Moral Relativism: Good, bad...etc?

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Snowflake
You can believe in bad or good all you want, but another person may believe in a different set of bad or good. There is no universal sense Kid.

Wrong, as I pointed out there are clear things that are bad.

This isn't some fantasy world of "good" and "evil." "Good" for a thing simply means that which benefits the welfare of a thing. "Bad" means that which hinders the welfare. That's simply what the words mean.

Some things are clearly harmful to people, such as nuking the planet into oblivion (also harmful to almost all life on the planet). These things are bad by definition. Any ethical system that proposed otherwise would have to give various reasons as to why it is so. Saying something like "it is always good to cause harm to everything" is false statement, because harming everything is tautologically bad.

With a little more effort, you can work your way up to concluding that other things are bad.

-Drachasor

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm not concerned with whether the alternate ethical codes justify it. It was bad period. Only a person who some how benefits from such and atrosity would say otherwise or maybe someone who just doesn't care about the suffering of others.

And yet you offer no proof (if you ever can) as to why your morality is correct.

[Bosh]

How can anyone believing in moral relativism know whether moral relativism is good or bad?

Moral absolutism doesn't make any sense logically, therefore moral relativism wins by default. Not a moral judgement, just logic.

Therefore, all absolute moral statements are dogmatic.

Exactly.

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

I have a moral code. Its my moral code. I don't predend that I can reify it as some absolute that transcends humanity. But I can say that its a hell of a lot better than most moral codes since it makes me happy and its logically consistent (at least mostly).

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by BeBro
Relativism has its merits to refute intolerant, dogmatic positions. But it fails (which was even admitted in this thread) completely when it comes to the justification of moral standards or norms, because then you have to go through a decision-making process where you have to find reasons for specific positions. But then you cannot think all possible positions are equally valid.

Well said. Relativism becomes dangerous when it induces people to give up the search of reasons; relativism requires a continuous effort of thinking.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Kidicious, if you are going to pursue the notion of the possibility of universal truth, if you can't establish what it is, you should at least attempt to induce it's basis.

There is no reason for me to do either of those things.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Snowflake
No. The society one lives in defines the current effective moral standard, and the content changes over time, when people's view point changes. For one time killing wild animals are herotic, but later it becomes cruel. We have no right to say that it wasn't herotic for people who lived in the wild age.

Moral is relative, and temporary. It's loosely defined, unlike laws being a more tightly defined and forced contract.

Just because the de facto moral system might change as time passes does not mean that all moral systems are equally valid.

The same arguement would state that all theories of science are equally valid.

Our understanding of what is right and wrong grows over time, just as our knowledge of the physical world grows.

-Drachasor

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
Well said. Relativism becomes dangerous when it induces people to give up the search of reasons; relativism requires a continuous effort of thinking.

Bingo! Excellent point.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Just because the de facto moral system might change as time passes does not mean that all moral systems are equally valid.

The same arguement would state that all theories of science are equally valid.

Our understanding of what is right and wrong grows over time, just as our knowledge of the physical world grows.

Why do you think we are more right today? It seems like you WANT to believe that we are progressing in morality. Unlike science, morality is not testable. You cannot measure morality with an electron microscope. It is a subjective art.

[Whaleboy]

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._J._Ayer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Leslie_Stevenson

[Bosh]

Relativism becomes dangerous

Logical fallacy. The "dangers" that ideas pose have absolutely nothing to do with their validity.

[Bosh]

Relativism becomes dangerous

Logical fallacy. The "dangers" that ideas pose have absolutely nothing to do with their validity.

[Bosh]

Relativism becomes dangerous

Logical fallacy. The "dangers" that ideas pose have absolutely nothing to do with their validity.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Snowflake


No. The society one lives in defines the current effective moral standard, and the content changes over time, when people's view point changes. For one time killing wild animals are herotic, but later it becomes cruel. We have no right to say that it wasn't herotic for people who lived in the wild age.

My point was how - as you said - "people's view point change" to a certain moral aspect. The change itself requires to think an older point of view was wrong. But to say that you believe now that something done 100, 50, or 25 years ago was wrong is nonsense when you - at the same time - think that every moral position is equally valid. Then why should people's views change?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I'm not concerned with whether the alternate ethical codes justify it. It was bad period. Only a person who some how benefits from such and atrosity would say otherwise or maybe someone who just doesn't care about the suffering of others.

And yet you offer no proof (if you ever can) as to why your morality is correct.

I'm not arguing that my ethical code is correct. I've already admited that it isn't always. That doesn't mean in anyway that disregarding people for your own gain is moral. It certainly is not, regardless of the fact that others will find some absurd justification for it.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I'm not concerned with whether the alternate ethical codes justify it. It was bad period. Only a person who some how benefits from such and atrosity would say otherwise or maybe someone who just doesn't care about the suffering of others.

And yet you offer no proof (if you ever can) as to why your morality is correct.

Clearly from a standpoint of an ethical system for humans it was bad, for they unnecessarily killed (harmed) to humans. They did the antithesis of good to humans.

Now you would have to provide a reason why it is somehow acceptable for one set of humans to claim their good was more important than another set.

-Drachasor