Moral Relativism

[tonyrey]

The only way to evade the absolute principle that we should do what we are convinced is right is to deny that we should do anything at all!

We don’t!

If we’re convinced we’re absolutely right and have closed the door to other possibilities, how would we ever work out we might be wrong?

We cannot sit on the fence indefinitely. Even if we do nothing we commit ourselves to certain consequences. We are rarely convinced we’re absolutely right but we still have to make decisions. We may never work out how we might be wrong! So what? We’re not expected to be infallible but realistic and sincere. Do you think we should ever do what we believe is wrong or unjust or evil?

Nihilism says morals are contrived, artificial and meaningless. Relativism is very different - morals are honest and meaningful but are contextual.

Indeed. Morals are always and everywhere in the context of an individual who has to make a decision about how to behave or not to behave in important matters.

So doing what we’re convinced is right is a neat motto but should only apply once we’ve openly looked at alternatives, otherwise we’d never move forward.

The end result is the same. It is an absolute principle that we should always and everywhere follow the dictates of our conscience - if necessary after reflection, discussion and consultation. If we don’t we are abandoning our responsibility as unique individuals.

 

[Betterave]

Steak is morality - absolute morality claims there is one way to cook it. Relativism many ways. Denying that there is only one way doesn’t deny the existence of the steak. Affirming that there is more than one way doesn’t deny the existence of the steak.

So what is the “cooking”?

[By the way, I don’t know if you read the article inocente posted, but it presented an argument *against moral realism - and that does seem like the accurate way to understand relativism. Did you catch that?]

Absolute morality claims that there are moral absolutes - the burden of proof is on them to prove their existence. ( we’re waiting )

LOL! And I’m still waiting for you to stop ignoring what I say! Now tell me: WHY is the burden of proof on the absolutist? How have you established this burden of proof? Simply by fiat?

Relativism sees morality as a process steeped in the society it inhabits. Differing opinions are part of the process of determining morality. Morality is mutable.

That doesn’t answer my question: WHAT “process” (whether it is “steeped in the society it inhabits” or not, whatever that supposedly means or implies)?

 

[jonfawkes]

So what is the “cooking”?

[By the way, I don’t know if you read the article inocente posted, but it presented an argument *against moral realism

• and that does seem like the accurate way to understand relativism. Did you catch that?]

LOL! And I’m still waiting for you to stop ignoring what I say! Now tell me: WHY is the burden of proof on the absolutist? How have you established this burden of proof? Simply by fiat?

That doesn’t answer my question: WHAT “process” (whether it is “steeped in the society it inhabits” or not, whatever that supposedly means or implies)?

Determining what is moral or not is the cooking process.

The one making the claim has the burden.

The process of determining moral standards. It is a mutable and fluid process.

 

[Betterave]

Determining what is moral or not is the cooking process.

I don’t know why I bother… But okay; so here’s what you said:

It’s like saying that there is only one way to cook a steak (absolutism) or multiple ways (relativism)

So translated, where “steak” = “morality” and “cook” = “determine what is moral”:

It’s like saying that there is only one way to determine what is moral (absolutism) or multiple ways (relativism).

Now please refer to the definitions of absolutism and relativism and note that your claims are straw men. Absolutism is NOT the claim that there is only one way to determine what is moral; relativism is NOT the claim that there are multiple ways to determine what is moral.

The one making the claim has the burden.

That’s a claim right there: “The one making the claim has the burden.” So I guess the burden is on you: now prove it! (And no more of your stupid proofs-by-fiat.)

The process of determining moral standards. It is a mutable and fluid process.

Absolutely. So what? (Don’t just assume this is obviously relevant; it’s not. At least TRY to explain the relevance. And try to avoid more straw man arguments while doing so.)

 

[jonfawkes]

I don’t know why I bother… But okay; so here’s what you said:

It’s like saying that there is only one way to cook a steak (absolutism) or multiple ways (relativism)

So translated, where “steak” = “morality” and “cook” = “determine what is moral”:

It’s like saying that there is only one way to determine what is moral (absolutism) or multiple ways (relativism).

Now please refer to the definitions of absolutism and relativism and note that your claims are straw men. Absolutism is NOT the claim that there is only one way to determine what is moral; relativism is NOT the claim that there are multiple ways to determine what is moral.

That’s a claim right there: “The one making the claim has the burden.” So I guess the burden is on you: now prove it! (And no more of your stupid proofs-by-fiat.)

Absolutely. So what? (Don’t just assume this is obviously relevant; it’s not. At least TRY to explain the relevance. And try to avoid more straw man arguments while doing so.)

Sigh

Moral absolutism states there are moral absolutes, for example “homosexual acts are always immoral” There is only one way to cook the steak i.e. - Heterosexual relationships in the context of marriage.

Relative morality is with in the context of society and shaped by the society. There are many ways to cook the steak, i.e. With in the realm of human sexuality there are many valid couplings between consenting adults.

The burden of proof - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

Holder of the burden

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim.[1] This burden does not necessarily require a mathematical or strictly logical proof, although many strong arguments do rise to this level (such as in logical syllogisms). Rather, the evidential standard required for a given claim is determined by convention or community standards, with regard to the context of the claim in question

As an absolutist you claim there are moral absolutes - please demonstrate the existence of moral absolutes. I can repeat this ad nauseum if it helps Put up or shut up.

