My Answer to Matthew Flannagan's Third Challenge to Moral Relativism

This is my reply to an article by Dr. Matthew Flannagan entitled

The Challenge of Moral Relativism: Three Problems with Relativism

9:03 PM (15 hours ago)

by Matt Flannagan

This is the third of a series of posts on moral relativism. These talks are based on some talks I have given on the subject in the last few months. In the first post, I looked at what the basic issues are. The second post examines some of the reasons people offer for accepting relativism. This last post looks at some problems with relativism.

Today most ethicists whether Christian or non-Christian reject relativism.

Truth isn't decided by majority opinion or what "most" ethicists think.  You agreed to this earlier when you said:

Moreover, the fact there is a consensus of judgement on a particular issue does nothing to establish the judgement is correct, consensuses have been mistaken, the history of science shows lots of examples where the consensus belief was later shown to be incorrect. The issue isn’t whether everyone thinks something, its why they think it and whether it’s correct.

Flannagan continues:

Critics of relativism argue it faces several problems, which give us reason to reject it. I will focus on three.

1. The Problem of Moral Progress and Moral Reform.

Relativism is incompatible with moral progress or reform.  While relativists can accept that the moral judgements of societies change they can't consistently claim these changes amount to progress.

If my 7 year old daughter takes three months to stop disobeying me on the bedtime I impose on her on school nights, that is legitimate "moral progress" despite the fact that what time kids must go to bed is 100% subjective, relative and nowhere expressed or implied in nature or the bible or any other source you might deem a source for objective morals.

If society at one time supports relativism-1slavery or racial segregation, and then later disapproves of these things. Relativists cannot say that society has thrown off an incorrect view and adopted a correct, one. Instead, it must say that it has gone from one correct view to another one.

No, the relativist would be more accurate to stop characterizing anybody's morals as 'correct' or 'incorrect'.  Connecting morals to objectivity is like connecting "greasy" to "radio wave".  It is a category error, and your obvious extreme fear of actually putting your money where your mouth is (i.e, your unwillingness to state a specific moral proposition and the reasons you think it is "objective") confirms that you fear, at least secretly, that moral objectivity constitutes a category error.  You know perfectly well you are never going to demonstrate that any moral is objective, especially since I raked you over the coals after you set forth "don't torture babies to death solely for entertainment" as an example of an objective moral.  I asked you what moral yardstick you used which told you that such act was always immoral for all people, and you skipped town.  Apparently your argument is so weak, you cannot seriously set it forth unless your opponent agrees with you that it is true.

A related problem is that relativism suggests that moral reformers who spoke out against slavery and segregation were in fact in the wrong.

Again, it would promote accuracy and truth if moral relativists either stopped using "right", "wrong", "correct", "incorrect" to characterize their judgment of another's morals...unless they carefully qualify that their standard of truth for such matters is itself also relative and subject to possible revision.

They were opposing what society approved of and hence what was right for members of society.

This problem also applies to subjectivism. If a member of the Ku Klux Klan holds racist judgements at one time and then later rejects these judgements as bigotry, The subjectivist can’t say he has moved from a mistaken to a correct. Instead, he has changed from one correct view to another.  Individuals don’t grow in moral insight or develop more discernment.

See above, i already showed the correctness and reasonableness of characterizing one's moving from disobedience toward a relative moral, to obedience to it, as legitimate moral progress.  And no, you cannot dumb that down by saying the bible tells children to obey their parents, because even you would agree that this cannot be absolute or objective, since a parent may possibly demand that a child commit murder or some act you think is objectively wrong, and commit it "in the name of the Lord",  in which case there would be an exception to "children obey your parents in the Lord", and in light of such exception, that particular biblical moral cannot be objective, but only subjective.

What will you do now?  Invoke Norman Geisler's "graded absolutism" wherein an absolute remains an absolute while being in some situations less important to obey than some other absolute (!?)

If so, behold:  "thou shalt not wrangle words".  Pretty difficult to see how you could mount anything remotely approaching a scholarly refutation of some position on morality, without disputing the meaning of words.

2.The possibility of Error

There is another problem with relativism. It seems plausible that we can be mistaken in our moral judgements.

That's your first problem, because in saying "seems", you are appealing to our intuitive feelings, and you surely recognize that we can possibly be wrong even in our strongest intuitions.

I can make judgements about what is right and wrong which are incorrect,

Not if you are judging another moral viewpoint. Once again, "correct" and "incorrect" do not apply to morals.  Only fools would ask "Is it correct to refrain from adultery?".  Morals are value judgments that draw from several subjective bases, therefore, it promotes truth more if we reserve "correct" and "incorrect" for purely factual disagreements. Since you disagree that all morals come from subjective bases, please state the one specific moral proposition and your reasons for saying it is objectively true.

and whole societies can do this.  Relativism, however, suggests mistakes like this are impossible. Subjectivism means that If I believe something is right, then I am right in doing it.

In the sense that one believes oneself morally justified to do whatever they feel like doing.  I cannot imagine how it could be anything else, except in the case of irrational people who allow themselves to get involved in things they personally believe are immoral, such as teenagers or drug addicts.  But thankfully, the views of irrational people hardly qualify as anything that anybody need worry about.

Relativism means that if a society endorses a practice then its right for members of that society to do the practice.

Because of the presupposition that there is no objective right, therefore, the only "right" to speak of would be necessarily relative.  But yes, I agree with you that without careful definition of terms, the way many relativists talk is confusing and creates inconsistencies.

The consequence is that mistakes about morality are impossible.  For a person or a community to make a mistake, it has to be possible for the standards an individual or society accepts to be different from the standards which are correct.

