Can a moral relativist be trusted?

[Syne]

Either you trust someone or you don't, whether it is absolute trust (I never mentioned it being all or nothing, that is merely your strawman) or not. Your appeal to a qualification of the level of trust is thus noted yet is ultimately irrelevant, yet you still can't bring yourself to admit that you could actually trust a relativist.

You are making the completely erroneous assumption that less trust necessarily equates to some trust. Just because someone might trust someone more with their car than with their child does not mean that they trust them with their child at all. You need to make it clear that you understand this distinction. You may generally trust a relativist more or less, but that general level of trust is not equally applied to all situations.

So now a chain of reasoning is playing games? And I know you are not obliged to follow a line of reasoning, but it is rather telling that you seem to refuse to want to follow one that goes against your position.
And don't confuse the strength or otherwise of an argument with your inability to understand it: that is nothing but ego on your part, the same ego that prevents you from actually admitting that yes, you could trust a relativist - not as quickly or as easily as an objectivist, but that you would/could still trust one.

"Understand it"? You have said your "rationale" requires following a "chain of reasoning" that you seem reticent about without me playing along with some line of questioning with very specific and artificial strictures. Do not blame me if you cannot articulate your argument without leading someone down a rhetorical rabbit-hole. And that does speak to the strength of an argument, regardless of what you may believe.

ar·gu·ment
2. a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.​

A strong argument does not rely on eliciting specific responses from others to make its point. This is a discussion, not a cross-examination.

I have not admitted that it does not stick to the OP. I have admitted that if you take it out of context, as you did, then it could be seen that way, but as part of the reasoning (which you think is merely playing games) it is wholly sticking to the OP. So please stop taking things out of context.

What you do not seem to get is that I do not find your rationale compelling. As such, you moving the goalposts is not justified. You seem to want to argue as if you can assume your point is already made. It is not, so just as you have harped about moving the goalposts, if it "could be seen" that you are moving the goalposts, perhaps you should take some effort to dispel that perception, as I did. And no, you cannot claim I am moving the goalposts of your already moved goalpost.

If you can make your argument, just make it already.

And since I have not moved the goalposts, but merely asked additional questions to help you understand the rationale behind my answer to the OP, your objection is noted but found once again to be baseless other than through taking things deliberately out of context, as you seem to want to do.

You just admitted "it could be seen that" you are moving the goalposts, and that your only justification for doing so is that it is "part of the reasoning". Why do you have such trouble simply outlining the reasoning? That indicates strength of argument.

But you didn't answer the question in that manner: you merely gave an example of circumstances where you would, but did not explicitly give an answer to the question I asked with the circumstances I gave. You skirted and evaded the question.
Had you said: "The only time I would is under these conditions:..." then we could have moved on.
But you didn't, instead answering along the lines of "I would prefer to trust them over a relativist..." or some such, which did not answer the question.

Your question moved the goalpost, as you have admitted (regardless of your insubstantial justifications). Exactly what difference do you see in the above two bolded lines? I see none, so why have we not "moved on"?

Yes, you have been quite clear in your answer to the OP: "...there is no way... that the relativist can be trusted." Or was it "...that new revelation would make them less trustworthy"?
Yes, very clear.

Let's hope none of your relativist friends read this thread, lest they realise you'll discard their friendship and no longer deem them trustworthy. Ah, no, that's right, you only surround yourself with objectivists.

No need to get petulant. And I already addressed how general statements of trust relate to specific circumstances above. But how do you expect me to read that bolded line without assuming you are making an all or nothing argument?

 

[Sarkus]

You are making the completely erroneous assumption that less trust necessarily equates to some trust.

If you had meant zero trust then you would have said it. You said "less trustworthy" to differentiate from "not trustworthy". You are now doing nothing but trying to squirm out of your own contradiction.

"Understand it"? You have said your "rationale" requires following a "chain of reasoning" that you seem reticent about without me playing along with some line of questioning with very specific and artificial strictures. Do not blame me if you cannot articulate your argument without leading someone down a rhetorical rabbit-hole. And that does speak to the strength of an argument, regardless of what you may believe.

If you want to consider it a game, with you playing along, that is your call. But if you're incapable of understanding the argument as was initially presented then it becomes necessary to take you through it step by step.

ar·gu·ment
2. a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.​

A strong argument does not rely on eliciting specific responses from others to make its point. This is a discussion, not a cross-examination.

Don't be so pathetic, Syne. It is a standard device to get people to agree to the individual steps of an argument, in isolation or otherwise.
You know what the discussion is about: whether the argument is laid out in one long post or over a number that break it down should therefore not be an issue.
But it is for you, for some reason. Which I find pathetic.

