Moral Relativism: Good, bad...etc?

[Imran Siddiqui]

This is not like ice cream, for moral systems are supposed to tell you how you ought to act; ice cream and food does not.

So what? If everything can be put into binary logic, so can ice cream preferences, right? So you think that if I say that all ice cream preferences are equal, then I think that vanilla has no value (or taste, if you prefer).

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by loinburger
True or false: This statement is false.

Or, using a more true-to-life example,
True or false: The world record holder of the 100 meter dash is a faster runner than the world record holder of the 400 meter dash.

An ambiguous statement until you define "faster runner". It is like saying: "True or false: Bush is more X than Kerry." You cannot answer the question the question until you define X. All you have shown is an example of the ambiguous nature of everyday speech.

Originally posted by loinburger
Like Imran said, that's a broad sweeping generalization that does not apply to all relativists.

It might not apply to all people that call themselves relativists, and perhaps all relativists don't actually evaluate the logical implications of their beliefs (few do). However, it is the logical implication of relativism.

Originally posted by loinburger
How do you get from morality telling you how to act to morality being something that "ought" to be imposed on others? Does the one necessarily entail the other?

The point being, that a Relativist has no rational justification for stopping genocide. The people committing it are not doing anything wrong. One might also note that society itself is founded on the principle of imposing certain ethical views on its members.

-Drachasor

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

This is not like ice cream, for moral systems are supposed to tell you how you ought to act; ice cream and food does not.

So what? If everything can be put into binary logic, so can ice cream preferences, right? So you think that if I say that all ice cream preferences are equal, then I think that vanilla has no value (or taste, if you prefer).

The point was how ethical systems inherently have reach beyond the subjective into the objective world. Since they are about behavior, saying that no behavior is bad or good and all is allowable is a very different thing compared to saying anyone can have any ice cream preferences they want (or happen to have). The latter is truly of no great consequence, the former is not.

-Drachasor

PS. Anyone know why some of the time I get the embedded quotes and some of the time I have to fill them in manually?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
So what? If everything can be put into binary logic, so can ice cream preferences, right? So you think that if I say that all ice cream preferences are equal, then I think that vanilla has no value (or taste, if you prefer).

To his defense, ice cream preferences are completely irrational, while moral statements aren't.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Drachasor
All you have shown is an example of the ambiguous nature of everyday speech.

You ignored the first statement, which was unambiguous.

I also fail see how the second statement is ambiguous -- the dictionary defines the verb "run" to mean "Moving or capable of moving with great speed" when used in the context of running. Where's the ambiguity? The term seems pretty concrete to me...

The point being, that a Relativist has no rational justification for stopping genocide. The people committing it are not doing anything wrong.

Why are "rational justifications" a sacred cow here? What's wrong with acting irrationally -- is it morally wrong to act irrationally, or is it a different kind of wrong?

If a relativist is displeased by genocide, then how is he acting irrationally in attempting to stop it? What's irrational about seeking or furthering that which pleases you and avoiding or stopping that which displeases you?

Do you mean to imply that "moral wrongs" are the only kind of wrong? I often try to stop people from acting stupidly, but I wouldn't necessarily assign a moral value to the actions that I'm trying to prevent...

[Kidlicious]

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





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

No one should care about someone's logic that contradicts itself. That's a complete waste of time. Your logic has already been shown incorrect.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by loinburger
Do you mean to imply that "moral wrongs" are the only kind of wrong? I often try to stop people from acting stupidly, but I wouldn't necessarily assign a moral value to the actions that I'm trying to prevent...

In its absolute sense, wrong can only be a moral term. Else it becomes a practical maxim not intended for universality (such as 'not eating vegetable is a wrong thing to do').

[Fake Boris]

BTW, predicates only exist in relation with other predicates - and for this reason, descriptive propositions are as uncertain as prescriptive ones.

[Fake Boris]

Sorry for small useless posts, but I'm too tired to think of anything extensive and coherent.

Not that anyone missed my presence in this debate anyway.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
In its absolute sense, wrong can only be a moral term. Else it becomes a practical maxim not intended for universality (such as 'not eating vegetable is a wrong thing to do').

That's a rather cut-and-dried way of looking at things -- I've often seen the word used as an amoral term, e.g., making a wrong turn, giving the wrong answer, using a lightbulb with the wrong wattage... Try substituting "immoral" in any of those usages, e.g., making an immoral turn or using a lightbulb with the immoral wattage, and you're left with nonsense.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by loinburger
If a relativist is displeased by genocide, then how is he acting irrationally in attempting to stop it? What's irrational about seeking or furthering that which pleases you and avoiding or stopping that which displeases you?

Well, I think it is irrational too (hm, for the moment, unless I get a three pages long refutation ). Because in case the relativist thinks that he has objectively no idea if genocide is right or wrong I don't see how he can decide what's more justified: his attempt to stop genocide (because he subjectively does not like it) or the attempt to commit genocide by someone else.

Isn't he (the relativist) required to say "I don't like genocide, but how can I try to enforce my moral views on others (with another moral system) by an attempt to stop genocide"? I mean an absolutist guy would simply assume that he has an universal truth on his side justifying his action - but the relativist has only his personal preference. And his position is that no moral system is more valid than another, so why should the relativist's subjective POV have any impact on people with another moral system?

Edit: Wouldn't it mean that the relativist is acting like an absolutist now?

[Ramo]

Why do you need absolute certainty to enforce your views of morality on others?

To his defense, ice cream preferences are completely irrational, while moral statements aren't.

Why? Can you find an example to back up your claim?

[Ramo]

The point was how ethical systems inherently have reach beyond the subjective into the objective world. Since they are about behavior, saying that no behavior is bad or good and all is allowable is a very different thing compared to saying anyone can have any ice cream preferences they want (or happen to have). The latter is truly of no great consequence, the former is not.

Why should the consequence of a logical structure matter any in determining its truth?

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Ramo
Why do you need absolute certainty to enforce your views of morality on others?

I don't know if you need it. I don't understand how you can try to enforce a certain moral view when you think it is only a subjective opinion, and as such equally valid to all other subjective opinions (even to those contrary to the POV you want to enforce).

[Ramo]

In my (subjective) opinion, I believe that my morality is the best.