Moral Relativism

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
61

Relativism claims there is no such thing as an absolute truth. Isn’t this saying that the only absolute truth is that there are no absolute truths? This statement defeats itself. Either there are absolute truths in which case relativism is a illogical claim. Or if no absolute truths exist then the definition of relativism is wrong. I am speaking only of general relativism not areas of personal opinion such as “this flavor tastes better that that flavor”

Why is relativism such an attractive notion to many people despite being logically inconsistent?

Is it an excuse for bad behavior?

Or is it an attempt to celebrate diversity and tolerance between various cultures/people?

I would say that tolerance is best based on respect rather then a desire for peace. If all points of view are equally valid because each persons perspective is their own truth then all points of view are equally worthless and truth can never been known. That is why I reject relativism and search for truth.

62

What part of relativist philosophy makes relativists say that no moral absolutes exist?

63

I’m sorry, but it’s your definition of relativism that is wrong. Relative as in contextual, pertaining to a relation. It’s an observational insight and not an injunction.

64

many specific laws are cross cultural. moral relativism is great until you realize huge areas of law/morality exist everywhere.

65

Even international law is relative.

66

Theres nothing relative about all societies with laws making the issue of sex a legal matter. All studied societies have laws concerning who may sleep with who and in what circumstances. More than that in all human societies its either not criminal or until recently just a mitigating factor when a husband chooses to slay the other man envolved. These laws are almost always based on the marital status of women. Until the 1800s there were no real laws about a man’s infidelity, and recent equaliztion of adultery punishment in modern societies is recent, rare and often underwritten by juries

67

relativism can be universal…i.e., to all mankind. What is right and what is wrong is determined (created out of thin air) by people. It’s basic point is that morality is not inherent in the fabric of the universe. It’s a human creation. There’s individual relativism, which says morality is an individual’s creation, there’s cultural relativism, which says it’s created by the culture, and there’s the all encompassing human relativism, which says morality is created by humanity. There’s bound to be crosscultural similarities. after all, we’re all people.

but relativism is not a theory of what people ought to consider right and wrong. it’s a theory of how people do in fact come to consider some things right and other things wrong. It doesn’t say that only that which is relative should be considered right…or that in fact every theory is right…though it would maintain that no theory is wrong because moralities don’t talk about moral facts…this doesn’t mean that moralities can’t be mutually exclusive. They can, but that they can doesn’t speak to the issue.

68

produced by human biology doesn’t equal human creation per se. My stomach function is produced but I didn’t ‘create’ exactly.

69

the point is it wasn’t seen out there, and hence it isn’t based in matters of fact, but in matters of taste, which is why some think relativism boils down to just emotivism. This means that a morality can neither be right, nor be wrong, though relatively to another culture, some morality may seem right or wrong.

70

To be morally inclined is a function of human biology. The particular morals a culture adopts is a creation of their own making.

71

There’s nothing moral about biology.

72

Why can’t it create morality?

73

I suppose it gives rise to its own morality (right of the strongest, that kind of thing), but I guess what I am saying is that biological processes don’t intend. Biology is the frame of reference and not the demiurge.

74

I believe they are talking about evolutionary psychology Matty. Human morals may be directly caused by our biochemistry… Like… for example, if we have evolved certain brain functions that specifically cause us to feel repulsed at the idea of theft… which causes us to enact measures against theft in the form of morals.

Its certainly theoretically possible, maybe even likely, that alot of specific human moral rules, like “theft is bad” and “violence against innocents is bad” are an expression of hard wired, bio-chemical mechanisms.

75

Right-o!

76

Yeah, I get that, but it seems to me that isn’t “morality” per se, although obviously it can inspire the construction of a morality. From my point-of-view, a morality only exists at the level of consensus or convention. I shouldn’t think, for example, that many people here would accept that we simply follow our biological or evolutionary imperatives unthinkingly (you don’t need to know much about social Darwinism to know how well that goes). What is more, we would have to abstract our biological imperatives to turn them into “moral” injunctions about right and wrong.

77

“what is morality?”

However you choose to answer this question will determine what you will say about absolute vs relative morals.

Personally i think morals are a type of argument/decision/realization/tactic.

I see morals firstly existing as thoughts. The morality we observe among humans exists as tendencies, convictions, and sometimes enforced laws. Let’s say as a child some bully comes by and punches me in the face, making me cry, and steals my toy. Afterward i am likely to feel negative toward the bully, and most definitely negative toward the bully’s actions. In my mind i am liable to label those bullies actions as bad. It can be said that some people do not want to be “bad”, they do not want to be like those who they dislike, and moreover they want to feel good and be happy. If as a child i make a conscious decision that it’s better to behave in a good way as opposed to the bad ways of the bully, i will have embarked on the construction of my moral system.

