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!

robindch

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.

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.

robindch

It's surprisingly easy to spin somebody's moral compass:

http://www.nature.com/news/how-to-confuse-a-moral-compass-1.11447

Watch the video carefully until the end. It's a fairly neat trick.

Nature wrote:

People can be tricked into reversing their opinions on moral issues, even to the point of constructing good arguments to support the opposite of their original positions, researchers report today in PLoS ONE1.

The researchers, led by Lars Hall, a cognitive scientist at Lund University in Sweden, recruited 160 volunteers to fill out a 2-page survey on the extent to which they agreed with 12 statements — either about moral principles relating to society in general or about the morality of current issues in the news, from prostitution to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.

But the surveys also contained a ‘magic trick’. Each contained two sets of statements, one lightly glued on top of the other. Each survey was given on a clipboard, on the back of which the researchers had added a patch of glue. When participants turned the first page over to complete the second, the top set of statements would stick to the glue, exposing the hidden set but leaving the responses unchanged.

Two statements in every hidden set had been reworded to mean the opposite of the original statements. For example, if the top statement read, “Large-scale governmental surveillance of e-mail and Internet traffic ought to be forbidden as a means to combat international crime and terrorism,” the word ‘forbidden’ was replaced with ‘permitted’ in the hidden statement.

Participants were then asked to read aloud three of the statements, including the two that had been altered, and discuss their responses.

About half of the participants did not detect the changes, and 69% accepted at least one of the altered statements.

People were even willing to argue in favour of the reversed statements: A full 53% of participants argued unequivocally for the opposite of their original attitude in at least one of the manipulated statements, the authors write. Hall and his colleagues have previously reported this effect, called 'choice blindness', in other areas, including taste and smell2 and aesthetic choice3.

“I don't feel we have exposed people or fooled them,” says Hall. “Rather this shows something otherwise very difficult to show, [which is] how open and flexible people can actually be.”

The study raises questions about the validity of self-report questionnaires, says Hall. The results suggest that standard surveys “are not good at capturing the complexity of the attitudes people actually hold”, he says, adding that the switching technique could be used to improve opinion surveys in the future.

Tania Lombrozo, a psychologist at the University of California, Berkeley, says that the experiment is “creative and careful”, but adds that it would be good to see the findings replicated with a more diverse group of participants and a broader range of claims, including those more likely to play a role in people's everyday judgement and behaviour. “For example, would people fail to notice a change in their judgement concerning the ethics of meat consumption and subsequently provide a justification for a view that isn't their own?” she asks.

The possibility of using the technique as a means of moral persuasion is “intriguing”, says Liane Young, a psychologist at Boston College in Massachusetts. “These findings suggest that if I'm fooled into thinking that I endorse a view, I'll do the work myself to come up with my own reasons [for endorsing it],” she says.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

recedite wrote: »

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.

Hmm. I've a feeling the issue at stake here is only about terminology - which, to an extent, is the main point I'm making about the term "moral".

I'd suggest to you that the foundation of MOOO is that good and bad are "how we find the situation", with morality being just as much a part of the scene as 2+2=4. Bear in mind, it is possible to envisage a version of reality where the act of addition caused values to increase or decrease.

recedite wrote: »

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.

I take it this is just a general observation. But, just in case there is some misunderstanding, I'm not commenting at all on whether any religion (or all of them) are true or false. My own position, for what it's worth, is atheist.

I do contend that someone who believes in a particular religion will behave differently to someone who doesn't, regardless of whether the religion is true or false.

And note I'm only saying "will behave differently". I'm not saying they'll behave "better" or "worse" or consistently or anything else. I'm particularly not saying their morality is "better" than ours; and, obviously, from an atheist perspective no particular morality is better or worse than any other.

Valmont

Great thread; what does anyone think of Moral Realism? I only discovered this a few days ago and haven't had much time to digest it--how does it fit in with moral relativism or absolutism?

recedite

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'd suggest to you that the foundation of MOOO is that good and bad are "how we find the situation", with morality being just as much a part of the scene as 2+2=4.

Yes, that is the hypothesis. My point is that there is nothing great or ethical about immutability. If you want fairness and justice, you need objectivity and maybe even some flexibility, but not immutability.

Sarky

In base 4, 2+2=10. In binary, 2 and 4 don't exist making 2+2 complete nonsense, while 1+1=1 and 1x0=1. You only get immutability in mathematics when everyone uses the same rules. These are all useful rules, providing everything from complex astronomical calculations to video games to knowing whether we were short-changed in the pub last night. Are any more special than the rest, and if so, why?

18AD

Valmont wrote: »

Great thread; what does anyone think of Moral Realism? I only discovered this a few days ago and haven't had much time to digest it--how does it fit in with moral relativism or absolutism?

