Moral Relativism

[Betterave]

Nope. Can’t be done. Logic can’t “bust” anyone out of Moral Relativism. Whatever logic you throw on them is based on something. It’s trivialy easy for a Moral Relativist to find and undermine that base and then all your logic crashes down around you ears. And if you’re naive enough to try anyway you’ll just wear yourself out. It’s an no win situation. Going after a moral relativist with logic is seductive, but it’s especialy enticing to somone who takes pride in their strong analytical skills. (Which is a nice way of saying you’re being played for a sucker.)

So here’s how to win: reverse your objective. Instead of trying to bust him out, try to lock him in. You can’t beat him, but he’s stuck having to make the choice between abandoning his moral relativism or being the wierdo who can’t figure out what’s wrong with stoning women to death. One is his defeat, the other is his Pyrrhic victory. You should treat either outcome as your victory.

This doesn’t make sense: First paragraph you say logic is ineffective against moral relativism, only a sucker would use it. Second paragraph you use an extremely common form of argument called a reductio ad absurdum to try to take down the moral relativist; but a reductio is a kind of logical argument, so you’re just contradicting yourself.

 

[Betterave]

Your failure to understand me is my fault, I apologize for apparently repeating myself in trying to discuss this. I did my best but with Christmas coming up let’s move on a pace. I may miss some of your points as I’m trying to juggle my responsibilities to CAF with helping my wife prepare for Christmas and she’s no longer accepting my attempts to hoist moral absolutes on her.

But you’re missing the point: I have not failed to understand you. I understand perfectly well that you are using the terms of this debate in a confused way. Do you understand that? You might disagree, but please don’t just act like you’ve missed my point again.

I don’t see what that has to do with the price of bread - I’m arguing that it’s extremely hard to prove the presence of objective absolutes, and that it’s of little use or counter-productive when discussing real-world morality with those who are not in our particular choir.

I think you’ve asserted that. I haven’t seen any remotely plausible arguments. As I have been trying to point out: the only reason you think your arguments are convincing is because you are confused about the meanings of the terms you are using.

If we grew up in India we might believe Krishna is the true god. I have no objective means to say that any given person’s belief is the true belief. I can only do so via my own belief, which is circular.

Circularity and objectiveness are not contradictories. Anyway, a discussion of the objective merits of believing in Krishna doesn’t appear to be relevant here.

Given the basic tenet of most religions that all humanity is one, everyone is our brother and sister, we all start equal before God. The split of the sheep and goats is not based on our personal beliefs but on how we have behaved toward each other. I think that’s basically the teaching of the Church in that God is available to other religions as well as Catholics. I don’t see how it doesn’t make sense when I say that God is on everyone’s side, that he doesn’t give up on anyone, surely that’s fundamental?

This is still nonsense. The fact that humanity is one does nothing to show that humanity is not divided. “Do not think I have come to bring peace” - so said Jesus.

Also, I am the one who said that this division is a moral one (that means based on how we behave) so your telling me that how we behave is the basis for the splitting of the sheep and goats is very silly. That’s what I just told you!

 

[jonfawkes]

I am on the side of relativity but I don’t think that you can dismiss the statements

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.

I disagree with the conclusions drawn.

The argument

“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.”

Is only true if that social structure is true. In the case of isolated tribes, wife sharing is a practice to help insure genetic diversity. e.x inuit

So the actuality is relative for the premise. There can be different solutions that are valid for each social structure.

This is why I say morality is self preservation for the social structure. Whatever that may be.

The third premise

“And, third, he is a created being. His acts should be in conformance with his obligations to the supreme being.”

The necessity of a supreme being for creation isn’t a universal held belief. Of those who believe in supreme being don’t agree on the obligation nor the nature of the being. So it’s relative to beliefs held.

 

[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.
You might as well argue that scientific facts don’t exist beyond the human mind! The truth is not made by man…

I wasn’t discussing “facts,” nor did I make a claim about “facts” nor their existence.

