Moral Relativism

[zynner]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy ["Moral" is defined as] A subjective set of ideas and principles which people use as a code for making decisions.

If we are debating whether or not there are moral absolutes, you cannot define "moral" as "subjective." Subjective is your conclusion (that I do not agree with), so you cannot use it as a premise in defining what "moral" is.

Also, you have left out the concept of actions. We make these decisions so that we can choose to act one way and not another. So, these principles and decision-making are a set of tools we use to ultimately choose how to act.

Do you agree?

I think moral absolutism is universally false. To say that there is a universal set of morals is demonstrably wrong. Just look at any two cultures and you will see differences in moral standards.

The evidence of different sets of moral standards (and actions) cannot mean that anything anybody thinks is moral really is moral just because they think so. If that were the case, it would be "moral" to do anything I want just because I think it is fine to do. And you would be immoral for trying to stop me or punish me, since I acted morally just because I thought so. The word "moral" would have no meaning.

Is this your position?

~ zynner

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: zynner Also, you have left out the concept of actions. We make these decisions so that we can choose to act one way and not another. So, these principles and decision-making are a set of tools we use to ultimately choose how to act. Do you agree?

Yes.

Quote by: zynner The evidence of different sets of moral standards (and actions) cannot mean that anything anybody thinks is moral really is moral just because they think so. If that were the case, it would be "moral" to do anything I want just because I think it is fine to do.

Moral by your standards. Immoral by my own. Overall, it's just something you did which we disagree on.

Quote by: zynner And you would be immoral for trying to stop me or punish me,

Immoral by your standards. Moral by my own. Overall, it's just another thing we disagree on, based on our difering moralities.

Quote by: zynner The word "moral" would have no meaning. Is this your position?

Pretty much.

[Athena]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Of course there are moral relativists. I am one and I think there are a whole lot of others on these forums. The blame, however is misplaced. Moral relativism leads to tolerance of other beliefs, behaviours and philosophies, based on the fact than none of them are right in an absolute sense. Moral absolutism leads to feelings of superiority, intolerance and prejudice, based on the belief that one's own views are somehow better than those of other people. Also, moral absolutism is frankly stupid and patently false.

Very nicely said. I want to add to this the difference, developed abstract thinking skills has on this. When we had liberal education we focused on the skills for abstract thinking and critically thinking, and we internalized "authority".

Education for technology, literally teaches different thinking skills. Education for technology stresses memorization and reliance on "authority", not critical thinking. This advances technology rapidly, but it sure destroys demoncracy with liberty. It leads to absolutist thinking and intolerance. Everyone is wanting to be technlogically correct, and this is largely relying on "authority" who have the right or wrong answers. This is very different from wisdom and knowing things are not black and white, and "authorities" can be fools in king clothing.

[Athena]

Quote by: zynner If we are debating whether or not there are moral absolutes, you cannot define "moral" as "subjective." Subjective is your conclusion (that I do not agree with), so you cannot use it as a premise in defining what "moral" is. Also, you have left out the concept of actions. We make these decisions so that we can choose to act one way and not another. So, these principles and decision-making are a set of tools we use to ultimately choose how to act. Do you agree? The evidence of different sets of moral standards (and actions) cannot mean that anything anybody thinks is moral really is moral just because they think so. If that were the case, it would be "moral" to do anything I want just because I think it is fine to do. And you would be immoral for trying to stop me or punish me, since I acted morally just because I thought so. The word "moral" would have no meaning. Is this your position? ~ zynner

The word "moral" originated as a Greek word meaning to know good manners and the law. By the law, in this context, we mean universal law. To become moral is to learn of universal laws. The bible is a very poor source of this information. If you are going to argue in favor of absolute morals, you must argue for absolute authority. Our democracy is the result of deciding no religious or political authority has absolute knowledge of absolute morals.

[PatrickHenry]

To a moral relativist, the attacks of September 11 must be given a moral pass.

The folks who (allegedly) killed themselves and others were acting in acccordance with their own moral code.

Therefore to one who acknowledges moral relativism, they have moral rectitude in their actions...

