Moral Relativism is practically untenable

[Elioenai26]

We understand somethings to be objectively wrong not by how we act towards others, but by how we re-act when we ourselves are wronged.

Let me explain:

Let's say you are a moral relativist and are told to write a paper for a class you are taking at the university you are attending. You are instructed to write a paper in defense of your metaethical views and so you write one on moral relativism/subjectivism. In your paper you go on and on about why moral values are preferences that individuals have akin to one's taste for vanilla ice cream and distaste for chocolate ice cream. You then go on to talk about how there are divergent social customs among different societies, and that there is no objective moral values or standards than can be appealed to because it ultimately is subject to the individual.

You've spent a great deal of time researching and preparing this work of yours and you know it constitutes a good portion of your overall grade for the class. After two weeks of working on the paper, you make sure it is properly footnoted, referenced and formatted. You slide it inside of a green folder and make sure it is secure. You turn it in and without delay, the professor opens it briefly, glances at the title page and marks in a big red letter: F! You then ask him why he did that and he says: "I do not like green folders."

You then go on and on about it not being fair and that the professor should have taken the time to read your work and treat it with respect and to give it the time and attention that you feel your weeks worth of research and hard work deserves.

The professor looks at you and asks you: "Do you mean to tell me that after you wrote your paper in defense of moral relativism, that I am actually wrong and unfair in giving you an F? That it is more than just your opinion that I am wrong?"

You then understand that your indignation is based on your idea that it is objectively right that someone's paper should be graded on the content of the paper and not the color of the folder it comes in. You were expecting the professor to know without being told that a paper should be graded on what its contents are, and you expected him to be fair about it, regardless of his personal preference regarding the color of the folder.

You then see that however appealing moral relativism may seem on paper, it practically is untenable.

 

[Jade Margery]

How many times are you going to make the same thread? This is getting pretty dull by now. We all know that you don't actually understand what 'moral relativism/subjectivity' is, so making another strawman post to illustrate that is purposeless.

 

[Elioenai26]

How many times are you going to make the same thread? This is getting pretty dull by now. We all know that you don't actually understand what 'moral relativism/subjectivity' is, so making another strawman post to illustrate that is purposeless.

It was written for people like you to address.

You say that I do not actually understand what moral relativism/subjectivism is, but I think I know very well what it is. What I challenge you to do is present a case to support your view that I do not know what it is. One way you could do this would be to actually address the post in the OP. Are you saying that you would have behaved indifferently if you turned in a paper that took two weeks worth of research and writing only to be turned down because it was in a green folder?

I do not think anyone here who is honest would say they would not feel that they had been treated unfairly. But when we say this, we are saying that the professor indeed should have been fair and graded the paper on its content. In other words, we would expect him to know that it is really wrong for him to give us an F because he didnt like the green folder. We would maintain that he was wrong even though he thought he was justified. But if we hold this view Jade, we simply are no longer acting like moral relativists/subjectivists. We are acting as if he was objectively wrong.

 

[SithDoughnut]

You then understand that your indignation is based on your idea that it is objectively right that someone's paper should be graded on the content of the paper and not the color of the folder it comes in. You were expecting the professor to know without being told that a paper should be graded on what its contents are, and you expected him to be fair about it, regardless of his personal preference regarding the color of the folder.

Only if my brain had gone on holiday. If I was still capable of rational thought, I would say that it remains my personal opinion that a paper should be marked using the mark scheme, and that I think that my opinion is more suitable to the situation in this case. I would then point out that the organisation in charge of the mark scheme holds the same opinion as me, making my position stronger as it has collective support from the individuals with the largest influence over the situation. If we assume in this situation that the professor really doesn't understand how to mark papers, then I would explain the situation, but would not consider his choice to be morally wrong - I think the professor is just trying to be smart here, though.

At no point would I agree that morality is objective based on a disagreement, and I hope that no worthwhile professor would believe that such an argument actually proves anything.

