Moral Relativism: Good, bad...etc?

[Whaleboy]

Now, as a question irrelevant to this debate, I would like to understand the emotional factors affecting the detractors of relativism... so what do you feel when you hear the word "relativism". I mention again this is nothing to do with the debate, nor will you answers be used against you (in fact, PM me if you wish, it's probably easier), but I'm rather curious about it. I have some ideas but obviously some clarification would be nice! I know you'll probably all say "well it's a crap argument" etc etc, but then, if you're just being presented with the conclusion you havne't seen the argument.... or maybe what you felt when you first saw the conclusion of relativism?

[Kidlicious]

Ok, I'm done here. This obviously can't go any farther, or shouldn't.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Whaleboy

That's Moral Nihilism; there is no moral truth (not even relative truth).

Yet I am allowing for relative (subjective) truth to the individual. Ask me the question "Was the holocaust morally wrong" and I say:
"Of myself and subjective, the truth is that it was wrong, but objectively, not of myself, it was morally 0."

And you have to say "no, it wasn't wrong (nor right)" or you are being a hypocrit. You can say you don't approve of it, you can say you personally don't like it, but you can't say it was morally wrong.

Moral Relativism implies Moral Nihilism (and vice versa). That means that there are no moral truths, and you "feeling" differently is a feeling, perhaps a desire, but it is not true. You subjectively have a sense of what ought to be right and what ought to be wrong, but according to Moral Relativism those feelings are false for there is nothing right and there is nothing wrong. All actions have equal moral worth. Moral Relativism might try to start with it in the subjective, but it implies an objective truth (if you accept the premise).

You can see you feel like it wasn't right, but that you know that it wasn't wrong or right. There is no "subjective truth" here, the truth is that you feel it was wrong, but that you know it wasn't wrong (or right), because your acceptance of Moral Relativism tells you that all of your feelings about moral truth are in fact incorrect, and if you hold on to them you are holding on to fantasies. There is nothing wrong, there is nothing right, there are only actions. That's where Moral Relativism leads.

-Drachasor

[Whaleboy]

And you have to say "no, it wasn't wrong (nor right)" or you are being a hypocrit. You can say you don't approve of it, you can say you personally don't like it, but you can't say it was morally wrong.

That's simplistic "duotonic" thinking. I give you 2+2, the obvious answer is 4, a number to which you attach moral value. I give you 2+3 and you still say four. It's a poor analogy since it is deductive but I believe it adequately shows what I mean by context. It is not hypocritical to suppose two different answers in different contexts, or a moral value in one, and a moral value of 0 in another where there is nothing to judge otherwise. Never forget of course that hypocrisy only occurs if one contradicts oneself in context.

If I may say so, the "hypocrite" strawman is always used by either those who feel they are losing the debate (once their big guns have been exhausted) or those with little understanding of relativism. I suspect you are the latter so I would recommend that you go back and read the posts in this grotesquely large thread, paying specific attention to my use of the word "context", as well as emotivism, objectivism, subjectivism, Hume's is-ought gap, as well as studying the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions, since you're argument seems to be demonstrating a lack of knowledge of those too... whether or not you are aware of that or are well read in those fields is another matter, I'm simply going on what I am reading.

All actions have equal moral worth. Moral Relativism might try to start with it in the subjective, but it implies an objective truth (if you accept the premise).

Not at all... read what I said earlier regarding my refutation of the relativist paradox. Moral relativism implies no objective truth since it is simply making a statement about the conditions of subjectives... as such it is itself descriptive and not prescriptive. Your key error is your strawman that relativism implies "all actions have equal moral worth". They do not. Relativism implies that they have no moral worth.

The best way I can illustrate that difference is thus... if I give you a briefcase with one million pounds in it, you're going to be a rather happy chap. That is, if I give you it in the UK. If I plant you on an unpopulated desert island on your own with no hope of rescue until long afer your bones are dust, and then give you a briefcase with one million pounds, what have I just given you? A lump of card, leather and 50'000 pieces of paper with £20 written on them. Worthless. That all moral statements objectively has an equal moral value is just a consequence of the fact that they are worthless. It is rather like dividing 0 by an integer. As to the objective truth of that statement, read my post regarding the relativist paradox.

because your acceptance of Moral Relativism tells you that all of your feelings about moral truth are in fact incorrect,

Again you strawman. Moral relativism tells me that in a context I am not in, my moral views are worthless. Relativism allows for subjectivism, which by definition allows for my truth, internal to me as a system... just as 4 is true to 2+2.

