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.
“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…
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.
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.
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.
“From my point-of-view, a morality only exists at the level of consensus or convention.”
Yea but evolutionary psychology would argue that consensus and convention are themselves evolutionary mechanisms, caused by individual human biochemistry which promotes social behavior and adhering to social conventions 
And since, as they would argue, our biochemistry pre-disposes us towards certain, specific types of behavior which would later be known as “moral behavior”… its not hard to jump to the claim that “morality is an evolved biological mechanism.” Just like linguists argue language is an evolved neurobiological mechanism and just like most people would agree that instinctual behavioral mechanisms such as flinching or maybe walking are evolved and are functions of our biochemistry.
“I shouldn’t think, for example, that many people here would accept that we simply follow our biological or evolutionary imperatives unthinkingly”
Well… we do think about them sure… but how we think about them is in large part just another function of our biochemistry Or so they say.
“What is more, we would have to abstract our biological imperatives to turn them into “moral” injunctions about right and wrong.”
Not necessarily. There may theoretically be a gene or set of genes that directly causes the adoption of a very specific moral principle. An anti-theft gene for example… It doesn’t just make people feel bad about theft. Rather, It would actually make people adopt absolutist moral principles against theft. It could happen…
we can compare ourselves to complex robots, and then our path through life as a really big game of “plinko”
this is our fate
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uz8b3_jXeek[/youtube]
Very theoretical… Very improbable…
Stealing saves more lives than it kills 
, it also depends on many economic and geographical factors.
I hope I’m not repeating someone, but scanning seemed to confirm that the conversation has taken different lines that what I’d like to propose. Forgive me if this is a step backward.
It seems to me that what has been missing here is a definition of the precise line where relative and absolute meet each other. Rather than viewing these as polar opposites, it might be helpful to plot them on a spectrum. If we can hone in on the zero point, this will serve both as a way to distinguish between the two and as a definition for each.
To do this, we also need a y-coordinate. This other spectrum is perspective, the limits of which are the objective and the subjective.
To further define the extremities of these spectrums:
Our X Value (morality) spans from perfect relativism (what is good for the lion is evil for the gazelle and vice versa) to perfect absolutism (murder is evil). In between these endpoints would be all the equivocation and exception and debate that we would tend to proffer, and all the anecdote and parable we would bring up in support of our cases
Our Y Value is the perspective of the person assessing the morality of a given event or circumstance. If they are personally involved, they will tend to have a subjective viewpoint. The further removed from the situation they are, they more tendency they will have toward objectivity. Remember though these are tendencies, not laws. This is what makes relativism and subjectivity fall in line often, but not always, and likewise with absolutism and objectivity.
Now, at all four extremities of our plane we have defined ‘endpoints’, but like any Cartesian plane, we can never ‘reach’ infinity, only approach it. It this way, it is possible to point toward what we mean when we use any of these words (relativism, absolutism, subjective and objective) but none, in themselves, can exist in pure form. Because they lie upon a spectrum which contains their opposite, they will always be in some form of balance with that opposite, even if highly skewed.
Morality is inseparable from perspective. It is beholden to it and altered by it. In fact, I would posit that if you remove perspective from the equation (an endeavor of strictly philosophical purpose) you would thereby also automatically remove morality. A world without perspective is purely amoral.
My particular perspective holds a primacy of moral relativism. No action I take can be wholly positive for all being in the universe. It is impossible to take any action without destroying something (even if you want to say that you destroy molecules that contain energy in their bonds for the sake of firing your muscles, to say this isn’t ‘evil’ means you have assumed that morality ceases to exist at some undefined point, the further you ‘zoom in’ to reality.) I guess then the tinge of absolutism, the balance that my perspective experiences, is in the cosmic recycling inherent in the cyclical nature of destruction and creation (destroying the molecule created motion, presumably benefiting my being overall).
I believe that my moral assessments are largely objective however. This is not contradictory to me. Being able to see good and evil in the same action, being able to take on the perspective of both the lion and the gazelle, is for me an important spiritual goal. In this brand of objectivity (which is maybe more like an agglomeration of all possible relativity perspectives) lies the moral ‘truth’ of any given situation.
