Moral Relativism

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Semantics. A way to confuse the issue. There are some things that are always wrong to do. And some things that are OK in most circumstances but not others...

Let's be specific, shall we? Name some examples of actions that are always wrong no matter what the circumstances, and if possible, explain why.
By the way, stating that there are some things that are "OK in most circumstances but not others" is a morally relative position; did you mean that? Or are there actions that are ALWAYS right and good?

[Autolykos]

Quote by: JohnMK This is a compelling perspective, and I believe mirrors my own intuition on the matter. In your descriptivist synopsis, morality would appear to have a utilitarian function, putting forth the rules by which utilitarian maximization might be realized. Zynner seems to agree with this view. I consider myself (in significant measure) to be a rule-based utilitarian. Freedom, in my opinion, is the rule that when adopted tends towards utilitarian maximization of happiness. I don't say absolute freedom because I believe that to be incoherent (divide by zero error). I should not be free to summarily kill my next door neighbor: such a constraint on my freedom has utility to me and to everyone else in my community. As I have lightly articulated in a previous post, if I had to pick between the two terms moral absolutist and moral relativist, I wouldn't. I don't believe those terms have utility.

I actually disagree with utilitarianism, for the simple fact that utility cannot be measured in cardinal terms (to say nothing of how to define "happiness"). Rather, I approach morality from a logical perspective, based on what I find to be axioms of human nature.

Also, I find morality to be a personal thing, despite the fact that it governs social interactions. People choose to act (or refrain from acting) according to their own personal morals. They cannot make such choices for anyone else.

Let's take your example of killing your next-door neighbor. In reality, you are always free to (try to) do so, in spite of any moral qualms you may have. You prevent yourself from killing your next-door neighbor if you believe that doing so would be morally wrong. No one else does it for you; you do it for yourself.

Utilitarianism also commits the reification fallacy in that it presumes there is an objective fact called "the good of society", "the common good", "the general welfare", etc. Society is a concept for describing the interactions between/among individuals within a given area. As such, even if the concept of "the good of society" could be asserted, one could not assert that it is greater than the sum of its parts (i.e. the individual interactions). Thus it is hard to see how such a thing can exist as an objective fact waiting to be discovered.

- Rob

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint Let's be specific, shall we? Name some examples of actions that are always wrong no matter what the circumstances, and if possible, explain why. By the way, stating that there are some things that are "OK in most circumstances but not others" is a morally relative position; did you mean that? Or are there actions that are ALWAYS right and good?

Always wrong: Killing the innocent. Torturing people. Targeting civilian populations in war. Drunk driving. Why? You figure it out, relativist...

Sometimes right and sometimes wrong: Eating a sandwich. OK if you're hungry. Wrong if you're not.
Posting on Volconvo: Fine if you have time. Wrong if you have more pressing obligations.

Always right and good: Taking responsibility for your own actions.

[luke virtual kh]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman Obviously you guys are having some trouble defining your terms. Maybe you should settle on a common definition before you start throwing around the heated rhetoric?

Good idea in principle.

[luke virtual kh]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Semantics. A way to confuse the issue. There are some things that are always wrong to do. And some things that are OK in most circumstances but not others... I am a Christian. If "God" told me? Get real. God doesn't tell people to do wrong. I have read the Hebrew bible, yes. Your point?