To an absolue moralist, the killing of innocent people is wrong and inexcusable simply because our relative moral values differ.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: PatrickHenry To a moral relativist, the attacks of September 11 must be given a moral pass. The folks who (allegedly) killed themselves and others were acting in acccordance with their own moral code. Therefore to one who acknowledges moral relativism, they have moral rectitude in their actions... To an absolue moralist, the killing of innocent people is wrong and inexcusable simply because our relative moral values differ.

You are either not reading replies made to you, or you are being intentionally obtuse. To the terrorists, their actions most certainly were not wrong, otherwise they would not have acted as they did. To us, their actions most certainly were wrong, and so we rightfully condemn them, and had we the opportunity, we would punish them in as harsh a manner as we could, and we would be right to do so. To a higher power watching from the aether above, perhaps the terrorists were right, and perhaps we were right, but until said power leans down out of the aether and shouts, "Hey! The name's Allah, and all you Christians shut the hell up," or words to that effect, we can't know who's right in any absolute sense.

Does that mean we ignore our own judgments because they don't match those of our enemy? Hell, no. I listen to myself before I listen to anybody else, just like every other human being on Earth. Sometimes my own head says, "You're being an idiot; do what your wife says," but if my head didn't say that, I wouldn't listen to her, either.

Moral relativism simply states that no side has any claim to absolute objective truth -- and that is the truth. Can you prove that those 19 terrorists are not sitting in paradise right now surrounded by nubile virgins in burkhas? If not, how do you know that they were wrong to act as they did? Killing innocent people? How many Iraqis deserved to get killed by the US military? How many Muslims deserved to get killed by Christians in the Crusades? There's a reason that people turn to moral relativism: no other position can be justified, because all of us have hands soaked in blood. None of us are good, none of us are righteous, and none of us are innocent. If we're all sinners, why should we think that some of us know the way? We don't know anything, and so all we can do is guess.

I'll still trust my own best guess over what somebody else tells me God said. And I'll let you make your own choice, because your chances of getting it right are just as good, and just as bad, as mine are. See how nicely that fits in with the ideas of liberty and equality that we all like to believe in?

[PatrickHenry]

CoffeeSaint either you aren't reading what I am writing correctly or you are too jacked up on coffee to smell your own gas.:)

Here's moral relativism:

Moral relativism generally stands in marked contrast to moral absolutism, moral realism, and moral naturalism, which all maintain the existence of moral facts: facts that entities can both know and judge, whether through some process of verification or through intuition. Examples include the philosophy of Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712 – 1778), who saw man's nature as inherently good, or of Ayn Rand, who believed morality derives from people exercising their unobstructed rationality. Other moral absolutists believe that humankind can derive moral knowledge from external sources such as a deity or revealed doctrines. Some hold that moral facts inhere in nature or reality. In each case, however, moral facts remain invariant, though the circumstances to which they apply may differ. Moreover, each of these schools of thought sees moral facts as objective and determinable. Moral relativism rejects the idea of an objective morality, but its proponents do not all agree as to the nature of morality.

Moral relativism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I say, as a moral absolutist, that to kill innocents is wrong. The moral relativist says, "Who can really say?"

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: PatrickHenry CoffeeSaint either you aren't reading what I am writing correctly or you are too jacked up on coffee to smell your own gas.:) Here's moral relativism: Moral relativism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I say, as a moral absolutist, that to kill innocents is wrong. The moral relativist says, "Who can really say?"

Yes, that is all true. But that doesn't mean that when someone acts in a way that I disapprove of, in a way that harms me or someone I wish to protect, that I will throw up my hands and say, "Well, perhaps that man was right to kill my family. Who am I to say?" I might do something like ask him why he did such a thing, but it wouldn't stop me from doing what I thought necessary to right the wrong. Even if I thought the man had a valid point, I'd still want to shoot him in the head seven or eight times.

