...
I don't get it. How can you not grasp the concept?
A moral relativist does not state "there is no good or evil"- they simply support the idea that objective norms of good and evil aren't correct. They think that good and evil are relative to the person or society making the observation. Hence, relativism.
Now, how do these relativists make any claims? Well, I suppose they could uh... draw on knowledge and perhaps even wisdom to specificy and evaluate what is evil and good for them.
Originally posted by Janus Marius
...I don't get it. How can you not grasp the concept?
A moral relativist does not state "there is no good or evil"- they simply support the idea that objective norms of good and evil aren't correct. They think that good and evil are [b]relative to the person or society making the observation
. Hence, relativism.Now, how do these relativists make any claims? Well, I suppose they could uh... draw on knowledge and perhaps even wisdom to specificy and evaluate what is evil and good for them. [/B]
I agree. But don't you see the pointlessness. For a moral relativist someone with little knowledge has the same right to evaluate good and evil as one that has lots. Therefore, knowledge isn't really important. At least not to evaluate what is good and what is evil.
I don't really see that being apparent in the term itself. Moral relativism is based on the morals being relative to the person or society, but nowhere does it say all morals are equal of consideration, nor does it say that knowledge is neccessary or unneccessary for such judgements. If anything, that all depends on the person's take on it according to relativism. If unsupported assumptions make for equal moral consideration, than moral relativism is nothing more than ethical egoism. And in that case, it's self-defeating, because people cannot champion all ethical views.
I don't understand the last part. Are you saying ethical egoism is self-defeating?
Someone that is a moral relativist thinks that all morals are subjective to each person. therefore they must also think that all morals are equal. If they wouldn't then they would subscribe to some absolute moral that makes one view better than the other.
The problem with ethical egoism is that while all people can have their own views on morality, you can't respect them all in practice. If I like killing and you don't, you can't condone my views nor can you respect them without infringing on your own. So they can't be equal above the fact that they are all unique. My liking of killing wouldn't be just as good as your hatred of it.
And in a situation of egoism, every single person thinks their way is the best. So theirs is the absolute morality and everyone else's is wrong or flawed in some way.
I don't see what you mean. Your love of killing would be just as "good" or "evil" as my hate of killing. I think actually ethical egoism is just a cold hard fact. it is the way everyone of us acts. I can see in an absolt sense that your love of killing (hypothetically) is equal to my hate. But obviously I, as an individual will prefer mine. And can chose to act against it. Which is jsut what Society does.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't see what you mean. Your love of killing would be just as "good" or "evil" as my hate of killing. I think actually ethical egoism is just a cold hard fact. it is the way everyone of us acts. I can see in an absolt sense that your love of killing (hypothetically) is equal to my hate. But obviously I, as an individual will prefer mine. And can chose to act against it. Which is jsut what Society does.
Ethical egoism is a social mode of operation, not just a personal philosophy. Psychological egoism is the idea that all people are inherently selfish and self centered. That is what you're thinking of.
Now, the problem with an ethical egoism system is that no system can operate where each person adheres to a whatever style moral code. It'd be anarchy. Like Hobb's state of nature. No state can exist championing all those different values. And no rational person would consider all different types of ethics to be "equal", especially since that would be going against your own personal view that yours are "better".
Originally posted by Janus Marius
Ethical egoism is a social mode of operation, not just a personal philosophy. Psychological egoism is the idea that all people are inherently selfish and self centered. That is what you're thinking of.Now, the problem with an ethical egoism system is that no system can operate where each person adheres to a whatever style moral code. It'd be anarchy. Like Hobb's state of nature. No state can exist championing all those different values. And no rational person would consider all different types of ethics to be "equal", especially since that would be going against your own personal view that yours are "better".
Thank you. I wasn't aware fof that term.
Well, what's so wrong about Anarchy.
Also, does Ethical Egoism say that all those different Morals have to be accepted? Because there is a difference between accepting a moral code and understanding that it is equal with another.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Thank you. I wasn't aware fof that term.Well, what's so wrong about Anarchy.
Also, does Ethical Egoism say that all those different Morals have to be accepted? Because there is a difference between accepting a moral code and understanding that it is equal with another.