Confusing semantics? No - rather clear and agreed upon definitions of the issues we are debating. Would that not be helpful? Please define relativism for me and us, and then we can see if we are talking about the same thing.
Some things are always wrong? Yes I agree, but that universalism does not prove objectivity. The way I see things one can be a universalist and a relativist, the relativism only describes the origin and nature of the moral standpoint, not dictating or limiting in any way it's content.
I mentioned God and Christianity and posted the link because it can be argued that "God" promoted rape, precisely the thing you accused moral relativists of being by implication prepared to allow, which if you follow my line of thought in the previous paragraph is a non sequitir. You can't derive actual moral regulatory content from merely knowing someones meta-ethical position. Someone could be a subjectivist for instance, or an unspecified Divine command advocate but from knowing that alone we can only guess what her or his practical moral views are, right? There's no strict logical implication from one to the next...
Now back to the Bible and whether the Xtian God is good. In the Bible God allows Jewish babies to be dashed to pieces and pregnant Jewish women to be ripped open, yet you say God doesn't "allow" people to do wrong. It wouold seem that "He" has commanded it - if such things are after all immoral and you have no argument about the interpretation of the text then Judeo Christian divine command theory has evil implications:
"(Hosea 13:16 NRSV) Samaria shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword, their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open."

Perhaps you could be a Divine command theorist and also define God as good, form which you could conclude he doesn't allow or condone evil. All is well in principle. If you look at the history of religion though, for instance the Old Testament, is seems that God commanded things we find morally objectionable. Your view that relativism, and I'll take a guess here that you meal all relativism, implies evil and rape is both a techincal non-sequitir and a blatant strawman if you know your facts.
In spite of all this you're probably a highly moral person - I just think that the nitty gritty of your world view is not 100% consistent and true thats all. I'm not saying you're inclined to actually be a rapist or baby dasher, or even ever condone such things, as you think relativists are, I'm looking more closely at the beliefs you yourself could technically by implication be said to hold, and the false idea you might have of my own moral beliefs. Anyway away for good for this post from Divine Command Judeo-Christianity and it's complications and back again to relativism itself.
Again I'll ask you to define moral relativism so we can see if we're talking about the same thing.I feel it is important that we are as I might not agree with other relativists and you might confuse me with one of them. I'm a meta ethical relativist, one of the many breeds of relativist, and that is an important point. A cursory definition: "Meta-ethical relativists maintain that all moral judgments have their origins either in societal or in individual standards, and that no single objective standard exists by which one can assess the truth of a moral proposition. " I feel that you might be working with a different idea or relativism altogether, which you are free to do, but please if you're going to call us all rape permitters, have a look at the definition of relativism I have provided and carry on from there.
Touche?

[JohnMK]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Always wrong: Killing the innocent. Torturing people. Targeting civilian populations in war. Drunk driving. Why?

In the field of philosophy, I am more conceptually adept than lexically. I view this as an asset: many minds think within the confines of their spoken/written language, and this can impede sound reasoning. Language is a particularly poor facsimile of my catecholaminergic insight, so with that in mind, the transcription:

These types of activities are outlawed as a result of something akin to "social contract," whether you realize it or not. We invent fluttery words to describe our motivations, but the denomination is one of rational self-interest amongst groups of people. In point of fact, history has shown a much greater tendency to commit these acts (your list and others) against people who aren't members of your tribe; within the tribe, within the bounds of efficient communication, there is greater exposure to the benefits of obeying the social contract, such benefits including the use of communal capital such as aqueducts, and the avoidance of punishment (exile, capital, social, and so on).

There is significant benefit in protecting yourself. Whom better to enlist than everybody else in such a pursuit?

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Always wrong: Killing the innocent. Torturing people. Targeting civilian populations in war. Drunk driving. Why? You figure it out, relativist...

I don't need to figure it out; I agree with you on every one of these points, in general terms. In an ordinary situation, all of these things are entirely evil/bad/wrong in my view. However, I can easily think of situations in which, well, they aren't totally wrong. To wit:
Killing the innocent is a tough one, because I'm not sure what you mean by "innocent." If you mean someone who has never done anything wrong, I don't believe that such people exist. If you mean it is wrong to kill someone as a punishment for a crime they did not commit, that a person is innocent in a specific instance, what if that person is guilty of some other crime? If you have, say, Ted Bundy convicted of a murder he actually wasn't guilty of, would it be wrong to kill him (if we're imagining that capital punishment is acceptable, of course) since he is, in the specific instance, innocent?
If by killing the innocent you are referring to war and similar circumstances, then killing the innocent would be acceptable if it was an unavoidable consequence of achieving a greater good. IF dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima was the best way to end WWII, then the killing of the innocent civilians was not entirely wrong.
Or an easier one, if I'm understanding "innocent" correctly: abortion.