What you do not seem to get is that I do not find your rationale compelling.

You don't necessarily know what my rationale is - as you refuse to answer the questions or let me conclude the argument.

As such, you moving the goalposts is not justified.

Indeed - and I haven't.

You seem to want to argue as if you can assume your point is already made. It is not, so just as you have harped about moving the goalposts, if it "could be seen" that you are moving the goalposts, perhaps you should take some effort to dispel that perception, as I did. And no, you cannot claim I am moving the goalposts of your already moved goalpost.

I didn't move the goalposts - as I have explained time and time again. Or are we to take every question as a movement of the goalposts? (Oops - there I go, moving the goalposts!).
Your appeal to that is now nothing but more pathetic avoidance on your part.

If you can make your argument, just make it already.

It's not a long thread - I suggest you reread it.
It's not difficult to find or to establish from what has gone before.

You just admitted "it could be seen that" you are moving the goalposts, and that your only justification for doing so is that it is "part of the reasoning".

"Could be seen that" does not equate to "is".
It is only your continuing inability to see the entire argument but instead pick individual questions out of context that leads to your erroneous conclusion.

Why do you have such trouble simply outlining the reasoning? That indicates strength of argument.

No it doesn't - it indicates lack of understanding by the other.

Your question moved the goalpost, as you have admitted (regardless of your insubstantial justifications).

It didn't move the goalpost - as already explained time and time and time again. I admitted that it could be seen as... but, again, that does not equate to "is"... as your perception in the matter was flawed (i.e. you took it out of context).

Exactly what difference do you see in the above two bolded lines? I see none, so why have we not "moved on"?

You can't see the rather crucial difference in the word "only"?

No need to get petulant. And I already addressed how general statements of trust relate to specific circumstances above. But how do you expect me to read that bolded line without assuming you are making an all or nothing argument?

How am I meant to take your assertion: "...there is no way... that the relativist can be trusted...." which you qualified further by saying words to the effect of "even not in the extreme scenario..." - if not that it is NOT specific to individual circumstances?
You either think that a moral relativist can be trusted (irrespective of what it might take to achieve that trust), or you don't.
You have rooted yourself firmly in the latter, despite your apparent contradictory remarks of "less trustworthy" which you now seem to want me to take as "not trustworthy", and now you want to say that it is to be related to circumstance.

 

[wellwisher]

Relative morality is based on what anyone wants to be true. This choice does not have to be based on reason but can be based on hidden motivations. Morality, on the other hand, is not a private sport, used to bride the herd, but is a set of rules which applies to all and is therefore more predictable from the outside.

If you look at many politicians and their agendas, such as President Obama and the health care scam, relative morality allows them to lie and cheat since they justify this as ends justifies the means. It allows those who stand to gain, such as the propaganda wing, to cover up the lie with more lies at the expense of the truth.

They can also creates laws that allow themselves to avoid the very laws they apply to others (government power structure exemption to ObamaCare even though they sales pitch it as so great). Morality does not allow this, since it is a system that applies to all; as you sow so shall you reap. God's laws or moral law figuratively means even the king is below law. Relative morality allows the king to place himself anywhere he decides including above the law, which he can them extend to his cronies. Moral law would force all the Democrat leaders who voted for ObamaCare to have to have it, but would exempt those who voted against it; sow and reap. That would be fair for all such situations, except to moral relativists ,who would prefer call up down and down up.

 

[Syne]

You are making the completely erroneous assumption that less trust necessarily equates to some trust.

If you had meant zero trust then you would have said it. You said "less trustworthy" to differentiate from "not trustworthy". You are now doing nothing but trying to squirm out of your own contradiction.

Where? I have not said the phrase "not trustworthy" once in this entire thread. So what contradiction? You do know how to support your wild accusations with actual quotes, right? Or are you just poisoning the well?

Since you seem committed to the error of assuming less trust equates to some trust, it is safe to say that you must have been wrong about what you inferred I meant.

If you want to consider it a game, with you playing along, that is your call. But if you're incapable of understanding the argument as was initially presented then it becomes necessary to take you through it step by step.

Just because someone does not find your argument compelling does not mean that they have misunderstood it. (Even when you have been directly asked for a compelling reason and utterly failed to provide anything other than personal and subjective self-interest.)

Don't be so pathetic, Syne. It is a standard device to get people to agree to the individual steps of an argument, in isolation or otherwise.
You know what the discussion is about: whether the argument is laid out in one long post or over a number that break it down should therefore not be an issue.
But it is for you, for some reason. Which I find pathetic.