No, see above.  Nobody says it is a "mistake" to agree with the clocks in New Zealand which say it is "6 p.m." merely because at that particular instant, it is not "6 p.m." in China.   Time is surely a relative thing, and therefore 6 p.m. in New Zealand is not a time that can be nailed down by any standard that is truly objective.  Yet nobody says the relativity of the time exhibited by New Zealand clocks makes it a "mistake" to agree with the current time they exhibit.  Again, the school night bedtime I impose on my daughter is not a reflection of any objective truth in nature or the bible or natural theology.  Nobody "intuitively knows" what time kids must go to bed, so the actual time chosen by the parents is entirely subjective and relative.  Yet it would be legitimate for me to characterize her rebellion against that admittedly subjective moral as "mistaken" (i.e., she says "I'm not going to bed!", and I reply "you are mistaken.").

3. Relativism Implies that Obvious Moral Wrongs Are Acceptable
Perhaps the most important objection to relativism is that it implies that obvious moral wrongs are acceptable. If actions are right or wrong relative to an individual or societies standpoint, then anything at all can be justified. Genocide, rape, torture of children, racial intolerance, are all morally right for a person if he believes that they are or his society endorses them.

Thank you for starting to put your money where your mouth is, despite the fact that you chose to start doing so only at the end of your third article on moral relativism.

Now that you've identified rape as an "obvious" moral wrong (which Ii safely presume you take to signify an objective immorality), please identify the standard you are using, which declares that rape is immoral, and why you believe that standard's declarations about morality are objectively true.

And remember, "objective" means something is true for reasons apart from human opinion, belief or input:

Oxford Dictionary
 Not dependent on the mind for existence;

So you need to demonstrate the objective immorality of rape without appeal to input on the subject from any human mind.

Just like if you think the existence of trees is objective, you should be able to demonstrate such without needing to gain the input of any other human being.

   Many find this implication hard to swallow if a serial killer thinks it's permissible to kill women, is it really plausible to suggest this fact alone means his actions are right or did the fact German society adopted Nazism in the 1930s mean that Germans did no wrong when they implemented these policies.

 The weakness of the objectivist position shines through brightly with your appeals to human emotion.  It is likely you can never do better to refute moral relativism, than prey upon the strong feelings of other people.  As soon as you run into an opponent like me who requires that you do something more than blindly assume the immorality of an act, but that you actually demonstrate why it is objectively immoral, you can do nothing.  Just like the last time I asked you for the moral yardstick that tells you torturing babies to death solely for entertainment is objectively immoral.  You correctly feared that if you open that door, it will be immediately clear that your bases for this judgment are subjective, relative, and based on the strong feelings shared by most civilized adults...not exactly a proof of objectivity...since you earlier denounced using majority or consensus view to demonstrate an objective moral.

Conclusion

Let me now bring the threads of this talk to a close. I have explained what relativism and objectivism are. I noted some common reasons why people accept relativism and suggested these reasons fail. The appeal to diversity fails to make some important distinctions and appeals to tolerance, openness and so on are incoherent. I have also sketched several problems with relativism it entails moral reform is impossible moral error is impossible and that obvious moral wrongs are right. For reasons like this most philosophers, today reject moral relativism. While it's a challenge to the way, Christians think about ethics. I am not convinced it's a challenge which is very defensible.

Once again, Dr. Flannagan, for what reasons do you suppose that torturing babies to death solely for entertainment, constitutes objectively immoral conduct, now that we know that you refuse to ground an objective moral in human consensus?  And remember, if what you plan to show is an 'objective' thing, than you should be able to show it without appeal to what any human being has to say about it.

Or was I correct to say that you cannot win this debate unless your opponent agrees that your viewpoint is true?

And you might wish to tread lightly in combating my challenge.  I have written a long scholarly rebuttal to your book co-authored by Copan "Did God Really Command Genocide? Coming to Terms with the Justice of God".  If your theory of "dispossession only" be true, then the Canaanites, by giving up their land to the Hebrews, were subjecting their pagan children to slow death by starvation, exposure, thirst, abuse by other pagans, etc.  So that if god commanded "dispossession only", then logically he was commanding for actions that were the functional equal of torturing children to death.  See my post proving the point, here's a quote:

Apologist Glenn Miller says life in the ANE outside one’s established town or province was unbearably hostile and could not be sustained except by routinely stealing and raiding of others, with threats to the dispossessed of forced slavery and prostitution being ever-present. If he is correct, the Hebrews knew it too as they chased any fleeing pagan woman and children outside the promised land. http://christianthinktank.com/rbutcher1.html

So you must answer the terrible irony that the dispossession-only hypothesis, if true, made life more unspeakably unbearable for children than the "kill'em all" hypothesis you were seeking to refute.  The point being that you can no longer appeal to child-torture as an objective immorality, unless of course you revise your hypothesis and try to convince others that child-torture is objectively good where God commands it (!?)

Now that's a nasty turn of events, eh?

Be careful what you pray for.  The bible-god might have a few surprises in store for you.



 Update, June 25, 2018;

In advertising my replies around the internet, I also advertised then on the following youtube channel




 This channel is owned by "InspiringPhilosophy", it is located at this link, and he took an active side with James Patrick Holding when I sued Holding for defamation in 2015-2016.  I therefore have good probable cause to believe that once InspiringPhilosophy recognizes that "Barry Jones" is the guy that sued Holding, InspiringPhilosophy will do what most Christian apologists do, and remove my posting.  So I include the screen shot here.  Now he'll have to decide:  If he gets rid of a problem by removing the post, he looks like the frightened barking child he is.  If he doesn't remove it, then he faces the daunting prospect of his friends asking him to post a rebuttal to my blog pieces, which answered Flannagan and did what InspiringPhilosophy wouldn't like, and showed that moral relativism is defensible while moral objectivism is total bullshit. 

My Answer to Matthew Flannagan's Second Challenge to Moral Relativism

This is my reply to an article by Dr. Matthew Flannagan entitled

The Challenge of Moral Relativism: Arguments for Relativism

June 22nd, 2018 by Matt Flannagan

This post is based on a series of talks I have given on moral relativism. In my last post, I looked at what relativism and objectivism are. Here I examine some common reasons people accept or defend relativism I will offer critical commentary on these arguments.

