Moral Relativism is more easily understood in comparison to Moral Absolutism. Absolutism claims that morality relies on universal principles (natural law, conscience . . . the Golden rule if you will). Christian absolutists believe that God is the ultimate source of our common morality, and that it is therefore as unchanging as He. Moral Relativism asserts that morality is not based on any absolute standard. Rather, ethical "truths" depend on the situation, culture, one's feelings, etc.
There are several arguments for relativism depending on the type one asserts, however several things can be said of them all which demonstrate their dubious nature. First, while many of the arguments used in the attempt to support these various claims might sound good at first, there is a logical contradiction inherent in all of them because they all propose the right moral scheme – the one we all ought to follow. But this is absolutism. Second, even so-called relativists reject relativism in most cases – they would not say that a murderer or rapist is free from guilt so long as they did not violate their own standards. Third, the very fact that we have words such as "right," "wrong," "ought," “better,” etc. show that these things exist. If morality were truly relative, these words would have no meaning - we would say, "That feels bad to me," not, "That is wrong."
Relativists may argue that different values among different cultures show that morals are relative to different people. But this argument confuses the actions of individuals (what they do) with absolute standards (whether they should do it). If culture determines right and wrong, how could we have judged the Nazis? They were following their culture's morality after all. Only if murder is universally wrong were the Nazis wrong. The fact that they had “their morality” does not change that. Further, although many people have different out workings of morality, they still share a common morality. For instance, abortionists and anti-abortionists agree that murder is wrong, but they disagree on whether abortion is murder. So even here absolute universal morality is shown to be true.
Some claim that changing situations make for changing morality - in different situations different acts are called for that might not be right in other situations. But there are three things by which we must judge an act: the situation, the act, and the intention. For example, we can convict someone of attempted murder (intent) even if they fail (act). So situations are part of the moral decision, for they set the context for choosing the specific moral act (the application of universal principles).
The main argument relativists appeal to is that of tolerance. They claim that telling someone that their morality is wrong is intolerant, and relativism tolerates all views. But this is simply misleading. First of all, evil should never be tolerated. Should we tolerate a rapist's view that women are objects of gratification to be abused? Second, it is self-defeating because relativists do not tolerate intolerance or absolutism. Third, relativism cannot explain why anyone should be tolerant in the first place. The very fact that we should tolerate people (even when we disagree) is based on the absolute moral rule that we should always treat people fairly – but that is absolutism again! In fact, without universal moral principles there can be no goodness.
The fact is that all people are all born with a conscience and we all instinctively know when we have been wronged or when we have wronged others. We act as though we expect others to recognize this as well. Even as children we knew the difference between "fair" and "unfair." It takes bad philosophy to convince us that we are wrong.
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
Re: Moral Relativism
Horrible nonsense.
Good so far.
Not true. Not all do it. Actually the majority doesn't. A scheme that the author deems to be of advantage for one or the other purpose maybe, but not absolutely right schemes.
Misinterpretation of moral relativism. It does not mean that there are no morals, just that they are not set and in fact change their parameters over time. Murderers and rapist can be guilty in a relative set of morals or laws.
Nonsense. We have such words as Fairy, Unicorn and Santa Claus, does not mean the things themselves exist, but the concept. Also, those words are also applicable in a relativist way.
Not true. Though that can be the meaning of the words on relativist terms.
Which ones are the absolutes? The ones the African tribes people have? The ones your God gave you? The ones humanists set as right?
Because our (relative) laws were applicable to them. Just because one believes in relative morals does not mean that moral codes do not exist. THey are just not absolute. We base them on our will.
They weren't "wrong" in their moral sense, no. But they were by the moral sense of the winners of the war.
No. That there are morals that many (not all) human beings agree on is explainable through our upbringing and evolutionary and sociological needs. A human wants to survive, so the basic moral premise most humans would choose for their group is that "murder is wrong" (subjectively) as they want to avoid being killed
Can be true for either absolute or relative morals. A no argument, really.
Why? We could also judge it by the weather on the day it happened. What stops us from that?
We can because the society holds the power. We decide for us what we want our members not to do. No proof of absolute morals.
They can be. Do not have to be though. There could be moral sets where the failed act will not be punished.
Not an argument I (as a moral relativist) would ever use.
Why? What is this evil you speak of anyways?
Maybe, maybe not. You are arguing with the premise that absolute morals are an accepted fact. They aren't. Circular reasoning to the extreme.
