Moral relativism - what's the big problem?

PopePalpatine

I have only recently found out about the concept of "moral relativism". I don't really have a full understanding of it yet - my definition is that morality is subject to an individual's living conditions. An example would be that "do not steal" becomes useless if you're starving, have no money and you steal a loaf of bread.

Then, I saw some comments around the Internet, both from religious leaders and other religious people "warning" about the "dangers" of moral relativism. So, I have to ask - what's religion's problem with moral relativism?

P.S. If there's an existing thread regarding moral relativism, feel free to merge this thread. I did some searching, but the most recent posts seem to be from 2006.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

well something like keeping women locked up in the home, forcing them to be subservient and selling them off to be married as young teens is just wrong whatever your "culture" happens to say about it.

doctoremma

PopePalpatine wrote: »

So, I have to ask - what's religion's problem with moral relativism?

Ah, it means that we can't say that Hitler was bad, and so forth. Even though most people did, and acted in accordance to rectify the badness.

seamus

The major religions have difficulty with moral relativism because it conflicts with their worldview.

They're primarily predicated on god being the source of morality, of good and evil. Thus morality must be absolute, as if morality is in fact relative, then it becomes clear that any holy scripts are just opinion and not divine inspiration.

The funny thing is that the majority of us, whether we believe or we don't, interact with the world in a way which presumes moral relativism. I guess it's cognitive dissonance which allows people to ideologically believe in moral absolutism while on a day-to-day basis engaging in moral relativism.

Doctor DooM

seamus wrote: »

The major religions have difficulty with moral relativism because it conflicts with their worldview.

They're primarily predicated on god being the source of morality, of good and evil. Thus morality must be absolute, as if morality is in fact relative, then it becomes clear that any holy scripts are just opinion and not divine inspiration.

The funny thing is that the majority of us, whether we believe or we don't, interact with the world in a way which presumes moral relativism. I guess it's cognitive dissonance which allows people to ideologically believe in moral absolutism while on a day-to-day basis engaging in moral relativism.

This is why I was gobsmacked to hear the "it was a different time, the rules were different" argument from certain RCC authorities in relation to the various scandals. So moral relativism exists when it suits, then? To paraphrase a certain Mr Fry, if you didn't know what was right, what is the point of you?

robindch

The problem here is basically what's referred to as the Problem of Authority and it's been around a long time. In summary, it asks the question "whose authority should somebody accept?" when it comes to what values should one assign to ideas and actions, and how these inputs determine what choices one should make from day to day.

Religious people will tend to an Authoritarian point of view in this and assert the existence of a single supreme authority, usually their chosen deity-figure, and further assert that all authority concerning values and choices flows from there, that it's constant, never-changing, unchangeable and so on.
You'll usually find that the chosen deity-figure agrees with the individual believer on all topics, and that all views tend to the conservative and controlling.

Non-religious people will tend to the opposite end of the spectrum and hold a Liberal point of view in which there's no single supreme authority and that values and choices are best determined by group discussion, possibly including the setting up of authorities in whom authority to control resides (police, judiciary etc).

The term "moral relativism" is a trivially contradictory phrase which is used by Authoritarians to deride the ethics and the people behind liberal politics. It's contradictory since the choice to assert the existence of a single moral authority is a moral choice in itself and doubly-so for the people who then slavishly follow the presumed dictates of their chosen deity. Is it moral to abandon responsibility for one's moral choices? I'd have thought not.

"Moral absolutism" is the opposing point of view, and it's just as open to the typical "well, what happens if you decide that killing people is right?" argument that absolutists typically aim at relativists. In fact more so, since relativists will be used to thinking about the ethical implications of whatever actions their constructed authority indicates, while absolutists won't be. History concurs in that all of the worst crimes have been committed by, and on behalf of, totalitarian authorities, and rarely if ever, on behalf of liberal polities.

Anyhow, without waffling on any further, I've found the two following books quite useful in understanding the philosophical and social implications of, and the distinction between, the liberal and authoritarian viewpoints:

Bob Altemeyer's "The Authoritarians", available as a free PDF download
Stephen Law's, "The War for Children's Minds

Dades

Cultural catholics are a prime example of moral relativism at work. Contraception? Sex before marriage? Never go to mass? But hey I'm still a catholic!

coffee_cake

robindch wrote: »

Stephen Law's, "The War for Children's Minds

Oh man, now I have to go buy that

Sarky

Churches say it's evil because it threatens their power. They may as well warn of the evils of not giving them your money or being disgusted by child-raping priests.

El_Duderino 09

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

well something like keeping women locked up in the home, forcing them to be subservient and selling them off to be married as young teens is just wrong whatever your "culture" happens to say about it.

