Can anyone really BE a moral relativist?

I highly doubt that a moral relativist can be against killing on the one hand but suddenly be for it if done by others just because they are from a different culture. That's a logical contradiction. And even if he says "Well, under such and such circumstances it IS alright to kill", he is still morally justifying the conditional rightness of killing for the rest of the human race. He's saying given these circumstances it right to kill for all humans. At no point does he say, "Well, for me killing is wrong, but for other people it's ok because afterall there's no objective morality and they have a right to kill when I don't." Ofcourse I don't know any moral relativists so I may be wrong. But like I'm saying, you don't make a moral judgement without universalizing that judgement for the human race. Otherwise what's the point of morality at all? You might as well just be choosing to act for your own reason with no moral extrapolation at all.

But then you're just applying a moral rule to other humans in THAT case aren't you? IOW, you're saying IF you are starving and have 5 mouths to feed, then it's morally justified for ANY human to steal. That's a universal rule for you. So nothing is relativized to just you at all. You are still making judgments about what all humans should do. The rules. The exceptions. Everything morally justified applies equally well to all other humans. How can it not?

But if there is no objective moral value to any action, then how do you morally justify your own actions. A moral principle that is entirely subjective would be no more moral than a passing whim. Moral justification ASSUMES applicability of your principle beyond just yourself to all other men as well. It assumes a shared obligation to a commonly binding rule or principle and so automatically posits the objectivity of moral value. Otherwise, and once again, why morally justify it? Why not just say that's what you chose to do and be done with it.

If they believe all men should behave a certain way towards women, according to principle of human equality and respect, then yes they are believing in a universally binding principle or ideal. They're saying proper conduct towards women is NOT relative to one's situation or culture, but applies to all humans everywhere at anytime. If that isn't absolutism I don't know what it is.

Yes..I guess I am. "Objective" taken in the sense of principles binding to more that just yourself and applying to all other human faced with the same situation. As for how objective principles exist, I don't know. I think laws of physics exist in some sense beyond the physical world. Mathematical formulae and numbers too. So maybe moral principles, like Plato's ideal of the Good, exists in some timeless eternal state separate from physical reality. Note this doesn't require the existence of a God to define them. They exist in their own right, like the rules of logic and reason for example.

I see that. I'M saying moral judgement can't help but posit itself as universally binding. I question the whole premise of relativism that says one can believe in one's own morals and values and also believe they are just the subjective products of raising and culture. You just can't do that. Because saying your morals or values are the arbitrary byproducts of culture and raising instantly invalidates them as moral values. They become things you have become programmed to think and so lack any justification as being morally applicable principles. A moral principle afterall has to be freely chosen.

You already gave one--the treatment of women as equals with men.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I often have trouble discussing morality because people keep defining it as ethics and vice versa. I have found however that after some discussion the terms can usually be separated as follows.
Morality relates to right vs wrong. Ethics relates to good vs bad.
Morality is an absolute. Something is right or wrong. There is no "righter" or "wrongest"
Ethics is a continuum. Best, better, good, enh, bad, worse, worst.
Morality is an absolute. Something cannot be right in one case and wrong in another.
Ethics is situational. What may be good here and now may be horribly bad there or then.
Morality is defined by doing right. People (sapient beings) have the right to voluntary action. Allow people to act voluntarily and you are being moral. Sum total.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You're still misunderstanding. Relativists aren't "for" competing ideas of good, they simply recognize that another's morality cannot be refuted objectively. It's like if I say to you, "I hate women, and believe they should be kept as property." How would you objectively refute me, keeping in mind that you can only use principles that we both must hold?

You're equivocating on the term "universal." In the context of this thread, it has been a synonym of "objective," referring to hypothetical principles that have inherent, fundamental value. The way you're using it here, however, refers to rules I think we should all follow. Those are two entirely different concepts.

Whether or not I want my moral code to be applied (in the context you're using it) "universally," is irrelevant; all that matters is how I believe those morals are justified. If I believe that actions have inherent value, then I believe in objective morality. But if I believe that no action has any inherent value, and any such value is projected onto it by the individual, then I am a moral relativist. Do you see the difference now?

Exactly. How do you? It's not easy, as you can plainly see from many conflicts occurring within our country and without. How do you convince someone that women should have sovereignty over their own bodies when their morals object to it? You can argue logic all you like, but it boils down to personal values, and there is no objective benchmark against which they can be measured.

I honestly don't know what this means.

It doesn't have to, but it certainly can. However, this is not the same thing as assuming there is inherent value to any moral statement or act. Again, two entirely different matters. I can reason my way through a moral conundrum, but at the heart of my decision is my own personal, subjective values. Treating women right is morally good because I value the welfare of women; protecting children is morally good because I value the welfare of children. If I value neither of these things, what objective principle makes me objectively wrong?

