moral relativism

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Peter Holmes
Posts: 3731
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by Peter Holmes »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 16, 2022 4:09 pm If God believes "Murder is immoral," then murder IS immoral. It's that simple. He's the grounds of all reality.
So, if [my team's] god believes [murdering homosexuals and witches/subjugating women/infanticide/collective punishment of the innocent/slavery] is not immoral, then none of them are immoral. It's that simple. He's the grounds of all being.

Sauce for the goose.
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by popeye1945 »

Did you know that dog spelled backward is god----- DUH!! Religion got morality from us, we did not get morality from religion.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by Immanuel Can »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Nov 16, 2022 11:54 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 16, 2022 4:09 pm If God believes "Murder is immoral," then murder IS immoral. It's that simple. He's the grounds of all reality.
So, if [my team's] god believes...
One's "team" has nothing to do with it. A "team" is not authoritative of anything. They may believe things that are true, or things that are false. Nothing about them being your or my "team" guarantees their infallibility...or even promises that they are right.

That authority, that absolute truthfulness, and that ability to define the nature of morality and of reality itself, only belongs to the one God who actually exists.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by Immanuel Can »

popeye1945 wrote: Thu Nov 17, 2022 12:26 am ...Religion got morality from us...
If that were true, it would mean that no morality had any authority at all. After all, human beings are contingent beings; and absent God, have no more moral authority or ability to make morality real than has a cow, a fish or a paramecium.

It wouldn't be "relativism," but "Nihilism." Are you a Nihilist, then?
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by popeye1945 »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Nov 17, 2022 1:27 am
popeye1945 wrote: Thu Nov 17, 2022 12:26 am ...Religion got morality from us...
If that were true, it would mean that no morality had any authority at all. After all, human beings are contingent beings; and absent God, have no more moral authority or ability to make morality real than has a cow, a fish or a paramecium.

It wouldn't be "relativism," but "Nihilism." Are you a Nihilist, then?
No, I just don't have my head up my ass. All structures and systems of today and the past are biological extensions, expressions of human nature. Fairy godfathers just don't cut it for me.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7208
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by iambiguous »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Nov 14, 2022 11:15 pm
iambiguous wrote: Mon Nov 14, 2022 9:08 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Nov 11, 2022 3:25 pmNo, let's have you answer my question.

What are you using as your evidence, when you judge that Biden's in the White House?

It's a simple question.
And I gave him a simple answer:

When have I ever said that I am myself in possession of proof that [Joe Biden resides in the White House]? I don't even have the indisputable proof that we do not live in a sim world, a dream world, a Matrix contraption.
That's not an answer. It doesn't at all explain how you judge what you judge to be true.

You claimed you have knowledge of Biden being in the White House and the Pope in Rome, because that's the level you ask of the knowledge of God. Now, it turns out you don't "know" those things at all, as you say. You think you're in The Matrix. So you don't "know" anything. And there's no level of certitude about God that will ever satisfy you. You are never going to have any knowledge, no matter what anybody tells you.

But that's not anybody else's fault, then. It's the fault of your own epistemic demands.
Thank God then: it's almost certainly a "condition"!

Although increasingly a serious condition!!

He's clearly seven cans short of a six-pack in his thinking here.

He keeps going on and on about me providing evidence for something I keep agreeing that I can't provide evidence for. All I can do is to Google Joe Biden in the White House: https://www.google.com/search?q=joe+bid ... s-wiz-serp

Others can then click on the links and decide for themselves if he really does reside there. And thus prove that IC has demonstrated that the Christian God resides in Heaven.


Just out of curiosity, any lawyers in the house? I'm wondering what might happen if I finally go too far and, in amusing myself and entertaining others, I push him over the edge into an actual mental breakdown.

Can I be held legally liable for that?

Also, are there any arguments that might be made that this is objectively immoral?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by Immanuel Can »

popeye1945 wrote: Thu Nov 17, 2022 1:57 am All structures and systems of today and the past are biological extensions, expressions of human nature.
Like war, slavery, prostitution, theft, racism, murder, rape, tyranny...all "biological extensions, expressions of human nature." They came from human beings...they could have come from nowhere else. So they, too, are human nature.

Is your perspective that that makes them "moral"? I would hardly think so.
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by popeye1945 »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Nov 17, 2022 3:37 am
popeye1945 wrote: Thu Nov 17, 2022 1:57 am All structures and systems of today and the past are biological extensions, expressions of human nature.
Like war, slavery, prostitution, theft, racism, murder, rape, tyranny...all "biological extensions, expressions of human nature." They came from human beings...they could have come from nowhere else. So they, too, are human nature.

