Are atheists also moral relativists?

Advanced search

[Terms Of Conduct]

Terms Of Conduct

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[Mountain_Man]

Way to group in Christianity with the .00000000000001% of Christians that bomb abortion clinics, Mountain Man.  Bravo!

That's no different than you trying to link all Atheists with Pol Pot and his ilk. Or do you not recognize your own double standard? And all those self proclaimed christians that spoke out against the women's health clinic bombers and those that murdered doctors, all used situational ethics. They all condemned the act, then ended with a "but" statement used to justify those actions.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

That's not unusual. Try thinking. If you do that you can actually post something relevant instead of just trying to argue.

[Mountain_Man]

I have no idea what you're talking about.

That's not unusual.

I really must lower my expectations....

[CCC460]

Way to group in Christianity with the .00000000000001% of Christians that bomb abortion clinics, Mountain Man.  Bravo!

That's no different than you trying to link all Atheists with Pol Pot and his ilk. 

like you do with Christians? Pot, meet kettle .

[Howiedds]

I don't usually get involved with these labels that are usually incomprehensible to me, but the the quote from Wikipedia that mm posted made the definition of moral relativism clearer for me.

So pardon this question from a newbie to the understanding of moral relativism, but isn't everyone a moral relativist? Aren't all our standards, our

moral or ethical propositions ... relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances.?

This seems like an interesting topic for discussion, but it will get sidetracked if outlandish charges are thrown in about Christians and abortion clinic bombings or Pol Pot exemplifying atheists. (I assume that was the charge to which mm was referring.)

Can we keep the past disagreements, snide side shots, and the personal references out of it?

I would like to hear everyone's opinion of the proposition that there are or are not moral standards that are independent of social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances.?




 

[Howiedds]

Acumen, Metis:

I find myself agreeing with both your posts; I don't think that they are mutually exclusive.

To be sure, selfishness and greed are human faults.  ... However, these human drives are the primary cause of America's economic greatness.

And

Capitalism has served us well to a point, but it also created many problems as well.

We have all experienced the lethargy and lack of productivity of "socialism" in socialist like organizations or occupations. I know of it from my experience as a dentist in the military, and we have all been frustrated by civil servants.  Long ago, I remember an example in some statistics about the former soviet union. Something like 5% percent of the privately owned farm land produced 90% of the dairy products because folks were working for themselves and not the state.
In that sense, the selfishness and greed was responsible for greater output, supporting Acumen's point. Who could disagree that the innovation, inventiveness, and entrepreneurship are what drives our success (together with the natural resources and blessings of this great country, as Metis points out)? Surely the former Soviet Union collapsed under its own socialist, unproductive weight.

The abuses of capitalism, driven by selfishness and greed as it is, are also as real as Metis pointed out. Left to its own devices, those traits can lead to horrific suffering.

Either extreme, the indolence encouraged by socialism and the selfishness of capitalism, have their distaff side. Striving for some middle ground of the social net of socialism and the innovation and consequent reward for the innovator in capitalism has got to be our goal.


























 It's not always black and white.

[Ed.W]

...Being a moral relativist is a good thing. That way you're not locked, mindlessly, into one way of believing...

That's true-it's like having your cake and eating it too.

Yeah I guess all atheists would have to be moral relativists.

[Mountain_Man]

...Being a moral relativist is a good thing. That way you're not locked, mindlessly, into one way of believing...

That's true-it's like having your cake and eating it too.

Yeah I guess all atheists would have to be moral relativists.

Everyone is a moral relativist, not just Atheists.

[poi]

For those who don't think Christians are moral relativists,please explain how Christian values on Jews and slavery have changed so much over the centuries.The Bible is the same but interpretations of it have changed.New interpretations will continue as long as society's moral consensus keeps changing.How far will these new "understandings" of the Bible go?Who knows?We do know that the Good Book has been used to support apartheid in South Africa,slavery in the American south (and elsewhere) and antiSemitism in Europe.That speaks volumes about the Bible's ability to say whatever people want it to say.Some like their moral relativism straight.Others prefer it with some supernatural soda.But everyone's drinking at the same bar.

[Acumen]

Differing interpretations is not the same thing as moral relativism.

[wiscidea]

A Moment of Introspection (blue text is from the Wikipedia)

In philosophy moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect universal moral truths (neither objective nor subjective). Instead, moral relativism makes claims relative to social, cultural, or historical circumstances. Moral relativists hold that no universal standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth.

In this respect, I'm a moral relativist. Human beings decide what is moral and what is not moral by consensus. In this respect, I'd say most religious people are also moral relativists... even for a given religious tradition, moral standards change across geographic boundaries, environments, or through time. One could say it is a matter of interpretation of scripture, but if this is a case, try to point to the absolute universal moral truth that's subject to interpretation.

Relativistic positions often see moral values as applicable only within certain cultural boundaries (cultural relativism) or in the context of individual preferences (individualist ethical subjectivism). An extreme relativist position might suggest that judging the moral or ethical judgments or acts of another person or group has no meaning...

In this respect, I am NOT a moral relativists... and I wouldn't accuse anyone else of being a moral relativist. I mean, I have specific moral values because I think they're pretty good ideas. I'm not going to say it is wrong for me to kill innocent people, but, you, go right ahead! I'm not going to say it is wrong for me to oppress women, but, you, go ahead! Let's look at "cultural relativism".

Cultural relativism is the principle that an individual human's beliefs and activities should be understood in terms of his or her own culture.

No way, dude. See above. Murder is murder. Stealing is stealing. Adultery is adultery. Slavery is slavery. No free pass because—when you lived or where you live—everyone else does it. That's my opinion. I guess this is one of my guiding moral values.