Just to expand on your point, I agree it is wrong, that is to say it would require some extraordinary cultural circumstance to make it morally justifiable. Its not absolutely wrong in principal, but in practice the circumstances would need to be extraordinary before it could be considered the best option.

Mickeroo

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

well something like keeping women locked up in the home, forcing them to be subservient and selling them off to be married as young teens is just wrong whatever your "culture" happens to say about it.

Doesn't moral relatavism imply that you're only saying that because our culture deems it wrong? That's my understanding of it anyway?

Doctor DooM

Mickeroo wrote: »

Doesn't moral relatavism imply that you're only saying that because our culture deems it wrong? That's my understanding of it anyway?

Not necessarily, because if you are aware that's the case you're free to make your own mind up about it, in spite of what any given culture or organisation claiming to be have the objective moral truth on the subject say. In a democracy, I'd actually say it's a persons responsibilty to do that!

In fact, most religious people I meet do too. Isn't it funny how most of them have their own version of god who agrees with them 100%?

Mickeroo

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Not necessarily, because if you are aware that's the case you're free to make your own mind up about it, in spite of what any given culture or organisation claiming to be have the objective moral truth on the subject say. In a democracy, I'd actually say it's a persons responsibilty to do that!

In fact, most religious people I meet do too. Isn't it funny how most of them have their own version of god who agrees with them 100%?

I thought being aware of it wouldn't make a difference as it's not a case of just makng your mind up about it.

It's more a case of being conditioned to the point where going against social taboos of the time you live in just feels intinctually wrong rather than it being a case of making a concious decision on the spot like "I'm not going to do that because society told me it's wrong".

I think thats why religious people find it so easy to mould their religious "morals" to fit more with society as a whole, as you say, have their own version of god who agrees with them.

Doctor DooM

Mickeroo wrote: »

I thought being aware of it wouldn't make a difference as it's not a case of just makng your mind up about it.

It's more a case of being conditioned to the point where going against social taboos of the time you live in just feels intinctually wrong rather than it being a case of making a concious decision on the spot like "I'm not going to do that because society told me it's wrong".

I think thats why religious people find it so easy to mould their religious "morals" to fit more with society as a whole, as you say, have their own version of god who agrees with them.

I'm probably explaining wrong- yes that is what moral relativism is, the fact that something is good or bad given the culture you emerge from. But that doesn't mean you shrug your shoulders and accept that fact once you are aware of it! You can believe something is wrong without it being good or bad full stop.

Gbear

The words "moral relativism" bring to mind the argument that some people (mostly liberal ones) try to make that there are no "morally superior" cultures.

So, they don't acknowledge that a western culture is more moral than one that justifies honour killings and that sort of thing.
Is that not moral relativism? Is that not a bad thing?

robindch

Gbear wrote: »

The words "moral relativism" bring to mind the argument that some people (mostly liberal ones) try to make that there are no "morally superior" cultures. So, they don't acknowledge that a western culture is more moral than one that justifies honour killings and that sort of thing.

In my own experience, most of that is just down to bad thinking on the part of a small number of high-volume, low-clarity leftists. I've never got the impression that anybody who's seriously thought about the issues that arise has thought for a second that all cultures are morally equivalent.

Gbear wrote: »

So, they don't acknowledge that a western culture is more moral than one that justifies honour killings and that sort of thing

The moral relativism/absolutism argument is, from the religious perspective, only about whether or not an absolute moral authority exists. Once one is believed to exist, then it's obvious that this moral authority should be followed at all times without question.

If you point out that, say Afghan islamic believers with identical beliefs about the nature of moral authority think that stoning women to death is fine, then you'll hear a response like "well, that's a false god" or "they're just mistaken" from christian believers who think it's evil. And while christians here might think that having a beer is fine, our Afghan friends will point at it incredulously and say that this is clearly mistaken thinking deriving from the christian belief in a false god, since they think it's evil.

All of this relates, by the way, to the Euthyphro dilemma which is still completely unresolvable if one asserts the existence of deities, moral absolutes and so on.

bnt

The way the Bible tells the story, Moses went up Mount Sinai, spent 40 days and nights up there, and came down with some absolute morals written on Stone. No-one else saw him during that time; for all we know, he was on some kind of trip, getting Stoned on the local shrubbery.

Nevertheless, when he comes down, the absolute morals he carries somehow address the exact tribal problems faced by the Israelites at that time. They didn't look so absolute later on e.g. there was nothing on there about Pork, and "thou shalt not kill" was conveniently ignored at e.g. Jericho.

(According to Jewish tradition, Moses supposedly wrote the Torah in the way that Mohammed supposedly wrote the Qu'ran. In other words, if true, the story of Moses was written by Moses. What was it that Churchill said about History?)

The way I see it: if there are absolute morals, they are only absolute if we say that they are, and everyone agrees that they are. Without a consensus, trying to enforce a moral is just an attempt to impose one's opinions on others against their will. The subtext behind absolute morals is one person telling another "I know better than you".