It is, except you are intentionally dismissing any qualifications that would allow the question to remain within the scope of the OP (you know, having anything to do with relativism), and you only seem to do so after finding an answer is not the one you are looking for (will accept). A strong argument should be able to accommodate qualified answers without a complete melt-down (like the one you seem to be having).

Your chain of reasoning also seems to be aimed squarely at removing the question of meta-ethical stance entirely (which you have already admitted to assuming is irrelevant), making it a trivial question about trusting strangers. If you never plan on getting around to making any comparison, your question is moving the goalpost.

So, will your supposed chain of reasoning ever include any direct comparison of trustworthiness?

But this is all just evasion from you, otherwise you would not have a problem detailing your argument "in one long post". And if it is just a matter of "break[ing] it down" then you do not require my participation to do so.

What you do not seem to get is that I do not find your rationale compelling.

You don't necessarily know what my rationale is - as you refuse to answer the questions or let me conclude the argument.

If you can make your argument, just make it already.

It's not a long thread - I suggest you reread it.
It's not difficult to find or to establish from what has gone before.

It is only your continuing inability to see the entire argument ...

Again, you need to make up your mind. Which is it?

"You don't necessarily know what my rationale is"
or
"It's not difficult to find or to establish from what has gone before [i.e. your argument]."
or
"You know what the discussion is about"
or
"But if you're incapable of understanding the argument as was initially presented"
or
"inability to see the entire argument"​

So have you already made your argument or not? If you have then I have already explained exactly why it is not compelling (and no, disagreement does not necessarily mean misunderstanding). If you have not then you are being evasive. Which is it?

Why do you have such trouble simply outlining the reasoning? That indicates strength of argument.

No it doesn't - it indicates lack of understanding by the other.

Really? So all disagreement is only a matter of one person misunderstanding? Which person? Obviously, I could say the exact same thing about you, so that is a hopelessly sad argument that only further illustrates the weakness of your argument.

It didn't move the goalpost - as already explained time and time and time again. I admitted that it could be seen as... but, again, that does not equate to "is"... as your perception in the matter was flawed (i.e. you took it out of context).

Oh, you mean the "context" you have yet to provide? That is the current story, right? It is hard to keep up with how many times you seem to flip-flop, and all within a single post. But it almost certainly must be your contention that I do not know the context, otherwise accusations of you moving the goalpost would be wholly justified. But without this supposed context, how do you expect me to judge whether the question is, indeed, withing the scope of the OP?

Just one big, convoluted dodge of the obvious answers you seem to find dreadfully inconvenient.

You can't see the rather crucial difference in the word "only"?

Really? Between these two, "only" is that significant?

"you merely gave an example of circumstances where you would"
and
"The only time I would is under these conditions:..."​

Do I need to detail every possible circumstance in which I would? That would usually be considered an argument by verbosity. You also fail to explain how that qualifier substantially alters the answer to somehow make it acceptable.

You either think that a moral relativist can be trusted (irrespective of what it might take to achieve that trust), or you don't.
You have rooted yourself firmly in the latter, despite your apparent contradictory remarks of "less trustworthy" which you now seem to want me to take as "not trustworthy", and now you want to say that it is to be related to circumstance.

How can you not understand the very simple notion that circumstances of varying import will have inherently different criteria of trust? I will trust just about anyone enough to loan them a dollar...and only very few with several thousand. Hence "less trustworthy". Trust is relative to both the specific circumstances and the person involved (who is also relative to other people, including on the grounds of meta-ethical stance).

It seems you are the one taking things out of context.



Anyway, it has become obvious that this is pointless, as you refuse to move on until you get the specific answers your foregone conclusion requires. And all of this is only a running justification for trying to massage your conclusion out of the discussion.

 

[Magical Realist]

That is a very pessimistic view of one's own child, as a babysitter is primarily there as a safeguard against things that can occur in the parent's presence, like choking, fire, or other unforeseeable accidents.

It's the view of every parent who hires a babysitter to prevent children from misbehaving in a way that would result in, what were they now?, choking, fire, and other unforeseeable accidents. Ahh, but then you knew that didn't ya?

Hasty generalization. Would you also say that Mao or Pol Pot are equally representative of all atheists?

Christians all take the Bible as the infallible word of God. The same book that says beat your children with a rod when they misbehave also says homosexuality is a deviant sin worthy of eternal damnation in hell. Would you leave your 4 year old son with someone who thinks like this? Who takes the slightest hint of effeminacy in a boy as reason to punch him and snap his wrist? Maybe you would come to think of it.

