Moral Relativism

[David Gould]

It seems a bit ironic that moral relativism puts forth there are no universal laws concerning morality when the view itself is claiming a presupposed institution of universalism. The fact it is presupposed tells me there are universal laws, like Life. Life is universal; every living being wants to retain life. Therefore, murder is wrong. Is there any living being that wishes death?

Umm, the fact that people suicide suggests to me that not every living being wants to retain life.

 

[k]

Umm, the fact that people suicide suggests to me that not every living being wants to retain life.

Have there ever been any cases of animal suicide? Well, my cat did try to take a bite of my steak when I wasn't looking. Seriously though, when I was referring to Life, I was not speaking about human selfishness, fallibility, and depression. As an ex-suicide coward I am able to say that even when I was doing all those drugs and alcohol binges I was not wishing for life to end, I was wishing for an end to the life I was living. Suicides commit a permanent solution to a temporary problem, but their act does not mean Life has ended; it could just mean they changed their address to one the postal service cannot find.

 

[David Gould]

Have there ever been any cases of animal suicide? Well, my cat did try to take a bite of my steak when I wasn't looking. Seriously though, when I was referring to Life, I was not speaking about human selfishness, fallibility, and depression. As an ex-suicide coward I am able to say that even when I was doing all those drugs and alcohol binges I was not wishing for life to end, I was wishing for an end to the life I was living. Suicides commit a permanent solution to a temporary problem, but their act does not mean Life has ended; it could just mean they changed their address to one the postal service cannot find.

Lemmings come to mind. Why do you think that all people wishing to live means that they all have a right to live? Is murder wrong if I assist someone who wishes to die - after all, I have not ended their life (in your view) have I?

 

[k]

Lemmings come to mind. Why do you think that all people wishing to live means that they all have a right to live? Is murder wrong if I assist someone who wishes to die - after all, I have not ended their life (in your view) have I?

Are we talking about euthenasia? (not sure about the spelling?) If we are, then I have no problem with it.

Life is not a choice, its either there or it isn't. If it is there, then it has been engendered by forces beyond the comprehension limitations of a finite human mind. Euthenasia is not murder because it involves a willing participant. Murder is only present when the one who ceases to live did not have a desire to die. Yes, cancer is murder, but not by human action.

 

[mepalmer3]

It is simply that everyone has core values upon which they build their moral system. By appealing to those core values you can change the moral system.

For example, someone may have a a core value that Germany must be protected from all threats, no matter what. They are then convinced that the Jews pose a threat to Germany. And from there they are convinced that the Jews must be killed. To alter the final conclusion it is necessary to provide a rational argument that demonstrates that Jews do not pose a threat to Germany.

There is no requirement for me to argue that not killing Jews is inherently better than killing Jews. Instead, I pose the argument in the context of my opposition's own core values - core values which are subjective.

This is a bit funny. (No offense intended). What if Germany had a core value that jews ought to be killed. There doesn't need to be any other core value at play here. So how do you rationalize that their core value is wrong? Or let's pretend like there are many core values at work. How do you rationalize that their core values are wrong?

If you say that something is wrong, then you are also saying that something is right. In this case you haven't suggested any reason (outside of an idea of a core value) that suggests why not killing jews is better than killing them. So what is this core value? It's another way of saying that there is some sort of objective moral code that lies at the core of people. Moral relativity means that people can have different moral views as they see fit. That is their core value.

In other words, we cannot change the fact that we are born with or acquire certain likes and dislikes. But we can try to change what other people do - by appealing to their likes and dislikes.

It sounds a bit like bribery to me

Fair enough. To give you a hand, the way I think about morality is in these terms (thanks, Zoot): killing people is wrong-to-me (in other words, I think it is wrong for me to do it and I also think it is wrong for it to be done at all). What this means is that I feel bad about killing.

