Moral Relativism: Good, bad...etc?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


That was absolute nonsense.

Every individual happens to act in his or her perceived self-interest, that is, towards the end with which they are happiest/most content. We, rather arbitrarily, divide self-interest into two categories: selfishness and altruism. The division tends to be something like this: selfishness contains all acts that are in one's self-interest without regard to others' self-interests, and altruism contains all acts that are in one's self-interest without regard to one's own self-interest (that is, based wholly on how it will benefit others). We also have a third category, enlightened self-interest, that contains all actions that are partially based upon others' self-interests (for example, buying something from someone as opposed to stealing from them). We tend to look at this category as something of a gradiant; there are some actions more "enlightened" and others less "enlightened" (a company donating money to cancer research, with the main goal to help cancer victims, but with a limited desire to gain popularity, would be more enlighted, while someone who pays a prostitute for sex rather than raping here would be less enlightened). An individual's morality is generally thought of as the rules governing his altruistic acts, whereas an individual's preferences are generally thought of as the rules governing his selfish acts, with a mix of the two governing his enlightened self-interest. However, these are arbitrary definitions, and when relativism states that there is no absolute morality, it also states that there are no absolute preferences. It doesn't prevent an individual from acting on his morality OR his preferences.

EDIT: btw, when I talk about "better for another person", I mean "what the individual thinks is better for that person".

Oh God Skywalker. Can you give me the point of this. I actually read it all, even though I could tell it was absolute rubbish from the first few sentences.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ramo

The point is that those statements ARE absolute, because they aren't the words, they're the meaning behind the words. x = x is absolutely true, because it isn't the string "x = x", it's what I meant by that statement, and what I meant by that statement happens to be a tautology. When someone makes a moral statement, they aren't

Let's suppose that you are correct.

I'll say "killing is immoral." What I really mean is "using my moral basis, assuming standard logic, killing is immoral." That is true. Therefore, "killing is immoral" is an absolutely true statement. Therefore, morality is absolute.

See, your logic is contradictory.

Given what you mean by those statements, then what you say is completely consistent with relativism.

When most people say "killing is immoral", they don't mean it the same way.

There are two types of statements, analytic and synthetic. Analytic statements are true because they state a relation between two concepts that is contained in the meaning of the concept; it is absurd to dispute them. For instance, "green things are green" is analytic, because the relation is true based only on the two concepts. Synthetic statements aren't absurd to dispute. "Lightning is electricity" is a synthetic statement (assuming you're talking about lightning as "the bright stuff that hits the ground from the clouds"). We can only establish the truth of that statement with outside information, called experience. We can do an experiment to determine that lightning and electricity are, in fact, the same phenomenon. However, prior to that experiment, it is perfectly reasonable to assert that they are, in fact, different phenomena.

When most people make moral statements, such as "Killing is wrong", they are making a synthetic statement. They are making a connection between the concepts of killing and wrong that are not inherent in the meaning of the individual concepts, and they are applying it universally. Given that experience obviously cannot provide a foundation for a moral statement, they have no foundation for their claim; it is dogmatic.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Oh God Skywalker. Can you give me the point of this. I actually read it all, even though I could tell it was absolute rubbish from the first few sentences.

You claimed that if "you don't believe in bad or good you are just a pleasure seeker", i.e. belief in moral relativism implies that one acts purely selfishly. My point was (in a roundabout way) that, since relativism clearly applies equally to preference (in fact, no one disputes this; no one thinks that chocolate ice cream is absolutely better tasting, they understand how good or bad it tastes is subjective) as morality, that a moral relativist would act in the same way regarding his preferences as regarding his morality. Either he wouldn't act by his preferences or his morality, and just sit and twitch, or he would act by both. Actually, everyone acts by both, because one's morals and preferences are (as I am using them; I hope I made my meaning clear) the rules by which one decides on a course of action. So a moral relativist wouldn't be purely selfish unless the relativist had no morals in the first place.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes, yes, just like history has shown that mathematicians did not always believe irrational numbers existed? Just like history shows that the theory of relativity was not always true.

Changing beliefs does not mean any universal truths are suddenly untrue. It means our understanding of them is changing.

