Moral Relativism

[Collowrath]

Aino Ailill

I don't tend to discuss morality, philosophy, or any such subject often and so I beg patience should I come off poorly. sweatdrop

It's no problem Aino. heart

Quote:

Collowrath

However - here's the clincher for Moral Relativism. While the Rroma, Slovaks, and Lakota who are on the receiving end of these genocides are definitely of the opinion that they are atrocities, the Hungarians, US Americans, and others who perpetrate them are of the opinion that not only is it a good thing, but often that it is a necessary act. The Moral Relativist is in this case, forced to say simply: "Well, they might not like it, but the perpetrators think it's okay, and since genocide isn't objectively wrong in any way, I'm going to have to say it's okay with me too." Conversely, they can say: "I agree with the (group having genocide committed on them), but since the perpetrators are okay with it, I can't do anything about it."

I don't see this as true. A moral relativist is forced to look at the situation and say that the perpetrators are acting in a moral manner according to their system of morality. That does nothing to prevent the moral relativist from opposing them.

Oh but it does. smile You see, if they work actively to oppose it, they are working to supplant the moral/ethical understandings of another group of people, thereby defeating their own premise by asserting their own morality as superior.

Quote:

Quote:

Another clincher for Moral Relativism is its lack of explanatory power. It can tell you to follow your culture or personal moral whims, but it cannot tell you why without defeating its own premise. In that way, it is intellectually empty.

It might not be able to tell you to do it, but it can say that it is necessary in a conditional statement. If you want to be Good person, then you must strive to adhere to your personal morals and if you want to be able to function smoothly within society, then you must strive to adhere to the society's morals.

But, according to Moral Relativists, what constitutes being good? It doesn't so much answer as throw a smoke grenade and run. It carries no standard by which to honestly tell you that is good and is incapable of rendering a judgment of what is bad - so that conditional statement is empty of real meaning.

Aino Ailill

Collowrath

Here is the basic premise of Moral Relativism and why it is so easily defeated:

"There are no objective moral facts."

---> "I disagree; in reality, there are moral facts."

"You're wrong."

The Moral Relativist, in claiming a subjective morality, has made an exclusionary, objective moral statement about the nature of ethics and morality, which is something they have already agreed is incorrect. The Relativist's position is indefensible because it ties their hands behind their backs and prevents them from making meaningful judgments about the world and the actions of other people.

I have not understood this to be the argument of moral relativists. Rather, the argument is that there are no objective morals, although there is an objective nature to morality; namely, that there are no objective morals.

The problem is that the objective nature of morality would suggest that there are objective moral goods.

Quote:

Quote:

In that same respect, according to Cultural Relativism, the moral reformer within a culture is definitely in the wrong for being contrary to an accepted cultural norm. A Relativist cannot be a Feminist, cannot be an advocate for GLBT or other minority rights, etc, because they have accepted by and large that the cultural attitude is okay for all people living in that culture. By extension, they must agree that in Iran you shouldn't be GLBT of any stripe and even here in the United States, you cannot be Trans - both of these things are contrary to the standards presented by the mainstream in those places.

They are definitely in the wrong, as per that culture's morality. They are not objectively in the wrong, though.

That's what I'm demonstrating - the problem with this being that the Moral Relativist can't make the final judgment though (ie, that they aren't objectively/actually wrong).

Aino Ailill

So most people agreeing on a moral makes it objective Truth?

Nope - like I said, the agreeance would suggest an objective moral truth that can be discovered through reason.  

[Collowrath]

Fiddlers Green

As most people know, I am a rabid anti-relativist in the sense of cultural relativism. So I support this position. However, I find I can rarely reduce this explanation down enough for most of the champions of opposing side that I deal with to digest it.
Ultimately, the argument hinges on the idea that there is an objective right and wrong... that may diverge from the consensus. This diverges vastly from the accepted party line in many (allegedly) civilized nations, where "right" and "wrong" are determined either by majority or majority of cross-section. Does clarity of vision, forget how that clarity comes about, entitle one to wield power over the ignorant? I am a fan of enlightened Despotism, however it can be so tricky determining what is actually enlightened sometimes.

Objective isn't easy. biggrin

It's important to keep in mind the Classical idea of tolerance. Just because we see something as morally wrong in another culture doesn't really entitle us to step in, colonize, and set those savages straight. I guess there's another moral problem - when does something become serious enough that we are obligated to set it straight? My personal inclination is to say "when it violates liberty," essentially, when another person's right to life, happiness, etc is violated.