Mark Hamill

bnt wrote: »

Nevertheless, when he comes down, the absolute morals he carries somehow address the exact tribal problems faced by the Israelites at that time. They didn't look so absolute later on e.g. there was nothing on there about Pork, and "thou shalt not kill" was conveniently ignored at e.g. Jericho.

"Thou shalt not kill" was ignored five minutes after Moses came down with the commandments, when he saw a load of Isrealites worshipping a golden calf and had 3000 of them put to death (and that was only just after Moses himself had pleaded with god not to kill off muslims for being corrupt anyway).

GCU Flexible Demeanour

robindch wrote: »

The moral relativism/absolutism argument is, from the religious perspective, only about whether or not an absolute moral authority exists. Once one is believed to exist, then it's obvious that this moral authority should be followed at all times without question.

I think this is an important point that you bring out. In some ways, I think it makes it clearer if we make it clear that the meaning of the word "moral" changes in a reasonably significant way, once we conceive of it as not being absolute - which is inevitable once we remove a deity.

Within theism, the term might be called Morality Of Objective Origin, or MOOO. (I suppose we could conceive of a god who didn't bother inventing a morality, but that's not the point at issue.)

From an atheist perspective, the term means Purely Personal Principals, However Arrived At, or PPPHAA. I think an amount of the discussion between theists and atheists can be confusing, as it sometimes amounts to:

Theist: "You have no MOOO."
Atheist: "Liar! We do have PPPHAA!"

Of course, you sometimes do come across a confused atheist who thinks he does have MOOO. But I'm sure forums like this are helpful in explaining that this is not the case.

robindch wrote: »

All of this relates, by the way, to the Euthyphro dilemma which is still completely unresolvable if one asserts the existence of deities, moral absolutes and so on.

I've read over some of that stuff, but I felt it left a fairly obvious point out of the picture. The Greek gods that Plato was talking about were not creator gods, as I understand it. So his question had a different meaning (I would suppose) - it was closer to asking "Are people good because Uachtaran na hEireann gave them a Gaisce award, or does Uachtaran na hEireann give Gaisce awards to good people?"

The "dilemma" does seem to lose its meaning when applied to a creator god, as distinct from a "god" who just happens to be another inhabitant of the universe.

wonderfulname

Mark Hamill wrote: »

"Thou shalt not kill" was ignored five minutes after Moses came down with the commandments, when he saw a load of Isrealites worshipping a golden calf and had 3000 of them put to death (and that was only just after Moses himself had pleaded with god not to kill off muslims for being corrupt anyway).

This makes me ponder, is the concept of just wars or killings not moral relativism?

robindch - I wouldn't currently be online to post this had you not enticed me to read things, thanks a lot for the interesting linkies.

decimatio

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

well something like keeping women locked up in the home, forcing them to be subservient and selling them off to be married as young teens is just wrong whatever your "culture" happens to say about it.

On the issue of teenage marraige or just teenage sexual relations. Of course we view it as wrong today and there are several good reasons to justify this but we mustn't forget that in our past as a species it was likely the way we propagated due to natural issues, life expectancy being one.

So while we find something like young teenagers engaging in sexual intercourse to be reprehensible today its actually not difficult to imagine a situation where it wasn't only acceptable but necessary for survival.*

* Any anthropologists, evolutionary biologists or the like are more than welcome to correct me.

Mickeroo

decimatio wrote: »

On the issue of teenage marraige or just teenage sexual relations. Of course we view it as wrong today and there are several good reasons to justify this but we mustn't forget that in our past as a species it was likely the way we propagated due to natural issues, life expectancy being one.

So while we find something like young teenagers engaging in sexual intercourse to be reprehensible today its actually not difficult to imagine a situation where it wasn't only acceptable but necessary for survival.*

* Any anthropologists, evolutionary biologists or the like are more than welcome to correct me.

Correct me if I'm wrong someone but I don't think it's any secret that people used to get married/have sexual relations at those ages in the past. I'm pretty sure very young women marrying men quite a bit older than them wasn't out of the ordinary either.

I remember hearing about someone putting forward a theory that it would make more sense for women to have children in their teens as their bodies are better equiped to recover from it and also men are more virile at that point in life too. She basically said that people having families in their late twenties early thirties, as is the norm now, makes no sense from a purely physical/evolutionary point of view. I can't remember what her name was now, maybe someone knows?

seamus

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Theist: "You have no MOOO."

