Moral Relativism

[inocente]

Okay… So what is your answer to my question: What is implied by your use of the phrase “define as good and evil” (or "unraveling potential goods and evils)? That this “defining” (or “unraveling”) is essentially irrational??

My “I said you said” blindness is kicking in again, so I’ll try to answer all your points in one go. If I missed any then shout.

As we’re all agree on many moral conclusions, I wanted to find an example where we might disagree to see how far absolutism or objectivism takes us.

The use of artificial contraception is controversial, there is no universally acclaimed correct answer, some think it is evil, some good, some neither.

Now I could say that those who disagree with my own conclusion are ignorant and have trouble understanding morality but it will just get their backs up. I could alternatively support my conclusion with quotes from scripture, appeals to my church’s tradition, “it’s right/wrong/indifferent because that’s the way God/our nature meant it to be” and so on. That might change the opinion of some but won’t influence anyone with a different faith, and in some cases again will just get their backs up.

On the other hand I could ask people to think about it in the context of some well-known guiding principles, or explain some of the real-world consequences for individuals and society, and that may well change hearts and minds. If you have a different view about the morality then you will obvious pick other guiding principles and other consequences to make your own case. By this process, which mirrors the tensions in our own individual thoughts, we may all eventually reach a common conclusion.

So I’m asking what’s the point in morality of proposing that there are any universal facts, or that any action is always absolutely right or wrong, or that there are any inviolate principles. It seems to me that it’s only good for things we’ve all come to agree on anyway (or else for trying to impose our view on others).

If in 500 years time everyone has the same view on artificial contraception, we could elevate that view to some form of absolute but only do so by ignoring the messy process by which we came to it in the first place.

 

[Betterave]

My “I said you said” blindness is kicking in again, so I’ll try to answer all your points in one go. If I missed any then shout.

Certainly you missed some, but I won’t bother shouting about it.

As we’re all agree on many moral conclusions, I wanted to find an example where we might disagree to see how far absolutism or objectivism takes us.

You talk as if absolutism is a strategy or procedure for addressing moral disagreements, but it’s not. It’s a claim that there is a truth of the matter, there is such a thing as truth when it comes to moral principles and moral judgments. The fact that we disagree about what the truth is in some cases in no way impugns the claim that there is moral truth. You still seem to be not understanding that.

The use of artificial contraception is controversial, there is no universally acclaimed correct answer, some think it is evil, some good, some neither.

Right, and some are right and some are wrong.

Now I could say that those who disagree with my own conclusion are ignorant and have trouble understanding morality but it will just get their backs up.

Yes, that would be an irrational and unproductive argumentative strategy. But such a strategy has nothing to do with absolutism per se.

I could alternatively support my conclusion with quotes from scripture, appeals to my church’s tradition, “it’s right/wrong/indifferent because that’s the way God/our nature meant it to be” and so on. That might change the opinion of some but won’t influence anyone with a different faith, and in some cases again will just get their backs up.

“and so on”? It makes a difference what that “and so on” refers to, whether the reaction to it is justified. And that is what primarily matters: not how someone reacts, but how they are justified in reacting. There are lots of reasons that people have for rejecting the truth; that doesn’t make the truth any less true.

On the other hand I could ask people to think about it in the context of some well-known guiding principles, or explain some of the real-world consequences for individuals and society, and that may well change hearts and minds. If you have a different view about the morality then you will obvious pick other guiding principles and other consequences to make your own case. By this process, which mirrors the tensions in our own individual thoughts, we may all eventually reach a common conclusion.

Sure, no problem with that.

So I’m asking what’s the point in morality of proposing that there are any universal facts, or that any action is always absolutely right or wrong, or that there are any inviolate principles. It seems to me that it’s only good for things we’ve all come to agree on anyway (or else for trying to impose our view on others).

Only good for “trying to impose our view on others”? That’s a rather tendentious way of putting it! Why not for trying to help others to see the truth, which they’ll have a much easier time seeing if they accept that it exists, so that it at least can possibly be seen?

