Why Moral Relativism Is Dangerous [And Disproves Itself!]
Vložit
- čas přidán 4. 08. 2024
- Trent Horn, Catholic Answers Apologist, shares how Moral Relativism is more dangerous than it may seem. He also gives rebuttals to 3 common abjections to absolute morality.
Master the art of defending your faith! Trent Horn teaches this course on Evidence for Catholic Moral Teaching. Watch lectures, read materials, and take quizzes at your own pace. Sign up now!
www.schoolofapologetics.com/c...
00:00 Introduction
00:23 Dictatorship of Relativism
01:40 Contradictions of Relativism
02:55 Disagreement Rebutted
04:01 Moral Dilemmas Rebutted
04:44 Judgementalism Rebutted
05:27 Moral Standards
06:30 School of Apologetics
![Don’t Do This in Religion Debates [4 Mistakes You Should Avoid]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/U_ufxNf7kg0/mqdefault.jpg)
![Don’t Do This in Religion Debates [4 Mistakes You Should Avoid]](/img/tr.png)
As a french catholic, its a good subject for today! Here in France, everybody have relativist meaning! We need more apologetic! Thanks! Bravo !
Your country was the country of the French Revolution, but also the country of great catholic monarchs, so keep fighting, I will pray for you and your Country.
P.s.
Can you pray for me and my country (germany) too, it's similar here.
I cant speak for all france, but Paris (aside from the tourist side) is an absolute dump like everyother western city nowadays
I am reading this bk “The Synodal Process is a Pandora’s Box” forward written by Cardinal Burke, excellent
@@thinkingandwondering4725 Yeah I'll pray for you. I have a part of my family in Germany (Hambourg). Can you tell me something about the next step of German's Synode? Is it applied? I followed him anxiously... What the next?
You have too a great theologien (Tubingen catholic school) in Germany !
@@geoffroycty1427 Thank you Brother 😊,
The next step ? They will continue ignoring the Popes commands and bless gay-relationships after that I guess they will ordinated female priests and the whole "modern programm" but I hope that will never happen.
We are here, we are a small minority but we are here.
Reminds me of the book of Judges. “Every man did what was right in his own eyes.”
It’s in the video
This. As scientists we are now forced to defend even the most basic elements of the scientific method. In an age of moral relativism, the step toward relativism in all things, science included, is far too narrow. Thank you, Trent Horn.
As a scientist are you forced to defend the firmament? That a virgin woman can give birth to a baby boy? That unleavened bread and wine can become the blood and body of a 2,000 year old decedent?
Even gender is apparently relative to whatever a person feels now, and it's wreaking havoc in society, and is esp. a danger to children.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 Christians insist a man cannot become a woman. Then, in the same breath insist the Virgin Birth, the Eucharist and the Resurrection are all undeniably true. Christians and Transgender activist have something deeply in common. Both believe in ideas which are in conflict with known facts.
@@saintejeannedarc9460
You do understand that sexual gender and gender identity are two entirely different things don't you dear ?
@@saintejeannedarc9460
I think you will find religion wreaks far much more "havoc" than peoples gender identity dear
I am a Catholic from Philippines. I was a agnostic before but not now anymore. God is Good. Thank you for explaining the doctrines of the Catholic Church.
Welcome back
"Thats true for you but not for me"... whats worst is that many modern catholics have the same mind set...
So called Liberal Catholics was the goal of the V2 innovators.
Its difficult for a society that rejects a central moral authority such as God or the Church to accept that morality itself is in any way objective and normative. Without the central authority we are left only with our own limited perspectives to figure right from wrong. Even the secular state drives its sense of morality from the personal subjectivity of the ruling class, be it voters or authoritarians. It was the inevitable circular enlightenment result of the protestant rebellion from the temporal authority Christ instituted in the Church.
So true, not many people understand the direct connection between Protestantism and the secularization of Europe that resulted. For extensive reading on the subject, "The Unintended Reformation" by Brad S. Gregory explains this in comprehensive details.
The math test and moral dilemma examples are genius. Just because people disagree doesn't mean that they're both right - after all, we're only human, we make mistakes and are wrong all the time. If we try to hold ourselves to a human standard (rather than the standard of God and the higher truth), we'll always be wrong sometimes.
