Moral Relativism: Good, bad...etc?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
Moral relativism is a valid theory about the "rightness" and "wrongness" of cultural morality worldviews: morals cannot be based on some transcendental "truth".

But given that there is no transcendental truth, there is no "objective" "good" or objective "bad", so we're quite at liberty to make up our own "good" and "bad" and impose them as we see fit, provided that said imposition is justified by our own moral code.

We're already at "liberty" to make up our own good and bad and impose them, inasmuch as we are physically capable of doing so.

[Kuciwalker]

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.

That's like saying a microwave is good for cooking things, but fails when you are trying to fly to a different city. It's a nonsensical statement. Relativism isn't a morality; it is not a failure of relativism that it does not provide moral statements, any more than it's a failure of mathematics that it does not provide moral statements.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Gangerolf


Not exactly. But close
Maybe I didn't explain it properly.
Read more here if you wish http://www.philosophyofreligion.info...elativism.html

They explain my main beef with CR pretty well:

This strength of cultural relativism, however, is also its weakness. Cultural relativism excuses us from judging the moral status of other cultures in cases where that seems inappropriate, but it also renders us powerless to judge the moral status of other cultures in cases where that seems necessary. Faced with a culture that deems slavery morally acceptable, it seems appropriate to judge that society to be morally inferior to our own. Faced with a culture that deems ethnic cleansing morally acceptable, it seems appropriate to condemn that society as morally abhorrent.

That's an internally inconsistant definition of relativism, and isn't what's being discussed. That relativism is actually a moral system.

[Nubclear]

Choose:

A) I think you should all drown in a large body of water. I hold this believe. Thus, it is the best belief and one that I should enforce on everyone else.

B) I think that all beliefs have equal merit. Thus, because its not immoral per se to kill someone, I'll let everyone drown in a large body of water.

C) I think that there are some things that should not be violated (murder, etc), however many other things are relative. I will save those people from drowning in a large body of water, but I'll still let the people next door eat a cat.

A and B
C
Black and white thinking

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Drachasor
I would note that moral/ethical behave is about what is *good*. In particular, a human ethical system is about what is good for humans to do (and what is bad for them to do).

"Good" in its simplist sense, is about what is desirable/beneficial to those concerned. Evaluating wether a particular ethical system for humans actually produces good ends is a perfectly valid question. In other words, ethics are about desirable behavior for humans to have; what behavior they should have to promote the good. Some ethical system simply do this better than others.

You're falling into the trap of the flawed relativism: that there is an absolute morality based on individual beliefs. That is, you are saying that it is absolutely right for an individual to pursue what that individual believes is right.

What relativism states is that, if one assumes for the sake of argument that a particular individual's moral system is absolutely correct, then those actions of that individual which are consistant with his moral system are, in fact, morally right. That statement is a tautology. It says nothing about whether or not that individual's moral system is ACTUALLY correct.

[Ramo]

Stop being an ass.

Calling someone an ass when you're losing badly in an argument doesn't help it any.

Saying that someone ought to perform some action makes a statement that is not tautological.

To be logically valid MEANS to be without contradiction - they are the same term.

No, that's just how you happen to define your system of logic. Like any other mathematical system, it can be arbitrarily constructed.

I define logical validity to mean noncontradiction. That doesn't make it so, absolutuely.

Just as if I defined morality to be a certain system, doesn't make it so absolutely.

[Kuciwalker]

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.

That was absolute nonsense.