Is your perspective that that makes them "moral"? I would hardly think so.
It is all human drama, but the vital point the faithful don't seem to realize is that all meaning whatsoever is the property of a conscious subject. The only way there is any meaning to the physical world is because biological consciousness has bestowed meaning upon the earth. In other words, the source of all meanings are biological experiences. Your faith is a violation of the principles of life and this too is your contribution to a false understanding of reality. A perverse Walt Disney production that hinders humanity's further development. As old Albert put it, "It is time that humanity grow up."
Last edited by popeye1945 on Thu Nov 17, 2022 7:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by Immanuel Can »

popeye1945 wrote: Thu Nov 17, 2022 3:56 am ...the vital point the faithful don't seem to realize is that all meaning whatsoever is the property of a conscious subject.
God is conscious. That's not an issue.
The only way there is any meaning to the physical world is because biological consciousness has bestowed meaning upon the earth.
"Biological consciousness"? :shock:

I guess you must mean human beings. I don't think you mean that God created this "biological consciousness." You can't mean it just happened for no reason, or with no cause. You can't mean it's something cats or fish can have, and they create meaning... :?

But human beings are only contingent, temporal, perishing beings themselves. They can't "bestow" meaning on an inherently meaningless universe. They can only delude themselves, if they prefer to, for a time, and then die without any objective meaning being involved at all.
Your faith is a violation of the principles of life...
It's just fabulous how you so freely invent these God-substitutes. First "biological consciousness" subs for God, and then "principles of life" magically appear, with no Giver. :shock:
...humanity's further development...
And then you throw in teleology..."development," as if this whole affair is going somewhere, even though the universe is meaningless. :shock:

So what have you appealed to...let's add it up. There's a "biological consciousness" that magically imparts meaning to an accidental universe. There are "principles of life" written into it, and they can be "violated," but shouldn't be -- so there's morality, as well. And the whole thing, the world's story, is "developing" toward some goal, and not only that, but one you can know and foresee, so as to tell me I'm "violating" it?

Wow. You need to work on your story. The plot's got too many holes, given the characters and assumptions you've written into it. An indifferent universe, with magical "consciousness," miraculously appearing "principles," objective morality, and its own teleology, even though the whole thing's nothing but a cosmic accident... :shock:
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6656
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by Iwannaplato »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 16, 2022 4:12 pm Would he be "wrong" then, to say that? :wink:
If a moral relativist makes a claim that someone is objectively immoral, that moral relativist is being a hypocrite.[/quote]
Is being a hypocrite objectively "wrong"?
If you mean morally wrong, no. It can be part of a misrepresentation of yourself. IOW you are implying that you are X when you are Y. So you are presenting an incorrect image of yourself. Wrong has a few meanings. I dislike hypocrisy. Further, other people do. So, if they are pushing for a world with qualities I dislike, and they are hypocrites, it can be an effective way to push back to point this out.
Biblically, it is. But you're not a believer in that, are you? So what objective code are you pulling on when you imply "hypocrisy" is a bad thing?
I haven't. You seem to need me to have an objective morality. So, it has to be the case for you.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6656
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by Iwannaplato »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 16, 2022 4:09 pm No, but it means you, rather illogically, profess that all morals are relative, but then treat them as if they are not.
But I don't do what you keep claiming here.
Are they objectively right to dislike it? If not, then their "disliking" means nothing that anybody else has to care about...or even that they need to care about, themselves.
No, they are not objectively wrong. Then you go one to make what you seem to think is a logical argument, but it is not.
Nobody HAS TO CARE about my dislike, so....and you leave this up in the air.
That's right. Nobody has to, though as humans they often do.
Nobody has to care that you think you know what objective morals are. Other moral objectivists disagree with you over what morals are. Other people simply don't care what you think. You're being a moral objectivist can be simply ignored and is and is hated and yes, also like by some. This does not mean you are wrong.
I am sure you know all this, and yet several times you have pointed out that people do not have to care what I dislike as if that undermines my position or the objectivity of morals. It doesn't.

So, far I find myself responding to the same points and accusations on your part. Pointing out why they do not hold and then finding you coming back with them again and again.

That's boring to me. And yes, my finding you boring and limited does not compel you or other people to do anything. Nor does your sense that there are objective morals and what they are compel anyone to do anything.

Even my pointing out the weak logic in your arguments doesn't compel you or anyone else to do anything.

There are vastly more nuanced moral objectivists out there to interact with. I even collaborate with them where my dislikes and likes and their likes and dislikes overlap. It's amazing how effective fighting for what you want can be, despite your hallucinations. When you next get into an argument with another moral objectivist, one who disagrees with you on politics or morals, notice how (lol) you will suddenly find yourself compelled to be changed. Or not.... :wink: You're everybody's just like me, really, model of the world, might just be inaccurate. Shit, you can't even notice me. You just notice the model in your head.

And, you're still boring, so I'll ignore you again.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

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."
It is the positive trend [compared to 5000 years] that is objective and can be objectively assessed.
The average IQ of humans has increased over the years to the present and the results are so evident from the knowledge and application of knowledge by the average person at present.
I am not saying intelligence is objectively Good.

What I implied was the comparison that even when under pure relativism that intelligence can be improved, thus so relative morality can also be improved which is also evident.
You cannot deny there is a reduction in the acts of Chattel slavery [now legally banned in the world] from the past 5000 years to the present and that is without serious enforcement from a God!

