Posted on 02/07/2002 8:02:41 AM PST by watsonfellow
In the past few months I have noticed that the posters on Free Republic have become more and more hostile towards social conservatism.
And I do not mean indifference (less pro life threads etc) but an outright hostility at pro life and other social conservative causes.
Am I alone in thinking this?
In particular, notice the responses to the thread concerning the recent request by social conservative groups to the FCC to reign in Fox's racey primetime programs.
I wonder if this is becoming only a haven for hedonists and libertarians, and if so, perhaps it would be better for social conservatives to find their own site.
You haven't adressed any of the arguments I made in my post. If you can answer my arguments then please do so. If you cannot answer what I have already written then please admit that you cannot.
In other words, if you cannot tell me why the arguments my post are wrong, then you are merely being evasive. Please answer the arguments I have already put forth.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.
You see, it is no surprise that you don't understand the bible. Unbelievers are incapable of it. They have the blinders on.
You've now declined to respond to that statement three times. Can I assume that you are unwilling or unable to formulate a response?
Not only did you not rip apart my arguments for their lack of logical coherence, but you didn't even address them at all. Perhaps you will not engage in empty boasting next time.
Objective facts are just that, facts. They are not subject to interpretation. For example, If n=2, then n+5=7. There is no interpretation involved. If 50 people were to work this problem according to the rules of mathematics they would all calculate the exact same answer.Where is the interpretation?
The bible says thou shall not kill, yet we kill in the name of social order and justice frequently. If "thou shall not kill" is as objective as you propose, why do we ever violate that rule?
If the bible isn't subjective how do you explain the many denominations of Christianity? They each have their own doctorine which is simply their interpretation of scripture.Do you feel that Catholics are less right than Baptists? How about Methodists and Church of Christ? Are the members of your particular denomination the only ones going to heaven? Is your particular interpretation of scripture the only correct one?
Moral laws are subjective, whether they are held by the atheist, God, or whomever. I have proven from your Bible that God is as morally subjective as anyone else (rape is sometimes right, and sometimes wrong). You have not refuted my arguments.
Nonsense. I've only seen one or two libertarians on this board in favor of abortion. I can't remember seeing any that oppose fighting terrorists. The above statements have exposed your agenda; I'm sorry I took you at face value for as long as I did.
13 posted on 2/7/02 9:15 AM Pacific by steve50
I agree!
We must be of ONE mind. That is freedom redefined by the CONservatives here at FR, or at least toooo many.
Have you caught the Conservative shift on that pillar of Western Civ, Homosexuality??
CATO
If moral laws are subjective, then morals are relative, therefore you are a moral relativist. If there are no universal standards, then right and wrong is decided by each person. Therefore, if I kick you in the knee and steal your stereo, I am right because I say so and I make my own rules according to you.
Let me give you some sound arguments against your position and then you can respond:
What I like is different from what I think is morally right. When someone makes a moral claim, they are not merely stating their preference. If I say that abortion is wrong, I am not saying merely that I don’t like it, I am saying it is wrong regardless of whether I like it or not. Without this distinction, all morality collapses into mere personal preference or moral relativism.
Evolutionist/atheist Aldous Huxley said, “We objected to morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom.” It is my view that many relativists do not want objective morals to exist as they may then be accountable for their moral actions. Regardless of the reasons why it is held, relativism reduces morality to mere personal preference. The only way to have an immoral individual is to have a moral standard, but in moral relativism, there is no such standard as everyone does his own thing. The tests of logic and practice can be effectively used to test the notion of moral relativism.
First, the very concept of morality suggests the existence of a standard or reference point to be deviated from. Human beings make moral choices daily. Second, to state that “there are no moral absolutes” (as I have heard many people say) is an example of a self-referential and self stultifying statement because it is making an objective (or universal) observation about the nature of morality which is in direct contradiction to the statement itself. This is like saying, “The only moral absolute is that there are no moral absolutes.” No moral absolutes are allowed in moral relativism. In this regard, it commits logical suicide. Moral relativism fails the test of logic.
Another way to test the validity of moral relativism is to use the test of practice, i.e. to observe how self-proclaimed relativists live. The fact is that no one can live as a relativist, thus there is no such thing as a relativist. The relativist must erase all language of should, praise, blame, good, bad, right, wrong, from his vocabulary as these words and concepts suggest an objective moral standard and to employ them is a contradiction of the core essence of relativism. Furthermore, a relativist cannot complain about right wing extremists, someone stealing his stereo or kicking him in the knee, or object if I tell him his relativism is wrong. No one can live this way. I have personally talked to self-proclaimed relativists who have told me in so many words, “Don’t force your morality on me.” However, if it is right for me to do so, then the relativist cannot object without contradicting the relativistic ethic. I might reply, “Why not?” whereby the relativist might reply, “Because it isn’t right to force your morality on others,” whereby I could reply, “Is that your morality and why are you forcing it on me?” If it is right for me to force my morality on a relativist, then under the rules of relativism, it is right. Relativism fails the test of practice. It is true that I, as a moral absolutist, cannot live strictly according to absolute morals, however this does not contradict the moral absolutist view because it is not inconsistent with reason, human experience and practice, and I readily admit that I, as a sinful human being, cannot live up to perfect moral standards.