Like I said before mathematic and scientic truths have no relevance to morality. You can't 'prove' morality to be true.

Now, if you acknowledge that the good of anyone has value, then you must propose why the good of that one has value and the good of others does not. Indeed, you would have to propose why the good of everyone does not have equal value if you do not think it does.

If you propose that the good of the one has no value, then you are a Moral Nihilist, and believe that there is nothing morally good or bad.

Neither. The good of one has no INHERANT value. The value is created by society. And thus society decides what is the 'good' to be protected. The only reason I would think morality is good or bad is because of my personal beliefs that come from my society. Nothing more.

[Kidlicious]

Well I obviously meant that if you care nothing about other people's suffering, then you care only about your own, and you are amoral.

[Ramo]

When most people say "killing is immoral", they don't mean it the same way.

My point was, how do you know what people mean, if not by their words? As I said, the logic of a statement is based on that statement, not in whatever ideas are floating around in the mind of the person who constructed the statement.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Well I obviously meant that if you care nothing about other people's suffering, then you care only about your own, and you are amoral.

And I was correcting your misapprehension that moral relativists didn't care about others or have morals. They are just like other people, except they realize those morals are no more absolutely true than preferences such as ice cream flavors. This doesn't really have a practical effect on their actions, any more than recognition that your ice cream flavor preference is subjective doesn't have much of a practical influence on your actions.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The only reason I would think morality is good or bad is because of my personal beliefs that come from my society. Nothing more.

Ultimate conformist.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ramo

When most people say "killing is immoral", they don't mean it the same way.

My point was, how do you know what people mean, if not by their words? As I said, the logic of a statement is based on that statement, not in whatever ideas are floating around in the mind of the person who constructed the statement.

The logic of the statement is based on that statement. The statement is not based upon the string stored in the memory of Apolyton's server. When you read the words and assign different concepts to them, you are reading a different statement.

The relativity between words and the associated concepts is different from the relativity of morals.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


And I was correcting your misapprehension that moral relativists didn't care about others or have morals. They are just like other people, except they realize those morals are no more absolutely true than preferences such as ice cream flavors. This doesn't really have a practical effect on their actions, any more than recognition that your ice cream flavor preference is subjective doesn't have much of a practical influence on your actions.

Since moral relativists don't even believe in the truth of their own beliefs, the purpose of their argument can't be to seek truth, only to pursue their own individual goals. Therefore, moral relativism isn't a moral code, only a tool for bullsitters.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Since moral relativists don't even believe in the truth of their own beliefs, the purpose of their argument can't be to seek truth, only to pursue their own individual goals. Therefore, moral relativism isn't a moral code, only a tool for bullsitters.

Do you believe that, say, "chocolate ice cream is the best" is true or false?

[Ramo]

The relativity between words and the associated concepts is different from the relativity of morals.

Good is just another word. Bad is just another word. No, it's part of the same argument.

When you read the words and assign different concepts to them, you are reading a different statement.

Yes, that is why those statements were not absolutely true. You need to assume a logical system in which they are true.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Do you believe that, say, "chocolate ice cream is the best" is true or false?

Ok, false. That isn't a moral jusdgement, and even if it were what I think doesn't really matter, because you can't tell if my bias is getting in the way or not. If my bias didn't get in the way, my response would be an absolute truth, assuming I percieved the problem correctly.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ramo

The relativity between words and the associated concepts is different from the relativity of morals.

Good is just another word. Bad is just another word. No, it's part of the same argument.

"Good" is just another word. Good is a concept. That I have to use words to convey concepts to you has nothing to do with the validity of an argument.

When you read the words and assign different concepts to them, you are reading a different statement.

Yes, that is why those statements were not absolutely true. You need to assume a logical system in which they are true.

Yes, the statements ARE absolutely true. The words, the pattern of letters or sounds, are not absolutely true, because they aren't statements. They are imperfect means of transmitting statements.

[Ramo]

Statements are just the words or symbols strung together, not anything else. They're not absolutely true. Their validity can only be analyzed in the context of a logical system.

I have no idea what sort of system you're referring to, but it isn't a formalized logic anybody deals with.