A Refutation of Moral Relativism
I believe that we should reject the idea of moral relativism for several reasons. All of these reasons can be summed up in the overly generalized, not really accurate, statement: No one actually believes it.
Now of course any statement that makes this broad of a claim cannot be accurate but the preceding statement isn’t actually as broad as it sounds. The truth is that true moral relativists are hard to find. This is because true moral relativism is quite a horrifying thing. It requires an almost unbelievable amount of narcissism.
As previously stated, moral relativism is the idea that morality is not a real thing and that we have just been conditioned to believe what we currently believe about right and wrong. The problem is that the vast majority of people who claim to believe this actually believe that there is one absolute good that should be elevated above the rest. The most common, and perhaps most noble version of relative moral relativism is that we should do what is best for society as a whole. It is not the only maxim however, appeals have been made to survival of humanity, progressing the human race, promoting the strong by eliminating the weak. A true relativist realizes that morality, if up to society, is really up to the individual. He would always do whatever he wanted regardless of the effect on society or survival of the human race.
Some say a true relativist would want to promote the survival of the species in order to increase their chances of survival but why should he care if anyone survives besides him? Very few people would be ok with essentially sacrificing the good of the whole human race in order to live the way they wanted, but the moral relativist has no grounds to condemn such behavior. To go a step further, the moral relativist cannot claim that there even is a good of humanity.
Most moral relativists, as stated above, are really absolutists who have just chosen another maxim to live their lives by than that of the current status quo. But that, argues the relative relativist, is the exact point, our maxims have changed over time where once we valued piety we now value individual liberties. We once valued combat ability but now we value argumentative ability. But a change in what a society values most does not necessarily mean a change in what a society sees as good. Piety is just a high level of integrity, combat ability is just an intense way of testing strength, individual liberty is merely saying to treat everyone fairly or to put it another way “Do unto others as you would have done unto you”, and argumentative ability is intelligence, wisdom, and tact. It may be true, maybe, that the amount of value we put on these things changes over time but the things themselves never change. Compare (if you will forgive me the cliche) apples and oranges. Apples may be worth more than oranges one day and less the next but no one is claiming that there is no such thing as fruit, merely that we value one over the other and someday for whatever reason we will value the other.
Another issue, and what I consider to be the most damning argument, is that a moral relativist on some level has to equate all moral actions. If good and bad is merely up to society then whatever society says goes. Meaning that in the 1800’s southern US, slavery was good and anyone who opposed it, say a slave, was a moral delinquent. So if promoting the good of society is something to be strived for then, at that point, slave owners should be lauded where slaves are condemned.
Most people are not this extreme however. Most relativists would claim that you could not call the slave immoral for going against what society said because there is no such thing as immoral. Now we have already established that most people do not think this way, even if they claim to, but let’s say for the sake of argument that they did. If a person truly believed this then he would say that all moral actions have the same value. What a slave owner did and what Harriet Tubman did are equally morally valuable, the same would go for saving the lives of a bunch of children and murdering those exact same children. There would be no moral scale, all things would be permissible. To a true moral relativist this would not be a problem, but even a true moral relativist would have to admit this is not the way most people think.
On a side note the moral outrage that we are experiencing in our culture at present is not a result of a return to moral absolutism but instead a result of increased embracement of moral relativism. Anger over a moral injustice can be very useful, a mom protecting her child from a dangerous person, Martin Luther King Jr. fighting for civil rights, even Jesus used anger to right wrongs. But these people knew how to be slow to anger and only use as much as was necessary when the time came (with the possible exception of the mother, don’t mess with a mother’s child). On the other hand you have outrage, which by definition is an extreme form of anger, it does not stem from a desire to see justice, but instead a desire to satisfy one's individual discomfort. Note that a frequently outraged person often does not care about injustices that don’t affect them or that wouldn’t get them much attention. Outrage demands that we meet the desire of the outraged at once and does not allow for the possibility of the outraged party being wrong. Even if the outraged party is right to be angry, their method of combating immorality is concerned less with fixing the injustice than it is giving the angry person what they want. This sort of thing is indicative of a mindset that says my idea of good is just as good as anyone else’s
Nothing I have said so far has been very revolutionary. The ideas I have presented above have been around for centuries and are so basic that it doesn’t take much philosophy to reach the same conclusion. Many non-philosophers, like me, have come to these conclusions very quickly. Yet many of them still subscribe to relativistic morals. This is because while almost no one is a true moral relativist there is a growing number of people who are intellectual relativists. A large amount of people have come to the conclusion that the only thing we know for sure is that we don’t know anything for sure. This comes, I believe, from an underdeveloped idea fed by an intense desire to live the lives we want, not the lives we should. This idea that we can’t know anything is specious at best.
For one, if stated as stated above, the speaker is admitting that something is in fact knowable. But of course the aforementioned statement is really just a quaint way of broadly summing up the actual idea at hand. If the actual idea is that nothing is knowable then the only thing we have to do to disprove this theory is prove that at least one thing is knowable. If one thing is knowable then all things are knowable.
When searching for a knowable thing one might be tempted to use facts such as the sky is blue, or one plus one equals two, but a post knowledge thinker would merely claim that the only reason that we say the sky is blue is because of our environment it may well be possible that there are people somewhere in the world who have the same understanding of blue but see the sky as bright yellow, we don’t know that this isn’t the case. Or in the case of one plus one equals two, because numbers are given their value by us, we can’t truly know if this is the way the universe works or if we made a mistake in numerical value. The key, I believe, lies in the pithy little saying from earlier. If nothing is knowable then, “the only thing we know for sure is that we don’t know anything for sure”, cannot be true. We cannot know that nothing is knowable if nothing is knowable. The phrase “We can’t know anything for sure”, is either true or false and we know that it cannot possibly be true. Therefore it must be false, there is no third option.
So there it is, something that we know for sure. There is no theoretical way around this and if we know this one thing then we can theoretically learn everything. All questions have answers and we know that we can answer one of these questions. So we must necessarily have the potential to know the answers to the rest. For the only obstacle in our way was the idea that we couldn’t know anything and we’ve just cleared it.
Now you may be wondering what any of this has to do with moral relativism. The reason I went through this whole process is that the modern moral relativist does not claim that there is no such thing as morality, but instead that we cannot know what is right or wrong, as if that’s a legitimate reason to abandon morality. We have just proven that it is theoretically possible to know what is right and wrong, but how. If one looks back at the history of civilization one can see values that transcend the ages from the ancient Babylonians to modern day Americans.
Essentially every culture has valued loyalty, integrity, strength, fairness, respect, honesty and more. True there were cultures that raped and pillaged but I would be willing to bet a large sum of money that you would not find one that believed they were helping the people they attacked. Certainly none of these raiding cultures would want this to happen to their own people. Even pirates had laws that they followed.
The transcendence of these morals prove to us that not only does morality exist but that it is possible to know it’s will. We may not always get it right, take slavery for example, but morality very clearly can and should be studied and promoted. If we continue down the path we are on, good people will cease to exist, humanity will be fully self serving, and if this mindset is followed to its end, humanity will eat itself. This appeal to moral “freedom” is really an appeal to survival of the fittest. Many people in America claim to promote progress and yet favor moral relativism. But if we adopted this mindset then the powerful would rule everyone and the weak would have no chance. We would actually be going in the opposite direction of where we wanted to be headed. Think of it this way, imagine that there was an idea that said there really is no such thing as science, and that that idea took hold. Would we not expect scientific progress to stop? In the same way, if our goal is to progress morality the only way forward is through absolutes.
Moral relativism claims that morality is merely a whim of ours, so anyone who was powerful enough could impose their whims on us and we would have no basis to condemn them for doing so. Moral absolutism, however, claims that there is a moral law that all must follow, no matter whether they are a king, an activist group, or even a god. Absolute morality frees us from the yoke of the oppressor. We now have grounds to fight him. No matter how powerful a man gets there is always something more powerful which we can cling to and fight from. We can rally people who are being oppressed or mistreated, but how do we rally people if oppression and mistreatment do not actually exist? If ever we hope to achieve moral freedom for all then the bar must be standard and impartial and this can never be achieved by relative ethics.
Now of course any statement that makes this broad of a claim cannot be accurate but the preceding statement isn’t actually as broad as it sounds. The truth is that true moral relativists are hard to find. This is because true moral relativism is quite a horrifying thing. It requires an almost unbelievable amount of narcissism.
As previously stated, moral relativism is the idea that morality is not a real thing and that we have just been conditioned to believe what we currently believe about right and wrong. The problem is that the vast majority of people who claim to believe this actually believe that there is one absolute good that should be elevated above the rest. The most common, and perhaps most noble version of relative moral relativism is that we should do what is best for society as a whole. It is not the only maxim however, appeals have been made to survival of humanity, progressing the human race, promoting the strong by eliminating the weak. A true relativist realizes that morality, if up to society, is really up to the individual. He would always do whatever he wanted regardless of the effect on society or survival of the human race.
Some say a true relativist would want to promote the survival of the species in order to increase their chances of survival but why should he care if anyone survives besides him? Very few people would be ok with essentially sacrificing the good of the whole human race in order to live the way they wanted, but the moral relativist has no grounds to condemn such behavior. To go a step further, the moral relativist cannot claim that there even is a good of humanity.
Most moral relativists, as stated above, are really absolutists who have just chosen another maxim to live their lives by than that of the current status quo. But that, argues the relative relativist, is the exact point, our maxims have changed over time where once we valued piety we now value individual liberties. We once valued combat ability but now we value argumentative ability. But a change in what a society values most does not necessarily mean a change in what a society sees as good. Piety is just a high level of integrity, combat ability is just an intense way of testing strength, individual liberty is merely saying to treat everyone fairly or to put it another way “Do unto others as you would have done unto you”, and argumentative ability is intelligence, wisdom, and tact. It may be true, maybe, that the amount of value we put on these things changes over time but the things themselves never change. Compare (if you will forgive me the cliche) apples and oranges. Apples may be worth more than oranges one day and less the next but no one is claiming that there is no such thing as fruit, merely that we value one over the other and someday for whatever reason we will value the other.