Torturing people: if someone is a masochist and wants to be tortured, how could it be wrong? If torturing someone could honestly prevent the deaths of thousands, would it really be wrong to do so?

Targeting civilian populations in war: the Hiroshima example above. It requires that the war's objective actually be for the greater good, but if the objective is one such, and the targeting of civilian populations would bring about that objective, then perhaps it is not entirely wrong.

Drunk driving: if I am drunk, and my friend is having a heart attack and we have no phone, should I let him die, or drive drunk to a phone?

Quote by: PatrickHenry Sometimes right and sometimes wrong: Eating a sandwich. OK if you're hungry. Wrong if you're not. Posting on Volconvo: Fine if you have time. Wrong if you have more pressing obligations. Always right and good: Taking responsibility for your own actions.

Are you really setting moral standards for the eating of sandwiches? Personally, I'd leave that out of a debate on morality, but OK. Eating sandwiches is always wrong if you are allergic to bread. Eating sandwiches is always right if you're me, and believe as I do that sandwiches are the perfect food, and can make very small sandwiches for when you aren't really hungry. I'm never too full for a tiny sandwich.

Taking responsibility for your own actions is always right and good? Does that mean nobody should ever sacrifice himself for others, by taking blame for an action that was not his? What if an action is only partly your responsibility? Or the action was yours, but the motivation was not -- someone threatened your family unless you commit a crime, for instance. The action was yours, but should you always take responsibility for it?

Look: circumstances change. Nothing is absolute. I believe that our moral judgments should be flexible and not rigid. Even if the situation that would call for flexibility is outrageously improbable, we still need to be mentally ready for that infinitesimal possibility -- and that means we should not be morally absolute. I don't think there are no morals, or there is no right and wrong -- I just don't think right and wrong are, or should be, unquestionable. We always need to observe and consider before we judge -- always.

[zynner]

Quote by: LogicaLunatic But what about stealing from somebody who's holding you captive? How about killing somebody that's trying to kill you? Is killing somebody ok under some circumstances and not ok under others? If so, you're a moral relativist. As environment/situation changes, so do 'morals'.

Morality is about the concept of making a choice among possible options. It is also about the concept of making the “right” choice. That requires free will. If one’s free will has been denied by another, then, obviously, one cannot make a moral choice.

As soon as you say that someone is using force against you, then you have entered into a realm where morality is not the issue. It becomes survival. If you ask me whether or not I should murder someone, I will say no. However, if you point a gun at me and say that either I do it or I die, then whatever decision I make is not one of morality. It is one of survival because you have changed the game.

Morality requires free will. That is the only way one can make a “right” or even a “good” choice among alternatives. If I cannot make the choice I would most like to make due to force being used against me, then the decision-making process is not about morality at all.

Everything must be understood within its context. The context of morality is one of free will. Take away free will and we are talking about something other than morality.

- - -

Quote by: JohnMK Bottom line is, in my neighborhood, we have laws against murder, and rape, and so on, and if you wanna come here and violate those laws, just try to get away with it. When we passed these laws, I don't recall the word "moral" coming up even once. So watchyou talkin' 'bout Willis?

Hey, Arnold, midgets go to the back of the line. ;-)

Ok, so you have some laws passed. The ink did not get on the paper by itself. Some people passed these laws (or one person, if I had my way -- lol). Now then, what decision-making process did these people apply in order to arrive at the decision that they *should* pass this law, but not that one?

- - -

Quote by: The Bacon Guy I disagree. Some of us seek truth through religion or through science. However, strange as it may seem to a member of a debate forum, there are those who simply don’t care.