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.
What are you talking about?
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.
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.

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?

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'.

Thus murder and the act to exterminate the human race is of the utmost evil.
morality must be objective to facilitate progress and avoiding the worst of evils.
Now you're claiming not just that there is universal value in "progress," but also a universal value of "the worst (another moral term) of evils." You're miles away from subjectivism.
Yes, I am miles from moral subjectivity as I had always claim for such a position.
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.
Where morality is considered, there is no ONE-GOD, there are many ONE-GODs as there are many religions.
For example Islam [doctrinally] will never accept the Christian God [of the present] is the same as their God, ALLAH. So there is moral subjectivity or relativity re theological "morality" [i.e. God-Command Moral Theory].
Example the theological "moral" model of Islam is inherently promoting evil thus cannot be moral
"As defined" by whom? By what standard? According to their Islamic standard, they're unimpeachably righteous. By what transcendent standard do you judge that they "cannot be moral"?
I have defined evil in general, example the act of killing another human is evil. The Islamic commands the killing of non-believers under the vaguest threats from them. Quran 5:33.
Thus the theological model of morality of Islam cannot be moral objectively.
The theological model of Christianity has its good pacifist maxims presumably from a God but has other negatives.
Here again, you take for granted that whatever you take to be "positive" morally, like pacifism, objectively is. And you take "negatives" as designating a similarly universal category.

You're a moral objectivist and universalist, obviously. You just don't know you are. But all your moral judgments, as listed above, show that's what you really are. Or perhaps you just mistake your own preferences for moral universals, and are just clueless about how they can be justified against other schemes of "morality". Either way, you're an objectivist. That, one cannot doubt.
I have always claim to be a moral objectivist based on verifiable and justifiable moral facts thus objective moral facts.

'Pacifism' covering 'no killing of humans' is morally positive, given the killing of another human is evil and immoral.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by Immanuel Can »

Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Nov 17, 2022 6:20 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 16, 2022 4:12 pm Would he be "wrong" then, to say that? :wink:
If a moral relativist makes a claim that someone is objectively immoral, that moral relativist is being a hypocrite.
Is being a hypocrite objectively "wrong"?
If you mean morally wrong, no.
Then you have no complaint. Why even point out that he's a "hypocrite"? The word means nothing in particular, since "hypocrisy" is, you say, not "morally wrong." It's a marvel the word even exists, then. It signifies nothing.
Wrong has a few meanings. I dislike hypocrisy. Further, other people do.
Wait. Did you not just say that hypocrisy is not wrong? That you, or that some other people "dislike" it is irrelevant, then. The "hypocrites" DO like it, obviously, or they wouldn't do it. Why should you, or others, be telling them they're "wrong," especially since, as you said, it's not "morally wrong"?
...it can be an effective way to push back to point this out.
"Effective"? Hardly. They've done nothing "morally wrong," and you throw out a label at them that doesn't even imply they are wrong? Why should they care?
Biblically, it is. But you're not a believer in that, are you? So what objective code are you pulling on when you imply "hypocrisy" is a bad thing?
I haven't. [/quote]
Here again we have it. "Hypocrisy," you now say, isn't a bad thing. You "haven't" implied that it is, you say. But above, you call people "hypocrites," as if that's an "effective way to push back" and to "point out"...what? Precisely nothing, it would seem.

If what you say above is correct, "hypocrite" means no more than "Iwanna doesn't like what you do." What's the reason they should care? And they DO like what they do. So why should your irritation be more important to them than their own choices?

I'm not insulting you, Iwanna. I'm trying to show you how it doesn't quite add up to say both "hypocrisy" is "not wrong" AND that you have some expectation of efficacy for telling people they're doing it. I think you'll find that your disapprobation implies more than you say it does. It implies you expect them to be at least a little ashamed of being a "hypocrite," and that that will prove efficacious in making them stop it.

But why should they be ashamed? What they're doing isn't wrong, you say. Do you see the problem?
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3731
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by Peter Holmes »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Nov 17, 2022 1:24 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Nov 16, 2022 11:54 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 16, 2022 4:09 pm If God believes "Murder is immoral," then murder IS immoral. It's that simple. He's the grounds of all reality.
So, if [my team's] god believes...
One's "team" has nothing to do with it. A "team" is not authoritative of anything. They may believe things that are true, or things that are false. Nothing about them being your or my "team" guarantees their infallibility...or even promises that they are right.

That authority, that absolute truthfulness, and that ability to define the nature of morality and of reality itself, only belongs to the one God who actually exists.
Laughable delusion. 'My team's god, alone among the thousands invented by our ancestors, actually exists'. Said every theist there's ever been.

And the terrible implication of your claim is clear. If what your god (supposedly) believes is morally right is morally right, then if your god believes infanticide is morally right - as the OT monster's actions demonstrate - then infanticide is indeed morally right.

No way out. Theistic moral objectivism is even more disgusting than the secular variety.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by Immanuel Can »

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. :shock:
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.
Post Reply