Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Nov 17, 2022 9:03 am
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Nov 16, 2022 6:33 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Nov 16, 2022 5:43 am
Note under pure relativism, a person can be intelligent
"Intelligence" can't be valued universally, or even generally. Like every other possible criterion, it's relative to the percipient. There's nothing to tell us that "intelligence" is an objectively "good" thing, if subjectivism is true.
As usual you missed out the critical parts,
I stated therein,
"
there is a positive trend of the increase of intelligence of the average human since say 5000 years ago to the present."
That's actually not important at all, unless we can show that "intelligence" is
objectively a
good thing for us to be gaining.
As a secondary note, I think you'll find that you've misunderstood what "intelligence" is. It's not information, technology or the accumulation of knowledge: it's processing ability, such as is indicated by IQ. And in those terms, there's no evidence of greater mental processing power between, say, 5000 years ago and today. Even the most enthusiastic Evolutionists are going to tell you that 5000 years is far too short a span for that. They'll want you to measure it in millions of years.
But the important point is merely this: how do you show that "intelligence" or any other quality you hope is increasing, is "good," if you are a subjectivist? For then, you have to say it's not
objectively good. So subjectivism implies it's only good for those who prefer to think it is, but they may be
objectively wrong, for all we can know.
It is the positive trend...
We don't know if it's "positive." "Positive" is a subjective quality here, because we're being subjectivists. Since it's not objectively positive, it could be neutral or even negative, objectively, for all we can know.
There is also a "positive" increase in human violence. The last century was the bloodiest in history, by far. That is also a "trend." But I doubt you take it for granted that's "good."
I am not saying intelligence is objectively Good.
Then you're not really saying anything at all. You're simply saying, "I like intelligence." Okay, you can. But since that is merely subjective, it doesn't show anything value-positive or objectively important.
...intelligence can be improved, thus so relative morality can also be improved
That does not follow at all. One can be more intelligent, only to be more wicked, too.
In fact, the cunning wicked person is manifestly much more dangerous than the fool.
You cannot deny there is a reduction in the acts of Chattel slavery [now legally banned in the world]
Neither of these claims is true. I've showed you the stats, that slavery is worse and more than anytime in history, today. But you don't believe the statistics, and so try to redefine "slavery" as the kind of thing done in the Southern States two hundred years ago. You don't consider wage slavery, sex slavery, gulag slavery, child slavery, or any other kind as relevant to your claim.
So by "fixing" your stats, you get to keep saying this: but it's just not true. I wish it were.
Moreover, it's not "banned in the world" at all. China has huge slave labour camps. The trans-saharan and African trades continue. Sex slavery is rampant, especially since modern communications have made it much easier...And there's no body of governance in the world today even capable of banning it.
I don't know what planet you're living on, when you say things like that.
Thus under pure relativism, a person can be moral [avoiding evil
Nope. If subjectivism is right, there's no evil. So there's nothing to "avoid." A mass-murderer who is right in his own eyes is just as "good" as a humanitarian. And neither is objectively good or evil.
If morality is subjective, then for some there is evil [as defined. e.g. genocide, murder, rapes, etc.] while for some others [the minority] such acts are not evil.
That's actually illogical. If morality is really "subjective," then your sense that genocide, murder, rapes, etc. are "evil" is also subjective. And it doesn't matter whether it's a majority or a minority that believes it: for majoritarianism itself is also subjective. Maybe the minority is objectively right. They often are, actually. How do you prove that in this case, they're just not?
The problem with the moral relative approach is that there is a potential and danger for it to be like a ship heading for the rocks without a fixed lighthouse and compass, leading to the extinction of the human species.
How do you even determine that extinction is "bad"? Are you saying it's an objectively evil outcome? If it were, then it's not relative or subjective, and there is at least one objective moral value.
Yes, to me the deliberate act of causing the extinction of the human species is the utmost of all evil acts and that is objective.
Then you are no longer a subjectivist at all.
Even if there is one moral precept, then morality isn't subjective. And, in fact, with that one precept, a bunch of others can be organized; for things that contribute to survival must then be
objectively good. And we can start to discuss what those things would be...freedom, food, shelter, protection, health...etc. And each one of those would be
objectively good, too, since they contribute to the one precept you've identified.
But now we're a million miles away from subjectivism. Because of your concession, morality is now entirely
objective again. You just need to work out your details, but that's what the result will inevitably be.
Note in general rapes and murder of even one person is already considered "bad" or "evil", then a serial murder is more evil, mass murder, genocide is most evil and surely the genocide of the whole human race is definitely of the utmost & absolute evil. Surely you are not going to object to this definition of evil?
"Is considered bad"? By whom? Who is doing the "considering" in your sentence? How do we know that the right people are doing the "considering"? Hitler considered genocide a positive good. So did the SS. In my experience, I've found that primitive tribesmen often consider wiping out a rival tribe a positive good. Biden apparently thinks wiping out Putin is a positive good. And Putin thinks wiping out Ukrainians is a positive good.
Look, I would agree with you that it's bad. But how do we confirm that we're right? Why are we the locus of objective moral truth?
Now a supposedly evil person would not regard his murdering one or a few of his enemies as a bad or evil act, but he will regard as evil if someone were to threaten to murder him or his loved ones or those of his 'tribe'.
That doesn't clear anything up. So what if you wouldn't want it done to you? That's subjective. Maybe "Kill all the Germans" is bad, but "kill all the Slavs and Poles" is good. How would we show it's not?
Thus murder and the act to exterminate the human race is of the utmost evil.
Subjectively?
I am miles from moral subjectivity as I had always claim for such a position.
So why are you arguing with me, then? You and I agree: morality is objective. You and I might still disagree about what the objective moral principle is, maybe: but that morality is not subjective, that we agree on.
The Theological Moral Models based on God's command [whilst objective to a religion] are ultimately relative, i.e. it is relative to some God of various theists.
But if there's only one God, then they're objective.
There is no real God nor an objective one God.
That's assumptive, on your part. You cannot demonstrate it. You can assert it, insist on it, wish it, or pray for it. But you cannot show it, and you do not know it.
there are many ONE-GODs as there are many religions
True, but it doesn't suggest anything.
Many people being wrong doesn't mean there's no right answer.
See, you say the same thing, below...
the theological model of morality of Islam cannot be moral objectively.
Well, then, the fact that Islam, or Hinduism, or Buddhism, or Zoroastrianism, or Mormonism, or Santeria, or Voodun is wrong does not even remotely suggest that Christianity, or Judaism, or some other religion hasn't got it right. It just means there are a lot of people who are wrong.
But we know that for a fact, anyway. We know it because of Aristotle's Law of Non-Contradiction. It states that two genuinely equal and contradictory ideas cannot be true at the same time and in the same way. All these religions are genuinely contradictory to each other. Thus, whatever else we know, we know that almost all of them are simply wrong. They
have to be. Logically.
But we also know that this doesn't suggest
one of them cannot be right. We maybe don't know yet if that's true, because they could ALL be wrong (unless the whole set of them covers all possibilities, in which case one
must be right). But logically, then, one
could be right.
That's simple logic. And it doesn't matter which "religious" or ideological perspective one comes from. It's equally true for all. If we can do logic, then we already know that one is possibly correct, even if the others aren't.