Incorrect. One can believe something - anything - is good or bad without the assumption that it is objectively good or bad. For example, I can tell everyone that The Place Beyond the Pines is a great movie, and you should all go see it (partly because it was filmed - and takes place - in my hometown of Schenectady (the title is an approximate translation of the Mohawk word) but that doesn't assume that everyone will love it, or that it has attributes that are objectively enjoyable. When I tell others how good something is, the only thing I'm assuming is shared interests. I may argue that my interests are superior, but even that argument relies on subjective values ("Crime dramas are awesome!")

The short answer is obvious: Because I believe it's right. The longer answer is, what the hell kind of question is that? Have you ever investigated the source of your own moral code? Can you tell me the principles that have objective, intrinsic moral value?

In fairness, what I'm asking you to do is impossible. Like asking you draw a square circle. There are no objective, intrinsic moral values to anything. And any attempt to define a principle as having intrinsic moral value requires one to make a subjective value judgment.

You don't know what it is.

I certainly hope I've cleared up your misunderstanding of absolutism and relativism, but if not, here's one more go: The belief that my morality is superior does not imply, suggest, or mandate an objective moral value. It all relies on a subjective valuation of a principle. In the same way I can say something tastes good without assuming that you'll also like or relying on some intrinsic "goodness" property within the food, I can say that an act is good without assuming you'll believe it's good as well, and without relying on some intrinsic "goodness' property within the statement.

Binding according to whom?

In order for a moral principle to be objective, there must be some property that defines it as inherently good or bad. That means there must be something about an act that is fundamentally good or bad irrespective of one's personal beliefs. I don't know of any way this is possibly achieved without a god or something similar, but I'm open to suggestions.

To put them outside of the boundaries of the material universe is to essentially substitute the morals for God, and no more useful of an answer.

Then you don't see that, otherwise you wouldn't have responded in such a manner.

How so? Is your belief that milk is good invalidated because someone else thinks it's yucky and there is no objective barometer for who is right?

Did you freely choose your moral code, or was it naturally derived from the values and principles you developed over the course of your life?

And it's also not true that programmed beliefs lack moral justification. If I was programmed to believe that women are equal citizens to men, I can justify that belief. How I came to it isn't relevant.

What makes it a universal principle? (Remember, when we say "universal," we mean principles that are inherently good or bad; they must contain properties that are objectively so, and not subject to one's own beliefs and values)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

From what I've read (and Fraggle could be of use here) morals are personal, whereas ethics refer to group expectations of behavior. But, really, who cares? They basically mean the same thing.

So you don't think there's any moral difference between killing one person and killing a million?

If that's the case, then what are you to do when you find yourself in a kill-or-be-killed situation?

So is morality. I may find stealing reprehensible...unless, perhaps, I'm stealing from a person who doesn't feel the loss, and I'm starving. Or killing, which I do not agree with in general, but if I must kill to survive, then how can I call it an immoral act?

 

Nope. Both are interactive but they mean totally different things.

Nope, they are both wrong if the folks killed did not volunteer for it. Killing a million individuals is worse that killing one, but that is ethics.

Depends on whether I volunteered to be in that situation. If not, the person is obviously about to kill me, which suggests he thinks it is an ok thing to do. Having shown me by his actions that he has volunteered to participate in this killing event, I then am not doing wrong to participate in his action before him.

Simple, if the person didn't volunteer to be part of it, you are doing wrong. End of issue. It may seem ethical, but basically you can't do good by doing wrong. Your theft for starvation will be bad for you somehow. And killing "for survival" carries too many "what ifs" with it to comment. What I can say is, involving someone in your killing involuntarily is wrong.

Kavorkian started out killing people for his own survival, but they (in the beginning) were volunteers. In the beginning, that killing was moral. It is suggested that in the later period, some individuals didn't actually volunteer. At that point, WRONG.

 

They really don't, and the definitions you've offered are incorrect. The difference is subtle, a matter of degrees. Group versus personal. As such, they're easily interchangeable.

So there's no moral difference, then? That's what you're saying?

So then there are times in which an action is morally acceptable and others where it is not.

No it doesn't. People kill when they know it's wrong.

Then, once more, there are times in which an action is morally acceptable and times when it is not.

If the person volunteered the items, it wouldn't be stealing. So the question remains: How can I call stealing immoral if the person isn't going to suffer as a result and I would suffer (or worse) without it?

I think you should actually address the issue before declaring it closed.

Now you're equivocating on "ethical."

What if it isn't bad for me? Then is it no longer theft?

Once again, by admitting that the moral implications of an act rely on context, then you are contradicting your previous claim that morality is absolute, and an immoral act cannot be a moral act under different circumstances.

Then killing the person trying to kill me is wrong, because he isn't volunteering to die.

No, he killed people to end their suffering.

We agree on that much. But again I must point out that the very act of you admitting that morality is contextual contradicts your own earlier claim.

