Moral Relativism

[jdwood983]

No. This last part in bold has not been asserted by any consensus of “moral relativists.” In fact, I do not know of a single one that has ever asserted this. Who has ever asserted this?

Actually, I think that you cannot even summary moral relativism correctly; you keep sleeping into absolutist terminology.

From the Ultimate source of information, wikipedia:

Moral relativism may be any of several descriptive, meta-ethical, or normative positions regarding the differences in moral or ethical judgments between different people and cultures:
Descriptive relativism is merely the positive or descriptive position that there exist, in fact, fundamental disagreements about the right course of action even when the same facts obtain and the same consequences seem likely to arise.
Meta-ethical relativism, on the other hand, is the meta-ethical position that the truth or falsity of moral judgments, or their justification, is not objective or universal but instead relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a group of people.
Normative relativism, further still, is the prescriptive or normative position that, as there is no universal moral standard by which to judge others, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when it runs counter to our personal or cultural moral standards.

[relativists]…believe not only that, given the same set of verifiable facts, some societies or individuals will have a fundamental disagreement about what one ought to do based on societal or individual norms; but further, that one cannot adjudicate these using some independent standard of evaluation —** the standard will always be societal or personal.**

The bold is mine, italics theirs. The school of thought is essentially what I have written, that the moral system of Person A is theirs and is equally as worthy as Person B’s moral system that is completely opposite of Person A. I don’t know specific authors or philosophers who have specifically said or written what I’ve written, but that is the general consensus I’ve seen when talking to Relativists.

 

[larkin31]

From the Ultimate source of information, wikipedia:

The bold is mine, italics theirs. The school of thought is essentially what I have written, that the moral system of Person A is theirs and is equally as worthy as Person B’s moral system that is completely opposite of Person A. I don’t know specific authors or philosophers who have specifically said or written what I’ve written, but that is the general consensus I’ve seen when talking to Relativists.

Only one of those is close to what you said. The others are not. Moral relativists do not yield up the right to use reason and history and religion and cultural ethics to determine relative value of various proposed ethics. Indeed, they exercise this form of differentiation frequently. In many different ways, “right” is being determined frequently.

 

[larkin31]

True. Why confuse discussions with facts?

Why reply to me at all if you are not willing to discuss the actual issue between us?

 

[PRmerger]

Make it “persons are worth respect.” Then you’d be able to lump God into it, and your objection wouldn’t apply.

Perfect! :yyeess:

 

[PRmerger]

No, can still have a general understanding of direction. You can not know where Canada is but still know what north is.

LOL!! You would not say that to me if you’d ever tried to give me directions.

Just the other day DH was at a soccer field trying to get me to the game to see our DD play and he was telling me to go north on Maple. I was not getting. Finally, in exasperation he told me, “No, PR, drive AWAY from the sun.”

That’s pretty bad if one has to look at the sun and know where to go.

BTW, it was 1pm and I happen to know that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, so if DH was telling me to drive AWAY from the sun, that means he was actually telling me to go east, not north as he proclaimed he was trying to do.

So that’s the reason I was late for the soccer game. **He **was telling me the **wrong **directions.

 

[PRmerger]

North is still north even if you don’t believe in political boundaries. You don’t have to believe in Canada to see there is land north of “here”.

Why, jon, you little rascal. You’ve just come on over to my side with this statement, haven’t you! :extrahappy::dancing::extrahappy:
You have made the point about objective truth quite well in the statement above.

I rest my case. :curtsey:

 

[jonfawkes]

Quoting out of context - but yes it is possible if we both have a understanding or an agreement of “north”.

 

[PRmerger]

The historical evidence is that morality varies across cultures and changes over time, so to say that any given morality or principle is absolutely true requires a get-out clause of the type “I know God exists and I know the mind of God”. For the purposes of discussion, pretend I’m an atheist.

This is simply not true, inocente, that morality varies across cultures and changes over time. Well, acknowledged that some perceptions of morality have changed, but objective good and objective evil have not.