If in 500 years time everyone has the same view on artificial contraception, we could elevate that view to some form of absolute but only do so by ignoring the messy process by which we came to it in the first place.

That’s nonsense. The truth is not ascertained by democratic vote, so the achievement of a consensus need not “elevate that view to some form of absolute.” The “messy process” of moral reasoning is not essentially one of ‘getting the vote out,’ as you seem to think.

 

[larkin31]

But if there’s no moral absolute connected to your belief in these areas, on what basis would you even care about these rights-why would you bother with your beliefs? When all’s said and done, aren’t we really asking something like, ‘What would God do?’- and then at least assuming there’s an objectively right answer?

“caring” is not dependent upon absolutes

 

[LogisticsBranch]

I imagine this has been done to death on this sub-forum, but bear with me for a few.

I (a physics PhD candidate) have been debating with another graduate student (also in physics) about the nature/origin or morality.

Hi jdwood. The University of Notre Dame had an article on September 17, 2010 entitled “Research shows child rearing practices of distant ancestors foster morality, compassion in kids” that I thought was excellent. You can review it online here:
newsinfo.nd.edu/news/16829/ . Hope that helps.

 

[tonyrey]

There are plenty of times that "reasonableness’ is NOT the most important value. There is nothing “absolute” about it. But sure, it is quite valuable and quite universal in importance.

Please give an exampleof when being reasonable is not the most important value.

1. When isn’t there an objective distinction between good and evil in a moral situation?
2. What are the exceptions to the rule that hope, love and courage should be promoted in society and encouraged in** every **child’s education ?
3. When shouldn’t you do what you are **convinced **is right?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

tonyrey

*3. When shouldn’t you do what you are convinced is right? *

When you are eating too much buttered popcorn?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente
*
So I’m asking what’s the point in morality of proposing that there are any universal facts, or that any action is always absolutely right or wrong, or that there are any inviolate principles. *

Reverse the question:

What’s the point in proposing there are no universal facts, or that any action may be right in some instances and wrong in others, or that there are no sacred principles?

The latter course inevitably leads to moral anarchy … the direction in which we are presently heading.

 

[fhansen]

“caring” is not dependent upon absolutes

No, but absolutes can be dependent on caring. In Christian thought morality is based on compassion for others. Caring (love) provides the impetus to strive for human rights whether or not it benefits me-even if it may hurt me, in fact. If the basis of morality is love, then there will be a consistency, i.e. a non-relative, aspect to determining morality. My choice is still always there, however, as to whether or not I act according to this standard.

 

[larkin31]

No, but absolutes can be dependent on caring. In Christian thought morality is based on compassion for others. Caring (love) provides the impetus to strive for human rights whether or not it benefits me-even if it may hurt me, in fact. If the basis of morality is love, then there will be a consistency, i.e. a non-relative, aspect to determining morality. My choice is still always there, however, as to whether or not I act according to this standard.

Consistency is relative, also. There are always fluctuations, at some level of detail.

 

[fhansen]

Consistency is relative, also. There are always fluctuations, at some level of detail.

If love’s the standard, I can’t say mass genocide is wrong today but right tomorrow.

 

[jonfawkes]

If love’s the standard, I can’t say mass genocide is wrong today but right tomorrow.

Unless you are defending the Israelites in the OT

 

[larkin31]

Unless you are defending the Israelites in the OT

 

[fhansen]

Unless you are defending the Israelites in the OT

Self-defense in a world where the standard is already compromised, IOWs where my enemy may not abide by the rule of love, may be the necessary lesser of two evils. We don’t have to forsake or deny the standard-the objective morality-but we may compromise ourselves in relation to it.

Even then, Jesus, rather than defending Himself who was innocence incarnate, demonstrated the standard of love to the end rather than retaliate. God’s nature is made known by this. Whether or not OT writers were always speaking for God when they say they were, I don’t know. What we do know is His nature-which is love.

 

[larkin31]

If love’s the standard, I can’t say mass genocide is wrong today but right tomorrow.

This is mostly true. But not always. Apparently. CF Noah’s Flood.

