Can anyone really BE a moral relativist?

Right..All of the above in other words. People agree on what a good man is. That's just a fact of life. And goodness is an objective property inhering in the man. Hence it is objective.
'

What I said is common sense. Do you have some argument to refute it?

An exception to a universal rule doesn't mean there is no universal rule. It just means there are exceptions--exceptions that equally apply universally to everybody just as the rule does. The morality as well as it exceptions is still objective and absolute. Noone says: "Well the murderer had this particular situation that would never apply to anyone else." The moment an exception is moralized, it is objectified for everyone. Once again, and probably for the last time, moralization IS objectification of value for everyone.

Wow..that's a startling social theory--that members of a society agree on nothing, that there is no such thing as a common moral standard that binds them together, that social contracts don't really exist at all. So why call it a society at all? Why not just call it a mob of malcontents?

I don't. That's why I only socialize with people I'm familiar with. Paying the bus driver or allowing a car to go ahead of you isn't socializing.

Oh so NOW societies DO have generally-held moral preferences. I thought societies couldn't agree on anything. That we are all anarchists defying social order and just doin whatever we like at the moment. Are you now saying there are consensual moral principles for us and that people who don't agree with them and who violate them are criminals? What happened to them just being moral relativists who are only obligated to whatever they subjectively prefer?

I repeat it because it's true. And I don't need Wikipedia to confirm it either.

No..the right thing we do today may NOT become the wrong thing tomorrow given the exact same circumstances. When you call something right you are generalizing for yourself and for everybody else. Otherwise it is just your subjective whim.

Whatever you end up deciding it becomes right or wrong objectively. IOW, regardless of whoever does it given those same exact circumstances. In Texas for instance it's customary to pull over on the median and let other cars pass you on a two lane highway. It's done out of a sense of moral obligation, and is equally expected of others. Once again, that's moral objectification in action. What you do according to principle you expect from others as well.

If we call it right or wrong we are idealizing that act beyond just our choice. There's no way around this. Doin something on moral principle is more than doin something on preference. You're saying there is a right and wrong way to choose. And that right and wrong applies to everyone given the same situation. That's the last time I'm goin to say this.

To the extent it is devalued, bad, leads to inappropriate social behavior and is debilitating, yes..mental illness is "immoral". The "morality" in this case being what is normal and healthy for the average human being. And mental illness is universally bad for everyone. Another instance of moralization objectifying itself beyond the subjective.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sorry, can't help myself.

Incorrect. What constitutes "goodness" is not commonly agreed upon, even within a given culture. You may call charitability a good quality, while I might call it frivolity that accomplishes nothing; you might call kindness a good quality, while I might call it weakness. There is no universal agreement, let alone an objective standard.

What you said made sense to you. But there were plenty of people who believed 9/11 was a just response to certain actions perpetrated by the American government. Many people believe the Boston Marathon bombings - which killed an 8-year-old boy, among others killed and maimed - was justice. I haven't heard many people defending Sandy Hook, but we don't really know much about the ideologies of the shooter. I imagine if he said he did it for Allah, or in defense of some other attitude or philosophy, he would have plenty of supporters.

Unless you want to claim that everyone who believes these things is mentally defected in some way, you got some splainin to do.

I love how you've changed from being open to the idea of relative morality just yesterday, to now being a militant defender of absolutism. It's sad because you've seemingly reverted to this position to save face, rather than because you're suddenly sure about it.

At any rate, you're trying to say that morality is absolute because people think it's absolute. What, then, do you make of the fact that moral attitudes within a culture change? The treatment of minorities, for example; how do you explain the moral attitude regarding African Americans until their social emancipation in the latter half of the 20th century?

It's not that nothing is agreed upon. Certain members of society agree with each other on many things. But there are no universally-accepted principles. Even the concept of killing as an ill is not universally accepted. Your little flourish about the unconditional acceptance of inherent human value isn't even true to you.

You never really know anybody. People socialized with Ted Bundy, believing him to be a clever and charming man.

Ugh.

I don't think I even need to say any more than that.