 

[Tnmusicman]

It was written for people like you to address.

You say that I do not actually understand what moral relativism/subjectivism is, but I think I know very well what it is. What I challenge you to do is present a case to support your view that I do not know what it is. One way you could do this would be to actually address the post in the OP. Are you saying that you would have behaved indifferently if you turned in a paper that took two weeks worth of research and writing only to be turned down because it was in a green folder?

I do not think anyone here who is honest would say they would not feel that they had been treated unfairly. But when we say this, we are saying that the professor indeed should have been fair and graded the paper on its content. In other words, we would expect him to know that it is really wrong for him to give us an F because he didnt like the green folder. We would maintain that he was wrong even though he thought he was justified. But if we hold this view Jade, we simply are no longer acting like moral relativists/subjectivists. We are acting as if he was objectively wrong.

Great point!

 

[madaz]

How long will the train remain upright this time?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Grading papers is subjective.

 

[Elioenai26]

If we assume in this situation that the professor really doesn't understand how to mark papers,

The professor knows how to mark papers, but does not like green folders. He gives you an F because it was in a green folder. Because he is the professor, it will be your word against his if you try to somehow appeal his grading. If he is pressed, all he has to do is use your very own paper as his defense against doing you any disservice. For in your paper, you maintain that ultimately, what the professor did could be seen as being in keeping with his responsibility of teaching students to take their metaethical views to their rational, logical conclusion. In giving you an F on your paper, he was showing you that you have no objective basis for maintaining he did anything wrong. He would also be proving that you do not actually believe in what you wrote in the paper by your insistence on pointing out that the was wrong in giving you an F and therefore the view you wrote about in your paper was not actually even your own metaethical view.

but would not consider his choice to be morally wrong - I think the professor is just trying to be smart here, though.

After removing all of the fluff, your view is clear, you would not consider what he did to be wrong. However, that is very easy to say when the situation is hypothetical. I hope you dont expect me to believe you would roll over so easy if this actually happened to you.

 

[Elioenai26]

Grading papers is subjective.

Until yours receives an F for being in a certain color folder.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Until yours receives an F for being in a certain color folder.

No, actually it remains subjective after that.

 

[quatona]

Oh no, not that again!

We understand somethings to be objectively wrong not by how we act towards others, but by how we re-act when we ourselves are wronged.

Let me explain:

Let's say you are a moral relativist and are told to write a paper for a class you are taking at the university you are attending. You are instructed to write a paper in defense of your metaethical views and so you write one on moral relativism/subjectivism. In your paper you go on and on about why moral values are preferences that individuals have akin to one's taste for vanilla ice cream and distaste for chocolate ice cream. You then go on to talk about how there are divergent social customs among different societies, and that there is no objective moral values or standards than can be appealed to because it ultimately is subject to the individual.

You've spent a great deal of time researching and preparing this work of yours and you know it constitutes a good portion of your overall grade for the class. After two weeks of working on the paper, you make sure it is properly footnoted, referenced and formatted. You slide it inside of a green folder and make sure it is secure. You turn it in and without delay, the professor opens it briefly, glances at the title page and marks in a big red letter: F! You then ask him why he did that and he says: "I do not like green folders."

Ok. Scenario understood.

You then go on and on about it not being fair and that the professor should have taken the time to read your work and treat it with respect and to give it the time and attention that you feel your weeks worth of research and hard work deserves.

Well, maybe that´s what you would do. Abstain from projection.

You then understand that your indignation is based on your idea that it is objectively right that someone's paper should be graded on the content of the paper and not the color of the folder it comes in.

No, at no point would I think that this is "objectively right" - I would think that this is what the rules and conditions for teaching at this university demand from the professor. It is part of the contract between the professer and the university, and the contract between me and the university.
Maybe there are universities that advice their professors to judge the works of their students by the colour of the folder - but I don´t know of any.