 

Yes, that is what I said. Wrong is wrong, no MORAL difference. You are obviously mixing morality with ethics.

 

The definitions are fine, the differences are massive, both relate to interpersonal, the student is incorrect.

 

It is not the action that defines right vs wrong, but the voluntary nature of it. Learn that and all will become clear to you. No ACTION is fundamentally wrong, though some words contain both action and nature content in their definitions.
"Taking something from someone" is not in and of itself wrong. It may be a gift from that person.
"Taking something from someone without their permission" becomes theft and it IS wrong, not due to the action, but due to its involuntary nature.

 

Then they think it is ok to do wrong, which is where the tripe of "moral relativism" leads.

 

As I stated before, it is NOT the action, but the nature (voluntary, involuntary) that defines right vs wrong. PLEASE stop mixing up morality and ethics.

 

Do me a favor and keep your replies to me in one post. Next time I see four or five posts like this broken up, I'm not going to respond.

No, I'm using the correct definitions of the terms. I'm also not pretending that morality is binary. To do that results in your painfully ignorant claim that there is no moral difference in killing one person or one million. Osama bin Laden and Jodi Arias are equally culpable on a moral level, according to your asinine interpretation. I'd love to see how that society works.

You're really going to make me break out the dictionary?

eth·ics [eth-iks]

plural noun

1. ( used with a singular or plural verb ) a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture.
2. the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.: medical ethics; Christian ethics.
3. moral principles, as of an individual: His ethics forbade betrayal of a confidence.
4. ( usually used with a singular verb ) that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.

mor·al [mawr-uhl, mor-] Show IPA

adjective

1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
2. expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work.
3. founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.
4. capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being.
5. conforming to the rules of right conduct ( opposed to immoral ): a moral man.

You can go ahead and issue your retraction now.

This is a total contradiction of your earlier claim that "Something cannot be right in one case and wrong in another." Are you just making this up as you go along?

I suggest putting some thought into this issue before you post again.

Clumsy evasion. People kill when they know they are wrong in doing so. Knowledge of the moral wrongness of their action is not always enough to stop them, and doing the action does not mean they are "okay" with doing it. It just means they did it.

Please learn what morality and ethics are before you respond again. And your separating morality into these two categories (voluntary and involuntary) is absolutely useless. An act is not necessarily moral simply because a person agreed to it, nor is an act immoral simply because a person didn't agree to it. Your outlook on this subject is pathetically simple, and borderline incoherent.

 

The problem with dictionaries is that they record every foolish way the people mangle words. Dictionaries define morals as ethics and ethics as morals. No wonder you are so confused.
I provided specific and useful definitions at the beginning of my original post on this matter. They are good and valuable definitions that permit the wise to better understand the world around them. Learn them and be wiser. Don't and be damned to confusion for the remainder of your life.
Student expelled till he gets an inkling.

 

Arrogant a-hole. Expelled to ignore until... probably forever.

 

Ignorant troll...reported as per forum posting rules, which as far as this forum universe is concerned, apply universally to everyone here.

 

"Everything I have said and done is these last years is relativism, by intuition. From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology, and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable. If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories, and men who claim to be the bearers of an objective immortal truth, then there is nothing more relativistic than fascism."—Benito Mussolini

 

That it is immoral to harm, insult, taunt, or hurt anyone for your's and other's entertainment. Ofcourse bullies will make exceptions to this rule. "He's a nerd, or he's a fag, or he dresses weird, or he stutters, so he deserves it." So in your relativist world the bullies would be right because they make a moral judgement based on the situation?

 

I don't think that's true at all.

I had a professor who had worked his way through college as a counsellor in a prison. He said that all of the prisoners had one thing in common: they were all innocent. One might say that, yes, he had killed his wife but he was justified in doing so because she was late putting supper on the table. He wasn't justfiying everybody killing their wives for that reason, just himself, on that one particular occasion. No doubt, she had been late with supper before but even on those other occasions he didn't feel justified in killing her. His morality was relative not only comparing his actions to other people's actions but concerning his own actions on different occasions.

 

Finding an excuse to commit a crime isn't exactly morally justfying it. You can say you had a toothache that day and you were fired from your job and she was late fixing supper. But you aren't positing a moral principle for killing her. You are positing a reason you should not be held accountable to a moral principle. It's really a deterministic argument against freewill. That you can be in such a state that you are free from moral responsibility.

 

When somebody says, "I didn't do anything wrong," he is taking a moral position. The fact that his moral position isn't universal is an example of relative morality.

Accountability has nothing to do with it. The prisoner concedes that he is accountable to society. "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime." But he distinguishes his own sense of morality from society's sense of morality. He recognizes that other people think his actions were immoral but he doesn't think his actions were immoral. He doesn't even have the same sense of morality from day to day in different situations.

And the sense of morality that "society" has is just the sum of each person's individual sense of morality, which also changes from day to day in different situations.