Moral Relativism VS. Absoulte

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



ash007
What do you believe about morals? Are they only something society came up with or a they an intrensic set of laws outside of the human mind

relative baby

smile

ash007
ok Since noone is answering i will post what i think

Ok then Moral relativism all the way. Societies do not all have the same ethical framework, and it is in my view pure arrogance for one culture to say that their morals are 'better' than those of another, or even worse, to attempt to force those morals on a less powerful neighbour.

Having said that, however, I think it is good that organisation such as Amnesty or even the UN work towards improving human rights issues in countries ruled by oppressive regimes. In judging the morality of other cultures I think we must be careful not to confuse the ethical framework of a given society, and the actions of the regimes that happen to govern that soicety at this moment in time.



Ok i am gonna get some lunch hopefully this thread will be full of ideas
smile

The Omega

Fire
well I kinda agree with Omega here.

Also as Ash said Forcing the moral rules of one culture on to another is a bad thing to do, tho it has been done in the past

The Omega

Ushgarak
I am a firm believer in absolute.

HockeyHorror
ill think about this...ill post later

Darth Revan
The thing is... It's not the people themselves who believe in that stuff. It's the government forcing the laws upon them.

I made a thread a while back about perspective. I think nearly everything depends on perspective. Something that is evil to one person might be good to another. I do also believe in the absolute, though I think there is quite a bit that depends on perspective. Take the American Indians as an example. When the US government started pushing the Indians away from the land they wanted to settle, that obviously didn't go down well with the Indians. They had been here for 10 thousand years, and they weren't too keen on just picking up and moving. First they were supposed to move west of the Appalachians. This they did. Then it was west of the Mississippi, then it was onto small reservations of the worst land in the west. They fought back, in many cases. This resulted in 30 years of Indian Wars. To the people who were beginning to occupy the land in the west, the Indians were brutal, bloodthirsty, savage people who wanted only to disrupt their way of life. To the Indians, the whites were criminals who wanted only to destroy their homelands. We look back on that period of time, and we realize how cruel of the government that was. But if you had asked one of the farmers, ranchers, or miners who had just come west what they thought about all this, they would have told you exactly the opposite. So there is an absolute side, but it only applies to the individual if you agree with it.
I hope that made sense.

The Omega
Barf> I do believe "the people themselves" or some of them, believe in "that stuff." Others - of course - just pretend.
But if you were brought up in, say, South Africa during Apartheid and you were white - what are the chances you'd have supported apartheid???
If you don't know any better?

And persepcetive is all fine and dandy. But especially with a case such as the American Indians, what was done to them was clearly plainly WRONG. I think I understand what you mean though. We need a dialectic approach. HOW were thing in the 18th century in America? How did European settlers view the Indians?
That still doesn't mean there is no absolute RIGHT and WRONG. A subjective persepctive may be influenced by propaganda, lies and so on.

Fire
maybe omega, but it depends

there is a difference IMO between ethics and ethics, if everyone in that society agrees with the ethics and is happy with them there is no need to change them

but if in that system ppl aren't happy with their situation then intervention could be allowed

Ushgarak
Yes, I think the Indian situation is easily answered- one side that said the other was in error was simply wrong.

The Omega
Fire> Ah, I disagree. Is the majority always right??

WindDancer
I'm not going to address the comments about the Europeans and the Native Americans in the 18th Century. I have strong opinions on that matter (I won't bring them here). Let us just stick to the subject at hand.

Relativism is true? then how do we explain "experience"? "Experience" which is the foundation of knowledge can be absolute. Relativism is only theory that the truth is different for each individual. If that is so, then how do you explain a something like this: "Water boiling is hot"? Is not relativism that tells us the water is hot! Is "experience" that tells us that when water is boiling is hot.

Absolute can only be certain when knowledge has reach it's potential! Which is to find the truth on things. A circle is round! That is absolute! All circles have different sizes! That is also absolute. How do we know this? Once again "experience" tells us.

So for me the debate comes down to Relativism vs. Experience. The Absolute is the result of experience.

Fire
I said everyone not the majority

Dark Vengeance
there are some thing that are absolute and some things that are not

Philosophicus
Morals do not exist - but loves and loaths do. In essence, it is selfishness in the sense that everyone want what they want, even if their wills are altruistic it still remains the one thing they want, or what makes them happy - what we love we are for, and what we hate we are against.

finti
hate to pay taxes but aint agaisnt them cause they are needed

Philosophicus
Then you don't really hate to pay taxes - you can only hate something when you hate it 100%, and when you are totally against it.