 

[larkin31]

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.

Because part of our nature is rational does not mean that ALL of our behaviors should conform to a rational norm (whatever THAT is).

Because part of our nature is social does not mean that ALL of our behaviors should conform to a social norm (whatever THAT is).

Much Madness is divinest Sense—
To a discerning Eye—
Much Sense—the starkest Madness—
'Tis the Majority
In this, as All, prevail—
Assent—and you are sane—
Demur—you’re straightway dangerous—
And handled with a Chain—

What one group (Catholic) considers to be a “norm” is neither necessarily objective, nor even remotely “absolute.” You need much stronger evidence than this.

 

[tonyrey]

I wasn’t discussing “facts,” nor did I make a claim about “facts” nor their existence.

You stated:

"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."

 

[larkin31]

You stated:

"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."

That statement was not about empirical “facts”. Are you following the conversation?

I do believe that physical reality exists beyond human perception.

 

[tonyrey]

That statement was not about empirical “facts”. Are you following the conversation?

Are you? I have made the point that facts, whether empirical or moral, are not confined to man.

I do believe that physical reality exists beyond human perception.

What about moral and spiritual reality? I guess you think not…

 

[Betterave]

And that’s not a subjective opinion? For the purposes of discussion, pretend I’m a Buddhist vegetarian.

No, it’s not a subjective opinion. What difference does it make if you happen to be a Buddhist vegetarian??

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.

No, that does not follow. You could just as well say that our morality differs from Stalin’s, so we need a get-out clause (getting out of what? - you still haven’t explained the propriety of this term) to be able to say that Stalin is wrong, because he is an atheist. But that’s still just a weird, unexplained, counter-intuitive assertion. Why are you claiming this? I don’t need to know whether you’re an atheist or not: the fact remains that your claims are gobbledy-gook - and this has nothing to do with the whether you believe in God or not, so your suggesting that it does just proves how confused you are.

Different systems of morality reach differing conclusions. For example, the Aquinas natural law concludes that condoms are evil because he incorporates procreation in his catalog of goods. Other natural law philosophers don’t include procreation and reach a different conclusion. There is no universally acclaimed robust logic to say which is correct. We can inspect the reasoning in different systems, including holy books (our own is inconclusive here) to inform our personal decision about the morality of condoms, along with the effects that condoms have on society and so on, but then the general lack of agreement along with changes over time and between societies implies an absence of any absolute. You may have a strong opinion on something based on your faith, but that doesn’t demonstrate the presence of an absolute.

Again, I’ll repeat this as many times as I have to: absolutism is not an epistemological claim about the knowability of moral absolutes. It is the claim that moral absolutes exist. It is NOT the claim that there is a “universally acclaimed robust logic” which we can unproblematically refer to whenever we face a moral disagreement. Please look up the term ignoratio elenchi, if you’re not familiar with it: that is all your argument is.

Imho this thread is exactly about differing worldviews.

But I’ve already clearly explained why your humble opinion is wrong, so you need to start listening and actually responding to my critique, instead of just clinging to your humble and confused opinion.

In any event, arguing for objective absolutes is essentially the same as debating how many angels fit on a pinhead in that it doesn’t get the job done in the real world.

It doesn’t get what job done?? Please note that the job here is to decide whether absolutism or relativism is a better, more rationally defensible way to conceive of morality, so your claim here makes no sense.

 

[Elijah_Baley]

Because part of our nature is rational does not mean that ALL of our behaviors should conform to a rational norm (whatever THAT is).

Because part of our nature is social does not mean that ALL of our behaviors should conform to a social norm (whatever THAT is).

What else is there in human nature which is uniquely human?

 

[Betterave]

As a generality, I agree with this. But I see no evidence of it being an “absolute” (true for all places, all times, all conditions). There was a time that humans did not exist, after all.