Thus, while some societies say that polygamy is licit, NO CULTURE has ever claimed that it’s ok to take anyone’s wife should one feel like doing so.

And while some societies may proclaim that public ownership of property is ideal, NO CULTURE has ever claimed that it’s good to take what belongs to another.

As Peter Kreeft says, try to imagine a society in which justice, courage, wisdom, honesty are proclaimed to be evil–you can’t find one, ever, that’s existed. And no society has ever existed that has valued cowardice, fraud, ineptitude, betrayal and ignorance.

 

[grannymh]

Why reply to me at all if you are not willing to discuss the actual issue between us?

With the exception of a few posts, my issue is that the human person is worthy of profound respect and I see that as a basis for morality.

Having reviewed our discussion in posts 168, 175, 177, 178, 179, 180, I find that we both agree to the value of respect. You referred to absolutes and I deal with objective and universal. We both presented our reasons and as far as I am concerned that issue is concluded.

In post 180, I replied “true” to your post 179. And added an observation. I had no intention of making that observation an issue between us.

Furthermore, from what I have observed on CAF, I agree with your comments in post 182 – Moral relativists do not yield up the right to use reason and history and religion and cultural ethics to determine relative value of various proposed ethics. Indeed, they exercise this form of differentiation frequently. In many different ways, “right” is being determined frequently."

My only issue with that is my wondering what is the basis which guides the process of determination. In some post, I mentioned the use of objective and subjective thinking. However, I have no intention of making my curiosity about methods an issue in this thread.

In other words, this thread will continue to do well without me. As a direct answer to your question, I don’t see any issues between you and me at this particular time. You have a different worldview than mine and I respect your right to your own worldview.
Naturally, there would be issues, but at this point in time, it is not entirely necessary that I be the one to discuss them. Perhaps in the future…

Blessings,
granny

The quest for eternal life beckons

 

[JDaniel]

When we view a man, we – as humans - are more than aptly capable of determining, and, thus, knowing, whether that man is a good man or a bad man. That man is considered good when his actions are in accord with human nature and the purpose for which that nature was made. On the other hand, actions contrary to man’s nature and/or purpose are bad.

I know it seems that I have slipped God into this definition, but, if I have, I have not done so without merit. Everything that the creatures of the earth do is done from each creature’s nature and for each’s purpose. Another way to say it is, every creature that is made is made with a nature and for a purpose. To deny this is to utter nonsense. If it weren’t so, man would have no way of determining the goodness or badness of any of the things that invade our senses. A good saw is one that cuts through whatever it was made to cut through. A bad saw does not. It may be poorly constructed, or, just dull. A good car is one that reliably transports one to and fro. A bad one doesn’t. A spider’s nature is to kill and consume insects. The purpose may be to reduce the population of harmful ones. These determinates are universally acclaimed by all of mankind.

I am sure there is universal agreement on the fact that man has a nature. Where some may disagree is whether or not he has a purpose. If he doesn’t, then he really is the only creature that doesn’t.

In Post # 2 I said that human acts should be considered in their entirety when determining their morality. What I meant by that is that a human act (actus humanus) should be understood from its entire relation to man, not just from one or more of his faculties. Thus, for example, while some may find it pleasurable to engage in sex with multiple partners, that is derivative from one of his faculties only. Only from a consideration of the actus humanus in its entirety do we recognize that it is only moral to propagate the race from the married state, where alone the welfare of the offspring is assured, and immoral to propagate the race from an unmarried state, where the welfare of offspring is not assured.

We find three basic characteristics in an analysis of human nature. They all relate to what sort of being he is. First, he is a rational being. Therefore his acts should conform to his rational nature – a nature higher than that possessed by the animals. Second, he is a social being. Therefore, his acts should conform to this social nature. His acts should not be antithetical to what is good for society. And, third, he is a created being. His acts should be in conformance with his obligations to the supreme being.

It is from such an analysis that we can come to know the norm of what is right or wrong. And, it is in this sense that the Catholic insists that morality is objective and absolute. This is more or less a very basic outline of what is meant by absolute and objective morality. It can be clearly seen that relativism and subjectivism issue from man’s faculties only rather than from his nature and purpose.