Yes, people have differences of opinion about what constitutes morality. That’s not the issue, though many here seem to be defining those differences as moral relativism. The question is this: Does the fact that people have differences of opinion regarding what constitutes morality mean that morality, as such, is relative or subjective?

If I think the Earth is flat and you don’t, we disagree. Can one of us prove the other wrong? Yes.

So, if you and I disagree that “human survival is good” then can one of us prove the other wrong? Yes. You prove it every day when you eat.

Gravity is absolute because it operates in exactly the same way between every particle in the universe. Morality is not absolute because it differs from mood to mood, person to person and culture to culture.

Ah … but you say gravity “operates” and then you say morality “differs.” You are demonstrating that people differ on what *constitutes* morality, not that morality, as such, is relative or subjective.

Just as we can see a ball fall to the Earth when it is released -- every time -- we can also see certain results when certain moral ideas are applied.

Let’s take property rights. What happens when the concept of property rights is denied by an entire society and that concept is applied in the real world? First, we find that such a thing is not possible. What happens is, some small group of people still have to make final decisions and they are the ones who control all property while everybody else has virtually no control. What we get is poverty, starvation, and brutality. The USSR, Cuba, and North Korea are all examples. And this happens every time -- every time -- such a concept is applied, just like the ball dropping to Earth.

So, if we go with the moral principle “nobody can own property,” we find that (a) it is not possible to actually implement that principle in the real world (just like we cannot show that dropping a ball makes it float in mid-air), and (b) the result of attempting to do so is a society that starves. That is to say, it creates a non-human society. Since the context of morality is a human society, applying a moral idea that results in a non-human society (like, one that won’t allow you to eat every day, which you would normally choose to do for survival), it cannot be a valid moral idea. Sure, people can still hold that belief, just like they can hold a belief that the Earth is flat. So what? If the idea is applied in the real world and we find that the concept is not possible, then the concept is *wrong.*

Not so. There is no God, but I can still debate the existence with one who does believe in God. I am in effect arguing that moral and immoral does not exist. It is, like God, simply a man made concept which makes the world easier to understand.

Moral ideas are applied in the real world. They have consequences. I cannot choose the consequence of a moral act (like getting caught in a shoot-out during a bank robbery), but I can choose whether or not to choose that action (robbing a bank). Because morality is acted out in the real world, just like dropping a ball, we can use reality to discover what we *should* do.

My moral code leads me to seek the truth. But that is my moral code. I don't think anyone who does not seek the truth is wrong.

That’s not the point. First, everybody seeks truth (just look at this thread or any other on the forum or any other element of human life). Second, by your own definition, it is irrelevant what you think about my actions. If the moral is defined as what the individual who takes the action thinks is right, then you cannot say *anything* is immoral.

If the only thing that can be said about morality is that it is anything anybody says it is, then it is a meaningless concept. But since so many people obviously live their lives by some code of principles, it must not be meaningless.

Rather, it must be that there are some moral principles that, *because* of the results when applied in the real world, are “more good” than others. They must have some sort of higher standing in human thought than other principles. It’s up to us to discover what they are, not just look at the ball and claim we could never, ever figure out why it drops to the ground.

~ zynner

[luke virtual kh]

1) Coffee Saint counld you not say that:

If by killing the innocent you are referring to war and similar circumstances, then killing the innocent would be acceptable if it was an unavoidable consequence of achieving a greater good.

Could you not say that such killing is a necessary evil?


2) You also say:

Killing the innocent is a tough one, because I'm not sure what you mean by "innocent." If you mean someone who has never done anything wrong, I don't believe that such people exist.

(text emboldened by self, I hope that this is OK C/S.)

Which seems like it could be contradicted by:

We always need to observe and consider before we judge -- always.

Look, a baby is a person, right or wrong? If, as you say, people who have done no wrong don't exist, and also you believe a baby is a person, tell me the adjudged "sin"/wrong of the baby for example one in China, especially one "sin"/wrong you can know from your current level of observations.
I hope you don't mind the digression from the main topic here, I'm just interested in how you work things out thats all... especially since you have also said:

I believe that our moral judgments should be flexible and not rigid.