Gho the Girl

To an extent, we shouldn't let our moral compass overrule any other moral compass just because it disagrees.

"Their moral compass is wrong because they think drinking the blood of cattle is ok."

"Their moral compass is wrong because they're oathbinding their child's soul to a deity before the child can make up their own mind."

"Their moral compass is wrong because they settle down and own "property" and create permanent houses."

But I do agree that there's a limit. Everything in it's according moderation, including moderation.

Again, it's important to keep tolerance in mind. Drinking the blood of a cow might be wrong to you, but it isn't really hurting anyone; I think you'd be hard pressed to get even a die-hard objectivist to march against that one.

Let's look at child baptism from my perspective for a moment. I don't like the idea of binding a child to a deity/religion before the age of reason. A very deep part of myself feels as though that is a deep violation of the child's liberty in a very fundamental way. But, I can understand why some Christians do it, and I don't feel any need to step in and change their religion for them; I can tolerate it and treat it courteously, but I don't have to like it.  

[TeaDidikai]

Collowrath

It's important to keep in mind the Classical idea of tolerance. Just because we see something as morally wrong in another culture doesn't really entitle us to step in, colonize, and set those savages straight.

You're arguing for Moral Relativism there. wink

Quote:

Again, it's important to keep tolerance in mind. Drinking the blood of a cow might be wrong to you,
...
Let's look at child baptism from my perspective for a moment. I don't like the idea of binding a child to a deity/religion before the age of reason. A very deep part of myself feels as though that is a deep violation of the child's liberty in a very fundamental way. But, I can understand why some Christians do it, and I don't feel any need to step in and change their religion for them; I can tolerate it and treat it courteously, but I don't have to like it.

And here. wink

The issue isn't about "what is wrong to you is right to them, and we need to be tolerant." It's about examining morality objectively.
We're looking at concepts of right and wrong, and if we're being objective, we can explore these concepts without confusing personal preferences with morality.

Which I think is really what you were trying to say. But the wording was confusing.  

[Collowrath]

TeaDidikai

Collowrath

It's important to keep in mind the Classical idea of tolerance. Just because we see something as morally wrong in another culture doesn't really entitle us to step in, colonize, and set those savages straight.

You're arguing for Moral Relativism there. wink

Nope. wink Noting what's wrong with something that a group of people does doesn't necessitate that I jump in and fix it, especially when there are other factors at play.

Quote:

Quote:

Again, it's important to keep tolerance in mind. Drinking the blood of a cow might be wrong to you,
...
Let's look at child baptism from my perspective for a moment. I don't like the idea of binding a child to a deity/religion before the age of reason. A very deep part of myself feels as though that is a deep violation of the child's liberty in a very fundamental way. But, I can understand why some Christians do it, and I don't feel any need to step in and change their religion for them; I can tolerate it and treat it courteously, but I don't have to like it.

And here. wink

The issue isn't about "what is wrong to you is right to them, and we need to be tolerant." It's about examining morality objectively.
We're looking at concepts of right and wrong, and if we're being objective, we can explore these concepts without confusing personal preferences with morality.

Which I think is really what you were trying to say. But the wording was confusing.

Yes, essentially.

I'm not saying at all that what's wrong to you is right to them, just that people are free to be wrong. Tolerating a wrong =/= thinking it's right for them. In that same respect, if the subject comes up, I'm just as free to demonstrate how it's wrong.  

[TeaDidikai]

Collowrath

Nope. wink Noting what's wrong with something that a group of people does doesn't necessitate that I jump in and fix it, especially when there are other factors at play.

Which is a Moral Relativists position.
Specifically the form of Moral Relativism found within Meta-Ethical Relativism phrased in the negative.

Quote:

Yes, essentially.

I'm not saying at all that what's wrong to you is right to them, just that people are free to be wrong. Tolerating a wrong =/= thinking it's right for them. In that same respect, if the subject comes up, I'm just as free to demonstrate how it's wrong.

If it is an objective moral wrong, why would someone be free to do it?  

[Fiddlers Green]

Collowrath

Objective isn't easy. biggrin

It's important to keep in mind the Classical idea of tolerance. Just because we see something as morally wrong in another culture doesn't really entitle us to step in, colonize, and set those savages straight. I guess there's another moral problem - when does something become serious enough that we are obligated to set it straight? My personal inclination is to say "when it violates liberty," essentially, when another person's right to life, happiness, etc is violated.

What if my happiness comes from depriving others of life?
Or just dignity.

