Moral Relativism

[Steezie]

There's something I've been thinking about for a while.

The more I look at the idea of "morality" and issues of "right" and wrong" the more I find myself leaning towards the idea that morality really IS relative. I have real difficulty actually arguing against the idea in any sort of cogent way and I find this a little unsettling.

I, like most people, want to know that there really IS an ultimate benchmark of right and wrong that I can compare my actions to and truly determine what right and wrong is but the more I think about it, the more difficult I'm finding it to support that desire.

Hume mentions something that I find interesting. If there are two people and one intentionally murders the other, what aspect of that situation is wrong?

Is it the fact that the knife penetrated the other person? Well if that were wrong then surgery would have to be considered wrong.

Is it the intent, that one person INTENDED to kill the other? Since we dont consider hostile thoughts alone wrong, then we cant really look at it that way.

Is it that the one person did it for no reason? We do A LOT of things for no real reason, we dont consider those wrong.


I know people on here will probably say that we can look to God for the standards of right and wrong, but even there it's only based on God's word and the threat of punishment; might makes right. Our governments have the same power as God in that respect, they are just more vulnerable to our influences.

I cant go out in the world and find a pure source or sample of "right" or "wrong". I cant objectively measure "right" and "wrong". I cant see "right" or "wrong" nor can I study it in any real way.

I really want to argue against the idea of moral relativism...but the more I think about it the more I see that this is a tough argument to get rid of and the more faults I find with opposing arguments.

Now people may say that moral relativism allows for ANY sort of behavior, because if right and wrong don't exist then there's no reason to respect them. This is a faulty argument. Simply because something strictly does not exist doesn't mean people cant agree to respect it. The rules for sports is a great example. Some may feel the rules for baseball or football or hockey are too loose or too rigid or flawed, but the vast majority can agree on a set of rules to be used for the game so we can all play if we want to. We acknowledge there is no ABSOLUTE standard for what the rules of hockey should be, but we agree on a standard that we can use. The same is true of the ideas of right and wrong. Simply because a benchmark cant really be found doesn't mean we should ignore the issue altogether.

What do you think?

 

[MoonLancer]

About the killing part. we declare it wrong because we are selves do not want to be killed. We punish intentional killings more severely to set an example for anyone who would do so in the future. accidental killings cannot be effected in such a way so tends receive less punishment. Its more complicated then just this, but this is a simplification based on reality.

 

[n0fx]

goodnight everyone

 

[Steezie]

About the killing part. we declare it wrong because we are selves do not want to be killed.

And that's based on emotion, it's not because there is an big signboard saying "INTENTIONAL MURDER MAKES A BIG HAND COME DOWN AND SMASH YOU FLAT" We dont WANT to be killed so we say its wrong to kill us.

 

[quatona]

Every description of an action is a qualification, hence we can´t escape moral relativism.
"Murder" is a qualification of "killing", so are "self-defense", "killing a human" or "killing a mammal". "Killing" itself is a qualification of "destruction".

Now people may say that moral relativism allows for ANY sort of behavior

That´s a fallacy from consequence, to begin with.
Secondly, the fact that do we observe pretty much ANY sort of behaviour performed and defended seems to make a case for morals indeed being relative rather than a case against it.

 

[Beechwell]

I think it is unreasonable to expect the foundation for morals to come from anywhere outside human society. It is a system of rules designed by humans to reach desirable outcomes. The objective universe works by completely different rules than human society - where should the basis for morality come from, if not from ourselves?

As a start, I think one can savely say that our feelings regarding what we desire, what makes us happy or miserable, are objective. They obviously exist in some form, as we experience them. Even if they are just random neural processes, they are real enough for us humans, and when considering human affairs, that is all that matters.
So considering an action that increases happiness for all humans, as opposed to on that increases suffering for all humans, couldn't we say that from a human perspective, the former is obviously and objectively better than the latter?
Of course real actions and consequences are never that easy, but maybe it's a start to define such an ideal moral and immoral action and continue from there.

