Moral relativity? (2 Viewers)

[loquasagacious]

Quite simply are morals universal or relative?

Are some thing wrong - always have been and always will be? Or are morals a social construct of some sort?

If morals are a social construct then are any morals truly better or worse than any others? If for example the morals of another society permit genocide then is it no longer immoral? What if two groups with differing morals clash - are they both moral or both immoral?

And on the otherside if morals are universal in some way then what are they? And where did they come from?

 

[WithWings]

morals are relative
like if i fucked your mum you would hate me and beat the shit out of me
but in pakistan i would pay you to fuck your mum and we would have done a good business deal

 

[lolokay]

what do you mean by morals, and by universal/relative?

I personally hold that happiness (as a generalised term for any 'positive' feeling we have) is the fundamental good (I cannot concieve of anything more fundamental that this). This idea naturally leads to utilitarianism (as I interpret the philosophy, at least) - i.e. considering the quantity and quality of the happiness, considering as many different aspects of it as we can (eg. as far into the future as we can).

So, here we have a measure of good/bad, which, while based on subjective experience, and being extremely difficult to quantify, could be said to be objective.

However, whether an action would lead to an overall rise in 'happiness' levels is dependent upon many factors involved, and I do not believe there to be any single action, or state of things, which can be considered better than all others. As such, I would say that whether an action can be considered to be good is relative, as it is based on external factors as to whether it does lead to a rise in 'happiness'. Also, since no state would be better than all others, morality (how we should act in a given situation) is continually evolving, so with increased knowledge (eg. better insight into long-term effects), or a change in circumstances, old 'morals' are replaces with new ones (which I think goes against an absolutist interpretation).

Quite simply are morals universal or relative?

From the above, I would say that both terms are somewhat appropriate, but also misleading. I think that we can always reduce an actions goodness to considerations of happiness (complex as this may be) which I guess could be said to be absolute. But, on the other hand, how exactly we should act is dependent upon all external factors surrounding a situation, and there can be no best act, so here morals can be said to be relative.

Are some thing wrong - always have been and always will be?

While no action in itself can be said to be inherently wrong without a consideration of the factors involved, it may be the case that for some specific actions, any time that they are performed on this earth they lead to reduction in 'happiness' when viewing. Such an action could be said to be "wrong - always has been and always will be".

Or are morals a social construct of some sort?

The actual morals we hold (thou shalt not murder or rape etc.) are partly social construct, as well as being guided by instinct, or by reasoning.

If morals are a social construct then are any morals truly better or worse than any others? If for example the morals of another society permit genocide then is it no longer immoral? What if two groups with differing morals clash - are they both moral or both immoral?

Just because a society permits a particular thing does not necessarily mean it is good even for that society. I think that, yes, you could say that some morals are better than others, but determining which is the best course of action would be very difficult.

When morals clash, what is probably required, is a more rigorous look at the morals of each group, and the situation at hand, and to then decide how to proceed (a very complex process, of course)

And on the otherside if morals are universal in some way then what are they? And where did they come from?

So, under my view, a universal "what are they" view is not correct, but rather there is one thing ('happiness') which we strive for, and is the goal of a moral system/judgment etc. to achieve. As to where it came from - all I can think to say is "experience". Some feelings can be said to be positive (happiness), and others negative (unhappiness), which we can tell without having any prior system of morals. As I said, I can conceive of any other measure of good.
--

Sorry if a lot of this didn't make sense/isn't saying much. I just woke up

 

[loquasagacious]

lolokay I think a purely utilitarian model of morals which places 'happiness' as the ultimate measure is a position of moral relativity. For you the moral course of action is the utility maximising one in any given situation.

Using this framework I don't think you can judge any action as inherently immoral - there may be some scenarios in which murder, rape, theft, assault, etc result in more happiness for the perpetrator than sadness they do to the victim. Killing and canibalising one person so the many can survive springs to mind.

 

[lolokay]

If my model was a relative one (absolute = strict rules, then?), then yes, I accept ethics as being relative - but with 'relative' not implying that no action is better or worse than any other.

Morals could then be considered like laws. Certain laws could be considered better than others, with no law being absolutely good (eg. there will always be cases where following the law does not seem to be the best course of action) - we choose the law based on what seems to work, and change it accordingly if it doesn't.

 

[KFunk]

lolokay I think a purely utilitarian model of morals which places 'happiness' as the ultimate measure is a position of moral relativity. For you the moral course of action is the utility maximising one in any given situation.

Using this framework I don't think you can judge any action as inherently immoral - there may be some scenarios in which murder, rape, theft, assault, etc result in more happiness for the perpetrator than sadness they do to the victim. Killing and canibalising one person so the many can survive springs to mind.

The same goes for any consequentialist theory - consequentialists place a value on certain ends without dictating how they are to be achieved, except to say that the means used cannot contravene the desired ends. This only amounts to relativity if you are a staunch believer that moral worth has to reside in specific actions, that is, given that consequentialists are typically indifferent to how one acts (on a crude account - ignoring things like 'rule utilitarianism) so long as positive outcomes are produced. Hedonistic utilitarianism only ascribes unconditional worth to happiness, or positive experience by some other name. By nature, actions in the world will only contingently bring about happiness and so they cannot be attributed unconditional worth by a consequentialist.