They might. Especially with absolutism, just because they disagree does not mean that they don't tolerate it.
Yes it can.
As I said. Circular reasoning.
There is no proof that we are born with a conscience. Also basic selfishness explains a lot of those symptoms. Absolute morality is not the only explanation and certainly one that raises many paradox, unanswerable or at least very complex questions.
If you moral absolutism does not exist, you'd have no room for argument. Period. We'd have no basis to even conduct this debate. Everything would be “opinionated.” We both know, that the world does not work like that.
Because it has nothing to do with the "how," and under "what" circumstance(s). Killing to defend is right; killing for fun—just because—is wrong. Do I really need to explain?
Moral absolutism is imperative; without it, we lack the ability to judge, at least with authority. Otherwise, moral standards would be up for sale.
So... an “attempt” to harm you would not create or provoke a sense of “wrong-doing” against you? Please! Oh wait... I see, you would just respect their opinion and/or willingness to survive.
Why did you respond to this post?
Telling you to go f—ck your mother would be one, but you being “relative” and all, I'm sure that doesn't bother you. Of course, I do not mean such statements, I was merely making a point; and I think it was effective. Still, I apologize, with all the sincerity I can muster. If I was serious, it would offend you, because I was <drum-roll> wrong!
Why is this “circular” reasoning to the extreme?
What does it mean, then?
How?
In what way is this "circular" reasoning? In answering, do not be "objective." You know how people feel about being “intolerant.”
Robots do know they are robots; furthermore, robots do not know what it feels like to be a robot! But humans know they are human, and they know what it feels like—to be human. More specifically, you, Bardock42, knows what its like to be you! Snatch a toy from a new born and it will cry; it does not hurt physically. It hurts “emotionally.” This was never taught.
Moral absolutism has nothing to do with a “purpose,” but everything to do with an “objective” standard in which we human beings judge and/or deem right from wrong. This is precisely what separates man from the animal kingdom—robots!
You missed the point. Despite all your fancy explanation, one who embraces moral relativism, would still share the views of a moral absolutist—murder and rape is wrong, at least when attributed to themselves. You simply cannot dispute this.
Your statement is completely out of context. Moral objectivity is not a “concept,” rather, it professes that persons have value—intrinsic value.
You are over-simplifying things. Stating, “That is wrong,” would be powerless in a moral relative world; you'd have no right to make such a claim—only “That feels wrong to me.” Such would be merely a “personal” opinion.
Your questions are completely naked to the truth! Murder is “universally” excepted as wrong, while love is praised. Crooked governments and the powers-that-be do not change they way they feel about murder upon themselves; they would proclaim, “How dare you do this to me!” They'd further think, “This is wrong,” never, “This is wrong to me!”
(Relative) laws? We base “objective” morals on our will? What are you talking about?
So, if I understand your statement correctly, Osama bin Laden could be labeled morally just in destroying the United States (if only he succeeded)? Talk about dangerous minds.
The will to “survive” as an organism has absolutely didly-squat to do with morality—right and wrong.
Last edited by ushomefree on Jul 23rd, 2007 at 07:01 PM
So far I beleive that if Absolute Morality exists, then it can only exist in the most extreme cases...i.e. If you torture someone for fun...I could never ever see how that is right, and I would bet that most people would agree that was wrong as well.
However, most situations and actions are Grey, and i do not beleive that every single action and situation can be applied to "good" or "evil", some things have nothing to do with morality.
If i scratch my ass, that's not good or evil. That just is.
If I drink Kool Aid at 3:00, is that good or evil?
etc.
Then you have more complicated issues such as Abortion, Gay Marriage, Sex Before Marriage, Birth Control, Death Penalty, etc.
How can you have absolute right or wrongs with these issues being as complicated as they are. If you find these issues simple, then you are TRULY BLIND
How do you know that animals have no sense of right or wrong? It's already proven that animals have emotions, not just impulse. Study the psychology of any mammal, and you will see that most mammals, including dogs, dolphins, chimpanzees, etc. have suffered from depression, loneliness, and anxiety. They also display actions which confirm urges of sex, enjoyment, and socialization.
Since it is true that animals have emotions, how would you know they have no sense of right or wrong?
My dog, by now, doesn't destroy my furniture, chew my laundry, or steal my food because he figures this is "wrong" ever since I repeatedly said NO to those actions, as well as reward him for not doing so.
My dog, a Yellow Labridor, also has a sense of gentleness...he will never bark at children or attack them. He has never attacked an adult, has barked, but not attacked.