Another issue, and what I consider to be the most damning argument, is that a moral relativist on some level has to equate all moral actions. If good and bad is merely up to society then whatever society says goes. Meaning that in the 1800’s southern US, slavery was good and anyone who opposed it, say a slave, was a moral delinquent. So if promoting the good of society is something to be strived for then, at that point, slave owners should be lauded where slaves are condemned.
Most people are not this extreme however. Most relativists would claim that you could not call the slave immoral for going against what society said because there is no such thing as immoral. Now we have already established that most people do not think this way, even if they claim to, but let’s say for the sake of argument that they did. If a person truly believed this then he would say that all moral actions have the same value. What a slave owner did and what Harriet Tubman did are equally morally valuable, the same would go for saving the lives of a bunch of children and murdering those exact same children. There would be no moral scale, all things would be permissible. To a true moral relativist this would not be a problem, but even a true moral relativist would have to admit this is not the way most people think.
On a side note the moral outrage that we are experiencing in our culture at present is not a result of a return to moral absolutism but instead a result of increased embracement of moral relativism. Anger over a moral injustice can be very useful, a mom protecting her child from a dangerous person, Martin Luther King Jr. fighting for civil rights, even Jesus used anger to right wrongs. But these people knew how to be slow to anger and only use as much as was necessary when the time came (with the possible exception of the mother, don’t mess with a mother’s child). On the other hand you have outrage, which by definition is an extreme form of anger, it does not stem from a desire to see justice, but instead a desire to satisfy one's individual discomfort. Note that a frequently outraged person often does not care about injustices that don’t affect them or that wouldn’t get them much attention. Outrage demands that we meet the desire of the outraged at once and does not allow for the possibility of the outraged party being wrong. Even if the outraged party is right to be angry, their method of combating immorality is concerned less with fixing the injustice than it is giving the angry person what they want. This sort of thing is indicative of a mindset that says my idea of good is just as good as anyone else’s
Nothing I have said so far has been very revolutionary. The ideas I have presented above have been around for centuries and are so basic that it doesn’t take much philosophy to reach the same conclusion. Many non-philosophers, like me, have come to these conclusions very quickly. Yet many of them still subscribe to relativistic morals. This is because while almost no one is a true moral relativist there is a growing number of people who are intellectual relativists. A large amount of people have come to the conclusion that the only thing we know for sure is that we don’t know anything for sure. This comes, I believe, from an underdeveloped idea fed by an intense desire to live the lives we want, not the lives we should. This idea that we can’t know anything is specious at best.
For one, if stated as stated above, the speaker is admitting that something is in fact knowable. But of course the aforementioned statement is really just a quaint way of broadly summing up the actual idea at hand. If the actual idea is that nothing is knowable then the only thing we have to do to disprove this theory is prove that at least one thing is knowable. If one thing is knowable then all things are knowable.
When searching for a knowable thing one might be tempted to use facts such as the sky is blue, or one plus one equals two, but a post knowledge thinker would merely claim that the only reason that we say the sky is blue is because of our environment it may well be possible that there are people somewhere in the world who have the same understanding of blue but see the sky as bright yellow, we don’t know that this isn’t the case. Or in the case of one plus one equals two, because numbers are given their value by us, we can’t truly know if this is the way the universe works or if we made a mistake in numerical value. The key, I believe, lies in the pithy little saying from earlier. If nothing is knowable then, “the only thing we know for sure is that we don’t know anything for sure”, cannot be true. We cannot know that nothing is knowable if nothing is knowable. The phrase “We can’t know anything for sure”, is either true or false and we know that it cannot possibly be true. Therefore it must be false, there is no third option.
So there it is, something that we know for sure. There is no theoretical way around this and if we know this one thing then we can theoretically learn everything. All questions have answers and we know that we can answer one of these questions. So we must necessarily have the potential to know the answers to the rest. For the only obstacle in our way was the idea that we couldn’t know anything and we’ve just cleared it.
Now you may be wondering what any of this has to do with moral relativism. The reason I went through this whole process is that the modern moral relativist does not claim that there is no such thing as morality, but instead that we cannot know what is right or wrong, as if that’s a legitimate reason to abandon morality. We have just proven that it is theoretically possible to know what is right and wrong, but how. If one looks back at the history of civilization one can see values that transcend the ages from the ancient Babylonians to modern day Americans.
Essentially every culture has valued loyalty, integrity, strength, fairness, respect, honesty and more. True there were cultures that raped and pillaged but I would be willing to bet a large sum of money that you would not find one that believed they were helping the people they attacked. Certainly none of these raiding cultures would want this to happen to their own people. Even pirates had laws that they followed.
The transcendence of these morals prove to us that not only does morality exist but that it is possible to know it’s will. We may not always get it right, take slavery for example, but morality very clearly can and should be studied and promoted. If we continue down the path we are on, good people will cease to exist, humanity will be fully self serving, and if this mindset is followed to its end, humanity will eat itself. This appeal to moral “freedom” is really an appeal to survival of the fittest. Many people in America claim to promote progress and yet favor moral relativism. But if we adopted this mindset then the powerful would rule everyone and the weak would have no chance. We would actually be going in the opposite direction of where we wanted to be headed. Think of it this way, imagine that there was an idea that said there really is no such thing as science, and that that idea took hold. Would we not expect scientific progress to stop? In the same way, if our goal is to progress morality the only way forward is through absolutes.
Moral relativism claims that morality is merely a whim of ours, so anyone who was powerful enough could impose their whims on us and we would have no basis to condemn them for doing so. Moral absolutism, however, claims that there is a moral law that all must follow, no matter whether they are a king, an activist group, or even a god. Absolute morality frees us from the yoke of the oppressor. We now have grounds to fight him. No matter how powerful a man gets there is always something more powerful which we can cling to and fight from. We can rally people who are being oppressed or mistreated, but how do we rally people if oppression and mistreatment do not actually exist? If ever we hope to achieve moral freedom for all then the bar must be standard and impartial and this can never be achieved by relative ethics.
Comments (66)
It's from “The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener”, great book, I highly recommend it.
“ My demand upon the philosopher is known, that he take his stand beyond good and evil and leave the illusion of moral judgment beneath himself. This demand follows from an insight which I was the first to formulate: that there are altogether no moral facts. Moral judgments agree with religious ones in believing in realities which are no realities. Morality is merely-an-interpretation of certain phenomena:more precisely, a misinterpretation. Moral judgments, like religious ones, belong to a stage of ignorance at which the very concept of the real and the distinction between what is real and imaginary, are still lacking; thus "truth," at this stage, designates all sorts of things which we today call "imaginings." Moral judgments are therefore never to be taken literally: so understood, they always contain mere absurdity.
Morality, insofar as it condemns for its own sake, and not out of regard for the concerns, considerations, and contrivances of life, is a specific error with which one ought to have no pity-an idiosyncrasy of degenerates which has caused immeasurable harm. We others, we immoralists, have, conversely, made room in our hearts for every kind of understanding, comprehending, and approving. We do not easily negate; We make it a point of honor to be affirmers.”
Friedrich Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols
Simple, one can argue that from one’s own perspective one set of beliefs is preferable to another , without assuming that this perspective must be shoved down the throat of those who don’t see things in the same way. Put differently , one can assume that each of us is a sense-making being aiming to anticipate events, that what is in our best interest is understanding and assimilating the world. We only reject others to the extent that we are unable to understand their ways of thinking and acting. The issue of ‘evil’, then, is not one of ‘bad’ intent but of a failure of comprehension.
The mistake of moralists is to assume that those on the opposite sides of moral or political debates can be grasping the ‘facts’ identically and yet reach different ethical conclusions based on ‘selfishness’ or some other unctuous accusation that we make of those whose thinking is inscrutable to us.
What is needed is to attempt to help other to see, from their own perspective , what we find to be more insightful in dealing with people, rather than resorting to condemnation and moralistic blame. This rejects the concept of ‘universal guidelines’ because it assumes
there are an infinity of ways of construing reality, and the usefulness of an particular way of dealing with others must be validated relative to each individual’s perspective. I think we can talk of a cultural
progress in empathy , but as a personalistic pragmatic evolution and not a ‘universal principle’.
I fully agree with you. The fact that moral relativism is so appealing is likely due to the abuse of moral "authority" by governments or the Church and so on. What I am suggesting is not a strict enforcement of moral codes, as I see fit. Because how do I know that I am right? What i am suggesting is that it is possible for me to be wrong. We need a study of morality, which would include consideration of varying viewpoints. We need to study it in the same way we study math or science. You would not say that I am forcing it down your throat, if i insisted that 1+1=2.
I will concede moral absolutist proponents often do try to force their beliefs down people's throats. But I would argue that this is not a necessary component of a belief in moral laws.
If I might chip in to say - great thread, and I wholly agree - that both moral and epistemic relativism are toxic, and it's great to see that view being expressed so articulately. I immediately stole your C S Lewis quote for another thread. So, thanks for that.
Quoting Fides Quaerens Intellectum
Indeed! Having fallen into nihilism at one time - I used much the same rationale to escape the gaping maw of valuelessness; by realising, at last that nihilism upholds no value that requires one accept nihilism.
I think Nietzsche's mistake however, was his assumption that man in a state of nature was an amoral brute - a self serving superman - fooled by the weak. Nietzsche knew very little of human evolutionary history. Man lived in hunter gatherer tribal groups that could not have survived if, morally - the individual were Nietzschean.
