Moral relativity? (1 Viewer)

[ad infinitum]

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?

His views are not serious. Rather an incoherent amalgamation of shitty points he has picked up in books he has been told to read.

 

[KFunk]

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?

I call myself a nihilist insofar as I don't think that it makes sense to term moral propositions true or false. In this sense I align moral propositions with those of an aesthetic vein. However, I mainly use this label (e.g. in the context of BoS) due to its contrast with moral realism, which I disagree with strictly, and moral relativism, since I dislike claims along the lines of "some norm X is true in the context of community Y" (typically a culturally homogeneous community, e.g. a monocultural island community). I just don't think that 'truth' does any work here beyond perhaps indicating belief or acceptance - it becomes epistemological rather than metaphysical. But this is where the various metaethical alternatives enter which complicate the picture, e.g. cognitivism vs. non-cognitivism/expressivism. The debate gets fairly complex in this area and falls on rather fine distinctions. My apologies if I do not give them adequate articulation.

I am sympathetic to the non-cognitivist/expressivist intuition that moral claims are emotional expressions rather than concrete propositions, at least insofar as moral psychology clearly shows that moral beliefs are strongly tied to certain emotional states and therefore serve to express certain emotions or other cognitive states. However, I also think that moral discourse is generally structured as though moral claims were truth-apt propositions (even though they aren't). Thus I most agree with a position which is termed 'moral fictionalism' - a form of moral nihilism which sides with non-cognitivists whilst nonetheless thinks that we can allow the fiction of a truth-apt moral discourse. For a particularly fascinating problem which shows why straight non-cognitivism is problematic see the Frege-Geach problem (or here for a more extended treatment).

On moral nihilism/fictionalism, I couldn't recommend any work more than Richard Joyce's The Myth of Morality. It is a brilliant work in metaethics and is perhaps the best statement of the kind of position I am trying to put forth.

My committment to ethics is perhaps both pragmatic and existential. This committment is a personal choice which while consistent with moral nihilism does not follow from it. Pragmatic insofar as I view norms as useful for the functioning of the community at the micro- and macro- scale, not to mention their general cultural significance. From the existential camp I personally accept the value of responsibility and of the free and creative attribution of meaning and value to the world. This is a realm of personal (or even collective) cultivation in which the issue of 'truth', especially in the absolute sense, starts to loose relevance for me.

 

[John McCain]

I think you can determine absolute morals from a human/life-orientated perspective. Evolution has made us as a species value certain things, mainly anything relating to the preservation of life and sustainability. The problem is in deciding how much importance should be given to this human perspective. This is a matter of personal preference.

From a universal perspective, these human morals have no real importance. I see no objective reason to give value to this perspective, but my human weakness makes it a fun fantasy to indulge in while it lasts.

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.

Elaborate.

 

[A High Way Man]

As an atheist, moral objectivism brings me closer to the Lord

 

[A High Way Man]

All questions of morality will be answered when we encounter sentient lifeforms not of this earth

First contact must be the supreme and immediate goal for all world governments!

These pitiful questions can't be answered with such a small data set

 

[ad infinitum]

Elaborate.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]To ask whether a given action is right or wrong is really to ask whether it will tend to create greater well-being, or greater suffering, for oneself and others. And there seems little doubt that there are right and wrong answers here. This is not to say that there will always be a single right answer to every moral question, but there will be a range of appropriate answers, as well as answers that are clearly wrong. Asking whether or not an action is good or bad may be like asking whether a given substance is "healthy" or "unhealthy" to eat: there are, of course, many foods that are appropriate to eat, but there is also a biologically important (and objective) distinction between food and poison. This is Moral Realism.[/FONT]

As to Moral Relativism, it states that 'there is no absolute morality' which is in itself an absolute statement about morality, which by its own definition, it is not allowed to do. As to Moral Nihilism, this is a silly and lazy position, akin to saying your a 'Economics Nihilist'. However this position usually stems from a non understanding of Morality.