 

[sidbrown]

With reference to moral relativism, it seems like morality is relative, at least when you look at the question of slavery. Today (I hope), everyone agrees that it is wrong for the European white man to enslave black Africans. However, slavery was not always thought to be wrong. For example, there were Roman Catholic priests who held slaves in the US South before the civil war. And also, the Bible mentions that a slave should be subject to his master.

 

[larkin31]

Sigh

Moral absolutism states there are moral absolutes, for example “homosexual acts are always immoral” There is only one way to cook the steak i.e. - Heterosexual relationships in the context of marriage.

Relative morality is with in the context of society and shaped by the society. There are many ways to cook the steak, i.e. With in the realm of human sexuality there are many valid couplings between consenting adults.

The burden of proof - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

As an absolutist you claim there are moral absolutes - please demonstrate the existence of moral absolutes. I can repeat this ad nauseum if it helps Put up or shut up.

I put that poster on ignore a long time ago.

 

[larkin31]

With reference to moral relativism, it seems like morality is relative, at least when you look at the question of slavery. Today (I hope), everyone agrees that it is wrong for the European white man to enslave black Africans. However, slavery was not always thought to be wrong. For example, there were Roman Catholic priests who held slaves in the US South before the civil war. And also, the Bible mentions that a slave should be subject to his master.

Humans can’t even agree on their gods, nor on which set of supernatural rules and conditions are the true ones. And no one has ever established either the existence of the supernatural nor a morality that has existed absolutely.

Lots of claims, though! Every which way!

 

[inocente]

Humans can’t even agree on their gods, nor on which set of supernatural rules and conditions are the true ones. And no one has ever established either the existence of the supernatural nor a morality that has existed absolutely.

Lots of claims, though! Every which way!

I’d say it’s different in kind – belief in a god has powers to inspire and integrate in exactly the way absolutism doesn’t. Some go so far as to say it’s an attempt to manipulate morality, but I think it’s an innocent form of conditioning passed on across generations from ancient times. While it may have made a kind of sense in an isolated culture, globalization was its death knell. It runs contrary to all the evidence, makes no sensible statements, and is less a philosophy or ideology than mere wishful thinking. There’s a bit of post-rationalization chucked in, but the quality assurance is lamentable. It has no more logic than the unexamined belief that Nicole Kidman is objectively more attractive than a frog, no more connection with reality than flying saucers and alien abductions.

Or I might just be over-reacting to some of the “exciting” posts of course.

 

[inocente]

We don’t!

It’s a joy to talk to an absolutist who acknowledges the real world!

We cannot sit on the fence indefinitely. Even if we do nothing we commit ourselves to certain consequences. We are rarely convinced we’re absolutely right but we still have to make decisions. We may never work out how we might be wrong! So what? We’re not expected to be infallible but realistic and sincere. Do you think we should ever do what we believe is wrong or unjust or evil?

No, but it’s not about sitting on a fence. What I meant is this: At one time many people thought there were races and that white folk were meant to dominate. Suppose that was a tenet of some form of absolutism, and was acknowledged as a great truth. I don’t see how it could ever get changed. In the same way I don’t see how any imperatives can be open to revision unless we first allow we might have got it wrong, and we can’t do that without admitting that absolutes are unknowable even in principle. It just seems like a road to nowhere, while relativism acknowledges all of that up front.

The end result is the same. It is an absolute principle that we should always and everywhere follow the dictates of our conscience - if necessary after reflection, discussion and consultation. If we don’t we are abandoning our responsibility as unique individuals.

We’re more or less agreed on that. But suppose I think differently from everyone else about something, suppose I see no harm in use of artificial contraception while everyone else (excluding, presumably, my wife) says it’s grossly immoral. When will I have done enough “reflection, discussion and consultation” – when I agree with them, or when I don’t? If any principle were truly absolute, surely there wouldn’t need to be any sub-clauses or conflict over interpretations?

 

[davidv]

Sigh

Moral absolutism states there are moral absolutes, for example “homosexual acts are always immoral” There is only one way to cook the steak i.e. - Heterosexual relationships in the context of marriage.

Relative morality is with in the context of society and shaped by the society. There are many ways to cook the steak, i.e. With in the realm of human sexuality there are many valid couplings between consenting adults.

The burden of proof - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

As an absolutist you claim there are moral absolutes - **please demonstrate the existence of moral absolutes. **I can repeat this ad nauseum if it helps Put up or shut up.

Re bold above.

What would this demostration look like? I ask this because formal logic does not seem to be acceptable to you.

Was your last remark really called for?

 

[larkin31]

I’d say it’s different in kind – belief in a god has powers to inspire and integrate in exactly the way absolutism doesn’t. Some go so far as to say it’s an attempt to manipulate morality, but I think it’s an innocent form of conditioning passed on across generations from ancient times. While it may have made a kind of sense in an isolated culture, globalization was its death knell. It runs contrary to all the evidence, makes no sensible statements, and is less a philosophy or ideology than mere wishful thinking. There’s a bit of post-rationalization chucked in, but the quality assurance is lamentable. It has no more logic than the unexamined belief that Nicole Kidman is objectively more attractive than a frog, no more connection with reality than flying saucers and alien abductions.

