Originally posted by NemeBro
Well, it's not, as far as I can tell. Seeing as he not once mentioned God in his post.Moral relativism in the context it is being used here is just a way of saying there's no inherent moral law to the universe, just preferences people (Be they the majority or not) have toward certain beliefs. You'd prefer ISIS not kill innocent people, so for you this makes them "evil". A moral relativist like LL (Correct me if I've gotten your beliefs wrong) is just under the belief that they aren't empirically evil. They merely commit acts that he is opposed against and would prefer them be stopped (If not by US troops).
I think LL is a moral nihlist, not a relativist. A Relativist would say that there are moral truths and the thing that makes things good or bad is based on perspective. A moral nihlist would say that the words "morally correct" are coompletely meaningless.
(Moral nihlists refuse to play the game)
Originally posted by psmith81992
But moral relativism allows for an "anything goes" attitude does it not?
It does not. Sam Harris suggests that morality arises out of social relationships that we are biologically predisposed to develop. So there are a lot of different possible moral codes, but some codes are measurably more successful at fulfilling the biological goal they are aiming at (successful human communities). On this view, there isn't anything "wrong" with murder on the cosmic/universal level. However, moral condemnation for murderers is still a reasonable and consistent position. Thus, murder is morally wrong without some sort of universal moral law.
For example.
The real thing that you should focus on is the fact that moral theories can make distinctions between right and wrong without ever taking a position on whether morality is a universal or situational issue. Therefore, your persistence in asking "what moral relativism permits" is kind of misguided. Lots of different moral relativists have developed different accounts of morality. Some of those accounts are rigorous (like Scanlon's) and others are less rigorous (like Sam Harris' who I paraphrased badly above).
Originally posted by ZampanóThen why is moral relativism being brought up!?
I think LL is a moral nihlist, not a relativist. A Relativist would say that there are moral truths and the thing that makes things good or bad is based on perspective. A moral nihlist would say that the words "morally correct" are coompletely meaningless.(Moral nihlists refuse to play the game)
Originally posted by NemeBro
Then why is moral relativism being brought up!?
DS is of the opinion that liberalism or multiculturalism lacks the standing to make critical moral judgments because of their reliance on moral relativism. More to the point, he's equated cultural relativism (which places equal value on all cultures) with moral relativism (which holds that morality is made true or false by interactions between humans).
The first time we had this argument, the phrase "who are you to judge" got brought up. DS feels that a position which refuses to take moral positions is worthless. Notably, though, this is not actually a moral doctrine that anybody actually argues for. Instead, there are judgments which are not considered to be ethically appropriate (such as declaring Islam to be violent and primitive due to the actions of its extremists). When pointing out that this kind of moral condemnation is inappropriate, they sometimes ask "who are you to judge" anybody. This is a (annoying) shorthand used to point out that the speaker is not the arbiter of right and wrong. It is a pretty weak as homonym attack that got thrown at DS a lot.
I was still in high school and so was self-studying a lot of philosophy. Much of it I misunderstood and explained to the board badly. At this point the conversation with him has gotten muddy enough that it would take about ten links to the Stanford philosophy encyclopedia to clear everything up. Sadly those articles are longer than my attention span.
Originally posted by ZampanóI am. Morality's just a tool we invented. Like hammers. Or wheels. Or god.
I think LL is a moral nihlist
I like to use the example of cannibalism (instead of murder, which is too overused as a topic). A cannibalistic society calls eating the dead a morally righteous act. They don't bring up gods or religion, just the rightness of it. To let a body rot and decay or burn is immoral and wrong, and letting it happen is worthy of legal consequences, possibly jail time. I visit this society and call their cannibalism immoral. They call my society's treatment of dead bodies immoral. We each accuse the other of immorality and espouse our own moral righteousness.
Which one is fundamentally, irrefutably, and demonstrably, correct?
We all make value judgments, we all adhere to some set of rules or criteria for right and wrong. No one can escape it, you have to play the game.
Sure, the universe doesn't care; the universe doesn't judge. So what? You judge. It seems pointless to me to claim you're a moral nihilist when it's impossible.
I say ISIS is a band of evil savages that need to be purged. They cause immense suffering; kill them all. Can I objectively prove ISIS is evil within the context of the universe? Of course not, but I don't give a f*ck. I assume human well being and happiness is better than the opposite (and there are many ways to achieve well being and happiness,) which is really all I need.
Too many of my fellow liberals shy away from using the word evil. Too many liberals are hesitant judge other cultures and societies. Except they do, but they don't want to admit it.
Originally posted by LuciusThat is what's happening. Every individual judges for themselves, but many attribute their decision to some innate connection to a greater, fundamental fabric of the universe. They're not recognizing the source (themselves) and they're not seeing that it changes from person to person.
Sure, the universe doesn't care; the universe doesn't judge. So what? You judge. It seems pointless to me to claim you're a moral nihilist when it's impossible.
The contention isn't the presence or absence of the emotions that evil involves, it's the source of the label of evil itself. It's imposed from within and from everybody, not from without and by one thing (god or a fundamental law).
It does not. Sam Harris suggests that morality arises out of social relationships that we are biologically predisposed to develop. So there are a lot of different possible moral codes, but some codes are measurably more successful at fulfilling the biological goal they are aiming at (successful human communities). On this view, there isn't anything "wrong" with murder on the cosmic/universal level. However, moral condemnation for murderers is still a reasonable and consistent position. Thus, murder is morally wrong without some sort of universal moral law.
The first time we had this argument, the phrase "who are you to judge" got brought up. DS feels that a position which refuses to take moral positions is worthless. Notably, though, this is not actually a moral doctrine that anybody actually argues for. Instead, there are judgments which are not considered to be ethically appropriate (such as declaring Islam to be violent and primitive due to the actions of its extremists). When pointing out that this kind of moral condemnation is inappropriate, they sometimes ask "who are you to judge" anybody. This is a (annoying) shorthand used to point out that the speaker is not the arbiter of right and wrong. It is a pretty weak as homonym attack that got thrown at DS a lot.
Too many of my fellow liberals shy away from using the word evil. Too many liberals are hesitant judge other cultures and societies. Except they do, but they don't want to admit it.