 

[Silver Persian]

Thus I most agree with a position which is termed 'moral fictionalism' - a form of moral nihilism which sides with non-cognitivists whilst nonetheless thinks that we can allow the fiction of a truth-apt moral discourse.

I will read up on this. It sounds a little bit awkward here, but interesting.

 

[John McCain]

To ask whether a given action is right or wrong is really to ask whether it will tend to create greater well-being, or greater suffering, for oneself and others. And there seems little doubt that there are right and wrong answers here.

I don't agree with the proposition that greater well being is an absolute moral good, and suffering is absolutely bad.

There are obvious exceptions to this, such as those who choose to experience suffering for various reasons, and the popular idea (protestant work ethic perhaps?) that suffering builds character and is good for the soul.

Many people deliberately and wantonly engage in knowing self-destruction.

Define well-being, and explain why more of it is better? Taking a step back, I think it's difficult to rationally argue why existence itself is good. We all feel strongly inclined from intuition to trust that our existence is good and essential, but our senses often deceive us and are not reason to trust that existence is good.

Why is the existence of life good?

As to Moral Relativism, it states that 'there is no absolute morality' which is in itself an absolute statement about morality, which by its own definition, it is not allowed to do.

It's only contradictory when you phrase it like that as a semantic game, it's a language trick, it doesn't address the actual position. It's a point that holds no water.

Besides, you've got the expression mixed up. 'there is no absolute morality' is not self contradictory. The statement is not a moral in itself, so it is not contradicted by its statement that morality is relative. 'there is no absolute truth' is the contradictory statement, because it is (supposedly) stating an absolute truth.

 

[John McCain]

Asking whether or not an action is good or bad may be like asking whether a given substance is "healthy" or "unhealthy" to eat: there are, of course, many foods that are appropriate to eat, but there is also a biologically important (and objective) distinction between food and poison.

I just noticed this and thought I should point out that many things we consume may be beneficial or poison depending on dosage.

1l of water is good, 20l will kill you.

It's all relative you see...

 

[ad infinitum]

I don't agree with the proposition that greater well being is an absolute moral good, and suffering is absolutely bad.

There are obvious exceptions to this, such as those who choose to experience suffering for various reasons, and the popular idea (protestant work ethic perhaps?) that suffering builds character and is good for the soul.

Many people deliberately and wantonly engage in knowing self-destruction.

Define well-being, and explain why more of it is better? Taking a step back, I think it's difficult to rationally argue why existence itself is good. We all feel strongly inclined from intuition to trust that our existence is good and essential, but our senses often deceive us and are not reason to trust that existence is good.

Why is the existence of life good?

Indeed, I use the term 'well being' in a very broad sense. I do not mean it in the narrow 'explicit pleasure' sense (although this does play apart). I think your overcomplicated things a bit....you have asked me to explain how I can rationalize good being good....I would take this to be self evident...
There of course are some exceptions (i.e masochists), however this does no damage to my point. It would be akin to saying a small amount of masochists like to ingest poison instead of food and hence the distinction between food and poison is therefore blurred or even destroyed. No, an object, biological distinction still remains.

It's only contradictory when you phrase it like that as a semantic game, it's a language trick, it doesn't address the actual position. It's a point that holds no water.

Besides, you've got the expression mixed up. 'there is no absolute morality' is not self contradictory. The statement is not a moral in itself, so it is not contradicted by its statement that morality is relative. 'there is no absolute truth' is the contradictory statement, because it is (supposedly) stating an absolute truth.

No. If you think about it I believe you will come to the same conclusion as me. It is not just a word game; it is self refuting. The basic premise of the Moral Relativist is 'All is relative'; this statement either classes as absolute or relative. If it is relative, then this statement does not rule out absolutes. If the statement is absolutehttp://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/absolute, on the other hand, then it provides an example of an absolute statement, proving that not all truths are relative. Furthermore, even if I was wrong, this is only one minor dot point in a long list of reasons why Moral Relativism falls flat.

