Moral Relativism Good vs Evil

[sixmillman]

In another thread I mentioned the term Moral Relativism.
I included a link Moral Relativism
I followed one of the links on that page and found this
Moral Relativism.com

This web site claims “Moral relativism has steadily been accepted as the primary moral philosophy of modern society, a culture that was previously governed by a "Judeo-Christian" view of morality.”

This made me curious. “The primary moral philosophy of modern society” is a rather bold claim.

They go on to claim “While these "Judeo-Christian" standards continue to be the foundation for civil law, most people hold to the concept that right or wrong are not absolutes, but can be determined by each individual. Moral and ethics can be altered from one situation, person, or circumstance to the next. Essentially, moral relativism says that anything goes, because life is ultimately without meaning. Words like "ought" and "should" are rendered meaningless. In this way, moral relativism makes the claim that it is morally neutral.

I saw some underlying principals that seem to run thru a lot of arguments in these forums. I mean most of these discussions are about something being “right” or somebody being “wrong”.
I looked back and saw the influence of this “philosophy” in much of my writing but in conflict with other things I have written.

So I am asking myself if I am internally conflicted in my morality or philosophy and my politics?
Bear with me here this gets a little scary.
Obviously I have an opinion as to what is right or wrong, we all do. But how did we get there? Why do I believe as the author puts it “is it better to torture a child, or to hug a child” I would hope that all who read this could answer quickly “to hug a child”.

But that’s not what Moral Relativism is about is it? Moral Relativism says that if another culture believes that it is important that a 13-year-old boy has to have the skin slit on his chest, sticks pierced thru the skin and then be suspended in a smoky sweat lodge overnight, to further his journey into manhood I have to accept that as a valid life choice made by his culture. I must subvert my repugnance of the ceremony and resist the urge to stop the “torture” of this child.

Sonart and I had this discussion concerning the laws in Saudi Arabia. She contended that the rules that the Saudis lived under were none of my concern. It was simply their choice. I didn’t agree. (I’m not trying to restart this argument, I’m not trying to justify invading Iraq I am just illustrating Moral Relativism).

Next the author says “Evolution and moral relativism go hand-in-hand, for evolution teaches that life is accidental, without meaning or purpose. Therefore, anything you do is OK, because it ultimately doesn't matter.”

Well I believe in Evolution but I am growing less inclined to think that Moral relativism is a good philosophy. Just because I don’t believe in a single god doesn’t mean life is without meaning or purpose. I may not know what that meaning or purpose is but I don’t think that my journey is improved by making others miserable.

The author states “Zogby poll findings regarding what is being taught in American universities. Studies indicate 75% of American college professors currently teach that there is no such thing as right and wrong. Rather, they treat the questions of good and evil as relative to "individual values and cultural diversity."

This seems to be a circular argument. We can say that we are a society or culture because we think we share common beliefs concerning “right” and “wrong”. But if we are being taught moral relativism than how are we going to define “right” and “wrong”. We are all going to end up basing the decision on our own personal experience and desires.
“what happens when our choices conflict with each other? What if something I believe I need in order for my life to continue results in death for you? If we do not have an absolute standard of truth, chaos and conflict will result as we are all left to our own devices and desires.”

Suppose we set out to make a list of rules that the all the world population could agree on. What would the first one be that we could all agree on? How many could we list before arguments about individual liberty would break out? And since I am asking about making a rule or rule, how are the rest of us going to deal with an individual who doesn’t agree with the rule. Anybody care to guess how many rules would be required to define good and evil.

Anybody have suggestions for the First Rule

[castille]

According to anyone who is human, they are right, the rest of the world is wrong.

This is where violence comes in. When the next dickhead thinks its right to start his own protection scam and demand money from you, its also your right to turn his face into Banana Boat with a brick.

[sixmillman]

And you Castille
are an "Advanced Member"

[castille]

Thats right, I'm advanced. I'm so advanced in my thinking I've come to the conclusion the brick and gun has never been defeated by the pen (unless the pen is backed up by the firepower).

Just ask the French

[sixmillman]

Castille
Others and I can consider your experienced posts as nothing more than graffiti on a subway train. They don’t really say anything other than “I’m Here”

[PatrickHenry]

I don't sense that morality is one of castille's inner debates.

Moral relativism vs moral absolutes is a very interesting debate, sixmillman.

I wonder if the terms can be debated apart from a religious basis?

Should the "Rules" be positive statements, for example: "Love other people"?

Or should they be proscriptions, such as: "Don't hurt other people"?

