Moral Relativism

[jonfawkes]

I can’t rid myself of the image of a bunch of posters trying to drag a leviathan around!

Don’t you see Betterave has proven we’re all nihilists - slaves to our own contrivances.

We can only describe Absolutes relative to our religious views and describe relativism using absolutes. Slaves to contrivances - riding the leviathan. Yippee Kay Yea! :takeoff:

Have fun.

 

[larkin31]

Don’t you see Betterave has proven we’re all nihilists - slaves to our own contrivances.

We can only describe Absolutes relative to our religious views and describe relativism using absolutes. Slaves to contrivances - riding the leviathan. Yippee Kay Yea! :takeoff:

Have fun.

I only see Betterrave when others quote him/her.

But yes, I do see the circles of contrivances. A rhetorical Kharybdis!

 

[jonfawkes]

I only see Betterrave when others quote him/her.

But yes, I do see the circles of contrivances. A rhetorical Kharybdis!

I had ouroboros in mind but that works better - you should take him off “ignore” - he’s hilarious.

 

[tonyrey]

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.

Isn’t it an absolute principle that there is a difference between good and evil, right and wrong, just and unjust?

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?

An absolute principle is simply a principle that **every **person should always observe in **every **conceivable situation regardless of race, sex, ancestry, colour, creed, status, occupation, wealth or talents. It is not based on absolute certainty but on the absolute need for sincerity and commitment. Even though we can never be absolutely sure that we are right we do have an absolute obligation to do what we believe is right. We cannot consider any moral issue indefinitely but we can usually decide which is the lesser of two evils. If not we have to hope for the best!

We have to make up our minds but we also have to remain open-minded. Our fallibility is not a reason to believe in relativity! The truth does not depend on what we believe. It is an inaccessible star which guides us in our journey through life. Another absolute principle is the obligation to be reasonable. How can it ever be reasonable to be unreasonable? If we abandon that principle all rational discussion comes to an end.

Belief in relativity lacks a rational foundation. Its motto should be “Abandon all hope ye who have no absolute principles! You are lost in the dark…”

 

[inocente]

Isn’t it an absolute principle that there is a difference between good and evil, right and wrong, just and unjust?

The issue is who gets to decide.

*An absolute principle is simply a principle that **every ***person should always observe in **every **conceivable situation regardless of race, sex, ancestry, colour, creed, status, occupation, wealth or talents. It is not based on absolute certainty but on the absolute need for sincerity and commitment. Even though we can never be absolutely sure that we are right we do have an absolute obligation to do what we believe is right. We cannot consider any moral issue indefinitely but we can usually decide which is the lesser of two evils. If not we have to hope for the best!

I’d reckon all of us here are really close in our morality, except perhaps in sexual ethics.

I was watching a program on satellite last night about different ethical systems and their role in society today, mainly contrasting the severe relativism of Bentham with the absolutism of Kant.

The German constitution in heavily into Kant’s dignity of the human person. I was doing something else and may have got this wrong, but am fairly sure it said their parliament passed a law forbidding the shooting down of an airliner in a 9/11 situation because it would violate the dignity of the passengers. In another example, a police chief threatened torture on a child kidnapper who gave in and told him where the child was. He discovered the child had already been killed, had no intention of actually torturing, but was successfully prosecuted for violating the kidnapper’s dignity.

A dilemma was posed to a Bentham relativist and Kantian absolutist. Suppose by killing one child you could save another who was completely innocent. Then up the numbers, by killing one child you could save one million innocents. The relativist said he would have real problems deciding in the first case but in the second would pull the trigger. The absolutist pondered a while then said she would do the same but thought Kant would never pull the trigger in any circumstance.

They both have a point but realistically I side with the relativist. But not with Bentham though, who calculated everything in terms of individual happiness to the exclusion of any long term social goals. If you have a government of administrators who just react to pressure groups without any rudder or anchor, blame Bentham. Or blame Kant if they hold fast to a single ideology and deny common sense.

As I said earlier, but no one picked me up on it , I think we need a third way that models the world without ever needing to raise this absolute/relative business.