You're last sentence here is what I was trying to say about the grape juice. "What this means is that I feel bad about killing." We took the value out of the statement in saying something in fact is wrong, and we now are saying, "I feel like it is wrong." And that is the heart of moral relativity -- that we have feelings about stuff, being good and bad, right and wrong, but that none of it really is completely right or wrong. We just have feelings, preferences about it. And a preference is no more than a liking to something, such as prefering grape juice over orange juice.

 

[David Gould]

This is a bit funny. (No offense intended). What if Germany had a core value that jews ought to be killed. There doesn't need to be any other core value at play here. So how do you rationalize that their core value is wrong? Or let's pretend like there are many core values at work. How do you rationalize that their core values are wrong?

You do not. You cannot. Someone's core values may change over time. And the interplay of core values can cause changes in actions.

For example, let us say that a German did have a core value that Jews ought to be killed - no reason behind that, but there can be no reason behind a core value: it just is. If they had no other core values then the only thing that this German would do would be to kill Jews, and nothing you could say would make him see this as wrong.

However, no-one can have a single core value. Everyone has a number of them. The way to prevent this person from killing Jews would be to appeal to another of his core values - for example, that Germany must be protected. You could then convince him by demonstrating to him that killing Jews would actually endanger Germany (via international action, say.).

You would not need to convince him that killing Jews was wrong - just that it would endanger Germany.

If you say that something is wrong, then you are also saying that something is right. In this case you haven't suggested any reason (outside of an idea of a core value) that suggests why not killing jews is better than killing them. So what is this core value? It's another way of saying that there is some sort of objective moral code that lies at the core of people. Moral relativity means that people can have different moral views as they see fit. That is their core value.

No. You can never say something is wrong. You have to say something is wrong because .... X. In the example above, you tell the German that killing Jews is wrong because it endangers Germany. If he values Germany above killing Jews then he will not kill Jews. This is what I mean by using one value against another.

It sounds a bit like bribery to me

All it is is the use of rational argument to convince someone to operate as you do. If that is bribery, then at the moment I am attempting to bribe you.

You're last sentence here is what I was trying to say about the grape juice. "What this means is that I feel bad about killing." We took the value out of the statement in saying something in fact is wrong, and we now are saying, "I feel like it is wrong." And that is the heart of moral relativity -- that we have feelings about stuff, being good and bad, right and wrong, but that none of it really is completely right or wrong. We just have feelings, preferences about it. And a preference is no more than a liking to something, such as prefering grape juice over orange juice.

I agree. And?

You see, there is no 'right' or 'wrong'. All there is is 'right because appeal to core value' and 'wrong because appeal to core value'.

 

[David Gould]

Are we talking about euthenasia? (not sure about the spelling?) If we are, then I have no problem with it.

Life is not a choice, its either there or it isn't. If it is there, then it has been engendered by forces beyond the comprehension limitations of a finite human mind.

Why is life being engendered by forces beyond the comprehension of a limited, finite human mind relevent to murder being wrong or not?

Euthenasia is not murder because it involves a willing participant. Murder is only present when the one who ceases to live did not have a desire to die. Yes, cancer is murder, but not by human action.

But by your previous argument someone who suicides does not kill themselves because they continue to live. Therefore murder is also not killing anyone. Or am I confused here?

 

[k]

Why is life being engendered by forces beyond the comprehension of a limited, finite human mind relevent to murder being wrong or not?



But by your previous argument someone who suicides does not kill themselves because they continue to live. Therefore murder is also not killing anyone. Or am I confused here?

I tried to answer the first question, but I'll give it another shot. Murder is wrong because it is the forced removal of one's life as we know it on a metaphysical plane.

A suicide does not commit murder (this is not to say they do not kill themselves) because the participant is willing. Murder is the forced removal of one's life. If I kill myself I have not commited murder because I am the willing participant.

 

[mepalmer3]

You see, there is no 'right' or 'wrong'. All there is is 'right because appeal to core value' and 'wrong because appeal to core value'.

You're right in explaining moral relativity in that there is no right and wrong. But you still haven't suggested WHY we should appeal to one core value over the other. This decision, is an objective moral law that you're refusing to admit that you would use to judge between which core value to appeal to.

