Moral Relativism: Good, bad...etc?

[Whaleboy]

Boshko, triple post! I'm impressed!

[Imran Siddiqui]

That doesn't mean in anyway that disregarding people for your own gain is moral.

Why not? Because it doesn't conform to your personal morality or the societal morality?

And if you believe that your ethical code isn't always correct, then why do you believe it?

[Whaleboy]

Why is no-one talking to me?

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by 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.

I already proposed the standard that exists by the very definition of morality and ethics.

The well-being of human beings is the standard of good for an ethical-system regarding human beings.

-Drachasor

[Snowflake]

Originally posted by Drachasor


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

It's not this simple Drachasor. Not everything can be judged by whether it is beneficial to the welfare of people. In addition, this criteria itself may be problematic. Sometimes some people are concerned about the welfare of something other than people (animals, for example). Some of their beliefs can be eventually justified by saying it is ultimately beneficial to the human kind, but others may not.

Also, different group of people may have different belief and understanding about what would benefit the human kind. People see different facts today than yesterday, and they will see different facts tomorrow than today. The moral standard will be evolving. Only if most people agree that something is good or bad today, does not warrants that it is not relative and will not be changed tomorrow.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by 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.

Whether or not we are more right today is a personal opinion. It has nothing to do with whether or not that is true.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The well-being of human beings is the standard of good for an ethical-system regarding human beings.

I'd argue that that is simply your opinion and there is no proof that well-being of most humans (which is what I think you are saying) is better determination of 'good' than the well-being of a few humans or even one human.

It's a society bias which makes you (and I to some extent) believe that the well-being of most humans should be the standard for good in an ethical system. In the East, before colonization, they surely did not believe in that.

And in certain contexts in the West we think what is better for the well being of the minority is more 'good'.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Whether or not we are more right today is a personal opinion. It has nothing to do with whether or not that is true.

Then how do you determine what is 'true'? How can you be sure an absolute truth exists at all?

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Snowflake
It's not this simple Drachasor. Not everything can be judged by whether it is beneficial to the welfare of people. In addition, this criteria itself may be problematic. Sometimes some people are concerned about the welfare of something other than people (animals, for example). Some of their beliefs can be eventually justified by saying it is ultimately beneficial to the human kind, but others may not.

Also, different group of people may have different belief and understanding about what would benefit the human kind. People see different facts today than yesterday, and they will see different facts tomorrow than today. The moral standard will be evolving. Only if most people agree that something is good or bad today, does not warrants that it is not relative and will not be changed tomorrow.

Yes, the moral standard does evolve as we learn more. There is nothing wrong with that. It doesn't mean that the moral standard today is just as good as the one we had 1000 years ago though.

And beliefs can be wrong, just because someone might be unhappy their belief is wrong doesn't mean that belief has equal moral validity with another belief.

Yes, there are also various issues such as animal rights and so forth to deal with. Yes, it isn't easy. But saying that "oh, this is difficult, I'll just say they are all the same" is not a path to greater understanding or knowledge. It is a path that closes understanding and knowledge.

-Drachasor

[Ramo]

Logical validity is DEFINED in terms of contradiction, so those are tautological statements with no need of an asterisk.

No, I need to define it. It's an axiom that I need to establish before saying anything else about logical validity.

There's no mystical being that defines logical validity for me.

[Snowflake]

Originally posted by BeBro


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?

This is a good point. However, the fact that you view something is wrong today doesn't mean the view point that it was right at one point of time is invalid.

What does "valid" mean anyway?

[Imran Siddiqui]

D: You make the mistake thinking that relativism is just saying "that's difficult, I'll just say they are the same". Read Nietzsche to see that it is much more rigorous that that.

Though I also want to know why you think the moral standard is evolving.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

That doesn't mean in anyway that disregarding people for your own gain is moral.

Why not? Because it doesn't conform to your personal morality or the societal morality?

It really doesn't matter what I believe, but yes it doesn't conform to my ethical code. My ethical code is that of justice, based on the Theory of Justice. I think that opposes your code more than anything. Your code says that eithics is basically concocted in the minds of individuals. I say that is is concocted alright, but left to the biases of individuals comes out screwed up. Moral relativists are the worst, because they can rely solely on their own bias, and don't have to abide by any moral code.

And if you believe that your ethical code isn't always correct, then why do you believe it?

It's a preference in most situations. I don't think that it always provides the right answers, but that there are right answers.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Moral relativists are the worst, because they can rely solely on their own bias, and don't have to abide by any moral code.

It ain't just moral relativists, bub. Others rely on their biases and construct a moral code that will further their biases, and then try to convince you that it is actually 'moral'.

Take a look at "Beyond Good and Evil" by Nietzsche where he writes about the biases of philosophers.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

The well-being of human beings is the standard of good for an ethical-system regarding human beings.

I'd argue that that is simply your opinion and there is no proof that well-being of most humans (which is what I think you are saying) is better determination of 'good' than the well-being of a few humans or even one human.

It's a society bias which makes you (and I to some extent) believe that the well-being of most humans should be the standard for good in an ethical system. In the East, before colonization, they surely did not believe in that.

And in certain contexts in the West we think what is better for the well being of the minority is more 'good'.

Citing that people believe or believed wrong things does not justify the belief.

When you are considering human beings and what is good for them; their well-being, you must treat the good of each as equally important. Ethics has a fundamental group perspective in groups because it is about how humans should behave to acheive well-being. To propose that one human's well-being is more important than another's requires more than mere assertion, it requires proof;

1. An ethical system is a system of rules to follow to acheive good for those involved.

2. Good is well-being, by definition.

You cannot logically follow that with the proposal that a particular person's well-being is more important than anothers without some sort of reasoning.

-Drachasor