Moral Relativism (1 Viewer)

[Three Monkeys]

Jim,

In your initial post you formed the following question: "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?"

And later you say, "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?"

My vacuum point is this: Your quote clearly suggests that morality doesn't exist. Adn if morality doesn't exist and you are dealing in absolutes then there is no corresponding immorality.

Is the absolute you are trying to discuss a standard that we can pick up at Barnes and Noble? Which, it seems, everybody agrees there isn't.

Or is your absolute that "morality does not exist in the world"?

From you last post, I'm gathering your absolute is the former. That said, regardless whether it's relative or absolute, it (a presumed act) is something. Regardless of whether we call it morality or immorality or a cucumber, it (the act) is something upon which various judgments will be made.

And again, if your absolute is the Barnes and Noble book of moral behavior standards, then I think we all agree with each other that this doesn't exist.

 

[Taurus]

Of course there's a moral absolute...for humans, it's the survival of humanity. Without that, all other moral concerns are moot. For dolphins, the answer would be dolphin survival, etc. etc.

On second thought, I don't know if that qualifies as an 'absolute' or more of a 'bedrock foundation'.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

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?

I haven't read the other replies but one problem I see with the basic idea is the fact that the founding fathers were not monolithic in opinion. Jefferson tried to outlaw slavery, South Carolina said the wouldn't sign on and he had to fall back.

It's the problem with so many founding father arguments. Which founding father are we referencing because they had some very very different opinions on what needed to be done. The end result was a compromise among them.

So were the founding fathers moral? Some were and some weren't.

 

[Inkspot47]

It can be summed up in 2 words...maybe 3, you'll have to ask a gramar nazi...we're humans.

What was moral 1,000 years ago is not moral now, what is moral now will not be moral 1,000 years from now.

As 3monkeys says, it IS something. Just not easy to measure or capture in a book.

 

[jimwnola]

Don't think I understand your point.

If absolute good exists, and absolute bad exists, you still have humans that imperfectly move things in one direction or the other. A good person is simply one who does more toward bring the world to a better place, than the opposite.

I can't answer the question regarding the existence of an absolute moral imperative, or not. However, impefect "good" people and absolute morality can co-exist.

 

[MLU]

>>Morality is relative to the society and time and other things.

I think you hit it. In some parts of the world it's immoral to not have the right to kill a woman for certains acts in Pakistan and in American it would get you a spot on Daytime Television.

 

[RSF]

I think I get what you guys are saying. Like, it's wrong to kick a guy in the face, but if there's a black widow spider on his nose, it would be okay to kick him in the face to kill the spider so the spider won't kill him. In that instance, kicking him in the face would be morally right unless we were living 1,000 years in the future when spiders become more intelligent than us. Then, it would be wrong.

 

[Loose Cannon]

Morality is not a fable, it's just that those who preach it rarely practice it, and those who practice it rarely preach it. If you have good morals, you know it, and you don't need to talk about it. But I truly believe that there are people that are morally virtuous. You just don't see them in the paper.

Cliche? Yeah. True? Yeah.

Also, stains gone.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

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.

Oh, I completely agree -- I started a thread once stating that there is no such thing as absolute individual morality without a god or some sort of metaphysical construct.

I also said in another thread about what would happen if it was proven without a doubt that there is no god, that if I did not believe in a god, I'd probably switch my philosophical outlook from a Kantian viewpoint to a Nietzschen (sp?) one.

Basically, the concept of absolute individual morality is a non-starter without a god of some sort. Societal morals can still be tied to species survival.

 

[Mamba]

I'm of the opinion that there is a very basic standard of morality (that exists apart from ourselves) that doesn't necessarily change. Cultures change. And as cultures change, the way they conform (or don't conform) to morality changes. If one culture thousands of years ago sees murder and rape as socially acceptable, that doesn't mean they don't have an underlying sense that murder and rape are wrong. They just choose to ignore it and make up their morality standards. If you're going to say there are no moral absolutes, you can't base your argument on the behavior of past cultures. Most people choose to make up their own standards of morality, so yes, to them, morality is relative. Yet, just because you ignore a moral absolute (such as rape is wrong), doesn't mean it disappears. If moral absolutes exist, they exist beyond and apart from ourselves. By definition, we can't change them even if we tried. We can only change our behavior and response to them. And the more we ignore them, the more callous we become to them.

Let's face it: eventually, a discussion like this will become the familiar EE Christian/Atheist/Agnostic debate, and a lot of people (myself included) are kind of burnt out on that.