I suppose my point here is that moral relativism does not imply an inability to act. A moral absolutist, confronted with an unfamiliar situation, might react on instinct; afterwards, the moral absolutist will decide if his actions were right or wrong according to his ideas of morality. A moral relativist, confronted with an unfamiliar situation, will do exactly the same thing. The only difference, really, is that the moral relativist has to recognize that any decision he makes about whether his action was justified or not is subjective. The fact that values are subjective does not make them any less real to the subject in question, and so that subjectivity does not limit one's ability to act morally.

[PatrickHenry]

Were talking moral philosophy here...not the instinctual rationale for self-defense. Hell, anybody will fight back if attacked and we will all defend our own.

But what is the moral force behind protecting the weak? You know, the ones not related to us? What is the point of rejecting genocide?

The relativist says, "Why should I/we get involved? Who knows what's really going on there?" and the absolutist says, " Stop killing those babies!"

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Were talking moral philosophy here...not the instinctual rationale for self-defense. Hell, anybody will fight back if attacked and we will all defend our own. But what is the moral force behind protecting the weak? You know, the ones not related to us? What is the point of rejecting genocide? The relativist says, "Why should I/we get involved? Who knows what's really going on there?" and the absolutist says, " Stop killing those babies!"

Can I ask why you get to tell me what I would say in any given situation?

The moral force behind protecting the weak is simply that the weak then become allies and productive citizens, even if in a limited way. If the return we get from protecting the weak does not make up for the sacrifices that we make in protecting them, then we don't protect them. Same for moral absolutists -- unless you currently give all of your income to feed starving children in Africa. When it is not overly harmful for you to help others, you do so, because you then get a reward; in my case, friends and allies, in your case friends and allies and a place in Heaven. Just because you get three rewards and I only get two doesn't mean I don't want my two rewards.

The point of rejecting genocide is the same: genocide is harmful to society, and preserving life is beneficial. What is good for my society is good for me, and so on these issues, society's morals and mine -- and yours -- coincide.

When it comes to baby killing, it seems to me that a whole hell of a lot more have been killed by moral absolutists than moral relativists; after all, moral relativists don't say, "Those children are the spawn of Satan! Destroy them before they corrupt us!" Moral relativists see everyone as equal, until they prove themselves otherwise through their actions; it is moral absolutism that allows people to place others in categories and then discriminate against people because of their category -- these people are "monsters," these are "subhuman," these are "infidels." I simply see them as people, with the potential to be beneficial to me and the potential to be harmful.

I am amazed that you are arguing against having an open mind. But, that's moral absolutism for you.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint I am amazed that you are arguing against having an open mind. But, that's moral absolutism for you.

I am amazed at the obtusity of your understanding of the term relativism. Absolute standards can protect the weak as a matter of course, for the purposes of justice and righteousness to be fulfilled. Relativism allows for the weak to be savaged because they don't have the correct ethnicity, religion, language or ruler. US moral relativism is what allows events like the Iraq War...

Here's a Buddhist perspective:

Bhikkhu Bodhi, an American Buddhist monk, wrote: “By assigning value and spiritual ideals to private subjectivity, the materialistic world view, threatens to undermine any secure objective foundation for morality. The result is the widespread moral degeneration that we witness today. To counter this tendency, mere moral exhortation is insufficient. If morality is to function as an efficient guide to conduct, it cannot be propounded as a self-justifying scheme but must be embedded in a more comprehensive spiritual system which grounds morality in a transpersonal order. Religion must affirm, in the clearest terms, that morality and ethical values are not mere decorative frills of personal opinion, not subjective superstructure, but intrinsic laws of the cosmos built into the heart of reality.”

From Wikipedia...

[zynner]

Bacon --

One more thing to add to the definition of “moral” is the idea that it is based on what one “should” do. It’s not just any old decision-making process, but it is to determine what is right vs. wrong.

So, “morality” is: a set of ideas and principles, which people use as a code for making decisions of what actions they “should“ take. Agree?

You say that such a thing is relative.

If your only point is that people differ as to what *they think* is moral, then of course that’s true. But so what? That does not mean they are right or wrong in their views. It just means it’s their opinon. Can they prove their morality is right?