That's the thing. You can have objective morality without being a theist. Moral realism, as far as a I know means that moral statements can be objectively true or false, that is moral statements describe actual moral facts. There are different versions of it. http://www.iep.utm.edu/moralrea/

I suspect you could also be a moral relativist and a theist too, although I haven't seen any such arguements.

Valmont

18AD wrote: »

That's the thing. You can have objective morality without being a theist.

It also seems to be the rub too! Because when atheists are asked where to look for these objective moral rules, they can't seem to give a straight answer past a Peter Singer or Sam Harris book. (I include myself in this category).

Once you do away with theism and moral relativism, it begs the question: how do we go about extracting these objective rules of morality for ourselves? And where do we find them?

18AD

Valmont wrote: »

Once you do away with theism and moral relativism, it begs the question: how do we go about extracting these objective rules of morality for ourselves? And where do we find them?

Well that depends on whether you want objective morality in the first place?

Some old approaches to non-theistic objective morality (i.e. I don't really know):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological_ethics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Valmont wrote: »

Great thread; what does anyone think of Moral Realism? I only discovered this a few days ago and haven't had much time to digest it--how does it fit in with moral relativism or absolutism?

I’ve a few thoughts. I think there’s a problem in conceiving of natural selection as having some purpose that brings us closer and closer to some Nirvana. Natural selection has no goal, and the concept of “fit-ness” has nothing to do with anything being perfected. It’s simply about whatever “fits” a particular context being selected.

Also, whatever behaviours are cultivated by natural selection are simply efficient – they are not moral behaviours. Or, at least, if we define moral behaviours as efficiency we’re talking about something different to a theist MOOO.

recedite wrote: »

Yes, that is the hypothesis. My point is that there is nothing great or ethical about immutability. If you want fairness and justice, you need objectivity and maybe even some flexibility, but not immutability.

It may simply be that our points don’t intersect.

What do you mean by “fairness and justice”? What is this standard that you are measuring against?

In passing, I think there’s a gap between what you mean by “objectivity” and what I mean by “objective” differently. So much of these discussions hang on what we mean! I think (but I’m not trying to put words in your mouth) that by “objectivity” you mean without bias. By “objective”, I mean something that isn’t dependent on us. So, if the last human died, MOOO means things would still be right or wrong.

Valmont wrote: »

how do we go about extracting these objective rules of morality for ourselves? And where do we find them?

Good questions - I'll be interested if there's any good answers.

recedite

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

What do you mean by “fairness and justice”? What is this standard that you are measuring against?

In passing, I think there’s a gap between what you mean by “objectivity” and what I mean by “objective” differently. So much of these discussions hang on what we mean! I think (but I’m not trying to put words in your mouth) that by “objectivity” you mean without bias. By “objective”, I mean something that isn’t dependent on us. So, if the last human died, MOOO means things would still be right or wrong.

I agree there are two definitions, I'm just saying that only my one matters. Hume said that "we are led by our moral sense of virtue to judge."
The moral "compass" is a good analogy. Lets say we were all using magnetic compasses to find our way north, but we didn't really know how they worked. Mine might be slightly out, because I'm standing next to a car or a large chunk of metal. If I consult and get agreement from lots of others, then we get a more objective result.
As to what causes magnetism, and in what form or sense it actually exists, that is another question.
If the last human died, there would still be magnetism, but would there still be good and morality? I'm inclined to think that if something can be detected and sensed, then it must also "exist" in some way. But I also think that morality only exists as a route to the common good, just as the route north only exists as long as you are travelling north.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

recedite wrote: »

I'm inclined to think that if something can be detected and sensed, then it must also "exist" in some way.

You can probably guess what I'm going to say - unicorns exist in the same way, because we all know what a unicorn looks like.

recedite wrote: »

But I also think that morality only exists as a route to the common good, just as the route north only exists as long as you are travelling north.

I think this is a good example - because "North" as a concept is a purely human invention. And, while it's probably acceptable to say that some concept of "up thataway" might exist in nature, we sort of know that there's no reason, other than convention, to see 0° longitude as running through Greenwich.

I've stood on the Greenwich Meridian. While standing on it, I felt that this line was surely marking out something etched into the very nature of things. But we know it's invention; it just seems so damn familiar, and I suppose I feel morality is probably the same. When people claim they can gather in a group and each look into their PPPHAA, detect they have something approaching a MOOO in common, I suspect we're just standing on the Greenwich Meridian expressing a convinction that there's an echo of something there.

recedite

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

unicorns exist in the same way, because we all know what a unicorn looks like..