Jackie Malfoy
It is sad that no one follows morals anymore.I try too.But at times it is hard.People should keep good morals instead of going around breaking them.JM

pr1983
its not a case of having morals imo...

most people have what they believe are morals...

people have different ideas of morality...

Philosophicus
If people have different ideas of morality exist, then no real morality exist.

pr1983
true in a way...

but there are some fundamental things that are considered fundamentally wrong, like murder...

Jackie Malfoy
And there is also other thngs that are consider wrong like abortion and gay marriages.JM

pr1983
see thats where the problem lies...

jackie your entitled to your opinion, no matter how much i disagree with you your still entitled to it...

i on the other hand don't believe abortion or gay marriage is morally wrong...

Philosophicus
Nothing can be considered to be fundamentally wrong - not even murder: It's wholly subjective, in the sense that for one person the act of killing someone else may be the right thing to do, while for another it's completely wrong. There is no absolute right and wrong, so murder is neither right nor wrong - only an individual can decide what's right and wrong for himself.

Moreover, to say that something is fundamental - the mode you are employing here, exacts the imperative of universality concerning a certain matter, i.e. everyone in the world agree that murder is wrong - which is not the case.

pr1983
i said murder... not killing... murder is subjective...

for instance...

people in africa stoning unmarried pregnant woman maybe murder to us... but to them its legal execution...

by definition murder is the unlawful act of taking another persons life... that its generally considered wrong...

Philosophicus
"by definition murder is the unlawful act of taking another persons life... that its generally considered wrong..."

Still, it does not justify murder to be seen as fundamentally wrong - it's still subjective - nothing is fundamental. Generally does not amount to Fundamentally.

pr1983
suppose your right... i can't articulate properly without sleep dammit...

dunno why i said fundamentally... i meant generally embarrasment

Philosophicus
Good night then. smile

Silver Stardust
Well, for one thing, I think that morals are something that are created by a society, not that are given to us from some higher power.

After having taken an ethics class (which I found VERY interesting), I've come to the following decision about morality: The basis of it is absolute, but how each culture defines this base makes it relative. Yes, this does make sense, if you think about it. Murder is something that in all cultures is considered to be wrong; it is an absolute moral. A society cannot continue if people are allowed to run around killing others for no reason. However, each culture has their own definition of what murder is, therefore applying relativism to an absolute.

Philosophicus
The idea that any absolute truly exists is also subjective. Anyway, just because society deems murder wrong, doesn't make it an absolute law - that would require a deity.

debbiejo
That's for people who don't have self control.

I believe do unto others as you would have them do unto you!
An oldie, but a goodie

Adam_PoE
Whether or not a practice is culturally acceptable has nothing to do with whether or not it is right or wrong.

Alpha Centauri
"Then you don't really hate to pay taxes - you can only hate something when you hate it 100%, and when you are totally against it."

Bit of a random rationale there.

On morals, that's why the mind is so often a confusing issue in terms of crimes. Because some people just don't view things as wrong, despite everyone else (society, individuals and law) believing so. It's the basis of all debates on morals, because it sparks the questions answered in this thread. To a degree anyway.

-AC

Bardock42
I belive Morals are only made up by society. And they come from the self interest of every person.
For example, most people don't want to be killed, but if they were alone in a war of everyone against everyone they would probably die rather fast, so they create a society to be stronger so they can stop people from killing them (Hobbes) and now this society makes morals that take all the self interests together so tjhat everyone can leave decent.
And to remain in this state of "peace" they the one hand make laws and on the other they teach there morals so that from the beginning people belive them to be right..

Philosophicus
Morals are only for the good and the evil - the rest can't afford it.

Ushgarak
STILL a firm believer in absolutism...

Philosophicus
absolutism is born within the subjective sphere of the existential agent

Ushgarak
No it isn't. Any person can describe an objective concept, he just might not be able to know its details. Absolutism is simply the belief that morals are not subjectve; that remains a possibility even if no-one ever describes it, so the fact that the people describing it are subjective or otherwise is irrelevant.

Philosophicus
How can you prove there are objective/absolute concepts? Have you got cosmological authority?
The mere fact of the existence of interpretation and ideas countering absolutism and subjectivism proves that all is subjective.

Adam_PoE
Do you need cosmological authority to prove that it is the absolute nature of a triangle to be a geometric figure the sum of whose interior angles equals 180 degrees? All that the existence of interpretation is proof of is that perception is subjective.

FeceMan
Well, I said I was going to make a thread on it and I have.

I know most members of KMC defend this point of view. I, as you probably know, do not. Tell me why you believe that this is (or is not) the correct view on ethical behavior.