Quoting Fides Quaerens Intellectum
Make sure you understand what you are embracing in embracing Nietzsche’s ‘view’ , because it is less a ‘view’ that it is a description of change and becoming itself.
His ‘view’ is the principle of will to power. What that means is that humans are value posting creatures. He doesn’t mean we churn out value systems until we find the right one. There is no right or wrong value system. What matters is the movement from one system to the next, not the content of any particular system. His ‘view’, then, is split within itself as both the embrace of each value system as we fall into it or posit it , and the unraveling of that system and its replacement by another.
We are all both creators and destroyers, but not ‘deliberately’ so. Regardless of what moral values we will, we find ourselves constantly overcoming ourselves , and our previous values. So its not a question of choosing his values over moral realism, but of recognizing that all value systems pre-suppose what Nietzsche is telling us. He doesn’t condemn us if we don’t get it , he is just saying that he thinks we would be healthier humans if we did recognize this. You can think of his approach as a kind of genealogical analysis of the history of morality. He’s offering us what he thinks is a clarifying way of looking at the very idea of morality. It is ‘true’ for everyone, but in a different way for each , and in the way that endless self-transformation is ‘true’
This is the passage of Gardner that you quoted, in context. If the moral relativist says that no moral values can be better than others on the ground that they emerge from different cultures, since their moral relativism also comes from a particular culture, it also cannot be better than others, according to what the relativist himself says.
If so, why should we believe what they say? I guess it would be a matter of taste and philosophical preference.
Quoting Joshs
I agree with this, however suppose a moral relativist (I don't know if you are one) said this, then I ask:
Why? How does the moral relativist know that it is better (morally) to trust his own ethical perspective rather than someone else's? If he is consistent, it would seem that he'll have to say that he also doesn't know that.
But in that case, his decision to prefer his own perspective rather than other people's perspective is arbitrary, and therefore the moralist may retort that he has no right to say that that is “needed”.
Whehther you are right or wrong is entirely relative to your own interpretation of the world for your purposes and whether your moral hypotheses continue to validate
themselves ( appear useful and predictive ) over time
relative to your outlook , regardless of what others in your culture may think is true or false. I don’t think your mora philosophy should be a matter or social consensus , even if , practically speaking, the political realization must involve consensus. Of course, it is important that you use others in your cultural as sources of evidence and validation for your view as much as possible. it this is different than assuming there is a ‘true’ or ‘false’ of moral valuation in some universal objective sense.
You and I have no choice but to trust our own perspective because that is the only perspective that we have. Even when we trust someone else’s , we still have to interpret the other’s view though our own perspective , so there’s no getting around a personalistic vantage.
Even when an entire culture assumes they are all following the same normative values , each is viewing it from their own vantage and interpretation, which is often invisible to them. Inevitably, and to their astonishment , they or someone else in their community is accused of straying from those values, and it never occurs to anyone that the issue is one of interpretation rather than deliberate deviation from the supposed true path.
The problem is the assumption of the idea of a true or universal or objective path. That is the source immorality, the positing of a true path in the fist place , rather than the straying from it.
Is this not the direction we are going in?
Do you think you can put your argument into a syllogism?
The problem of morality - which you have essentially described as a code of conduct - isn't resolved so much in how people behave and how they want to be treated, but in the justification of applied ethics. What would give someone the authority to say the ethical behaviour of any given tribe or culture is wrong?
Quoting Joshs
If that is what you mean, then there is no meaning in calling a perspective “one's own perspective” rather than “someone else's perspective”, since it couldn't be any other way.
Why do moral relativists bother trying to suggest that others should act differently then, if everyone, without exception, acts according to their own perspective? There is no point for the moral relativist to say anything about moral relativism then, since so interpreted it's just trivial.
But the question is precisely: Does the moral relativist claim that we should not trust someone else (A moralist, for example) who says that the moral relativist is wrong?
If so, how do they know that that is a better way of acting than its opposite?
If they don't know, shouldn't they be more cautious by not expressing their views, since they may be wrong? Shouldn't they suspend judgement? (Though I guess they would argue that this would also be a moral exhortation).
Here, It doesn't matter if you say that in both cases one would act according to one's own perspective, what matters is whether it is better to accept what others say (even dogmatically) after interpreting them and translating them to one's own perspective, or only to trust one's own moral ideas.
If the relativist says that one should not trust what the moralist says, he should tell us on what grounds he came to that conclusion if he wants to be convincing.
And another question: Why should I believe what you just said? (In the passage I quoted here)
If you say I don't have to believe you unless from my perspective I determine that you are right, then you'd be assuming that you are right without proof, since that is only true if what you said before is true, and your hypotetical response would be what is supposed to justify what you said before (what I quoted at the beggining) , making your argument circular and question begging.
And I would once again ask the same question, and this could go on forever.
This kind of self-referential paradox seems inescapable, since even if you say ad infinitum that you don't claim that I should believe you or that you know if what you say is true, I can always ask ad infinitum: How do you know that you are not claiming implicitly that I should believe you?
How do you know that you are not implicitly claiming that you know that what you say is morally preferable?
Of course, I can still make a distinction between my perspective and someone else’s , but only as filtered though my vantage on their outlook.
Quoting Amalac
I’m not a moral relativist. I side with those philosophers who don’t find concepts like morality and ethics to be coherent or useful. As I see it, the moral is supposed to pertain to matters of will and deliberate intent , of values, goals and subjective inclinations.
I reject the idea that there is such as thing as bad or immoral intent or evil will, only problems having to with ineffective interpersonal understanding.
As I understand it, moral relativists , and there are many on this site, do believe that intent can be distorted , subverted or corrupted, but they don’t believe that any universal rule or principle of the mora can ever be located, not Kant’s imperative or the golden rule. Kierkegaard and liberal theologians like him are compatible with certain forms of moral relativism, offering that though faith and action one can affirm that some transcendent idea of the good is at work, but not one that can ever be reduced to a rule or concept.
Quoting Amalac
I can’t answer this for moral relativists , but for myself and like-minded philosophers I will say that I don’t view theories, worldviews , values and other forms of knowledge as either right or wrong in any absolute way.
For me , all value systems are right in that they are useful to a community or individual in making of sense of and guiding their relationship with others. But as I mentioned , I believe that value systems like science , evolves. I believe that newer approaches mostly subsume older ones rather than simply proving them ‘wrong’. So if I ‘reject’ moral realism it s not that I think it is ‘wrong, but that I believe my ‘immoral’ approach enriches and transforms moral thinking. So am I ‘right’, and what would that mean? I think there are three possibilities with respect to any claim I make to having come upon a ‘better’ way. 1) My approach subsumes previous systems and so may be invisible and subject to misinterpretation by those who are not ready to assimilate its concepts.
2)My approach is just a re-invention of the wheel. It is just a variation on perspectives that are already out there.
3) My ideas are internally inconsistent and so don’t make sense to others.
If my approach indeed subsumes other approaches and goes beyond them in some way, I should be able to demonstrate this to myself , if not to others, by demonstrating to them that I fully understand their position and can see the world in a way that closely approximates their thinking. This is up to them , not me, to confirm. So what I’ve done is shown myself that I have options of acting that they don’t. I can see the world in the way they do, as a place that is amenable to moral determinations, but also via my enriched perspective, which sees what they see but also a lot more. [
quote="Amalac;514580"]How do you know that you are not implicitly claiming that you know that what you say is morally preferable?[/quote]
Quoting Amalac
It’s a matter of my lifting up a rock and asking you what you see. You describe a few insects and other things. I can see what you see but also much more. I know you can’t see what I can see although I try to point those items out. Why can’t you see them? Is it simply an empirical or sensory question? It gets complicated here because we have to get into issues of philosophy of science, materialism vs idealism vs phenomenology.
I don’t find concepts of truth and falsity with respect to issues of empirical fact to be any more useful than with respect to values, Since I follow those who recognize the value-laden ness of facts.
What we strive for in ‘moral’ and empirical truth is not corresponding our ideas and values to an independently existing world , but co-constructing a world that is in a continual state of becoming, so facts
and values are creations that don’t mirror , but transformingly develop a world. We can invent any old world we want , but some of those construals will speak back to us more usefully than others.
Previously stated - where?
You are right that it's hard to imagine someone actually holding all the outrageous beliefs that you attribute to "true moral relativists." But then why do you waste so much effort beating on this strawman? And why do you insist on calling it "true moral relativism?" If anything, the closest thing that comes to mind is moral nihilism.
Quoting Fides Quaerens Intellectum
There's that "as stated above" again. Is this a cut-and-paste from somewhere?
As to why I point out the outrageous beliefs of true moral relativists, is to point out to those who claim to believe in it without giving it much thought, where their supposed worldview gets them. I was trying to point out that the "relative relativist" is an fact an absolutist. It is my belief that only total moral devotion or total moral abandonment make any rational sense.
However I didn't really make that very clear thanks for pointing that out.
:up:
1. Moral relativism claims that there is no independent moral standard.
2. Judgements of value cannot be made without an independent standard.
3. Actions have value.
4. Therefore moral relativism is false.
I think that's valid. I apologize if it isn't I am a philosophy novice.
The same thing that would give one the authority to tell someone that 1+1 doesn't equal 3. If the laws of morality are independent of me then I can appeal to the laws of morality to criticize someone's moral view. They also have the right to criticize mine. Granted moral judgments are not as simple as 1+1=2, they are going to take a lot of discussion and no one will likely ever be able to say that their morality is right. My argument is simply that there is a moral right and moral wrong, without which our moral rebukes, including the thought that we should not subscribe to set moral laws, are groundless.
Well, moral relativism could still be true even if no one believed it.
Quoting Fides Quaerens Intellectum
Not necessarily. A moral relativist may be conservative by nature, and may have simply come to the conclusion (upon reflection) that no moral claims are absolutely true.