You repeat it because you can't defend it. And if you don't need Wikipedia to confirm it, why cite them in the first place?

What actually happened is that your source blew up in your face.

Ah, so then our ancestors had it right when they owned slaves. Or was it our ancestors who segregated public services?

Externalizing one's moral code does not make that moral code objectively true; it is simply an effort to codify one's morals to apply to everyone. This is the part you keep tripping up on. What you're essentially saying is that the law is objectively true in a moral sense, because law, to a great extent, is based on moral attitudes.

Unless they don't believe anyone else should act as they do. But supposing that someone does say something is right and should be right for everyone, how does that make the principle objectively true?

[quoteDoin something on moral principle is more than doin something on preference. You're saying there is a right and wrong way to choose. And that right and wrong applies to everyone given the same situation. That's the last time I'm goin to say this. [/quote]

It's not likely to be the last time you say this, since the entirety of your argument is declaration, and you have no actual substance to support it. Anyway, believing something is right or wrong is preference. It's a personal belief just like any other personal belief. Your moral attitude is about as objective as your favorite football team.

That's the stupidest thing I've ever read on this site, and I've read a lot of wellwisher's posts.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You really can't help yourself, this insulting and talking down to people because they don't agree with you? Do you think this actually encourages dialogue with you? That you resort to ad hominem responses to statements you clearly have no argument against? Think about this the next time someone ignores you.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm not really concerned if it encourages dialogue, because nothing seems to encourage dialogue with you. Take, for example, another entire post of mine completely ignored by you. (Oh, right, you had one, but it magically disappeared on you, and here we are two pages later with total silence)

Blame me all you like for your intellectual cowardice, MR. We both know where the responsibility really lies. And, frankly, if you don't want people to call your ideas stupid, perhaps you shouldn't say stupid things.

 

Right..You know me better than I know myself don't you? Let's tally up my failings so far. If I post a quotation I'm really just hiding behind it. If I neglect to respond to you, even after we agreed we could come to some compromise, then I'm really being a coward. If I delay in responding to you, even explaining why I am delaying, then I'm really lying about that. If I DO respond to you, I'm never quite responding to what you want me to and somehow ducking your smartass retorts. If I debate the same issue with someone else then I'm really betraying my own principles just to save face. And if I say something you don't understand, then well obviously I'm just being stupid. Gee..for a man who claims morality is totally personal and subjective, you sure place alot of moral expectations on people. One might almost conclude there is a universal moral code for how to carry on a simple online correspondence. Is that "where the responsibility really lies"?

 

Let's list your real failings and see if the picture isn't a little clearer: You post quotations in lieu of answering questions; you neglect responding to entire posts, and then when called out on it, cry foul and cook up some bogus excuse; Your "delay" in responding to me occurred while you filled a page and a half with lengthy responses to another poster; whenever your ideas are criticized, you stamp your feet and whine like a toddler about how it isn't fair that your ideas are subject to scrutiny.

Interestingly enough, when you're not portraying yourself as a victim, you don't seem quite so innocent.

And for the last time, having a moral philosophy does not mean there is some objective moral philosophy we all share. Not even moral absolutists believe this, which demonstrates how blindingly obtuse your arguments are.

And this "compromise" we came to amounted to admitting that moral relativism might be real, at which point you - in your ensuing replies to another poster - did a 180 and stated confidently that morals are absolute. Some compromise!

 

Clearly they don't, as I pointed out.

What you said doesn't agree with the Wikipedia article that you yourself quoted, not does it seem to agree with anybody else in this thread. You're idea of "common sense" doesn't seem to be very common.

In the case of morality, the exceptions explain why universal rules are not possible. You can have rules that usually work but you still have to go relative for the exceptions. "Universal" rules that aren't quite universal are like being not quite pregnant.

So why doesn't your own quote from Wikipedia say that?

A society is a group of people who live together by more-or-less mutual consent. We're not bees. We do have different opinions. We agree on some things and disagree on others. There is a common moral standard that "binds them together" if you like but it isn't an ideal standard or a universal standard or an objective standard. It's a compromise that works pretty well sometimes and pretty badly other times.