If there is such a thing as moral absolutes, then many people might be wrong. For example, if the Christian version of right and wrong is actually true, then everybody who believes something else is wrong. But we don't need religion. We can use the scientific method.

If moral absolutes exist, then they have to be proven to be true, which means they have to be consistent and true for everyone. If they do exist, then the fact that a lot of people think and act differently would mean that those people are wrong. It doesn't mean that morality is subjective. It just means that people can make a choice to be immoral, or that they can just be wrong.

If we take a principle like “do what you like” and examine if that is a moral absolute, then we have to look at the effects in the real world of what would happen if everybody did pursue such a moral ideal. After all, we are talking about principles that tell us what people *should* do. It doesn’t matter that some people don’t accept it as valid. If it *is* valid -- a moral absolute -- then people *should* pursue it. That’s the point of morality.

If what you like to do is debate, but I like to put people in prison and I put you in prison, then you can’t debate. So, “do what you like” cannot be a moral absolute. It's not possible for it to apply to everyone.

If “stealing is good” is a moral absolute, and everyone applied it, then nobody would steal, which contradicts the proposed principle. If everybody pursued the moral good of stealing, then as soon as you stole from me, someone else would steal from you -- and you would be immoral if you were *not* stealing. Nobody would be able to keep the loot they stole, so people would give up and would not steal. That’s what would happen if everyone accepted this as a moral ideal.

However, if “don’t steal” were a moral absolute, and everyone applied it, then nobody would steal, which is consistent with the principle. Everybody would respect each other and we would have a (more) civilized society. Since morality has to do with the context of living within a society, the whole idea is how we interact with one another so that we can all enjoy our lives. Therefore, “don’t steal” *is* a moral absolute. Yes, I know, lots of people don’t accept it. That does not mean the principle is false (nor subjective). It just means that some people are immoral because they steal.

The moral absolutes do exist and can be identified with the scientific method. They revolve around the basics of property rights, starting with our bodies as our property. Things like don’t murder, don’t rape, and don’t steal are all moral absolutes because if applied to everyone, we would have a civilized society. The fact that not everybody follows them is *why* we do not have a civilized society.

And that is the whole point of morality.

~ zynner

[zynner]

Quote by: Isherwood If the moral objection to rape and murder (which I share, BTW) were absolute, he would feel guilt.

I disagree. The whole point of morality is that we all live in a society and we are attempting to identify those behaviors that make for a civilized society.

That does not mean that every single person will act in accordance with those moral principles. So what?

If we can identify moral principles that *if* applied universally to everyone in society then we *would* have a civilzed society, then we can say that said principles *are* valid moral principles. And that means, we *should* pursue them.

But, some people will still not pursue them. That doesn't mean that their vision of morality is valid. It just means those people are immoral. We can't expect immoral people to feel moral.

~ zynner

[JohnMK]

Let me just put this out there.

Social Contract and Morality are, or have been, linked. Agree or disagree, and why?

[samsara15]

If there are moral absolutes, and if moral absolutism is correct, then most of the world's people are immoral. Perhaps, both moral relativism and moral absolutism are not the best approach, and some other option is preferable.

Both the Social Contract and Morality set standards of what is expected of people wihin a culture, and while the two overlap in many ways, both include actions that does not belong in the other. I think of them as separate domains.

[zynner]

Quote by: JohnMK Social Contract and Morality are, or have been, linked. Agree or disagree, and why?

The social contract concept is a myth because it is not a real contract. Morality, on the other hand, is real because each of us uses it every day (even though we disagree on what is correct morality).

So, sure, they have been linked by many people, but that doesn't have any meaning, since one of the linked concepts doesn't actually exist.

Later.

