Moral Relativism: Good, bad...etc?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by 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.

At least they have a justification, because they have a code.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Snowflake
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.

I agree. Still I would say that (at least some) things can be seen as "invalid" in the past, if I'm able to make clear that the justification given for a certain action or view at that time was crap.

[Imran Siddiqui]

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

It is your opinion they are wrong. I can easily say that your beliefs are wrong and you have not justifed them to my liking.

To propose that one human's well-being is more important than another's requires more than mere assertion, it requires proof

And to propose that one human's well-being is equal to anothers also requires proof because history has shown us that equallity of humans is relatively NEW thing that society has adopted and made it its bias. I need reasoning as to why you think that each person should be treated equally. And ethical system is simply a system as to how people should live; it doesn't follow that the system of rules much achieve good for ALL those involved. The system may be deemed 'good' because it creates order or balance or whatever and that may require heirarchy and non-equal standing.

Why is your opinion more valid? Simply claiming yours is default and everyone else who disagrees must validate their difference from you is very arrogant.

[Ned]

Since by its own terms moral relativism cannot be good, by process of elimination it must be ....

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Absolute nonsense. If you don't believe in bad or good you are just a pleasure seeker. What kind of universal sense does that make, or do you just claim that that also makes no sense, which would be contradicting yourself.

I don't believe in an absolute bad and good. I believe that each moral code can have its own equally valid definition of bad and good. I tend to follow a moral code quite similar to that of the rest of humanity.

[Kidlicious]

Ned

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by 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.

Moral standards are generally evolving because the well-being of humans *overall* is being met better by following those standards.

As for Nietzsche, you will either have to state his arguement or give me the relevent passages. Merely saying "this guy makes a good arguement" does not give you a good arguement. (and I'd like this discussion to progress). My understanding from my initial browsings, however, is that Nietzsche wasn't actually a Moral Relativist, and in fact adopted a position of Moral Nihilism (no moral belief is valid). Which is the advocation that things like the torture of children and other horrible acts are not wrong, because nothing is right or wrong.

-Drachasor

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by Ned
Since by its own terms moral relativism cannot be good, by process of elimination it must be ....

Don't be an idiot.

Since by its own terms moral relativism cannot be bad, by process of elimination it must be ....

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat

I don't believe in an absolute bad and good. I believe that each moral code can have its own equally valid definition of bad and good.

You do know that those things are not mutually exclusive, don't you? There can be actual good and bad, and each code can have it's own good and bad.

[Snowflake]

Originally posted by BeBro


I agree. Still I would say that (at least some) things can be seen as "invalid" in the past, if I'm able to make clear that the justification given for a certain action or view at that time was crap.

Moral relativity does not mean there couldn't be any things that invalid, it only means that there could be more than one valid moral system.

[Kidlicious]

I don't think so Snowflake.

[Al B. Sure!]

Drachasor:

My understanding from my initial browsings, however, is that Nietzsche wasn't actually a Moral Relativist, and in fact adopted a position of Moral Nihilism (no moral belief is valid). Which is the advocation that things like the torture of children and other horrible acts are not wrong, because nothing is right or wrong.

it's just the opposite. Nietzsche, as well as other existentialists, saw nihilism as a fact. It wasn't something he wanted or saw as an ideal; it just was. He saw the will to power, also a natural force, a mere fact, and the possibility of the superman as a means of transcending nihilism and being a 'hero' of this modern nihilistic age (the uncommon man, the superman, etc.)

Nietzsche went on to create a moral code (simplified as the dominance of the strong based upon this fact of the will to power as a means to survive in the age of nihilism). This moral code may not seem pleasant as it says explicitly that the strong shall dominate the weak, but it is a moral code

so yeah nietzsche did contradict himself by saying there are no truths as a matter of fact but then went on to arbritarily create a moral system in which the strong dominated; in which the strong may very well wish to operate with christian compassion as opposed to nietzsche's morality.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

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

It is your opinion they are wrong. I can easily say that your beliefs are wrong and you have not justifed them to my liking.

To propose that one human's well-being is more important than another's requires more than mere assertion, it requires proof

And to propose that one human's well-being is equal to anothers also requires proof because history has shown us that equallity of humans is relatively NEW thing that society has adopted and made it its bias. I need reasoning as to why you think that each person should be treated equally. And ethical system is simply a system as to how people should live; it doesn't follow that the system of rules much achieve good for ALL those involved. The system may be deemed 'good' because it creates order or balance or whatever and that may require heirarchy and non-equal standing.

Why is your opinion more valid? Simply claiming yours is default and everyone else who disagrees must validate their difference from you is very arrogant.

Yes, yes, just like history has shown that mathematicians did not always believe irrational numbers existed? Just like history shows that the theory of relativity was not always true.

Changing beliefs does not mean any universal truths are suddenly untrue. It means our understanding of them is changing.

The term "good" fundamentally refers to the well-being of something. Moral/Ethical systems are merely sets of rules or evaluation protocols for deciding on how to procede with that in mind.

Now, if you acknowledge that the good of anyone has value, then you must propose why the good of that one has value and the good of others does not. Indeed, you would have to propose why the good of everyone does not have equal value if you do not think it does.

If you propose that the good of the one has no value, then you are a Moral Nihilist, and believe that there is nothing morally good or bad.

Granted the good of the one having value is an axiom, but unless you can propose other sensible axioms then you cannot show that his good has value and others do not (or his good has more value than others).

-Drachasor

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by Kidicious
You do know that those things are not mutually exclusive, don't you? There can be actual good and bad, and each code can have it's own good and bad.

Certainly. But there isn't an actual objective good and bad.


I'd also like to congratulate everyone in this thread in not mentioning Kant yet.

[Kidlicious]

Good post AS. That is consistent with what I remember.