time, the difference involves who moral principles should apply to and differences of fact. Funny how you accuse me of talking around the issue when you continue to talk around this response.
"You claimed in the previous quote that saying "context matters" is moral relativism. You were right. Then you claimed that context matters within your framework of (undefined) absolute morality. Which is it?"
In order to determine the morality of the act, the action and mental state has to be taken into account. Or to use legalese, the actus reus and mens reus. While crashing a car into a group of innocent people is a "bad" event, there is a moral difference between if the act was caused due to the person falling asleep behind the wheel and someone wanting to kill. The former is killing and while unfortunate, it is not murder. The latter is murder since there was an intention to kill. Saying context matter in order to determine whether an act is killing or murder is not moral relativism.
"You don't even understand your own arguments well enough to stay consistent."
I've yet to see you rebut any of my arguments.
"You quoted a law as an answer to an ethical question involving absolute morality. Yet, what's murder in one state is manslaughter in another, and is self defense in another. Which is right? There must be an answer if there is some true absolute morality.
Hell, you can't even explicitly define premeditation with any precision if you're relying on the law. To one DA, premeditation means walking up to someone and shooting them in cold blood. To another, it means carrying a gun and using it in self defense, because deciding to carry a gun points to premeditation. Which is right? There must be an answer if there is some true absolute morality"
Again, asked and answered. You seem to believe that because people cannot agree on what murder is, that the absolute rule that murder is bad doesn't exist. You've provided no proof of this.
"Maybe I'm arguing at too low a level here."
Doubtful. You haven't even grasped the basic notion that by stating "moral absolutism is wrong" you are renouncing the "who am I the judge?" position you stated earlier in this thread. Again I ask, who are you to judge that my position is wrong? Do you not see by judging my position as wrong you are renouncing your own relativism?
"Do you understand what the word absolute means? Because it seems like you don't, the way you're waffling all over the place when I ask you for concrete definitions of this absolute morality you speak of"
Yes, murder is wrong regardless of context. Rape is wrong, regardless of context. The reason why you don't understand my position is that you are ignoring mental state. Mental state what separate murder from killing and rape from sexual intercourse.
"A moral relativist has morals by definition. Moral relativism is not amoralism."
If there is no absolute morals there's no reason why everyone should just do whatever they want so long as they can get away with it. There is nothing in moral relativism as to why I should value one set of moral over others. Why should I value your morals over that over Mao? How can you say that Osama bin Laden is more moral than Mother Teresa without an objective set of morals? Who are you to judge?
"It doesn't. However, saying "you can't prove this thing does not exist" is not evidence that the thing does exist."
I never said that it was. Moral relativists such as yourself attempt to use differences of fact as proof that a moral absolutism is false. I'm glad you agree that difference of opinion of a moral rule does not mean the moral rule does not exist.
"You're trying to frame everything in absolute terms. I don't care about the absolute argument in comparing my society to another. If another society goes against what I believe are correct morals, I'm going to consider them less moral... by my standards. They no doubt feel the same about me. And I can live with that"
So? Why should I or anyone else care about your standards? If you cannot appeal to absolute moral by what basis can you state that anything Stalin did was wrong? You may say "because I say so" or "because I feel it is" but why should I or anyone else care? You may say "might makes right" but if Stalin took over the west, he would have been right. You say "correct...by my standards" but what standards are those and how did you arrive at those standards as opposed to others?
"You're assuming a false premise."
State my false premise is and if I recognize that it is false. I'll change my position. Simple. Take the issue of slavery for example. If it is not a moral absolute that "slavery is morally wrong" you cannot say that any society has morally improved by abolishing slavery. All you can say is that a society without slavery is merely different but not any better or worse morally.
"Fairness and justice exist within a social framework, not the greater universe."
Indeed. No one can be just or unjust on a desert island by himself.
"Even the Bible does not posit absolute morality."
Absolute morality comes from God. There is no absolute morality without the context of God.
"Are you saying if there's no absolute moral standard, we might as well devolve into anarchy?"
I'm saying if there is no absolute morality, it's impossible to condemn or praise anything as wrong or praise worthy nor is there any reason I shouldn't commit crimes if I believe that I can get away with it.
Why shouldn't I steal? Why shouldn't I rape? Why shouldn't I murder? You may say because the state will stop me but if I can get away with doing these things, why shouldn't I do them?
No, I'm not high. When I use a word, I'm going by the common dictionary definition of the word. It's not talking around your question by assuming that when discussing a word to assume that the common, dictionary definition of the word is being used. Which is why I said "you know what murder and rape are". Do I need to explain every single commonly used term that I use, or can we assume that when I use a word, that I am using the commonly definition? Moreover, I provided the definition of "murder" later on. So perhaps I should ask, are you high?