However I do concede we have much to learn about morality (and how to optimize it) as there has been a lack of scientific inquiry into these matters.

 

[John McCain]

Indeed, I use the term 'well being' in a very broad sense. I do not mean it in the narrow 'explicit pleasure' sense (although this does play apart).

I understood exactly what you meant by 'well being'.

you have asked me to explain how I can rationalize good being good....I would take this to be self evident...

I never asked such as thing, you gave me the concept of 'well being' as good, and I asked you to explain, what is this universal concept of 'well being'?

What is the correct life?

I don't believe there is such as thing. One life is as good as another.

To say why something is morally good, I think you first and most importantly have to say why it is consequential? If something has no consequence (and in a big universe over an infinite timeframe, of what importance is life?), then there is no reason to act in any particular way in regard to it.

The only way you can argue for absolute moral truth, is by introducing god into the discussion, it can't be justified on reason.

There of course are some exceptions (i.e masochists), however this does no damage to my point. It would be akin to saying a small amount of masochists like to ingest poison instead of food and hence the distinction between food and poison is therefore blurred or even destroyed. No, an object, biological distinction still remains.

You're still using the food analogy, which is silly. There is no absolute distinction between food and poison. One can be the other, depending in dosage. It's an analogy for relativism.

No. If you think about it I believe you will come to the same conclusion as me. It is not just a word game; it is self refuting. The basic premise of the Moral Relativist is 'All is relative'; this statement either classes as absolute or relative. If it is relative, then this statement does not rule out absolutes. If the statement is absolutehttp://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/absolute, on the other hand, then it provides an example of an absolute statement, proving that not all truths are relative. Furthermore, even if I was wrong, this is only one minor dot point in a long list of reasons why Moral Relativism falls flat.

A moral relativist doesn't say there are no absolutes, only that there are no moral absolutes. There is no contradiction. If they were saying "truth is relative", that may be the case, but you don't have to be a relativist to be a moral relativist.

This discussion is only about moral relativism, not relativism as a whole, I'm not interested into getting into the larger discussion on truth.

 

[ad infinitum]

I understood exactly what you meant by 'well being'.


I never asked such as thing, you gave me the concept of 'well being' as good, and I asked you to explain, what is this universal concept of 'well being'?

Are you asking me to define well being (state of happiness, good health, contentment, etc), or are you asking me to explain why we should prefer well being over suffering? Both seem clear to me, and both can be explained at the level of the brain. What is the universal 'good life', well obviously there are a range of suitable answers.

What is the correct life?

Again, there is a range of suitable answers. However there are right and wrong answers. For example, the Moral Relativist will claim that say 'Honor Killing' is morally permissible in the middle east, it is a cultural difference, its all relative. However I would argue that Honor Killings are not conducive to well being (as it promotes fear, grief and may stultify love; compassion); that the same society without Honor Killing would be a objectively better society to live in. Morality after all is a any system of interlocking values, practices and psychological mechanisms that work together to suppress selfishness/suffering and encourage well being/altruism. Some Moral systems are simply better at optimizing well being than others (i.e a system that incorporates free speech, free love, free inquiry will maximize well being better than a system that does not. This is empirical).

I don't believe there is such as thing. One life is as good as another.

What on earth are you trying to suggest here?
?So you would happily trade places with Heidi Fritzel? Or a starving, malaria ridden child in Zimbabwe? What a wicked thing to say, because it suggests that it is not important to be concerned with well being and suffering; by your logic rape would be permissible because it has no effect on 'one being as good as another'.

To say why something is morally good, I think you first and most importantly have to say why it is consequential? If something has no consequence (and in a big universe over an infinite timeframe, of what importance is life?), then there is no reason to act in any particular way in regard to it.

?But our actions do have consequences. These lives are the only ones we are ever going to live, they are important to us, we are concerned about maximizing well being and minimizing suffering, we are socially aware mammal. You strike me as a Nilhist. Not good.

