Metaphysics, Ethics, and Judgementalism

[Mountaineer]

The allegation that "there is no absolute good or evil" is not grounded in a moral point of view.  The issue is not ethics.  The issue is larger; it is a vast metaphysical posture that "trickles down" to infect morality.  For the relativists I know (and they do not all espouse the same relativist ideology), the human world is simply not the kind of place where anything can exist as "absolute."  The things that everyone assumes, or everyone takes for granted, or everyone accepts, are just that -- we accept them, or take them for granted.  There is nothing "behind" them.  That's why most of the debates about, say, abortion are not really ethical debates.  They are debates about metaphysical issues -- "What is life?"  "When does life begin?"  "What is a person?"  And there are no "absolute" answers to those questions; there is nothing "behind" them that would allow us to address them successfully.  And, in my experience, people will hold to this metaphysical picture of reality with enormous zeal.  Such folks are endlessly fluid about ethical issues, but mostly inflexible about the metaphysical issues.  They are relativist when it comes to morality, absolutist when it comes to metaphysics.  They will accept all sorts of ethical proposals, but only a tiny range of metaphysical positions, beyond which there simply are no metaphysical possibilities.  So don't argue the morality; challenge their metaphysics.  Right?  Other views?

... Mountaineer

[MachineGhost]

Not sure what this is about but all morality is metaphysical.  The physical universe is as it is.  Either you obey those physical laws or you find a way to impose your reality onto it.  In the animal kingdom, they don't appear to impose morality onto reality except maybe in-group in a mutualism/utilitarianism sense.  Only humans do.

P.S.  I find it interesting that cockroaches are necro-cannibals but obviously not homocidal cannibals.

[Libertarian666]

Here are the rules for arguing, if I recall correctly:

If your opponent argues legality, argue morality.
If your opponent argues morality, argue epistemology.
If your opponent argues epistemology, argue metaphysics.
If your opponent argues metaphysics, you are arguing with Darth Vader, and you are in trouble. :-)

[moda0306]

The allegation that "there is no absolute good or evil" is not grounded in a moral point of view.  The issue is not ethics.  The issue is larger; it is a vast metaphysical posture that "trickles down" to infect morality.  For the relativists I know (and they do not all espouse the same relativist ideology), the human world is simply not the kind of place where anything can exist as "absolute."  The things that everyone assumes, or everyone takes for granted, or everyone accepts, are just that -- we accept them, or take them for granted.  There is nothing "behind" them.  That's why most of the debates about, say, abortion are not really ethical debates.  They are debates about metaphysical issues -- "What is life?"  "When does life begin?"  "What is a person?"  And there are no "absolute" answers to those questions; there is nothing "behind" them that would allow us to address them successfully.  And, in my experience, people will hold to this metaphysical picture of reality with enormous zeal.  Such folks are endlessly fluid about ethical issues, but mostly inflexible about the metaphysical issues.  They are relativist when it comes to morality, absolutist when it comes to metaphysics.  They will accept all sorts of ethical proposals, but only a tiny range of metaphysical positions, beyond which there simply are no metaphysical possibilities.  So don't argue the morality; challenge their metaphysics.  Right?  Other views?

... Mountaineer

Metaphysics could be a better way to start. However, you're still left trying to prove  (or at least lend some more inductive evidence to) your claim of your God's existence (still waiting for some), and that any objective, deductive moral reality can naturally flow from the existence of a God (it doesn't).

But to go back, aren't most religious debates essentially metaphysical debates first and moral debates second (or perhaps even third or fourth)?  To think that religion has failed to prove its point on simply arguing in the wrong realm I think is a huge mischaracterization... It's simply, as far as I can tell, a very poor use of consistent logic and reason.

Another point, I think those who even know what metaphysics is actually accept a pretty wide range of possibilities as to what we are. However, they are willing to accept certain one as true for the purposes of going through the daily life as they deem to be relatively correct. It's not that the philosopher isn't willing to entertain the idea that we don't really exist or that there is a God or other planes of existence... It's just that all of his senses and other seemingly intelligent beings around him are a constant reminder that by gosh he DOES seem to exist, and on the same plane of existence every day.