How to argue for objective moral values with a staunch relativist

[YosefYosep]

I need a good tactic for arguing with a relativist who believes societies set the standards of morality. I typically would ask a question like, “Do you agree that a society which respects the dignity of all people is better than a society which enslaves certain people?” The relativist usually will agree. I then ask, “By what standard do you make this value judgement?” The response I get, however, is “By the relative standards set by my particular society.” How can I get such a person to grasp the reality of an objective standard that allows us to judge that–say–the Nazis were wrong independent of what moral standards their society set?

 

[NeuralMonk]

Why the arbitrary delineation? What makes his society better than mine?

Who reconciles between tribes?

Does justice matter because at some level? If so, then justice becomes unbalanced and irrelevant.

If justice doesn’t matter, ask him for a blank check and the current balance of his accounts. Ask him to trust you.

At some level, society needs trust to operate, but trust is not a valid construct without justice. If justice is needed, then there must be some morality standards at the cosmic level which comes down to the personal level.

However, bigger question to you is so what? You are running in his limited mind-path. Relativism is a defense of a larger pain. It is a self-justification at some level of something. By keeping in his mind-path, you are running in HIS circular thought process, and since he knows it, he will beat you to the same point. Guilt is a big reason for relativistic thought process but not the only one.

So while he is running in circles, look at the center. Look at the heart.

 

[thephilosopher6]

There would be no point in following morals if society determines morality. Moralistic nihilism would be the end result. Of course, nihilism is ultimately what atheism leads too and is the full expression of atheism. As Dostoevsky said, “If God does not exist, then all things are permitted.”

 

[NeuralMonk]

There would be no point in following morals if society determines morality. Moralistic nihilism would be the end result. Of course, nihilism is ultimately what atheism leads too and is the full expression of atheism. As Dostoevsky said, “If God does not exist, then all things are permitted.”

That is a valid binary thought. However, the assumption of atheism may not hold because pagan culture supports relativism as well. Greek/Roman mythology, voodoo, Italian Mafia and some Hindu sects support a form relativism, just to name a few.

Even Islam supports a relativistic approach with one set of laws/mores for Arabs, another for Muslims and a third for non-believers.

So depending on the theistic construct, we don’t know the depths of the relativistic lunacy.

 

[Solmyr]

I wonder what do you mean by “moral relativism”? It simply means that ALL the details of the act must be taken into consideration. The opposite is to arbitrarily disregard certain aspects of act… It could be “deontological” or some other kind of moral meta-system. But if the consequences are not taken into consideration, then the whole system is useless.

Of course catholics are also “relativists”. You should not kill, UNLESS you do it in self-defense or in the defense of others. You should not steal, UNLESS you do it in self-preservation or to keep someone else alive. You should not commit genocide, UNLESS God orders it. Strangely they have a general commandment against LYING, but they have no problem with a lie which would allow someone to avoid a death squad… but then they redefine “lie” (for example it is not a lie if the other party has no “right” to the truth, whatever that “right” might be). They also have no problem to lie to their children about Santa Claus or the Tooth Farie. Well, the commandment is not REALLY against lying, it is against “bearing false WITNESS”, which is against “perjury”, NOT lying. But such minor discrepancies are not relevant for the apologists.

So we have the not-so-peculiar event of a pot calling the kettle black. Amusing, isn’t it?

Now, let’s be honest. There are “intrinsically evil” acts, which cannot be excused. Expressing your love toward someone in a fashion, which prevents conception, is a horrible, inexcusable behavior. If your partner happens to be of the same sex, then there is no pardon to express it in a physical manner. Masturbation? Apage, Satanas! (Btw, I always found it funny that “apage” is just an anagram of “agape”. Could it be just a strange coincidence? There are a few… )

Oh, and for the nonsense of “if God does not exist, then all things are permitted”, just try a few illegal activities (like growing medical cannabis in certain states). God most certainly will not interfere, but the police might. So those activities are NOT permitted. It would be nice to see these meaningless one-lines disappear. (Fat chance of that.) It is also funny that these nonsensical quotes are always paraded by believers. Atheists seem to know how ridiculous they are.

 

[Rhubarb]

True relativism in ethics can’t answer the question of the truth value of the proposition “It is good/bad to X” They’re either committed to hold that there can be no truth value to moral proportions and we use them only to express our societies attitudes towards the moral subject. Which, as others pointed out, amounts to moral nihilism. Or they must admit that the truth value of a moral proposition depends on society’s attitude - so if a society’s attitude is that X is good, then the proposition “X is good” is true. However, in this situation, there can be no discourse about ethics. Person P in Society S can say “X is good” while Person Q in Society T can say “X is bad” and both sentences, by the relativistic theory, are true. So it seems they aren’t arguing about the moral issue, but what their societies believe. What they’re really saying is “people in S say that X is good” and “people in T say X is bad.” There is no moral argument there. There’s no argument at all there.