Even mathematical laws require axioms to define what they operate on. And with human morals it is no different. And I think the human psyche is the best place to start, since we are dealing with problem concerning solely said humans.

 

[Wildcat48]

I think one way to approach it would be the use of Kantian ethics and his standard for rational ethics, the categorical imperative. I certainly don't think this is the only way to approach ethics, but it does create a standard of rationally derived moral requirements.

Kant's categorical imperative says three things essentially:

1) That an action performed by said person would be morally right conduct for other persons in the same/similar situations.
2) An action is performed such that other people are ends themselves, and not means to an end (an affirmation of human value).
3) A person is acting morally if he/she acts as if his/her actions can be universalized and applied to all others in that situation.

Kant's goal was to formulate an instructive that was free of empirical circumstances that would add conditions ad infinitum and is both morally universalist and objectivist in its formulation.

So for your example, killing another person, depending on the situation, could fail any three of the above criteria, and thus fail to be a moral action.

Kant did specify, however, that the consequences of the actions made no real difference, as good consequences can arise by accident. What matters then is the good "will" of a person (what he calls the duty), which he considers to be the one thing in the universe that is good without qualification. Essentially, people act out of a natural moral law (duty), and the goodness of an action can be judged on whether the categorical imperative is valid in that situation.

It's just one way counter complete relativism, and obviously, it has its own faults (and I probably muddled the explanation).

I also think moral relativism can be dangerous if one's morality infringes upon the inherent rights of another person. Now, obviously that depends on what one sees as the rights of another, but our country is built upon the foundation that all people are, by their very nature, endowed with certain rights that may not be freely infringed.

 

[Steezie]

I think one way to approach it would be the use of Kantian ethics and his standard for rational ethics, the categorical imperative. I certainly don't think this is the only way to approach ethics, but it does create a standard of rationally derived moral requirements.

Kant's categorical imperative says three things essentially:

1) That an action performed by said person would be morally right conduct for other persons in the same/similar situations.
2) An action is performed such that other people are ends themselves, and not means to an end (an affirmation of human value).
3) A person is acting morally if he/she acts as if his/her actions can be universalized and applied to all others in that situation.

Kant's goal was to formulate an instructive that was free of empirical circumstances that would add conditions ad infinitum and is both morally universalist and objectivist in its formulation.

So for your example, killing another person, depending on the situation, could fail any three of the above criteria, and thus fail to be a moral action.

Kant did specify, however, that the consequences of the actions made no real difference, as good consequences can arise by accident. What matters then is the good "will" of a person (what he calls the duty), which he considers to be the one thing in the universe that is good without qualification. Essentially, people act out of a natural moral law (duty), and the goodness of an action can be judged on whether the categorical imperative is valid in that situation.

It's just one way counter complete relativism, and obviously, it has its own faults (and I probably muddled the explanation).

I also think moral relativism can be dangerous if one's morality infringes upon the inherent rights of another person. Now, obviously that depends on what one sees as the rights of another, but our country is built upon the foundation that all people are, by their very nature, endowed with certain rights that may not be freely infringed.

That isnt a terrible way to determine a moral standard, but it still doesn't really kill the idea that morality really has no basis in reality. I completely agree that we can come up with a good way to determine a benchmark, but I dont see anything that can establish a true objective standard.

 

[yasic]

You also have to remember that we still have some grounding.

Hockey rules say nothing about telepathy because we cannot do it.


We are all human beings. We all die when stabbed, and we all have basic emotions and feelings. We are pre-built to not want to harm children evolutionarily, and we are pre-built to try to survive in a society. These things help us make our 'relative' morals.

There is a reason every society on earth has rules against killing. Not because it is objectively true, but because it helps societies survive, and morality is taught both evolutionarily and empirically to the next generation.