God bless,
jd

 

[tonyrey]

There is no “proving” anything about this either way. The only strong evidence we have for morality is the kind produced in behaviors (actions) and human thinking and writing. Since it is human based (I will assume that animals cannot “think” or “discuss” morally), morality is strongly governed by human cultural bias and understanding. THIS is what produces many different gods over the centuries and many different sets of ethics–and more than one of them asserting a kind of absolute truth. Although some values are nearly universal, this is still a long step from “absolute.”

We cannot assume that all morality is human-based. I have pointed out that there is at least one absolute principle for every rational, moral being: we should do what we are convinced is right.

 

[larkin31]

With the exception of a few posts, my issue is that the human person is worthy of profound respect and I see that as a basis for morality.

Having reviewed our discussion in posts 168, 175, 177, 178, 179, 180, I find that we both agree to the value of respect. You referred to absolutes and I deal with objective and universal. We both presented our reasons and as far as I am concerned that issue is concluded.

In post 180, I replied “true” to your post 179. And added an observation. I had no intention of making that observation an issue between us.

Furthermore, from what I have observed on CAF, I agree with your comments in post 182 – Moral relativists do not yield up the right to use reason and history and religion and cultural ethics to determine relative value of various proposed ethics. Indeed, they exercise this form of differentiation frequently. In many different ways, “right” is being determined frequently."

My only issue with that is my wondering what is the basis which guides the process of determination. In some post, I mentioned the use of objective and subjective thinking. However, I have no intention of making my curiosity about methods an issue in this thread.

In other words, this thread will continue to do well without me. As a direct answer to your question, I don’t see any issues between you and me at this particular time. You have a different worldview than mine and I respect your right to your own worldview.
Naturally, there would be issues, but at this point in time, it is not entirely necessary that I be the one to discuss them. Perhaps in the future…

Blessings,
granny

The quest for eternal life beckons

This makes things much clearer now.

 

[larkin31]

We cannot assume that all morality is human-based. I have pointed out that there is at least one absolute principle for every rational, moral being: we should do what we are convinced is right.

Only a human can think this. It is a statement made from human consciousness, and does not exist outside of the human mind except as human-made discourse. There is no persuasive evidence that this idea exists anywhere else except as a product of human thought, and as such is a subjective phenomenon, albeit a noble one.

 

[fhansen]

Only a human can think this. It is a statement made from human consciousness, and does not exist outside of the human mind except as human-made discourse. There is no persuasive evidence that this idea exists anywhere else except as a product of human thought, and as such is a subjective phenomenon, albeit a noble one.

I don’t know if it’s a noble one, it certainly is a universal one in any case. Every murderer has to be convinced he’s right-that he has the right to kill, even if only at that moment in time- in some capacity in order to commit the crime-or else he can’t do it.

 

[grannymh]

Only a human can think this. It is a statement made from human consciousness, and does not exist outside of the human mind except as human-made discourse. There is no persuasive evidence that this idea exists anywhere else except as a product of human thought, and as such is a subjective phenomenon, albeit a noble one.

As I said to you earlier. “I mentioned the use of objective and subjective thinking. However, I have no intention of making my curiosity about methods an issue in this thread.”

Then, here you go with an example of subjective thinking.

You are in the right for doing this because one cannot assume to know the method used to convince in the original statement. “I have pointed out that there is at least one absolute principle for every rational, moral being: we should do what we are convinced is right.”

A second possibility is that the objective approach could have been used as the *method used to convince"

The third possibility is the method more likely used to convince. This is the combination of subjective thinking and objective thinking augmented by the person’s powers of intellect and will.

My intent is to put this on the table so that it is available for discussion by others if they so wish.

Blessings,
granny

“The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?”
from the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert

The “Twelve Days of Christmas” are meant to be celebrated.