"Socializing" doesn't just mean having a beer with somebody. Maybe English isn't your first language? Social interactions, if you like, include all of the interactions that you have with the other members of your society. Yes, that does include all of the clauses in the social contract, like yielding the right of way and saying, "Excuse me."

As I've said all along, there is overlap. Remember the Venn diagram that I mentioned?

There's a vast difference between some overlap and all of us marching in lockstep to the beat of the same drummer.

I thought I was fairly clear. Criminals have certain areas of their own moral values that don't coincide with what society finds acceptable. A criminal can conform to society's morality in terms of not cheating on his wife and not killing people and yet his own morality can allow him to live from the proceeds of stealing or drug-dealing.

Why did you quote Wikipedia if you didn't think it backed you up?

You keep saying, "Nuh uh," but you won't respond to any of the examples I give. Let's try again: Suppose you have a situation in which a train will kill two people if it goes down one track or three people if it goes down the other track. You control the switch. Which way do you send the train? What is the ideal, objective, never-can-change-until-the-end-of-time decision? Can you admit that there are situations in which there simply IS no right or wrong answer? That flipping a coin is as "good" as any decision you can make? That a coin flip will not be the same every time?

That's what we call in English a "custom". It has nothing to do with objectivity. How can it be objective if the next state over has a completely different custom?

Well, I hope it is the last time because all you've done is repeat that mantra and never said a word to back it up. Try reading that Wikipedia article that you quoted and learning what morality is. There may be a term for what you're describing but morality ain't it.

 

Morality is an objective standard which will optimize the group. It is not about optimizing the needs and preferences of all individuals. The logic behind morality, which is team first, can be seen using sports as an analogy. If a team plays well together, so even the big egos put the team first and they win the championship, every members of the team become elevated. Morality maximizes the team so everyone has the pride of an alpha dog.

If you go through the ten commandments, each one maximizes the ancient team. These ten laws were not about maximizing the subjective whims of individuals. Some people like to commit adultery or steal from others. But the team suffers.

Modern liberalism has turned the word moral into a type of M-word, so people react emotionally and lose touch with common sense. This is needed by ethics, which likes to steal from the excess. Gluttony was considered immoral a one time. Today we see the social cost that the team now has. Relative to dividing the ethical pie, the moral m-word triggers a Pavlov reaction to overeat since the opposite must be true due to religion not about anything objective. The result is a high social costs which means ethical money for businesses.

Whore mongering would have been considered immoral. The reason being, this behavior causes diseases and back in the ancient times they didn't have the modern science mops to clean up the zoo. If this had been allowed the team would be full of VD, which makes it hard to compete with other cultures, when the offspring start to look mutant. In modern times, science mops can clean up the predictable mess that is based no cause and effect. This makes morals look relative. This is only an illusions since you need to add cost.

A moral tax code would only need about one page to define 1, 2,3 or 4 tax brackets. The modern ethical tax code of America needs 76,000 pages. This huge number of extra pages is mostly for deductions and exemptions, where leaders ethically wheel and deal so they can money launder your tax money to special interests, who will then kick back campaign contributions.

For example, if you can convince enough people that all farmers need a dry weather deduction, this adds another page to the ethical tax code to make it 76001. The farmers get money back, which is ethical but immoral (waste). The deal is he will willingly give some back to the politicians to made this possible. It is immoral since it does not optimize the group, but it is ethical and legal.

A balanced budget is moral since it demands and implies high team efficiency. Efficiency is an objective standard. The best people for any job will get the job done and often have a surplus. The hacks need more and still can't do the job.

The melting pot was moral since it made the team homogeneous using the best ingredients obtained from all the cultures of the world. Ethnic diversity is immoral since it is inefficient. For example, when it comes to cooking and food, almost everyone likes Italian, Chinese, French and Mexican food. These sell the most in America. You could also add America burgers and barbecue. In the melting pot we all get to enjoy the best of the best rather than be limited to one type of cultural food.

