Matt wrote:
You are correct that subjective opinions can contradict each other and there is no absurdity here. What can’t be the case is that both these opinions be true. The problem is that cultural relativism entails that they can be, remember the definition of cultural relativism I put forward. Cultural Ethical Relativism: An action is wrong for a person, if and only if, that person’s society or cultural group condemns that action.

Carl:
Under the conditions of moral relativism, an ethical opinion is judged ‘true’ by whichever society one is in. So, if the New Zealander Bob were to be a member of a paedophile ring, and he says that ‘Kiddy porn is good’, then his statement is true when subjectively judged by the paedophile ring, but false when judged by wider New Zealand society. The statement is both true and false at the same time, but only either true or false in relation to one particular group.

While it would be absurd to think that the judgment of a single group – in a simple case such as this – would say that their moral judgment is both ‘true’ and ‘not true’, it is not at all absurd that different groups make different judgments. As an evangelical Christian, you would recognise that many of your ethical judgments do not coincide with the ethical judgments of the wider society in New Zealand. As an ethical relativist, this is quite explicable, and rather than ‘absurd’, it is quite to be expected.

Matt wrote:
…Hence there is a contradiction in reality about what Ahmed’s duties actually are.

Carl
In reality, there is no contradiction. No group is saying that Ahmed’s moral actions both contradict and at the same time agree with their judgment of Ahmed’s moral actions.

And such a result accords with common sense – with what we would expect.

Matt wrote:
…According to relativism it is objectively true that a person has a duty to do whatever their society endorses. What relativism denies is that a person has these duties independently of cultural endorsement.

Carl
Right. Or, to put it another way, the only ‘objectivity’ of ethics subsists in some agreement between certain people as to what that ethical standard is. But, the underlying ethical standard does not itself exist, but remains subjective.

Matt wrote:
This however still leaves open the possibility that a culture may lay upon their members contradictory mores and if this is the case, relativism will entail that it’s a fact, that in reality, they its permissible for them to do X and not permissible for them to do X. Hence relativism entails that it can be true in reality that a person be permitted to do X and also that a person be not permitted to do X. and as you note contradictions cannot be true in reality.

Carl
Here you would benefit from distinguishing, as I have above, between the subjectivity of an ethical standard and the objectivity of the agreement concerning the ethical standard. That is, while it may be objectively agreed between two parties (as an objective event in reality) that a certain duty or ethical standard should pertain, only the agreement is objective; that which is agreed upon is not.

And here, as a bit of fun, is an ad absurdum argument which employs a close analogy – just because you earlier had some doubts that I could understand the logic involved in such an argument
What if two parties were to (objectively) agree that Matt should not exist. According to an objectivist wisher (as analogous to an objectivist ethicist), the mere objectively of the agreement would entail that you ceased to exist, Matt! But, if you were to point out to them (assuming you had not ceased to exist, of course) that while their agreement was objective, the content of their agreement was a subjective wish, then they might be logically persuaded that their wishing was not objective, but only subjective.

I was obviously having some fun there, but hopefully the point is clear: there is no objective contradiction arising from ethical relativism. The only contradictions are subjective (which are, as you agree, quite logically permissable).

Matt wrote:
Finally on a different point, you suggested that “mass raping societies” do not provide a counter example to relativism because such societies do not exist… your rejoinder is mistaken. Relativism entails that its impossible for a society to endorse something that is wrong. Something is wrong for you if and only if your society condemns that action. Hence, all that’s needed to refute relativism is that such cases be possible. If I propose a theory that entails p then all that’s needed to refute it is no p. and the negation of impossibility is possibility.

Carl
But I do not argue that your ‘rape for entertainment’ society, or what I described as a ‘mass raping society’, is impossible. To the contrary, I have earlier pointed out that many societies breed a certain section of their population for forced prostitution, and so that ‘rape for entertainment’ and ‘mass raping societies’ do exist.

What I was in fact arguing is that within such societies there would be no absurdity. I’ll attempt to explain this in more detail. I think you might agree that it is difficult to imagine or conceive – on purely pragmatic grounds – of the cultural factors and determinates which would lead to widespread rape throughout a stable society or widespread rape-for-entertainment. The cultural factors which would lead to such a situation are highly difficult to envisage. This being the case, and before any ethical consideration is made, the system of morality which makes rape-for-entertainment morally good can only apply to a situation which is culturally absurd, to that which we have trouble imagining could have culturally developed at all.