Like inocente, you appear to profoundly misunderstand the terms being discussed here. Absolutism does not entail that there was never a time when humans did not exist. Thus, if the claim “human beings are worthy of respect” is true, it just means that *if *human beings exist, *then *they are worthy of respect. It is a universal claim, not an existential one.

I think a lot of so-called relativists are like a guy who had a Hindu friend and thought the Hindu was a nice guy, so he starts calling himself a Hindu, even though he knows nothing about Hinduism.

 

[Betterave]

It can be said that a Relativist may disagree with a moral absolutist, but they cannot say that he/she is wrong without being contradictory.

That is not correct. A relativist says that morals are relative, not simply that they are subjective, as in, “if I say it, then it’s right.” Subjectivism is an extreme form of relativism, but not a typical one. Relativism is more typically based on the notion that the normative force of moral principles derives solely from their coherence in a given socio-cultural context. So obviously…

Moral Relativism is the idea that all morals are personal (though some morals may be shared with society) and all moral systems belonging to the people are right. If you disagree with this assessment, then you are disagreeing with what Moral Relativism truly is! So I don’t see how a Relativist can say that an Absolutist is wrong.

…a moral relativist *can *say that an absolutist is wrong.

Morality is either objective or subjective, it can’t be both or ‘something in the middle’ because there is no ‘something in the middle’–this all follows (more or less) from the Law of Non-contradiction. Absolute Morality is Objective Morality and Relative Morality is Subjective Morality, so clearly the opposite of objective/absolute morality is subjective/relative morality. But then the opposite of absolute morality really is “no morality,” as I stated before
There is no need to establish the actual presence, it can be done purely by definitions–which is good because Philosophers like definitions.

Objective and subjective are not contraries, so the law of non-contradiction (and excluded middle) does not apply here as you say. Also, even if they were contradictory, the law of non-contradiction only applies insofar as the contradictory terms are intended in the same sense, at the same time, to the same object, etc., and I think you would have to do so more work to show that to be the case here.

 

[grannymh]

My claim refers to the basis for morality. It is – The human person is worthy of profound respect.

The way one person treats another person (or one’s self) is another way of describing morality or immorality. If one believes that a person is worthy of profound respect, would she or he bop that person on the head with a hammer in order to steel her or his car?

Deciding that a human person, in herself or in himself, is worthy of profound respect regardless of personal likes and dislikes is an objective approach. Letting a personal or community dislike for persons who can’t sing determine unworthiness is a subjective approach. Relativism relies on the subjective approach so that worthiness can change according to geographical location for example.

Basically, the benefit of relativism is its ability to adapt to whatever comes down the pike. Basically, the benefit of objective morality is that it applies to all persons without conditions imposed by this or that community. Both moral relativism and objective morality can be ignored because persons have the ability to accept, reject, or remain neutral and act accordingly according to the times or moods.

The above is overly simplified considering all the different positions expressed in posts. It is a ground level explanation so that others can build their case for or against moral relativism. Personally, I find moral relativism too scary to talk about.

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]

Are you? I have made the point that facts, whether empirical or moral, are not confined to man.

What about moral and spiritual reality? I guess you think not…

“Morality” and “spirit” are non-physical* ideas*. As ideas, they exist only in human discourse. They are, of course, very important ideas (I am not questioning or doubting their importance).

 

[larkin31]

What else is there in human nature which is uniquely human?

That is a different question, and not particularly relevant.

That any quality that is part of human nature is unique to human behavior does not require ALL human behavior to conform to it as a “norm” (whatever THAT is).

 

[Elijah_Baley]

That any quality that is part of human nature is unique to human behavior does not require ALL human behavior to conform to it as a “norm” (whatever THAT is).

Why not? It occurs to me that morality — rules governing human behavior — should very well have a foundation based of uniquely human qualities.

 

[larkin31]

Why not? It occurs to me that morality — rules governing human behavior — should very well have a foundation based of uniquely human qualities.