 

[Mazulu]

Christians all take the Bible as the infallible word of God. The same book that says beat your children with a rod when they misbehave also says homosexuality is a deviant sin worthy of eternal damnation in hell. Would you leave your 4 year old son with someone who thinks like this? Who takes the slightest hint of effeminacy in a boy as reason to punch him and snap his wrist? Maybe you would come to think of it.

Were the Romans who tortured and crucified Jesus, were they atheists?

 

[Syne]

It's the view of every parent who hires a babysitter to prevent children from misbehaving in a way that would result in, what were they now?, choking, fire, and other unforeseeable accidents. Ahh, but then you knew that didn't ya?

Really? So accidents only happen because of misbehavior? And no, not all parents just automatically assume their children will misbehave if unsupervised. But like I said, these views do illustrate your pessimism.

Christians all take the Bible as the infallible word of God. The same book that says beat your children with a rod when they misbehave also says homosexuality is a deviant sin worthy of eternal damnation in hell. Would you leave your 4 year old son with someone who thinks like this? Who takes the slightest hint of effeminacy in a boy as reason to punch him and snap his wrist? Maybe you would come to think of it.

You are woefully ill-informed. There are some Christians who do believe the Bible is infallible, but there are others who believe it is only inerrant, neither of which is necessarily literal. There are liberal and progressive Christians as well. It would seem to be a bigotry that motivates making such hasty and erroneous generalizations.

But since you seem fine with that, Pol Pot leaves you, as an atheist, no grounds to argue morality on. Most, if not all, notable atheist dictators did believe in corporal punishment (as well as torture and mass killings) and would have reacted much more severely towards homosexuality. So by your reasoning, we can apply that equally to all atheists, right?

 

[Balerion]

Were the Romans who tortured and crucified Jesus, were they atheists?

No.

 

[Mazulu]

No.

While Jesus was getting crucified, the atheists all stood around yelling, "Hey dumbass! HEy stupid! Hey idiot! hey moron!" Other than a few exceptions like wegs, atheists lead a very limited existence of standing around calling people stupid. That's their whole life. What purpose do they serve evolutionarily speaking? I have no idea! Do they serve any useful purpose? I honestly don't know.

 

[Mazulu]

Is an atheist capable of showing compassion and love (besides a few exceptions)? Or do atheists yell at the other 88% and say, "you're all weak! You should be more like me! Me! Me! My life is great!"

Do atheists suffer? Or do they hide their insults by calling people stupid?

While some atheists might be Buddhists or embrace other compassionate philosophies, are there a few, a minority among even atheists, who are truly callous and indifferent?

 

[Balerion]

While Jesus was getting crucified, the atheists all stood around yelling, "Hey dumbass! HEy stupid! Hey idiot! hey moron!"

What atheists?

Other than a few exceptions like wegs, atheists lead a very limited existence of standing around calling people stupid. That's their whole life. What purpose do they serve evolutionarily speaking? I have no idea! Do they serve any useful purpose? I honestly don't know.

I can see how you might believe such a thing, since most atheists you encounter have probably called you stupid once or twice. But that's because you're antagonistic, telling them that they pinko scum, devoid of compassion or humanity, and myriad other petty insults. Oh, and because you equate dark matter to the afterlife, and claim that you were trained by aliens. If you say stupid things, people are probably going to call you stupid.

 

[Sarkus]

Where? I have not said the phrase "not trustworthy" once in this entire thread. So what contradiction? You do know how to support your wild accusations with actual quotes, right? Or are you just poisoning the well?

You have not said the phrase "not trustworthy" - that was merely my contraction of your statement "there is no way... that the relativist can be trusted" taking into account your further qualification of words to the effect of "not even in the extreme circumstance...."
To argue that you didn't use the specific phrase "not trustworthy" seems pathetic of you, and seems merely to be obfuscation on your part.

Since you seem committed to the error of assuming less trust equates to some trust, it is safe to say that you must have been wrong about what you inferred I meant.

You are clutching at straws. If you had meant "less trust" to mean "no trust" then either you would have written "no trust" in the first place, or you are unable to write accurately what you mean.
So please clarify: did you mean "some trust" (i.e. more than none) or did you mean "no trust" (i.e. none), bearing in mind your previous assertion that "there is no way... that the relativist can be trusted..." (plus the additional qualification)?

Just because someone does not find your argument compelling does not mean that they have misunderstood it.

Granted, but you have not provided anything compelling to show that you've even understood the argument.