Wow, this video came around for me at a good time. I always knew what the Church taught, but I couldn't reach the conclusion through logical means by myself. Thank you for the guidance.
Thank for this!
Really appreciate this video.
great presentation
Excellent work Trent 👏
Thank you so much for this video, this is such a common belief these days that truth is relative. Thank you for speaking truth and teaching people how to disprove this view 🙏
Something important to remember is that the relative never exists without an absolute, and that the contrary of an extreme position is not necessarily the polar opposite position, expecially when there can be nuances. So the opposite of relativism is not manichaeistic absolutism, but the idea that some absolute truths exists, while others are only relative. For example, human laws are meant to be good, but they cannot be considered neither worthless nor absolutely good (they try to be the best in a idealistic way, where the absolute to which they point is conceived in a metaphysical sense)
Even the theory of relativity holds that time is relative but the speed of light in every inertial frame is ABSOLUTE!
Wow. I'm learning about relativism and objective truths at my Catholic university right now. Its crazy I never heard about relativism until my class and now theres a video about it with the great apologist Trent Horn. It's awesome. The public schools teach us relativism from a young age so it's hard to break from that "brainwashing"
Thats so true!
The "everything is relative and subjective" arguement can't condemn someone "being judgemental" as being a bad thing because to it's only bad to the individual who thinis so.
Great topic, logical thanks,
I am reading “The Synodal Process is a Pandora’s Box” forward written by Cardinal Burke, I highly recommend it
more videos like this plzz
That last verse in Judges is such a chilling line.
Trent Horn❤
ST. THOMAS AQUINAS: “Because of the diverse conditions of humans, it happens that some acts are virtuous to some people, as appropriate and suitable to them, while the same acts are immoral for others, as inappropriate to them.”
Ooooo. That quote from Kings.
I watched a poltergeist video today and saw a book fly out of the shelf titled "Moral Relativism." I wasn't too sure what it was and this video popped up at the top of my suggested videos. Coincidence? I don't think so.
This is something protestants and Catholics can heartily agree on. An enthusiastic thumbs up and thank you, wish it was a longer treatment of this crucial matter that has become a blight on our culture now.
Moral Relativism is not a good method for determining morality. Reading ancient books is not a good method either.
@@SergeantSkeptic686 Reading certain ancient books, like the Bible, is still a good start to get ones mind back on track for why there is a moral code and why there should be one. Societies always fall into decay w/out one.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 The Declaration of Independence, The United States Bill of Rights and the United States Constitution are not perfect rules or procedures for determining morality. However, they are superior to the Bible and Trent Horn’s ideas. Did you know Trent is on record as being willing to stone his wife to death? Is stoning your wife, more or less dangerous than moral relativism?
Any good book on the subject? I’m really interested in morality topics
We have many of free articles at www.catholic.com/search?q=morality that you can peruse to start. Also, check out our best-selling books at shop.catholic.com/books/?sort=bestselling - some written by Trent Horn. Another great source is to read books from the saints such as Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, etc. Hope that helps! -Zach
@@catholiccom thank you! God bless you
The truth of Saint Joseph’s virginity matters, too. 💚
Hello, Catholic Answers, My name is Roman and I have been struggling with this topic for over two years now. I think this video makes sense but there's just one more question. What about evidence? Is evidence in itself subjective? After debating with people for three years about different religions I've come to this conclusion.
Kind regards,
Roman
There are definitely certain laws and absolutes that show order in the earth and in creation. That's a good start to not get unmoored about the arguments that everything is relative.
How do you explain hawking for pharma implicit or explicit? Reasonable people should believe the government? What would you have done in Hitler's Germany? nevermind the hypothetical. What did you do to prevent the injury and death they caused. Hide behind blocking? Relativism? Explain your record.
Maybe you said you were just following orders?
How do we decide if the Pope is right or wrong?
@trollpatrol7215
Why we need Pope when we have Jesus?
Got any quotations of people saying "that's true for you, but not for me". The more prominent the individual, the better you make your point.
How many of these relativists are out there?
I can't really quote any specific person but I've definitely seen it said before by many laymen atheists and agnostics.
If we define moral nihilism and moral absolutism as follows, where would moral relativism fall?
Moral Absolutism = at least one moral principle cannot be destroyed by man.
Moral Nihilism = every moral principle can be destroyed by man.