 

[larkin31]

As I said earlier, but no one picked me up on it , I think we need a third way that models the world without ever needing to raise this absolute/relative business.

Sorry I missed it.

You are entirely right. In fact, except in a few discussion forums, I don’t ever encounter this debate, and never heard about it in church growing up. Life’s challenges are nearly always much more complicated and conflicted. The issue seems totally irrelevant to me, except where the issue leads to injustice done to fellow humans.

 

[sidbrown]

I’d reckon all of us here are really close in our morality, except perhaps in sexual ethics…

Well, is it morally right to burn someone alive at the stake because they have a different view on artificial birth control than you do?
What does the papal bull Exsurge Domine say about it?

 

[Betterave]

I think I’m in a far better position to know the context of my statements than anyone else!

Why is that??

It was in the context of **one **specific issue:

“It is an absolute principle that we should do what we are convinced is right.”

So you don’t know if that principle is right?

Here’s the context, to remind you:

Quote:

Originally Posted by inocente

Quote:
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!

In other words moral relativism = moral nihilism.

But … how do we know we’re right?

We don’t!

 

[Betterave]

Reading through yesterday’s posts while eating breakfast cereal was not a good idea. Having cleaned off my monitor and keyboard, very comedic thanks but I’m hoping it was light-hearted banter and no one’s forgetting we’re all just pixels here.

Not light-hearted here. I find wilful idiocy depressing. Seriously, inocente: take a look at jon’s last few replies to me. Can you see any attempt to intelligently engage the subject of discussion? Maybe *you *can explain jon’s apparently hysterical gibbering to me?

(I don’t mind banter, but I don’t like arguments for the sake of argument, especially when they’re stupid arguments. I think the truth is important and that argument is an important method for gaining some clarity about the truth. Abuse of that process, as we see with jon and larkin, isn’t funny, imo, except in a tragic kind of way.)

 

[Betterave]

The issue is who gets to decide.

I’d reckon all of us here are really close in our morality, except perhaps in sexual ethics.

I was watching a program on satellite last night about different ethical systems and their role in society today, mainly contrasting the severe relativism of Bentham with the absolutism of Kant.

…

As I said earlier, but no one picked me up on it , I think we need a third way that models the world without ever needing to raise this absolute/relative business.

You can talk about a third model all you want, but again, it seems to me that you are confused about the basic meanings of the terms in question here. Here’s a question for you: How is that *Bentham *is a (severe!) relativist?

 

[jonfawkes]

Not light-hearted here. I find wilful idiocy depressing. Seriously, inocente: take a look at jon’s last few replies to me. Can you see any attempt to intelligently engage the subject of discussion? Maybe *you *can explain jon’s apparently hysterical gibbering to me?

I find your online persona redonkulous, and delightfully amusing - thank you for your gift of mirth

 

[Betterave]

I find your online persona redonkulous, and delightfully amusing - thank you for your gift of mirth

At least you’re not still pretending to know what you’re talking about when it comes to moral philosophy - instead, pure irrelevant ad hominem.

 

[jonfawkes]

At least you’re not still pretending to know what you’re talking about when it comes to moral philosophy - instead, pure irrelevant ad hominem.

See… perfect example calling a compliment "ad hominem " -

All together now …:whackadoo::egyptian::jrbirdman:

Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
Who was very rarely stable

Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
Who could think you under the table

David Hume could out-consume
Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel

And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel

There’s nothing Nietzche couldn’t teach ya
'Bout the raising of the wrist
Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed

 

[inocente]

Not light-hearted here. I find wilful idiocy depressing. Seriously, inocente: take a look at jon’s last few replies to me. Can you see any attempt to intelligently engage the subject of discussion? Maybe *you *can explain jon’s apparently hysterical gibbering to me?

(I don’t mind banter, but I don’t like arguments for the sake of argument, especially when they’re stupid arguments. I think the truth is important and that argument is an important method for gaining some clarity about the truth. Abuse of that process, as we see with jon and larkin, isn’t funny, imo, except in a tragic kind of way.)

Six of one and half-a-dozen of the other. Knowing I’d said I wasn’t going to talk to you again on this thread, part of me is wondering if you choose me as a third party, to rake the coals after things had calmed down nicely.