(Even when you have been directly asked for a compelling reason and utterly failed to provide anything other than personal and subjective self-interest.)

You have only asked me what I find compelling about being a moral-relativist, not why I think they can be trusted, which is far easier, and which I have detailed back in my original post: because I judge their actions against my morals, the same as I would for an objectivist. Simples.

It is, except you are intentionally dismissing any qualifications that would allow the question to remain within the scope of the OP (you know, having anything to do with relativism), and you only seem to do so after finding an answer is not the one you are looking for (will accept).

That is your misconception. You are simply introducing unwarranted qualifications to my line of reasoning (I.e. the specific questions that I asked, to highlight my line of thinking) that have nothing to do with it at all.
It's like me trying to explain to you how to play soccer, and you insisting on using your tennis racquet.

A strong argument should be able to accommodate qualified answers without a complete melt-down (like the one you seem to be having).

There is no melt-down, just increasing frustration at your inability and/or unwilling to follow a line for reasoning without insisting on what have been demonstrated to be utter irrelevancies (I.e. your answering questions that have not been asked).

Your chain of reasoning also seems to be aimed squarely at removing the question of meta-ethical stance entirely (which you have already admitted to assuming is irrelevant), making it a trivial question about trusting strangers. If you never plan on getting around to making any comparison, your question is moving the goalpost.

How is it moving the goalposts to say exactly how one can trust relativists (e.g. by judging their actions against your own morals)?
It is your misconception to think that a comparison is even asked for. It is not, and never has been, a matter of preference between relativists and objectivists, and certainly not in regard to leaving a child with strangers.
Your insistence on such a comparison as being the issue is nothing but of your own making.
Now what's that soccer metaphor I'm looking for...?

So, will your supposed chain of reasoning ever include any direct comparison of trustworthiness?

There is no need for it to to be able to answer the OP. There has never been a need to.
There is simply the question "Can a moral relativist be trusted?" or the scenario of ever being able to leave your child with someone who claims to be such. There is no "are they more or less trustworthy than an objectivist?".

But this is all just evasion from you, otherwise you would not have a problem detailing your argument "in one long post". And if it is just a matter of "break[ing] it down" then you do not require my participation to do so.

Its not evasion. If you claim to have followed it and not found it compelling, merely state what it is you disagree with.

Again, you need to make up your mind. Which is it?
...
So have you already made your argument or not? If you have then I have already explained exactly why it is not compelling (and no, disagreement does not necessarily mean misunderstanding). If you have not then you are being evasive. Which is it?

It's all of them, actually: they are not mutually exclusive.
You know what the discussion is about - you have posted the question from the OP often enough.
I have made my argument.
I don't think you necessarily understand it.
I tried to explain it piecemeal but you simply throw in irrelevancies and answer questions that were not asked by me (within the context of that explanation).

Really? So all disagreement is only a matter of one person misunderstanding? Which person? Obviously, I could say the exact same thing about you, so that is a hopelessly sad argument that only further illustrates the weakness of your argument.

I didn't mention "disagreement". Your inability to see that the argument has already been laid out is due to your lack of understanding.
You haven't yet countered the argument in any way, you just answer irrelevant questions.
I don't doubt you disagree with it, but you have yet to say where or why, other than through raising irrelevancies of how you find objectivism preferable.

Oh, you mean the "context" you have yet to provide? That is the current story, right? It is hard to keep up with how many times you seem to flip-flop, and all within a single post. But it almost certainly must be your contention that I do not know the context, otherwise accusations of you moving the goalpost would be wholly justified. But without this supposed context, how do you expect me to judge whether the question is, indeed, withing the scope of the OP?

The context should not have to be explicitly stated. I initially thought you intelligent enough to appreciate and realise that I was asking questions as part of a line of reasoning. Perhaps the fault is entirely mine for overestimating that intelligence?

Really? Between these two, "only" is that significant?

Yes, it is that significant.
If I asked "would you do X under condition Y?" and you answered "I would do X only under condition Z," then you have answered the question, since Z is not Y. So you explicitly state, through implication, that you would not do X under condition Y.
But if you answer "well, I'd do X under condition Z," then this does NOT answer the question, as it does not explicitly state anything about what you would do under condition Y (i.e. the question that was asked).
Do you still fail to see/understand/appreciate the significance of "only"?

Do I need to detail every possible circumstance in which I would? That would usually be considered an argument by verbosity

Perhaps you just need to answer the question that was asked, and not one that wasn't.

You also fail to explain how that qualifier substantially alters the answer to somehow make it acceptable.