The wider practical implications of moral relativism are frightening. If moral relativism is a valid ethic, then there can be no moral difference between torturing a baby and feeding the poor; Hitler could not be wrong, neither could female circumcision in Egypt, or human sacrifice; Murder, rape, incest, and burglary cannot be declared wrong by a moral relativist if they are right to me (these acts may be legally wrong, but in relativism, laws can have no objective moral basis, therefore to say something is illegal is not to say it is morally wrong). A relativist can only say they are wrong in his personal view, but who cares about his opinion if I am a serial killer with my own personal ethic to follow? Besides, the word “wrong” is meaningless in relativism. A relativist might respond that situations are so diverse and complex that no one moral rule can be universal and I would grant this, however, this is very different from proving that relativism is correct. At best, this shows that absolute principles must be applied to different situations.
If relativism is a valid ethic, i.e. if it is true that we ought to allow each person to define their own moral good, then it follows that those who do the most consistent job of this would be the best kind of people. We have a label for a person who makes up their own moral rules - a SOCIOPATH! If the person who manifests relativism in the most consistent fashion is the best role model, then a sociopath would be the poster boy for relativism (perhaps like Harris and Klebold of Columbine fame). Thus, if relativism is a valid ethic, Harris and Klebold were not morally wrong in slaughtering 13 people at Columbine High - they were good relativists.
I believe the tests of reason, experience, and practice sufficiently demonstrate that moral relativism is a false anti-intuitive ethic. If our society and educational institutions continue to give validity to this absurd brand of morality, e.g. “values clarification” and “situational ethics,” then I believe we can expect more Columbine-style massacres in the future, as our children will learn to do whatever they like, whenever they like, without regard to anyone else. Since relativism is given validity by our nation’s schools, can we escape the conclusion that we are breeding sociopaths?
Are you a sociopath?
You obviously don't understand the meaning of logic. Your definition of "the facts" is exactly that, your definition.That, by definition, makes them subjective. I posed a few questions that you can'or won't answer because in doing so your logical fallacies would be exposed.
Can you or can't you answer the qustions I posed before? Are you telling me you have no "bias or presupposition"? Are your "facts" delivered by some other means than the Bible?
So, everyone has their own truth then huh? If you believe something is true, does that make it true? Hardly. Forget about everything you learned in your public school education and go pick up a dictionary and look up the meaning of the word "truth."
By its very definition, Truth is not only narrow but is also absolute. It must exclude all falsehood. According to the definition of "Truth," the term “relative truth” is an oxymoron because something that is absolute cannot be simultaneously relative. Science and education involve the search for objective truth not subjective (or personal) truth. If objective truth does not exist, then I suggest that we close down all of the schools and universities and stay home, as reality would be reduced to mere personal tastes - I like chocolate, you like vanilla. There can be no real education without objective truth, only opinions.
In the completely subjective world of relativism, all truth claims are equally valid (no objective truth is allowed), i.e. my truth is just as true as your truth even if they are polar opposites. The relativist view that objective or absolute truth does not exist is philosophically absurd and logically untenable. Indeed, the statement that “there is no objective truth” is self-referential and self-stultifying. I find it both interesting and revealing that this illogical statement is accepted in university classrooms. The statement in itself declares an objective or absolute truth, thereby defeating itself utterly. A similar statement would be, “Everything I say is a lie” or “I can’t speak a word of English.” It cannot be demonstrated that objective truth does not exist without using objective truth claims in the attempt. In this sense, relativism fails the test of logic and reason. Indeed, in order for a relativist to even discuss the nature of truth, he must assume that there is some objective truth to be ascertained about the nature of truth. In the process, he is secretly presupposing the existence of absolute truth even as he argues against it. The only logical alternative is that absolute truth exists.
It can be adequately demonstrated that objective truth does exist without self-defeating contradiction. For example, if I were to have a kidney transplant, the doctor would need to know the truth about which kidney was being replaced (and my very survival may depend upon it). If absolute truth did not exist, it would not matter which kidney was removed. Similarly, if I were to go mushroom hunting, as I used to do in central Illinois as a boy, my ignorance about the existence of poison mushrooms would not spare me if I were to pick and eat the poisonous variety. The poison mushroom would make me sick whether or not I believed the truth about its existence, because the poison mushroom exists objectively - independent of my belief. Thirdly, when a witness is called in a court of law they are sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Out of all the possibilities there is only one version of what he/she is telling that would correspond to what actually happened. On the other hand, if absolute truth does not exist, there can be no true version of any event, and calling sworn witnesses in court makes no sense; in fact, no legal evidence could be objectively true, including DNA evidence, yet criminals are sent to jail every day based on the objectivity of legal evidence. There are many other examples that could be given, however, on the strength of these examples alone, one can deny absolute truth only at the expense of all human experience and rationality. It is not only illogical, but anti-intuitive to deny the existence of objective truth. Therefore, relativism fails the test of human experience.
Care to respond?
Exactly--that's why God allowed rape in some cases and condemed it in others. He's a moral relativist just like everyone else is.
Morality is relative, and even the Bible demonstrates that it is sometime moral to kill children--whether they are born or not:
And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain--Deuteronomy 2:33-34.
Thus again, we see that moral relativism is practiced by everyone, even God
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.