Moral Relativism

[k]

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



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.

We are not talking about all decisions, but one in particular. Why is it just to force the end of one's life?

Negative for the offender, if the offender is caught and punished according to the applicable laws.

 

[Socrastein]

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.

I think a better word than instinct would be desire. Morality is nothing more than a means to an end, and that end is dictated by desires, either those of the individual of those of many individuals together (Society). Murder is only "wrong" because we desire the life of our citizens, as a society. We desire that our society have healthy individuals, and dead isn't very healthy, so as a means to that end we enact laws, both moral laws and legal laws, which serve as means to that end by discouraging anything that would endanger the safety of our citizens.

Really, morality only describes what conflicts with and what abides by our desired ends. That which is "wrong" is that which detracts from what we desire, and that which is "good" is that which correlates with what we desire. When you have conflicting morals, behind it all is conflicting desires. Old people think its "wrong" to dress sexually provocative because they desire modesty, chastity, and temperance. Younger people don't think its wrong, because instead they desire freedom of self-expression and sexual appeal. So the conflicting morals of the two generations stem from a difference in what they desire.

The only way morality could be absolute is if everyone desired the same thing - however, this is obviously not the case, and thusly morality is and will always be as varied as the desires of mankind.

 

[mepalmer3]

The only way morality could be absolute is if everyone desired the same thing - however, this is obviously not the case, and thusly morality is and will always be as varied as the desires of mankind.

People confuse beliefs and actual right/wrong quite a bit. Some of the germans may have believed what they were doing was right. And most of the rest of the world may have believed they were wrong. And in fact looking back we think, yes, that really was wrong, despite what people at the time believed. Similarly, the way slavery was practiced was horribly wrong, despite the current beliefs of the people.

Also, there is a great deal of real common moral ground among people. Even on something as controversial as abortion, both sides agree that life is important, the issue (at least part of it) is whether or not an unborn kid is actually a legitimate person at that point. Honesty is also a virtue that seems to be more or less universely constant. But a great deal of people still lie. CS Lewis does a good job in his Abolition of Man within the appendix of listing out major civilizations and how they have very common moral codes.

 

[Socrastein]

We only say the Germans, or anyone for that matter, is wrong if they are acting in a way that is not conducive to what we as a society or as individuals desire.

And no, with abortion, there are plenty of people who don't think the life of a child is more important than the right of the mother. They desire individual freedom for the mother more than they desire the life of an undeveloped fetus, and so it is "wrong" to force that mother to have the baby if she doesn't want to.

As for CS Lewis arguing for a subtextual absolute morality - all he shows is that many humans share common desires, that is it, though he never states or seems to even understand that morality is only a reflection of what is good or bad for what we desire. People like honesty because they desire the truth more than they desire falsehood. That is to be expected, when one simply takes into consideration the very nature of truth and falsehood.

Common moral codes = Common desires

And common desires are nothing to be marveled at. It would be more incredible if nobody shared desires, since common desires are largely to be anticipated.

 

[thisverymoment07]

god distinguished for us what is sin and what is not
things that draw us away from god or are distructive towards ourselves is what is sinful
and i hope we can all agree that sin is wrong
things that bring us toward god and help us in a healthy way are right

socrates questioned if morality was merely the boundaries or laws set by authorities
either that or the laws of continuation and support of life

so in a spiritual view, is not morality the laws of the repleshment and development of the soul?

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

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.

But this is not universal. Many ancient civilisations practiced sacrifice. Now it is universal, but it has changed.

 

[Socrastein]

so in a spiritual view, is not morality the laws of the repleshment and development of the soul?

Only if you can argue somehow that every single human must desire these things in the exact same way and intensity.