Hopefully now explained.

How can you not understand the very simple notion that circumstances of varying import will have inherently different criteria of trust? I will trust just about anyone enough to loan them a dollar...and only very few with several thousand. Hence "less trustworthy". Trust is relative to both the specific circumstances and the person involved (who is also relative to other people, including on the grounds of meta-ethical stance).

So you've changed your tune since "...there is no way... not even in the extreme scenario..." to be one of dependent upon what is at stake?
Great, we're getting somewhere once we remove all your contradictory nonsense and you stick to a position.

Do you yet accept that there are scenarios in which you would trust a moral relativist, despite your previous statements to the contrary? And thus do you accept that a moral relativist can be trusted?

Once you do that it then becomes a matter of what you use to base levels of trust on... and all you have to support your case there, that it is not merely their actions against your own morals, is your "oh, but I know all my friends are objectivists and one would be stupid not to know what their friend's meta-ethical position is" drivel!

Anyway, it has become obvious that this is pointless, as you refuse to move on until you get the specific answers your foregone conclusion requires. And all of this is only a running justification for trying to massage your conclusion out of the discussion.

Yep, probably best, lest you start to admit to others that your position (that a moral relativist is unable to be trusted under any circumstance, even the extreme one you contrived) is an untenable one.

 

[Magical Realist]

You are woefully ill-informed. There are some Christians who do believe the Bible is infallible, but there are others who believe it is only inerrant, neither of which is necessarily literal. There are liberal and progressive Christians as well. It would seem to be a bigotry that motivates making such hasty and erroneous generalizations.

That is woefully irrelevant to the posited scenario. When hiring a babysitter it is unlikely you are going to go over all their theological interpretations of the Bible with them. At most you will simply know they are Christian--one of your saintly moral absolutists. So there is a good possibility you will be exposing your children to someone who not only believes in corporeal punishment but also believes gayness is a sin that must be disciplined out of a child. Why would you even take such a risk? Why not spare yourself the worry and hire a nonreligious babysitter?

 

[Mazulu]

What atheists?



I can see how you might believe such a thing, since most atheists you encounter have probably called you stupid once or twice. But that's because you're antagonistic, telling them that they pinko scum, devoid of compassion or humanity, and myriad other petty insults. Oh, and because you equate dark matter to the afterlife, and claim that you were trained by aliens. If you say stupid things, people are probably going to call you stupid.

81% of Americans believe in the afterlife. I'm just saying that dark matter might be how it's possible. And for that, an atheist like you call me stupid. Shameful!

 

[Syne]

Where? I have not said the phrase "not trustworthy" once in this entire thread. So what contradiction? You do know how to support your wild accusations with actual quotes, right? Or are you just poisoning the well?

You have not said the phrase "not trustworthy" - that was merely my contraction of your statement "there is no way... that the relativist can be trusted" taking into account your further qualification of words to the effect of "not even in the extreme circumstance...."
To argue that you didn't use the specific phrase "not trustworthy" seems pathetic of you, and seems merely to be obfuscation on your part.

Yet you still have not managed to explain any "contradiction".

Again, the OP asked:

Is there any way a person can logically leave their child with another person and logically trust that person if he states that there are no objectively and intrinsically good or evil actions?​

"Is there any way" leaves open the question of circumstances. So no, there is no way, even given the extreme circumstance of being forced to leave your child and choose between the two, that the relativist can be trusted.

That was an answer to the specific question posed by the OP, not an answer to what extent or in what circumstances a relativist could possibly be trusted. So the only thing "pathetic" here is you trying to take my words out of context.

Why not just admit the simple and obvious fact that less trust does not equate to some trust? Do you really have to insist on something I never said, nor implied? Do you even think your argument is that weak?

Since you seem committed to the error of assuming less trust equates to some trust, it is safe to say that you must have been wrong about what you inferred I meant.

You are clutching at straws. If you had meant "less trust" to mean "no trust" then either you would have written "no trust" in the first place, or you are unable to write accurately what you mean.
So please clarify: did you mean "some trust" (i.e. more than none) or did you mean "no trust" (i.e. none), bearing in mind your previous assertion that "there is no way... that the relativist can be trusted..." (plus the additional qualification)?

Are you really this thick? Since I already answered the OP question, it should be clear that I was referring to a relativist generally being less trustworthy. Obviously, if they cannot be trusted at all in one circumstance, they are generally less trustworthy (even if they can be trusted with lessor matters).