Quoting Fides Quaerens Intellectum
You should really try to site some sources on this. Some moral relativists might claim this, but I am guessing that most sophisticated relativists would not. A sophisticated relativist may believe that morality has deep evolutionary/biological roots, but that specific moral claims are neither true nor false in any absolute sense.
---
There are many more similar comments that could made in response to your post. I feel that you should spend some time studying up on the subject in order to aim your critique at more sophisticated versions of the theory.
I don't have any philosophy background either so for what it's worth, my take. Thanks for the syllogism. It clarifies your argument.
quote="Fides Quaerens Intellectum;514651"]
1. Moral relativism claims that there is no independent moral standard.
2. Judgements of value cannot be made without an independent standard.
3. Actions have value.
4. Therefore moral relativism is false.[/quote]
2. is not accurate. Judgements are made according to cultural standards and custom and personal preferences - these are not objective but may be shared by many. Relativism does not deny there are independent standards, it just says that there are many of these standards and they are not shared, they differ between folks and assessing one against the other isn't possible.
There are a couple of additional points:
If we hold a position that there is a right way to behave morally but we may be unable to identify or justify this conclusively, then how is this different in practical terms to relativism? My default could be to accept any action until you demonstrate how it is wrong.
The strong intuition people have against certain taboos and actions perhaps says more about socialization and culture than anything else. You can say killing is wrong in almost all cultures but that is not specific enough. In some cultures infanticide is or was practiced, or human sacrifice/wife burning, etc. Killing is subject to interpretations. Drilling down into specific actions helps clarify the moral morass that is human behavior.
Objective ethics? They could be considered objective subject to an agreed presupposition. If you agree that all moral behavior should be assessed by their impact on human flourishing (for instance) then it may be possible to build close to objective standards. However, you have to agree to the presupposition. Therein lies a problem.
I may be mistaken but I don't believe that human sacrifices were ever done because they thought that human sacrifice in and of itself was a good thing. They were always done to gain favor from the gods or demonstrate a leaders power. The cliche example of sacrificing virgins in order to prevent a volcano was done not to promote sacrifice but rather to promote the health of the entire village.
You would not, I'm assuming, be ok with human sacrifice taking place today. But your aversion to the practice wouldn't be because you want everyone to die in a volcanic eruption. It would be because senseless killing is wrong and you do not believe that sacrificing a human would prevent natural disasters.
Quoting Tom Storm
I did not word my argument well. What I should have said is that any one person cannot claim to be right about morality. Any single person who claims to have all the moral answers is as foolish as a man who claims to have all the mathematical or scientific answers. However through study and discovery we, together, can be right about morality.
Also understanding that there is an answer we don't know is different from saying there is no answer at all. put it in terms of scientific discovery. What is the origin of life? We do not, and perhaps never wiil, know the answer but we study this only because we believe there is an answer? If we believed that there was no answer to the question we wouldn't give it a second thought. For example why is the Earth flat? Most of us do not believe the Earth is flat so we do not spend time trying to figure out the answer to the preceding question. There is no answer. My argument is that if you say that there is no morality then moral progress would stop.
Quoting Tom Storm
How would you demonstrate that it is wrong without an objective idea of wrong?
Quoting Tom Storm
Where do these cultural standards come from? From what I can see cultural standards are derived from absolutes. It is merely that one culture values on standard above the other. The early American south prioritized production over humanity. We rejected slavery not because we don't value production but because we value humanity so much more. You see all of the standards are the same it is just the amount of value we place on these standards that changes. I would argue that we should be able to put these standards in a hierarchy, and that fervent study of morality will teach us how to do so.
Many of the problems you've brought up with moral relativity are intellectually sound based on the belief but do not take into account the social, economic, cultural, biological circumstances which impose limitations on how moral relativism actually operates in the real world. Intellectually, a moral relativist can abandon social convention, act in accordance with what they think is right and essentially reinvent morality because, without an immutable moral code, there's nothing stopping them from doing that. However, in reality, there's a great deal stopping them from doing that.
Legally, culturally and socially, there could be severe consequences for me if I should fail to comply with established norms. My relationships could suffer, my finances could suffer, my opportunities reduced. I may invite ridicule, scorn and mockery by presenting my "out-there" ideas to others. Without going on about it, I can deviate from standard morality only if I'm in a position where I can avoid or resist these consequences and that's going to be difficult for most people.
Logically, biologically, psychologically, there are just some moral ideas that are really, let's say, philosophically formidable. You mention things like fairness, loyalty, integrity but what does a moral relativist need to abandon to genuinely go against many of these time tested values? I think in most cases, it's more than they're able but they would rarely want to in the first place. Even before society forces me to not be an asshole, I'm psychologically attuned to the concept of fairness, I'm more likely to be able to see merit in being a responsible and loyal person, I can see what the world would be like if certain values were abandoned. I'm not saying people can't choose the less travelled road but that what you likely consider the moral path is attractive for many reasons besides a philosophical belief in moral truth.
The moral relativist's intellectual freedom is simply insignificant in comparison to the outside pressure when it comes to the moulding of their moral outlook. Even if we started a new colony of hardcore, narcissistic moral relativists, we would definitely see them practice a very similar moral code to what exists today given time.
The driving force for changes in moral outlook has been changes in these outside circumstances. It's not about "getting it right", it's about understanding that morality is moulded through everchanging outside circumstances and there's no way to halt this. It matters as little that the slavers thought they were objectively morally correct that you might think such-and-such is objectively morally correct, time will change these outside circumstances and moral views will shift in accordance with these changes. History at least has the clear message that whether you think your views are objectively correct or subjective, those views are going to transform in time regardless.
Historically and today, moral absolutism has not actually been an impediment to the powerful and there's really no denying that. Kings literally viewed themselves as divine and saw opposition to them as very seriously morally condemnable. Moral relativism at least makes it obvious that the king is simply doing whatever is convenient for them and is just one person, moral absolutism made them believe that they were objectively correct for doing what they did. You can still see this today with religions like Islam in many countries, moral absolutism there unambiguously enshrines gender discrimination as a moral necessity. Across the world, many governments see homosexuality as objectively immoral, the oppressed homosexual has absolutely no recourse.
I think moral relativism is genuinely better for society than moral absolutism. Under moral absolutism, the stakes can go high, our disagreement is a literal fight for the moral goodness of our society whereas, under moral relativism, people can just accept that different people have different views and sometimes that's okay. Under moral relativism, saying something like "homosexuality is wrong" really demands some logical justification, because your moral opinion just doesn't matter that much when it's already accepted that people are going to disagree. Moral absolutism can be much more forceful because people who disagree with you are actually just morally wrong for doing so, that's not theory, that's just the reality in many countries. You are not entering a debate about i.e homosexuality, you are questioning a moral absolute and that makes things so difficult.
I think more relativistic societies are better places to live and more moral according to my views than societies that practice more absolute morality. I don't believe that's a coincidence, honestly and fairly debating moral issues is just more difficult when morality is absolute and dislodging harmful moral views is much more difficult.
Perhaps most importantly, moral absolutism is just a logically flawed concept, it will never be like science because science is the study of real-world implications whereas morality is a code for behaviour. Refuting a scientific fact without evidence is like banging your head against a wall and saying the wall doesn't exist, the reality described by the scientific fact still operates how it does regardless of your opinion. Whereas even if you say that honesty is objectively virtuous, regardless of your argumentation or proof, I can simply disagree with you. I can lie as I choose and whether that turns out well or poorly for me is independent of your opinion. Even God needed hell and heaven, otherwise, what does it matter if you disobey the commandments? They're just words.
And who would those people be? I mean, who would be the people who actually believe all the stuff you say they believe? Your mistake, I think, is in ascribing so many attributes to "true moral relativists" that hardly anyone would recognize themselves in your characterization. And that makes the whole project into an exercise in futility.
It would be better to target a more realistic position for your criticism, like you did here:
Quoting Fides Quaerens Intellectum
Now, "Moral relativism claims that there is no independent moral standard" is something that we could possibly work with - if it can be made clear what you mean by independent standard. Independent of what any people believe? As if it was woven into the fabric of the universe - or the mind of God?
But how does (2) follow? You give examples of broad trends and commonalities in moral beliefs, but how does that show that they stem from some mind-independent standards? What you describe is perfectly consistent with morality being a product (or byproduct) of human nature and history. Why would we need to appeal to anything beyond that to explain these facts?
Quoting Judaka
To this I would offer this CS Lewis quote.
What you say is true but under moral relativism what ground do you have to condemn the actions of, say, the Pharaohs who used slaves to build monuments to themselves?
Quoting Judaka
The only recourse I can see is for them to prove, or at least make a case for, the opposite absolute. "Homosexuality is wrong" is either a correct or incorrect statement. Which one it is is dependent upon a moral truth one way or the other. But if there is no moral truth then oppressive society is just as correct as the oppressed.
Quoting Judaka
In order to prove my point I ask you to answer the following questions based on this passage:
1. Why does it matter that we discuss morality fairly?
2. What do you mean by harmful?
No one believes this, that I know of. My point is that the horrific beliefs that I described are the end result of moral relativism. I have never met someone who would embrace the ideas I posed however. My intent with this argument was to point out that because moral relativism claims morality as an invention of humanity, almost no human, at least that I know of, would be ok with the morality that moral relativism represents.
Quoting SophistiCat
This is indeed what I mean by independent standard.
Quoting SophistiCat
This is an excerpt from another writing I did:
A person may think he circumvents morality by claiming that it is merely a creation of the weak to hold back the strong, and therefore should be abandoned. But if there is no actual morality then why should it matter if the weak hold back the strong? He would argue that it is for survival purposes, but why should the survival of humanity have any importance? Perhaps it’s time for us to bow out and let penguins rule the world.