Or I might just be over-reacting to some of the “exciting” posts of course.

I agree with you entirely. I find absolutism to be the intellectual result of fear and lack of intellectual courage. T the same time, if one still behaves well toward fellow man, it hardly matters. This internet chatter is meaningless, really, in the big picture of how we treat other humans and our world.

 

[davidv]

I agree with you entirely. I find absolutism to be the intellectual result of fear and lack of intellectual courage. T the same time, if one still behaves well toward fellow man, it hardly matters. This internet chatter is meaningless, really, in the big picture of how we treat other humans and our world.

Please demonstrate the truthfulness of the bold section above.

It looks to me to be one or more of several logic fallacies

1. poisoning the well
2. strawman
3. absence of evidence

 

[Betterave]

I’d say it’s different in kind – belief in a god has powers to inspire and integrate in exactly the way absolutism doesn’t. …

Or I might just be over-reacting to some of the “exciting” posts of course.

Or under-reacting, if we’re talking about substance. Still nothing, so far as that goes.

(But if you’re into substanceless self-congratulation, I guess you and larkin can go ahead and carry on with a long and happy conspiration. )

 

[Betterave]

What I meant is this: At one time many people thought there were races and that white folk were meant to dominate. Suppose that was a tenet of some form of absolutism, and was acknowledged as a great truth. I don’t see how it could ever get changed.

Seriously, you don’t see that?? Obviously it could get changed through the recognition that it was a stupid, groundless tenet, in gross contradition to the most basic principles of absolute morality.

In the same way I don’t see how any imperatives can be open to revision unless we first allow we might have got it wrong, and we can’t do that without admitting that absolutes are unknowable even in principle. It just seems like a road to nowhere, while relativism acknowledges all of that up front.

What a gross non sequitur. If the point of absolutism is that there are moral absolutes, this implies that there is a moral truth; that in turn implies that our moral claims must be conformed to the moral truth (this is itself a moral requirement), NOT that they necessarily and eternally already are (that’s just silly - seriously, dude: you shouldn’t still be making this claim at this point in the discussion).

 

[Betterave]

jon,
I have to say, I don’t think you’re the most rational guy around, but at least you’re civil, and you try to stay on subject, even though I think many of your remarks are (unwittingly) irrelevant. thanks for that.

Moral absolutism states there are moral absolutes, for example “homosexual acts are always immoral” There is only one way to cook the steak i.e. - Heterosexual relationships in the context of marriage.

Moral absolutism does not state there is only one way to determine morality, i.e., only heterosexual relationships in the context of marriage are moral. Do you know what “i.e.” means? It means “that is.” With that in mind, do you see how your claim doesn’t make sense?

Relative morality is with in the context of society and shaped by the society. There are many ways to cook the steak, i.e. With in the realm of human sexuality there are many valid couplings between consenting adults.

That’s nonsense, jon. You’re very confused here. If relative morality is within the context of a society, then it may well be that the society in question is Saudi Arabia, and within this society what is the status of homosexual acts? “There are many ways to cook the steak”? Of course not.

The burden of proof - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

As an absolutist you claim there are moral absolutes - please demonstrate the existence of moral absolutes. I can repeat this ad nauseum if it helps Put up or shut up.

Okay, whatever. I don’t know why you think that constitutes proof, but here’s the very obvious point you missed: relativism makes a claim just as much as absolutism does. (I hope you understand that. Please think about it if it really never occurred to before - in itself, it’s actually a very obvious point.) So how is the burden of proof on absolutism, rather than relativism? Both make a claim.

(Please answer question, rather than more repetition ad nauseam. )

 

[Betterave]

We don’t!

So you don’t know that, say, murder is wrong? I don’t believe that you don’t know that, but I guess if you didn’t, it would have to be because you “acknowledge the real world” - i.e., inocente’s world.

 

[Betterave]

it occurs to me that innocente and jon may not be familiar with the disjunctive syllogism:

P or Q
if not-P then Q
not-P
therefore Q

Does that mean anything to you guys? (This is basic logic - it’s the kind of thing that larkin put me on ignore for long ago. )

 

[Betterave]

With reference to moral relativism, it seems like morality is relative, at least when you look at the question of slavery. Today (I hope), everyone agrees that it is wrong for the European white man to enslave black Africans…

Aren’t you missing the fact that everyone also agrees that it was wrong, not just that it is wrong, for the European to enslave the African? Isn’t that an argument against relativism?

N.B.: Absolutism most certainly does not entail that there are no structures of sin and ignorance in real human societies, such that the moral truth is never or rarely obscured.

 

[larkin31]

Please demonstrate the truthfulness of the bold section above.

It looks to me to be one or more of several logic fallacies

1. poisoning the well
2. strawman
3. absence of evidence

The opinion is common, as is its rationale. I don’t mind if you reject its truthfulness. I am not here to change your opinion on this matter.