Morals are typically concerned directly with determining how we should live. People take varying criteria and come up with varying reasons do live in certain ways.

Some people reason that sex is a bad thing because it can wind up in pregnancy and the spread of disease, and rape, and can actually become an addiction, and they take this criteria and make a decision, like the child concerning his good vs bad actions, to be strict about sex. the actual rules may vary depending on social structure, but you get the idea.

Somebody else however, who has not had a negative experience with sex, or believes that negative experiences are a minority might not conclude that sex is so dangerous. As a result this person is likely to not develop any kind of strict self-discipline regarding sex.

You can see this as a lack of awareness, but some people can perceive sex as a good thing, and therefore place it in the realm of “o.k”. To someone who sees sex as negative, it would be acting immoral. To someone who sees sex as positive, restricting it would seem like saying using the bathroom is “bad”, doing gymnastics is “bad”, or climbing trees is “bad”.

The state of the world exists with very relative morals. such an observation is undeniable. When you try to explain to someone why something is right or wrong, you look for reasons, contextual or otherwise, and you use these reasons to build an argument about how this person and yourself should act. A problem occurs when you try to apply your conclusions to someone who does not see the same reasons as you, or who has differing reasons, ones which you do not have.

Imagine the choices in life as a series of doors, and morality is a tactic used to determine which doors we should take. Morality is the judgments we make about each door.

There may be a “best door”, but it might not always be possible to determine from our limited perspective which door is the best. Some doors can be deceptive and others frightening. Morality is in essence us choosing which door we will go through, whether it’s the best or not depends on the nature and comprehension of our arguments. Some people choose the doors they are most comfortable or familiar with. Some people choose whatever door they think has the best possible outcome, some people choose whatever door they think has the least worst outcome, some people choose the doors which have the best chance of having an acceptable outcome, some people choose doors based on a set of guidelines they have found in book, some use sets of guidelines defined by mystics. ETC…

The choices and doors that have been taken in this world are universally diverse and contradictory to the point that sharing reasons is a distant luxury. What are we to conclude about claims of an ultimate tactic for choosing actions?

If morality is about choosing the best doors, is there one absolutely best door?

For an individual, i think there must be one perfect door, but i don’t claim to know it.

What leads me to relativism is this, Do you think that the perfect door for one person will be the perfect door for another person, or everyone else?

I do not think so. I think our perfect doors would have to be tailor and custom made.

Nobody has the same set of doors anyway…

78

Are you saying that if my morality deems it right to steal an innocent baby and toss it in a well I am in a morally good position based on my own or the morality of the culture i live in?

How can good and evil be custom made for the chooser? Sure there are many shades of gray and difficult choices but universal good and evil does exists. Since absolutes do exists any relative morality must be based on these. Pure relativism is logically inconsistent and cannot rationally be defended.

79

No, we follow it thinkingly. The thoughts themselves are a part of the biological process. This doesn’t have to be an issue over determinism and free will. You don’t have to exclude biological processes to say that we are free agents capable of making up our own minds about what’s right and wrong. All’s I’m saying is that it’s in our nature to be inclined towards thinking and acting morally - even arriving at communal consensus about what is moral - but there is nothing in our biology that says, for example, that one ought to rest on the Sabbath, or that eating pork is wrong, or that drugs are bad, etc. - nothing common anyway. Specifics such as these are a product of creativity, history, and social and environmental circumstances.

80

Well, it depends on your reasons, and how you interpreted them.

I’m not going to think of some ridiculous justification for throwing a baby in a well, but what i will say is that your morality is probably less than logical.

But let’s say that you think killing innocent babies is good, and that is your “morality”.

Relativity will not say that you are “morally good” it will say that you perceive yourself as “morally good”. To a moral relativist recognizing absolute or universal morals would be like recognizing God, which is one of the biggest bits of confusion that gets thrown into the myraid of reasons and ideas which exist in the realm of morality.

We are just monkeys living together on a ball, there is no perceivable universal eternal or absolute right or wrong outside of how we choose to define things.

define evil…

I don’t believe that there is some eternally bad force out there which plots to destroy the eternally good forces I prefer to use the word “bad” instead of evil.

And yes, the chooser decides what is good and bad. As my two examples have amply shown

where?

who what where?

Well it doesn’t need to be defended if all you have is one question and then a bunch of statements.