Your comment also led me to recall Habermas' distinction between norms and values:

- Norms are assertoric, ought statements, e.g. one ought not kill, whose satisfaction is typically binary, i.e. either you kill someone or you do not. Observation of such norms requires fulfilment of certain behavioral expectations. In other words, to fulfil a norm you must adhere to a certain pattern of behavior - of action.

- Values, on the other hand are a matter of degree and express the preferability of goods (in mathematical terms you might say that they generate a transitive preference order). For example one might value happiness, social stability, works of art, and so on. Values can be realized through purposive action (say which bring about more happiness or more artwork) but for the same reasons as described above in consequentialist theory, values cannot prescribe a specific action (--> a behavioral norm) since behavioral patterns do not necessarily realize values.

 

[raniaaa]

relative.

morals are commonly drawn from one's religion/faith/spirituality and the codes of moral conduct instilled within one's religion. now on a global scale the number of religious institutions are far reaching, each with their unique set of moral standards. however, today's secular society means there are many who do not follow any religious rite, hence their source of moral and ethical standards lies mainly on their perception of right and wrong (whose credibility, for want of a better word, is corrupted by the radical media).

also there exists the social and political influences which affect one's morals. for instance, in brazil the act of abortion is punishable by law, whereas in america this act is endorsed by parliament. what the government deems is right and wrong is then imposed on the society and can lead to wavering morals.

as for your question of "are morals better or worse than others", well that lies at the heart of what you and i deem to be better. this in itself may be in conflict so that cannot be measured impartially. evidently the question of right and wrong, better or worse, are extremely subjective and depend heavily on one's context.

despite all this, each and every human has burrowed deep within them the essence of humanity, that lead to some universal morals. for instance, most people would agree that mass genocide is in fact immoral, as is torture/murder of children.

and that my friend, is why morals are relative.

 

[Random_dude]

relative.
for example murder.
when its a single person, its murder.
when its many people, its a massacre
when its thousands, its a war

as the antagonist on cliffhanger said "you kill a person, you are a murderer. when you kill thousands, you are a ruler"

our morals still need to flexible so we can deal with situations where our morals are not applied, say, saving your skin after your friend has died and you are attacked by soldiers of the enemy. i mean, bringing the body is just fine, but you, in the attempt will moreso become a body yourself.
morals are guidelines to sustain our lives every day for long periods of time so that our race can live on. in wars, to protect your land, not kill the innocent, etc.
in daily life, don't go on a massacre spree. or rape spree, etc.
basically, it is to make our lives just that easier whilst learning how to act as a community.

 

[Silver Persian]

For those who believe morality is relative, do you think that all moral systems are equally valuable? If I grew up in a culture that constructed murdering witches as moral, would such behaviours become moral?


I would say that different cultures (obviously) do construct morality differently, and in this sense it is a social construct. I would, at the same time however, still like to maintain that particular moral positions are better than others using something similar to lolokay's discussion of happiness. (Which as loquasagacious points out seems to be somewhat of a combination between universal and relative conceptions of ethics).

Or as Iron put it, the fact that another culture thinks differently from me does not necessarily make them right.


I'm glad we have a secular ethics topic for once.

 

[raniaaa]

For those who believe morality is relative, do you think that all moral systems are equally valuable? If I grew up in a culture that constructed murdering witches as moral, would such behaviours become moral?


I would say that different cultures (obviously) do construct morality differently, and in this sense it is a social construct. I would, at the same time however, still like to maintain that particular moral positions are better than others using something similar to lolokay's discussion of happiness. (Which as loquasagacious points out seems to be somewhat of a combination between universal and relative conceptions of ethics).

Or as Iron put it, the fact that another culture thinks differently from me does not necessarily make them right.


I'm glad we have a secular ethics topic for once.

if you grew up in a society that murdered witches it'd be morally wrong for me, based on my morals. for you however, your society has built this perception that witches are evil and deserve death; for you their death is justifiable and morally sound. it's like einstein's theory of relativity: both of our judgements are correct for our individual frames of reference. although i see your actions as wrong and vice versa that doesn't make it absolute, because what determines our perception of right and wrong is our morals, and our morals are obviously very different.

 

[J O K E R]

simply put if you do not believe in god then you would consider morals to be relative. all people who do not belive in a god would have to belive that morals are relative as a persons knowlegde on whats right and wrong can only come from the result of other things ie enviroment, family, schools. however for a person who does belive in god then they could justify morals being universial as they could cliam that right and wrong are told to us by god and that all humans are obliged to follow these rules, thus morals could be seen to be iniversial.

no god equals relative morals, existence of god equals universial maorals.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

morality is but a word, and attempting to define this bizarre word is a fruitless labor

 

[Silver Persian]

if you grew up in a society that murdered witches it'd be morally wrong for me, based on my morals. for you however, your society has built this perception that witches are evil and deserve death; for you their death is justifiable and morally sound. it's like einstein's theory of relativity: both of our judgements are correct for our individual frames of reference. although i see your actions as wrong and vice versa that doesn't make it absolute, because what determines our perception of right and wrong is our morals, and our morals are obviously very different.