We've all heard about them, but none of us has ever detected or sensed one

GCU Flexible Demeanour

recedite wrote: »

We've all heard about them, but none of us has ever detected or sensed one

I can sort that.:D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTrL_eIEyvg

strobe

recedite wrote: »

If the last human died, there would still be magnetism, but would there still be good and morality? I'm inclined to think that if something can be detected and sensed, then it must also "exist" in some way. But I also think that morality only exists as a route to the common good, just as the route north only exists as long as you are travelling north.

Hmm, but the 'immortal sky father' can be sensed and detected in exactly the same way that 'good' and 'morality' can, there is no difference, in both cases it's just individuals stating 'i feel it's presence' why would you be inclined to believe the later must exist but not the former? It seems inconsistent.

Obliq

Valmont wrote: »

It also seems to be the rub too! Because when atheists are asked where to look for these objective moral rules, they can't seem to give a straight answer past a Peter Singer or Sam Harris book. (I include myself in this category).

Once you do away with theism and moral relativism, it begs the question: how do we go about extracting these objective rules of morality for ourselves? And where do we find them?

What an interesting thread:-) Haven't read it in linear form yet, but just hit on this comment. I'm going to throw Stoicism into the mix, although I don't know much about it as a philosophy of life (My good fella is interested and following it up but I haven't got my hands on the book he's reading yet....), it IS interesting. There seems to be much misinformation out there regarding interpretation of stoicism, but having read (a bit of) Marcus Aurelius, I'm thinking that if you read him straight up, without interpretation, you'll find how to extract your own rules of morality. And I quote from Wikipedia (because I am THAT uneducated on the subject!):
"In his Meditations, Marcus Aurelius defines several such practices. For example, in Book II, part 1:
Say to yourself in the early morning: I shall meet today ungrateful, violent, treacherous, envious, uncharitable men. All of these things have come upon them through ignorance of real good and ill... I can neither be harmed by any of them, for no man will involve me in wrong, nor can I be angry with my kinsman or hate him; for we have come into the world to work together...",

and..." God as the world-creating entity is personalized in Christian thought, but Stoicism equates God with the totality of the universe; Squaring MOOO with Atheism! the Stoic idea that all being is corporeal was deeply contrary to Christianity. Also, Stoicism, unlike Christianity, does not posit a beginning or end to the universe, nor does it assert that the individual continues to exist beyond death.[33]"

and....Marcus Aurelius again: "If you work at that which is before you, following right reason seriously, vigorously, calmly, without allowing anything else to distract you, but keeping your divine part pure, as if you were bound to give it back immediately; if you hold to this, expecting nothing, but satisfied to live now according to nature, speaking heroic truth in every word that you utter, you will live happy. And there is no man able to prevent this."

and...."For the Stoics, 'reason' meant not only using logic, but also understanding the processes of nature—the logos, or universal reason, inherent in all things. Living according to reason and virtue, they held, is to live in harmony with the divine order of the universe, in recognition of the common reason and essential value of all people. The four cardinal virtues of the Stoic philosophy are wisdom (Sophia), courage (Andreia), justice (Dikaiosyne), and temperance (Sophrosyne), a classification derived from the teachings of Plato." Put simply.....Virtue, then, is the life according to reason. Morality is simply rational action. - taken from Internet encyclopedia.

Apologies for weighing in with lengthy quotes, but as a born and raised atheist with (I would claim) as strong a moral compass as the next person, I'm finding stoicism to be a very interesting philosophy. A new thread in Atheism+ anyone??:cool:

Obliq

Valmont wrote: »

Because when atheists are asked where to look for these objective moral rules...........

Once you do away with theism and moral relativism, it begs the question: how do we go about extracting these objective rules of morality for ourselves? And where do we find them?

Stoicism.....Extract away! This book seems quite a good guide for the objective life. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Guide-Good-Life-Ancient-ebook/dp/B0040JHNQG/ref=dp_kinw_strp_1

Valmont

Thanks Obliq, I think there is a chapter on Stoicism in Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy which I'll read soon.

swampgas

Sarky wrote: »

In binary, 2 and 4 don't exist making 2+2 complete nonsense, while 1+1=1 and 1x0=1.

Surely in binary, 1+1 = 10, and 1 x 0 = 0 ???

Did something just whoosh over my head there?

robindch

^^^ Could be Boolean algebra? Where the '+' operator is equivalent to logical-or, and 'x' is equivalent to logical-and
(making the second equality wrong; in this mode, it should read '1x0=0')

Sarky

Whoops, you're right. I sometimes mix the two up. Especially when I've been sleeping as poorly as I have all week. Also I'm crap at Boolean algebra but I think my point stands if someone else fixes the mistakes