You seriously need to get over all this black and white thinking of yours. Or are you just so insecure of your own argument that you think you need to play these games of trying to twist people's words around by taking them out of context?

Again, I have no trust in a relativist stranger specifically watching my child, and that makes them generally less trustworthy. Get the difference? I might still trust one with my car, because trust is relative to both the person and the circumstance.

Just because someone does not find your argument compelling does not mean that they have misunderstood it.

Granted, but you have not provided anything compelling to show that you've even understood the argument.

My only responsibility is in making my own argument, not providing anything about yours. And you are not likely to take anything I say as evidence of my understanding short of agreement with you. That is how bias and black and white thinking work.

You have only asked me what I find compelling about being a moral-relativist, not why I think they can be trusted, which is far easier, and which I have detailed back in my original post: because I judge their actions against my morals, the same as I would for an objectivist. Simples.

Yes, you said meta-ethical position was completely irrelevant to trustworthiness, which is a null hypothesis and can thus have no compelling argument.

It is, except you are intentionally dismissing any qualifications that would allow the question to remain within the scope of the OP (you know, having anything to do with relativism), and you only seem to do so after finding an answer is not the one you are looking for (will accept).

That is your misconception. You are simply introducing unwarranted qualifications to my line of reasoning (I.e. the specific questions that I asked, to highlight my line of thinking) that have nothing to do with it at all.
It's like me trying to explain to you how to play soccer, and you insisting on using your tennis racquet.

Again, why not simply explain your whole line of reasoning, so you could avoid any question of whether it is moving the goalpost or not? So far, you have no gotten far enough in explaining "soccer" for anyone to even know if we are on the appropriate playing field (the goalposts of the OP).

For example, teaching someone soccer would require explaining about using their hands. You might try to say you never use your hands, but that is not true, and you would have to get a lot further in explaining the game before you could make it clear.

There is no melt-down, just increasing frustration at your inability and/or unwilling to follow a line for reasoning without insisting on what have been demonstrated to be utter irrelevancies (I.e. your answering questions that have not been asked).

Then simply explain enough of your line for reasoning to prove you are not moving the goalposts. Pretty simple, unless your argument is just convoluted to obfuscate its weakness.

How is it moving the goalposts to say exactly how one can trust relativists (e.g. by judging their actions against your own morals)?

Because it was you who made a big deal out of evaluating based solely on meta-ethical position. It was your own goalpost that you accused others of moving but you are now moving (when it becomes inconvenient).

It is your misconception to think that a comparison is even asked for. It is not, and never has been, a matter of preference between relativists and objectivists, and certainly not in regard to leaving a child with strangers.
Your insistence on such a comparison as being the issue is nothing but of your own making.

The OP says, "Is there any way [to] ... logically trust that person if he states that there are no objectively and intrinsically good or evil actions?" No objectively and intrinsically good or evil actions can only be considered in contrast with objectively and intrinsically good or evil actions. The comparison is obvious if implicit (but we all know the trouble you have with implication and inference).

Its not evasion. If you claim to have followed it and not found it compelling, merely state what it is you disagree with.

I disagree that examining one meta-ethical stance on its own, independent of any comparison, can say anything about the other in a null hypothesis. A null hypothesis is the neutral claim that no relationship exists between two things (here trustworthiness and meta-ethical position). So saying that one M-E position has no special relationship to trustworthiness cannot refute an argument that another does.

It is all a dodge. Is that clear enough for ya?

I didn't mention "disagreement". Your inability to see that the argument has already been laid out is due to your lack of understanding.
You haven't yet countered the argument in any way, you just answer irrelevant questions.
I don't doubt you disagree with it, but you have yet to say where or why, other than through raising irrelevancies of how you find objectivism preferable.

Oh, you mean the line of reasoning you have yet to conclude? Apparently your argument is so fragile that any erroneous answer completely stumps it. Does your argument have any merit of its own?

Oh, you mean the "context" you have yet to provide? That is the current story, right? It is hard to keep up with how many times you seem to flip-flop, and all within a single post. But it almost certainly must be your contention that I do not know the context, otherwise accusations of you moving the goalpost would be wholly justified. But without this supposed context, how do you expect me to judge whether the question is, indeed, withing the scope of the OP?

The context should not have to be explicitly stated. I initially thought you intelligent enough to appreciate and realise that I was asking questions as part of a line of reasoning. Perhaps the fault is entirely mine for overestimating that intelligence?

Yes, poison the well in lieu of argument.