The only way you can argue for absolute moral truth, is by introducing god into the discussion, it can't be justified on reason.

It has nothing to do with a God....moral truths can transcend culture without any supernatural intervention. I am concerned about your use of 'absolute moral truth', I have already stated that there is usually range of approipriate answers to any given moral question. I never stated there was one absolute moral truth/answer.

You're still using the food analogy, which is silly. There is no absolute distinction between food and poison. One can be the other, depending in dosage. It's an analogy for relativism.

Nope. Your just plain wrong here. There is a distinction between cyanide and water, a very clear atomic distinction, and a very clear distinction in how our digestive tract and body deals with each molecule. To say that a high dosage of water is detrimental to our health only makes it a poisen at high dosages, this nuance can be and is incorporated into any framework that helps us distinguis poisen from food (as nuances can be instilled into moral frameworks).

A moral relativist doesn't say there are no absolutes, only that there are no moral absolutes.

Lol. Whats the difference? The only difference I see is 'morality' is an area into which proper inquiry has been scarce, whilst other areas have enjoyed proper attention.

There is no contradiction. If they were saying "truth is relative", that may be the case, but you don't have to be a relativist to be a moral relativist.

Again, moral relavism is simply an extension from relativism, the only reason you think differently is because we may find questions of morality a bit murky, a bit difficult at this point in time.

This discussion is only about moral relativism, not relativism as a whole, I'm not interested into getting into the larger discussion on truth.

There is really no difference between the two, however you have not stated why you think that there is a distinction (infact you have not attempted to establish any positive points yet, you have only attempted to make negative points agiasnt my arguement, so If your going to attack Moral Realism; what is your alternative?).

 

[Silver Persian]

I never asked such as thing, you gave me the concept of 'well being' as good, and I asked you to explain, what is this universal concept of 'well being'?

What is the correct life?

I don't believe there is such as thing. One life is as good as another.

I'm interested in how you would reconcile this view with the views you're expressing in the child smacking thread. If all lives are equally good, why does it matter whether a parent smacks their child or not?

 

[Lentern]

Straight out i'll concede I'm nowhere near as philosophically learned as the other participants in this thread but yeah... I'll have a bash.

Straight out I can't accept that something is "moral" merely because of the context. Particularly I can't accept the inverse; something is immoral because of the context.That would surely mean that left handers, homosexuals and de facto couples were in fact immoral at some point in time if not any more.

I may merely be believing what I want to believe here(how could I tell) but I would lean towards morals being universal in a similar way to common law: The idea that it has actually always existed and always will but has not always been recognized and at times have been incorrectly interpreted. Contexts might be able to excuse immorality ie we are human and fear of both the social and legal ramifications might stop us were we in Philip's army from crash tackling him as he went to rape the most attractive woman in the village. That doesn't make the complicity moral though.

On the question of what are universal morals, I'm not brave enough to touch upon the euthanasian element. Broadly speaking they would relate to acting in way as to promote and increase other peoples enjoyment of life in an equitable way. On the question of where did they come from, the fact that they are called universal answers that in itself does it not?

 

[John McCain]

?But our actions do have consequences. These lives are the only ones we are ever going to live, they are important to us, we are concerned about maximizing well being and minimizing suffering, we are socially aware mammal. You strike me as a Nilhist. Not good.

Just because you are concerned about things emotionally, due to your human centred perspective, isn't answering the question of why they have any significance.

You're saying that something is important, simply because you intuitively feel it is important, which isn't a rational justification.

Of course our actions have consequences. The wind blowing across the sand and scattering its particles has consequences. But would it matter if that wind wasn't there?

It has nothing to do with a God....moral truths can transcend culture without any supernatural intervention.

So far you've only done so by your appeal to emotion and intuition.

Lol. Whats the difference? The only difference I see is 'morality' is an area into which proper inquiry has been scarce, whilst other areas have enjoyed proper attention.

Well a relativist would say that all areas of observation, perception and judgement are relative to individuals and situations. A moral relativist would only say morals are so.

