Moral relativism - what's the big problem?

Zombrex

Levito wrote: »

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.

No, but then who cares. If humans have to use their own flawed subjective and relative judgement to pick what they think this "absolute standard of goodness" then it provides no benefit as it cannot be objectively measured or studied.

Levito wrote: »

Moral progress is the easy explanation for some cultures making more advances than others.

But moral progress has nothing to do with discovery or study of an absolute standard of goodness. We have no more an idea if such a thing even exists (thought biology would strongly suggest it doesn't) than we did 6,000 years ago.

Moral progress as you call it follows largely the process of human development in communication, as both the world gets smaller and ideas spread further. This fits very well with an evolutionary concept of morality being based on evolved instincts that helped close-nit groups such as tribes and families protect and help one another. Basically as communication systems improve the world gets smaller and we all start to view everyone else as part of our own communal group (ie tribe)

Nothing to do with absolute standards of morality, a concept theologians and philosophers are no closer to discovering than they were a the dawn of civilization.

Levito wrote: »

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.

There is a thread for abortion, so lets not go into that here. What ever your feelings on abortion are it doesn't change the fact that humans have never discovered this mythical objective standard of morality. Some claim it is God, some claim it is part of nature, but they are just guessing and picking the concept that appeals to them, which ironically is an entirely subjective and relativistic process.

Zombrex

PopePalpatine wrote: »

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.

Yeah these discussions are always difficult because relative and subjective are used interchangably when really they mean differen't things.

I think Levito is talking about the difference between objective vs subjective morality, is there a correct right and wrong (in the way there is a correct distance from London to Paris, it is not an opinion) or is it just the opinions of humans.

antiskeptic

seamus wrote: »

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

The same applies to your position: moral absolutism conflicts with your 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 same applies to your position and your "holy scripts"

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.

Right above you is a post which indicates otherwise:

DoctorEmma wrote:

Ah, it (moral relativism) 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.

The moral relativists happen to congregate around the same centrepoint. Making them relatively absolute in their relativism

seamus

antiskeptic wrote: »

The same applies to your position: moral absolutism conflicts with your worldview

That's a fair point, but the statement is a lead in to the overall argument - that there is no such thing as moral absolutism in reality.

The same applies to your position and your "holy scripts"

I don't have any "holy scripts".

Right above you is a post which indicates otherwise:

Not really. DoctorEmma's point is that there are circumstances in which the majority will align on particular issues. This in fact is the essence of moral relativity. "X" is morally wrong if everyone agrees it to be so.

Moral absolutism decrees that "X" is morally wrong regardless of opinion.

antiskeptic

seamus wrote: »

This in fact is the essence of moral relativity. "X" is morally wrong if everyone agrees it to be so.

The use of which is underscored by the fact that if tomorrow everyone agrees the opposite then what is morally wrong today is morally right tomorrow.

What matter, apart from the fact that the majority can more likely enforce it's view, what the crowd think?

Moral absolutism decrees that "X" is morally wrong regardless of opinion.

With all the benefits that fixed reference points tend to offer.

antiskeptic

seamus wrote: »

That's a fair point, but the statement is a lead in to the overall argument - that there is no such thing as moral absolutism in reality

The Christian argument is that there is such a thing as moral absolutism and that because of sin, people deviate away from it to greater or lesser degree. It's the relative few (the sociopaths for instance) who've managed to sear their consciences to the point where they seemingly refer to it no longer. But in the main, most stick fairly closely to it (whatever about letting themselves of the hook when it suits)


Richard Dawkins, in The God Delusion, points to scientific research indicating that at foundational level (when influences of religion, social background, politics, education level, etc. are factored out) people around the world exhibit adherence to a common morality.

He'd say this underlying moral absolutism derives from a common ancestor. I'd have to say I agree with him.

seamus

antiskeptic wrote: »

Richard Dawkins, in The God Delusion, points to scientific research indicating that at foundational level (when influences of religion, social background, politics, education level, etc. are factored out) people around the world exhibit adherence to a common morality.

And this "common morality" is derived from the individual's wish to survive and procreate.
This is not an "underlying" moral absolutism, in fact it's quite the opposite. It says that "whatever actions will improve my lot == good". It's an underlying selfish, moral fickleness.

The "actions that will improve my lot" vary from society to society, depending on the overall groupthink.

He'd say this underlying moral absolutism derives from a common ancestor.

He'd say nothing like that, from what I know.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's the relative few (the sociopaths for instance) who've managed to sear their consciences to the point where they seemingly refer to it no longer. But in the main, most stick fairly closely to it (whatever about letting themselves of the hook when it suits)

Didn't you say last year that you'd be prepared to murder somebody if you thought your deity had instructed you to? By doing that, aren't you just creating your own little relativistic moral universe?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Richard Dawkins, in The God Delusion, points to scientific research indicating that at foundational level (when influences of religion, social background, politics, education level, etc. are factored out) people around the world exhibit adherence to a common morality. He'd say this underlying moral absolutism derives from a common ancestor. I'd have to say I agree with him.