In my ethics class, we just read an essay about it. The author used the example of Japan and the testing of samurai swords on random wayfarers by means of bisection--my view on this is that it was barbaric and inhumane to chop people in two to test the sword and that, morally, it was wrong. Someone might say that I cannot judge a culture because I do not understand all the aspects of the culture during the period of time discussed. I maintain, though, that it was wrong.

I'd like your input on this.

Civilly, please.

Victor Von Doom
Originally posted by FeceMan
Well, I said I was going to make a thread on it and I have.

I know most members of KMC defend this point of view. I, as you probably know, do not. Tell me why you believe that this is (or is not) the correct view on ethical behavior.

In my ethics class, we just read an essay about it. The author used the example of Japan and the testing of samurai swords on random wayfarers by means of bisection--my view on this is that it was barbaric and inhumane to chop people in two to test the sword and that, morally, it was wrong. Someone might say that I cannot judge a culture because I do not understand all the aspects of the culture during the period of time discussed. I maintain, though, that it was wrong.

I'd like your input on this.

Civilly, please.

Expediency dictates that we pretend there are moral absolutes; no modern, reasonable society could function in any other way. Therefore the pretence is a completely beneficial construct.

I don't believe that moral absolutes exist, as an abstract concept. Without either position being backed by proof, moral relativism is the default stance.

Echuu
Originally posted by FeceMan
I maintain, though, that it was wrong.

I agree. The killing of the innocent is immoral regardless of culture or time frame.
The people being chopped in two for the testing of a sword did absolutely nothing to deserve or provoke this.
There are many other methods to test the effectiveness of a weapon.

Bardock42
The proble is that for morals to be absolute they woud have to be unchangable and everlasting. But I wouldn't know how a theoretical concept like morals could be that. I think there is no reason to believe that morals are in any way objective. I would, on the other hand, like to know why you, FM, think they are absolute. Is their a reasoning behind that or do you just view your own morals as superior?

Ushgarak
Obviously a matter of philosophy- moved.

Alpha Centauri
Originally posted by Echuu
I agree. The killing of the innocent is immoral regardless of culture or time frame.
The people being chopped in two for the testing of a sword did absolutely nothing to deserve or provoke this.
There are many other methods to test the effectiveness of a weapon.

Innocent? Hitler was innocent of evil to many people, to many he was doing a good thing.

Killing someone usually means that the perpetrator may believe they are guilty of SOMETHING.

-AC

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by Echuu
I agree. The killing of the innocent is immoral regardless of culture or time frame.
The people being chopped in two for the testing of a sword did absolutely nothing to deserve or provoke this.
There are many other methods to test the effectiveness of a weapon. 1) A runaway train is on a track. A bus with a busload of people are stuck on the tracks. You are standing next to a switch that will divert the train onto another track where a railway worker is caught on the tracks. Do you flip the switch?

2) A runaway train is headed towards a busload of people stuck on the railway tracks. If you push a rotund railway worker into the path of the oncoming train this will bring the train to a halt. Do you push the man?

Bardock42
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
1) A runaway train is on a track. A bus with a busload of people are stuck on the tracks. You are standing next to a switch that will divert the train onto another track where a railway worker is caught on the tracks. Do you flip the switch?

2) A runaway train is headed towards a busload of people stuck on the railway tracks. If you push a rotund railway worker into the path of the oncoming train this will bring the train to a halt. Do you push the man?
Not really my business to save people anyways now is it?

Alpha Centauri
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
1) A runaway train is on a track. A bus with a busload of people are stuck on the tracks. You are standing next to a switch that will divert the train onto another track where a railway worker is caught on the tracks. Do you flip the switch?

2) A runaway train is headed towards a busload of people stuck on the railway tracks. If you push a rotund railway worker into the path of the oncoming train this will bring the train to a halt. Do you push the man?

1) I wouldn't flip the switch purely because that would be causing the death of someone by my hand. If the people on the bus die, it's not my fault. It's unfortunate that they got caught there. I'm not about to kill an innocent man just because of that.

2) Depends if the man will survive or not.

-AC

xmarksthespot
I think a variant of this question was used in a study. Interestingly people tended to answer yes for the first question, but were inclined to answer no for the second.

Oh and AC, the rotund man will die. But a man large enough to stop a speeding train isn't going to live that much longer anyway.

Bardock42
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I think a variant of this question was used in a study. Interestingly people tended to answer yes for the first question, but were inclined to answer no for the second.

Oh and AC, the rotund man will die. But a man large enough to stop a speeding train isn't going to live that much longer anyway.

Maybe it is Superman no expression ....chances are you wouldn't be able to push him though.

Mindship
As I see it, the catch-22 with any kind of statement which denies absolutes is that, that denying statement becomes itself the first absolute.

