Is Morality Relative?

[Newbie2]

First of all, YOU are the one trying to prove something here. You are trying to prove that an objective morality exists.

The way I see it is that maybe an objective morality does exist. This can only be true if God exists. But, since there is no way of knowing which set of morals is condoned by God, we will constantly be arguing about anyway…so it might as well be subjective.

To be honest, you are going to have to prove that God exists to show that there is an objective set of morality.

Wrong and right. Wrong: No way of knowing which set of morals are condoned by God; It’s actually pretty easy to see which morals are condoned by God, through Scripture and his Church. Right, one pretty much has to accept the existance of God to explain an objective morality.

Fayle

*Lesbians have the lowest rates of HIV. God must like lesbian sex *

Actually, celibates have the lowest rate of AIDS!

God must prefer celibates to lesbians.

Tooooooooooo-shay!

 

[Syntax]

I think that cross cultural disagreement shows that there is not a universal collective conscience. If there is one, it can be trumped by external forces (culture). It seems unlikely though, and I believe that conscience has more to do with one’s upbringing than some common conscience.

I agree that conscience can be formed in more ways than one, but do not *all *cultures have some notion of Justice, for instance, interpreted in terms of fairness and reciprocity even though the interpretations of fairness and reciprocity may vary? I take that as clear evidence that there exists an innate moral conscience that is universal even though the notion of objective Justice is instantiated differently in different cultural contexts.

 

[hellopeople]

I agree that conscience can be formed in more ways than one, but do not *all *cultures have some notion of Justice, for instance, interpreted in terms of fairness and reciprocity even though the interpretations of fairness and reciprocity may vary? I take that as clear evidence that there exists an innate moral conscience that is universal even though the notion of objective Justice is instantiated differently in different cultural contexts.

To be honest, I am not sure. I think that Justice and fairness are logical, but I don’t think that every society has these ideals.

 

[Syntax]

To be honest, I am not sure. I think that Justice and fairness are logical, but I don’t think that every society has these ideals.

How could a society *not *have a some ideal of what is supposed to count as fair and reciprocal? Any society, no matter how small the cultural milieu, depends on some kind of ideas of reciprocity, otherwise there would be no enforcement of human behavior, no checks and balances, and society (or the tribe) would be chaotic. Even in the smallest family units, no matter how dysfunctional, have some implicit notion of what counts as “everyone getting their appropriate due.” And I’m quite sure NO cultural anthropologist would share your skepticism.

 

[Syntax]

hellopeople;6356012:

I have maintained the position that I do not know if morality is subjective or objective.

But I did remark that since there is no way of proving or knowing the objective morality if it does exist, it basically **becomes subjective **because you cannot prove it one way or the other. So, even if it is objective, we can only speculate on what is true morality.

A kind of agnosticism then? So you believe that morality is subjective, but claim you do not know that it is subjective? Ok.

Then you don’t know morality is subjective. Big deal. So do you accept this on faith then?

Case closed. You have no reason for believing morality is subjective.

Hellopeople,

So am I supposed to assume you agree with me above, that you have *no reason *for believing morality is subjective because you claim to lack have knowledge of that alleged fact?

I haven’ heard a response from you yet:shrug:

 

[hellopeople]

Hellopeople,

So am I supposed to assume you agree with me above, that you have *no reason *for believing morality is subjective because you claim to lack have knowledge of that alleged fact?

I haven’ heard a response from you yet:shrug:

If I had to pick, I would probably say that a subjective morality is more likely.

 

[Syntax]

If I had to pick, I would probably say that a subjective morality is more likely.

Why? What’s your evidence? And what probability assignment would you give to express that “likelihood” that is allegedly supposed to trump the likelihood of the **competing **hypothesis that morality is objective?

 

[hatsoff]

It seems you are proposing contextual objectivity with respect to moral truths–which is really just cultural relativism in disguise.

“Moral truths” are determined with respect to a particular moral code or family of codes. I’m not sure what you mean by “cultural relativism,” so I can’t comment on that except to say I’m not purposefully disguising anything here.

