Moral relativism - what's the big problem?

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

recedite

But once you specify which type of algebra you are talking about, the mathematical laws within it are immutable, are they not ?

Levito

PopePalpatine wrote: »

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.

It's a logically-inconsistent philosophy, which acts as a dictatorship, serving for nothing more than a platform where base instinct can rule over justice and reason. That's the part they didn't tell you.

Secondly: Nobody really believes it. It is employed as a safeguard in philosophical discussions, and difficult situations (i.e. unexpected pregnancy) to evade conscious guilty feelings. It's popular soley because of the sexual revolution as a result of the demand for abortion which resulted from it.

For example, it is always absolutely wrong when a politician commits a crime or a thief steals a car. Nobody defends either and says he was doing what's right for him, lets not judge. It is in this example where the absurdity of this philosophy is revealed. i.e. Everything is relative except relativism.

But in any circumstance, where a persons comfort is put at risk (anything to do with the demand for sex), it's back to relativism again. And then when that's over, it goes back to absolutism.

Also the concept of Moral progress is never mentioned. it is an important one when it comes to cultural relativism.

From the internet encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Moral relativists are also accused of inconsistently claiming that there are no universal moral norms while appealing to a principle of tolerance as a universal norm.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/moral-re/#H4 - Objections to Moral Relativism (since it's been mainly one sided)

In finishing, there has never been a society of relativists, ever. This is the first time. So expect negative results, quickly. But those who rely on others to protect them will be hit the hardest, first. Mark my words OP, this one will destroy all, eventually.

sephir0th

recedite wrote: »

But once you specify which type of algebra you are talking about, the mathematical laws within it are immutable, are they not ?

It's really just a different base representation of the same value. Decimal being base 10 and binary 2.

seamus

Levito wrote: »

For example, it is always absolutely wrong when a politician commits a crime or a thief steals a car.

Except of course, when a greater good is being served, right?
So if a thief steals a car in order to drive a dying person to the hospital, or the politician breaks the law in order to expose a wider corruption in politics, then what they've done isn't wrong. Right?

Sometimes the end does justify the means.

MrPudding

strobe wrote: »

We do?

I think (s)he is speaking for All Christians™ as opposed to all of us.

MrP

Zombrex

Levito wrote: »

In finishing, there has never been a society of relativists, ever. This is the first time. So expect negative results, quickly. But those who rely on others to protect them will be hit the hardest, first. Mark my words OP, this one will destroy all, eventually.

As Robin has already pointed out (I would go read his post), all societies are moral relativists, since the choice of a moral authority is in itself a relativist choice.

Or to put it another way, you have to choose the moral authority that you then decide to submit to in all other matters of morality. Everyone is free to choose a different moral authority, which explains the centuries of religious conflict as group A choose god A and group B choose god B.

You will notice how ineffective it is for a Christian to explain to a Muslim that they have chosen the wrong moral authority, and vice versa.

Levito

seamus wrote: »

Except of course, when a greater good is being served, right?
So if a thief steals a car in order to drive a dying person to the hospital, or the politician breaks the law in order to expose a wider corruption in politics, then what they've done isn't wrong. Right?

Sometimes the end does justify the means.

To steal a car, for whatever a purpose is still a crime, but one is blinded to the act itself, because of the reason for stealing it - saving a life. But the act is by peoples own admittance immoral, they just know it was for the sake of saving a life.

By the way, you've contradicted yourself and admitted implicitly to a moral authority, when you reckoned it was absolutely right to steal a car to save a life, which was an absolutely right thing to do.

Lets say a politician does break the law, for what he thought was the absolutely right thing to do. Just the way you thought it was right to steal a car to save a life. By condemning him, by your own moral standard, you're imposing your morals on him. Which apparently is the relativists nightmare.

Relativism does not exist. Absolute relativism does: 'It is absolutely true, truth is relative.' ... Incoherent.

Levito

Zombrex wrote: »

As Robin has already pointed out (I would go read his post), all societies are moral relativists, since the choice of a moral authority is in itself a relativist choice.

Or to put it another way, you have to choose the moral authority that you then decide to submit to in all other matters of morality. Everyone is free to choose a different moral authority, which explains the centuries of religious conflict as group A choose god A and group B choose god B.

You will notice how ineffective it is for a Christian to explain to a Muslim that they have chosen the wrong moral authority, and vice versa.

The different moral standards that religious groups have held and disagreed to over the centuries says nothing about whether an absolute standard of goodness exists or not. Moral progress is the easy explanation for some cultures making more advances than others. Or even a culture refusing to accept and move above previous standards, the way ours has.

For example the civil way to handle unexpected pregnancy crisis is for men and women to take responsibility for their actions, and build families. And for society to work together to welcome in life and stop covering this up.

Instead the most uncivilized and barbaric option is chosen to just dismember them and pretend nothing happened. This is an example of a culture denying more intelligent and civil ways to govern society.

So Zombrex - Moral progess is my answer.

PopePalpatine

Levito wrote: »

From the internet encyclopedia of Philosophy:



http://www.iep.utm.edu/moral-re/#H4 - Objections to Moral Relativism (since it's been mainly one sided)

Two (encyclopedias) can play at that game: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/

My understanding of moral relativism is that morality is relative to the circumstances surrounding an action. A quick search on Google would affirm my understanding of it.

An example of moral absolutism may be - let's take an example I'm sure you believe - that abortion is always wrong. But what if a woman's life is in danger? You can retain your stance, and probably cause the woman's death, or you can admit that, given the circumstances, it is OK. By allowing the absolutist stance that abortion should always be banned to be whittled down to "it should be allowed when a mother's life is being threatened", you are practising moral relativism.

BTW, when you warn about moral relativism instituting a "dictatorship" - moral absolutism has done so as well.

robindch

Levito wrote: »

By the way, you've contradicted yourself and admitted implicitly to a moral authority, when you reckoned it was absolutely right to steal a car to save a life, which was an absolutely right thing to do.

Seamus didn't say or imply anything absolute in that at all. Quite the opposite, since he specifically referred, not to the greatest good, but to the "greater good".

Breaking it down for you, he said that it's better to steal a car to save a life, than not to steal it and thereby lose a life.