I'm interested in how you would reconcile this view with the views you're expressing in the child smacking thread. If all lives are equally good, why does it matter whether a parent smacks their child or not?

From a universal perspective, these human morals have no real importance. I see no objective reason to give value to this perspective, but my human weakness makes it a fun fantasy to indulge in while it lasts.

Can't choose to live outside of my human experience. I can objectively judge existence as absurd and inconsequential, but I can't choose to live outside my human, emotional framework, any more than a seagull could choose to play the drums.

 

[ad infinitum]

Just because you are concerned about things emotionally, due to your human centred perspective, isn't answering the question of why they have any significance.

It is perfectly rational to seek out a state of well being. It is hardwired into our mammalian brains. Of course, our lives are significant only from the 'human perspective'....don't see how this draws away from anything I've said.

You're saying that something is important, simply because you intuitively feel it is important, which isn't a rational justification.

It is not only intuitive (and only sometimes it is intuitive, and we understand the origin and role of these intuitions) but it is completely rational (explained and justified perfectly by natural selection) and worth wanting. By your logic, 'love' should be viewed as 'unimportant' because it is intuitive (even though it has a perfectly rational justification- as does morality).

Of course our actions have consequences. The wind blowing across the sand and scattering its particles has consequences. But would it matter if that wind wasn't there?

Stop confusing your self. Why are you using words like 'matter' to describe non sentient beings. Nothing matters to a rock because it cannot matter. Things matter to humans because we have evolved consciousness (which allows us to better our situation).

So far you've only done so by your appeal to emotion and intuition.

?Not at all. We have perfectly rational explanations of why and how morality arises in a species through evolution, and why this species places importance on the regularities of a moral framework.

Well a relativist would say that all areas of observation, perception and judgement are relative to individuals and situations. A moral relativist would only say morals are so.

Wow, your thick. Both are logically exactly the same position.

From a universal perspective, these human morals have no real importance. I see no objective reason to give value to this perspective, but my human weakness makes it a fun fantasy to indulge in while it lasts.

Can't choose to live outside of my human experience. I can objectively judge existence as absurd and inconsequential, but I can't choose to live outside my human, emotional framework, any more than a seagull could choose to play the drums.

I do pity you if this your view of life. Stop using words like 'importance'. IT doesn't make sense; what has therefore 'real importance'. This confused Nihilistic view of yours is so babyish. And next time don't ignore 90% of my points.

 

[John McCain]

It is perfectly rational to seek out a state of well being. It is hardwired into our mammalian brains. Of course, our lives are significant only from the 'human perspective'....don't see how this draws away from anything I've said.

The problem with the human perspective is it is frequently subject to emotional bias and self-delusion.

Why is it better to seek out a state of well being, as opposed to doing the opposite? Why does it matter either way? Why choose existence over non-existence?

It is not only intuitive (and only sometimes it is intuitive, and we understand the origin and role of these intuitions) but it is completely rational (explained and justified perfectly by natural selection) and worth wanting.

Being given certain drives by natural selection, doesn't impart whether they are right or wrong. We are often instinctively driven to such things as violence and over consumption.

Natural selection is simply a fact, in itself it isn't a justification for anything. What is the reason we should follow our biological drives?

Stop confusing your self. Why are you using words like 'matter' to describe non sentient beings. Nothing matters to a rock because it cannot matter. Things matter to humans because we have evolved consciousness (which allows us to better our situation).

What is the difference between the significance of a mans action, and the action of wind on sand? Why does consciousness impart importance to action?

?Not at all. We have perfectly rational explanations of why and how morality arises in a species through evolution, and why this species places importance on the regularities of a moral framework.

Biology should not be confused with morality.

Wow, your thick. Both are logically exactly the same position.

No they are not. Relativism contends that any aspect of experience or culture may be relative. Moral relativism makes this claim only in regard to morality.

I do pity you if this your view of life. Stop using words like 'importance'. IT doesn't make sense; what has therefore 'real importance'.