You see, some might say I am afflicted or unwell. I step in whenever I Know something is Evil. That is all it requires for me. Dangerous precedent, I am aware. Gnosis is a very hard to justify basis for taking action.  

[TeaDidikai]

Even more so when said knowledge comes from a position of misunderstanding, projection of false understandings or similar errors.  

[Fiddlers Green]

TeaDidikai

Even more so when said knowledge comes from a position of misunderstanding, projection of false understandings or similar errors.

Are you responding to me?  

[TeaDidikai]

Fiddlers Green

Are you responding to me?

Commenting on a general theme since earlier I was discussing with Collowrath the problem between personal distaste for something verses an objective moral wrong.

You added to it as well.  

[Fiddlers Green]

TeaDidikai

Commenting on a general theme since earlier I was discussing with Collowrath the problem between personal distaste for something verses an objective moral wrong.

You added to it as well.

Just clarifying.
See, for me, that sorta brought up the deciding factor.
Whether I am acting on knowledge or Knowledge. Amongst moral objectivists, I have found two arguments, most often.
1. Good and Evil are defined concepts that are above social interpretations. (Knowledge)
2. There is a revealed commonality of morality between all cultures/social groups. (knowledge)

I personally dislike 2, because it implies a relativistic morality based on a complete sample group. Right and Wrong still ascend from humanity in that model. However, it is a very interesting model to study. Find lots of interesting exceptions and trends.  

[TeaDidikai]

Fiddlers Green

TeaDidikai

Commenting on a general theme since earlier I was discussing with Collowrath the problem between personal distaste for something verses an objective moral wrong.

You added to it as well.

Just clarifying.
See, for me, that sorta brought up the deciding factor.
Whether I am acting on knowledge or Knowledge. Amongst moral objectivists, I have found two arguments, most often.
1. Good and Evil are defined concepts that are above social interpretations. (Knowledge)
2. There is a revealed commonality of morality between all cultures/social groups. (knowledge)

I personally dislike 2, because it implies a relativistic morality based on a complete sample group. Right and Wrong still ascend from humanity in that model. However, it is a very interesting model to study. Find lots of interesting exceptions and trends.

The problem remains that people are able to confuse little k with big K.  

[Fiddlers Green]

TeaDidikai

The problem remains that people are able to confuse little k with big K.

That is a very internal and personal quandry.
To me, there is a distinct difference in quality, however, I do not have awareness of the thought processes of others, so I am not sure what it is like for them.
Also, some people know full well they are dealing with knowledge (and a faulty variety at that) and proceed pretending to themselves and others that it is Knowledge. That in particular fills me with a special mix of rage and sorrow.  

[Gho the Girl]

How does one objectively find and define morality?  

[TeaDidikai]

Gho the Girl

How does one objectively find and define morality?

Good question.

My personal baseline hinges upon Insufferable torment, torture or injury by an initial active party.

I need to develop it more.  

[Collowrath]

TeaDidikai

Collowrath

Nope. wink Noting what's wrong with something that a group of people does doesn't necessitate that I jump in and fix it, especially when there are other factors at play.

Which is a Moral Relativists position.
Specifically the form of Moral Relativism found within Meta-Ethical Relativism phrased in the negative.

I don't think that would necessitate that a person is a Relativist - at least not any more so than some might argue you'd have to be to live in a plural society.

Quote:

Quote:

Yes, essentially.

I'm not saying at all that what's wrong to you is right to them, just that people are free to be wrong. Tolerating a wrong =/= thinking it's right for them. In that same respect, if the subject comes up, I'm just as free to demonstrate how it's wrong.

If it is an objective moral wrong, why would someone be free to do it?

Essentially, because not all moral wrongs are equal.

I would agree for the most part that if there is something wrong going on (in the objective moral sense), then it should be stopped. Unfortunately there's a big grey area sometimes especially when people confuse preferences for moral issues.

Fiddlers Green

What if my happiness comes from depriving others of life?
Or just dignity.

"another person's right to life, happiness, etc"

Your liberty only extends as far as another person's.

Gho the Girl

How does one objectively find and define morality?

Now that's the problem, isn't it? There's a lot of theories two which stick out in mind as pretty popular are the Divine Command Theory, which is that either a) God determines what is right and wrong or that b) God reasoned out what is right and wrong and works to transmit that through us, and then the idea that human reason and intuition are sufficient for analyzing and understanding moral truth (I don't remember the name of this one).

I'm partial to the Classical idea that our Reason is perfectly capable of understanding moral truths - and my "baseline," as Tea put it, hinges on the idea of Liberty. It's one of the areas where I turned out pretty American. rofl