After typing this whole thing up, I realized it became a bit tl;dr. Short version is that it's almost impossible for any human being to be a true ethical relativist, and asserting that all atheists are relativists due to their lack of religious belief is fallacious at the very least. If you're interested in reading more about ethical relativism and absolutism in the context of this argument, read on:
Funnily enough, my Philosophy 130 class is tackling this particular part of Devin's response:
"Under the religions (yes, they are BOTH religions, no matter how much you want to dispute them) of agnosticism or atheism, the general presumption is that there are no moral absolutes, that everything is relative. By admitting being an agnostic or whatever, you are contradicting yourself by saying that you've led a good life so far, good grades, never killed anyone, etc. By believing that there is no God, you are denouncing the fact that without God, there are no moral absolutes, so therefore, you are allowed to kill, steal, lie, etc. because your religion tells you you can.
However, by being an atheist, you are denying that such morals exist because there is no God to enforce them. So my question to you would be, what is keeping you from killing, stealing, lying, etc.? Laws made by man? Or is there SOME structure of absolute morality in your life? To you, there should be relative morality, but since that ... Read Moreis logically untrue, that cannot be. No matter how you slice it, the agnostic OR atheist is in contradiction with himself, not to mention having to know EVERYTHING to be 100% sure that God doesn't exist."
According to an examination of various philosophical theories, it's almost impossible for anyone to be a true ethical relativist. A true ethical relativist believes in "live and let live" - according to W.T. Stace, "What the relativist means to assert is....that the very same kind of action which is right in one country and period may be wrong in another." This is very hard for most people to uphold, because once an issue stops being abstract, and starts affecting a person (or group) it's a lot more difficult to remain truly unbiased and tolerant of other people's views. The textbook for my class states, "Disagreeing with and doing what we can to stop those who oppose our moral principles is part of the very nature of morality."
Devin is going under the assumption that the moral principles are wholly different for atheists and agnostics than they are for religious people - that atheists believe that every person has a moral point of view that they feel is correct for them. As above, this is very difficult to uphold in practice. As you yourself have stated, you believe that murder is reprehensible, as does Devin. Your moral principle is the same - only the path to that understanding is different. The fact that Devin arrives at his moral values by way of religious worship and you do not is irrelevant.
If anything, the argument that most atheists are ethical absolutists is much easier to grasp. Absolutists "need not believe that they know what is right and wrong with absolute certainty, but only that there is an objective right or wrong which we all try to discover." The relativist is convinced there is no right or wrong answer, and there is no evidence that could chance his or her mind. The absolutist is more apt "to adopt a more cautious, modest, wait-and-see approach, willing to listen to reasons, open to new information, which is not possible for the ethical relativist."
The fact remains that "moral absolutes" exist for both atheists and religious people. The difference exists only in what each group (or individuals) believe to be "right" and "wrong," and their interpretations of such as according to each group's customs and habits.
Funnily enough, my Philosophy 130 class is tackling this particular part of Devin's response:
"Under the religions (yes, they are BOTH religions, no matter how much you want to dispute them) of agnosticism or atheism, the general presumption is that there are no moral absolutes, that everything is relative. By admitting being an agnostic or whatever, you are contradicting yourself by saying that you've led a good life so far, good grades, never killed anyone, etc. By believing that there is no God, you are denouncing the fact that without God, there are no moral absolutes, so therefore, you are allowed to kill, steal, lie, etc. because your religion tells you you can.
However, by being an atheist, you are denying that such morals exist because there is no God to enforce them. So my question to you would be, what is keeping you from killing, stealing, lying, etc.? Laws made by man? Or is there SOME structure of absolute morality in your life? To you, there should be relative morality, but since that ... Read Moreis logically untrue, that cannot be. No matter how you slice it, the agnostic OR atheist is in contradiction with himself, not to mention having to know EVERYTHING to be 100% sure that God doesn't exist."
According to an examination of various philosophical theories, it's almost impossible for anyone to be a true ethical relativist. A true ethical relativist believes in "live and let live" - according to W.T. Stace, "What the relativist means to assert is....that the very same kind of action which is right in one country and period may be wrong in another." This is very hard for most people to uphold, because once an issue stops being abstract, and starts affecting a person (or group) it's a lot more difficult to remain truly unbiased and tolerant of other people's views. The textbook for my class states, "Disagreeing with and doing what we can to stop those who oppose our moral principles is part of the very nature of morality."
Devin is going under the assumption that the moral principles are wholly different for atheists and agnostics than they are for religious people - that atheists believe that every person has a moral point of view that they feel is correct for them. As above, this is very difficult to uphold in practice. As you yourself have stated, you believe that murder is reprehensible, as does Devin. Your moral principle is the same - only the path to that understanding is different. The fact that Devin arrives at his moral values by way of religious worship and you do not is irrelevant.
If anything, the argument that most atheists are ethical absolutists is much easier to grasp. Absolutists "need not believe that they know what is right and wrong with absolute certainty, but only that there is an objective right or wrong which we all try to discover." The relativist is convinced there is no right or wrong answer, and there is no evidence that could chance his or her mind. The absolutist is more apt "to adopt a more cautious, modest, wait-and-see approach, willing to listen to reasons, open to new information, which is not possible for the ethical relativist."
The fact remains that "moral absolutes" exist for both atheists and religious people. The difference exists only in what each group (or individuals) believe to be "right" and "wrong," and their interpretations of such as according to each group's customs and habits.
Reply
Leave a comment