Morality, whether inheritted or learned, is something I beleive both humans and animals share. Moralities differ between people greatly, so how do you not imagine that animals have thier own sense of morality that we as human beings just can't understand yet ?
That is true. I would say my morality is relative, but I still hold my own personal absolutes. Whether or not I was born with those morals, or learned them, is the real question, however.
I think it all has to do with Pain and Pleasure. Anything that hurts us, we deem "wrong". Anything that feels good or benefits us in a harmless way, we deem "right". I think that is the basis of morality.
However, it becomes more complicated when we attribute right and wrong on other people, because we cannot understand thier perspectives, and what they percieve as pain and pleasure.
I do beleive that people and animals have intrinsic value, but then again, we are only important to ourselves and those who love us.
If a civilization of aliens came to our world to inhabit, they would probably destroy us if we were a threat. We wouldn't have much "intrisic value" then, would we ?
Also, we eat fish, beef, and other animal meet all the time. We also kill roaches, spiders, and the like. We also chop down trees without a second thought.
Why are we as humans of intrinsic value, while other living things aren't ?
If someone stabs me in the heart, i would think that was absolutely wrong
I wouldn't wanna sit there and listen to how morality is subjective as im bleeding to death in agony lol
Yes, but we redefine murder all the time. It's murder to kill a decent, tax paying citizen, but it is not "murder" to bomb other countries, or send our young 18 year old youth to war. It's not "murder" to give the Lethal Injection to "low lives" in prison, and it is not "murder" to kill an unborn child a few hours before its birth.
You say that "murder" is universally accepted as wrong, but murder has no "universal" definition.
People nit pick at the action of killing, defining it to better suit thier agendas all the time.
Just as Bush can be labelled morally just in bombing Iraq, and killing countless children. Talk about dangerous minds.
[QUOTE=9271778]Originally posted by ushomefree [B]The will to “survive” as an organism has absolutely didly-squat to do with morality—right and wrong.
Actually, it has everything to do with it. The two most natural urges of every human being are Survival and Sex.
The condition of life is survival, and because we need money, food, water, shelter, health, etc. we take away from each other in order to survive. That is the root to all war, that is the root to all hostility.
I know, even though it is scientific fact that humans are animals.
Also because of the Bible and Quran, many religious people tend to beleive that we have every right to treat any animal as we wish, because "God put the animals here to serve us"
They don't realize that animals have thier own lives, independent of human beings.
I can take heat, and I can take disagreement. But sometimes people just want to be difficult, and they want to be heard--not that they have anything to contribute to the conversation, they just want to be heard. And that is you, Goddess Kali. You had points to convey, but the majority were completely short sighted. Its like you want to tear apart my reasoning by means of questioning the "product" and not the "origin!" I only felt like commenting on one thing, such as:
You have totally under minded my point! Just because one has more influence and/or money in the bank does NOT dictate who is MORALLY RIGHT! (The same applies to the United States!) People like you are so quick to attack--and judge--that you can't even give me the "benefit of the doubt." I appreciate the diversity, but c'mon. Let's be fair. I am through with this thread. I'm sorry to be such a poor sport. All of you can reach a conclusion. Take care all, and happy debating.
Gender: Male Location: Southern Oregon,
Looking at you.
But when people get used to tormenting and killing animals, they find it easier to tormenting and killing people. Most serial killers started by killing animals.
Any distinction in life is arbitrary. Nothing - not words, religions, acts which would be describe as 'moral' or 'immoral' - has any intrinsic meaning in and of itself until we give it meaning for ourselves.
So yeah, according to Osama, the eradication of, say, America would be 'moral' whereas many others would label it 'immoral'. Both are inherently arbitrary, and far from absolute. Good/evil, right/wrong...don't exist except in our perceptions of them. There's no standard basis for it.
I don't really know what the central point behind Ushomefree's rant is (likely just trying to destroy the idea of relativism)...there's been a lot of topics covered and counter-points made, so it's hard to follow. But you've spent the last few posts simply attacking Kali and getting upset, rather than debating...and when you do, there's large leaps in logic that don't really fit. That isn't really productive for anyone, and just shows that you're incapable of discussing things with people who disagree with you. You don't have to change your mind (you're always entitled to your opinion) but the progression of talk in this thread has degenrated into immaturity in a hurry.
KMC Community Forums
Jul 16th, 2007 11:37 PM
