# inconsistent relativism



## Scott (Mar 21, 2006)

Does anyone have any real-life examples of inconsistent relativism? I am looking for someone is is a relativist who is forced in some instance to act as if morality is absolute. Thanks


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 21, 2006)

Covenant Keeper: Homosexuality is a sin.
Covenant Breaker: No. Sexual deviancy is a genetic trait.
Covenant Keeper: Very well, child molestation is not wrong. It is just a genetic trait.

See Manata's blog:
http://presstheantithesis.blogspot.com/2006/03/illogic-of-pro-choice.html
http://presstheantithesis.blogspot.com/2006/03/i-tawt-i-taw-puddy-cat-i-did-i-did.html


----------



## Cuirassier (Mar 21, 2006)

Goodness, where does one start ... 

Bible-believing person: Abortion is murder, and therefore sin.
Relativist: No, abortion is about a woman's right to choose ...
Bible-believing person: OK - then infant neglect cannot be punished, it's merely giving the parent the lattitude to choose what they think is more important (eg: feeding their drug or alcohol habits versus feeding their child)

Relativist: Public schools should not teach any Biblical principles, because the child must be allowed to formulate their own opinions about what to believe ....
Bible-believing person: OK, then we should make sure none of (insert your country here)'s history should be taught either--that way, we are sure they will not learn detrimental values such as patriotism, respect for national history and leaders, etc.

But my all time favourite was from the Bahnsen-Stein debate ...

"I mean if there aren´t laws of morality, I can just take out a gun right now and say "œOkay Dr. Stein, make my day. Is there a god or not?" You see if he argues "œoh no! You can´t murder me because there are laws of morality", then of course he´s made my day because I win the debate. That shows that the atheist universe is not correct. 

But if he says "œOh no, there are no absolute standards; it´s all by convention and stipulation" and that sort of thing, then I just pull the trigger and it´s all over and I win the debate anyway."



dl

[Edited on 3-21-2006 by Cuirassier]


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 21, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> See Manata's blog:
> http://presstheantithesis.blogspot.com/2006/03/illogic-of-pro-choice.html



This was too funny:



> Now, what I find funny are some of the claims that pro-murder advocates make. For example, at the 2005 San Diego Earth Day gathering here in Balboa Park I ran into some pro-murder advocates at a pro-life table. These British college girls were quite adamant that abortion should be allowed because it is a "woman's right to choose." I interjected into the conversation the idea that if people are just allowed to "choose" who to kill then what was wrong with Hitler's Germany. They appropriately responded that the Jews were living human beings and so Hitler didn't have that right. I commended them for their astute observation. I then asked if it was always wrong to take life unlawfully, to murder. They assured me that it was. I then pointed out that if the unborn child was a living human being then they would have to admit that it would be wrong to murder them, or we're back in Hitler's Germany. They reluctantly admitted.
> 
> At this point I asked them if the being inside their "mommy's tummy" was a living being. One said yes, the other said no. I pointed out that it ate food, it grew, it had a heart, it sucked its thumb, it responded to stimuli, it moved, it had functions such as metabolism, etc. So, it was a living something or other. I mean, it wasn´t dead, or inorganic matter, was it. The other conceded that it was alive. I then asked them what species it was. They looked confused. I asked again. Slower. They still looked confused. I asked if their parents were aware that they were spending good money for an American education and their children didn't understand that living things are grouped according to species. They still looked baffled and so I asked them if the living thing inside of its "mommy's tummy" was a dog. They giggled. They said no. And giggled again. And so I asked them what species this living being was. One, the smarter one, said that it was "human." The other saw the trap. The other said it was not human until it got a soul. She was new age, I take it. I asked when this happened. She said it happened when they got out of the womb. I said that there are some abortions are performed while the child is in the vagina, at the mother's request. Was this "choice" not allowed? She said it was and said she meant to say when they were outside of their mother's body. I said, and that's when they get their soul? She said yes. I asked, how? I asked, was "soul" floating around in the air and when they took a breath it came into them? She said she didn't know, she took it on faith. She said, "in my opinion, that's what a human is, but I'm not going to force my definition on anyone else." I responded that in that case we were back at Hitler's Germany and Hitler is free to "define" a human being as whatever he wants to, and Jews aint one! She said he couldn't. I said she couldn't. She said that was my opinion. I asked if opinions could be wrong. She said no. I said, well then Hitler's opinion wasn't wrong, so lay off the guy. She looked confused. The crowd laughed, murmured, and I think one guy yelled from the background that I was a bigot, her friend pulled her away... quickly.


----------



## bradofshaw (Mar 21, 2006)

Consistency is the bugaboo of small minds...

or so I've heard. 

It is consistent for relativists to be inconsistent. Most people aren't really relativists though. It is impossible to be a relativist.


----------



## Scott (Mar 21, 2006)

Any examples of famous or influential people? Or examples from famous literature?


----------