He didn't say that at all. He did say that there is an convincing, simple and fairly comprehensive explanation for ethical and co-operative behaviour which derives from the Theory of Evolution. It's explained at some length in his Selfish Gene book.

Do you agree with that?

antiskeptic

seamus wrote: »

And this "common morality" is derived from the individual's wish to survive and procreate.

..goes your worldviews argument.

The point however, was that there exists in the main, an absolute or common if you prefer, morality.

This is not an "underlying" moral absolutism, in fact it's quite the opposite. It says that "whatever actions will improve my lot == good". It's an underlying selfish, moral fickleness.

The "actions that will improve my lot" vary from society to society, depending on the overall groupthink.

The study distilled out the influences that vary from society to society and found that having done that, they were left with a commonality of morality.

He'd say nothing like that, from what I know.

He is an evolutionist last I heard. By which other means would you suppose him holding people the world over having a common trait (such as two eyes, the same basic morality, etc)

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

Didn't you say last year that you'd be prepared to murder somebody if you thought your deity had instructed you to?

I doubt it. Murder is an illicit killing. Per definition, a killing instructed by the principal lawgiver cannot be illegal.

I probably said I would kill if God told me to.

By doing that, aren't you just creating your own little relativistic moral universe?

Relative to an absolute?

He didn't say that at all. He did say that there is an convincing, simple and fairly comprehensive explanation for ethical and co-operative behaviour which derives from the Theory of Evolution. It's explained at some length in his Selfish Gene book.

Do you agree with that?

Ultimately derived from a common anscestor. Permit me the tongue in cheek.

MrPudding

antiskeptic wrote: »

I doubt it. Murder is an illicit killing. Per definition, a killing instructed by the principal lawgiver cannot be illegal.

So, as far as we are concerned, murder. I take my definition of murder from the law, not your god. Therefore, if you killed someone because your god told you to, I would expect that it would be murder as I am not aware of any provisions in the homicide act to allow for god ordered killing.

You might be able to argue insanity or diminished responsibility, in which case it would be manslaughter rather than murder, or aquittal on the grounds of insanity. Aside from that it would be murder.

MrP

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

I doubt it. Murder is an illicit killing. Per definition, a killing instructed by the principal lawgiver cannot be illegal. I probably said I would kill if God told me to.

Well, in my ethical universe, "murder" is the intentional killing of one human by another. I'm not a massive fan of the relativistic redefinitions of the word to mean whatever one wants it to mean.

Anyhow, your deity wouldn't lie to you, would he?

Sarky

Would you at least stop and ask your god WHY he wanted you to take another human being's life, after the rather explicit 'thou shalt not kill' palaver? Maybe even apologise to your victim for the inconvenience? Or would it be "righto my lord of peace and love, you're the boss!" Before you immediately slid a knife into their neck?

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

Well, in my ethical universe, "murder" is the intentional killing of one human by another.

Abortion? State-sanctioned executions? War? Euthanasia?

I'm not a massive fan of the relativistic redefinitions of the word to mean whatever one wants it to mean.

I think the world and his brother draws a distinction between murder and other forms of intentional killing. It would appear that your relativism is in the minority

As if that means anything (by a relativists standards)

Anyhow, your deity wouldn't lie to you, would he?

What if he did?

antiskeptic

MrPudding wrote: »

So, as far as we are concerned, murder. I take my definition of murder from the law, not your god.

So far as you are concerned. Not me.

Therefore, if you killed someone because your god told you to, I would expect that it would be murder as I am not aware of any provisions in the homicide act to allow for god ordered killing.

You might be able to argue insanity or diminished responsibility, in which case it would be manslaughter rather than murder, or aquittal on the grounds of insanity. Aside from that it would be murder.

Granted. But since it isn't murder in the court that matters to me then what of it?

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

Abortion? State-sanctioned executions? War? Euthanasia?

Béarnaise sauce? Блинчики? 김치?

What on earth are you talking about?

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

Béarnaise sauce? Блинчики? 김치?

What on earth are you talking about?

You said the intentional killing of a human is murder (in your ethical universe). I gave you a couple of examples where humans are intentionally killed and added questions marks. As in: are these examples of murder in your ethical universe?

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

You said the intentional killing of a human is murder (in your ethical universe). I gave you a couple of examples where humans are intentionally killed and added questions marks. As in: are these examples of murder in your ethical universe?

War - yes (almost always), abortion - yes (in certain cases), euthanasia - yes (where it's intentional and non-voluntary or in PVS, without certain forms of consent).

What's that got to do with anything?

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

War - yes (almost always), abortion - yes (in certain cases), euthanasia - yes (where it's intentional and non-voluntary or in PVS, without certain forms of consent).

What's that got to do with anything?

You're laying claim to the term murder as meaning something that most people don't hold it to mean (eg: the examples I gave). If you want to use a word you might as apply it's normal usage.

Otherwise conversation becomes a bit pointless.

Sarky

Yeah, what good did being specific in your use of words ever do for anyone?

Jesus, antiskeptic...