 

[underpressure]

Surely even Christians are going to have a problem with objective morality when I ask them if slavery is immoral?

 

[nolongerhome]

Surely even Christians are going to have a problem with objective morality when I ask them if slavery is immoral?

Going on previous discussions on this topic, they will find some way to maintain the objectivity.

 

[MoonLancer]

Surely even Christians are going to have a problem with objective morality when I ask them if slavery is immoral?

some may. But slavery is justified in the bible or rather the OT.

 

[Wildcat48]

That isnt a terrible way to determine a moral standard, but it still doesn't really kill the idea that morality really has no basis in reality. I completely agree that we can come up with a good way to determine a benchmark, but I dont see anything that can establish a true objective standard.

Arguably though, the universality of a morally right action, under Kant's assumption, is what makes it "objective". If you want an epistemologically empirical objectivity, well...good luck. You're not going to find a true benchmark empirically. I think ethics is outside the realm of empiricism.

 

[Steezie]

Arguably though, the universality of a morally right action, under Kant's assumption, is what makes it "objective".

Except what about people or cultures that have different moral values than each other, doesnt that destroy the idea of universality?

 

[Wildcat48]

some may. But slavery is justified in the bible or rather the OT.

For many Christians, we see such passages as indicators of the times in which the books were written and not necessarily indicators of Christian objective morality. These passages have been used to defend such practices in the past, and it's rather despicable. You won't find an argument from me about the objective morality of slavery, as I feel it has always been wrong. But, I might say that as the Church progresses, so does our moral core (as evidenced by my denomination's struggle to accept homosexual persons).

 

[Wildcat48]

Except what about people or cultures that have different moral values than each other, doesnt that destroy the idea of universality?

The universality principle from Kant's exposition is that one should act as if his actions are a maxim for all other person to act in a similar manner in such situations. For a core set of principles, his thesis may hold true. Like I said, it's far from fullproof, but there are probably some ideals which are universally true in Kant's definition.

 

[nolongerhome]

Arguably though, the universality of a morally right action, under Kant's assumption, is what makes it "objective". If you want an epistemologically empirical objectivity, well...good luck. You're not going to find a true benchmark empirically. I think ethics is outside the realm of empiricism.

I think the fact that this requires the word objective to be surrounded by quotation marks should tell us something about how objective it is (that is, it isn't really objective).

The fundamental issue here is that, as you say, morality is outside of the realm of empiricism - it isn't about natural laws but social laws. I fail to see how any social law could be considered objective (that is, outside of the subjective, or rather inter-subjective, processes of social formation and elaboration).

 

[Steezie]

The universality principle from Kant's exposition is that one should act as if his actions are a maxim for all other person to act in a similar manner in such situations. For a core set of principles, his thesis may hold true. Like I said, it's far from fullproof, but there are probably some ideals which are universally true in Kant's definition.

Ideas like what?

 

[RocketRed]

I tend to go back forth on this. I tend to mostly agree with Kant though. It's the best combination of the feeling of a universality of certain moral principles without claiming there's one gold standard to which we all adhere while admitting the differences between moral standards in different societies.

 

[Wildcat48]

I think the fact that this requires the word objective to be surrounded by quotation marks should tell us something about how objective it is (that is, it isn't really objective).

The fundamental issue here is that, as you say, morality is outside of the realm of empiricism - it isn't about natural laws but social laws. I fail to see how any social law could be considered objective (that is, outside of the subjective, or rather inter-subjective, processes of social formation and elaboration).

Hmm...well formal logic is both objective and non-empirical (I suppose one could challenge the assertion that it's objective). Can human formal logic then serve as the basis of morality given that it is not subjected to external conditions?

Steezie: I'd have to think carefully on it, but in my brief thought on it, theft would be one, in that theft by definition is without consent. The removal of property without consent could be universally defined as immoral using the categorical imperative. I'm not sure though....let me think about it. I'm not necessarily a Kantian myself...