The problem with this argument is that it seeks to disprove good, better, and best, by proving what is best. The arguer may not call it morality but his values are based on a prior existing good, namely survival. He does not appeal to the value all life should be protected but he does concede that some life should be. He draws his conclusion from an assumption that his readers will know survival to be good, how could this be though if goodness is not real?
PS-I understand that you are not claiming that morality is just a method for the weak to hold back the strong, but I hope this example illustrates my point.
Also if you would like a more intelligent argument that makes the same points I would encourage you to read "The Poison of Subjectivism" by CS Lewis. It is very short and you can find the whole thing online at various sources.
But if no one believes in this purely hypothetical "moral relativism," then (I keep coming back to this question) what is the point of railing against it? It seems that the real objective is a bait-and-switch. To wit:
Quoting Fides Quaerens Intellectum
The thesis that morality is the invention of humanity is not tantamount to the preposterous beliefs that you attribute to "true moral relativists." At least you haven't made that argument, you merely insinuated it.
Quoting Fides Quaerens Intellectum
Quoting Fides Quaerens Intellectum
Well, it illustrates some point, just not the one that you set out to prove. It is directed against moral nihilism, rather than the modest and morally-neutral thesis that morality is a human artefact.
How do you figure that? I think what societies develop is a shared response of prohibitions and interdictions (the law) for the nominal sake of preserving the society. People are always in disagreement about those laws (drug policy, gun ownership, gay marriage, etc).
Quoting Fides Quaerens Intellectum
The idea of the good may not resonate with a culture that bases ethics on that which pleases the gods. Good being whatever pleases God. There are many Christians today who hold this view - divine command theory.
Quoting Fides Quaerens Intellectum
My argument is that if you say there is a right answer but we have no way to discover it, this is functionally the same.
Quoting Fides Quaerens Intellectum
I think the central point of your argument is held in that sentence - a form of moral idealism. Kant being a famous exemplar of this view. And here I don't think you have yet produced a compelling argument. As we have seen morals are utterly different around the world. Killing, for instance, means different things in different cultures - some taboo, some not. Your job would be to demonstrate somehow that moral truths exists independently of custom and culture. Are you saying that true morality exists outside us somehow as separate from human nature - our job being to uncover it?
I am a moral relativist. Moral relativism is the view that the truth of a moral proposition can vary according to place and time, other things being equal. So, 'Xing in circumstances S is wrong' might be true today, but false tomorrow.
Moral relativism is not, then, equivalent to moral nihilism. The two are consistent - one can be a moral relativist 'and' a moral nihilist. But one can be a moral realist - such as myself - and a moral relativist.
Moral relativism is also often confused/conflated with moral subjectivism. Moral subjectivism is the view that moral norms and values are reducible to the norms and values of a person or persons. It would seem to entail moral relativism, but moral relativism doesn't entail it.
Anyway, I'm a moral relativist and a moral realist and a moral subjectivist. So I agree that moral nihilism is false. However, your case against it seems to be just that no one actually believes it. That, to my mind, doesn't constitute any kind of evidence that it is false. I think it is false, I stress. But I think it is false because it appears to be and becuase any attempt to defend it will be self-refuting.
As for moral relativism: well that appears to be true as well. People at some times seem to have gotten the impression that Xing in circumstances S was wrong, whereas people at other times seem to have gotten the impression Xing in circumstances S was right. That's default good evidence that Xing in those circumstances was wrong at one time, and right at another.
Quoting Fides Quaerens Intellectum
Moral Absolutism claims that an understanding of morality can be factually correct. If I determine methods for proving the correctness of moral positions and use those methods to verify the correctness of my moral positions then the problems I have laid out follow. Flexibility has never followed and why would it? Why would a fact be flexible?
Quoting Fides Quaerens Intellectum
Quoting Fides Quaerens Intellectum
Moral absolutism has existed throughout human history, it has not succeeded in freeing people from tyranny, it has abetted tyranny and that still occurs today. That's why I cannot agree with your argument. Moral relativism is relatively new in comparison and its impact on bringing about equality and fairness has been significantly better. I understand your concern, you want to hold people accountable but moral relativism does a much better job of that than absolutism. In most ways, relativism and absolutism function the same, the outside circumstances still shape our moral views the same. However, under relativism, a bad person is stripped of their moral authority, a good argument stands a better chance.
Quoting Fides Quaerens Intellectum
Moral views are everchanging, this change cannot be controlled but the views of the time are still embedded into the people of that time. Today, many relativists follow humanism which emphasises the value and freedom of people, for the sake of human dignity and equality, to create a more fair and caring world. There are any number of ways to condemn the Pharaohs for their actions but we can look at groups today like Al'Queda or ISIS and I'd say it's pretty obvious, most Western moral relativists view them with disgust and horror, we're not seeing parades of moral relativists saying "leave these people alone, they're doing nothing wrong, it's just our Western perspective". That's just not how morality works.
Quoting Fides Quaerens Intellectum
The only recourse is to prove something under moral absolutism which has either made up rules or theological rules for how something is proven? Come on.
I don't think it's a coincidence that the most tolerant of homosexuals are the most relativistic and the least tolerant are the most absolutist. Relativism just fosters a live and let live attitude, because you have to accept that people who live and think differently from you can be totally valid. So if they're not causing anyone any harm, then why not just let them do whatever. Again, that's not theory, we can just compare the US with Western Europe and get a clear picture of that.
Quoting Fides Quaerens Intellectum
Because when moral views serve one group at the expense of another, it allows people to justify oppression. Technically, I could just think we should do whatever is best for me but I recognise that it's much better for me if we all do what is best for all of us, rather than all of us doing what is just best for ourselves. We want to have a system that works for everyone because that's how we protect ourselves and the people we care about. We also want that because of ideas like humanism and the emotional and psychological sensibilities developed by the circumstances of our time and our biological circumstances. Harmful is complicated but generally, I mean views that allow or call for the oppression or harm of people who are not themselves oppressing or harming anyone.
Quoting SophistiCat
It is my belief that the "preposterous beliefs" are the end result of moral relativism. I also believe that although all of you are moral relativists by name, you are moral absolutists in practice. Each of you seems to be arguing that moral absolutism is bad because it promotes oppression and all of us believe, myself included, that oppression is bad. In fact each of us believes that oppression is always a bad thing. It is wrong regardless of the beliefs of the ruling class, regardless of the beliefs of the major religions, regardless of the beliefs of the individuals in the society. At all points throughout history, on all corners of the globe, and at any point in the future, oppression should be avoided. Why? Not because our current culture values lack of oppression, but because oppression is wrong as a matter of fact. If you still disagree with me answer this question. Is oppression ever right or commendable? if your answer to this question is no then I would assume that you believe it's antithesis, oppression is always wrong no matter what. In other words it is absolutely wrong.
Quoting SophistiCat
A few of you have brought this point up, saying that I have not really offered a proof that moral relativism is wrong. You're right, I haven't. This is definitely something that I need to edit and rewrite in my paper. Thanks for the constructive criticism. My argument is, though, that if moral relativism is an invention of humanity, why does it seem so inhuman? And before you say that moral relativism is not the abandonment of morality but rather the recognition that one person or society cannot consider themselves correct about morality, keep in mind that I agree with the latter half of that sentence.
Think of it this way. Scientists all believe in scientific facts. However there are many disagreements on what those facts are. To give a softball example, a scientist believes that the earth is round, there are people, however, that claim the earth is flat. The scientist can use facts to prove that the earth is round because scientific truth exists. If scientific truth was merely an invention of humanity and it could vary from culture to culture, how could one argue that the flat earther is wrong? In the same way we cannot argue moral truth, such as: oppression is wrong, if there was no moral facts.
Quoting Tom Storm
The fact that people in our current society or in past societies have disagreed on what is right and wrong does not matter in the slightest toward disproving moral absolutism.
I would assume that you believe there is a correct answer to the laws you mentioned. Take gay marriage for example, it seems to me from your other arguments that you believe that restricting gay marriage is wrong. If this is the case, then do you believe that there ever was or ever will be a time where restricting gay marriage is correct? If not it is because you believe that restricting gay marriage is wrong always, no matter what, regardless of the views of the society or the time period or location on the globe. If all of my assumptions about your beliefs are true, correct me if they are not, then do you see how this is a moral absolute?
If someone disagreed with your view how would you argue with them? You would likely say (sorry for assuming again) something to the nature of, it makes them happy and it doesn't hurt anyone so there is no reason to restrict it. Inherent in this argument is the belief that denying someone the right to marry merely because their religion forbids it, is absolutely morally wrong, always, no matter what. How ever you could not make that claim if their were no moral facts.
Quoting Bartricks
My question would be why was Xing wrong at some point but not at others? To make it easier to understand let's use a tangible example, killing. If I were to kill you for no reason I would be in the wrong. However if I discovered that you were going to murder thirty people and the only way to stop you was to kill you, then one could argue that not killing you was wrong. You might be saying that this is because morality is relative, that's why killing is wrong in one instance and right in the other, however you have to answer the question: Why is this the case? It is the case because human life is valuable and should always, no matter what be protected. Again an absolute belief in moral truth. Note also that while I would claim that killing a man to stop him from killing several is the right thing to do pacifists may say that it is still morally wrong. Despite our disagreement we are both appealing to the absolute of, human life should be valued and protected. The fact that we disagree on what this absolute value implies does not mean that the absolute does not exist.
Quoting Judaka
So has moral relativism, see the Mussolini quote above. Also remember that your belief that tyranny always has been and always will be wrong, is itself an absolute moral statement.
I want to say that I do not believe any of you to be anywhere close to fascists, but that is only because you believe, I'm assuming, that what Mussolini did was absolutely wrong. In other words there never has been and never will be an appropriate time for fascism.
Quoting Tom Storm
We may never discover the origin of life, but that doesn't mean that we should stop studying it. However if we were to say there is no origin of life then why study it? Why make arguments for what is most likely true?