I see values and morals as intertwined. If I value human life, then it is immoral to kill. If I value relativism--there are no moral absolutes--then this becomes my absolute.

I suppose that many people see morals/values and religion/God as intertwined. Thus, if there is no God (or at least, no certainty that he exists), then there is no certain base from which absolute morals come.

I don't see this God-morals connection as necessary. IMO, there are absolutes in the mental-symbolic sphere (eg, If a=b and b=c then a=c; a self-defining absolute), just as there are absolutes in the physical-sensory sphere (physical constants in our type of universe, which make our universe the type it is).

We've had this discussion before, because I've posted this reasoning before.

I would also argue that moral absolutes can be highlighted from an evolutionary point of view: those values which enable a group of people to survive and prosper; and heck, who doesn't wanna survive and prosper (wouldn't that be an absolute hard-wired into human being)? I would think that any society which tests its weapons on its own people would do neither, or at best, do so short-term compared to a society which tests its weapons on other people. wink

IMO, absolute "moral relativism" smacks of mind thinking itself "enlightened" and free of all cultural shackles from the past. "We've learned from past mistakes." It implies some kinda pinnacle of moral development; and considering that homo sapiens have been around for only 150,000 years--large societies for only about 5,000 years--I respectfully submit that this is likely not the case.

Thanks for listening.

Victor Von Doom
Originally posted by Mindship
As I see it, the catch-22 with any kind of statement which denies absolutes is that, that denying statement becomes itself the first absolute.

I see values and morals as intertwined. If I value human life, then it is immoral to kill. If I value relativism--there are no moral absolutes--then this becomes my absolute.

I suppose that many people see morals/values and religion/God as intertwined. Thus, if there is no God (or at least, no certainty that he exists), then there is no certain base from which absolute morals come.

I don't see this God-morals connection as necessary. IMO, there are absolutes in the mental-symbolic sphere (eg, If a=b and b=c then a=c; a self-defining absolute), just as there are absolutes in the physical-sensory sphere (physical constants in our type of universe, which make our universe the type it is).

We've had this discussion before, because I've posted this reasoning before.



I remember you posting that, I think it was in my thread.

I don't really agree with it though. To argue against moral absolutes doesn't preclude the existence of an absolute statement, otherwise logically any denial of fact would lead to the conclusion that no truths exist at all.

Echuu
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
1) A runaway train is on a track. A bus with a busload of people are stuck on the tracks. You are standing next to a switch that will divert the train onto another track where a railway worker is caught on the tracks. Do you flip the switch?

2) A runaway train is headed towards a busload of people stuck on the railway tracks. If you push a rotund railway worker into the path of the oncoming train this will bring the train to a halt. Do you push the man?

The greater good is different than someone randomly cutting people down to test a weapon.
As for what I would do... it depends. I liked AC's answer on not having that workers death on your hands but there are many things to take into account in the situation. Is there a chance that some of the people on the bus may survive? How big is the bus? If I flipped the switch is there a possibility that the worker could get himself un-caught in time? I would have to experience this situation first hand for me to be forced to make an decision.

AC----but what have the 'innocent' wayfarers done? It's the testing of a weapon on random people... it's not like those people were guilty of murder or anything.
What could a 5 year old Jewish girl have possibly done to Hitler to make her worthy of death? Just by being a Jew? Some people may have thought he was doing good but those people were flat out wrong.

Alpha Centauri
Originally posted by Echuu
The greater good is different than someone randomly cutting people down to test a weapon.
As for what I would do... it depends. I liked AC's answer on not having that workers death on your hands but there are many things to take into account in the situation. Is there a chance that some of the people on the bus may survive? How big is the bus? If I flipped the switch is there a possibility that the worker could get himself un-caught in time? I would have to experience this situation first hand for me to be forced to make an decision.

AC----but what have the 'innocent' wayfarers done? It's the testing of a weapon on random people... it's not like those people were guilty of murder or anything.
What could a 5 year old Jewish girl have possibly done to Hitler to make her worthy of death? Just by being a Jew? Some people may have thought he was doing good but those people were flat out wrong.

Hitler believed they were guilty of being "not pure" and polluting the world. He obviously thought they were at fault enough to wipe them out, so whether we agree or not, he didn't think he was wrong. Nor did many others.

-AC

Victor Von Doom
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
1) A runaway train is on a track. A bus with a busload of people are stuck on the tracks. You are standing next to a switch that will divert the train onto another track where a railway worker is caught on the tracks. Do you flip the switch?

2) A runaway train is headed towards a busload of people stuck on the railway tracks. If you push a rotund railway worker into the path of the oncoming train this will bring the train to a halt. Do you push the man?