[luke virtual kh]

Zynner please read the whole post before responding. I respect your views, but disagree with them on a subtle level or two. Please read all however as I might seem to differ with you more than you micht be lead to believe, and also my argument and explanation will take a little time.

Zynner you say that:

Morality requires free will.

I'm not sue how this relates to the issue of relativism, but I for one, and for the record, am a soft determinist and also believe that morality can be explained within a purely deterministic framework.

Everything must be understood within its context. The context of morality is one of free will. Take away free will and we are talking about something other than morality.

Again for the record I am a subjectivist, which I believe falls under the rubric of meta-ethical relativism, but I simply don't see what freedom of the will has to do with the issue at all.

If I think the Earth is flat and you don’t, we disagree. Can one of us prove the other wrong? Yes.

Agreed.

So, if you and I disagree that “human survival is good” then can one of us prove the other wrong? Yes. You prove it every day when you eat

.I don't see how the conclusion follows from the premises at all, or what scientific facts you could use to prove not the efficacy of eating food but more specifically that eating food and survival are in fact good. Perhaps you could put in syllogistic form for me, so I can see your reasoning process more clearly. I fear that the ethical content of your answer will boil down to the fact that you say so, or someone else says so, which is a relativist subjectivist position.

Just as we can see a ball fall to the Earth when it is released -- every time -- we can also see certain results when certain moral ideas are applied.

Thats an important insight IMHO Zymmer.

Because morality is acted out in the real world, just like dropping a ball, we can use reality to discover what we *should* do.

And again, but that doesn't prevent morality from being a subjective phenomena.

This can be understood if you will read the following hand picked definition of objective:
1. free of bias: free of any bias or prejudice caused by personal feelings

Surely to return to the example you gave above of eating food, the valuation of food comes from it's effect on our personal feelings of hunger or satisfaction. The objective element in the equation (food promoting welfare and survival) influences the subject, who instinctively values food if hungry, and therefore he is likely to say that "food is good". However this process is not dissinterested as science is, rather it depends in part, which I also believe is the moral part, on subjectivity.
I have a feeling that I haven't expressed myself too well, but that you'll get what I mean all the same. Laboratotry experiments, social surveys, medical discoveries, mathematical equations, the objective world don't tell us what is good, rather it's our subjective response - even if that response is rational and informed - that determines that moral element.
And in my view subjectivism is a form of meta ethical relativism.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: zynner If I think the Earth is flat and you don’t, we disagree. Can one of us prove the other wrong? Yes. So, if you and I disagree that “human survival is good” then can one of us prove the other wrong? Yes. You prove it every day when you eat.

No. I prove when I eat that human survival is desirable for me. I could just as easily say that murderers and people who commit suicide prove that human survival is bad. Neither of these points prove the survival morality as an absolute.

Quote by: zynner Ah … but you say gravity “operates” and then you say morality “differs.” You are demonstrating that people differ on what *constitutes* morality, not that morality, as such, is relative or subjective. Just as we can see a ball fall to the Earth when it is released -- every time -- we can also see certain results when certain moral ideas are applied.

Right, but the very fact that different moral ideas can be applied proves that there are no moral absolutes. There is only one set of laws governing gravity. If any other law is applied, it will not work. Hence, gravity is absolute.

Quote by: zynner Let’s take property rights. What happens when the concept of property rights is denied by an entire society and that concept is applied in the real world? First, we find that such a thing is not possible. What happens is, some small group of people still have to make final decisions and they are the ones who control all property while everybody else has virtually no control. What we get is poverty, starvation, and brutality. The USSR, Cuba, and North Korea are all examples. And this happens every time -- every time -- such a concept is applied, just like the ball dropping to Earth. So, if we go with the moral principle “nobody can own property,” we find that (a) it is not possible to actually implement that principle in the real world (just like we cannot show that dropping a ball makes it float in mid-air), and (b) the result of attempting to do so is a society that starves. That is to say, it creates a non-human society. Since the context of morality is a human society, applying a moral idea that results in a non-human society (like, one that won’t allow you to eat every day, which you would normally choose to do for survival), it cannot be a valid moral idea.