Why wouldn't you put transcript on this? It would non native English speakers.
Disagreement isn't why educated people deny moral realism. The issue is that moral statements appear to be unfalsifiable.
There doesn't seem to be any way to reliably distinguish between two competing moral claims.
I'd love to be wrong; I wish morality was objective. I've just never heard a good argument in favor of that position.
The universe is set up in such a way that bad moral decisions will lead to bad consequences. Consider the law "Do not murder". A society which does not recognise it as a moral law, will quickly cease to exist, cease being a part of the universe. In this way, existence puts laws on you. These are physical laws like, you have to eat to continue existing. But also moral laws like, this is how you must act in society in order for your society to continue existing.
So they are often falsifiable in theory, it's just that in practice you have to wait generations for the consequences to play out fully, and it's impossible in practice to control all the relevant variables over the evolution of society. So testing them with the scientific method is simply impossible. We are left with religions, which are grand-scale experiments in morality over thousands of years and which attempt to figure out the objective moral laws.
As a relativist allow me to present a counter argument:
At 2:05 Trent Claims that moral relativism is an oxymoron. This is a funny claim, i’ll grant. But its not true. When a relativist says “Relativism is true” They’re usually referring to the objective idea that at a fundamental level all morals are rooted it in intuition. Aka relative to the person.
Of course when we think about the nature of objectivity, we know that means there must he something we can appeal to mediate a disagreement. And that doesnt just have to be an entity. It can be a concept that both parties agree to. For example, logic. Logic is not objectively true. But all people believe in logic, therefore there is an objective matter of what is logical. Therefore disagreements can be resolved objectively by appealing to the commonly held standard. By proving that ones statements dont align with logic, you are calling them out on an internal contradiction.
In this same sense, even something like objectivity itself is relative. You cannot prove the sophist to be incorrect. But since all people who arent sophists believe in objectivity, it can be appealed to for most people.
This does not work for morality, as all people do NOT have a common framework of morality, therefore it cannot be appealed to.
While it may be possible to resolve disagreements between two people of a similar moral foundation this way, it cannot be done if there are foundational disagreements.
When people (especially christians) hear of subjective morality, they usually think that means “oh morality doesnt matter do whatever you want”. But this is not what a moral-antirealist perspective entails. Just because something is subjective does not mean it has no value. I can say “murder is wrong” as an anti realist because I have values, they just aren’t objective. Again just because they arent objective doesnt mean they dont matter.
If someone has a fundamental disagreement with my moral framework, I acknowledge that disagreement cannot be resolved and we will simply have to part ways. But in hard-realistic theistic world view you also have no way of resolving such a conflict, yet you claim you do.
ἀνὴρ ἕκαστος τὸ εὐθὲς ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς αὐτοῦ ἐποίει Judges 21, 25
About 6 years ago a Catholic friend told me: "You can worship any god you want, the Catholic Church now accepts that." At the time I was still an atheist, and yet that statement shocked me.
Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or the free practice thereof. Sound familiar? In America you can worship any god, or none at all.
@@SergeantSkeptic686 I think the point here is less to do with the liberty to worship whichever God you want, indeed the Church is absolutely pro-freedom of religion, but rather that the implication of the friend was that it makes no difference which God you believe in. Even a small knowledge of world religions demonstrates that that would be a bizarre statement
Your friend was wrong then. The second commandment of I Am the Lord Your God, you shall not have any ideals or gods before Me. Still stands in the Catholic Church. Its impossible for the Church to accept the gods when the God is the Head.
@@phelimkennedy6653 The history of the Catholic Church is theocracy between King and Church. Trent's comments seem anti-American. I would not be surprised if he opposes the First Amendment; it's freedoms of speech and religion.
@@loganw1232 The Catholic Church has no lawful authority in the United States. America does not recognize the 10 Commandments. To America, the Bible is a book. We have the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Many "relativists" hold moral truths and facts about reality to be distinct categories. Notice how Trent's examples explicitly do or can refer to moral claims.
Then many "relativists" have no recourse when someone bigger and stronger and more politically connected would rather turn their hides into leather than suffer their sophisticated taxonomy lessons for another exhausting second.
English is not my first language so forgive me for my bad grammar. Don't we Catholics apply moral relativism by saying something was acceptable during biblical times because it was the culture of those people? An example would be older men marrying a very young woman and also the view on immigration.