 

[larkin31]

I don’t know if it’s a noble one, it certainly is a universal one in any case. Every murderer has to be convinced he’s right-that he has the right to kill, even if only at that moment in time- in some capacity in order to commit the crime-or else he can’t do it.

Indeed. This is why I did not call it universally applicable.

 

[Elijah_Baley]

Indeed. This is why I did not call it universally applicable.

I’m interested to see what you think of JD’s post. It’s the best articulation of the side opposing you so far in this thread, I think.

When we view a man, we – as humans - are more than aptly capable of determining, and, thus, knowing, whether that man is a good man or a bad man. That man is considered good when his actions are in accord with human nature and the purpose for which that nature was made. On the other hand, actions contrary to man’s nature and/or purpose are bad.

I know it seems that I have slipped God into this definition, but, if I have, I have not done so without merit. Everything that the creatures of the earth do is done from each creature’s nature and for each’s purpose. Another way to say it is, every creature that is made is made with a nature and for a purpose. To deny this is to utter nonsense. If it weren’t so, man would have no way of determining the goodness or badness of any of the things that invade our senses. A good saw is one that cuts through whatever it was made to cut through. A bad saw does not. It may be poorly constructed, or, just dull. A good car is one that reliably transports one to and fro. A bad one doesn’t. A spider’s nature is to kill and consume insects. The purpose may be to reduce the population of harmful ones. These determinates are universally acclaimed by all of mankind.

I am sure there is universal agreement on the fact that man has a nature. Where some may disagree is whether or not he has a purpose. If he doesn’t, then he really is the only creature that doesn’t.

In Post # 2 I said that human acts should be considered in their entirety when determining their morality. What I meant by that is that a human act (actus humanus) should be understood from its entire relation to man, not just from one or more of his faculties. Thus, for example, while some may find it pleasurable to engage in sex with multiple partners, that is derivative from one of his faculties only. Only from a consideration of the actus humanus in its entirety do we recognize that it is only moral to propagate the race from the married state, where alone the welfare of the offspring is assured, and immoral to propagate the race from an unmarried state, where the welfare of offspring is not assured.

We find three basic characteristics in an analysis of human nature. They all relate to what sort of being he is. First, he is a rational being. Therefore his acts should conform to his rational nature – a nature higher than that possessed by the animals. Second, he is a social being. Therefore, his acts should conform to this social nature. His acts should not be antithetical to what is good for society. And, third, he is a created being. His acts should be in conformance with his obligations to the supreme being.

It is from such an analysis that we can come to know the norm of what is right or wrong. And, it is in this sense that the Catholic insists that morality is objective and absolute. This is more or less a very basic outline of what is meant by absolute and objective morality. It can be clearly seen that relativism and subjectivism issue from man’s faculties only rather than from his nature and purpose.

 

[larkin31]

I’m interested to see what you think of JD’s post. It’s the best articulation of the side opposing you so far in this thread, I think.

When we view a man, we – as humans - are more than aptly capable of determining, and, thus, knowing, whether that man is a good man or a bad man. That man is considered good when his actions are in accord with human nature and the purpose for which that nature was made. On the other hand, actions contrary to man’s nature and/or purpose are bad.

I know it seems that I have slipped God into this definition, but, if I have, I have not done so without merit. Everything that the creatures of the earth do is done from each creature’s nature and for each’s purpose. Another way to say it is, every creature that is made is made with a nature and for a purpose. To deny this is to utter nonsense. If it weren’t so, man would have no way of determining the goodness or badness of any of the things that invade our senses. A good saw is one that cuts through whatever it was made to cut through. A bad saw does not. It may be poorly constructed, or, just dull. A good car is one that reliably transports one to and fro. A bad one doesn’t. A spider’s nature is to kill and consume insects. The purpose may be to reduce the population of harmful ones. These determinates are universally acclaimed by all of mankind.

I am sure there is universal agreement on the fact that man has a nature. Where some may disagree is whether or not he has a purpose. If he doesn’t, then he really is the only creature that doesn’t.

