Moral Relativism: Good, bad...etc?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


Did anything I said about context sink in?

Same time, same person, same place, same issure, same context.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Kidicious
If you realize that your beliefs aren't true you can't realize that they are. If you don't know that's a different story, but if you know, then you can't not know.

Your problem is that you're applying two-tone thinking to a complex problem.

Look at it like this -- if you've got one athlete who's the world record holder in the 100-meter dash, and another athlete who's the world record holder in the 400-meter dash, then which runner is "faster"? There is no a priori means of determining the answer. In fact, many people would simply choose to leave the answer as indeterminate. Nevertheless, some people are bound to hold opinions on the matter with various justifications, and will lobby for their side even knowing that there is no definitive right or wrong answer to the question. (F'rinstance, when drafting a football player it's usually impossible to determine which player is the "best," but the various members of the coaching staff will still voice their opinions on who to draft becaues they still have a stake in the answer.)

Moral systems are far more complex than such a simple athletic competition, and likewise it's usually impossible to determine what moral sytem is the "best" (or "true" or "valid" or whatever). Still, that doesn't stop people from holding opinions on the question, even knowing that there isn't any sort of divine writ defining the "perfect" moral code. In fact, just as there is no such thing as a "perfect" athlete, there probably isn't such a thing as a "perfect" moral code.

[Ari Rahikkala]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

His beliefs don't have any bearing what he thinks?

Jesus Christ... can you get off your strawman creating horse for just one post? His PERSONAL moral beliefs have no bearing on whether he believes any moral belief is more 'valid' or 'true' than any other. They are simply his PERSONAL moral beliefs and he considers them no better nor worse than anyone else's.

I don't know about you, but I think all of my personal moral beliefs are wrong. This is a moral belief (in a way), so this is wrong, too.

[Drachasor]

Look, a lot of bad arguements for relativism are going on here.

1. Just because you might have different beliefs if you grow up in a different place, does not imply that all beliefs are equal. Anymore than it implies the nutrition and nurishment you got from either place would be equal. In other words, that there are differences is merely on observation of how the world works, but it doesn't imply equality of result.

2. Similarly, just because different people have different beliefs, it does not mean they are equally valid. Again, it is just an observation of fact.

3. You can't be a moral relativist and think that your morality is better than someone else's. That's a contradiction. By accepting that moral relativism is true, you are inherently accepting that there is nothing special about whatever moral system you choose.

The problem with moral relativism, is that it inherently acts like ethics are not supposed to have any particular purpose. It also proposed that all moral systems are equally "true" without giving any basis on how to evaluate wether it is true or not. Moral Relativism logically must lead disaster, since every possible moral rule you propose or system you propose is equally "true" under relativism. That means that the Nazi's were "right" when they slaughtered the Jews and Terrorists are right when the kill children and civilians.

Moral Relativism will always lead to Moral Nihilism; Nothing is "good" or "bad". Because it states that there is equality among all actions on a scale of "good" and "bad" (since any moral system can be proposed that states a particular actions is the ultimate good or the ultimate evil). Moral Relativism is simply not a constructive path to follow.

It makes more sense to talk about what the purpose of ethics is. What goals does it try to acheive? The purpose of ethics is to state the qualities of moral behavior. Moral behavior is about what behaviors have the quality of "goodness". "Goodness" simply means that it is beneficial in some way.

Now, arguements can be made about wether a particular thing is a worthwhile thing to benefit, but to pretend all things are equally worthwhile is ludicrous. Indeed, some things simply benefit nothing (such as the destruction of everything), unless you propose some mythical creature whose existence you cannot prove. Clearly the latter is a lot less valid than other things.

Now, the natural frame of reference to human ethical behavior is the human; what benefits humans, what principles, if generally adopted by as many people as possible, benefit humanity? (With the idea in mind that you can quite possibly in situations where no everyone follows the principles fully, so "unstable" moralities are not good). This is the sort of questions that an ethical system considers, and some of them answer it a lot better than others.

-Drachasor

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Drachasor
You can't be a moral relativist and think that your morality is better than someone else's.

However, you can be a moral relativist and prefer one moral system over another -- questions of "truth" or "validity" don't come into play. I don't believe that vanilla ice cream is inherently superior to chocolate ice cream, but I still prefer vanilla -- my preferences do not equate to a belief that my taste buds are more "pure" than the taste buds of those who prefer chocolate.

The problem with moral relativism, is that it inherently acts like ethics are not supposed to have any particular purpose.

