Atheists who want to be consistent have to deny an obvious feature of reality: objective morality, and it’s an awfully high price to pay. The problem with relativism grounded in human subjects is that humans are multiple and they are whimsical. There are many of them, resulting in many “moralities,” and their moralities change over time because they are not grounded in anything fixed and moral in itself. But [God] is a personal being, but he is also the ground of being. He doesn’t arbitrarily give commands according to his changing whim-ordinary subjectivism-because God doesn’t change. Rather, his commands flow forth from the objective quality of his unchanging, morally perfect nature. Here are some additional resources on relativism: Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air rsn.pub/3SbHXXN Relativism Self-Destructs rsn.pub/3vTCRYU Encountering a Relativist rsn.pub/3vHtJ9p A Society Where Justice Is Grounded in Preference rsn.pub/48Tqj2k “Society Says” Relativism rsn.pub/48Oobsp

Excellent material. More of this! :)

Good content Thank You so much for this. God bless you.

This was such a great teaching video. I have listen, read and viewed a number of Mr. Koukl material about Relativism, but this video was concise and easy to digest. Great job!

Thank you Sir.

Of course those who claim to be relativists will object to this, but they will give you all sorts of reasons why you are wrong…

@tgm2474

26 күн бұрын

Physical therapist straw men who are easily confused might try to give reasons.

@dw7704

25 күн бұрын

@@tgm2474 ?

Good job, Greg.

Thank you

Very compelling! Could you share how to access the course? I tried clicking the link, but only two courses appeared, and neither was the course on moral relativism. Thanks so much!

@STRvideos

9 ай бұрын

Hi Michael. Are you registered? If so, please click the button to login. If not, click the login button and then look for "Don't have an STR U account? Sign up for free!" Click on "Sign up." Once you have signed and logged in, you'll have access to all the courses. The two thumbnails on the home page are just previews of what's new.

I can't tell if you're arguing against idea of Moral Relativism or the people who believe in Moral Relativism?

@br0keh0urs36

3 ай бұрын

Both

Killing an abortionist isn't attributable to moral relativism if it protects and rescues an intended abortion victim from homicide.

But moral relativism is entirely consistent with moral objectivism. Shape, for instance, is a paradigm example of an objective property. Yet an object's shape is relative. It can be one shape at one time, and a different shape at another. Relativism - at least in the moral context - is the view that moral properties can vary. What's right in one context may be wrong in another. An action's rightness or wrongness is 'relative' to something, then - typically to its consequences and intentions (virtually no one would deny that morality is relative to that extent). The more controversial version of moral relativism is the view that morality is relative not just to consequences and intentions, but also to time and space - that is, that what is right here and now, could in principle be wrong over there or later, holding other things equal. Note, when people say 'morality is relative' they typically mean to express the more controversial 'relative to time and space' version of the view. The opposite of relativism is 'absolutism' (not - note - subjectivism....subjectivism is the opposite of objectivism). Absolutism is the view that morality is not relative. And as 'relative' is normally taken to mean 'relative to time and space', 'absolutism' will typically mean 'does not vary over time and space' (after all, absolutism is implausible if it is the view that the morality of an act is not relative to anything at all.....) And among absolutists many would hold that morality 'cannot' vary over space and time (that's a stronger claim than that it merely does not). To hold that morality 'cannot' vary over space and time is to hold that moral truths are necessary truths. The important point is that relativism and absolutism are opposing views about how moral properties BEHAVE. Subjectivism and objectivism are opposing views about what moral properties are made of. That is, they are opposing views about morality's composition. Not its behaviour then, but its composition. Subjectivism is the view that morality is made of subjective states. Objectivism is the view that it is not. Morality is subjective, not objective. If it was objective, it wouldn't require God! God's a subject - a subject of experiences, a mind, a person. And morality is made of God's subjective states. So it is SUBJECTIVE, not objective. There are a lot of theists who are promoting the idea that morality is objective. No it isn't. Objectivism is the enemy! Again: if morality is objective, then it doesn't need God. There are also a lot of theists out there who seem to think that morality is absolute in the strong 'necessary truth' sense of the term. That is, they believe moral truths are necessary truths. That too is really an enemy-of-theism view that should be attacked, not endorsed. For if moral truths are necessary truths then God does not exist. God is omnipotent and so can do anything. That includes changing what's right and wrong. Thus, if God exists then moral truths are not necessary truths (indeed, there are no necessary truths if God exists, for God can falsify any proposition whatsoever).

@br0keh0urs36

3 ай бұрын

Okay, so if God exists (which he does), are his laws and teachings not absolute? Does the creator of all things not have a final say on what is right and what is wrong? If God is real then that means the Bible is the most credible piece of moral teachings, teachings and guidelines such as the ten commandments and Jesus’ sermon on the mount are fundamental truths that are objective, yes God is omnipotent, if he is capable of change, is he not also capable of remaining the same throughout space and time? I can understand that their are different groups who believe in different things, but all that tells me is how far they’ve separated themselves from God and his ways, please don’t pretend to know how God works without understanding the Bible