Empathy brother, get them mirror neurons buzzing, walk a mile etc.

OK I’m talking to you, but no more personal remarks please, there’s been too much of it from various folk on this thread, probably including me, no point falling out.

You can talk about a third model all you want, but again, it seems to me that you are confused about the basic meanings of the terms in question here. Here’s a question for you: How is that *Bentham *is a (severe!) relativist?

Bentham proposes that morals are about the greatest happiness, along with a calculus for working it out. That alone drives his morals. No rudder, ship goes anywhere it pleases. Kant on the other hand is into anchors big-time. One goes all over the shop, the other goes nowhere. Imho that’s the trouble with all systems of ethics, they attempt to rationalize something hugely complicated into a simplistic dumb process.

 

[inocente]

Well, is it morally right to burn someone alive at the stake because they have a different view on artificial birth control than you do?
What does the papal bull Exsurge Domine say about it?

Good point. There are two ways to come to agreement - argue it out or execute/exile the opposition. Back in the depths of pre-history it could have been the latter approach that led to the concept of absolutes in the first place.

 

[Betterave]

Six of one and half-a-dozen of the other. Knowing I’d said I wasn’t going to talk to you again on this thread, part of me is wondering if you choose me as a third party, to rake the coals after things had calmed down nicely.

Empathy brother, get them mirror neurons buzzing, walk a mile etc.

OK I’m talking to you, but no more personal remarks please, there’s been too much of it from various folk on this thread, probably including me, no point falling out.

What about my questions?: Can you see any attempt to intelligently engage the subject of discussion? Maybe you can explain jon’s apparently hysterical gibbering to me?

If you’d rather not answer them, okay. But my asking them is an attempt to recall jon to a serious engagement of the question by the use of a third party. My purpose is purely constructive. Obviously my addressing comments to him isn’t getting me any kind of intelligent reply, right? See his last comment, for example.

Bentham proposes that morals are about the greatest happiness, along with a calculus for working it out. That alone drives his morals. No rudder, ship goes anywhere it pleases. Kant on the other hand is into anchors big-time. One goes all over the shop, the other goes nowhere. Imho that’s the trouble with all systems of ethics, they attempt to rationalize something hugely complicated into a simplistic dumb process.

Your first sentence in the paragraph above is correct. So my question was, and still is: How is it that Bentham is a (severe!) relativist?

(I don’t know what the underlined sentences are supposed to be referring to. The last sentence is clearly not true as applied to Kant’s moral philosophy, and probably not true of any developed form of consequentialism either - although I would be tempted to reduce Bentham to something like that.)

 

[Betterave]

Well, is it morally right to burn someone alive at the stake because they have a different view on artificial birth control than you do?
What does the papal bull Exsurge Domine say about it?

inocente thought you had a good point. I had no idea you were even trying to make a point. Could you explain?

 

[jonfawkes]

Good point. There are two ways to come to agreement - argue it out or execute/exile the opposition. Back in the depths of pre-history it could have been the latter approach that led to the concept of absolutes in the first place.

All morality functions with in an accepted paradigm - which is relative to the acceptance. Capital punishment makes the relative paradigm absolute. Like it

 

[Betterave]

Capital punishment makes the relative paradigm absolute.

inocente,
I’m curious: Do you understand that the statement above is false, based on a very sloppy colloquial distinction between ‘relative’ and ‘absolute’ which has no relevance to the distinction and debate between relativism and absolutism? Embracing or using capital punishment clearly does NOT “make the relative paradigm absolute” - certainly not in any sense that would be relevant to the debate between relativism and absolutism. I’m just curious as to whether you understand that or not.

 

[jonfawkes]

inocente,
I’m curious: Do you understand that the statement above is false, based on a very sloppy colloquial distinction between ‘relative’ and ‘absolute’ which has no relevance to the distinction and debate between relativism and absolutism? Embracing or using capital punishment clearly does NOT “make the relative paradigm absolute” - certainly not in any sense that would be relevant to the debate between relativism and absolutism. I’m just curious as to whether you understand that or not.

goo goo g’joob.