How does denying someone the ability to eat constitute a loss of humanity?

Quote by: zynner Moral ideas are applied in the real world. They have consequences. I cannot choose the consequence of a moral act (like getting caught in a shoot-out during a bank robbery), but I can choose whether or not to choose that action (robbing a bank). Because morality is acted out in the real world, just like dropping a ball, we can use reality to discover what we *should* do.

But what we “should do” is subjective, in that it differs from person to person. What if someone wants to get caught up in a shoot-out? Surely robbing a bank is precisely what they should do. Hence, the “don’t rob a bank” morality is not absolute.

Quote by: zynner Second, by your own definition, it is irrelevant what you think about my actions. If the moral is defined as what the individual who takes the action thinks is right, then you cannot say *anything* is immoral.

Precisely.

Quote by: zynner If the only thing that can be said about morality is that it is anything anybody says it is, then it is a meaningless concept. But since so many people obviously live their lives by some code of principles, it must not be meaningless.

That’s taking quite a leap to say that anything subjective is meaningless. Morality is subjective but I would not call it meaningless. It is what leads us to make our decisions; decisions which have a meaningful impact on the world.

Quote by: zynner Rather, it must be that there are some moral principles that, *because* of the results when applied in the real world, are “more good” than others.

But our concept of "more good" changes with time and with culture. During the Cursades, it was seen as good to go over to Jerusalem and slaughter the Saracens. Today, it would be seen as wrong. Morality is all related to what we see as good and evil. Since our concept of good and evil is forever changing, it is not possible that morality exists as a constant.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Coffee Killing the innocent is a tough one, because I'm not sure what you mean by "innocent." If you mean someone who has never done anything wrong, I don't believe that such people exist. If you mean it is wrong to kill someone as a punishment for a crime they did not commit, that a person is innocent in a specific instance, what if that person is guilty of some other crime? If you have, say, Ted Bundy convicted of a murder he actually wasn't guilty of, would it be wrong to kill him (if we're imagining that capital punishment is acceptable, of course) since he is, in the specific instance, innocent? If by killing the innocent you are referring to war and similar circumstances, then killing the innocent would be acceptable if it was an unavoidable consequence of achieving a greater good. IF dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima was the best way to end WWII, then the killing of the innocent civilians was not entirely wrong.

I just want to add that the definition of innocence itself is also relative. During the Crusades, it was seen as perfectly acceptable, even commendable, to slaughter the Muslims in Jerusalem because, under God's law, they were guilty of the sin of denying Christ as the son of God. Nowadays, any Muslim who has not broken the law of his resident country is seen as innocent and it is therefore seen as wrong to kill him. The definition of innocence, and therefore the morality surrounding the killing of innocents, is chronologically and culturally relative.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy I just want to add that the definition of innocence itself is also relative. During the Crusades, it was seen as perfectly acceptable, even commendable, to slaughter the Muslims in Jerusalem because, under God's law, they were guilty of the sin of denying Christ as the son of God. Nowadays, any Muslim who has not broken the law of his resident country is seen as innocent and it is therefore seen as wrong to kill him. The definition of innocence, and therefore the morality surrounding the killing of innocents, is chronologically and culturally relative.

Thank you; I was trying to say this, but couldn't get it out. I find it's always a good idea to be on the side of the pirate.

Preferably upwind. Har-harrrr!

[luke virtual kh]

Quote by: zynner Second, by your own definition, it is irrelevant what you think about my actions. If the moral is defined as what the individual who takes the action thinks is right, then you cannot say *anything* is immoral.

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Precisely.