Ethical egoism is the idea that morals are relative, hence... there should be no objective morals set forth by a state or group. However, we realize that this can't make any sense - if we let all ideas be treated equally, then there would be widespread conflict and chaos. Not a good solution to a social problem. Likewise, anarchy is ridiculous. Who wants to live in a world where there are no laws? Only those who wish to do things the majority deems bad: murderers, rapists, vandals, thieves, etc.
And again, how can all ethical views be "equal"? I don't see that at all. If Bob has the ethical view that only chickens are worthy of moral consideration, is Bob equal to us? Or is he perhaps just out of his mind?
Originally posted by Janus Marius
Ethical egoism is the idea that morals are relative, hence... there should be no objective morals set forth by a state or group. However, we realize that this can't make any sense - if we let all ideas be treated equally, then there would be widespread conflict and chaos. Not a good solution to a social problem. Likewise, anarchy is ridiculous. Who wants to live in a world where there are no laws? Only those who wish to do things the majority deems bad: murderers, rapists, vandals, thieves, etc.And again, how can all ethical views be "equal"? I don't see that at all. If Bob has the ethical view that only chickens are worthy of moral consideration, is Bob equal to us? Or is he perhaps just out of his mind?
The question is are they treated equally or are they seen as equal?
If it is jsut the second one then it makes sense. If you see the majority just as one person that has it's own subjective morals but forces them on all the others.
Hmm, yes, Bob's moral views are certainly equal to ours.
The fundamental difference between moral absolutism and moral relativism is that the former derives meaning from some absolute frame of reference. "God" comes immediately to mind, but since He can't be a given, what other potentially absolute frames of reference might there be?
What about social/sociological evolution? There are laws of biology which (as far as we know) are absolute. Social systems are very much like living things. What principles of behavior might best help a society thrive?
Originally posted by Mindship
The fundamental difference between moral absolutism and moral relativism is that the former derives meaning from some absolute frame of reference. "God" come immediately to mind, but since He can't be a given, what other potentially absolute frames of reference might there be?What about social/sociological evolution? There are laws of biology which (as far as we know) are absolute. Social systems are very much like living things. What principles of behavior might best help a socety thrive?
Originally posted by Mindship
The fundamental difference between moral absolutism and moral relativism is that the former derives meaning from some absolute frame of reference. "God" comes immediately to mind, but since He can't be a given, what other potentially absolute frames of reference might there be?What about social/sociological evolution? There are laws of biology which (as far as we know) are absolute. Social systems are very much like living things. What principles of behavior might best help a society thrive?
So looking for natural law answers? My ethics professor a few years back was heavy into that. He had a pretty convincing argument going on but unfortunately, I never took notes in class. I certainly feel that humans should find some sense of objective morality, I'm just nor certain where to find it.
Originally posted by Janus Marius
So looking for natural law answers? My ethics professor a few years back was heavy into that. He had a pretty convincing argument going on but unfortunately, I never took notes in class. I certainly feel that humans should find some sense of objective morality, I'm just nor certain where to find it.
But where find them if there aren't any?
Originally posted by Bardock42
But not even God is that absolute.
Certainly not the man-made ones.
"God," as described mystically, in esoteric literature, is a whole other story. "Absolute," "Ultimate," "Infinite." God is all these things and not; "He" is literally ineffable. Ultimately, God is an experience, and down through the centuries, all that writing, the religions, the mystical schools of thought, everything; ultimately it's all an attempt to bring that experience into the scope of human affairs. This would include a moral code.
Originally posted by Mindship
Certainly not the man-made ones."God," as described mystically, in esoteric literature, is a whole other story. "Absolute," "Ultimate," "Infinite." God is all these things and not; "He" is literally ineffable. Ultimately, God is an experience, and down through the centuries, all that writing, the religions, the mystical schools of thought, everything; ultimately it's all an attempt to bring that experience into the scope of human affairs. This would include a moral code.
But when assigning it to god you jsut pass the subjectivity.....
Originally posted by Bardock42
But when assigning it to god you jsut pass the subjectivity.....
If God is just an invention, absolutely. But for the sake of argument, if He is not, then an Absolute frame of reference exists, including an absolute moral code. By definition. "Here ye, here ye. This is what Infinite Consciousness expects of us..."
(Although now I'm wondering: is moral relativism against absolutes because there is no God; or even if there was a God, would He still be seen as something relative?)
The problem of course is that we don't know if God is an invention or a discovery. That's why He can't be taken as a given. So I posed the question: might there be another absolute frame of reference?