That's quite an interesting study. It's an already difficult decision to decide whether you should intervene if your intervention can save lives, albeit with a smaller loss of life caused directly by you. The variable is obviously the proximity and level of interference. Therefore it's tempting to take the objective moral stance on the switch-flicking option, but shy away when you need to actively push someone to their death.

For myself, I wouldn't intervene either way, unless there were some other factors involved, such as personally knowing and liking someone I was about to leave to die. Slightly selfish, but it's an almost impossible decision anyway.

Echuu
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Hitler believed they were guilty of being "not pure" and polluting the world. He obviously thought they were at fault enough to wipe them out, so whether we agree or not, he didn't think he was wrong. Nor did many others.

-AC

I agree with you on how he and others didn't think it was wrong. But does that make it any less wrong?

Alpha Centauri
Originally posted by Echuu
I agree with you on how he and others didn't think it was wrong. But does that make it any less wrong?

You're asking me what my opinions on his actions were, though.

That's just me. If a million people think it's wrong, it doesn't alter the fact that Hitler had legions of followers who believed, and still do believe, that he was correct.

Relative morals.

-AC

Echuu
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You're asking me what my opinions on his actions were, though.

That's just me. If a million people think it's wrong, it doesn't alter the fact that Hitler had legions of followers who believed, and still do believe, that he was correct.

Relative morals.

-AC

Yes yes I agree... I'm assuming you take the same position on the wayfarer?

Alpha Centauri
Do I agree that testing weapons on civilians is wrong? Yes. Does the dictator in question? No.

He obviously believes they've done something to deserve it or, even if they haven't, that it's ok.

-AC

Echuu
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Do I agree that testing weapons on civilians is wrong? Yes. Does the dictator in question? No.

He obviously believes they've done something to deserve it or, even if they haven't, that it's ok.

-AC

Aight, cheers man cool
Cya round.

Storm

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
1) A runaway train is on a track. A bus with a busload of people are stuck on the tracks. You are standing next to a switch that will divert the train onto another track where a railway worker is caught on the tracks. Do you flip the switch?

2) A runaway train is headed towards a busload of people stuck on the railway tracks. If you push a rotund railway worker into the path of the oncoming train this will bring the train to a halt. Do you push the man?

Those who answer "yes" to either question presuppose that all human life is equally valuable, and therefore the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Suppose the bus is filled with convicted murderers, or the man who will be struct by the train is developing a cure for cancer, how many people would still answer "yes"?

Alpha Centauri
My answer to the first one wasn't yes anyway.

-AC

Bardock42

Atlantis001

Atlantis001
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I think a variant of this question was used in a study. Interestingly people tended to answer yes for the first question, but were inclined to answer no for the second.

Interesting that if one believes that it is right to try to save more lives possible, they do it only in one situation if the consequences are the same to both situations. It is easier to kill a worker if you kill him indirectly !? We just choose to intervene in the situation when we know we will not feel guilty even if it will cost many lives, or is there something that makes the second situation where you push the worker wrong ? There is even the possibility that saving more lives possible is not always right, but why ?

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by Atlantis001
Interesting that if one believes that it is right to try to save more lives possible, they do it only in one situation if the consequences are the same to both situations. It is easier to kill a worker if you kill him indirectly !? We just choose to intervene in the situation when we know we will not feel guilty even if it will cost many lives, or is there something that makes the second situation where you push the worker wrong ? There is even the possibility that saving more lives possible is not always right, but why ? I recall I read about this in a New Scientist article Exploring the Moral Maze. The moral dilemma was part of a study by Dr. Joshua Greene a postdoctoral fellow in the Dept. of Psychology at Princeton University. Their explanation was that there was "competition" between emotion and reason when coming to moral decisions, and that greater conflict occurred in the latter scenario requiring greater cognitive processes. Psychology isn't my forte. However if one's interested in further information:
http://www.csbmb.princeton.edu/~jdgreene/

Victor Von Doom
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Their explanation was that there was "competition" between emotion and reason when coming to moral decisions, and that greater conflict occurred in the latter scenario requiring greater cognitive processes.


Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
an already difficult decision to decide whether you should intervene if your intervention can save lives, albeit with a smaller loss of life caused directly by you. The variable is obviously the proximity and level of interference. Therefore it's tempting to take the objective moral stance on the switch-flicking option, but shy away when you need to actively push someone to their death.

For myself, I wouldn't intervene either way, unless there were some other factors involved, such as personally knowing and liking someone I was about to leave to die. Slightly selfish, but it's an almost impossible decision anyway.

Mindship
Sophie's choice, anyone?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.