You could make the argument that we never will know the answer to these moral truths and thus we shouldn't ever believe we are absolutely morally right, I would disagree. It is my belief that logic is the highest form of truth and thus our logical conclusions should be trusted. Now logic is also the hardest form of truth to prove and as a result we should be open to all criticisms of our logic. But I'd like to point out that when you disagree with my logic you are disagreeing with the logical conclusion I have come to because you do not believe it to be the truth, not because you don't believe truth to be a thing.
Morality is the only discipline in which disagreements about the facts are attributed to their nonexistence. Most of science is built on theory and many of these theories are impossible to prove, evolution for example. However we take these to be true because they are the most logically probable. Now before you point out that natural sciences uses physical evidence where morality cannot, remember that mathematics is a purely logical discipline. And while we can see obviously the truth of 1+1=2, there are disagreements among mathematicians in higher math. Yet no one is claiming there is no mathematical truth. In fact I would argue that seeing that mathematics is fact and morality is fact can be done in the same way.
Quoting Judaka
The "obviousness" referred to in this statement is much like the obviousness of 1+1=2. Because ideas like terrorism is wrong are obviously true we can see that truth does exist morally speaking. Just as we see that mathematical truth does exist through the obvious equations.
The fact that all of us agree that societies should behave in certain ways regardless of the time, place, and attitude of said society makes moral absolutism the most logical choice. Thus it should be accepted as truth.
No I don't. And so far you have not justified this claim. You haven't been able to address the arguments against your view and keep getting caught in a loop.
Quoting Fides Quaerens Intellectum
That is certainly not my position.
Quoting Fides Quaerens Intellectum
No one disagrees with this point. But you fail to get the the next stage of your argument. Which is
making the case that there is absolute morality.
Quoting Fides Quaerens Intellectum
Apart from the wonky syllogism earlier, you haven't been using logic in this argument as yet so this is not really apropos.
Quoting Fides Quaerens Intellectum
Wrong. Kant would disagree with you for a start, as would many moral philosophers. As the well worn saying goes, two wrongs do not make a right.
Perhaps I should use the word reason then. I'll admit I'm not that familiar with proper philosophy.
Quoting Tom Storm
Correct but both Kant and I would be arguing what the absolute moral good in this scenario would be, and both of us would be appealing to the value of human life. In fact all arguments made on this scenario would be appealing to the same absolute.
Quoting Tom Storm
The fact that the above scenario cannot be debated without both sides appealing to an absolute makes it more reasonable than not to assume that moral absolutes exist. If you disagree please explain to me how a person can argue a moral dilemma without appealing to some absolute.
Now you may be saying that "more reasonable than not" is not proof, and you would right. Perhaps we would have more luck if you tried to prove moral relativism.
Quoting Tom Storm
What is your position? Why are you arguing against moral absolutism?
By the way, this point undermines your position. You are not talking about absolute moral truths, you are talking about a flexible calculation based on some principles you hold. This is situational ethics - very different.
Wrong. Kant would argue that killing in any situation is wrong. You are arguing for subjective ethics.
Quoting Fides Quaerens Intellectum
You are confusing principle with objectivity. This is not case of the 'same absolute' it is a case of people building ethics based on different principles.
If I were to say all my ethics are based on notions of 'highest truth' you can argue that is objective but all this actually is is a phrase open to interpretation. My highest truth may be different to someone else's. You need an identified foundation point outside of human experience. This is why people appeal to God.
Quoting Tom Storm
I am arguing for lack of a better term, flexible killing. Kant believes killing is always wrong I believe it is sometimes not. However both Kant and I are appealing to the absolute that human life should be protected.
That's nice, but for this to be of interest to anyone other than you, you need to present a coherent argument against moral relativism. And before that, you need to tell us what it is that you mean by "moral relativism" and why it matters. Instead, you have this vague label that you associate with everything bad and wrong. Like Fascism! Everyone hates Fascists, right? And that's what moral relativism leads to! - Wait, what? What did you say "moral relativism" was again? Oh right, you didn't.
And prepending my quote with Mussolini's demagoguery, unsubtly implying that that is the position that I was defending (I wasn't even defending any position) is the last straw. You have lost any respect and good will that I have been giving you up to this point. Bye.
Ok thanks for clearing this up. In other words you are a relativist. I thought that might be the case. I'll move on.
Your quote was next to the Mussolini quote because the Mussolini quote ended my first point, (that moral absolutism is not the only cause of oppression) and your quote started my next, in fact the only reason I quoted you was just to let you know what point of yours I was responding to. I did not mean to imply that you were a fascist anymore than you meant to imply I was an intolerant dictator for arguing moral absolutism.
Quoting SophistiCat
I have also said multiple times that I believe moral relativism to be the idea that moral truth's do not exist.
I understand moral absolutism to be the view that moral truths are fixed across time and space. So, if Xing in circumstances S is wrong, then it is always and everywhere wrong to X in circumstances S.
I understand moral relativism to be the denial of moral absolutism, and thus to be the view that though Xing in circumstances S may be wrong here and now, this does not entail that it was always and everywhere wrong.
Here is my argument for moral relativism:
1. If disinterested moral observers from time t1 get the impression Xing in circumstances S is wrong, and distinterested moral observers from time t2 get the impression that Xing in circumstances S is right (P), then other things being equal this is prima facie evidence that Xing in circumstances S was wrong at time t1 and right at time t2 (Q).
2. P
3. therefore Q
What you have done in your reply is simply note that while Xing in circumstances S may be wrong, Xing in circumstances T may be right. True, but irrelevant.
Quoting Fides Quaerens Intellectum
It is essential to realise that "oppression" is not always referring to the same thing. If person A and person B agree oppression is wrong but person A considers X oppression and person B does not then person A and B's views about oppression are not the same. Even if person A & B agree X is oppression, they could disagree on many particulars, these disagreements aren't necessarily insignificant, that's a big part of what makes morality complicated.
Why is oppression seen as universally bad? One explanation is that oppression is an inherently critical description. Even if the oppressing party actually used the term oppression they would also believe that the circumstances call or allow for it and it is justified.
The definition of oppression according to dictionary.cambridge.org
"a situation in which people are governed in an unfair and cruel way and prevented from having opportunities and freedom"
Keywords are "unfair" and "cruel", oppression cannot be the correct term to describe something fair and reasonable which it usually is from the perspective of those who do the oppressing.
Definition of tyranny by dictionary.cambridge.com
"government by a ruler or small group of people who have unlimited power over the people in their country or state and use it unfairly and cruelly"
No reasonable definition of tyranny will make it sound like it could possibly be a compliment. The definition of the word makes it so that everyone must see tyranny negatively because tyranny is used to disapprove. If you called Mussolini a tyrant, a pro-Mussolini fascist would either disagree that he was tyrannical or he would argue that the tyranny was net beneficial and justified, likely tweaking the definition a bit.
Quoting Fides Quaerens Intellectum
But is it culture that is responsible for these values or human psychology? Dogs care about fairness and they recognise who is the pack leader. They show loyalty and respect to the pack leader. They dislike it when you take things from them and like it when they are given food or toys. They can be taught what behaviour is good and what is bad. They know when is dinner or walk time and expect that consistency. Basically, while dogs are not humans, it's not as though culture has created the importance of values like fairness, fairness is a part of our culture because humans value fairness as a result of their psychology.
Is the dog onto something or have we just evolved in a similar way to dogs? The latter and the biases of our brains should be addressed as biases and not some mysterious interaction between factual morality and our psychological, hormonal and emotional development. Just as what I find attractive or tasty shouldn't be viewed as objectively attractive or tasty.
A decent way to wrap your head around how morality works is to think about what a dog might do. If I have two dogs and I give one dog all the affection and food and the other dog gets jealous or growls and gets angry, yeah, that's pretty much what most children would do as well. If someone were to beat and kick their dog and treated them cruelly, it's going to be hostile towards them, growling and baring their teeth at them, right? Humans will develop the same contempt.
Humans have empathy, where even if you just watched someone kicking their dog, you would be able to put yourself in the dog's position and feel for the dog. That's what separates humans from other animals, the injustice doesn't have to happen to you for you to get angry about it. Now that's almost exactly how morality operates and it's a strong feeling. People may not get merely mildly angry about something like that. They are capable of feeling for the dog's situation so strongly that they could desire to take literal, violent revenge on the dog's behalf, they may actually cry because they find it so sad and awful. I could give examples but I assume you've already seen things like this.
Why is murder wrong? If I watch a video of a parent crying for their deceased child, I, without intent, will likely feel sad or angry on their behalf, that's just the natural consequence of empathy. People don't need a fancy articulation of what makes murder wrong, they just need to hear about how the deceased person had goals and dreams, they just need to see the grief of the relatives and they can feel intense hatred towards the murderer, a person they've never even met before. And because everyone in a community can empathise with the deceased and their loved ones, the murderer is condemned and ostracized by the entire community. Now for you, maybe you decide that murder is objectively wrong, it really doesn't change much.
Anything that you can reasonably be upset about if it happened to you, you can get upset about it when it happens to someone else because of empathy. Morality reinforces itself effortlessly in such circumstances and that's mostly what morality is but other areas of morality still have some other psychological basis that gives potency to any view on right or wrong.
The potency of moral views does not rely on absolutism, it doesn't come from thinking you're objectively correct. What makes murder upset people is not their contempt for a non-factual understanding of morality. People don't get upset because "murder is objectively wrong, you did a wrong thing, that's bad". They get upset due to the raw emotional experience caused by empathy, outraged by the consequences of the act, they'll viciously attack the character of the perpetrator and be appalled and saddened by what happened to the victim.
Do you disagree with that? Can you see how I think Mussolini is wrong because I feel angry for the people he killed, rather than because I'm upset he violated a moral absolute? Can you see that even though I don't think Mussolini violated a moral absolute, that it doesn't impact my anger about all the innocent people he murdered?
