Moral Relativism: Good, bad...etc?

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by Drachasor
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).

I agree: a perfect Utilitarian society would be good. But only because your moral code pre-assumes that the welfare of society is good. So within your boundaries, you have a superior morality, but the boundaries are set by the morality itself.

Alternative argument: Different societies will have very different views on how to implement what is best for them. Realistically, nobody bases their ethical code on what they believe is worst for their society, (if they did, the society wouldn't last long enough for the moral code to survive), but everyone comes to a different model of their moral utopia.

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Absolute good doesn't have to assume a God.

I didn't say it did. I just suggested it was analagous to a God as regards its provability, and therefore reason for existence.

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?

I don't understand. Could you rephrase it with less negatives?

[Al B. Sure!]

He means dont you think that the moral codes we believe in are products of our knowledge, whether personal experiences or cultural experiences that are indoctrinated into us and if we had the same experiences, we'd have the same moral code. if you dont believe that, why not?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
I don't understand. Could you rephrase it with less negatives?

Do you think we would believe in alternative ethical codes, if we were completely ingnorant of ourselves? Why?

And I think you are confusing nationalism with utilitarianism.

[Kidlicious]

Your'e much more articulate than I AS. I'm a bit jealous.

[Al B. Sure!]

wow kidicious... over the past two days, you've been constantly fawning over me...

[Immortal Wombat]

AS managed to rephrase it with just as many negatives, actually. So I'm going to use yours.

Originally posted by Kidicious
Do you think we would believe in alternative ethical codes, if we were completely ingnorant of ourselves? Why?

Yes. There is no chance our ethical codes would remain identical in a different environment. They may not change substantially, but they would change. Since it's not possible to raise a human entirely outside a culture, they will inevitably adopt some of the views of the society they live in, until exposed to others, or without a really really long sit-down and a think about possible other societies. Since 99.99% of people never do this, I think it's safe to rule out.

If you could conceive a hypothetical human without all culture then would they need morality at all? They'd have no other humans to interact with.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
AS managed to rephrase it with just as many negatives, actually. So I'm going to use yours.

I'm SO done fawning over him.

Yes. There is no chance our ethical codes would remain identical in a different environment.

But that doesn't answer my question. Let me rephrase it. Would we all have the save ethical code if all our experience was the same, we were subject to the same culture/indoctrination, and had identical personal consequences for that ethical code?

[Immortal Wombat]

Oh I see. Right. Yes, except for the 0.01 percente I mentioned above, who sit down to work things out for themselves. And after they have done so, the system becomes chaotic, breaking the cultural indoctrination becomes much easier for the unthinking majority.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
Oh I see. Right. Yes, except for the 0.01 percente I mentioned above, who sit down to work things out for themselves. And after they have done so, the system becomes chaotic, breaking the cultural indoctrination becomes much easier for the unthinking majority.

Huh? I'm not really following this idea of calculating the greatest good for the greatest number, because this really isn't about utilitarianism. Can you explain more how this is relevent? And are you saying that thinking people are easier to indoctrinate, or is that a typo?

It seems like your just trying to make things difficult for me, but I'll give you a chance to explain yourself.

[Immortal Wombat]

Eh? No. I'm saying that most people don't put any thought into their system of moral beliefs. If all our experience was the same, we were subject to the same culture/indoctrination, and had identical personal consequences for that ethical code, then yes: all our moral codes would start off the same. Most people just go with the flow, with what they've been taught, consciously and subconsciously by society to be "right" and "wrong".

Except that a few people will take the time to think about what they personally believe to be right and wrong. If they come up with a different answer to that which society by default provides, then they will presumably make their thoughts known, and then moral backgrounds will begin to differ. People will then be categorized as "people who have heard about new moral code x" and "people who haven't heard about moral code x". As soon as that happens, then moral codes will begin to diverge.

[Sava]

most morality is relative...

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ramo

Logical validity is DEFINED in terms of contradiction, so those are tautological statements with no need of an asterisk.

No, I need to define it. It's an axiom that I need to establish before saying anything else about logical validity.

There's no mystical being that defines logical validity for me.

Stop being an ass.

Saying that someone ought to perform some action makes a statement that is not tautological.

To be logically valid MEANS to be without contradiction - they are the same term. Just like the equation x = x does not restrict the domain of x, the statement "a statement that is contradictory is invalid" does not give any new insights or meaning of either term, it is a tautology.

Moral statements, on the other hand, are NOT tautological; they DO make a connection between terms that goes beyond their respective definitions. The only source by which one can make such statements is experience, and morality clearly cannot be observed in some scientific experiment. Therefore, they are dogmatic.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Of course not. It isn't even a ethical code, so who cares about it's consistency.

The scientific method isn't an ethical code, so who cares about its consistancy?

Most arguments aren't moral codes, so who cares about their consistancy?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I would rather have any moral code as opposed to none at all.

So? Personal preference. Doesn't prove anything, except you happen to like moral codes.

Moral codes aren't absurd. They make sense. Not having one makes no sense at all. If you can't call actions good or bad then you can't really participate in the debate. All you can do is say that everyone is wrong, but you can't even be right yourself.

By your logic, not believing in God is absurd, because it means one cannot participate in theological debates.