It's a good question. A couple of points: 1) God is the steward of all truth, so if God permitted it for those people at that time in history, He had a good reason. 2) We can't judge the past in the lens of our modern-day norms because both the past and present have nuance. For example, we associate sex with marriage today, but back then, some older men took younger "wives" to care for them without sex. This is the reasoning (in part) for our belief in the perpetual virginity of Our Lady, Blessed Mary.
@@enshala6401 God may be the steward of truth, but the Hebrew Bible is simply the writings of ignorant barbarians.
Often I've found I was adding an embellished notion of biblical approval to something the Bible simply stated happened. Jacob had multiple wives but that doesn't mean polygamy is moral. It happened and Jacob may or may not have been aware of the law that Moses would restore in an imperfect way and that Christ would restore more perfectly. Admissions such as these actually make the Bible appear more honest to me since they are embarrassing to the faith as we are aware of it today. Much like the failures of the Apostles being retained in the New Testament.
@@user-gs4oi1fm4l There are scripture verses in which the Bible does authorize immoral conduct. Rape for example is authorized by Moses.
I think that there is a critical (though easy-to-miss) difference between the moral relativism you bring up versus the actual Catholic arguments on morally problematic issues found in biblical times.
Most Catholic arguments I am familiar with on these issues is not that slavery was ever a moral good, or that polygamy and divorce were ever good (Jesus actually explicitly denied this was the case.), or that it was okay because of the culture, but that they were necessary evils to avoid even graver evils that would have resulted in the times. Another argument I've heard is that such things were always wrong, but God just slowly revealed more and more moral truths to humans as they became more intellectually advanced.
Some questions. If objective moral values exist, then why doesn’t God tell us what they are? If burning women for the imaginary crime of witchcraft is wrong, why didn’t God tell the Catholic Church not to do it during the Middle Ages? If slavery is objectively immoral, why doesn’t the Bible condemn it, rather than allowing it? If objective moral values exist, why doesn’t God clearly let us know what those values are? Matthew 15:3-4 has Jesus saying, “For God said . . . ‘Anyone who curse their father or mother is to be put to death.’” Is it objectively moral to kill a child who curses a parent?
This is a really good argument. Why are objective morals hidden if they're not fake? And of course I don't have an answer. But it's not like throwing away objective morality makes things any brighter. Whatever morals man makes, man can also destroy. Man can make it moral to be secular one day, and immoral to be secular the next. That's not good.
Dictatorship of relativism... the rule of relativism
I'd appreciate more digging into moral relativism. Does God necessitate morality? It makes sense that an objective morality necessitates God, but the inverse does not appear to be *necessarily* true by way of reason.
Morality is the cognitive process of differentiating between human intentions, decisions, and actions that are appropriate from those inappropriate. The recognition and evaluation of the consequences our choices have with regards to ourselves and others. My NOT believing in a mythological god in no way impedes the ability of forming such moral assessments.
We are self aware conscious pain and emotion feeling individuals capable of love or hate, incredible acts of altruism or depravity. It's how we navigate through life and these potential extremes that define us, not our belief ( or lack of ) in anyone's specific subjective invisible "God"
I agree that truth matters. But it makes me wonder why misrepresentation of Protestant beliefs are such a large part of your program.
As rhetorically powerful as the argument "relativism is self-contradictory, as to assert it as an objective fact means that relativism is not true" may be, I find it increasingly shallow. If we assume the atheistic position to be true, it seems to me obvious that a nihilistic ethic would follow. There is nothing that underpins or sets morality, therefore the best one can do is set subjective standards and work from the there. At this point the relativist is not arguing that their moral framework is "true", but rather is saying that they think it is preferable.
I agree the disagreement argument for relativism is not the strongest, however the response here I find equally uncompelling. It is plain to see that where people agree is not simply agreement on the fact, but reaching the same conclusion based on frameworks which ma or may not be similar. Eg a utilitarian may give one argument against murder which is very different to that of a virtue ethicist. As Catholics we would even say that despite finding the correct answer the utilitarian is incorrect about the morality of murder.