When examining any position in philosophy it is important to understand what motivates people to hold it, why do people find it plausible? Two reasons are commonly cited.

You must be a Christian before you are a philosopher, so you must choose obedience to the bible where this conflicts with what you wish to do as a philosopher.  The bible does not permit you to wrangle words, despite the fact that you cannot refute moral relativism without going round and round with others about the meanings of words:

 14 Remind them of these things, and solemnly charge them in the presence of God not to wrangle about words, which is useless and leads to the ruin of the hearers. (2 Tim. 2:14 NAU)

It is hardly believable that Paul was only prohibiting the shockingly babyish "yes it is; not it isn't" type bantering, I prefer to presume that the people who converted to Paul's gospel in Timothy's church were just a bit more emotionally mature than a 3 year old.  He was clearly prohibiting anything that could be reasonably defined as word-wrangling.  Go ahead, challenge me with your alternative interpretation, I'll respond, leaving you without excuse for willfully defying those biblical commands that directly apply to Christians.

    The Argument from Cultural Diversity

One common motivation for relativism, particularly cultural relativism, is the observation that different societies have different moral beliefs.  To use a well-known example: people in 14th century Europe believed witchcraft was seriously immoral and executed witches. People in 21st century New Zealand doesn’t believe this. Some societies endorse polygamy others endorse monogamy.   Facts like these are held to cast doubt on the idea there is a single true morality relativism-1independent of what society thinks.

And you cannot overcome that prima facie case for relativism by trifling about the technicality that if God issued objective moral commands, these would exist whether we believed it or not.  If the tooth-fairy left me $2 million in a secret location, that would be true whether you believed it or not. But in both cases, we are dealing with a pretty big "if", and nothing important will happen until you move beyond the greasy marsh of the solely theoretical, to the practical.  Either state the one moral you believe is most clearly objective, or stop telling yourself that moral relativists find your arguments the least bit compelling.

 Response to the argument from cultural diversity.

Objectivists make several responses to this argument.

 Distinguishing Separate idea’s.

First, they argue that this argument conflates two separate ideas.  (a) the idea that beliefs about what is right and wrong differ from society to society. And  (b) that idea that what really is right, and wrong differs from society.  The fact different societies have different moral beliefs provides evidence for the first of these ideas. It establishes (a).  However, cultural relativism affirms something stronger than this. Relativists believe moral standards are correct or incorrect relative to society. 

Well then, you were wrong to previously declare that when a relativist labels a moral as "wrong", they are necessarily presupposing the existence of an objective standard.  Not they aren't.  Their standard for deciding what's wrong is their own relative opinion.  If you insist this is problematic, then maybe you should argue that drawing conclusions about what time it is, is unreasonable, because 3 p.m. in New Zealand is never 3 p.m. in Scandinavia. Time is utterly relative, yet if somebody asked you for the time, you would do so, with no worries about the fact that time is ultimately relative.  So stop telling us that a subjective basis for declaring a moral to be "wrong" is reasonable.  In practical life, we very often base our judgments of right or wrong on an admittedly subjective standard.

Cultural Relativists contend an action is wrong for a person because their society condemns that action.  Hence, they affirm (b).

However, that the fact different societies have different moral beliefs doesn’t support (b) It’s possible that when different societies make different judgements about something that one of them is mistaken.

 And we are still waiting for you to provide an example of the one moral whose objectivity you think is most clearly demonstrable.

When don’t normally assume that when societies disagree on something the correct answer is relative to society. 

Speak for yourself and your objectivist friends.  We moral relativists do normally draw that conclusion.

If different societies have different beliefs about the shape or age of the earth, we would not take this to demonstrate that the earth’s actual age and shape differ in various societies.

Fallacy of false analogy:  the shape of the earth is demonstrable empirically.  The objective wrongness of adultery is not.  Yet you necesarily imply with such analogy that you can disprove the moral goodness of any act you deem objectively wrong, just as easily as you can disprove the flat-earth theory.

So why do we do this when the disagreement involves moral judgements? 

For the same reason you think it is objectively wrong to burn a teen prostitute to death for working out of her priest fathers house (Leviticus 21:9).  Either you agree, or you start looking like the foolish moral relativist who says burning your daughter to death might perhaps be morally good in certain situations. 

The mere fact societies make different judgements on a topic tells us nothing about whether those judgements are objectively true or false.

Correct.

Exaggerated disagreement

Second, objectivists argue that appeals to cultural diversity often exaggerate the amount of cross-cultural disagreement over moral standards. Often when societies have different moral beliefs, this isn’t due to different moral standards but the result of disagreement over certain factual questions.  Consider the abovementioned case of witchcraft. In the 14th-century people believed in the existence of witches. They believed witches met together secretly and sacrificed children and ate these children in a ritual feast. They bound themselves by oath to the devil to use supernatural powers to harm, and kill innocent people. Hence the believed witchcraft involved the deliberate conspiracy to cause serious harm to innocent people.

 They probably also believed it was objectively morally good to burn witches, and would have sneered at devil-protecting liberals who campaigned for less barbaric treatment of the accused.

We don’t hold these beliefs today but if we did our opinion of witchcraft would be very different. Suppose we believed there was a group which conspired to randomly kill and maim innocent people and killed and ate children as part of its rituals.  We probably would legally suppress this group. And many people would support the death penalty for those who did these things, killing children is a horrendous form of murder after all.

But you aren't linking the horrendousness back to "god" or showing that child-murder violates any "objective" moral.  

The difference between us and 14th-century Europeans is due, in a large part, to different factual beliefs not simply a disagreement over moral standards.

Our supporting a death penalty less barbaric than burning at the stake testifies to the level of wrongness we and 14th century Christians disagree on.  It wasn't like burning alive was the only method of death in the 14th century.  They preferred that for witches because they felt the witch-crimes were far more heinous than simply killing and eating children.  These fanatics thought violation of "god's order" was the height of satanic rebellion.   You are quite aware of many hideous crimes people commit against children, but I doubt you'd recommend death by burning, since you see it as moral overkill.

