Moral Relativism (1 Viewer)

[JimEverett]

Every so often I bring this topic up on the boards because I never feel like I get an adequate response from people who talk about "absolutes" and stuff like that. I try to mix up what I am talking about so here is my latest installment.

Let's take the so-called "founding fathers" of the United States. If there are moral absolutes as such and there is something existing out in the world that we refer to as "morality" or "moral properties" aren't these people horribly immoral? I mean they denied rights to black people, to Indians, to women, and treated many people as second class individuals or even sub-human.
Aren't many of our own ancestors in the smae morally bankrupt position? I mean as recently as our parents our grandparents. Again, this assumes a timeless morality - objective morality out there in the world that exists regardless of time or anything else.

And if you deny this, aren;t you committed to something akin to saying that morality does not exist in the world, that it is something relative - say to time, or anything else?

 

[Saintman2884]

Context, Jim, Context. thats the thing to consider about all of you said. Morality is sometimes what we make it in this world and maybe the next one.

Take Thomas Jefferson for example and Robert Byrd, for example. Both men are considered great for different reasons, one was a founding father of our country and one was an KKK recruiter, sure one could say that they are both bad men and deserve scrutiny, but lets take a look at the whole picture, Sure I could look the bad things you may have done in your life Jim and say you are a despicable awful human being and have nothing to do wiht you, but what the rest of you, the good things you may have done, the people you may have helped?
Its all about the context and the circumstances, man that defines us as human beings. Yes Morality exists but the sitautions defines it, whta we do in our own makes who we are and can make us be seen as bad or good in moral terms.

 

[JimEverett]

What do you mean "situation defines it" - that seems like morality doesn;t exist in any objective sense - its just relative to the context you are in.
And I mean sure, you can say a person who believes and treats women, blacks, Indians, Chinese, etc as sub-human isn;t all bad because they have some other good qualities, but that is ducking the issue at hand - either they were immoral or not, and if they were not then it seems to be that morality is not objective but is relative ( although I am certainly open to some otehr interpretation of why believing and treating those people as inferiror is not immoral in some objective sense.)

 

[MayberrySaint]

I'm sure that I can't bring any clarification to your thoughts, but just my own feelings...My belief is that there are no moral absolutes when looking over a time continuum of several tens of thousands of years. Our primitive ancestors existed in a world where it was more than likely kill or be killed. I'm sure that some existed as cannibals, murdering and consuming their brethren. Would you consider such creatures (men) as morally bankrupt. I don't think so, they were existing in an environment where actions that today we consider immoral were necessary for survival.
Fast forward to the seventeenth century, the societal norms of slavery or serfdom were reality. Individuals existed within that framework and acted accordingly. Were they necessarily immoral? Not in the context of their time, but today if judged in retrospect they would appear immoral.
I think the concept of morality must be framed within a specific time frame. Who knows what humans 1000 years will consider immoral (polluting our environment, killing and eating animals, etc)?
Therefore, no absolute morality but rather evolving morality as society progresses (or regresses)...

 

[St. Widge]

I guess I have always been something of an ethical relativist Jim. I have a concept of a somewhat normative ethic. My idea of morality is that it is guided by times less principles, but the application of those principals can change from time to time. My moral system, such as it is, is based on what is at the core of what it means to be human. IMO, the core of our humanity is freedom/liberty so what is moral is what increases individual freedom/liberty. What that is can change over time.

But, then again, I don't necessarily think that is a moral absolute. What I do think is that when it comes to morality, it's important to base it on something that will make people want to follow that morality. Otherwise, no one will follow it and what would be the point?

 

[JimEverett]

That is more in line with what I think Mayberry Saint. I don;t believe their are any "moral properties" out in the world like there are physical properties. Morality is relative to the society and time and other things. I am just trying to see and hear a defense from those who are talking about the decline of "Absolutes" and criticizing the "moral relativists."

 

[St. Widge]

That is more in line with what I think Mayberry Saint. I don;t believe their are any "moral properties" out in the world like there are physical properties. Morality is relative to the society and time and other things. I am just trying to see and hear a defense from those who are talking about the decline of "Absolutes" and criticizing the "moral relativists."

Dang Jim, I can't argue with you if we are going to agree.

 

[mr.t]

Morality is in the eye of the beholder. You can not judge the past with today's standards.
Abolitionists said that slavery was immoral. Slaveowners felt that slavery was perfectly acceptable, because the Old Testament said it was. Now, we know that slavery is not acceptable. What I or you judge as immoral is what it is. Others may feel the opposite.

 

[St. Widge]

That is more in line with what I think Mayberry Saint. I don;t believe their are any "moral properties" out in the world like there are physical properties. Morality is relative to the society and time and other things. I am just trying to see and hear a defense from those who are talking about the decline of "Absolutes" and criticizing the "moral relativists."