With dilemmas, I feel like this is not exactly used as an argument for relativism, but a technique within a discussion about morality to convince someone of your conclusions. It would seem strange to me to hear someone arguing against objectivism and rebutting "Moral dilemmas" as an argument in favour of objectivism because otherwise why would be bother having a conversation about something. I think your attack seems to be akin to "If nothing matters, then why bother trying convince me to agree with you?" but it somewhat misses the point as just because you believe something is subjective doesn't mean that you don't care what someone thinks about that topic (especially if it is going to impact you). I may think that literature is subjective, but that doesn't mean I have no right to convince you that the lord of the rings was written better than a random modern fantasy novel you pull from the shelf. Similarly one can make arguments about music, art, hobbies etc. One can debate what standards one should use and how things rank within those standards without claiming an objective basis.
On judgmentalism, presupposing relativism is true, it falls out of that that people can hold whatever standard they like. Therefore even though there is no objective moral issue with a judgmental ethic (as per the relativistic worldview), this is baked into most subjective standards relativists use as it is essential for a consistent subjective ethic.
On your point about moral standards, I think many relativists would accept this and argue that this is a reason in favour of them arguing for their subjective moral standards, despite them not being objective facts. Moral standards in this sense is less of an argument of "right" or "wrong" but of "should" or "should not", where these shoulds are based on their subjective standards, usually these days based on utilitarian presuppositions as that is supposedly on average going to lead to the best outcome for oneself.
To clarify my own position, I am a devout Catholic objectivist, but I find that this topic in particular is not given the respect it deserves because it initially seems so easily dismissed as self-contradictory
For a 6.5 minute presentation on the topic, I completely disagree with you that his treatment was unjustifiably shallow. (Haha the irony!) Are you familiar with the classical Greek method of teaching a subject? For any given course, there are three passes. All three cover the same scope of the material, but the level of depth with each pass increases dramatically. So, Trent, a CA Apologist, gave pass one in 6.5 minutes. Then Cy (sp?) from CA came on to provide a link to an in-depth course on apologetics taught by another CA apologist (Jimmy Akin) where topics such as these are treated with more depth. Interested parties have lots of resources to draw upon for further discussion. Trent's presentstion gave us a good intro to the objections relativists routinely give us objectivists. That's my complaint about your complaint. 😜 I'll address your other specific complaints in subsequent responses.
@@enshala6401 This is a fair enough point, one can only expect so much from a short video like this. My use of the word shallow was specifically referring to the "self-contradictory" retort which I hear in a lot of places, and not about Trent in his overall approach to the topic. I admit however this is not entirely clear from my comment. My response was largely to advocate for the relativist position in what I experience to be a culture (within the Church) which dismisses relativism out of hand. My concern is that a shallow treatment of the subject shuts down conversation between individuals inside the faith with family members outside.
To what extent would you agree that a typical Catholic relating these points to a typical relativist would come across as pompous and/or dismissive of the relativists arguments before you even get into a conversation about any particular ethical topic? My inclination that the Catholic would not come across well most of the time
EDIT: I look forward to your subsequent responses. I by no means think my points are compelling arguments in favour of relativism, but feel they are at least a good starting point for a devils advocate position
How many people actually talk the way Horn has framed the discussion in this video?
I think I've been hearing "that's true for you" in a mocking tone by apologists for 20 years yet never heard a skeptic say that in real life.
@@George-zj9rr I think that is very much part of my point. I think Trent does typically try to represent the other side accurately. I feel like relativism is one of the exceptions
These are good points. I would love to see a more at-length debate between Trent Horn and a hardcore relativist. I think that there's an important distinction between hardcore relativist intellectuals and the typical left-leaning Western person that sometimes gets overlooked on our side. I think your average liberal person has a kind of inconsistent cross between objectivism and relativism where things THEY don't do (fighting wars, running companies, hiding documents in Mar-A-Largo) are matters of intrinsic morality, but things they actually do (abortion, transgender surgeries, and pretty much anything related to sex) are subjective and to force them is morally wrong. (This worldview, by the way, is the one that Trent effectively destroys in this video.) Lots of Catholic responses to relativism seem to deal more with this kind of "relativist" than they do to an actual hard-core relativist who genuinely believes that all morals are just a byproduct of evolution and have no actual binding nature.
This view, of course, can still be retorted, but doing so is inherently going to be intrinsically tied to proving the existence of a higher power, because, as you mention, nihilism follows pretty logically if atheism is assumed.