There is nothing wrong, there is nothing right, there are only actions. That's where Moral Relativism leads.

As far as the birds and the big guy upstairs is concerned, correct. As far as you or I, as conscious beings capable of judgement and emotion, that is not the case. It just means the morality is not transferable... in the sense that we cannot communicate the "feeling" of the colour red, as opposed to its properties which we can. The epistemological equivalent of moral relativism I suppose in some respects would be representative realism, which should help to clarify matters.

[Ben Kenobi]

Oh jeez not this crap again

You asked why do I believe rights to be universaliseable.

Question asked, question answered.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Moral Relativism implies Moral Nihilism (and vice versa).

Not true. Moral Nihilism is a form of Moral Relativism (and not vice-versa). Moral Relativists believe each morality is equally value objectively (which is totally different from our subjective views). Moral Nihilists believe that each morality has no value. HOWEVER, not every Moral Relativist believes that morality has no value. A Moral Relativist can say that morality is important (for example in holding together a society), but the morality of one society is no better intrinsicly than that of another society.

Just because there is no absolute truth doesn't mean that all morality is false. Like loin said, you are falling into two tone thinking. It is more complex than that. Like the ice cream example, saying that vanilla is not absolutely the best flavor (even though your taste buds say so) does not mean that you think vanilla ice cream has no value.

I'd put it more on a 1-10 scale. There are some who think that their moral truth is absolutely correct and all else are ridiculous, therefore they have a 10 for theirs and 1 for everyone else. There are those more tolerant, who think their morality is the best, but that others have a point and a basis for their beliefs which would mean their morality is 7 and everyone else's is 4, 3, 2, etc.

Moral relativists believe everyone is at 5 (for example), while Moral nihilists believe everyone is at 0.

[Whaleboy]

You asked why do I believe rights to be universaliseable.

And your answer was religious, free will-dependent bull****. Surely you could resort to Kant or something (whereupon I'd rape you with the hypothetical imperative), but honestly I'd expect better from you.

[Whaleboy]

Interestingly put Imran As for your numbers, I'd have said out of 1-10, the moral relativist would be exactly been 0 and infinity but hey I'll stop splitting hairs .

[Kuciwalker]

[q] Originally posted by Kidicious
Only in Kuciverse.[/w]

Anyway, I will accept that you don't believe that your own beliefs are not anymore true than anyone else's the next time we debate in another thread. Then you can contradict yourself there too.

At best all you've proved is that I'm a hypocrite. You haven't managed to actually make ANY arguments against my logic.

[Ben Kenobi]

the grass stem that bends in the wind whereas the twig does snap.

It's the same as before.

The anchor works because it has some way to accomodate the rising tide.

But it also works because it has something solid to root onto.

You are right that someone who cannot bend on anything will snap. But it doesn't mean you cut the anchor lose, so you have nothing to tie yourself to.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Only in Kuciverse.

When you can point to a natural right under a microscope, come back to me.

Rights are simply things granted by the government. They all come from the state. In China, there is no right to liberty of expression. In the US there is. If the US became a totalitarian state, then there would no longer be that right here.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ned
Does safety include protection from theft?

Yes.

[Whaleboy]

You are right that someone who cannot bend on anything will snap. But it doesn't mean you cut the anchor lose, so you have nothing to tie yourself to.

And your point? (related back to the analogy)

[Ben Kenobi]

And your answer was religious, free will-dependent bull****. Surely you could resort to Kant or something

If you asked me to defend the universaliseability of rights, then I bring up Kant.

But if you ask me why do I believe in this, then you leave me with few options.

As it is, question asked, question answered.

[Whaleboy]

If you asked me to defend the universaliseability of rights, then I bring up Kant.

Then please, by all means do!