 Trust me, the difference is moral and not merely factual.

    Relativism Promotes Tolerance

A second motivation behind relativism is the idea that moral relativism promotes tolerance and humility. When you realise that your own moral standards are correct only for you, you are less likely to fall into arrogance and pass judgements on the beliefs and practises of others. Nor are you likely to demand they change these practices and adopt yours.

Response:

Objectivists respond that this concern reveals a subtle contradiction. The argument assumes that tolerance and humility are good things, it assumes people should be tolerant and humble and should not be arrogant and rush to judgement. 

 I agree with you that tolerance and humility are the subjective judgment call of the relativist.

However, if relativism is correct, this isn’t the case. According to cultural relativism, it is wrong to be intolerant only if your society believes that it is.  Societies which are imperialistic and arrogant and believes its permissible to colonialize other nations don’t do any wrong if it imposes its moral judgements on to others.  Similarly, according to subjectivism humility and tolerance are wrong only if you think it is. If someone has bigoted or arrogant beliefs, then bigotry is morally required of them, and they shouldn’t act in a humble, tolerant way.

 I agree that some relativists irrationally presume that their own opinions are more objective than others.

Objectivists maintain that one can condemn individuals or societies who have arrogant and bigoted practices only if you hold these things are wrong despite the fact societies or individuals may endorse them. There is something incoherent about offering a moral criticism about the arrogant and intolerant moral judgements of societies or individuals and then concluding you can’t make judgements about societies and individuals.

 Thanks again for telling us what Christian objevists believe.  Do you ever plan to get down to actual business, and state the specific moral proposition whose objectivity you believe to be the most clearly demonstrable?

See my answer to Dr. Flannagan's third installment here.

My answer to Matthew Flannagan's First Challenge of Moral Relativism

This is my reply to an article by Christian philosopher Matthew Flannagan entitled

The challenge of Moral Relativism:
Relativism vs Objectivism: understanding the issues:

Jun 19 (3 days ago)

by Matt Flannagan

This post is the first of a series of posts which reproduce a talk on Moral Relativism I gave at both the Auckland and Tauranga  Confident Christianity Conference's and was given earlier in the year as part at a series of talks on apologetics at Orewa Community Church.

In moral debates about you will hear slogans like “if you don’t like abortion don’t have one?” Or “if you don’t like pornography don’t watch it” the basic idea is that if you think a particular action is morally wrong, then you shouldn’t do it, however, it is mistaken or inappropriate to claim that people who don’t share your opinion shouldn’t do it. The slogans in question assume that moral principles correctly apply only to people who believe in those principles.

Yes, but only in the sense that the subjective morals of the speaker apply.  When somebody says "if you don't like porn, don't watch it", all they are doing is imposing their own personal morals on you.  They are neither expressing nor implying that they can either prove your own morals to be objectively "wrong", or that they derived this specific "if you don't like porn, don't watch it" morality from some objective or absolute source.

The pervasiveness of this kind of thinking can be seen in a media report I watched several years ago. A pornographer relativism-1had organised a festival on the main street of Auckland, called boobs on bikes. It involved people, including topless women, riding down Queenstreet displaying erotica. There was some controversy over this event. During the media, coverage journalist's interviewed several people present to watch the event about what they thought. And what was interesting was how many people responded by saying something like this "It is the 21st century” or “we live in a liberal society”.

I agree with most Christians that yes, those who don't believe in god can get irrationally extreme in their actions and attempts to influence society to keep pushing the moral envelope.

Notice what happens when people do this, they were asked whether a particular action or policy was right or wrong. They answered by appealing to what they perceived to be currently fashionable or conventionally accepted.  The assumption is that whats right or wrong is determined by what is conventionally accepted or fashionable.

But that is the basis for all civilized law, at least in a democracy.  Anything that 51% of the voting public deem morally good, becomes law.  If 51% of the people of New Zealand feel that abortion should be made legal for all women, that will become law.  And yet this could reasonably be boiled down to "what's conventionally accepted or fashionable".  The fact that there are those who take positions that are far to the right or left extreme of the currently prevailing consensus, might cause us to instinctively reject the new morality, but that hardly implies that we had any objective basis underlying the older morality in the first place.

These responses reflect a position called Relativism by moral philosophers.  In a bestselling book. The Closing of the American Mind. The prominent philosopher Alan Bloom opened by saying:

There is one thing a professor can be certain absolutely of: almost every student entering the university believes, or says he believes, that truth is relative.

That's understandable, as humans we automatically favor the morality that works for us, and that takes place long before and sometimes in perpetual absence of any ability to defend it against criticism.  We need to adopt some type of morality between birth and adulthood in order to survive, yet we don't need to know how to defend it from criticism in order to survive.  The fact that professional philosophers disagree amongst themselves on whether objective morals exist, counsels that we not judge too harshly the young adults cannot defend their beleifs about the subject as they enter college.

If this belief is put to the test, one can count on the students' reaction: they will be uncomprehending. That anyone should regard the proposition as not self-evident astonishes them, as though he were calling into question 2 + 2 = 4.

That's how evolution programmed us.  We naturally prioritize whatever moral system we personally find to facilitate our comfort and growth.  If everybody held off adopting any morality until they learned how to defend their moral choices from criticism, most wouldn't stay alive long enough to encounter said criticism.

These are things you don't think about. The students' backgrounds are as various as America can provide. Some are religious, some atheists; some are to the Left, some to the Right; some intend to be scientists, some humanists or professionals or businessmen; some are poor, some rich. They are unified only in their relativism and in their allegiance to equality. And the two are related in a moral intention. The relativity of truth is not a theoretical insight but a moral postulate, the condition of a free society, or so they see it.