Your rebuttals are conflating different points.
When a moral relativist is saying "killing is always wrong", they're not saying it's objectively always wrong, in all moral views. They're saying that in their view, there's never a good reason for killing.
That's not the same as saying that killing is objectively a moral wrong thing.
Same goes for "this is objectively wrong" - the phrase, in a non-scholarly setting, simply means "Assuming my morals, there's no circumstance under which this action could have been right.". For example, assuming some rights-based morals, torture could be objectively wrong. Or it can simply be hyperbole.
Morals are nothing more than an axiomatic base goal (or goals), and the evaluation of how given actions align with that goal.
Here's a thought:
If I do accept Gods morals, but only because I value human, or even just personal, well-being, and thus seek the eternal reward and afterlife and Gods blessing, are my morals not based entirely on my subjective view of human well-being?
And if we ALL aim for human well-being, then God is just a bully that enforces His morals upon us. Making morals (at least His) subjective...
If I don't value my own and others well-being, or if I value spiting God, then I have no reason to accept His morals. (But if morals were truly objective, that obviously couldn't happen, could it?)
Morals do not become objective because we all agree on what they are. They are only objective if they exist independently of the mind.
(Everybody that speaks English agrees that "hello" is a greeting - that does not make it an objective fact that that is what the word means, even in English. If we all changed our minds, it could mean something else.)
If you want to show that morals are objective, you either need to show something like how to prove or derive morals, or physically point to a place where morals exist as some kind of physical phenomena.
Someone who believes that all morals are created by man also believes that all morals can be destroyed by man.
The claim that theistic morality is somehow "objective" is ridiculous. Theists are merely substituting their own subjective moral standards with the morals standards of the god they subjectively determine represents the "correct objective" morality. 🙄🤔
If mankind can create gods ( which they can ) and use said "gods" as a basis for morality, ( which they do ) then mankind can destroy gods ( which they do ) then mankind can indeed "destroy morality" that's based upon the perceived desires/nature of said "Gods" 😉
@@theboombody Absolutely.
God has nothing to do with morality.
Here is an argument: suppose there was a God that is all loving, omniscient and omnipotent and then suppose that there was a God that is all hating, omniscient and omnipotent; which is God? Any argument that works for one equally works for the other. If God was goodness itself then you should easily be able to provide an argument why the all loving God is the real God. Additionally, saying God is Goodness is a tautology as the is of identity is being used. Thus, saying God is Goodness is the same as saying God is himself, which does not tell us whether god is all loving or all hating.
Believe whatever you want. Morality is defined only by us humans and in many different ways.
There’s is nothing wrong is homosexual attraction. It is something they cannot help. You can be a celibate same sex attracted catholic. Leave the same sex attracted catholics alone. They are doing their best.
@weaponofchoice-tc7qs Clarify?
What?
We need the "Why papacy is dangerous" next 😂
If Humans need religion for morality why was crime higher in the 70s and 80s and 90s than today when rates of religious identfication are declining?
Correlation in very different types of data statistically manipulated to prove a point isnt the same as causation.
crime isn't immoral. doing immoral things is immoral
Generally Catholic morality comes from the Bible (ancient books), the Magisterium (the people who covered up child sexual abuse) and Natural Law (always used in a self serving way). We can do way better than Catholic morality. God gave humans the ability to communicate with each other. The ability to use logic, reason and learn from mistakes. Humans came up with the Bill of Rights, Poetry, Literature and great strides in technology. Humans are capable of determining their morality. Modern Americans don't need to consult ancient books written by ignorant barbarians or a defunct Church based in Italy and currently run by an Argentinean.
A Church that falls from its standards is better than a society that has no standards. Atheists are just vessels for the evil to prey upon. And (assuming you’re not already consumed) the devil will convince the righteous to allow for evil until they’re in hell.
@trollpatrol7215 Racial minorities have faced sever difficulties that I did not have to face. I'm awed by their strength.
I think Trent's point about "there is no moral truth" being self refuting isn't quite true. They aren't making a moral statement but a broader truth statement. They can say there are some truths out there, and one of the truths is that there are no moral truths. The statement itself is not a moral statement therefore it isn't self refuting. Now if someone says all truth is relative, then that is self refuting.