 

[larkin31]

Self-defense in a world where the standard is already compromised, IOWs where my enemy may not abide by the rule of love, may be the necessary lesser of two evils. We don’t have to forsake or deny the standard-the objective morality-but we may compromise ourselves in relation to it.

Even then, Jesus, rather than defending Himself who was innocence incarnate, demonstrated the standard of love to the end rather than retaliate. God’s nature is made known by this. Whether or not OT writers were always speaking for God when they say they were, I don’t know. What we do know is His nature-which is love.

The Flood is mass genocide over all the species. You’re just saying that it was justified in that case. Which is exactly our point: justified yesterday but not today.

 

[fhansen]

The Flood is mass genocide over all the species. You’re just saying that it was justified in that case. Which is exactly our point: justified yesterday but not today.

In Catholic thought, the Potter is doing His molding. Imperfection is temporarily tolerated and worked with until creation finally willingly aligns itself with Gods perfect will, in which case the moral law/natural law/The Law will not be denied or abrogated but rather cherished and spontaneously obeyed.

Leaving on a trip for the weekend. I’ll expect you guys to get this thing all figured out and agreed on by the time I get back. The wife’s giving me that look now. See ya.

 

[larkin31]

In Catholic thought, the Potter is doing His molding. Imperfection is temporarily tolerated and worked with until creation finally willingly aligns itself with Gods perfect will, in which case the moral law/natural law/The Law will not be denied or abrogated but rather cherished and spontaneously obeyed.

Leaving on a trip for the weekend. I’ll expect you guys to get this thing all figured out and agreed on by the time I get back. The wife’s giving me that look now. See ya.

It’s still mass genocide.

 

[sidbrown]

The Flood is mass genocide over all the species. You’re just saying that it was justified in that case. Which is exactly our point: justified yesterday but not today.

So is it relative to the situation as to whether or not mass genocide is justified?

 

[inocente]

You talk as if absolutism is a strategy or procedure for addressing moral disagreements, but it’s not. It’s a claim that there is a truth of the matter, there is such a thing as truth when it comes to moral principles and moral judgments. The fact that we disagree about what the truth is in some cases in no way impugns the claim that there is moral truth. You still seem to be not understanding that.

I understand it but don’t see the point of making the claim, of why there need be any truths here. The way we evolved to make moral decisions is a messy process and it’s hard to see where absolutes might fit.

Right, and some are right and some are wrong.

There should be a smiley for “circular”.

Only good for “trying to impose our view on others”? That’s a rather tendentious way of putting it! Why not for trying to help others to see the truth, which they’ll have a much easier time seeing if they accept that it exists, so that it at least can possibly be seen?

No, I think it’s tendentious even to claim there is a truth here. Sticking with the theme of artificial contraception, asserting that there’s a truth leads us down a garden path of thinking it must always be either good or evil, when it may be neither or else sometimes good and sometimes evil according to context.

That’s nonsense. The truth is not ascertained by democratic vote, so the achievement of a consensus need not “elevate that view to some form of absolute.” The “messy process” of moral reasoning is not essentially one of ‘getting the vote out,’ as you seem to think.

The process isn’t like taking a vote. We have strong empathy towards each other, and this influences us as much as any rational arguments. As social animals we eventually come to see things the same way, but this is ongoing, our morals are slightly different from our parent’s generation.

 

[inocente]

Reverse the question:

What’s the point in proposing there are no universal facts, or that any action may be right in some instances and wrong in others, or that there are no sacred principles?

The latter course inevitably leads to moral anarchy … the direction in which we are presently heading.

I’m not saying we don’t or shouldn’t have guiding principles, rather that there’s no need or purpose in claiming them as objective or absolute.

Art. 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a principle we may all wish to follow “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” but it didn’t stop water-boarding, and people still debate the old “would you torture a suspected terrorist to find out where he hid his WMD”.

Article 5 is an agreement, a particular form of words we can all sign up to in our hearts, but it didn’t exist objectively beforehand, suddenly pop into existence in 1948, or stop the heads of security forces agonizing over the morality. Whether or not it’s a universal fact has no bearing.