Strawman...you were talking about the relativity of morality.  Now you are talking about the relativity of truth. But the imposition of one's relative moral upon another does not logically have any relation to "truth".  A father's imposition of a 9 p.m. bedtime on his young son on a school night is a completely relative moral, there is nothing in the bible, natural theology or the physical world or the moral intuition held by most civilized educated adults that tells parents kids must go to bed on a school night at any certain time.  The only "truth" implicated by this situation is the "truth" that Dad has laid down a subjective moral that the child is required to obey.  That is the objectivist's basic problem:  the category error of trying to associate with morals with truths that exist outside the human mind.  You may as well try to meaningfully discuss what's north of the number 4.

Though I don't deny that in your group of moral relativist university students, yes, some of them probably did buy into that new age crap that says a fact of reality can be true for one person, but be untrue for another person.  

They have all been equipped with this framework early on, and it is the modern replacement for the inalienable natural rights that used to be the traditional American grounds for a free society.

But those inalienable natural rights only came from the subjective mindset of America's founders, and those views were obviously not shared by the King of England, from whom we fled in order to form a more perfect union.

That it is a moral issue for students is revealed by the character of their response when challenged - a combination of disbelief and indignation: "Are you an absolutist?," the only alternative they know, uttered in the same tone as "Are you a monarchist?" or "Do you believe in witches?" This latter leads into the indignation, for someone who believes in witches might well be a witch-hunter or a Salem judge. The danger they have been taught to fear from absolutism is not error but intolerance.

Probably has more to do with their being young adults and thus naturally predisposed to hate anything that tries to put a damper on their free expression...including somebody else's belief that morals are objective.

Relativism is necessary to openness; and this is the virtue, the only virtue, which all primary education for more than fifty years has dedicated itself to inculcating.

I would agree that from the standpoint of keeping order in society, there are larger issues to consider in the education of children than simply whether we inculcate a sense of openness and toleration.   Even the liberals have their limits: they love to criminalize and otherwise repress certain forms of free speech such as racism and discrimination based on religion, gender or race.  Only the stupid unthinking liberal says all views should be equally allowed.  All that would do is create a rat's nest of social chaos.

Openness - and the relativism that makes it the only plausible stance in the face of various claims to truth and various ways of life and kinds of human beings - is the great insight of our times. The true believer is the real danger.

That's correct.  If you get it in your head that God wants you to bomb an abortion clinic, you won't be any more easily dissuaded from doing it than Christian apologists can be dissuaded from Christianity.   By battling against "true believers", we significantly reduce the possibility that some religious person will start thinking that measures which harm society are the will of God.

The study of history and of culture teaches that all the world was mad in the past; men always thought they were right, and that led to wars, persecutions, slavery, xenophobia, racism and chauvinism.

Would any fool disagree with this assessment?

The point is not to correct the mistakes and really be right; rather it is not to think you are right at all. (Bloom 1987)

Bloom was beginning a scathing critique of what is often called moral relativism. Note that Bloom mentions students entering university. One reason for this is that relativism is not a common position in contemporary philosophy or ethics, and most philosophers I know of think it is pretty clearly a mistaken position.

Then direct them to my blog, and I'll be happy to correct their mistaken view that any moral could possibly be "objective" or "absolute".

However, it is extremely common at the popular level.  Because relativism is is an important challenge to Christian ethics it is important to reflect on how Christians respond to this challenge.

Not so fast.  Your Christian faith requires that you prioritize your conformity to biblical teaching, above your opinion that moral relativism needs to be publicly refuted.  It doesn't matter if the bible authorizes you to do apologetics.  There are also passages that forbid you from wrangling words:

 14 Remind them of these things, and solemnly charge them in the presence of God not to wrangle about words, which is useless and leads to the ruin of the hearers. (2 Tim. 2:14 NAU)

 Yet you obviously could not do a very good job of refuting relativism unless you fought a moral relativist upon the precise meaning of words.  No, you cannot negate the full import of this passage with others like Jude 4.  First, that would be the fallacy of employing inerrancy as a hermeneutic (i.e., you trash an otherwise contextually justified interpretation of "don't wrangle words" because you are sure this interpretation could contradict something taught elsewhere in the bible).  Well excuse me, but because inerrancy is hotly debated even among inerrantists, with most Christian scholars denying it outright,  it seems it does not deserve to be exalted in our minds to the status of governing hermeneutic, thus it would be more prudent to avoid using it as a hermeneutic until there is as much universal agreement on it as we have for other tools of interpretation, such as "context" and "grammar", whose benefits no sane person denies.

Second, even if you insist on harmonizing "don't wrangle words" with "defend the faith!", the most plausible harmony would be that you defend the faith without wrangling words.  Sure, you might think that a defense that doesn't attack the heretic's reasons, is rather weak, but that is your problem:  your desire to prove wrong each basis the heretic or moral relativist has, might indeed be a better idea, but like I said, you are a Christian first.  You need to worry about conforming yourself to your own bible before you worry about launching a war of words against positions you disagree with.

Third, no, Dr. Flannagan, you cannot use "But Jesus and Paul had verbal wars with their own critics, and Christians must follow their example!" to get away from "don't wrangle words".  Common sense says that commands which are directed specifically to the Christians, take precedence over the more subjective controversial matter of whether we should do something merely because Jesus and Paul did it.  And if Jesus and Paul wrangled words with their critics, that appears to contradict "do not wrangle words", and only an inerrantist would choose to expend energy trying to harmonize this "alleged" contradiction.

Fourth,  given that inerrancy doesn't qualify as a hermeneutic, it is pretty safe to say that the pastorals, if written by Paul, were written in his old age, just before execution, and therefore it is highly likely that at this point in his life he looked back on all the verbal wars he initiated with the Jews about Christ being predicted in the OT (Acts 17:2-3, 17,  18:19, etc) and had concluded, even if he didn't expressly state it, that all this wrangling of words was useless and only did more to ruin than rehabilitate the hearers.

Finally, Paul's own example included times when he would skip town after discovering he was in over his intellectual head, such as his quickly skipping town after he discovered the philosopher's at Mar's Hill didn't find his presentation the least bit threatening.  Upon their laughter at the resurrection, Paul leaves (Acts 17:32-33).  Sorry, Dr. Flannagan, but I've written a comprehensive article showing that the warnings against debate in the pastorals, when properly interpreted, do indeed condemn 99% of all scholarly Christian efforts to refute concepts which the Christian scholars themselves deem "foolish and ignorant speculations".

