Moral Relativism: Good, bad...etc?

[Kuciwalker]

Moral relativism can't be used to justify an action, that's just nonsensical.

[Kuciwalker]

What's even more absurd, actually, is using a moral code to justify some action:

Why'd you do that?

Because it's morally right to do so.

Why is it morally right?

Because it is.

Why is it, though?

Just because it is.

And so on...

Morality is dogmatism.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Cultural relativism just doesn't make sense. Cultures aren't "valid" or "invalid". They just are there.

I may be wrong but I thought cultural relativism does not say that cultures are valid or invalid, it does say that morals are culture-specific (so just a variation of moral relativism).

[Kropotkin]

How can it be good or bad? That kind of makes moral relativism absurd.

Are you sure that the concepts of good and bad that are not absurd?

However, you're also missing a vital point; moral relativism is not amoral per se. It's the position that morals are given by some kind of cultural context, not by some absolute moral codex that exists bwyond human existance.

[Kuciwalker]

The correct answer, of course, is:

Why'd you do this?

Because it achieves such-and-such end.

Why did you try to achieve such-and-such end?

Because I believe I must do so.

Why do you believe that?

There is no purpose to that belief; I simply hold it. It is my belief. There is no answer to your question.

In which case, it is still dogmatism, but at least openly admitted dogmatism.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
What's even more absurd, actually, is using a moral code to justify some action:

Why'd you do that?

Because it's morally right to do so.

Why is it morally right?

Because it is.

Why is it, though?

Just because it is.

And so on...

Morality is dogmatism.

Of course in that sense it would be stupid. But all societies use moral norms - and they have to justify them somehow.

[Gangerolf]

Kuciwalker: Nah, it's not about whether cultures are valid or not. It basically means that some practises that are "immoral" in one culture not necessarily are immoral in another. Like forced marriage, which is not OK in the West, is deemed OK when it happens in Muslim societies because it's their culture.
Needless to say CR sucks.

edit: massive x-post

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by BeBro
I may be wrong but I thought cultural relativism does not say that cultures are valid or invalid, it does say that morals are culture-specific (so just a variation of moral relativism).

In which case it's simply an empirical claim. Obviously, cultures have morals, and most moral systems are associated with some culture. But to claim that the morals have some objective truth applying to members of that culture is a violation of moral relativism.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Moral relativism can't be used to justify an action, that's just nonsensical.

Exactly. So it's not an ethical code.

[BeBMan]

Nice cross postings here

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Gangerolf
Nah, it's not about whether cultures are valid or not. It basically means that some practises that are "immoral" in one culture not necessarily are immoral in another. Like forced marriage, which is not OK in the West, is deemed OK when it happens in Muslim societies because it's their culture.
Needless to say CR sucks.

In that case, it is an empirical claim - this culture's moral system claims that such-and-such is moral, while this other culture's moral system thinks that it is immoral. It's obviously true.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Exactly. So it's not an ethical code.

That's what I've been saying.

That's why moral relativism isn't internally inconsistent.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
What's even more absurd, actually, is using a moral code to justify some action:

I would rather have any moral code as opposed to none at all. 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.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


That's what I've been saying.

That's why moral relativism isn't internally inconsistent.

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

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kropotkin
Are you sure that the concepts of good and bad that are not absurd?

Of course I do. Are you sure that they are?

However, you're also missing a vital point; moral relativism is not amoral per se. It's the position that morals are given by some kind of cultural context, not by some absolute moral codex that exists bwyond human existance.

Saying that morals are determined by culture is nothing different. Of course they are, this is a fact, but if you don't prefer one ethical code to another then you are amoral.