Becuase, this is like saying that the lungs and mouth should only be used to breathe and not to sing, or that the lips should only be used to taste and eat and not to kiss, or that the hands should only be used for holding food and not for dance or art or touching–a behavior shared with other primates. Or that our language should only and always convey higher level language because that is one trait that we do not share with other primates. Becuase you are arguing that the absolute standard for ALL behavior should be what is actually only a partial aspect of our behavior.

 

[Elijah_Baley]

Becuase, this is like saying that the lungs and mouth should only be used to breathe and not to sing, or that the lips should only be used to taste and eat and not to kiss, or that the hands should only be used for holding food and not for dance or art or touching–a behavior shared with other primates. Or that our language should only and always convey higher level language because that is one trait that we do not share with other primates. Becuase you are arguing that the absolute standard for ALL behavior should be what is actually only a partial aspect of our behavior.

Let’s use that image of a lung to breathe and turn it upside down, borrowing ideas heavily from Lost in the Cosmos and Peter Kreeft.

Most animals have lungs. Lungs are used to breathe. Some if not all animals use them with make sounds. Fewer imitate speech, but only one animal, the human animal, speaks with what can legitimately be called language, that is, as a triadic creature in triadic conversation rather than as merely a very complex series of dyadic reactions. People in conversation are not making dancings like bumblebees to direct another bumblebee towards a flower or apes who have learned to place their hands certain way to get a treat as they are also cognizant of themselves as being selves. Long-winded, said little, but a necessary foundation for the following observation: People are quite unlike animals.

If we are going to express how people are unlike animals, it cannot substantially have to do with how we use our lungs, or even the outward symptoms of making sounds, but the manner in which we talk, and not even merely that. We must concentrate on the uniquely human sentience which is cognizant of the self to really get to the core of what makes people tick. We must ground our understanding of humanity in this very real abstraction as not a matter of breathing or baying, but as speaking.

Just so, it is what makes us different from beasts which must ground any viable moral system. It is useless to concentrate the parts of our being which we share with animals, that middle part of the Venn diagram, because that is not what people are. More accurately, what people share with animals is at best only peripherally what people are, a footnote to more than a chapter of our being.

Moral systems, after all, can only be used by sentient beings; to our knowledge, only humans. Is a broken vending machine or a naughty dog immoral? No. You does not admonish it for misbehavior, only malfunction. You don’t tell it to go to confession. You kick it.

As far as moral systems are useful, it is not in the traits we share with animals. It is in what makes us uniquely persons. (Incidentally, all of these qualities stem from the idea of the self.)\

Which only bolsters the most basic claim I’ve made:

Morality — rules governing human behavior — should have a foundation made of uniquely human qualities.
Substitute “human” for “sentient” as you will.

 

[Betterave]

Becuase, this [that morality — rules governing human behavior — should have a foundation based in uniquely human qualities] is like saying that the lungs and mouth should only be used to breathe and not to sing, or that the lips should only be used to taste and eat and not to kiss, or that the hands should only be used for holding food and not for dance or art or touching–a behavior shared with other primates.

Your explanation/argument for your claim here is severely deficient. Why is “this” like saying “that”? Your claim appears not to follow.

Or that our language should only and always convey higher level language because that is one trait that we do not share with other primates. Becuase you are arguing that the absolute standard for ALL behavior should be what is actually only a partial aspect of our behavior.

I didn’t notice that argument. Can you point to where Elijah made that argument, or explain how it follows from what he has said?

 

[tonyrey]

“Morality” and “spirit” are non-physical* ideas*. As ideas, they exist only in human discourse. They are, of course, very important ideas (I am not questioning or doubting their importance).

How do you know they exist only in human discourse? If other rational beings exist they will have many ideas which are the same as ours because they correspond to reality. It is extremely unlikely that we are the only rational beings in this vast universe - without even taking the Supreme Being into account.