Yes, it is that significant.
If I asked "would you do X under condition Y?" and you answered "I would do X only under condition Z," then you have answered the question, since Z is not Y. So you explicitly state, through implication, that you would not do X under condition Y.
But if you answer "well, I'd do X under condition Z," then this does NOT answer the question, as it does not explicitly state anything about what you would do under condition Y (i.e. the question that was asked).
Do you still fail to see/understand/appreciate the significance of "only"?

Okay, now try explaining that without all the X & Y obfuscation. Try using the actual answers. On second thought, never mind. I am tired of the convoluted nonsense.

Perhaps you just need to answer the question that was asked, and not one that wasn't.

What? If not forced to do so, would I trust an objectivist stranger with my child? No, as I would not trust any stranger with my child unless forced to do so. But do you see how that completely dodges meta-ethical position altogether?

How can you not understand the very simple notion that circumstances of varying import will have inherently different criteria of trust? I will trust just about anyone enough to loan them a dollar...and only very few with several thousand. Hence "less trustworthy". Trust is relative to both the specific circumstances and the person involved (who is also relative to other people, including on the grounds of meta-ethical stance).

So you've changed your tune since "...there is no way... not even in the extreme scenario..." to be one of dependent upon what is at stake?
Great, we're getting somewhere once we remove all your contradictory nonsense and you stick to a position.

Do you yet accept that there are scenarios in which you would trust a moral relativist, despite your previous statements to the contrary? And thus do you accept that a moral relativist can be trusted?

Once you do that it then becomes a matter of what you use to base levels of trust on... and all you have to support your case there, that it is not merely their actions against your own morals, is your "oh, but I know all my friends are objectivists and one would be stupid not to know what their friend's meta-ethical position is" drivel!

Again, you seem to be having fun taking what I said demonstrably out of context. And again, there is no contradiction, other than what your simpleton's black and white thinking insists upon. Go back to where you got that quote you are harping on. This time, pay just a little bit of attention to the context for once.

And I have already said that a person's meta-ethical position is an indicator of conviction, and if you do not know the meta-ethical position of friends you have known your whole life then you lack the social skills to judge people altogether.

Yep, probably best, lest you start to admit to others that your position (that a moral relativist is unable to be trusted under any circumstance, even the extreme one you contrived) is an untenable one.

I did not say "under any circumstance". I said there was "no way" they could not be trusted with my child (specific circumstance), even if I were forced to choose.

 

[Syne]

That is woefully irrelevant to the posited scenario. When hiring a babysitter it is unlikely you are going to go over all their theological interpretations of the Bible with them. At most you will simply know they are Christian--one of your saintly moral absolutists. So there is a good possibility you will be exposing your children to someone who not only believes in corporeal punishment but also believes gayness is a sin that must be disciplined out of a child. Why would you even take such a risk? Why not spare yourself the worry and hire a nonreligious babysitter?

Well I guess if you tend to have gay children you might be overly concerned. Babysitters do not usually take a primary role in raising a child, so would have no reason to care. Babysitting is typically a business, where following the instructions of the parents ensures repeat business. And I do not know of any doctrine that promotes corporal punishment of children other than your own. Parental rights are typical sacrosanct.

 

[Magical Realist]

Well I guess if you tend to have gay children you might be overly concerned.

Doesn't matter if my children are gay or not. There's no way I'm going to hire someone with a homophobic agenda to drive the sissiness out of a young boy or what they may perceive to be unmasculine traits in him.

Babysitters do not usually take a primary role in raising a child, so would have no reason to care. Babysitting is typically a business, where following the instructions of the parents ensures repeat business.

Babysitters have to administer discipline just like teachers do. Choosing someone who doesn't believe corporal punishment is God's will as revealed in the Bible would definitely be a wise decision. Unless you happen to like having your kids abused.

And I do not know of any doctrine that promotes corporal punishment of children other than your own. Parental rights are typical sacrosanct.

The Bible makes no distinction. The verses simply refer to using a rod to discipline children. Such was a common view at one time in schools. We all remember paddling. That was the Christian way of punishing kids. Still is in many households.

 

[Syne]

@ Magical Realist

Corporal punishment is not exclusively the purview of Christians, and use to be a widely accepted method of discipline, even by many states (notably Sparta, which was Greek polytheist). It is not "the Christian way of punishing", it was merely the way of punishing. The Bible merely reflects the age it was written in. Nor is disbelieving gays are born such necessarily homophobic, nor is your extreme example necessarily to be generally expected. But you still seem more than happy to continue your hasty generalization, so Mao would make any atheist equally, if not more, repugnant. But again, a babysitter who does not follow parental instruction will not receive repeat work, and soon be out of work entirely.