Well, I’m no expert, so let me just say I think it’s unrealistic to say that everything reduces entirely to biological mechanisms, mainly because it leaves out the complex social mechanisms, but of course that’s just “my point-of-view”… 
Gib, I agree, biological issues are essential to our morality, I just reject that morality is in the biology, if that makes sense. Definitions as usual!
good and evil are hard to define but easy to recognize
I’m sure as you have gone through life you have recognized what is good and what is evil (or bad, whatever term you prefer) if you haven’t recognized good and bad then you would not have developed any morality or conscious at all. When I speak of absolute moral truths I speak of a moral belief (such as how killing an innocent baby is wrong) that will be recognized by any sane person searching for what is good.
I agree when you say that the chooser decides what is good and evil. But just because one person or a group decides an issue doesn’t make their decision right. Choosing against an absolute moral value while they may be relatively morally good or whatnot based on their system they are in reality incorrect when compared to the absolute universal truth.
"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."
Sorry to burst your bubble Strv, but if the morality you adhere to says to throw the baby in the well, then by definition, you are in a morally “good” or obligatory position to do so. Since relativism does not admit the existence of universal moral principles, everything can theoretically go (given the right moral principles). Even what you might consider “illogical” stuff Wonderer. Logic cannot dictate any particular morality either because moral principles necessarily emanate from arbitrary premises. If the premise of a particular moral system is “ending humanity is good” then “killing people is good” becomes a perfectly logical moral principle.
Also, the theft gene was just an example, im not actually claiming theres an anti-theft gene. I actually dont even buy into Evolutionary psychology as much as others would. I think the theory overestimates the role of genetic behavioral pre-disposition and underestimates the role of lived/experienced circumstances. But it really doesn’t matter either way. In one case its genes, in the other its random life circumstances.
When a fox eats some ducklings, is he being “evil”?
A baby slowly dying in pain on life support, is “killing” this baby “evil”?
And last but not least (you forced me to it) you are in the middle of a desert with 10 000 refugees and you discover your baby has a powerful explosive device implanted in the middle of its brain and is about to explode, and there is no chance of removing the bomb without it exploding or killing the baby (the baby is doomed) and the only way to save he lives of everyone else is to drop the baby down a well.
Then is killing the bay evil?
i agree, and i also say that your contradictory decision doesn’t make theirs wrong.
If i had to guess, i would say that you think your absolute system is universal.
So i challenge you to assert one universal value to which i cannot find exceptions, or create disturbing scenarios involving psychotic descriptions of gory life experiences leading to the need and desire to mutilate and kill innocent babies, but i would rather not.
So pick something other than killing innocent babies. How about innocent 40 year olds?
You can take subjectivity into distortions of reality or complex emotions guiding decisions, and you can say that relatively everyone see’s themselves as right. Still this does not preclude more information changing their position to a more comprehensive one, nor does it mean that their beliefs are “logical”. They may lack consistency, clarity, or have just make a misstep in logic.
Not to be political, but terrorists for example attacking super powers to scare them only backfires by making them mobilize their military against them and tighten security. So their moral reasons for terrorizing are simply foolishly planned, imperfect, could improve.
Nope i say eat away its a fact/force of nature just like the hurricane that killed grandma. How can a perfectly good Creator allow such an evil thing to happen and so on and so on but that’s another thread.
Yes taking action (euthanasia without consent) with the purpose to kill is what I would consider evil. Providing enough morphine to relieve his/her pain which might end up causing respiratory failure is not evil its life just like the fox and the duck.
Baby with exploding head lol I would say toss the sucker quick but then again in this example the baby is not exactly what i meant by innocent. He was innocent before you implanted the bomb you evil person you but now his presence threatens the 10000 (or 10) of us. This is the same question as the train going down the different track cause you switched at the last second it to save 10 but kill 1. Interesting but not really related to the discussion on relativism.
Your right it doesn’t unless you have discovered the universal/absolute right answer. This is like two kids arguing over what color a crayon is its either red or its green both cannot be right. I feel sorry for the color blind one/the one who’s parents lied to him when he was learning colors but that doesn’t make them both right even if they are correct based on their perspectives. The crayon is absolutely one color not both.