 

[tenordas]

Jim,
I can't speak for all Christians, but I'll give you my take on it:

First and foremost, the Scriptures tell us clearly that NO human being is morally perfect or upright. Therefore, anyone screaming about the "decline of morality" just isn't paying attention. Declining from what? Society has never been morally upright nor will it ever be. Being morally "correct" is something for which each individual must strive. We can't expect society to do it for us.
Second, as a Chrfistian, I don't believe I can get there without turning myself over to G-d. Even then, I know I cannot get there because I still will struggle with my selfish (and selfishness is the heart of sinfulness and immorality) nature. I have to take Jesus and the Holy Spirit into my heart and try my best to empty it of my own desires. This is an almost impossible task, but a noble one. IMHO, the ultimate one. All morality flows from doing this. When I empty myself, I find it easier to focus on how to help other people. When I center on my own wants and desires, I find I am more out of touch with the needs of others.
Third, yes, I believe in "absolutes" if you will. I agree with the philosophy that things either "are" or they "aren't," i.e. either there is a G-d or there isn't. What I believe doesn't change the fact of the matter. The truth is what the truth is. I can say there is not a computer in front of me right now, but it doesn't change the fact that there is. I understand 'relativism' and perspective, but ulimately I don't believe they have real bearing on factual things. Certainly, my perceptions colour how I see things and people and how I react to them, but it still doesn't change the basic nature of anything.
Yes, our forefathers were basically immoral people. So are we, so am I. I respect them as people who tried to overcome their shortcomings and make a difference in the world. I can only hope to be half as successful as they were in making a difference in lives of people around me, helping them to a better life and pointing them toward the G-d of salvation that overcomes the world. That's the mission of Christianity. A lot of people forget that and rely on "self-righteousness" and "moral superiority," but the real truth of what Jesus told us (getting into absolutes again) is that none of us are morally superior to each other and in fact, those who believe they are morally superior are the least moral of anyone and the furthest from G-d: "Blessed are the destitute in Spirit" because they understand what they are and their absolute need for G-d.

MayberrySaint posted: "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."
Actually, Mayberry, that last statement was the whole point of Jesus' argument with the Pharisees. Buddhist philosophy is following the same lines as what Jesus said. It's easy not to know this when you see certain "televangelists" and others screaming judgement, etc., but the real message of Jesus was that we must empty ourselves to be filled with the righteousness of G-d rather than filling ourselves with our own perceived merits.

I hope I have provided a reasonable answer to your question, Jim! No, I do not believe in "relative truth," but neither do I believe that any human being has the right to stand in judgement and condemn his fellow human being for his "immorality." That is for G-d. My job is a Christian is to serve my fellow man and show him the loving face of G-d so he will want to empty himself of his immorality and fill himself with the loving Spirit, too. It's a never-ending task that none of can truly live up to, but as I said, it is the greatest task we can take on.

 

[DadsDream]

My daughter called me up this morning and said she owed me a cussing.

I gave her a copy of Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" for Christmas.

 

[JimEverett]

Jim,


My vacuum point is this: Your quote clearly suggests that morality doesn't exist. Adn if morality doesn't exist and you are dealing in absolutes then there is no corresponding immorality. .

This is where I get lost. I am talking about things that exist. When I say "absolute" I mean something like - "a moral property that has objective existence in the world that is not relative to time, place, or the existence of ther things like human beings." So if I am saying those things don;t exist then how I am I "dealing in" them? I would agree that if you are committed to saying moral properties don;t exist then it stand to reason that means essentially that immoral properties do not exist.

Is the absolute you are trying to discuss a standard that we can pick up at Barnes and Noble? Which, it seems, everybody agrees there isn't.

Or is your absolute that "morality does not exist in the world"?

From you last post, I'm gathering your absolute is the former. That said, regardless whether it's relative or absolute, it (a presumed act) is something. Regardless of whether we call it morality or immorality or a cucumber, it (the act) is something upon which various judgments will be made.

And again, if your absolute is the Barnes and Noble book of moral behavior standards, then I think we all agree with each other that this doesn't exist.

I am not sure what a "standard" is that can be picked up at a Barnes & Noble. I know that you can pick up books, calendars, coffee, magazines and other things there, so in some sense - yes, that is what I am asking about. I think most of us would agree that those things have an objective existence. They have physical properties that are seemingly independent of the existence of human beings, and will retain at least some of those properties throughout time until something is done which separates some or all of those physical properties and turns them into something else.
Are there such things as moral properties that are akin to that? In which case those existed 300 years ago and will exist 50,000 years from now. Or are they relative to the time or culture or group of things (like humans). That is what I am asking about.

 

[JimEverett]

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.

My belief is that a Platonist most definitely would say that the forefathers were immoral. Platonists are moral realists par excellence.

But the Platonist has the huge problem of explaining just what the hell his universals are. I mean it seems real easy to say morality exists as a universal up there in the sky. But exactly what that universal is and how it can have any effect on our world seems hard to unravel unless those things are physical properties that are seemingly the only things that have existence here.

 

[saintjay]

Tenordas,

Excellent. I was going to post on this, but I think you covered it quite well.