In higher mathematics, or theoretical mathematics there are disagreements on what the mathematical truth of the equation is. Despite the fact that math is a purely logical discipline, we know there is an answer to the equation because 2+2=4. We see that it is indeed possible to be right about mathematics. much in the same way an obvious moral truths such as genocide is always wrong or rape is always wrong, make it quite reasonable to assume there is an answer to the less obvious moral dilemmas like the ones you mentioned.
The only way to argue these moral dilemmas is to appeal to an unyielding moral absolute. Take abortion for example, the pro life advocate claims that abortion is wrong because murdering babies is always wrong, the pro choice advocate claims that abortion is morally permissible because pregnancy has an effect on a woman's body and they argue that a woman should have the choice whether or not they want endure those effects. Although the two sides disagree on the final conclusion they both agree on the absolutes they are arguing for. A pro choice advocate is not claiming that women should have the right to murder babies, they advocate for abortion because they do not believe it to be murder. They would fully agree with the pro life advocate when he says that murdering an innocent baby is wrong. Just as the pro life advocate would agree with the pro choice advocate when he argues that women should have rights. Look at it through this hypothetical.
1. murdering babies is wrong
2. abortion is murdering babies
3. therefore abortion should be stopped.
Pro choice advocates disagree with 3 because they disagree with 2. They would, however, agree with 1. So the argument becomes is abortion murder? Because if it is then even the pro choice advocate would say it should be stopped. Why? Because they understand that the murder of innocent babies is absolutely wrong.
The two sides are tasked now with arguing things like the scientific idea of what constitutes a living being, or philosophical arguments about body and soul. Some have even used moral arguments such as it is wrong for us to decide a child's fate for him, or it is wrong for us to decide a woman's fate for her. These arguments can be made because the moral absolutes of killing babies is wrong, and women should have rights is understood, and take for granted by those arguing.
You are right. I misunderstood I will try to answer your actual argument.
You are arguing that we have no reason to believe that morality exists separate of humanity. I say that it is a reasonably sound argument to say that it does. We speak of our moral discoveries as just that. We discover what is right, we do not create it. American’s owned slaves until the late 19th century, yet we didn’t claim, “Not having slaves worked really well for England so we should try that.”. In fact slavery was surely very prosperous for the slave owner and the economy that housed them. We discovered that slavery was evil and should be stopped no matter the cost to cotton farmers. And it wasn’t that slavery was once great and became evil, it was always evil. We may have convinced ourselves otherwise at one point but we convinced ourselves of a lie. We have to concede then, that this good of not enslaving people, existed before we realized it was good. Slavery was evil before anyone ever owned slaves, slavery will continue to be evil even if we someday eradicate it from the world.
Consider this hypothetical. Let's say that the earth was completely destroyed, the only survivors being a male and female baby rocketed like superman, to another planet. Unlike superman no record of the human race or human history was sent with the rocket. The two repopulate this new planet with no knowledge of previous cultures. The males in the first society decide to take the females as slaves.
In this scenario the males would be morally wrong for taking slaves. They would not be wrong because their previous society deemed it to be wrong they would be wrong because slavery is always wrong regardless of the time place or attitude of the society. It does not matter that the males believed they were doing the right thing. They might even have a very good reason for enslaving the women. They could reason that they need to procreate in order to survive and if the women could not refuse them then they have a better chance of procreating. They would be arguing that the good of survival out weighs the good of freedom. I think that both of us would disagree with their conclusion.
Note too that in order to reason that their enslavement was morally permissible they would have to appeal to the understood preexisting idea that human survival was good.
So to put it in a syllogism
1. Slavery was wrong before humans decided it was wrong.
2. humans cannot decide something before they decide it
3. therefore humans did not decide that slavery was wrong.
You did not answer the question:
Quoting Fooloso4
If you cannot demonstrate this you cannot refute moral relativism.
Quoting Fides Quaerens Intellectum
Our agreement that killing innocent babies is wrong or genocide is wrong is not an appeal to a moral absolute, it merely indicates that we are in agreement on these issues. Our agreement does not yield an absolute answer to the disagreement on abortion. The failure to provide an absolute answer means that all we have to go on are relative answers that cannot be agreed on.
You make a good point but if Mussolini did not violate a moral absolute then your anger at his actions is equally morally valuable to his anger that he was opposed. Both of you are angry over a perceived injustice. He was, in his mind, trying to make a better world for Italy. You say he was wrong because he needlessly hurt people. What makes you right and him wrong is the moral absolute he violated.
I can see how someone can be upset by someone else's actions without appealing to a moral absolute. What I do not see is why it matters that someone is upset without moral absolutes. In all of your examples it is inherently understood by the empathizer that causing someone unnecessary pain is bad. If what Mussolini did was only wrong because people didn't like it then why should he stop doing what he is doing? Is it because more people were hurt by his actions than helped? Why should that matter? If it's not an absolute that hurting more people than you help is bad, then why should he ever stop hurting people?
By what basis do you condemn Mussolini if it is not a moral basis?
Can you make an argument for why fascism is bad without appealing to preexisting moral ideas?
Can you make an argument for a scenario in which genocide is a good thing? If not then isn't the idea "genocide is wrong" beyond dispute. Thus making it apodictically true?
Here is what it seems your argument for morality is, please correct me where I am wrong.
1. Moraltiy is merely the invention of the human mind
2. Things that are invention of the human mind do not exist in reality.
3. Therefore morality does not exist in reality.
Except for the fact that you have not proven 1 to be true, this seems like solid logic. Where I get confused is how you get from "morality does not exist in reality" to you should not kill babies.
Can you please explain how we should always do the moral thing if there is no such thing as a moral thing?
Not only do we not know the answer we do not even know if there is an answer. In either case, if we do not know the answer then whatever position we take is relative not absolute. Once again you have not refuted relativism you have confirmed it.
Quoting Fides Quaerens Intellectum
I think you are becoming confused about what side you are on. Absolute and most probable are not the same.
Quoting Fides Quaerens Intellectum
Yes, and since moral claims are not clearly established or beyond dispute they are not apodictic, that is, necessarily true or logically certain. In other words, the are not absolutes.
Quoting Fides Quaerens Intellectum
Yes, but not one that I would find persuasive.
Quoting Fides Quaerens Intellectum
Look around you. There are many things that are inventions of the human mind. We are communicating on one right now.
Quoting Fides Quaerens Intellectum
Morality does exist in reality. We deal with moral issues every day. What neither you nor anyone else has been able to establish is the reality of a transcendent realm of timeless, changeless, universal moral truths.
Quoting Fides Quaerens Intellectum
First of all, I did not say that morality does not exist. Second, it is not a question of whether babies should be killed but of whether it is ever justified. There are serious medical conditions that are irreversible and lead to a life of continuous extreme pain and suffering. In my opinion, it would be immoral to allow such a life to continue. Third, I make a distinction between an embryo, early stage fetus, and a baby.
Quoting Fides Quaerens Intellectum
This depends on what you mean by "moral thing". If one holds the moral thing to be that thing that they regard as right or good, then there is no problem; one does what they regard as proper. You seem to mean that thing that is good or right without regard to whether anyone knows or accepts it as such. In that case we may not be doing the moral thing even if we are absolute in our conviction that we are.
Do you believe some values are subjective and some objective? Eg. Which flavor of ice cream is the best? Is that subjective?
If you agree it is, I ask what makes moral values more objective than amoral values of taste?
Without someone there to form an opinion or make a value judgement of good or bad...where is the goodness or badness itself, outside of a judge? Don't all values require a person to form them?
Consider a leopard eating a family of young innocent bunnies?
Presumably the bunnies and their mother would judge the act as horrible. And presumably the leopard would consider it good.
Where is the goodness's or badness independent of the opinions of the animals?
Animals presumably are amoral?
What makes human acts objectively moral or amoral?
Personally I'm fairly convinced karma exists, and so I consider acts that cause unnecessary pain to others as acts which will cause me pain in the future, so I refrain. My sense of community and empathy also play a factor in my decisions. Harming others causes me guilt and shame, or hardens my heart making me less able to enjoy emotions and connections with others.
I believe there are some objective consequences on oneself and others by acts. But calling them moral or amoral because of the pleasant or unpleasant consequences seems like an unnecessary conceptual addition...which adds painful consequences.
Consider. If you don't like chocolate ice cream, then eating it may cause you pain. So don't eat it. That's enough to say right? We don't need to say one shouldn't eat it. Should is extra baggage.
Likewise, it's not necessary to cause others pain. And causing others pain will not be good for your own sense of self worth, or for your reputation. And why harm your own community? You will feel good about yourself and people will like you more if you treat others from a place of empathy.
Where is the need to add should or should not?
If someone told Mussolini murder was objectively wrong, would he not laugh in their face? You brought up Mussolini to give an example of a moral relativist who oppressed others but moral absolutism has a long history of not merely failing to stop oppression but actually being a part of it. Don't you think you're basically suggesting that morality should do something that we know it's incapable of doing? As I said earlier if you call say honesty is a moral absolute and I choose to lie, your "absolute" does nothing, my lie's consequences will be independent of that evaluation.
Morality has power when it's written into law, when it is part of the culture and when it's engrained into peoples' minds. Without those things, morality is nothing, just words and ideas. Fascism is only bad because it tramples on things I value but the value I see in those things is indeed subjective, I accept that.
The empathiser does not inherently understand pain is bad, they feel the pain and the pain makes them emotional. Things which cause pain may be "bad" but what is "bad"? It just reflects the emotional or intellectual rejection of that thing in a (generally) specified context by the person using the label.