 

[thephilosopher6]

That is a valid binary thought. However, the assumption of atheism may not hold because pagan culture supports relativism as well. Greek/Roman mythology, voodoo, Italian Mafia and some Hindu sects support a form relativism, just to name a few.

Even Islam supports a relativistic approach with one set of laws/mores for Arabs, another for Muslims and a third for non-believers.

So depending on the theistic construct, we don’t know the depths of the relativistic lunacy.

Christianity itself is anti-relativistic though. Statements such as “All men have sinned and all have fallen short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23) and “This is good and pleasing in the sight of our savior, who desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:4) show that there must be some kind of objective morality if all men need saving. With no objective morality, at least some kind of moral nihilism comes as the end result.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

It sounds like he’s a man that likes to be amenable.

Where does the need to argue a case come in?

You and I can agree on a decent consensus for our individual behaviour towards each other, whereas when it is about a matter that is out of our hands he needs to beware cloaking what he doesn’t really know about with his idealism.

 

[Solmyr]

True relativism in ethics can’t answer the question of the truth value of the proposition “It is good/bad to X” They’re either committed to hold that there can be no truth value to moral proportions and we use them only to express our societies attitudes towards the moral subject. Which, as others pointed out, amounts to moral nihilism. Or they must admit that the truth value of a moral proposition depends on society’s attitude - so if a society’s attitude is that X is good, then the proposition “X is good” is true. However, in this situation, there can be no discourse about ethics. Person P in Society S can say “X is good” while Person Q in Society T can say “X is bad” and both sentences, by the relativistic theory, are true. So it seems they aren’t arguing about the moral issue, but what their societies believe. What they’re really saying is “people in S say that X is good” and “people in T say X is bad.” There is no moral argument there. There’s no argument at all there.

Ethical questions do not deal with “IS” type of problems. They deal with “OUGHT” types of questions.

A metaphysical question is about “what exists?”. An ethical question is about “considering what exists, how should one behave?”. And that cannot be answered in a sterile, abstract environment without considering the actual circumstances of the question. That is why “moral absolutism” is nonsense.

 

[NeuralMonk]

You and I can agree on a decent consensus for our individual behaviour towards each other, whereas when it is about a matter that is out of our hands he needs to beware cloaking what he doesn’t really know about with his idealism.

If only people could look inside their box and understand themselves… they would be looking at a dirty mirror of the inside of their box.

People miss the world by their pompous naval-gazing, they miss the universe by focusing at the world, and they miss the eternal by focusing on reason alone. Your adventure is only as big as the focus of your worship.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

Ethical questions do not deal with “IS” type of problems. They deal with “OUGHT” types of questions.

A metaphysical question is about “what exists?”. An ethical question is about “considering what exists, how should one behave?”. And that cannot be answered in a sterile, abstract environment without considering the actual circumstances of the question. That is why “moral absolutism” is nonsense.

Solmyr, you are spot on!

I like your use of the “-ism”. If anything is absolute, let it be absolute. Our and others’ intrinsic value is absolute.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

… naval-gazing … Your adventure …

Ship ahoy! (passing each other in the night)

Voyage of discovery!

In some relationships, a person isn’t ready to take part in an argument.

Yosef, your acquaintance doesn’t sound like an absolute relativist. He might just be a relative relativist.

 

[Rhubarb]

Ethical questions do not deal with “IS” type of problems. They deal with “OUGHT” types of questions.

A metaphysical question is about “what exists?”. An ethical question is about “considering what exists, how should one behave?”. And that cannot be answered in a sterile, abstract environment without considering the actual circumstances of the question. That is why “moral absolutism” is nonsense.

I don’t know how your post responds to what I said. I’m not disagreeing with your above post. Phrases such as “absolutist” or “relativist” or “objective” are used in so many different ways that I don’t feel they’re precise enough without really pinning them down, but if I paint in broad strokes, even the absolutist Catholic morality admits that circumstances matter when judging the morality of an act. I think we all agree that we have a prima facie obligation to not kill. But all things aren’t equal. There are times when killing is at least morally permissible, if not obligatory. Even ethics that can be described as “objective” allow for this.

 

[Bahman]

I need a good tactic for arguing with a relativist who believes societies set the standards of morality. I typically would ask a question like, “Do you agree that a society which respects the dignity of all people is better than a society which enslaves certain people?” The relativist usually will agree. I then ask, “By what standard do you make this value judgement?” The response I get, however, is “By the relative standards set by my particular society.” How can I get such a person to grasp the reality of an objective standard that allows us to judge that–say–the Nazis were wrong independent of what moral standards their society set?

Morality is the result of practicing our rationality in different situations. We can depend on morality in many cases understanding the situations well and make sure the is no conflict with rationality.

I think that morality is ultimately objective since it is a part of knowledge. We however don’t have access to that knowledge hence we can only understand morality by practicing our rationality.