~ zynner

[Athena]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint This is a mischaracterization of moral relativism. The idea is not that if anyone thinks something is okay, then it is okay; the idea is that my perceptions of morality are not necessarily better or more correct than another's. A rapist thinks rape is acceptable; I disagree. I cannot say absolutely that the rapist is wrong in an intellectual sense, because there is not an absolute standard we can judge his actions by. However, as Isherwood pointed out, society can certainly set sanctions against specific moral beliefs that society as a whole thinks are immoral -- such as the belief that rape is acceptable behavior -- and take action against those who hold those beliefs. And in society's eyes, as in yours and mine, there is no way to justify rape. So although it is true that the rapist's morality has as much objective truth as does mine, it is not a position that any sane person would argue, because the mindset of a rapist who accepts his own behavior as moral is so clearly deviant from the norm that there is no common ground between him and us. But in other cases, there is common ground, and the point can be made that the morals of an offender are just as valid as those of the offended. This is not to say that the morals of the offender are better, or that the morals of the offended should change; we are all equal here, and that is the essence of moral relativism. For another example, consider terrorists: in their eyes, we are the evil ones who are trying to destroy their homeland, their culture, their religion, their entire way of life; they have every right to fight back against us. To us, they are the evil ones who are slaughtering innocent civilians in an effort to dominate the world in the name of their religion. And since we do not have a clear, absolute moral standard, we cannot say we are right and they are wrong; all we can say is in our eyes they are wrong, and since they are our eyes, that's the view we are going with. The advantage of moral relativism is it does much to eliminate fanaticism, because even the most deep-seated beliefs are only right subjectively. When one realizes this, it lessens the urge and the ability to push one's beliefs on another -- and, according to my own relative and subjective morals, pushing one's beliefs on another is wrong.

Please, justify rape. That is a violation of another human being, and I can not possibly imagine how anyone could reason this does no harm, and therefore, can be the moral thing to do.

[Athena]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint But in other cases, there is common ground, and the point can be made that the morals of an offender are just as valid as those of the offended. This is not to say that the morals of the offender are better, or that the morals of the offended should change; we are all equal here, and that is the essence of moral relativism. For another example, consider terrorists: in their eyes, we are the evil ones who are trying to destroy their homeland, their culture, their religion, their entire way of life; they have every right to fight back against us. To us, they are the evil ones who are slaughtering innocent civilians in an effort to dominate the world in the name of their religion. And since we do not have a clear, absolute moral standard, we cannot say we are right and they are wrong; all we can say is in our eyes they are wrong, and since they are our eyes, that's the view we are going with. .

Isn't self defense a universal? Who would argue people do not have the right to defend themselves?

[Athena]

Quote by: zynner The social contract concept is a myth because it is not a real contract. Morality, on the other hand, is real because each of us uses it every day (even though we disagree on what is correct morality). So, sure, they have been linked by many people, but that doesn't have any meaning, since one of the linked concepts doesn't actually exist. Later. ~ zynner

To use your logic for morality being real, our social contract is real because we live by agreement every day. Morals are no more tangible than social agreements, and morals have no power unless there is social agreement something is moral. It is social agreement that is the most important, not the abstract concepts of morals. Unless :)

When morals are based on universal truths, then what happens is the result of universal law, and no one can escape universal law. If we are to understanding morality, we need study universal law.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Athena Please, justify rape. That is a violation of another human being, and I can not possibly imagine how anyone could reason this does no harm, and therefore, can be the moral thing to do.

I cannot justify rape. I never said I could. I cannot understand the thought processes of those who do justify rape, and, as I said, I think whatever justification they have in their minds is totally and unquestionably wrong.

All I'm trying to say is that, in their own heads, rapists believe their actions are justified. If they did not think their actions are justified, they would not act as they do. Now, this being the case, there are two possibilities: one, there is an absolute truth about what is moral and what is not, and the rapist simply cannot understand/perceive it while other people can; or two, morality is subjective, determined only by the specific people involved. I think the second one is true. To me, that means that no action is intrinsically, inherently wrong, it is only wrong because we say it is.

I say rape is wrong. Because I'm the one saying it, and I like me, I think I'm right. A rapist would disagree with me, because he thinks his actions are acceptable. I can't say that he's absolutely wrong, but I think he is, and that is enough for me to condemn him. Society also thinks he is wrong, and that is enough for society to punish him. All I'm saying is that we can't tell if his actions are wrong in the eyes of the universe, or nature, or a higher power if there is one, so all we can rely on is our own opinions. That does NOT mean I think he is right.