Dr. Flannagan, do you think moral relativism is a foolish and ignorant speculation?  Then you are commanded to turn away from anybody who advocates it:

 23 But refuse foolish and ignorant speculations, knowing that they produce quarrels.
 24 The Lord's bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged,
 25 with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth,
 26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will. (2 Tim. 2:23-26 NAU)

No, Dr. Flannagan, you cannot get around the prohibition in v. 23 by noting that v. 24 ff require the Lord's bondservant to patiently teach those who are in error.  If you are an inerrantist, then you should reconcile v. 23 which what follows by saying you are to correct those who are in error without wrangling words.  You will say this calls for rather weak argument, but unfortunately, Paul's idea of correction had everything to do with the blind presumption that he was right, end of discussion, and nothing to do with scholarly consideration of the heretic's actual arguments.  When you are correcting those who are in error, you do so by warning them no more than twice, and you stay away from them if they don't acquiesce to Paul's viewpoint by the second warning:

  9 But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.
 10 Reject a factious man after a first and second warning,
 11 knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned.  (Tit. 3:9-11 NAU)

When you correct others, you do not engage in scholarly analysis of their various reasons for taking the position they do...instead you warn them.  Sorry, but Paul's idea of correcting error did not involve comprehensive analysis of the errant person's actual arguments.  You don't analyze another's argument by warning them. 

Flannagan continues:

    Relativism vs Objectivism: understanding the issues:

Christian’s, like Muslims and Jews, believe God has issued commands to human beings, and our moral duties are related to these commands.

And because moral relativism is true, Christians are divided on what exact moral duties anybody has under god.

No, Dr. Flannagan, you don't refute that point merely by saying Christian disagreement doesn't automatically falsify moral objectivism.  That's technically correct, but irrelevant in practical life.  The relativists are given nothing to worry about by your simply noting that objective morals could still exist despite Christians constantly disagreeing with each other about the matter.  So put your money where your mouth is: state clearly a specific moral proposition, and explain the reasons why you think it to be objective.  Stop sitting on the sidelines reminding us that no amount of in-house Christian debate necessarily disproves Christianity.

However, or not God exists or issues commands doesn’t depend on whether we think he does.

That's technically true.  But under that logic, whether or not the tooth-fairy exists or issues commands doesn't depend on whether we think she does.

You are wasting time with such technicalities. Give us the one moral proposition you believe to be the more clearly objective in its nature.

If God created the world, then this is a fact that occurred well before we were born and my believing or not believing it makes no difference to whether it occurred.

And if the tooth-fairy gave neanderthals money for teeth back in 150,000 b.c., then this is a fact that occurred well before we were born and my believing or not believing it makes no difference to whether it occurred.  I remind you to stop chanting about technicalities from the sidelines.  Get in the ring and put up your dukes.

If God did not create the world, hoping and wishing he has doesn't make the past change.

 If the tooth-fairy didn't give money to neaderthals for their teeth, hoping and wishing she would have, doesn't make the past change.

The same is true of God’s commanding, if God has issued commands then this is a fact, people may disagree with what he demands, but this disagreement doesn’t make any difference to whether the commands exist.

 That's a pretty big "if".  Go ahead...state the one moral command of God which you believe to be the one most clearly objective.  

And you are avoiding the whole purpose of debate.  The technicality that commands of God could still be real despite people disagreeing on the matter, is irrelevant to the practical goal of proving the moral relativist wrong.  We could agree with you on the technicality and that would still not give you the upper hand in the debate.  Now provide the most clearly objective moral you can think of, and your reasons for saying it is objective.

To illustrate the point here, return to the slogan I opened this talk with. Suppose someone was contemplating jumping off the sky tower. You responded “if you do that you’ll die” only to get the response. ‘Who are you to impose your belief in the law of gravity onto me?” I doubt anyone would be impressed by this response.

That's because no sane person denies the obvious scientific truth that gravity exists.  But assuring a jumper of the fatal effects of his intended actions, is a far cry from "adultery is objectively immoral".  Gravity's existence is far more empirically demonstrable than are "objective morals", even if not everything about gravity is known.  Gravity is subject to scientific testing and successful repeated predictions, it has far more an objective basis than does your own belief that adultery is objectively immoral.  Sorry Dr. Flannagan, but you are comparing apples to radio waves.

Whether or not the laws of gravity exist doesn’t depend on whether you believe it.

 I'll respond one last time to your time-wasting chants:  Whether the tooth-fairy exists doesn't depend on whether you believe it.  

Gods moral laws don’t differ from the laws or decrees by which he governs the universe. They either exist or they don’t.

 Ok...well...we are still waiting for you to state the specific moral proposition whose objective nature you believe to be the most clearly demonstrable.

This means that Christians are objectivists about morality. Objectivism holds that: certain moral standards are correct independently of whether you, I or our society believe they are or accept that they are.

 Yup, that's what Christian objectivism is, alright.  Now then, state the one moral proposition you believe is most clearly "objective along with your reasons for saying it is objective.

Some moral principles apply to people regardless of whether they choose to accept these principles, and if people do not accept these principles, they are making a mistake.

Yup, that's what Christian objectivists say alright.  Now then, state the one moral proposition you believe is most clearly "objective" along with your reasons for saying it is objective.

By contrast, relativists hold that moral hold that all moral judgements are correct or incorrect relative to different cultures or individuals. 

 That's correct. That's exactly why you are wrong in your prior statements to the effect that relativists are contradicting their own relativism by saying another's morals are "wrong".   I don't have to prove that my son's disobeying my imposed bedtime for him on a school night is objectively immoral, in order to reasonably characterize that rebellion as "wrong".  Not everything human beings say is "wrong" necessarily commits them to an objective standard.  I could tell my wife "adultery would be good for our marriage", she would scream "wrong!", but upon analysis, it would be proven that all she meant was that my proposal was a moral matter she disagreed with for personal reasons.