So all that your argument says is that, given an absurd factual/cultural situation, the ethical system might possibly also be absurd from the point-of-view of our present (non-absurd) cicumstances. Well, that’s what we would expect from an ethical relativist understanding. Given an absurd cultural/factual agreement, we would expect concomitant absurd ethical agreements. So while there would be an absurd (or highly unusual) situation (from the mainstream New Zealand point of view today), if cultural circumstances were absurdly different, so would ethics be. And so, there is no absurdity within your possible situation, which is where the absurdity must reside in order for your argument to be a good one, but a completely expected matching of absurd circumstances and absurd ethics (both only being ‘absurd’ from a mainstream New Zealand point of view, not within such an odd society).

So, you have still failed to raise any objection against ethical relativism. I don’t know of any good objections, so I would have been surprised if you had come up with any.

I doubt from reading your blog you are actually interested in sincere dialogue. However in case I am mistaken I will say three things here.

1. Your comments here actually have nothing to do with the reference to Bundy in the post. There I simply noted that according to Bundy’s professed beliefs what he did was not wrong; therefore if Individual ethical relativism is true Bundy did not act wrongly. I take it as intuitively obvious that his actions were wrong.

2. Your comments are based on the atheist caricature that God sends people to literally burn in torture merely for not believing in him. A position I addressed here

3. Its not clear what the purported injustice you appeal to is. If the eschatological punishment the unrepentant receive is unjust, how is the repentant not getting it unjust? Should everyone be treated unjustly because some people are? On the other hand if the punishment that non repentant people receive is just, on what basis do they complain that a repentant person receives mercy, it can’t be that the unrepentant are being treated unfairly, its stipulated that the penalty they receive is just? So it can only be that others (the unrepentant) are getting favourable treatment. Apparently then the issue is that if you others are benefited and they want everyone to be as miserable as they are?

When you have a well thought out objection that is not based on caricatures and specifies exactly what your concerns are I will consider it.

I did not suggest that I am the only one aware of philosophical terminology. I suggested that you were misusing it. As I pointed out in my last post my argument is not invalid, nor is it an appeal to emotion, nor is it a consquentialist argument, you misunderstand or misuse each of these terms in your post. Your continually repeating these errors and then misrepresenting my position as claiming that “only I know” the meaning of these terms is not an adequate answer.

But to more substantive matters; You are correct that subjective opinions can contradict each other and there is no absurdity here. What can’t be the case is that both these opinions be true. The problem is that cultural relativism entails that they can be, remember the definition of cultural relativism I put forward. Cultural Ethical Relativism: An action is wrong for a person, if and only if, that person’s society or cultural group condemns that action. Now my point is not that this position entails that Ahmed *actually* has a duty to not worship Hindu gods and also that it is actually permissible for Ahmed to worship hindu Gods, at the same time. Hence there is a contradiction in reality about what Ahmed’s duties actually are.

Its important to note ( as Andrew does in his post) that Relativism does not deny that people actually in reality have duties. According to relativism it is objectively true that a person has a duty to do whatever their society endorses. What relativism denies is that a person has these duties independently of cultural endorsement. This however still leaves open the possibility that a culture may lay upon their members contradictory mores and if this is the case, relativism will entail that it’s a fact, that in reality, they its permissible for them to do X and not permissible for them to do X. Hence relativism entails that it can be true in reality that a person be permitted to do X and also that a person be not permitted to do X. and as you note contradictions cannot be true in reality.

Finally on a different point, you suggested that “mass raping societies” do not provide a counter example to relativism because such societies do not exist. Now as a matter of fact I nowhere refered to mass raping societies, but even if I had your rejoinder is mistaken. Relativism entails that its impossible for a society to endorse something that is wrong. Something is wrong for you if and only if your society condemns that action. Hence, all that’s needed to refute relativism is that such cases be possible. If I propose a theory that entails p then all that’s needed to refute it is no p. and the negation of impossibility is possibility.

unsupported assertion, ethics are opinions, opinions exist.

The argument from outrage?

How does this exactly relate to this thread other than Bundy being an example for relativism?

Ethics have to be objective or they don’t exist. If they are not objective, there is no ought.

What we have here is a contradiction in subjective opinions about “good” and “bad”. This is not “absurd”

The situation is not absurd in and of itself, it is absurd if one wants to claim there is a real morality here. How can the ought to speak Maori and ought to not speak Maori (in the same context at the same time) both be true.

The law of non-contradiction applies only to objective reality, not to subjective opinion.

How so? One person can like yellow and another not, but I cannot both like and not like yellow in the same context.

By the way, purgatory is a man-made invention & has no scriptural basis – so Ted is either in Heaven or Hell?

Which one is it?

Do mass-murderers get a 'get out of jail card' or not?

See ya.

Paul