"What is there to even say to this? Who am I? I'm a human being who has experienced purest civilization and purest barbarism, and in both environments the situations were considered normal and right. If morality is baked in, why is there so much disagreement?"
Asked and answered. For the third time, the difference involves who moral principles should apply to and differences of fact. Funny how you accuse me of talking around the issue when you continue to talk around this response.
"You claimed in the previous quote that saying "context matters" is moral relativism. You were right. Then you claimed that context matters within your framework of (undefined) absolute morality. Which is it?"
In order to determine the morality of the act, the action and mental state has to be taken into account. Or to use legalese, the actus reus and mens reus. While crashing a car into a group of innocent people is a "bad" event, there is a moral difference between if the act was caused due to the person falling asleep behind the wheel and someone wanting to kill. The former is killing and while unfortunate, it is not murder. The latter is murder since there was an intention to kill. Saying context matter in order to determine whether an act is killing or murder is not moral relativism.
"You don't even understand your own arguments well enough to stay consistent."
I've yet to see you rebut any of my arguments.
"You quoted a law as an answer to an ethical question involving absolute morality. Yet, what's murder in one state is manslaughter in another, and is self defense in another. Which is right? There must be an answer if there is some true absolute morality.
Hell, you can't even explicitly define premeditation with any precision if you're relying on the law. To one DA, premeditation means walking up to someone and shooting them in cold blood. To another, it means carrying a gun and using it in self defense, because deciding to carry a gun points to premeditation. Which is right? There must be an answer if there is some true absolute morality"
Again, asked and answered. You seem to believe that because people cannot agree on what murder is, that the absolute rule that murder is bad doesn't exist. You've provided no proof of this.
"Maybe I'm arguing at too low a level here."
Doubtful. You haven't even grasped the basic notion that by stating "moral absolutism is wrong" you are renouncing the "who am I the judge?" position you stated earlier in this thread. Again I ask, who are you to judge that my position is wrong? Do you not see by judging my position as wrong you are renouncing your own relativism?
"Do you understand what the word absolute means? Because it seems like you don't, the way you're waffling all over the place when I ask you for concrete definitions of this absolute morality you speak of"
Yes, murder is wrong regardless of context. Rape is wrong, regardless of context. The reason why you don't understand my position is that you are ignoring mental state. Mental state what separate murder from killing and rape from sexual intercourse.
"A moral relativist has morals by definition. Moral relativism is not amoralism."
If there is no absolute morals there's no reason why everyone should just do whatever they want so long as they can get away with it. There is nothing in moral relativism as to why I should value one set of moral over others. Why should I value your morals over that over Mao? How can you say that Osama bin Laden is more moral than Mother Teresa without an objective set of morals? Who are you to judge?
"It doesn't. However, saying "you can't prove this thing does not exist" is not evidence that the thing does exist."
I never said that it was. Moral relativists such as yourself attempt to use differences of fact as proof that a moral absolutism is false. I'm glad you agree that difference of opinion of a moral rule does not mean the moral rule does not exist.
"You're trying to frame everything in absolute terms. I don't care about the absolute argument in comparing my society to another. If another society goes against what I believe are correct morals, I'm going to consider them less moral... by my standards. They no doubt feel the same about me. And I can live with that"
So? Why should I or anyone else care about your standards? If you cannot appeal to absolute moral by what basis can you state that anything Stalin did was wrong? You may say "because I say so" or "because I feel it is" but why should I or anyone else care? You may say "might makes right" but if Stalin took over the west, he would have been right. You say "correct...by my standards" but what standards are those and how did you arrive at those standards as opposed to others?
"You're assuming a false premise."
State my false premise is and if I recognize that it is false. I'll change my position. Simple. Take the issue of slavery for example. If it is not a moral absolute that "slavery is morally wrong" you cannot say that any society has morally improved by abolishing slavery. All you can say is that a society without slavery is merely different but not any better or worse morally.
"Fairness and justice exist within a social framework, not the greater universe."
Indeed. No one can be just or unjust on a desert island by himself.
"Even the Bible does not posit absolute morality."
Absolute morality comes from God. There is no absolute morality without the context of God.
"Are you saying if there's no absolute moral standard, we might as well devolve into anarchy?"
I'm saying if there is no absolute morality, it's impossible to condemn or praise anything as wrong or praise worthy nor is there any reason I shouldn't commit crimes if I believe that I can get away with it.
Why shouldn't I steal? Why shouldn't I rape? Why shouldn't I murder? You may say because the state will stop me but if I can get away with doing these things, why shouldn't I do them?