Depends on the flavor of relativism. F'rinstance, some relativists believe that ethics are intended to benefit the State, or whoever else happens to be making the rules at the time -- in such a system it would be impossible to determine which State (or whatever) is morally superior to all other States, and so the system would be a relativist one.

The purpose of ethics is to state the qualities of moral behavior. Moral behavior is about what behaviors have the quality of "goodness". "Goodness" simply means that it is beneficial in some way.

How is this any different than relativism? Everybody has different opinions as to what is "beneficial," so you're essentially stating that everybody's moral system is different yet is equally valid provided that the system discourages behavior that isn't beneficial "in some way."

Indeed, some things simply benefit nothing (such as the destruction of everything), unless you propose some mythical creature whose existence you cannot prove.

Prove to whom?

Now, the natural frame of reference to human ethical behavior is the human; what benefits humans, what principles, if generally adopted by as many people as possible, benefit humanity?

Why should somebody try to behave in a way that is beneficial to those who are wicked? Shouldn't he only consider the actions that are beneficial to those who are righteous? Otherwise the wicked would surely overwhelm the righteous...

[Ramo]

Drac, you don't understand what moral relativism is. Just because I cannot say that one moral system is better than another, objectively, doesn't mean that I cannot say that one moral system is better, subjectively. Are the Nazis wrong? Yes, using my basis of morality.

The reason why moral relativism is true is that morality is a purely philosophical construct, and thus can be constructed arbitrarily. It's pretty trivial, when you get down to it.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Ramo
Drac, you don't understand what moral relativism is. Just because I cannot say that one moral system is better than another, objectively, doesn't mean that I cannot say that one moral system is better, subjectively. Are the Nazis wrong? Yes, using my basis of morality.

The reason why moral relativism is true is that morality is a purely philosophical construct, and thus can be constructed arbitrarily. It's pretty trivial, when you get down to it.

Moral Relativism states that ALL MORAL SYSTEMS ARE EQUALLY TRUE, objectively. Hence it inevitably leads to Moral Nihilism, because a moral rule that states killing people for fun is good, is just as valid as one that states you should not kill, according to relativism.

You might not *like* the conclusion moral relativism forces you to draw, but that doesn't change the conclusion you must draw. The moral system you *like* more might say something is wrong, and you might go by that moral system most of the time for convienence. However, when push comes to shove, Moral Relativism forces you to say that the Nazi's Morality is just as good as yours, and hence you can't say what they did is wrong, because they are just as correct in saying it was right.

Don't like it? Tough, that's how Relativism works.

-Drachasor

[Ramo]

Hence it inevitably leads to Moral Nihilism, because a moral rule that states killing people for fun is good, is just as valid as one that states you should not kill, according to relativism.

Objectively, not subjectively.

Moral Relativism forces you to say that the Nazi's Morality is just as good as yours, and hence you can't say what they did is wrong, because they are just as correct in saying it was right.

Objectively, not subjectively.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by loinburger
However, you can be a moral relativist and prefer one moral system over another -- questions of "truth" or "validity" don't come into play. I don't believe that vanilla ice cream is inherently superior to chocolate ice cream, but I still prefer vanilla -- my preferences do not equate to a belief that my taste buds are more "pure" than the taste buds of those who prefer chocolate.

Truth and validity do come into play. Moral Relativism states that all moral theories, all ethical systems are equally true, are equally valid. One man's morality isn't any better than another's. A serial killer's morality is no better than Gandhi's. They are both just as good, just as valid, just as true.

Originally posted by loinburger
Depends on the flavor of relativism. F'rinstance, some relativists believe that ethics are intended to benefit the State, or whoever else happens to be making the rules at the time -- in such a system it would be impossible to determine which State (or whatever) is morally superior to all other States, and so the system would be a relativist one.

That's an issue of how they think ethics originate, and is different from how you distinguish a good ethical system from a bad one.

Originally posted by loinburger
How is this any different than relativism? Everybody has different opinions as to what is "beneficial," so you're essentially stating that everybody's moral system is different yet is equally valid provided that the system discourages behavior that isn't beneficial "in some way."

Yes, because while you can argue over some benefits and which is better, there are clearly things that are *not* beneficial. There are certainly absolute wrongs, and you can criticize a given moral system because its rules don't lead to the benefits it is supposed to acheive. There is quite a difference; one allows discussion, one doesn't.

Why should somebody try to behave in a way that is beneficial to those who are wicked? Shouldn't he only consider the actions that are beneficial to those who are righteous? Otherwise the wicked would surely overwhelm the righteous...