Of course, you sometimes do come across a confused atheist who thinks he does have MOOO. But I'm sure forums like this are helpful in explaining that this is not the case

I guess that depends on the atheist. There was a recent thread (i.e. in the last two months) about an allegedly high-profile atheist blogger who had undergone a conversion to some kind of christianity. There were big walls of text about her conversion, the why and the how.
But ultimately it boiled down to her certain belief that MOOO exists, and she was continually unable to square this with her atheism, so instead switched to a form of theism which doesn't conflict with her subjective view of the universe.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

seamus wrote: »

But ultimately it boiled down to her certain belief that MOOO exists, and she was continually unable to square this with her atheism, so instead switched to a form of theism which doesn't conflict with her subjective view of the universe.

Yeah, there was a recent thread on the Christianity forum about some guy called William Craig - who seems to be a theist who does a lot of debating with atheists.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056733552

At least part of his thing seems to be to confront atheist debaters with some proposition that it would be embarrassing not to accept in public; "Do you agree its intrinsically wrong to strangle kittens for the lols". If the atheist says "yes", which many seem to do when on television in front of a seven-figure audience, he's got them. He basically backs them into a corner where they have to agree to MOOO, and once he's done that he's got them on the ropes. Because how could you have MOOO without a deity?

For all our wishful thinking about PPPHAA, it just doesn't cut the mustard in that situation. It's no wonder we fudge it.

coffee_cake

I thought we found it wrong because we had an evolutionary instinct to protect the young
Well some do anyway, some species abandon orphans
Also because they're cute - few people will have such an issue with killing a fly
It's something you'd need to have thought about in advance to deal with that nonsense though
I ca't imagine him getting too far as a christian with "don't kill animals" given the oft-quoted "we have dominion over all species of the earth" or whatever the passage. I'm sure you were just giving an example out of the air, but even something like that can be dealt with

strobe

decimatio wrote: »

So while we find something like young teenagers engaging in sexual intercourse to be reprehensible today

We do?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

bluewolf wrote: »

I thought we found it wrong because we had an evolutionary instinct to protect the young

Firstly, as you guessed, my "kitten strangling" example is plucked out of the air - all I know about that guy is on that thread, I've never heard of him before or since.

However, I think the issue is that evolutionary instincts don't give people a satisfying, warm feeling as a basis for ethics. I suppose it's because evolutionary instincts are simply discovering what's efficient, and not what's "right" in that MOOO sense of the word.

I'm no PR man, but I can sort of guess that an appeal to evolution would just play into that guy's hands. All he needs to say is "so your core belief is the survival of the fittest" and you've lost the audience.

FouxDaFaFa

The big problem with moral relativism for some theists is that they find it alarming not to have a set black and white structure.
If there is absolute right and wrong, you're absolved of any personal responsibility.

It's like the minority of christians who bully gay teenagers in the US. They genuinely don't see anything wrong with the bullying because homosexuality is wrong. Even when that homosexual is a sweet teenager who never wronged them. Black and white.

I guess it would make life a lot less stressful if you didn't have to weigh things up.

recedite

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

"Do you agree its intrinsically wrong to strangle kittens for the lols". If the atheist says "yes", which many seem to do when on television in front of a seven-figure audience, he's got them. He basically backs them into a corner where they have to agree to MOOO, and once he's done that he's got them on the ropes. Because how could you have MOOO without a deity?

For all our wishful thinking about PPPHAA, it just doesn't cut the mustard in that situation. It's no wonder we fudge it.

First off, "objective origin" does not have to mean "divine origin". Objectivity increases with more people's opinions, so for example a court jury of 20 people is more objective than a single judge.
The "P" in PPPHAA standing for "personal" is put there deliberately to imply a lack of objectivity. But it is entirely possible to have "impersonal" secular laws and ethics.

Secondly, the example of the kitten depends on everyone agreeing that the kitten is cute and harmless. That in itself is relativist. From the point of view of a mouse, a kitten is horrible. So, beauty is itself relative. However, as humans, we can get together and agree that certain things are aesthetic, and certain things are ethical, without necessarily saying that a god made them so.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

recedite wrote: »

First off, "objective origin" does not have to mean "divine origin". Objectivity increases with more people's opinions, so for example a court jury of 20 people is more objective than a single judge.
The "P" in PPPHAA standing for "personal" is put there deliberately to imply a lack of objectivity. But it is entirely possible to have "impersonal" secular laws and ethics.

The point is they aren't immutable. 100% agreement on a set of secular laws is just an agreement of convenience - its not objective, in the MOOO sense. It's just a concordance of subjective views, which might collapse at any moment.

As to the kitten, bear in mind my point is about the selling of the view.

recedite

Being immutable and being objective are two different things.
If you want to change the argument to immutability (which is not part of your acronym MOOO) then we could say that 2+2=4 is an immutable law. Not necessarily because some maths god made the law; that's just how it is, how we find the situation. An immutable law of nature, if you like.

And just because its easy to sell people the idea that an immortal sky father is looking out for them, and will make everything OK if they would just obey him, doesn't make it true.