You were expecting the professor to know without being told that a paper should be graded on what its contents are, and you expected him to be fair about it, regardless of his personal preference regarding the color of the folder.

No, I´d just appeal to the terms and conditions of the university. I wouldn´t consider them objective by any means.

You then see that however appealing moral relativism may seem on paper, it practically is untenable.

Moral relativism isn´t appealing to me at all. There´s just no substantiated alternative to it.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I would think that this is what the rules and conditions for teaching at this university demand from the professor. It is part of the contract between the professer and the university, and the contract between me and the university.

Incidentally, this is also related to the essential difference between morality and law.

 

[Paradoxum]

I'm against moral relativism, but I'm not sure this proves that it is wrong.

For example, there are written or unwritten (and assumed) standards which the marking of a paper is based. The student could appeal to the violation of those standards, rather than a moral violation.

 

[SithDoughnut]

After removing all of the fluff, your view is clear, you would not consider what he did to be wrong.

Funny how, after removing the "fluff", you manage to completely fail to comprehend my post. I said that I wouldn't consider it wrong if the professor didn't know what he was doing. The professor knows how papers should normally be marked, knows what he is doing, and so I would consider his actions wrong. My opinion, however, is not objective, although if it were truly my word against his, any decent exam board would side with me unless the mark scheme specifically said "no green folders".

A tip: next time you're going to ignore a person's points and dismiss them as "fluff" (which I'm going to assume means "ideas I can't handle" from now on), make sure you understand exactly what it is you're dismissing. Otherwise you end up making basic comprehension errors like the one you just made.

All this said, this hypothetical situation doesn't actually deal with moral relativism at all. Moral relativism is not a system for deciding what is moral and what is not - it merely describes an element of morality.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

This thread seems no different to the other thread you began on the same topic. Since you ignored what I had written in that thread I will re-post it here:

Can one be a consistent moral relativist? I suppose that depends on what you mean by 'relativism'. In the previous thread, you made a number of interesting claims that warrant further examination. You claimed that objective morality stems from your morally perfect God and that certain actions (genocide for example) are objectively wrong. When it was revealed to you that the Biblical God commanded actions such as genocide, you attempted to argue that this objectively evil act could be considered 'good' and in keeping with your God's morally perfect character. I asked you whether you would participate in a genocide at the behest of your deity. Your response seemed to indicate that you would indeed commit atrocious acts in loving obedience to your God.

This poses a number of problems for your line of reasoning thus far. If genocide is objectively wrong, then your God's command to commit genocidal acts indicate that he is not worthy of being praised as morally perfect. If, on the other hand, the wrong-ness of genocide depends on whether or not your God commands it, then in what sense does that constitute an objective moral system? Acting morally is then simply defined by obedience, in which case even the most despicable acts might be deemed 'good' if those committing them believe they are complying with a divine directive. Since you refuse to answer any questions pertaining to how we are able to obtain knowledge about the supernatural, there will always remain uncertainty as to whether any 'divine directive' actually stems from the divine. Moral claims thus become reduced to assertions of "God wills it; therefore it is right." Whose God wills what seems to depend on the individual believer and his religion. Moral claims are thus reduced to religious claims or supernatural claims. Is is it any wonder then that some theists insist that persons who do not typically make religious claims (e.g. atheists) are correspondingly unable to make moral claims also?

This is why I think religion doesn't necessarily make men more moral. It does, however, make them believe that they are more moral.

 

[seeking Christ]

I do not think anyone here who is honest would say they would not feel that they had been treated unfairly. But when we say this, we are saying that the professor indeed should have been fair and graded the paper on its content. In other words, we would expect him to know that it is really wrong for him to give us an F because he didnt like the green folder. We would maintain that he was wrong even though he thought he was justified.

The only B I got in College was for something like this, everything else was A's.

 

[seeking Christ]

How long will the train remain upright this time?

7 cars long. (Think about it)