Moral relativists, a question.?

Question

Let's say I torture and kill my toddler because he's showing signs of being left-handed. On what grounds would you oppose me? And should you be able to impose your tyrannical, left-handed toddler loving personal preference on me?

taewaen – I am a moral absolutist, re-read my question.

Ricky – No, I believe morality is self-evident, apart from religious belief.

Occam’s Lightsaber & Samurai Jack – If law defines morality then slavery was right until 1862. And, as a Thomist, I would say it’s still wrong even if we legalize left-handed toddler torture and murder.

Occam's Lightsaber: So slavery is okay as long as the Zeitgeist allows for it? In To Kill a Moking Bird Atticus Finch is faced with an angry mob come to lynch and hang the [wrongfully] accused black man, Tom. If popular opinion defines morality, should they have simply rolled over Finch and gone through with it? Would that have just been a sign of the times? Even something as base as a Hobbesian Social Contract holds these truths to be SELF-EVIDENT. You're stripping the mechanics from there their roots, and they'll die the same as anything else cut off from their means of life support.

Answer 1

Look up "social contract theory".

EDIT: Actually human rights were the contract that I was talking about, since they have developed along with man and democracy. Liberality is a contract that most people in MEDCs are born into. Thus while I an condemn slavery from my modern perspective, I have no grounds on which to call it absolutely evil.

Answer 2

You see..thats the problem with Atheist Morals.
What is right and what is wrong.

Atheists' morals are not absolute. They do not have a set of moral laws from an absolute God by which right and wrong are judged. But, they do live in societies that have legal systems with a codified set of laws. This would be the closest thing to moral absolutes for atheists. However, since the legal system changes the morals in a society can still change and their morals along with it. At best, these codified morals are "temporary absolutes." In one century abortion is wrong. In another, it is right. So, if we ask if it is or isn't it right, the atheist can only tell us his opinion.

If there is a God, killing the unborn is wrong. If there is no God, then who cares? If it serves the best interest of society and the individual, then kill. This can be likened to something I call, "experimental ethics." In other words, whatever works best is right. Society experiments with ethical behavior to determine which set of rules works best for it. Hopefully, these experiments lead to better and better moral behavior. But, as we see by looking into society, this isn't the case: crime is on the rise.

There are potential dangers in this kind of self-established/experimental ethical system. If a totalitarian political system is instituted and a mandate is issued to kill all dissenters, or Christians, or mentally ill, what is to prevent the atheist from joining forces with the majority system and support the killings? It serves his self-interests, so why not? Morality becomes a standard of convenience, not absolutes.


But, to be fair, just because someone has an absolute ethical system based on the Bible, there is no guarantee that he will not also join forces in doing what is wrong. People are often very inconsistent. But the issue here is the basis of moral beliefs and how they affect behavior. That is why belief systems are so important and absolutes are so necessary. If morals are relative, then behavior will be too. That can be dangerous if everyone starts doing right in his own eyes. A boat adrift without an anchor will eventual crash into the rocks.


The Bible teaches love, patience, and seeking the welfare of others even when it might harm the Christian. In contrast, the atheists' presuppositions must be constantly changing, and subjective and does not demand love, patience, and the welfare of others. Instead, since the great majority of atheists are evolutionists, their morality, like evolution is the product of purely natural and random processes that become self serving.


Basically, the atheist cannot claim any moral absolutes at all. To an atheist, ethics must be variable and evolving. This could be good or bad. But, given human nature being what it is, I'll opt for the moral absolutes -- based on God's word -- and not on the subjective and changing morals that atheism offers.

Answer 3

By the same grounds that a christian, muslim, or hindu would do so in every society that I know of: Because it is illegal, and you would be prosecuted for it.
That is how we all deal with such issues. We get together and pass our own laws. We hold trials and punish those who have done wrong.
God doesn't do any of these things, we do.
If left to God, there would be no law and people would live in violence and chaos.

Answer 4

It isn't that we need religion to tell us that murder is wrong. We already know deep down that it is wrong. But without God, we don't know why it is wrong and all our attempts to figure out why it is wrong eventually fail. If we don't have a firm basis for knowing why murder is wrong, then our human capacity for self-justification, rationalization and self delusion will excuse any behavior.

"..for all I know you are just a bit of undigested beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of an underdone potato." (Ebenezer Scrooge puts forward his estimate of the source of morality as the ghost of Jacob Marley tries to revive Scrooge's conscience).

Answer 5

I would oppose you on the grounds that this was done to my father, who is left handed but was forced to write with his right hand.

But this really was just a strawman argument wasn't it.


Tell me, if morals are not relative, then is slavery moral or immoral?

Is it moral or immoral in the US today?
Was it moral or immoral in the US 150 years ago?
Was it moral or immoral in the UK 150 years ago?
Was it moral or immoral in the US 200 years ago?
Was it moral or immoral in the UK 200 years ago?

If it was immoral then, many of the founding fathers were immoral people. If it was moral then it must be moral now, since morals are not relative. (Allegedly)

The bible condones slavery, it tells you how to treat your slaves, how you can ensnare them into permanent servitude, etc. Is that moral or immoral?

Answer 6

Under the insane respect afforded to bizarre religious rituals and nonsense, you would probably have grounds for acquittal. Maybe even elevation to sainthood.

Answer 7

I can never agree with moral relativists..some things like the torture of children is always wrong.

Answer 8

You assume morals are founded on nothing but personal preference.

Perhaps you should take a sociology class. You seem confused.

Answer 9

Do you need religion to tell you that murder and torture are wrong? That is scary.

Answer 10

It is wrong to torture and kill any kid, because they are left handed, right handed, blue eyed, brown eyed, dark skin, light skin, tall, short, fat, thin ect....