Moral relativism - what's the big problem?

recedite · 01-10-2012 10:29pm

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

Levito · 02-03-2013 8:18am

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 · 02-03-2013 10:54am

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 · 02-03-2013 11:17am

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 · 03-03-2013 12:25pm

strobe wrote: »

We do?

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

MrP

Zombrex · 03-03-2013 4:28pm

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 · 06-03-2013 8:09pm

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 · 06-03-2013 8:13pm

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 · 06-03-2013 10:16pm

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 · 06-03-2013 11:59pm

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.

Zombrex · 07-03-2013 12:42am

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 · 07-03-2013 12:44am

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 · 08-03-2013 11:01am

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 · 08-03-2013 11:21am

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 · 08-03-2013 11:56am

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 · 08-03-2013 12:30pm

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 · 08-03-2013 12:42pm

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 · 08-03-2013 12:44pm

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 · 08-03-2013 1:15pm

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 · 08-03-2013 1:20pm

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 · 08-03-2013 1:25pm

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 · 08-03-2013 1:26pm

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 · 08-03-2013 2:36pm

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 · 08-03-2013 3:48pm

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 · 08-03-2013 3:55pm

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 · 08-03-2013 3:58pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Abortion? State-sanctioned executions? War? Euthanasia?

Béarnaise sauce? Блинчики? 김치?

What on earth are you talking about?

antiskeptic · 08-03-2013 4:17pm

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 · 08-03-2013 5:54pm

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 · 09-03-2013 2:22am

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 · 09-03-2013 3:15am

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

Jesus, antiskeptic...

Moral relativism - what's the big problem?

Comments