How is that self refuting though? If someone states "all truth is relative" as a subjective statement in itself then it's not self refuting. The only problem is that the words, "That's subjective" goes on and on and on.
@@RomansMentalHealthAssociation the word that makes it objective is "all"
@@John-yq9qx Gotcha. I think this video makes sense but Id ask do you think evidence in itself is subjective?
@@RomansMentalHealthAssociation I'm not quite sure what you mean. You'd have to give me a specific example.
@@John-yq9qx For example, if you try convincing someone Jesus rose from the dead with evidences such as the apostles leaving everything they have and following Jesus their whole lives and even going as far as martyrdom, some people will look at that and not consider that as sufficient evidence. Some people will see that as efficient evidence for Jesus' resurrection but others wont. This is what I've experienced through debating with people for three years now and I can't find any answers from Christians about this question.
How about you stop blending the terms: Relative Truths with Subjective Morality and defining them as the same thing.
That would be an excellent start.
There is no morality in objective reality though
There is, demonstrably. Morality exists. Many moralities. it's just that moral statements can't be proven true or false.
@@ForOne814 You're wrong. Morality is a human construct. Therefore morality is relative. A society's mores is not necessarily another's.
@@jacuz169 everything is a human construct.
Learn to read, that's literally what I said.
@@ForOne814 My apologies. You are right, I didn't read well at all.
@@jacuz169 sorry for the harsh wording then.
_Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness._ Is that moral relativism? _WE THE PEOPLE!_ Absolutely not *King and Church.*
I'm confused about your comment. How did you connect a video discussing the dangers of moral relativism to the ideas that which the United States is built on?
@@austinrosas Good question. I'm making a few points. The founding documents of the United States are superior for developing morality than the Catholic system. (Bible, Magisterium and Natural Law) I'm also asking a question. Is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness moral relativism?The answer is Yes. Liberty to live my life the way I want, liberty for you live your life the way you want. The Revolutionary War was specifically fought to rid the Colonist of King and Church. We the people took over after King and Church were militarily defeated by George Washington.
Every Christian argument against non-theism: "it disproves itself!"
Wishful thinking and projection. What you mean to say is "Any way of thinking other than my current dogma is unthinkable to me."
Faith means believing simply because you want to.
Since Trent can't be bothered to get into his comments, I gotta unsubscribe. Best wishes.
…and I can just state that Catholic morality is immoral. Brute fact for reasonable/rationale people.
Can you state why that is
@@SaintJoseph911 well, I really don’t find eternal torture that appealing, I’d strongly condemn slavery and I would treat my LGBT neighbors with respect and not Christian ‘love‘. 😂
@@SaintJoseph911 he disagrees with it. The Christian world established the paradigm of equality under God that the modernist worldview takes for granted. The Christian world made the biggest stride in eradicating slavery, especially when compared to Pagan and atheistic regimes from the 20th century. Hell is only immoral if you presume yourself to be perfect and undeserving of it and no regard appears to be paid to forgiveness or purgatory perhaps because since we are already perfect we do not need any offer of reconciliation with divine perfection. Since we are already perfect it also means that we should be free to pervert our bodies to unnatural ends without any moral consequence to ourselves, others or society, let alone the God who designed it all. Perhaps instead we should promote abortion, disintegrated families, gender disphoria, hedonism, materialism, statism, or any of the other brilliant ideas humanity has come up with to justify the morality of our own wills.
@@user-gs4oi1fm4l you don't have to write all this. I know. This person's ignorant response was all I needed to hear to see their judgement is too clouded to see reason. These people don't want truth. I won't argue with them on the internet. God Himself could come down & these people would "cancel" him. However, thank you for your response
@@SaintJoseph911 🤣 you ask a question, don’t like the answer and just assert your own intellectual superiority. Well done!
Murder isn’t wrong if the outcome is that my enemies are dead. The ends justify the means, morality isn’t real.
If morality isn't real, then the rape and molestation of kids as a means of obtaining happiness is justified
There is no god, all morality comes from human beings. Human beings imprison murders. So there is that.
Murder or killing?
There’s Just War certainly.
@@user-uc1yb7hy2n Murder is specific. Killing is broad. "Murder" is the unlawful killing of a human being. "Killing" can be lawful. War, self-defense, abortion (depending on which state), lawful execution...
@@SergeantSkeptic686 agreed.