Every individual happens to act in his or her perceived self-interest, that is, towards the end with which they are happiest/most content. We, rather arbitrarily, divide self-interest into two categories: selfishness and altruism. The division tends to be something like this: selfishness contains all acts that are in one's self-interest without regard to others' self-interests, and altruism contains all acts that are in one's self-interest without regard to one's own self-interest (that is, based wholly on how it will benefit others). We also have a third category, enlightened self-interest, that contains all actions that are partially based upon others' self-interests (for example, buying something from someone as opposed to stealing from them). We tend to look at this category as something of a gradiant; there are some actions more "enlightened" and others less "enlightened" (a company donating money to cancer research, with the main goal to help cancer victims, but with a limited desire to gain popularity, would be more enlighted, while someone who pays a prostitute for sex rather than raping here would be less enlightened). An individual's morality is generally thought of as the rules governing his altruistic acts, whereas an individual's preferences are generally thought of as the rules governing his selfish acts, with a mix of the two governing his enlightened self-interest. However, these are arbitrary definitions, and when relativism states that there is no absolute morality, it also states that there are no absolute preferences. It doesn't prevent an individual from acting on his morality OR his preferences.

EDIT: btw, when I talk about "better for another person", I mean "what the individual thinks is better for that person".

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ramo

Saying that someone ought to perform some action makes a statement that is not tautological.

To be logically valid MEANS to be without contradiction - they are the same term.

No, that's just how you happen to define your system of logic. Like any other mathematical system, it can be arbitrarily constructed.

I define logical validity to mean noncontradiction. That doesn't make it so, absolutuely.

Just as if I defined morality to be a certain system, doesn't make it so absolutely.

When I use the words "valid" and "contradiction", there is a certain meaning attached to those words. That you may have a different dictionary does not invalidate MY argument - just like I couldn't walk into some forum where people speak German and say "you're all wrong, because you can't even construct propoer sentences".

[Ramo]

You have to assume English definitions before evaluating a sentence in the English language. Just as you'd have to assume German definitions before evaluating a sentence in the German language.

[Kuciwalker]

When those of us who were part of the debate used terms such as validity and contradiction, we were all using the same meaning. It says nothing about our arguments that you jump in and say "hey! I mean something differen when I use those terms!"

[Ramo]

I didn't use something different, I used the standard definitions. And you didn't post anything in the thread before I did, hell I wasn't even arguing with anyone.

I was clearly pointing out the non-absolute nature of my own statements.

[Kuciwalker]

The point is that those statements ARE absolute, because they aren't the words, they're the meaning behind the words. x = x is absolutely true, because it isn't the string "x = x", it's what I meant by that statement, and what I meant by that statement happens to be a tautology. When someone makes a moral statement, they aren't making a tautology, they are making a bridge between two concepts beyond what is inherent in those concepts.

[Ramo]

No, they're just the words. As far as I know, no mathematician has formalized the logic of signals in your brain.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
Eh? No. I'm saying that most people don't put any thought into their system of moral beliefs. If all our experience was the same, we were subject to the same culture/indoctrination, and had identical personal consequences for that ethical code, then yes: all our moral codes would start off the same. Most people just go with the flow, with what they've been taught, consciously and subconsciously by society to be "right" and "wrong".

Except that a few people will take the time to think about what they personally believe to be right and wrong. If they come up with a different answer to that which society by default provides, then they will presumably make their thoughts known, and then moral backgrounds will begin to differ. People will then be categorized as "people who have heard about new moral code x" and "people who haven't heard about moral code x". As soon as that happens, then moral codes will begin to diverge.

Ok. This isn't what I'm getting at. You started with the culture, and I was trying to explain myself in a way that you would understand.

Please consider that there is no cultural indoctrination at all. All people are ingorant of themselves. They don't know what nation they are a part of, what race, sex, socioeconomic status etc. they are. Do you agree that they will develope similar ethical codes.

[Ramo]

The point is that those statements ARE absolute, because they aren't the words, they're the meaning behind the words. x = x is absolutely true, because it isn't the string "x = x", it's what I meant by that statement, and what I meant by that statement happens to be a tautology. When someone makes a moral statement, they aren't

Let's suppose that you are correct.

I'll say "killing is immoral." What I really mean is "using my moral basis, assuming standard logic, killing is immoral." That is true. Therefore, "killing is immoral" is an absolutely true statement. Therefore, morality is absolute.

See, your logic is contradictory.