[Sonart]

Sonart and I had this discussion concerning the laws in Saudi Arabia. She contended that the rules that the Saudis lived under were none of my concern.

I'm not sure how you got to thinking I'm a she, but I'm not. And the rules that the Saudis lived under were none of your concern.

By law.

The nations of the world have agreed that when a citizen of our country visits their country, our citizen has to obey their laws. Oh sure, you may still be 'concerned' about their laws, but there ain't spit you can actually do about it, at least not without getting arrested, and our government can't always get you out of jail for breaking their laws.

And that's the thing. It wasn't more than a few centuries ago that the average person never set foot more than, oh, ten miles from the spot where they were born. Your entire congregation could nod in rapt agreement when told of the godless, barbaric Chinese because it was a billion to one that you'd ever even see a Chinaman.

Well, in the last 200 years, the world has shrunk to the size of a computer chip. We are on line, on air and on the way to just about every country on the globe, and unless you're ready to go to war with every country we culturally disagree with, it's probably best to become a bit more tolerant of human diversity.

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by sixmillman, In another thread I mentioned the term Moral Relativism. I included a link Moral Relativism I followed one of the links on that page and found this Moral Relativism.com This web site claims “Moral relativism has steadily been accepted as the primary moral philosophy of modern society, a culture that was previously governed by a "Judeo-Christian" view of morality.” This made me curious. “The primary moral philosophy of modern society” is a rather bold claim. They go on to claim “While these "Judeo-Christian" standards continue to be the foundation for civil law, most people hold to the concept that right or wrong are not absolutes, but can be determined by each individual. Moral and ethics can be altered from one situation, person, or circumstance to the next. Essentially, moral relativism says that anything goes, because life is ultimately without meaning. Words like "ought" and "should" are rendered meaningless. In this way, moral relativism makes the claim that it is morally neutral. Anybody have suggestions for the First Rule

I think this will make a very good debate. The one point I disagree with is the statement that 'Judeo-Christian standards continue to be the foundation of civil law or morality. Taking a world view, there are a number of origins and foundations that have contributed to civil law and morality.

In the Orient, Confucian/Taoist foundation of civil law and morality. This is the foundation for most of the people of the world.

In India the Vedic/Buddhist foundation. It acctually influenced Islamic and later western Civil Law and morality. Part of that influence was the introduction of a code of ethics for war and resolution of conflict. The Codes of Chivilry originated from the Vedic scripture.

The Native American Doctrine of Peace of the Iroquois Confederation formed the foundation of Civil Law and morality for a region that covered have of the USA and represented the oldest and most continuous democracy in existence. It actually influenced the Constitution of the USA.

The modern Relative Morality evolved to deal with a diverse world and owes its origins to all these sources.

More one the first or most basic law after I give it some thought.

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by castille, According to anyone who is human, they are right, the rest of the world is wrong. This is where violence comes in. When the next dickhead thinks its right to start his own protection scam and demand money from you, its also your right to turn his face into Banana Boat with a brick.

I do not agree that 'to anyone who is human, they are right, the rest of the world is wrong.' Those that believe in the Baha'i Faith, like myself, definitely hold a world view where everybody else is not wrong.

[bishop]

moral relativism is the sort of thinking that allows people to overlook collateral damage during warfare.

if you want to focus on good vs. evil through a religious lens, that's fairly straight forward. religions like taoism, hinduim and buddhism include a large grey area between absolute good and absolute evil. some even accept evil as part of the overall balance of life - a necessary evil at times.

through a philosophical lens.. castille alluded to this in a crass way - the ego is responsible. most people whose perception of good vs. evil is governed by ego (rather than religion) are moral relativists.. these are the sorts of people who excuse certain immoral situations when it suits their purposes.

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by bishop, moral relativism is the sort of thinking that allows people to overlook collateral damage during warfare. if you want to focus on good vs. evil through a religious lens, that's fairly straight forward. religions like taoism, hinduim and buddhism include a large grey area between absolute good and absolute evil. some even accept evil as part of the overall balance of life - a necessary evil at times. through a philosophical lens.. castille alluded to this in a crass way - the ego is responsible. most people whose perception of good vs. evil is governed by ego (rather than religion) are moral relativists.. these are the sorts of people who excuse certain immoral situations when it suits their purposes.

You missed what moral relativism by a mile.

Jewish, Christian an Islamic moral standards definitely JUSTIFY not over look collateral damage during warfare.