See my answer to Dr. Flannagan's second installment here.

My reply and challenge to Matthew Flannagan's objective morality, the baby-torture enigma, again

This is my reply to an article by Christian philosopher Matthew Flannagan entitled

The challenge of Moral Relativism:
Relativism vs Objectivism: understanding the issues:

Jun 19 (3 days ago)

by Matt Flannagan

While this post contains my direct challenge, I've also answered Flannagan point-by-point in each of his Challenge of Moral Relativism posts.  See answer to post 1, answer to post 2, answer to post 3.

I am strongly suspicious that Flannagan will do what he has done before, and what he is very good at...and escape answering my criticism on the merits, all because he thinks my reply is "off-topic".

But I've already called him on the carpet for this tactic.  I said:

I have a two-part response: a) you continue evading my most powerful rebuttal to you, and b) a request on how can I present you with my own scholarly rebuttals of your Christian beliefs in a way that doesn’t constitute me “changing the subject” or “evading the issue”...Second, I would like to know how I might go about presenting you with my criticism of bible inerrancy and my criticism of the Genocide book you co-authored by Copan, and present such in a way that doesn’t constitute my “changing the subject” or “evading” an issue.

 Flannagan did not specify how I might communicate to him certain challenges that would, in his opinion, technically go "off-topic" from a blog post he wrote.  Therefore he can hardly complain that I posted a strong rebuttal to his moral objectivism, in reply to his blog post wherein he asserts his belief in moral objectivism.

I told him before that under his criteria for what's off-topic, I'd be going "off-topic" if I wrote about green apples in reply to a post from him about red apples.  After all, he didn't raise the subject of green apples in his blog post, so discussion of green apples constitutes my "evasion" of the issue, amen?

(!?)

If Flannagan wishes to set forth any such trifling bullshit, let him remember Jesus who rebuked the Pharisees for focusing so much on technicalities that they ignored the more important stuff:

 23 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others. (Matt. 23:23 NAU)

Conservative inerrantist Christian scholar Craig Blomberg explains:

In the first two the Pharisees and scribes have misjudged priorities in God’s world; in the third and fourth they misjudge priorities in God’s Word. Minor matters are overly elevated; major ones are neglected. The former category includes tithing, even down to small herbs (“mint, dill and cummin”; cf. Lev 27:30). In the latter category appear “justice, mercy, and faithfulness.”…Christians in many ages have done a remarkable job of majoring on minors and minoring on majors. A scandal of the contemporary church is its unparalleled fragmentation into hundreds of denominations and groupings. Many of these divisions have been over issues nonessential to salvation. True Christians must stand uncompromisingly against all professing believers who promote teaching which, if embraced, would prevent people from being saved (Gal 1–2) but must bend over backwards to get along and cooperate with those who differ on doctrines that do not affect a person’s salvation (1 Cor 9:19–23). Otherwise our disunity seriously undermines Christian witness before a watching world.

Blomberg, C. (2001, c1992). Vol. 22: Matthew (electronic ed.).

Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 345).

Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

So even if my reply to Flannagan was technically "off-topic", doesn't prudence and wisdom counsel that Flannagan prioritize replying to my challenge as somewhat more important than the earth-shattering debauchery of going "off-topic"?

I cross-post here the reply I posted to Flannagan's blog, linked above:
--------beginquote----------------

1 response so far ↓

Barry

Jun 23, 2018 at 8:48 am

Matt said:

“This means that Christians are objectivists about morality. Objectivism holds that: certain moral standards are correct independently of whether you, I or our society believe they are or accept that they are.”

If that is true, then you should be able to establish the correctness of the proposition

“torturing babies to death solely for entertainment purposes is objectively immoral”

WITHOUT relying on what anybody else “believes or accepts” about that subject.

Indeed, the dictionaries tell us that “objective” means

“not dependent on the mind for existence”

 

So go ahead…demonstrate that that the proposition

“torturing babies to death solely for entertainment purposes is objectively immoral”

is a true fact “not dependent on the mind for its existence.”

Another dictionary defines ‘objective’ as:

“having reality independent of the mind”

So go ahead…demonstrate that that the above-cited moral proposition has “reality independent of the mind”.

You know…just like you also don’t need any human input whatsoever to demonstrate anything else that you would characterize as having “objective” existence, such as trees.

If you start asking me questions, you’ll be violating the definition of objectivity. You don’t need my input on anything, nor do you need to know whether I accept or believe any certain way about it, to achieve your own stated goal of demonstrating the above-cited moral proposition to be objectively true.

You could also clear things up by directly answering the question of why you think said baby-torture is objectively immoral in the first place.

 

Is it immoral because the bible tells you so?

Is it immoral because most humans say it is immoral?

 

is it immoral because you personally find it revolting?

 Is it immoral because all strong feelings about a moral issue necessarily come from God?

Some other reason or reasons?

I look forward to your replies,

Barry

--------end of quoted reply------------

I could have added more problems:

Many Christians are 5-Point Calvinists and believe God has infallibly predestined each individual sinner to make the exact choices that they do, including sin.  Calvinists deny that God wishes to save everybody, and they happily blame God as the ultimate author of sin and evil.  Calvinists say our sense of freewill is entirely illusory, we do not have the ability to deviate from whatever future course of action God has predetermined for us.

Logically, that would require Calvinists to believe that the reason some people think it is morally permissible to torture babies to death solely for entertainment purposes, is because God predestined them to think and feel that way.  Nothing justifies a person's moral opinion more than the truth "God infallibly predestined me to feel this way and I had no ability to deviate from this result."

Then there's the small problem of god requiring that teen girls endure death by burning if they engage in prostitution before leaving their priest-father's house (Leviticus 21:9).  This moral came from God, so...was it "objective" (i.e., applicable to all people regardless of culture)?