@geraldharrison5787

3 ай бұрын

@@br0keh0urs36 First, my main point was that it is a mistake to confuse 'relativism' with 'subjectivism' (and thus to think that the opposite of 'relative' is 'objective'). Shape really is an objective property and it is also relative - something can be one shape at one time and another at another. Is shape therefore subjective? No. It's objective AND relative. This is important because most theists - and I am a theist, though I am unlike most - are AWFUL at defending theism. For instance, they sow confusion by arguing that morality is 'objective'. No it isn't. It's SUBJECTIVE. If it is made of God's commands - as it is - then it is SUBJECTIVE. why? Because God is a subject - a subject of experiences, a mind, a person. That's what 'subjective' means. It describes something's mode of existence. That is, how it exists if or when it does. 'Objective' means 'exists - when or if it does - outside of any and all minds'. 'Subjective' means 'exists, when or if it does, 'inside' of a mind - that is, exists 'as' the states of a mind. If morality was objective then it would not depend on God! See how confused most theists are? They are helped only by the fact that most atheists are equally so. But really they need to sort their act out. A half-way competent atheist can run rings around them. It's embarrassing. Theism is true, but you wouldn't know it given the incompetent way most theists defend the thesis. It makes me very cross. Now for your questions. Your first question is whether God's laws are absolute. No, of course they are not. God can change them if he wants. God's omnipotent - so God can do whatever he wants and is not bound to keep his laws and teachings the same. To think that his laws and teachings are absolute is to be profoundly confused - indeed, it is to think something quite incompatible with God's existence. It is to suppose God bound by mysterious laws of necessity that prevent God from changing. If God exists, all truths - all of them - are contingent, not necessary. Why? Because an omnipotent person has the power to do anything. And thus, God can render any true proposition false if he so wishes. Thus, if God exists - and he does - then all truths are contingent. No truth has its truth by necessity, but by God's permission. Now to your second question which is quite distinct from the first. Does God - and I mean by God 'an omnipotent, omniscient. omnibenevolent person, btw - have the final say on what's right or wrong? Yes, of course. Though it is misleading to say 'final say' as morality is made of God's attitudes and so an act is wrong if and only if God bids us not perform it. He doesn't vote on it or something. He 'makes' it wrong by disapproving of it. To suggest he has the 'final say' is to invite us to think of God as the chair of some ethics committee. But that is not how things are at all. God and God alone makes an act wrong by an act of disapproval - and act of disapproval that God decides for himself to undertake. As for the bible - I made no mention of the bible and it has nothing to do with any of this. I am a theist - a believer in God (an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent person) not a Christian, so I cannot comment on the bible as I have not read it and do not know what it says. Perhaps it says that God's will is fixed, perhaps not, I do not know or care. I do know that Jesus said somewhere that with God 'all things are possible' - which is correct and expresses the view I just expressed, namely that an omnipotent person can do anything at all and thus all truths are contingent. And I suspect that one will find that the God of the bible changes his mind and attitudes quite a lot - which I think is entirely consistent with God being God. Again, it seems to me that people who think God is somehow 'fixed' are the ones who are confused and have heretical views, for nothing fixes God - God can do whatever the hell he wants. it is hubris of the first order to suppose God fixed by our ideas of what is or is not possible for him.

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.

@STRvideos

2 ай бұрын

Thanks for the question! We invite you to call in to our weekly broadcast to discuss your thoughts with Greg Koukl. He'd love to hear from you. Or you can submit an #STRask or Open Mic question. Visit www.str.org/broadcast for details.

This can't be compelling to those who recognize that Greg's usage of "moral" already entails his god. As his point is rendered circular, there isn't anything to chew on.

these points are all wrong, actually, as a criticism, as they make incorrect assumptions. 1. Yes, this is true, no one can be _objectively_ accused of anything. But this is not needed, as morality is a group thing - defines "us" versus "them". We are the ones who accept XYZ moral statements, subjectively if you will, and those evil ones accept ABC instead, and thus we are enemies. Christianity itself offers a boatload of examples, see heresy claims. 2. It's fine, I never liked that argument, even though I am a firm atheist. If we consider an omniscient God as opposed to non-omniscient humans, we are not in the position to say that evil actually exists, we don't know enough. Especially not as opposed to an omniscient God, who would have a better understanding of the affairs. Yes, life might suck, but probably it is the best available. Or God's plan, or whatever. The problem of evil is not the basis of my atheism. 3. Sure we can - praise means "you are one of us", blame means "you are not one of us = potentially, or even likely, you are an enemy". See 1. 4. Yes, because there is no direction towards which you can "improve". Except, again, the fitting to your ingroup. You can be a better member. This if of course subjective, as no groups are universal. 5. I don't want to promote tolerance, it's stupid. What we have is "recognizing similarity, so there is nothing to tolerate at all", or enmity, if this is not given.

Moral relativism is a metaethical thesis that the truth or justification of moral judgments is not absolute, but relative to the moral standard of some person or group of persons. If God exists and is the source of morality, then moral relativism is true. Is Greg therefore arguing against the existence of God as the source of morality?

@ricksonora6656

6 ай бұрын

You have that backwards. If God exists, our morality has an objective standard in God’s character. Morality is the human application of the objective standard, as revealed in the moral code that God reveals to us.

@br0keh0urs36

3 ай бұрын

If God exists (which he does) then that means everything written in The Bible is true, that means that teachings and guidelines such as the Ten commandments and Jesus’ sermon on the mount are Gods standard of morality for all humanity, which makes them objective truths, God made us in his image, not just in terms of appearance but in mind and spirit as well, the teachings are meant for all of humanity, not a particular group

@johngriffiths2637

3 ай бұрын

@@br0keh0urs36 if God exists (I'm not convinced) then his moral standards are subjective since he is a subject.

@br0keh0urs36

3 ай бұрын

@@johngriffiths2637 so basically the creator of the universe, of all living things, of reality, his laws are subjective, so someone can disagree with his laws and be right? Is that what you’re saying?

@johngriffiths2637

3 ай бұрын

@@br0keh0urs36 I'm saying the creator of the universe you believe in is a "he", and therefore a subject.