So the question is: how would you propose to address the problem of cross-cultural disagreement?

I offer no such propositions.

 

[Rence]

Moral judgments depend on a contextual (though often poorly-defined) code of conduct, whether explicitly or implicitly identified. So, I would say that they are relative in that limited sense. These moral codes are varyingly attractive to different people based on personal preferences, and so in that sense they are subjective.

**I can add that: people’s beliefs and values are based on their cultural background and environment. Bull fighting may be very popular in Spain, but in the US, there are many who consider it immoral. Who is right? Does one have to be right? Can it be right for Spain and not right for the US? Can it be right for whoever enjoys bullfighting and wrong for those who don’t? Isn’t that relative? Isn’t it subjective? **

Please note this does not mean there are no common moral tendencies among large numbers of people. There clearly are, I would say, and so in that sense we may consider morality to be objective. It could also be that God exhaustively enforces his own moral code, which we might wish to call absolute.

**Even in different large communities of people, there is sometimes a different view of what is “moral”. Again, don’t those communities of people base their morals on their environment? They base their morals on the beliefs and values that form their culture.

So, an individual community of people may consider their moral to be absolute. But another community altogether may or may not agree with the first community’s code of morals…so for them, those morals are not absolute, but a product of their environment.

In other words, the Muslims have a specific set of moral values based on their religious teachings. They believe their morals are absolute. The catholics have a specific set of moral values based on their religious teachings and they believe their morals are absolute, so who is right?

Also consider what the catechism says about conscience:
1778 Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed. In all he says and does, man is obliged to follow faithfully what he knows to be just and right.

And:
1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. "He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters."53

So what if your conscience tells you that a particular teaching is not moral? On the one hand you’re handed a book of 10,0000 rules, and on the other hand, within it, you’re told to follow your conscience. What happens when their is a descreptacy between the rules and what your conscience tells you is moral and true and correct?**

 

[Syntax]

“Moral truths” are determined with respect to a particular moral code or family of codes. I’m not sure what you mean by “cultural relativism,” so I can’t comment on that except to say I’m not purposefully disguising anything here.

Then I am not sure what you are saying at all. I’ll just ask a question: Do moral statements such as “torturing innocent babies for fun is wrong” have a truth value or no? And if they do, does that truth value change across cultural contexts or does it stay the same?

 

[hatsoff]

Then I am not sure what you are saying at all. I’ll just ask a question: Do moral statements such as “torturing innocent babies for fun is wrong” have a truth value or no? And if they do, does that truth value change across cultural contexts or does it stay the same?

Yes, such statements may have truth values, and yes, those truth values may vary according to context. And those contexts can differ even within a particular culture.

 

[Syntax]

Yes, such statements may have truth values, and yes, those truth values may vary according to context. And those contexts can differ even within a particular culture.

That’s relativism

 

[Charlemagne_II]

hatsoff

*Yes, such statements may have truth values, and yes, those truth values may vary according to context. And those contexts can differ even within a particular culture. *

The notion that the truth value of it being wrong to torture babies may vary across cultures or even within a culture seems odd to me.

Truth is truth and cannot contradict itself. If a thing such as torturing babies is wrong, it is wrong everywhere. The fact that some nut case or some nut sect within a society or even across many societies practices such torture as a “good” value rather than a bad one does not make it any the less true that it is a bad value.

This is the fatal trap many relativists fall into. They think that because values change from culture to culture, no one culture has a wrap on true values.

That would be equivalent to saying anything goes. And in our culture we are leaders in showing the world how that trap can be sprung. We have since Roe v Wade tortured 50 million babies in the womb … tortured them to death.

 

[hatsoff]

The notion that the truth value of it being wrong to torture babies may vary across cultures or even within a culture seems odd to me.

Truth is truth and cannot contradict itself. If a thing such as torturing babies is wrong, it is wrong everywhere. The fact that some nut case or some nut sect within a society or even across many societies practices such torture as a “good” value rather than a bad one does not make it any the less true that it is a bad value.