And certainly you can argue about reference frames and where to start and how to construct a good ethical system. However, you can't do this with intellectual honesty if you believe in Moral Relativism, since all moralities are equally good/valid/true under that premise. Hence all you can talk about is what moral systems you might like more, but not which ones are better than others.

-Drachasor

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Ramo

Hence it inevitably leads to Moral Nihilism, because a moral rule that states killing people for fun is good, is just as valid as one that states you should not kill, according to relativism.

Objectively, not subjectively.

Moral Relativism forces you to say that the Nazi's Morality is just as good as yours, and hence you can't say what they did is wrong, because they are just as correct in saying it was right.

Objectively, not subjectively.

If you objectively believe that no moral law is better than another, and that leads you to the objective conclusion that there are no rules of morality, then if you are rational you must follow the conclusion.

If you reject the premise, then you don't reach the conclusion. Right now you are saying you don't like the conclusion, so you are happy being irrational. That doesn't change the fact the premise you believe leads to a horrible conclusion.

-Drachasor

[Ramo]

If you objectively believe that no moral law is better than another, and that leads you to the objective conclusion that there are no rules of morality, then if you are rational you must follow the conclusion.

That "logic" doesn't make any sense. You're just stringing together a bunch of unrelated statements and calling it a proof.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Ramo

If you objectively believe that no moral law is better than another, and that leads you to the objective conclusion that there are no rules of morality, then if you are rational you must follow the conclusion.

That "logic" doesn't make any sense.

Yes it does. You are stating that it is a fact that Relativism is true. That is the premise.

However, Relativism implies that all moral laws are equally valid. Moral Nihilism implies that the very idea of moral laws is misguided; there are none that are valid.

Suppose you have a given moral law (killing is bad). According to Moral Relativism it is equally as valid as any other. Propose the opposite moral law (killing is good), this law is equally true as the previous one. Since two things that are in contradiction can't both be true, something must be wrong with the premise. We are excluding moral relativism as having something wrong here, so clearly the idea that there is any morality must be wrong.

You are now at moral nihilism, which Moral Relativism logically implies.

-Drachasor

[Ramo]

Suppose you have a given moral law (killing is bad).

Are you assuming that it is objectively true? In that case, you just contradicted the original premise.

If not, I don't see where the contradiction you claimed is. Killing is good can be subjectively true, and killing is bad can be subjectively true.

[Ramo]

This is a pretty silly proof. I'm going to use loin's example and your "logic", and prove that a certain flavor of ice cream is absolutely the best.

Assume ice-cream taste relativism.

Propose vanilla is the best. By ice-cream taset relavism, chocolate is equally valid, so chocolate is the best. Contradiction, therefore, ice-cream taste relativism is wrong.

There is absolutely one best ice cream flavor. Disagreeing makes you a nihilst.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Drachasor
A serial killer's morality is no better than Gandhi's. They are both just as good, just as valid, just as true.

Yet the relativist can still prefer one system over another. Questions of truth/validity are irrelevant here because they don't affect the relativist's personal preference, since it is meaningless to apply such terms to matters of personal preference.

Yes, because while you can argue over some benefits and which is better, there are clearly things that are *not* beneficial.

Like what? Murder? Murder presumably benefits the murderer, else why would the murderer be committing murder? Ditto with theft, rape, genocide, torture, etc.

And certainly you can argue about reference frames and where to start and how to construct a good ethical system.

You can only argue this if you presuppose the absence of morality -- a righteous person has no reason to consider the moral system proposed by somebody who is wicked, and so the conclusions reached by the righteous person will be necessarily skewed by the moral system to which the righteous person ascribed prior to the debate on morality. In other words, since everybody is "righteous" according to his own moral system, you're simply providing them a means by which they can claim that their moral systems are better than everybody else's without their even having to modify their moral system in any way shape or form.

Suppose you have a given moral law (killing is bad). According to Moral Relativism it is equally as valid as any other. Propose the opposite moral law (killing is good), this law is equally true as the previous one. Since two things that are in contradiction can't both be true, something must be wrong with the premise. We are excluding moral relativism as having something wrong here, so clearly the idea that there is any morality must be wrong.

You're doing the same thing as Kidicious and inappropriately applying the law of the excluded middle. Many types of logic include this axiom, but many do not -- the statement (A equals not A) is a contradiction in some systems of logic, but in others it simply means that A has a truth value between "true" and "false." So, according to moral relativism, all moral laws are equally valid -- they all have a truth value of 1/2.