Oh what the heck, I'll give it a shot. I'm not sure if I believe this fully or not, but here goes:

What if those who believe in moral absolutes argue that morality is essentially some sort of combination of Platonic and Kantian Metaphysics/Epistemology? What I mean is there are moral absolutes that really exist, it's just that we can not fully understand them. All we see are the shadows of those absolutes and we slowly come to learn them over time, but may never see the real absolute morality. We see morality differently at different times because of the evolution of the type of people that we are.

 

[MayberrySaint]

Not being a Christian, I may be way off...but I have always felt that Christianity seems to focus so much on sin and everyone is a sinner and that we all need to ask for forgiveness. I really don't understand the focus on sin or immorality.
In the Buddhist philosophy, there are certain precepts or "morals" that should be followed similar to Christianity...Do not harm other living beings, speak truth, etc. but the focus is more on practicing moral behavior as opposed to assuming we are all going to sin and need forgiveness from a higher power. Morality comes from within...not laid down by societal beliefs.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I would say there is an absolute moral imperative, but how we practice that changes. And the hope is that humanity is becoming more moral as time goes on.

The moral imperative, which I think I'm borrowing from Kant, is to basically treat each person as something of absolute respect.

So, you can look at morality in both relativistic terms, in context of present day society -- or against a universal standard. Against the universal standard we as a society are still terribly immoral.

 

[St. Widge]

Not being a Christian, I may be way off...but I have always felt that Christianity seems to focus so much on sin and everyone is a sinner and that we all need to ask for forgiveness. I really don't understand the focus on sin or immorality.
In the Buddhist philosophy, there are certain precepts or "morals" that should be followed similar to Christianity...Do not harm other living beings, speak truth, etc. but the focus is more on practicing moral behavior as opposed to assuming we are all going to sin and need forgiveness from a higher power. Morality comes from within...not laid down by societal beliefs.

Makes perfect sense to me, but then again, I'm not a Christian either.

 

[JimEverett]

I would say there is an absolute moral imperative, but how we practice that changes. And the hope is that humanity is becoming more moral as time goes on.

The moral imperative, which I think I'm borrowing from Kant, is to basically treat each person as something of absolute respect.

So, you can look at morality in both relativistic terms, in context of present day society -- or against a universal standard. Against the universal standard we as a society are still terribly immoral.

A moral imerative has the same problems. I mean Kant believed in was something implanted by God - which seems like an easy way out of explanation. But even if you believe it follows logically or naturally from "reason" it seems pretty easy to come up with moral choices on which plenty of otherwise reasonable people disagree.

 

[Three Monkeys]

Makes perfect sense to me, but then again, I'm not a Christian either.

Makes sense to me. And I am a Christian. Or a Catholic. Sort of. Are they the same thing?

I think the greatest extent of disagreement is probably caught up in the semantics of Jim asking if morality is relative and Saintman answering that it may be contextual or situational.

I think level-headed people of today (regardless of race, religion, political affiliation, Saints fan or non-Saints fan) would agree that slavery was wrong, even in the context of the southern plantations of 250 years ago. But to those in power 250 years, it wasn't even a consideration.

On the other hand, we can probably have a good argument about which of those people struggling to survive in the aftermath of Katrina was acting morally or immorally. Is it immoral if I "steal" a loaf of bread to feed my children? Is it immoral if I steal a loaf of bread and a box twinkies to feed my kids?

But to say that immorality doesn't exist would be an absolute in and of itself. Without the immorality, there would be no morality, and our deed performed in a vacuum. And humans with emotion, I don't think we (or most of us) are capable of this.

I think Jim has the nexus of the issue and Saintman provides the conclusion of the thought. Morality is indeed relative but to the context of any particular situation. And that situation (or its defintion) may change with time or place.


Wow. I think my headache is gone. Thanks guys.

 

[JimEverett]

But to say that immorality doesn't exist would be an absolute in and of itself. Without the immorality, there would be no morality, and our deed performed in a vacuum. And humans with emotion, I don't think we (or most of us) are capable of this..

I am not sure I follow this. When I use the word "Absolute" I am using it in the way I believe others use it - meaning moral properties that have an objective existence out in the world separate from human beings or anything else. Thus an assertion that those properties don;t exist certainly wouldn;t mean that you are claiming the existence of those properties or anything similar - right?
And I don't see how it follows that if there is no such thing as morality that our deeds are "performed in a vacuum." I am not sure I even understand what that means.

I think Jim has the nexus of the issue and Saintman provides the conclusion of the thought. Morality is indeed relative but to the context of any particular situation. And that situation (or its defintion) may change with time or place.


.

What you are saying is the definition of relativism. "Morality is relative to the context of time and place." Meaning morality isn;t timeless, it isn;t objective, it doesn;t exist apart from human beings.
Or am I missing something?