Moral Relativism

[bob135]

Moral relativism is a view that claims moral standards are not absolute or universal, but rather emerge from social customs and other sources. Relativists consequently see moral values as applicable only within agreed or accepted cultural boundaries.

Do you agree or disagree with this view? To what extent? Why?

 

[hernyaccent]

I believe thst moral standard's arent universal however ethnocentrism keeps one group from accepting the morals of others. I have to agree with the relativists that the morals of others shouldn't be forced on other cultures.

 

[FadingWhispers3]

Agree/disagree. Some morality such as what is decent to wear is relative. Some morality, even if not necessarily absolute, is pretty universal such as it is bad to murder other human persons.

 

[hernyaccent]

Agree/disagree. Some morality such as what is decent to wear is relative. Some morality, even if not necessarily absolute, is pretty universal such as it is bad to murder other human persons.

Other them murdering and lying ...are there any others u can think of?

 

[The Seeker]

Moral relativism is a view that claims moral standards are not absolute or universal, but rather emerge from social customs and other sources. Relativists consequently see moral values as applicable only within agreed or accepted cultural boundaries.

Do you agree or disagree with this view? To what extent? Why?

I disagree with what you have presented as relativism, but I'd call myself a relativist. I believe that morals a relative to the individuals effected by an action, that is to say that if all individuals involved in an action give their informed consent to that action, then it cannot be said to be morally wrong.

 

[mepalmer3]

I think CS Lewis did a pretty good job in describing that the majority of cultures have the basic underlying morality. (See Appendix of Abolition of Man for examples across major cultures). And an Ethics class in college also used basically his same argument.

Part of what I think is important to look at is what the perceived facts are in certain situations. When we look at someone's perspective and we look at the moral choice, then I think we can come to the basic conclusion that people have basically the same moral wiring (which is very interesting to me).

I'll start with a very controversial example -- Abortion. Now pro-life people think that folks commiting abortions are commiting murder. While pro-choice people don't in fact think that life has yet begun when the abortion takes place.

In the example of what's decent to wear -- I think people believe they should not arbitrarily try to offend someone, but it's the facts about what is decent that seems to change over time and between cultures. An easier example may be speeding. There's nothing that seems inherently wrong about driving 70 miles an hours. The moral part comes into play when we examine if we're putting others in danger and driving 70 isn't very safe in a school zone. But in the future with some advanced cars going 150 in a school zone may be perfectly accepted if no danger to kids exists.

Cruelty, Rudeness, & Inconsideration towards others has never been praised as a good thing. Imagine a society where stealing was considered a moral thing. Imagine if openly telling lies was a way for a man to gain respect. Imagine a society where rape was as much of a virtue as giving to charity.

I think fundamentally, we all seem to be driven by the same underlying moral standards. It becomes interesting to me because this moral standard doesn't seem to come from myself. Granted I twist things around myself, but being honest isn't some private idea of my own. I certainly don't get the notion from people around me, individually or collectively. It's very interesting.

 

[Lokisdottir]

Other them murdering and lying ...are there any others u can think of?

Stealing is pretty universal, too.

 

[hernyaccent]

Stealing is pretty universal, too.

I was confused about that one a little. Some people feel it's okay to steal from the rich to give to the poor. That could be universal to I guess.

 

[morningstar2651]

No morals are universal.

 

[FadingWhispers3]

Stealing is pretty universal, too.

Well, actually, the Spartans encouraged their children to learn how to steal and not get caught.

 

[Antoninus Verus]

Agree/disagree. Some morality such as what is decent to wear is relative. Some morality, even if not necessarily absolute, is pretty universal such as it is bad to murder other human persons.

I agree. To Americans, walking in a house with shoes on isnt a big deal. But in Japan, its considered rude. It all depends on how you were taught. A child that is raised in a home that punishes him/her for taking a cookie without asking will teach that child that taking without asking is wrong. Annother child raised in annother home that is NOT punished for taking a cookie without asking will learn that taking certain things without asking is ok and BOTH children will teach that to thier own children.

Some things are immoral out of need. IE: Incest. Our ancestors had no moral problem with incest, it was a common practice to preserve a family blood line. But people began to figgure out that in-breeding DRAMATICALLY increases the likelyhood of birth defects or genetic disorders so incest became wrong because it was potentially damaging to someone and that in turn evolved to be immoral

Morals depend on point of view. To me, its not immoral to have pre-marital sex, but to someone else, it may be VERY immoral. I think its highly immoral to commit infidelity or cheat on someone, that may not be such a big deal to someone else.

 

[mepalmer3]

Interesting about the spartans. The fact that they taught them to try and not get taught suggests that they may have thought it was wrong. If that culture thought it was a morally good thing, wouldn't they tell them to steal and then tell everyone about it so that they could be praised? Also, I would be curious as to how the parents felt when their kid stole from them. Would they be proud? Would they think, wow, my little boy is such an angel.

It really is a funny thing for me to think of what a society with a completely different set of morals would be like. Telling the truth is a definite object morally right thing to do that all cultures agree on. Of course there are some compulsive liars that just don't seem to get it and probably all people lie at some point or another -- but overwhelmingly civilization relies on people telling the truth. And to imagine a society where lying is a morally good thing is just nonsensical. Society would completely break down. I don't think complete moral relativity works... and I don't think there's much evidence of it as far as basic morality goes.