Is there any point of having debates about ethics if all positions are equally arbitrary?

 

[Cookie182]

simply put if you do not believe in god then you would consider morals to be relative. all people who do not belive in a god would have to belive that morals are relative as a persons knowlegde on whats right and wrong can only come from the result of other things ie enviroment, family, schools. however for a person who does belive in god then they could justify morals being universial as they could cliam that right and wrong are told to us by god and that all humans are obliged to follow these rules, thus morals could be seen to be iniversial.

no god equals relative morals, existence of god equals universial maorals.

Incorrect.

See for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)

Atheistic moral objectivism

 

[KFunk]

I would say that different cultures (obviously) do construct morality differently, and in this sense it is a social construct. I would, at the same time however, still like to maintain that particular moral positions are better than others using something similar to lolokay's discussion of happiness. (Which as loquasagacious points out seems to be somewhat of a combination between universal and relative conceptions of ethics).

I suspect that the best you can do is consider the extent to which certain systems of morality make us more likely to achieve certain relatively uncontroversial ends - for example, social stability and peace (which might be help us to justify something like a liberal principle of toleration which is likely a necessary condition of peace/stability in a society characterised by pluralism). This approach could be used to issue a modus vivendi, i.e. a principle necessitated by prudence in order to permit coexistence and avoid one's own destruction (the difference here being prudential concern for one's own existence rather than shared, positive affirmation of a [moral?] goal like peace).

You could also make use of something like Kant's universalisation test for maxims. That is, you could conduct a thought experiment in which you consider whether a moral principle, once universally endorsed and followed by all individuals, issues in a contradiction or in an unacceptable break down in society, such as Kant thinks would occur if murder were deemed permissible.

Whilst I am always tempted to place ethics in the aesthetics basket, I feel that the social importance of moral reasoning should encourage us to reflect on the moral life, even if we cannot comfortably back claims of objective validity (even if this just means taking the existential leap of accepting responsibility and moral agency with respect to one's decisions).

 

[BradCube]

Unsurprisingly, I am a moral objectivist.

Essentially it comes down to this for me: If I am to affirm the truth of moral relativism I must, on some level, admit that there nothing (objectively and meaningfully) wrong with acts such as rape, child molestation and the like. This conclusion seems both unacceptable and untenable in my opinion - the real wrongness of these acts appears as clear to me as the screen in front of my eyes.

 

[Silver Persian]

Whilst I am always tempted to place ethics in the aesthetics basket, I feel that the social importance of moral reasoning should encourage us to reflect on the moral life, even if we cannot comfortably back claims of objective validity (even if this just means taking the existential leap of accepting responsibility and moral agency with respect to one's decisions).

I agree with this sentiment. We'll never know without reservation that what we're doing is moral. What irritates me is when people use moral relativism as a way to shut down debate - as if, because people have different perspectives, meaningful dialogue is impossible. Passively valorising difference becomes a mark of respect. I would suggest (and I think this is what you are saying) that any sense of uncertainty we have about our moral systems should be productively deployed to promote the critical interrogation of ethical systems, rather than the uncritical acceptance of difference.

Something similar to what Hannah Arendt means when she says that critical thought is the best way to defend against immorality.

 

[KFunk]

Aye, very much so Persian. An affirmation of relativism is no excuse for passive acceptance (<3 Arendt). I also intended something of Socrates' general urge to reflection, that "the unexamined life is not worth living" (Plato's Apology).

I also find metaethics to be quite a valuable exercise (In particular I found that I gained a lot from Bernard Williams' Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy, which approaches ethics with a wonderfully subtle care, and have quite enjoyed Simon Blackburn and Richard Joyce).

 

[ad infinitum]

No, I am a Moral Realist. Moral Relativism clearly fails (it is so blatantly self-refuting). As does Moral Nihilism (which I believe this Kfunk fellow adheres to). The debate has been over for a long time.

 

[Silver Persian]

Aye, very much so Persian. An affirmation of relativism is no excuse for passive acceptance (<3 Arendt). I also intended something of Socrates' general urge to reflection, that "the unexamined life is not worth living" (Plato's Apology).

I also find metaethics to be quite a valuable exercise (In particular I found that I gained a lot from Bernard Williams' Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy, which approaches ethics with a wonderfully subtle care, and have quite enjoyed Simon Blackburn and Richard Joyce).

I'm interested in how you describe yourself as a moral nihilist though - because I would tend to associate this position with a withdrawral from ethics. Am I misunderstanding nihilism; or would you say that you are philosophically nihilist, but that you have some kind of pragmatic commitment to ethics...or something?