Then there's the small problem of whether rape would be objectively immoral if God caused a man to rape a women.  Flannagan would, of course, immediately retort that the question is illegitimate since nothing in the bible says God would cause a man to rape a woman.  I beg to differ:

Isaiah 13, full chapter
 1 The oracle concerning Babylon which Isaiah the son of Amoz saw.

 2 Lift up a standard on the bare hill, Raise your voice to them, Wave the hand that they may enter the doors of the nobles.
 3 I have commanded My consecrated ones, I have even called My mighty warriors, My proudly exulting ones, To execute My anger.
 4 A sound of tumult on the mountains, Like that of many people! A sound of the uproar of kingdoms, Of nations gathered together! The LORD of hosts is mustering the army for battle.
 5 They are coming from a far country, From the farthest horizons, The LORD and His instruments of indignation, To destroy the whole land.
 6 Wail, for the day of the LORD is near! It will come as destruction from the Almighty.
 7 Therefore all hands will fall limp, And every man's heart will melt.
 8 They will be terrified, Pains and anguish will take hold of them; They will writhe like a woman in labor, They will look at one another in astonishment, Their faces aflame.
 9 Behold, the day of the LORD is coming, Cruel, with fury and burning anger, To make the land a desolation; And He will exterminate its sinners from it.
 10 For the stars of heaven and their constellations Will not flash forth their light; The sun will be dark when it rises And the moon will not shed its light.
 11 Thus I will punish the world for its evil And the wicked for their iniquity; I will also put an end to the arrogance of the proud And abase the haughtiness of the ruthless.
 12 I will make mortal man scarcer than pure gold And mankind than the gold of Ophir.
 13 Therefore I will make the heavens tremble, And the earth will be shaken from its place At the fury of the LORD of hosts In the day of His burning anger.
 14 And it will be that like a hunted gazelle, Or like sheep with none to gather them, They will each turn to his own people, And each one flee to his own land.
 15 Anyone who is found will be thrust through, And anyone who is captured will fall by the sword.
 16 Their little ones also will be dashed to pieces Before their eyes; Their houses will be plundered And their wives ravished.
 17 Behold, I am going to stir up the Medes against them, Who will not value silver or take pleasure in gold.
 18 And their bows will mow down the young men, They will not even have compassion on the fruit of the womb, Nor will their eye pity children.
 19 And Babylon, the beauty of kingdoms, the glory of the Chaldeans' pride, Will be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah.
 20 It will never be inhabited or lived in from generation to generation; Nor will the Arab pitch his tent there, Nor will shepherds make their flocks lie down there.
 21 But desert creatures will lie down there, And their houses will be full of owls; Ostriches also will live there, and shaggy goats will frolic there.
 22 Hyenas will howl in their fortified towers And jackals in their luxurious palaces. Her fateful time also will soon come And her days will not be prolonged. (Isa. 13:1-22 NAU)

Logically:

Premise 1:  Everything God does, is morally good.

Premise 2: God causes some men to rape women.

Conclusion: Therefore, when a man's rape of a women was caused by God, that rape was morally good.

Can we take God's clear admission of responsibility for causing rape ("I will stir up the Medes..."), at face value?  Or will Flannagan argue that the only objective way to interpret this is by presupposing biblical inerrancy and thus tossing out any interpretation that contradicts another part of the bible?

Hosea 13 describes much the saem type of divinely-caused atrocities:

 1 When Ephraim spoke, there was trembling. He exalted himself in Israel, But through Baal he did wrong and died.
 2 And now they sin more and more, And make for themselves molten images, Idols skillfully made from their silver, All of them the work of craftsmen. They say of them, "Let the men who sacrifice kiss the calves!"
 3 Therefore they will be like the morning cloud And like dew which soon disappears, Like chaff which is blown away from the threshing floor And like smoke from a chimney.
 4 Yet I have been the LORD your God Since the land of Egypt; And you were not to know any god except Me, For there is no savior besides Me.
 5 I cared for you in the wilderness, In the land of drought.
 6 As they had their pasture, they became satisfied, And being satisfied, their heart became proud; Therefore they forgot Me.
 7 So I will be like a lion to them; Like a leopard I will lie in wait by the wayside.
 8 I will encounter them like a bear robbed of her cubs, And I will tear open their chests; There I will also devour them like a lioness, As a wild beast would tear them.
 9 It is your destruction, O Israel, That you are against Me, against your help.
 10 Where now is your king That he may save you in all your cities, And your judges of whom you requested, "Give me a king and princes "?
 11 I gave you a king in My anger And took him away in My wrath.
 12 The iniquity of Ephraim is bound up; His sin is stored up.
 13 The pains of childbirth come upon him; He is not a wise son, For it is not the time that he should delay at the opening of the womb.
 14 Shall I ransom them from the power of Sheol? Shall I redeem them from death? O Death, where are your thorns? O Sheol, where is your sting? Compassion will be hidden from My sight.
 15 Though he flourishes among the reeds, An east wind will come, The wind of the LORD coming up from the wilderness; And his fountain will become dry And his spring will be dried up; It will plunder his treasury of every precious article.
 16 Samaria will be held guilty, For she has rebelled against her God. They will fall by the sword, Their little ones will be dashed in pieces, And their pregnant women will be ripped open. (Hos. 13:1-16 NAU)

Once again, how can Flannagan accuse the pagan invaders who do these things of being objectively immoral if they are, in fact, doing what God wanted them to do?

Since when is it objectively immoral to do something God wanted you to do?

Does Flannagan think that sometimes God wants people to engage in objectively immoral acts?
 


If God wants you to force women to endure abortion-by-sword (v. 16), and if everything God wants is "good", then it is "good" to obey when God impells you to hack pregnant women to death.

And yet something tells me that Matthew Flannagan would probably insist that hacking a pregnant woman with a sword and yanking out the fetus constitutes an objectively immoral act.  And so, under Hosea 13, the infinitely good God wants certain people to engage in objectively immoral acts.

Now you know why I turned down several offers to become a Christian philosopher.