Moral Relativism

[samsara15]

Religious people like to blame all kinds of things on 'moral relativists'. Have you ever met many 'moral relativists', or anyone who called themselves a 'moral relativist', unless they were doing it to spite someone? Is there any such thing, or is it just a bogeyman, a strawman, a scapegoat?

[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.

[zynner]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy ...moral absolutism is ... patently false.

I think you are wrong about that. But maybe it depends on your definitions.

What is your definition of "moral?"

Also, is this statement above something that only applies to you or would you say it is a universal principle that applies to everyone (just want to make sure we're on the same page, here)?

~ zynner

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Zynner What is your definition of "moral?"

A subjective set of ideas and principles which people use as a code for making decisions.

Quote by: Zynner Also, is this statement above something that only applies to you or would you say it is a universal principle that applies to everyone (just want to make sure we're on the same page, here)?

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.

[JohnMK]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy 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.

I take a position in-between. Some moral standards are wrong, IMO. There might not be absolutes, but the concept of asymptotes has some allure.

[The Bacon Guy]

The problem I have with moral absolutism is that it implies one of two things.

It is used by some to mean a set of God given morals which are right in an absolute sense, and anyone who does not conform to them is wrong/immoral. This is almost inconceivably arrogant and there is no reason whatsoever to believe it.

It is also used by some to mean that there is a general set of morals which everyone shares, regardless of culture, personality, genetics etc. For example, some might say that there is a universal morality against killing. Obviously, this is not the case (think sacrifice, murder, war, capital punishment, etc.). There are differing moralities on each of them.

I like the idea of moral asymptotes. There are values which are shared by the overwhelming majority, such as not causing suffering, not killing the innocent, not kicking puppies, etc. However, there are always exceptions; there are no absolutes.

[Jack]

Just look at the admonition to not kill (or murder in some translations) in the bible. An honest christian will tell you there are times when killing another is justified. There couldn't be an absolute moral objection to killing that the majority of people in our society would support. (When using the alternative term murder, we need to remember that murder 2000 years ago was not necessarily the same thing as the legally defined offense we have now.)

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy A subjective set of ideas and principles which people use as a code for making decisions. 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.

Well, good luck with that...That means you approve of others who would kill your family for political purposes. They're just doing what they think is right.

Since you won't take a position that people should be nice to each other, you just gotta take it up your ass and smile...

Moral relativism means anything anybody wants to do is ok.

Maybe some sick bastard will rape your kid, but that wouldn't be wrong or anything, huh?

There are absolute standards of right and wrong, bubba.

[Jack]

Maybe some sick bastard will rape your kid, but that wouldn't be wrong or anything, huh?

Obviously not to the sick bastard, anyway. He doesn't feel guilt about his actions.

If the moral objection to rape and murder (which I share, BTW) were absolute, he would feel guilt. It may not over-ride his desire for pleasure, but he would be aware of it.

I have heard sick bastards describe their behaviors without a trace of guilt though most knew it was illegal activity. But that's intellectualizing, not expressing an emotional response.

Morals often appeal to our emotional responses to certain activities. That's why sex has so much moral baggage almost universally.

[PatrickHenry]

Listen Isherwood.

If you are a moral relativist, you must agree that others have as much right to make moral choices as you, and that theirs are as valid as yours.

Therefore you must agree that it is OK to rape kids if that is the person's choice...

[Jack]

Not at all. Living in a society demands cooperation and compromise. If your desires, fetishes or beliefs make you a danger to others, then society has a right, in its best interest, to control your acting on those impulses.

I can't force another to share my moral attitudes toward anti-social behaviors, but collectively we can restrict their ability to act them out.

Morality is not absolute in its perception, though a society can make it absolute in its application.

[Right of Center]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Listen Isherwood. If you are a moral relativist, you must agree that others have as much right to make moral choices as you, and that theirs are as valid as yours. Therefore you must agree that it is OK to rape kids if that is the person's choice...

That is why there is some things, like laws, that have to be placed in black and white. If the moralities of the society change, then so should the laws. There is too much gray in "Moral Relativism" for me to be comfortable with. Nobody should be a moral relativist. You have to believe in things that are right and things that are wrong. Otherwise bad actions have no consequences and good actions have no rewards.

[PatrickHenry]

Moral relativists don't want anything codified in law. They believe that everyone is a free moral agent and can make their own choices. All of them equally valid...

[Jack]

Moral relativists don't want anything codified in law.

Not this one. I appreciate the need for guidelines in a society. I'm old-school. I still believe in acting like a gentleman-all that entails.
But that's the application of morals. We have made allowances in our laws for acts that don't have an absolute morality.

I'll continue to use killing another human being as my example. Our society is very divided on how it views this act. In some cases it's justified, in others inexcusable. We have degrees of homocide. Obviously we don't have an absolute moral attitude toward causing the death of another. The fact that every act of killing another is investigated and examined speaks to our desire that all killing could be "wrong". But the fact we allow for it to be justified at times suggests we are not that absolutely opposed to it.

[PatrickHenry]

A moral relativist believes that another person's rationale for behavior is no less valid than his own. He supports diversity...:rolleyes:

There is no crime that can't be justified by the moral relativist...

[Jack]

Then you and I differ in our understanding of the term.

To me, moral relativism means that one's morals are relative to the situation. To use my previous example, we adjust our moral objection to killing to allow it in certain circumstances. We don't consider the soldier who kills an enemy soldier a killer, yet in reality that's exactly what he is. But we accept that our attitude toward killing isn't always appropriate or applicable, so we have morals relative to the situation that resulted in a killing.

You seem to be thinking of an extreme moral relativist, one who demands that reality follow his rules.

I'm a moral relativist by my definition, but not by yours.

[Cephus]

Everyone, including the most blatant fundamentalist Christians, is a moral relativist, simply because there are shades of gray in everything. Change the situation, you change the moral response and anyone who says they don't do that is either a sociopath or a liar.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: PatrickHenry A moral relativist believes that another person's rationale for behavior is no less valid than his own. He supports diversity...:rolleyes: There is no crime that can't be justified by the moral relativist...

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.

[JohnMK]

Come on people, admit the utility of the asymptote.

[samsara15]

Thanks for the enlightenment. I sometimes term myself as a moral relativist, but having seldom encountered anyone else who does the same, wondered if I was alone. The term certainly seems to be a whipping boy for some people. I call myself that because I think it is impossible not to have doubts about one's moral feelings and actions. It's certainly doesn't mean anything goes, from my point of view, but from its detractors, it apparently does mean anything goes. I believe our morals mainly derive from the culture we are part of.