It seems to me that you still are. Here is my argument:
Quoting Bartricks
You need to deny a premise. You haven't done that. Rather you say this: Quoting Fides Quaerens Intellectum
Clearly that is not what I am arguing at all. No premise of my argument asserts such a thing. So you're just attacking a straw man.
I believe the truth of a moral proposition is not constitutively determined by any human attitudes.
You are confusing moral relativism with human subjectivism about morality. These are completely different views.
The physical landscape is not made of human attitudes, is it? It exists objectively. Or at least, it exists outside of human minds. Yet it changes over time. And our evidence that it changes is that it appears to. I am making the same claim about morality. Just as the claim that the physical landscape changes over time is obviously not equivalent to the claim that the physical landscape exists in human minds alone or is a human construct, likewise for the parallel claim about morality.
This is exactly my view. Do you disagree with this premise? Again if no one on Earth ever condemned genocide would it be the right thing to do?
Quoting Fooloso4
Why would you not find it persuasive?
Quoting Fooloso4
We do not know and will never know what happened in history. That is to say that we don't know with absolute certainty. Historical facts are not actual facts, they are our most probable guess based on evidence. But just because we do not know and likely never will know does not mean the events of history did not actually happen. My point is that a lack of knowledge does not constitute a lack of fact.
Also you all seem to be ignoring the absolutes that we agree on. We argue one side or the other or say "this action is wrong because...". We do this because certain, basic, moral principles are understood universally, such as human life should be protected, or one should never cause another undue pain.
In the example you gave:
Quoting Fooloso4
You are arguing that ending suffering should be more valuable that preserving life, are you not? If this is the case where did your idea of this come from?
There are disagreements in every discipline known to man. But it seems that morality is the only discipline in which we take disagreements to mean there is no answer. Why should morality earn this distinction? Morality is studied, even by self proclaimed relativists, why would we do such a thing if there was no answer?
Also consider this if morality was invented by humanity how did we come to set a moral standard that is impossible for humans to reach?
I imagine then that the opposite of this is true: If you do like chocolate ice cream, then eating it may cause you pleasure, so eat it. Would you honestly feel comfortable giving this advice to someone if you replaced the words chocolate ice cream with rape?
Quoting Yohan
What if a person does not want to have self worth or enjoys having a reputation as an evil person? What if they like that everyone fears and hates them? Are they free to murder and steal as long as they don't get caught? We have to add should or should not because, while you would not, I'm assuming, rape a person due to the negative consequences i.e. guilt and shame, there are those who either wouldn't mind the consequences or would enjoy them. They still shouldn't rape.
You are correct but unless oppression is morally wrong, why does this matter?
Quoting Judaka
Do you believe that your moral views and the views of the fascist to have equal moral validity?
Quoting Judaka
If this is the only determining factor then what right do you have to condemn the actions of Mussolini?
Would you agree that water, ice, and steam are all, always H20, metaphorically speaking? If so then we are in complete agreement on the basis of morality.
Have you not understood anything I have said? Of course I disagree.
Quoting Fides Quaerens Intellectum
Since I am one of those people on Earth my views would likely be the same as everyone else.
Quoting Fides Quaerens Intellectum
My reasons are based on empathy and what I value.
Quoting Fides Quaerens Intellectum
Based on this analogy, where are no moral facts, only probable guesses.
Quoting Fides Quaerens Intellectum
And my point is that a fact that no one knows cannot be appealed to as a fact.
Quoting Fides Quaerens Intellectum
What we do not agree on is that they are absolutes.
Quoting Fides Quaerens Intellectum
No matter how many times you repeat the same thing it does not thereby become true. These things are evidently not universally understood given the fact that human life is not always protected and often taken.
Quoting Fides Quaerens Intellectum
You miss the point. I am not arguing that one is more valuable than the other. Moral principles come into conflict. Neither choice is good. Both choices conflict with a moral principle. Some will hold that life is more important but others believe that to allow suffering is intolerable.
Quoting Fides Quaerens Intellectum
In any discipline where there is disagreement an absolute answer has not been determined. In some cases an answer will be found but until or unless it is found the proposed answers are relative not absolute.
Quoting Fides Quaerens Intellectum
We must make choices. Moral deliberation is about making choices in the absence of clear answers.
Quoting Fides Quaerens Intellectum
What moral standard is that? This is not something a moral relativist would do.
So would a person without empathy and different values be perfectly justified in committing genocide?
Quoting Fooloso4
The proposed answers are not relative they are either right or wrong. We do not know the origin of the universe with certainty but we do believe that the big bang is more probable than the idea that a turtle puked it out. We can only make this distinction because there absolutely is an origin to the universe. The same is true of morality. We may not know with absolute certainty what is right or wrong in some circumstances. We are then left to our best guesses as to what the correct answer is. These guesses are not relative but either right or wrong. Each of these guesses have different moral values. They can only have these values if there is a definite answer. All that matters is that we know this absolute answer exists. From that standpoint we can rank moral ideas, based on how close we believe it is to the truth. But the truth has to be there, in order for our beliefs about it to have any value at all. Without the separate preexisting truth then the big bang and turtle vomit are equally plausible origins of the universe.
Quoting Fooloso4
Philosophy actually does often deal in certainty, see absolute truths (but that's not really important right now I just thought you'd find it interesting). Science and history do not operate based on absolute certainty but both disciplines operate based on the idea that there is an absolute truth. I am not arguing for absolute moral certainty, I am arguing that the absolute moral truth exists. Because it exists we should strive to get as close to it as we possibly can.
Quoting Fooloso4
All moral imperatives use should or should not. The should implies that we do not currently do the things being asked of us. My question is that if we invented morality why would we not use it to justify the actions we are currently doing instead of placing a goal that we will fall short of? You are right that a moral relativist would not do this, but a relativist like that would just say that it doesn't matter how we act at all. A slave owner and Harriet Tubman are equally morally valuable.
By whose standards? Those who participated in the genocide of Native Americans and the Holocaust thought they were justified. They regarded those they slaughtered as less than human and a threat to their own existence and well being.
Quoting Fides Quaerens Intellectum
If you are to treat your claims about morality as equivalent to claims about The Big Bang then you must provide empirical evident and not just poorly defended arguments. Scientific claims are provisional, subject to change. If you are to treat your claims about morality as equivalent to scientific claims then you must treat them as provisional and subject to change.
Quoting Fides Quaerens Intellectum
Even a superficial reading of the scientific literature will show that this is not true. There are many cosmologists who think that there is no origin, that there has always been something.
Quoting Fides Quaerens Intellectum
With that you have conceded the argument. If we are left with our best guesses then we are left with relativism.
Quoting Fides Quaerens Intellectum
But if we do not know which of these guesses are right and which are wrong then none can be held as absolutes. Welcome to moral relativism. You will find that it is not as scary and dangerous as you imagine.
Quoting Fides Quaerens Intellectum
If we only know that an absolute answer exists but do not know what that answer is, then how can be know that the answer we guess is right is closer to or further from the truth?
Quoting Fides Quaerens Intellectum
Philosophy is not monolithic. There may still be some who cling to the dream of certainty, but many who reject it or limit its range.
Quoting Fides Quaerens Intellectum
Asserting it to be so does not make it so. You seem to be woefully unaware of the literature in these fields. But again, unless you are consistent in your claims of equivalency this does not address the issue at hand.
Quoting Fides Quaerens Intellectum
Without absolute moral certainty there is only relativism.
Quoting Fides Quaerens Intellectum
Are you certain?
Quoting Fides Quaerens Intellectum
There is no moral justification without morals. Some moral claim or principle is what we use to justify or condemn an action. We do not invent morals is order to fall short but to guide our actions.
Quoting Fides Quaerens Intellectum
"A relativist like that" is not a relativist like me. I have made it clear that it does matter how we act. After all that I have said, if all that you have to resort to is this mischaracterization of my position then I will take this as an admission of your failure to do what you set out to do. Less charitably, but perhaps more accurately, I will take it as evidence that you have failed to understand what moral relativism is in its more developed, more defensible form.
Quoting Fides Quaerens Intellectum
It matters because you have argued many times in this thread about how absolutism has pragmatic advantages such as protecting us against oppression and tyranny.
Quoting Fides Quaerens Intellectum
Potentially, yes. If their reasons for their views were valid.
Quoting Fides Quaerens Intellectum
You're talking about a fundamental human characteristic as being a right? Morality is enforced, it is not some invisible truth that compels people to act in a certain way. Mussolini's actions deeply go against my beliefs about how a country should be governed and how people should treat each other.
You show a moral relativist pictures of Mussolini's oppression, you tell them about how Mussolini's police state, with oppression and misinformation, how he restricted peoples' rights and freedoms. The moral relativist is visibly upset, says they're shocked at how someone could get away with all of these things they deem terrible. You say "I don't see why it matters that you're upset, Mussolini did nothing wrong without moral absolutes". It's just so silly, you're seeing morality function as normal, a person is applying their moral convictions as to be expected but you're somehow unsatisfied. They didn't get upset about Mussolini breaking some inaccessible list of no-no's, they're only upset because they empathise with the victims of his brutality, what a disaster.
Relativism: Any x subject can, does, or must, have y status relative to z system of y2 qualities.
'Qualities' can be a set of policies, practices, precedents, predicates, principles, procedures, processes, properties, or propositions. There's no reason in particular why I chose p-words other than to show that it doesn't really matter what the base units are called as long as they function as part of a sufficiently cogent argument. Here that value happens to be 'morals'.
The 'system' can be a simple as a prior psychological bias. That opens the door to talk of optical illusions, false memories and hypnotherapy -- all of which are real, effective, and classically erroneous. To deny the existence of systems would potentially imply some kind of terminal noncognitivism. Kant believe it?
Whatever morality a person subscribes to, from the global perspective, is ultimately a matter of the taste of one person. And somehow relativism, with its overtures of tolerance and defeasibility, is the narcissist?