Moral Relativism: Good, bad...etc?

[Al B. Sure!]

I think survival of the fittest is an ethical code, similar to utilitarianism, if not the same.

very different... utilitarianism is concerned with the greatest utility for the greatest number. it's democratic and operates on the societal level. survival of the fittest is egoism. it's individualist and operates on the individual's level.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat

There is no way to derive an absolute good and bad from logic, is there? We are self-replicating squishy sacks of watered down protein. All the universal truths that apply to us merely apply to our bodies. There is no physical basis for any absolute good or bad. There is no logical way to derive absolute good or bad. There is no empirical way to derive an absolute good or bad. What's left?

There is no way to prove that there isn't absolute good and bad either. So you are left with either believing that there is or isn't, based on your bias (if you are biased) or something else. The question is, if you don't base your opinion on your bias, what is 'something else.'

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Albert Speer


very different... utilitarianism is concerned with the greatest utility for the greatest number. it's democratic and operates on the societal level. survival of the fittest is egoism. it's individualist and operates on the individual's level.

Utiliarianism is not inherently democratic though. If the human race continues on forever, that would make for the greatest happiness regardless of how many people suffer in the short run, even if a majority.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
Survival of the Fittest can be the label of an ethical code, but the Darwinian process of that name has nothing to do with ethics if we assume human beings have free will.

Or even if we don't.

Ethical Atheists that don't believe in free will:

Survival of the fittest is inherently a description of how things reproduce and species survive/change.

However, it really doesn't go over how intelligent, reasoning entities should act to promote the good of the species. So while evolution might label something is more likely to propogate in a particular environment, that doesn't really tell you what sort of environment is desireable. (and ethical systems in the form of social conventions are a large part of the environment).

-Drachasor

[Immortal Wombat]

If there is no way to prove an absolute good and bad, then there is no reason to suppose there is one. cf God. At the risk of sounding like Kuci, absolute good/bad is an unecessary plurality that a certain razor-wielding resident of Ockham would disapprove of.

If the whole thing boils down to faith, then nobody will know even if you do stumble upon the absolute good/bad. And in that case, what does it matter? How is it different to any other moral code? It's not. And when the absolute good/evil becomes just like any other, it isn't absolute. It's relative again.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Utiliarianism is not inherently democratic though. If the human race continues on forever, that would make for the greatest happiness regardless of how many people suffer in the short run, even if a majority.

Easy ways around the problem include the fact that we don't know when the human race will end. It could happen tomorrow.

Additionally, short-term *planned* suffering of individuals can lead to long term unhappiness issues. To say nothing of the difficulty in predicting wether or not the planned suffering would otherwise produce a sufficient benefit to justify it, as opposed to other methods at one's disposal.

-Drachasor

[Al B. Sure!]

IW:

i was under the impression this debate wasn't about if there are moral truths but if one should view his morality as being a moral truth.

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by Drachasor
Survival of the fittest is inherently a description of how things reproduce and species survive/change.

However, it really doesn't go over how intelligent, reasoning entities should act to promote the good of the species. So while evolution might label something is more likely to propogate in a particular environment, that doesn't really tell you what sort of environment is desireable. (and ethical systems in the form of social conventions are a large part of the environment).

In theory, we should all be doing immensely complex calculations to determine how our actions increase our chances of gene propogation in relation to the hindering effect they may have on other individuals, in proportion to how related they are to us. i.e. Self-sacrifice to save two brothers, or sixteen cousins, or three hundred people in your country, or a thousand from another country, or whatever. But then on a smaller scale, if I have a child, will that prevent my mother having two more children, could I better spend the money on raising a child sponsering two hundred african babies, or would that just further the overpopulation crisis in the long-run, causing a low of gene-material... etc etc.

I think philosophy arrived at about the time societies got too complex for us to do those sums.

[Kidlicious]

My point is that a utilitarian could just as well believe in survival of the fittest. The two are not mutually exclusive. I think in fact they are mostly inclusive.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
If there is no way to prove an absolute good and bad, then there is no reason to suppose there is one. cf God. At the risk of sounding like Kuci, absolute good/bad is an unecessary plurality that a certain razor-wielding resident of Ockham would disapprove of.

If the whole thing boils down to faith, then nobody will know even if you do stumble upon the absolute good/bad. And in that case, what does it matter? How is it different to any other moral code? It's not. And when the absolute good/evil becomes just like any other, it isn't absolute. It's relative again.

While it might be somewhat non-trivial to label a particular act as good or bad*, that doesn't mean you can't have an overall system of advised behavior that is superior to another system of adviced behavior. "Better" in the sense of promoting the good of society/people (well-being, etc). Good is inherently linked to well-being, which I think some people might forget. When you say something is "good for someone" you mean that person's well-being benefits (or relatively benefits) from it in some way (wether long-term or short-term).

-Drachasor

*Here's a try though: The killing of someone that neither benefits nor relatively benefits anyone.

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
I was under the impression this debate wasn't about if there are moral truths but if one should view his morality as being a moral truth.

I thought we were discussing the relative merits of moral relativism with the usual degree of tangential asides that debating on internet forums always brings. Threads always start off with an easy question, which rapidly recurses into infinite open brackets of argument. The trouble is that nobody ever seems to allow them to close.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
If there is no way to prove an absolute good and bad, then there is no reason to suppose there is one. cf God. At the risk of sounding like Kuci, absolute good/bad is an unecessary plurality that a certain razor-wielding resident of Ockham would disapprove of.

If the whole thing boils down to faith, then nobody will know even if you do stumble upon the absolute good/bad. And in that case, what does it matter? How is it different to any other moral code? It's not. And when the absolute good/evil becomes just like any other, it isn't absolute. It's relative again.

Absolute good doesn't have to assume a God. Don't you think that we would all believe in the same ethical code if we didn't know anyting about ourselves, people like us, our culture, or our nation. If not, why?

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat In theory, we should all be doing immensely complex calculations to determine how our actions increase our chances of gene propogation in relation to the hindering effect they may have on other individuals, in proportion to how related they are to us. i.e. Self-sacrifice to save two brothers, or sixteen cousins, or three hundred people in your country, or a thousand from another country, or whatever. But then on a smaller scale, if I have a child, will that prevent my mother having two more children, could I better spend the money on raising a child sponsering two hundred african babies, or would that just further the overpopulation crisis in the long-run, causing a low of gene-material... etc etc.

I think philosophy arrived at about the time societies got too complex for us to do those sums.

As far utilitarianism goes, it advocates other methods that promote the good in such circumstances. Clearly sometimes you must make your "best guess" on what is for the good, based on past evidence and data, otherwise you let relative or actual bad happen while you waste time calculating endlessly.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
IW:

i was under the impression this debate wasn't about if there are moral truths but if one should view his morality as being a moral truth.

Hmmm.. That's not what the debate is working out as.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Drachasor
Good is inherently linked to well-being, which I think some people might forget. When you say something is "good for someone" you mean that person's well-being benefits (or relatively benefits) from it in some way (wether long-term or short-term).

That's an opinion. Good is different according to the ethical code.