In Post # 2 I said that human acts should be considered in their entirety when determining their morality. What I meant by that is that a human act (actus humanus) should be understood from its entire relation to man, not just from one or more of his faculties. Thus, for example, while some may find it pleasurable to engage in sex with multiple partners, that is derivative from one of his faculties only. Only from a consideration of the actus humanus in its entirety do we recognize that it is only moral to propagate the race from the married state, where alone the welfare of the offspring is assured, and immoral to propagate the race from an unmarried state, where the welfare of offspring is not assured.

We find three basic characteristics in an analysis of human nature. They all relate to what sort of being he is. First, he is a rational being. Therefore his acts should conform to his rational nature – a nature higher than that possessed by the animals. Second, he is a social being. Therefore, his acts should conform to this social nature. His acts should not be antithetical to what is good for society. And, third, he is a created being. His acts should be in conformance with his obligations to the supreme being.

It is from such an analysis that we can come to know the norm of what is right or wrong. And, it is in this sense that the Catholic insists that morality is objective and absolute. This is more or less a very basic outline of what is meant by absolute and objective morality. It can be clearly seen that relativism and subjectivism issue from man’s faculties only rather than from his nature and purpose.

Thanks, but I don’t think much of it. It is certainly sincere, and I respect if for that. But it is weak argument and lacks persuasion because it rests entirely on three speculative premises whose assumption automatically determines the outcome:

1. That there is a God
2. That God made mankind
3. human behaviors add up (define) something called “human nature”

Premises 1 and 2 are simply statements of faith and have no rhetorical weight to a non-believer, nor in the realm of logic. A syllogism is no more “right” than its premises are “true.”

Premise 3 is simply argument from majority, and this is a very weak way to try to define “human nature”. Human behavior is incredibly complex, and to argue that human nature can only be defined by that which propagates the species is simply to reject vast swaths of human behavior as “unnatural” or non-human. The poster argues that human nature is agreed upon and that there is some definition out there that should be our standard. Well, a few aspects of human nature are probably commonly agreed upon as being quite universal, but these are not all likely considered “good” qualities simply because they are normative in frequency (ie, most people do it, therefore it is natural and good). Secondly, to determine morality simply from normative rates and categories of behavior is to allow all sorts of selfish and harmful acts towards others. Determining what is “moral” and “good” is a much more complicated intellectual task than the poster that you have quoted is describing.

Finally, I see nothing in that poster’s comments that are not covered by this statement: “I believe in the Christian God; therefore, what is ‘good’ is what my prophets and my church and my savior have said is ‘good.’”

 

[Elijah_Baley]

Thanks, but I don’t think much of it. It is certainly sincere, and I respect if for that. But it is weak argument and lacks persuasion because it rests entirely on three speculative premises whose assumption automatically determines the outcome …

Then take this excerpt on its own merits, ignoring the good and true statements about the nature of God. Suppose we can talk of human nature in a way far more profound than we can talk of German nature or Mexican nature. Look at these last two grafs with that lens.

We find three basic characteristics in an analysis of human nature. They all relate to what sort of being he is. First, he is a rational being. Therefore his acts should conform to his rational nature – a nature higher than that possessed by the animals. Second, he is a social being. Therefore, his acts should conform to this social nature. His acts should not be antithetical to what is good for society. …

It is from such an analysis that we can come to know the norm of what is right or wrong. And, it is in this sense that the Catholic insists that morality is objective and absolute. This is more or less a very basic outline of what is meant by absolute and objective morality. It can be clearly seen that relativism and subjectivism issue from man’s faculties only rather than from his nature and purpose.

 

[tonyrey]

*We cannot assume that all morality is human-based. I have pointed out that there is at least one absolute principle for every rational, moral being: we should do what we are convinced is right.
Only a human can think this. It is a statement made from human consciousness, and does not exist outside of the human mind except as human-made discourse. There is no persuasive evidence that this idea exists anywhere else except as a product of human thought, and as such is a subjective phenomenon, albeit a noble one.
You might as well argue that scientific facts don’t exist beyond the human mind! The truth is not made by man…