 

[Sacred_Heart_1]

I need a good tactic for arguing with a relativist who believes societies set the standards of morality. I typically would ask a question like, “Do you agree that a society which respects the dignity of all people is better than a society which enslaves certain people?” The relativist usually will agree. I then ask, “By what standard do you make this value judgement?” The response I get, however, is “By the relative standards set by my particular society.” How can I get such a person to grasp the reality of an objective standard that allows us to judge that–say–the Nazis were wrong independent of what moral standards their society set?

Ask where the origins of set society standards come from? If he says the people set them then ask him where these people got them from. Pick apart his argument like this until you can actually make him see an objective moral code.

 

[Nyx]

Ethical questions do not deal with “IS” type of problems. They deal with “OUGHT” types of questions.

A metaphysical question is about “what exists?”. An ethical question is about “considering what exists, how should one behave?”. And that cannot be answered in a sterile, abstract environment without considering the actual circumstances of the question. That is why “moral absolutism” is nonsense.

Yes, through I could say that there are many different ideas in what is described as moral relativism. Some claim that there is no such thing as moral absolutism, in the sense that the vast majority of people understand there are exceptions to most of our moral rules and that moral rules can greatly differ from a historical period to another and even from one culture to another. But in everyday life they do use a transcultural “standard” which usually is human rights to “judge” cultural practices, moral ideas and so on (for example, when someone says that they respect all cultures and religions as long as they don’t cause harm/loss of personal freedom/respect the laws, etc they are using this kind of reasoning).

Another group claims that any idea about morality cannot be judged outside that particular cultural group. A transcultural moral standard cannot exist because that moral standard itself belongs to a certain culture, and thus it is only right in that culture and to use it on other cultures would be imposing an idea on others. Now, as anyone can imagine, this poses certain problems:

1. The main point of criticism is that this model doesn’t answer problems like abuse, loss of personal freedom, intolerance and so on if these are “socially acceptable”. An example would be that if in a society the majority think physical abuse is acceptable in a marriage, this model can only conclude that it is indeed right in that society.
   2)The idea that there are different groups with different ideas in a culture. See, if you say X is OK in Y society because 70% of people say it is alright, you are basically imposing that moral code on the other 30%, something that many of them try very hard to avoid. Related to this is the more practical idea of two different cultures with different morals regarding certain aspects of life coming together- obviously if there is a contradiction, laws do represent one group and not the other, which might be seen as one group imposing their view of right and wrong over another.

That would main points of debate and there aren’t new. I’ve read some answers to this objections as well, but the main point is that while this position is just one understanding of “moral relativism”

 

[Solmyr]

I don’t know how your post responds to what I said. I’m not disagreeing with your above post. Phrases such as “absolutist” or “relativist” or “objective” are used in so many different ways that I don’t feel they’re precise enough without really pinning them down, but if I paint in broad strokes, even the absolutist Catholic morality admits that circumstances matter when judging the morality of an act.

You are right, it is next to impossible to find a common platform on which a conversation can take pace.

I think we all agree that we have a prima facie obligation to not kill. But all things aren’t equal. There are times when killing is at least morally permissible, if not obligatory. Even ethics that can be described as “objective” allow for this.

Indeed. But “non-procreative sex” (with all its variants) are considered “intrinsically evil” (no exception) by the catholic “moral code”.

Yes, through I could say that there are many different ideas in what is described as moral relativism. Some claim that there is no such thing as moral absolutism, in the sense that the vast majority of people understand there are exceptions to most of our moral rules and that moral rules can greatly differ from a historical period to another and even from one culture to another. But in everyday life they do use a transcultural “standard” which usually is human rights to “judge” cultural practices, moral ideas and so on (for example, when someone says that they respect all cultures and religions as long as they don’t cause harm/loss of personal freedom/respect the laws, etc they are using this kind of reasoning).

Another group claims that any idea about morality cannot be judged outside that particular cultural group. A transcultural moral standard cannot exist because that moral standard itself belongs to a certain culture, and thus it is only right in that culture and to use it on other cultures would be imposing an idea on others. Now, as anyone can imagine, this poses certain problems:

1. The main point of criticism is that this model doesn’t answer problems like abuse, loss of personal freedom, intolerance and so on if these are “socially acceptable”. An example would be that if in a society the majority think physical abuse is acceptable in a marriage, this model can only conclude that it is indeed right in that society.
   2)The idea that there are different groups with different ideas in a culture. See, if you say X is OK in Y society because 70% of people say it is alright, you are basically imposing that moral code on the other 30%, something that many of them try very hard to avoid. Related to this is the more practical idea of two different cultures with different morals regarding certain aspects of life coming together- obviously if there is a contradiction, laws do represent one group and not the other, which might be seen as one group imposing their view of right and wrong over another.

That would main points of debate and there aren’t new. I’ve read some answers to this objections as well, but the main point is that while this position is just one understanding of “moral relativism”

Again, the lack of common platform makes these kinds of conversations futile.

Even the concept of “morality” is next to impossible to define in a mutually acceptable fashion. Oh, well.