Ethnic diversity is immoral since it does not optimize the entire group; country, because it does not take of the best for all. This is inefficient and requires ethical magic to compensate for the less than optimized results, such as with struggling sub-cultures. If you come from a third world coutry where lawlessness and corruption is normal ethnic identical perpetuates this. Rather than step higher, the push to ethnic diversity means third world countries inside first world countries. Now you need ethical dollars to compensate. The inner city blacks do not benefit by returning to tribal without family structure. The melting pot would add better ingredients. But that M-work makes common sense sound bad.

 

Taking etiquette lessons from Balerion?

 

How do you explain the morality of protecting minority rights? It may optimize a group to marginalize certain minorities in the name of the general good. But is it therefore right? It may optimize a group to air only opinions that agree with the majority view. But is it therefore right to supress the free speech of the minority of dissenters?

 

Oh look, Magical Realist has found his excuse to bail out on yet another post.

 

I think it's only polite to ajdust my phraseology for people who aren't quite as familiar with English - use smaller words, shorter sentences, etc. Since you don't seem to understand what "morality" means and you don't seem to understand the Wikipedia article that you yourself cited, the proper appoach is to ask how well you understand English.

If you do understand English, why don't you understand the Wikipedia article that you cited?

 

Muchas gracias! Usted es un hombre muy amable!

 

"if we adopt the principle of universality : if an action is right (or wrong) for others, it is right (or wrong) for us. Those who do not rise to the minimal moral level of applying to themselves the standards they apply to others -- more stringent ones, in fact -- plainly cannot be taken seriously when they speak of appropriateness of response; or of right and wrong, good and evil. In fact, one of the, maybe the most, elementary of moral principles is that of universality, that is, If something's right for me, it's right for you; if it's wrong for you, it's wrong for me. Any moral code that is even worth looking at has that at its core somehow. But that principle is overwhelmingly disregarded all the time."---Noam Chomsky

 

"People don't do what they believe in. They do what's most convenient, then they repent." - Bob Dylan

 

Thanks for noticing.

You should have quoted Chomsky right off the bat instead of Wikipedia. You should also have read the last sentence of what you quoted:

"But that principle is overwhelmingly disregarded all the time."​

That's why morality is de facto relative - because things are what they are instead of what you and Chomsky think they "should" be. Chomsky's opinion, apparently, is that the real-world morality that we use every day "cannot be taken seriously". However, he doesn't say it isn't what it is.

 

That's alot of shoulds for someone who claims morality is just a matter of personal preference. Maybe you should practice what you preach instead of issuing moral fiats for other people to obey.

Wow..moral relativism certainly makes strange bedfellows. Anarchists, sociopaths and now hypocrites? I'm glad I'm not a member of your alleged "right is whatever I prefer at the moment" club. Sounds like a bunch of a-holes to me.

 

Standards might be better conceived as the shoreline that warns us when we've wandered astray into deep water, by virtue of growing less visible or just barely sighting such land in the distance. Such idealized rules are not intended for the mere mortal to literally live-up to 100% of the time, but just a guage of where we are at morally -- a universal and fixed reference point to keep us within the boundaries of being humans plagued by conscience, as opposed to being Morlocks. To abandon them "because they're too perfect for an imperfect world" may be sort of like trading in one of those carpenter framing squares for a bent one no longer retaining a right angle.

"So, Frank, you're working on that part of the house with one that was resting over a pothole when a truck ran over it?"

"Yes, Cynthia. I see you are using the one that was too close to the flame of an oxy-acetylene cutting torch."

"Wow, team, from the view out here this building looks to be really harmonizing well in its construction."

 

End result:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

"Should" can have different connotations. I didn't say anything about your moral obligations. I suggested what you should have done to make your argument halfway credible.

It isn't a "preference". It's a timely moral decision.

Some people need a rule book to spell eveything out instead of being able to figure it out for themselves. Unfortunately, they can get confused when a situation isn't covered by the book. Depending on an external source, without an internalized sense of morality, they are apt to make bad decisions.