The truth value of a statement like “torturing babies is wrong” must be evaluated with respect to some kind of moral code. Without such a code, the word “wrong” is undefined. So, we can think of moral codes as providing definitions for moral terms.

Now, we all know that there are a myriad of diverse moral codes to be found in human societies. Can we find one where torturing babies isn’t wrong? Possibly. One Spanish Christian, Bartolome de las Casas, wrote of Spanish colonists splitting open the heads of infant natives, in imitation of Psalm 137. Perhaps these people did not consider the killing of the uncivilized to be wrong. Personally I think the story was invented by Casas, but if not, then we might say that the moral code of the colonists in question permitted the torture of babies, so long as they were not Christian babies. A colonist might then say (in Spanish of course), that torturing babies is not wrong in many cases—and he might just be correct, if he was talking about his own moral code.

This is the fatal trap many relativists fall into. They think that because values change from culture to culture, no one culture has a wrap on true values.

Value are not themselves true or false. They are common or uncommon, attractive or unattractive, shared or not shared, etc.—but not true or false.

Now, statements about values can be true or false, but of course that’s another matter.

 

[hatsoff]

That’s relativism

I’m fine with that label.

 

[hellopeople]

Why? What’s your evidence? And what probability assignment would you give to express that “likelihood” that is allegedly supposed to trump the likelihood of the **competing **hypothesis that morality is objective?

My evidence is that people aren’t in agreement with what is right and what is wrong. This evidence might not be perfect, but it is better than the evidence I have for objective morality…which is none.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

hatsoff

Now, we all know that there are a myriad of diverse moral codes to be found in human societies. Can we find one where torturing babies isn’t wrong? Possibly.

You still are not able to think outside the box you have gotten into.

There is no society in which torturing babies is doing right just because these societies think they are doing right. If such a person or society thinks it is right, they are objectively disordered as to their morals … just as some people who think the sun revolves around the Earth are objectively disordered as to their grasp of the planetary system.

The natural law was planted in all our hearts. God will not give a pass to those who think it is fine to torture babies and murder them just because they exalt that barbarism with their religion or their Supreme Court.

 

[hellopeople]

The natural law was planted in all our hearts. God will not give a pass to those who think it is fine to torture babies and murder them just because they exalt that barbarism with their religion or their Supreme Court.

If this is true, then obviously God’s natural law is not as strong as cultural influences. Or God’s natural law does not exist.

 

[hatsoff]

You still are not able to think outside the box you have gotten into.

There is no society in which torturing babies is doing right just because these societies think they are doing right.

On the contrary, if a person makes a statement affirming a particular trend in values (e.g. that bashing open the heads of native American infants is generally smiled upon by some social group), then the truth or falsity of the statement in question will depend on whether or not that trend holds up.

The problem, I think, is that you don’t want to permit the use of moral language to talk about social trends. Instead, you’re apparently concerned exclusively with divine commands. Now, I freely acknowledge that we do not evaluate the truth or falsity of a statement about divine commands by looking at social trends. But when we talk about social trends, then we do look at them to evaluate the truth or falsity of our statements.

If you don’t want to use moral language to talk about social trends, then that’s your personal preference, and I am not bound to conform to it.

The natural law was planted in all our hearts. God will not give a pass to those who think it is fine to torture babies and murder them just because they exalt that barbarism with their religion or their Supreme Court.

If you think God exists, and has endowed us with some kind of instinct to unwittingly obey his moral commands, then I am open to hearing evidence that you are correct. However, I have thus far encountered no such empirical support.

 

[hellopeople]

If you think God exists, and has endowed us with some kind of instinct to unwittingly obey his moral commands, then I am open to hearing evidence that you are correct. However, I have thus far encountered no such empirical support.

You can’t say something like this or else syntax will come on here and say “but what evidence have you encountered NOT to believe it”…and then once you give him it he will shoot it down and say that it isn’t valid, while he himself cannot give even a shred of evidence to support his claims, he just rebuts your claims.