Taoism, hinduism and Buddhism all reject the concept of evil in the over all balence of life. Balence of life is balence of life, not a conflict between good and evil.

[bishop]

then what do you have to say about the numerous christian leaders who opposed the war in iraq (and voiced criticism against the occupation)? lots of christians i know don't believe that bush's foreign policy is consistent with christian teachings/morality.

those sorts of people have a black and white perspective on good vs. evil where they never accept evil to justify good.

[sixmillman]

Sunhyadraragon
Thats pretty interesting
Taoism, hinduism and Buddhism all reject the concept of evil in the over all balence of life. Balence of life is balence of life, not a conflict between good and evil.
Does this mean that there is no good with out evil and vice versa?

[bishop]

Does this mean that there is no good with out evil and vice versa?

from all that i've learned - yes.

these religions understand evil, but their approach is much different than how the judeo-christian and islamist worlds view it. it's much less of a dire struggle for survival/salvation in the eastern religions.

[sixmillman]

Well that is intersting. Guess it has something to do with "Karma"
They must somehow define what is good and what is evil in order to recognize balance?

[bishop]

here's one on how buddhism deals with this question..

http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma5/goodevil.html

[sixmillman]

Got a problem here Bishop
I read the link you provided.

Deep down in the article it says

Those conventions which have no direct relationship to kusala and akusala are the accepted values or agreements which are established by society for a specific social function, such as to enable people to live together harmoniously. They may indeed be instruments for creating social harmony, or they may not. They may indeed be useful to society or they may in fact be harmful. All this depends on whether or not those conventions are established with sufficient understanding and wisdom, and whether or not the authority who established them is acting with pure intention.

These kinds of conventions may take many forms, such as traditions, customs or laws. "Good" and "evil" in this respect are strictly matters of Social Preference. They may change in many ways, but their changes are not functions of the law of kamma, and must not be confused with it. If a person disobeys these conventions and is punished by society, that is also a matter of Social Preference, not the law of kamma.[

Specificaly it sounds like we are right back to Moral Relativism. When the writer says "Good" and "evil" in this respect are strictly matters of Social Preference.
It seems that even under these philosophy laws and rules are required

In many societies there will be an attempt to search out this intention for ascertaining the quality of the action. That is again a concern of Social Preference, indicating that that particular society knows how to utilize the law of kamma. This consideration of intention by society is not, however, in itself a function of the law of kamma. (That is, it is not a foregone conclusion -- illegal behavior is not always punished. However, whether actions are punished or not they are kamma in the sense that they are volitional actions and will bring results.)

And that these rules are seen to be placed before the individual

In this context, when it is necessary to appraise any convention as good or evil, it would best be considered from two levels. Firstly, in terms of Social Preference, by determining whether or not it has a beneficial result to society. Secondly, in terms of the law of kamma, by determining whether or not it is kusala, beneficial to mental well-being.

A very interesting article. While balance within the individual is the primary concern it recognizes the conflicts between individuals which may as society decides be regulated by rules which may or may not be in conflict with the internal balance of the individual. Whew did I just say that?

[Sonart]

Balence of life is balence of life, not a conflict between good and evil. Does this mean that there is no good with out evil and vice versa?

Right off the top of my head, if "Taoism, hinduism and Buddhism all reject the concept of evil", why would they suddenly recognize evil being opposed to good just for the sake of your example?

Specificaly it sounds like we are right back to Moral Relativism. When the writer says "Good" and "evil" in this respect are strictly matters of Social Preference.

Aren't a lot of things? Take the Dutch Amish. By their standards we're all of us here a bunch of spiritual slackers with rather loose ideas about what defines good & evil. But hey, they're just going to have to learn to live with us cuz that's how it is in America. Same goes for the more devout Muslim Americans. I imagine they must think the average American Christian is just another Las Vegas weekend hedonist. Well, we're all free to be that if we want, aren't we.

I mean, who exactly is setting the bar for your particular definition of morality, Six, against which everything else is no longer relative?

[sixmillman]

Sonart
Balance of Life was first said by Shuny
I just asked a question.
Bishop offered a hyperlink to help answer the question. I think you got of track. I was quoting and then comenting on the article that Bishop Hyperlinked.
I'm not stting a bar or trying to define any definition of morality. I am asking How we define right or wrong

[samsara15]

Moral Relativism can mean many things. If we narrow it to a precise definition, it is, of course, dead wrong, and becomes an absolutist point of view. If we take it loosely, it regains strength, but loses precision. Like quantum mechanics.