If i thought my system was absolute and perfectly correct already I wouldn’t be here trying to learn more and improve myself.
How about this universal value
practicing unconditional love leads to true happiness
Unless unconditional love leads to a really hot girl-friend then it dont lead to true happiness =P
I do not believe in a creator, evil, absolute morals, or any kind of claim to absolute perfect or undeniable truth.
like killing innocent babies is wrong -unless -= (insert a million fucked up exceptions here)
You keep alluding to things i don;t believe exist, so unless you have proof, you are one cricket among many.
Practicing unconditional love can lead you off a cliff and to a gruesome untimely demise.
you don;t want me to start thinking up scenarios do you?
A general one is spoiling your child and them taking you for granted and subsequently loving what you do for them and not you yourself.
What do you mean by ‘in’? Do you mean that one can’t point to a biological process and say “There’s morality!”? I agree with that. But I think one can point to a biological process and say “There’s the basis for our moral compass” or even “There’s the basis for our understanding of moral concepts”.
Now if relativists are inclined to take that a step further and say “There’s the source for the creation of morality” I might step in to point out how culture, history, environment, etc. also play a crucial role, but I wouldn’t deny that biology is one of the players therein.
No, me neither, I think we’re about on the same page. Biology is just one of the things that defines us, and therefore our morality.
Unconditional love does not mean spoiling. Are you really doing whats best for a child by giving them whatever they want? I see you don’t believe in God so this may not reach your understanding because it is difficult to tell frogs in a well about the sea but here i go anyway.
Unconditional loves is exactly what it says. If you love a child unconditionally you will want what is best for that child according to your wisdom. The wisdom and desires of a two year old is very different from the wisdom of a parent. Would you give that two year old 3 pounds of m&ms because that’s what they want at the time? Or would you do what any wise parent would and feed them healthy food so they can grow and one day become as wise as the parent. Would you protect the child from ever form of physical pain or would some pain be good for them so they can learn to function in this world. Would you fight the bully in grade school for them or let them learn from the experience themselves.
God’s wisdom is far beyond the wisdom of even the wisest here. We do not have a completely clear idea what is best for us just as the two year old doesn’t understand that only eating m&ms isn’t good for them. What we can attempt to understand is unconditional love God has for us that no matter what we do or how many times we mess up the love is still there. Even the worst of us, a person like Hitler is still loved by God. If Hitler was beyond redemption then there is no hope for any of us because we all fall short of perfection.
Unconditional love can be painful as you mentioned. The one you love can reject you and that can hurt. But because there are no conditions on the love it doesn’t stop and nothing can stop the love. That what makes unconditional love different then romantic or any other type of love with conditions. The closest opportunity we can get to unconditional love is to have children which is an activity the vast majority of people experience while on this planet. A good way to learn about love and wisdom if you ask me.
It’s worth pointing out here that the wellbaby scenario does not fit with relativistic assessment. Relativism generally implies some amount of cost/benefit analysis. The phrase ‘ends justify means’ is a bit cliche, but it fits in here. What benefit (aside from mirth, perhaps?) is it to you to toss the baby in the well? If you do receive mirth from it, what cost (evil) were you burdened with in younger days to make you feel such a thing? And, if you are caught and punished, this swings the cost/benefit analysis even further.
It’s somewhat unfair to use such a senseless act as an example in morality assessment. Even evil has a purpose, the wellbaby scenario is just too random.
I’m not going to get into ev. psych. Instead, I just want to ask: what would be theft before property? Before patriarchal hegemony mutated all the archetypes, before totalitarian agriculture necessitated the collecting and stockpiling of stuff, before material wealth became our peacock’s tail and the primary sexual selector in human evolution, there was no such thing as property.
Thou Shalt Not Steal literally creates the notion of property, and simultaneously sets up a rule to defend it. There is no morally absolutist means of defending such an extemporaneous historical affectation.
And, okay I lied. The above also proves that the notion of theft is directly tied in with evolutionary psychology. Sorry.