 

[David Gould]

You're right in explaining moral relativity in that there is no right and wrong. But you still haven't suggested WHY we should appeal to one core value over the other. This decision, is an objective moral law that you're refusing to admit that you would use to judge between which core value to appeal to.

We appeal to one core value over another in order to get someone to act in the way that we want them to act.

In other words, we are trying to convince someone else to give us grape juice rather than tomato juice. Why? Because we prefer grape juice.

We are trying to convince someone else to not kill Jews rather than kill Jews. Why? Because we prefer that Jews not be killed.

 

[David Gould]

I tried to answer the first question, but I'll give it another shot. Murder is wrong because it is the forced removal of one's life as we know it on a metaphysical plane.

Why is the forced removal of one's life as we know it on a metaphysical plane wrong?

A suicide does not commit murder (this is not to say they do not kill themselves) because the participant is willing. Murder is the forced removal of one's life. If I kill myself I have not commited murder because I am the willing participant.

Fair enough.

 

[mepalmer3]

We appeal to one core value over another in order to get someone to act in the way that we want them to act.

In other words, we are trying to convince someone else to give us grape juice rather than tomato juice. Why? Because we prefer grape juice.

We are trying to convince someone else to not kill Jews rather than kill Jews. Why? Because we prefer that Jews not be killed.

Ok. I think we're finally on the same page and in agreement about what relative morality is saying. Relative morality doesn't say that killing jews is bad. It doesn't make claims that any act is better than another act. It in the end is simply an expression of how someone feels - a statement of the type, "I like grape juice."

 

[David Gould]

Ok. I think we're finally on the same page and in agreement about what relative morality is saying. Relative morality doesn't say that killing jews is bad. It doesn't make claims that any act is better than another act. It in the end is simply an expression of how someone feels - a statement of the type, "I like grape juice."

Exactly. Moral claims tell you nothing about the external world; rather, they tell you about the feelings of the person who makes them.

When I say, 'Killing Jews is wrong,' what I am really saying is, 'The killing of Jews makes me feel bad.'

 

[mepalmer3]

Exactly. Moral claims tell you nothing about the external world; rather, they tell you about the feelings of the person who makes them.

When I say, 'Killing Jews is wrong,' what I am really saying is, 'The killing of Jews makes me feel bad.'

Wow! From your position you are required to say that rape, murder, kidnapping, exploitation of children, selling your kids into sexual slavery, religions forcing it's beliefs upon non-believers, lying, cruelty to animals, gossip, terrorism, selfishness, hatred, denying charity to someone in need, etc... is morally equivalent (neither better nor worse) as loving your neighbor, giving an inheritence to your kids, telling your wife she looks beautiful, working hard in school, being patriotic, helping out a friend, giving aid to the needy, being honest, being friendly, etc...

I've never seen anyone stick to their guns like that and hold a position like this. Wow! is all I have to say.

By chance... is there anything that would change your mind and make you think that perhaps there are at least a few moral laws that are true for everyone?

 

[David Gould]

Wow! From your position you are required to say that rape, murder, kidnapping, exploitation of children, selling your kids into sexual slavery, religions forcing it's beliefs upon non-believers, lying, cruelty to animals, gossip, terrorism, selfishness, hatred, denying charity to someone in need, etc... is morally equivalent (neither better nor worse) as loving your neighbor, giving an inheritence to your kids, telling your wife she looks beautiful, working hard in school, being patriotic, helping out a friend, giving aid to the needy, being honest, being friendly, etc...

Yes, they are morally equivalent. I do not actually think that moral discourse has too much meaning simply because it is loaded with assumptions that there actually is 'right' and 'wrong' without context.

Murder is not immoral. It is simply something that causes me suffering, even if it is of someone else. That is why I object to it.

I've never seen anyone stick to their guns like that and hold a position like this. Wow! is all I have to say.

By chance... is there anything that would change your mind and make you think that perhaps there are at least a few moral laws that are true for everyone?