There's also a big problem if morality really is completely relative. If there was no real right/wrong, it's just what people or that culture thinks, then how could we justify going to any war? Should we have just let hitler go ahead with his plan? We couldn't blame him or be upset at him or have any reason to tell him that what he was doing is wrong. And while we think we're doing the right thing for putting a stop to his slaughter, he and his culture would think we're being evil for putting a stop to his morally right actions. It's nonsensical -- and it certainly doesn't appear to be how the vast majority of the world thinks.

Also... with respect to people stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. In Robin Hood most people thought it was an acceptable thing because people were starving. I don't think there are necessarily universal right/wrong actions/instincts. We have a bunch of instincts and morality tells us when a certain one is the right one to act on. It's not itself the instinct. And it often tells us to go against the "strongest" natural instinct. But with stealing from the rich and giving to the poor -- I think the morality being demonstrated is that it's more important to save someone's life than it is to take someone's money. Similarly, lying to save someone's life doesn't mean that lying is a morally good thing to do, it just means that there is a bigger moral obligation in that instance.

 

[SnowBear]

Other them murdering and lying ...are there any others u can think of?

Actually these morals are not terribly universal at all. For example murder is all right if one kills in self defense, or if one is a soldier at war, or if you kill to save the life of an innocent you are pretty much considered to be a hero. Same is true with lying. Lying to protect the life of an innocent is considered to be very moral.

 

[mepalmer3]

Actually these morals are not terribly universal at all. For example murder is all right if one kills in self defense, or if one is a soldier at war, or if you kill to save the life of an innocent you are pretty much considered to be a hero. Same is true with lying. Lying to protect the life of an innocent is considered to be very moral.

Hmm... I think Kant is the one who says that some actions are always morally wrong, such as lying, killing, cheating, saving someone's life when you can, etc... But we run into problems if you are forced to make a decision to break one moral rule to obey another. But regardless, there seems to be exceptions for about every moral rule. Killing is ok if it's in self defense (that's not murder though which seems to imply that you're killing for no provoked reason). Lying is ok if you're saving someone's life. But the exceptions are much more difficult to try to see if there are morals that are common across all societies.

And protecting innocent people, being benevolent to other people, not being cruel to people, not stealing, not murdering, not cheating, not being selfish (to a degree), telling the truth, being just, and so forth seem to be common to all. What I think we find in the quote above is where one of the common moral laws was deemed to be more important than another one in that situation.

 

[philosopher1on1]

"Telling the truth is a definite object morally right thing to do that all cultures agree on. Of course there are some compulsive liars that just don't seem to get it and probably all people lie at some point or another -- but overwhelmingly civilization relies on people telling the truth. And to imagine a society where lying is a morally good thing is just nonsensical. Society would completely break down. I don't think complete moral relativity works... and I don't think there's much evidence of it as far as basic morality goes"

Sorry mepalmer3 but it is a well known fact that the average western intellect has been driven by the requirement to be able to work out who is lying and who is telling the truth SO you could say that you owe some your high intellect to the great deceivers of all time....and they would be..?

I think this is a good place to throw in the evolution card, we are still developing on all levels and time is the only constant in it all, truth shall prevail, many cults, religions, sciences, theories of all kinds have been shown the red card as the truth has away of surfacing in the end, no matter how hard we try to hide from it IT always gets the better of the lie...

The world is now more in focus than ever before and cultures are under threat from one thing and one thing only....denial is to live in the land of the blind and await your one eyed king...


Quote:
Originally Posted by: bob135
Moral relativism is a view that claims moral standards are not absolute or universal, but rather emerge from social customs and other sources. Relativists consequently see moral values as applicable only within agreed or accepted cultural boundaries.

Do you agree or disagree with this view? To what extent? Why?


Just what is relative and whats not ? it changes as our understandings are ironed out, we know the goverments lie and cheat on a daily basis and that science doesn't know whether its coming or going half the time and religion well they say politics and religion (hand to glove)...cultures change just as all your religions have, new dynamics added to strengthen the structures on which they preach, everthing is constantly evolving, the written word, language, new dynamics, every second adding to the last, its beautiful...

It saddens me to see that society is STILL struggling with these simple dynamics but thats progress....VIVA EVOLUTION....just try and speed it up a bit some of us are finding the waiting is turning into a bit of an embarrasing situation...its the kids I feel sorry for....but hey ho, another thousand years should do it...I hope....thing is though, I fear another christ scinario may be needed as its all got a little out of shape....praying for that day...

 

[Antoninus Verus]

Lying is a survival tactic. A very crude one, but still a survival tactic. A child will lie to get out of trouble, even a child who has not been taught about lying will lie. There was a study conducted a number of years ago (Im sorry but I dont have references) where a child was placed in a chair with a toy behind them. An assistant told the child not to look at the toy then left the room. A hidden camera showed that nearly all of the children looked and 80% of the children that looked, lied about doing so.

Dis-honesty is inherant in us

 

[markdw82]

Well, I'd like to see someone try to argue moral relativism with a police officer when they pull them over for speeding. Or try telling that to a judge if they are on trial for murder. I reckon it won't be too successful.

 

[kedaman]

morals that are not absolute are worthless.

 

[markdw82]

morals that are not absolute are worthless.

I totally agree. I mean, really, what's the point of any moral code if it can be altered and interpretted in a completely opposite manner?

 

[kedaman]

Yep
Moral relativism can be translated to pointless activity:

If an activity has a point, then it is done for the sake of it i.e. independently of circumstances.
since moral relativism says morals depend on circumstances, they are not done for the sake of it i.e. it is pointless.