I bring this up because I'm wondering: Is this what some theists have in mind when they accuse atheists of being moral relativists? Do they think we condone activity we find immoral just because it is part of someone else's culture? How many people here believe this? How many do condone activity you find immoral just because it is part of someone else's culture?

Amoralism is the complete absence of moral beliefs, and/or the unequivocal belief that the theory of morality is immaterial.

Perhaps this is what theists have in mind. They don't think atheists are moral relativists, but amoral?  I can only speak for myself. As mentioned above, independent of any outside force, God or something else, I recognize the existence of moral values. I'm confident the vast majority of atheists are in the same boat.

The only difference between the theist and the atheist, as far this subject is concerned, is that the theists reject the role of culture and atheists consider it very important in shaping current moral values.

CONCLUSION:

Either we are ALL—theist, atheist, other—moral relativists or none of us are moral relativists. This term cannot be used to tar atheism as an inferior approach toward life.

Perhaps someone would like to further clarify what the theist has in mind when the say an atheist is a moral relativist and why is it such a bad thing.

[Mountain_Man]

...CONCLUSION:

Either we are ALL—theist, atheist, other—moral relativists or none of us are moral relativists. This term cannot be used to tar atheism as an inferior approach toward life.

I agree with your conclusion. It is an old and often used argument that Atheists cannot be moral since they do not have a god to force them to be moral.

Moral relativism as in "the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect universal moral truths" IS used by theists, yet they complain when non-believers use it. An example would be capital punishment. Many christians support it yet their religion says not to kill. Many christians support various wars yet their religion says not to kill. Then there's that old quandary; it's wrong to steal, but is it wrong to steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving children?

Perhaps someone would like to further clarify what the theist has in mind when the say an atheist is a moral relativist and why is it such a bad thing.

It's bad in that we cannot be forced to conform to a religious dogma.

[Acumen]

I agree with your conclusion. It is an old and often used argument that Atheists cannot be moral since they do not have a god to force them to be moral.

I've never heard this strawman argument.

[Gorm_Sionnach]

I agree with your conclusion. It is an old and often used argument that Atheists cannot be moral since they do not have a god to force them to be moral.

I've never heard this strawman argument.

Well this kind of touches on the question I asked in another thread. From the Christian perspective, since their God is the source of all morality and goodness, any individual or group which rejects said deity, can not be moral from a Christian perspective. Its sort of taking a theological point to its ultimate conclusion. It may not be a particular view which you ascribe to (that being non-Christians can not be moral), but I have heard this argued before (albeit not on this forum). Not to say that all Christians ascribe to this perspective, but some do.

[SquirleyWurley]

From the Christian perspective, since their God is the source of all morality and goodness, any individual or group which rejects said deity, can not be moral from a Christian perspective.

There are always people who speak from a point of view of armchair proclamation, popular truism, pop psychology/relgion.  Some people seem to treat TV Christianity and a small selection of 20th century writings as all there is.

In churches which draw upon many centuries of Christian writings on such subjects, you find a different level of discussion of such questions about non-Christians and morality.

From the standpoint of centuries of Christian teaching among Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants, the issue is rather that all of us are sinners in need of God's mercy, grace, and forgiveness.  Of course a non-Christian may try to refrain from lying and stealing and give to the beggar when they walk by, etc.

[Mountain_Man]

I agree with your conclusion. It is an old and often used argument that Atheists cannot be moral since they do not have a god to force them to be moral.

I've never heard this strawman argument.

Then you really do need to get out more. Also, you really should learn what the term "strawman argument" is before you use it.

• Children's Prayer.... unc... by SteveC [July 30, 2010, 11:08:14 PM]
• Riot against Messianic Je... by SteveC [July 30, 2010, 09:43:30 PM]
• Court Upholds Expulsion o... by SteveC [July 30, 2010, 09:25:51 PM]
• The Kids Are All Right. by SteveC [July 30, 2010, 09:08:19 PM]
• Honduras... here we come!... by SquirleyWurley [July 30, 2010, 06:23:50 PM]
• A thought by Betsy by kwd111 [July 29, 2010, 03:56:49 PM]
• 77'7" Kerrville Cross Rai... by SteveC [July 28, 2010, 01:54:13 PM]
• That Darling of Creationi... by SteveC [July 27, 2010, 05:51:56 PM]
• Segmentation & Evolution by SteveC [July 27, 2010, 10:56:42 AM]
• I must have overslept on ... by SteveC [July 26, 2010, 11:12:09 PM]
• 'Little Brown Balls' Tie ... by charliejohn [July 25, 2010, 07:34:39 PM]
• Whales Descended From Tin... by SteveC [July 25, 2010, 07:23:50 PM]
• South Pacific Plant May B... by SteveC [July 25, 2010, 07:05:31 PM]
• Transitional Species Exis... by SteveC [July 25, 2010, 05:09:41 PM]
• Fundamentalist's Peppered... by SteveC [July 25, 2010, 02:32:03 PM]
• Haeckel and his Embryos by SteveC [July 25, 2010, 10:36:39 AM]
• Flagellum,"poster child" ... by SteveC [July 24, 2010, 11:10:12 PM]
• Evo's Fundamentalist Posi... by Ed.W [July 22, 2010, 10:44:19 AM]

Members

• Total Members: 558
• Latest: Messedumbessy

Stats

• Total Posts: 86510
• Total Topics: 2615
• Online Today: 21
• Online Ever: 135
• (July 09, 2010, 02:08:16 PM)

Users Online

Users: 1
Guests: 20
Total: 21

SteveC