It might be possible for me to accept that there were moral laws that were true for everyone. It would not be possible for me to accept that anyone could be certain as to what those particular moral laws actually were. The problem of induction and verification pretty much stimies the implementation of objective morality by itself.

However, I am unclear how you would go about it. You would have to unpackage and refute numerous positions that I hold - for example, that there is no free will and hence no such thing as responsibility; that there is no self; that objective moral talk is meaningless; and so forth. Pretty difficult.

 

[bob135]

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...

So, then the question is this: Are we simply getting closer or farther away from underlying, universal moral principles, or do such things not exist?

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.

You would tell the police officer that the laws were based on relative morals. Of course, you would still get arrested. There's nothing stopping him from arresting you, but that doesn't mean that his laws are based on some universal moral standard.

What do you mean by "absolute or universal"? What do you mean by "emerge from social customs and other sources"?

Are you saying that moral standards, according to moral relativism, are effectively arbitrary? That no moral standard is better, or more good, for anyone than any other, including the moral standards of the Mongol Hordes, or Nazi Germany, for instance?

Here's the full article if you want it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism
By "absolute or universal" I mean exactly that. They do not share the same status as, say, the laws of physics, or any other universal, governing principle. There are no universal morals somewhere out there, waiting to be discovered.
By "emerge from social customs and other sources" I mean that groups and individuals will create moral standards that suit their needs. They will not try to look for some absolute morality.
Yes, they are arbitrary, to an extent. Of course, because of human nature, we will all share some instincts, which may lead to similar morals, but beyond that, its up to society to determine what is right and wrong.
Before I answer your question about Nazi Germany, how are you defining "better?" I mean, I'm sure if you asked a Nazi, they would say that their moral standard is better, but you and I probably prefer another moral standard.

 

[k]

Why is the forced removal of one's life as we know it on a metaphysical plane wrong?

My head is spinning with several possible directions, but I'll try to start in the clearest way I am able. Choice is the first tenet because while we may share perceptions we do not always share desires. Forcing a child to eat dinner is good for the child (allergies aside.) We know this on an empirical level that is universal to human bodily function. Forcing the end of one's life is done out of pure ignorance, (specific motivations are irrelevant). What is beyond the metaphysical? The fact the answer is an unknown means we are trying to solve an equation without all the numbers. We cannot justify a permanent action based on inadequate information.

 

[David Gould]

My head is spinning with several possible directions, but I'll try to start in the clearest way I am able. Choice is the first tenet because while we may share perceptions we do not always share desires. Forcing a child to eat dinner is good for the child (allergies aside.) We know this on an empirical level that is universal to human bodily function. Forcing the end of one's life is done out of pure ignorance, (specific motivations are irrelevant). What is beyond the metaphysical? The fact the answer is an unknown means we are trying to solve an equation without all the numbers. We cannot justify a permanent action based on inadequate information.

First of all, we make decisions all the time without adequate information. It is a function of being a limited human with limited time to analyse things and come to a conclusion.

Secondly, what does it mean to justify something?

 

[k]

First of all, we make decisions all the time without adequate information. It is a function of being a limited human with limited time to analyse things and come to a conclusion.

Secondly, what does it mean to justify something?

There is a huge difference between adequate info and NO info. Those decisions are made either empirically or with enough information that we are not going totally in the dark. To end one's life on the metaphysical plane is making a decision totally in the dark. No empirical data, no shared history, and no way to verify data period.

In the context we are talking, it means action without negative consequence.

 

[David Gould]

There is a huge difference between adequate info and NO info. Those decisions are made either empirically or with enough information that we are not going totally in the dark. To end one's life on the metaphysical plane is making a decision totally in the dark. No empirical data, no shared history, and no way to verify data period.

But why is it morally wrong to make decisions with no info?

In the context we are talking, it means action without negative consequence.

Hmmm. I don't think there is such a thing. I guess it depends what it is you judge as negative. 'Negative for whom?' is the question I would ask.