What is wrong with asking you to justify why taking a certain course of action is important? The worth of an action should be easily justifiable if it is good.

 

[Fish Tank]

I'll throw in my two cents...

If we look at religion, which does provide a moral guideline for its followers, the major points are quite similar. For example, Buddhism and Christianity both imply that stealing, adultery, murder etc is wrong. Although the wording is different, and the method in which this is achieved varies between both faiths, the general message is the same.

So, my understand of it is there's a unwritten universal foundation for morals, but it's open to interpretation by different societies. Personally, I think it comes down to survival instincts - murder is wrong as the person may be of use to the group (humans are social creatures after all).

 

[ad infinitum]

The problem with the human perspective is it is frequently subject to emotional bias and self-delusion.

Yea that's why we have science. Why couldn't science inquire into questions of morality?

Why is it better to seek out a state of well being, as opposed to doing the opposite? Why does it matter either way? Why choose existence over non-existence?

Evolution through natural selection...

Being given certain drives by natural selection, doesn't impart whether they are right or wrong. We are often instinctively driven to such things as violence and over consumption.

Wow stop clumsily attacking points I never made. Not my fault if your not smart enough to comprehend my actual points.

Natural selection is simply a fact, in itself it isn't a justification for anything. What is the reason we should follow our biological drives?

Natural selection explains how morality came about it also explains why it is important to maintain and upgrade moral frameworks. Once again, not my fault if you are unlearned about these processes.

What is the difference between the significance of a mans action, and the action of wind on sand? Why does consciousness impart importance to action?

Because sentient beings are capable of joy and suffering.

Biology should not be confused with morality.

Complete non sequitor to the point a made.

No they are not. Relativism contends that any aspect of experience or culture may be relative. Moral relativism makes this claim only in regard to morality.

One is a subset of the other, that is true. It is a stupid and ill thought position to be a moral relativist without being also a relativist, much like someone calling themselves a christian without believing in the virgin birth,etc.

What is wrong with asking you to justify why taking a certain course of action is important? The worth of an action should be easily justifiable if it is good.

Again you missed my point. What IS therefore 'of real importance'? Please be more precise with the use of your language instead of throwing around vague words that make little sense to the relevance of your arguements.

 

[John McCain]

If you're just going to tell me I'm stupid, and not elaborate on your position at all, please stop posting.

I may be dense, but please bear with me and explain exactly how natural selection justifies morality?

A significant problem with arguing that natural selection is a justification for a particular moral framework, is that acting purely to maximise reproductive success (which is all that natural selection is), produces many behaviours that violate the rights of others. While natural selection will usually favor cooperative behaviour, there are many instances where rape, violence and theft, if you can get away with it, would maximise reproductive success.

Evolution through natural selection...

How does it justify morality? It is the origin of the emotional, human response to particular situations, but it does not justify whether this particular action is moral.

Wow stop clumsily attacking points I never made. Not my fault if your not smart enough to comprehend my actual points.

adhominem

Natural selection explains how morality came about it also explains why it is important to maintain and upgrade moral frameworks. Once again, not my fault if you are unlearned about these processes.

adhominem

Natural selection explains how human response to certain situations developed. It does not say whether these responses are moral or immoral.

Because sentient beings are capable of joy and suffering.

Why is it wrong to cause suffering? Why is it better to have joy than to not have joy? How does the capacity to experience these feelings give significance to human actions?

One is a subset of the other, that is true. It is a stupid and ill thought position to be a moral relativist without being also a relativist, much like someone calling themselves a christian without believing in the virgin birth,etc.

Why is it stupid and ill thought? elaborate. They are different.

Again you missed my point. What IS therefore 'of real importance'? Please be more precise with the use of your language instead of throwing around vague words that make little sense to the relevance of your arguements.

Can you rephrase this sentence- "What is therefore of real importance?"
It's grammatically incorrect and makes no sense.

How is asking what value or meaning there is in a particular action (which is what I am referring to by 'importance'), vague?