I disagree entirely, and I believe you should too. A subjectivist relativist may say that cruelty to animals is immoral, period. Or he may not. Subjectivism doesn't dictate or limit your moral views in any way, and certainly deosn't prevent one from holding the opinion or saying that certain things are immoral or wrong in y/our view.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: luke virtual kh 1) Coffee Saint counld you not say that: Could you not say that such killing is a necessary evil?

Yes, I would say that, in some cases. But by definition, a "necessary" evil is one that has some good end -- otherwise it would not be necessary. If there is some good purpose to this "evil" act, then it isn't purely, absolutely evil, and that's my point.

Quote by: luke virtual kh 2) You also say: Killing the innocent is a tough one, because I'm not sure what you mean by "innocent." If you mean someone who has never done anything wrong, I don't believe that such people exist. (text emboldened by self, I hope that this is OK C/S.) (CS aside: yeah, feel free.) Which seems like it could be contradicted by: We always need to observe and consider before we judge -- always.

I don't see it as a contradiction; in fact, that is a validation -- though since it is my opinion validating my opinion, it isn't an impressive one. Because there is nobody who could be considered "innocent" as in "never having done anything wrong," there is no way to instantaneously, and without thought, judge someone as above reproach, or forever safe from being harmed in a certain situation, a situation that requires a "necessary evil." We must observe the situation and consider the person's past and present characteristics and actions before we can judge that person worthy of living or not. Well, more likely we would be judgeing the rightness or wrongness of a certain action in hindsight; I don't believe that soldiers in war need consider the worthiness of their enemies on an individual basis before opening fire.

Quote by: luke virtual kh Look, a baby is a person, right or wrong? If, as you say, people who have done no wrong don't exist, and also you believe a baby is a person, tell me the adjudged "sin"/wrong of the baby for example one in China, especially one "sin"/wrong you can know from your current level of observations. I hope you don't mind the digression from the main topic here, I'm just interested in how you work things out thats all... especially since you have also said: I believe that our moral judgments should be flexible and not rigid. Touche?

Of course newborn children are not free of wrongdoing. In China the child was guilty of being born female, or guilty of being born unwanted into a family that couldn't support it. Obviously those are considered valid reasons to kill a newborn in China, or the people would not do it -- assuming they actually do; is the whole China baby-killing thing apocryphal, or genuine?
If you are asking me for my opinion of the innocence of newborns, I would say they are probably free of wrong-doing, and so I personally am against infanticide. However, like any of my morals, there is the possibility of that judgement changing under certain circumstances: if there is a family stuck in desperate straits -- stranded in the desert, for instance -- I would accept that a baby probably should be left behind if it would become a burden that would endanger the lives of the adults, and I would not consider the family morally wrong if they chose to sacrifice a doomed newborn in order to save the other lives at stake.

[luke virtual kh]

....Combating the idea that relativism implies anything goes....

In no way does relativism/subjectivism imply moral apathy.

[luke virtual kh]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint Of course newborn children are not free of wrongdoing. In China the child was guilty of being born female, or guilty of being born unwanted into a family that couldn't support it. Obviously those are considered valid reasons to kill a newborn in China, or the people would not do it -- assuming they actually do; is the whole China baby-killing thing apocryphal, or genuine?... If you are asking me for my opinion of the innocence of newborns, I would say they are probably free of wrong-doing, and so I personally am against infanticide.

I'm glad thay you're against such infanticide. I am too.
Just to get things clear, I again wish to reassert the fact that just because morality differs from culture to cluture and person to person, and the relativist views it as a reflection of it as a relative/subjective phenomena, ...I'm posting to reassert that fact that the relativist does not therefore have to say that theres no way to decide between the varying moral standpoints, and that all views are equally valid or good. I hope you agree with me that the practice in China is in the sense being discussed here - is wrong! A subjective position? Yes... but passionately and unswervingly held all the same, in spite of what other people may do or say.

Let's try and use our influence.