Moral Relativism

[sidbrown]

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.

Moral relativism:
At one point in time it was thought to be morally correct to burn a heretic at the stake.

 

[Betterave]

Moral relativism:
At one point in time it was thought to be morally correct to burn a heretic at the stake.

I don’t understand… you’re trying to give a new (entirely unprecedented!) definition for ‘moral relativism’??

 

[sidbrown]

I don’t understand… you’re trying to give a new (entirely unprecedented!) definition for ‘moral relativism’??

Different cultures have different moral standards.

 

[jonfawkes]

Different cultures have different moral standards.

He’z messing with you - :dancing: Colons throw him off - like a stream to a blood hound.

 

[tonyrey]

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

And Jon Fawkes claims to be a Catholic
Yet seems diabolic rather than apostolic!

 

[tonyrey]

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

That doesn’t alter the fact that there is a difference.

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.

Which tends to confirm my view. Sex is a law unto itself for obvious reasons!

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 is 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. 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.

The third way still entails an absolute obligation to do what we believe is right.

 

[inocente]

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?

For the reason given – it’s a dumb reduction down to math that can’t hope to balance the needs of the individual with setting a direction for society. Like all these invented systems of ethics it’s grounded in some supposed absolute logic. If you think about it, it’s essentially the mind-set in many societies these days, a common reason why some rail against secularism and relativism. Possibly this is the only way to do the engineering with big populations, the only way to keep democratic multicultural societies working in the 21st C. But it’s severe (extreme), no?

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.

jon gets the joke, but explaining another’s humor won’t be as funny.

The notion is that by killing off everyone who disagrees with a given morality, those left behind automatically must agree absolutely, through abject fear if nothing else. In the resulting mono-culture, it wouldn’t take long to birth the ideology that this morality was absolutely ordained.

The more I think of it, the more it has a ring of truth.

 

[inocente]

The third way still entails an absolute obligation to do what we believe is right.

Nope. I think we need a new way of seeing, but don’t know what it is. Don’t know much about Buddhism or whether it’s to be recommended but interestingly:

*David Kalupahana, in A History of Buddhist Philosophy, offers an interesting perspective when he concludes that:

"Whereas Sanjaya [a skeptic and original teacher of Sariputta and Maha-Mogallana] was reluctant to make any positive pronouncements through fear of falling into error, the Buddha was willing to recognize the limitations of human knowledge and provide a reasonable description of truth and reality without reaching out for ultimate objectivity. This approach allowed him to avoid any ontological or metaphysical commitments and deal with language in a more meaningful way. For these reasons, he refrained from either raising or answering questions relating to ultimate origins or destinies, questions that had haunted Indian philosophers for centuries…

“If Absolutism is the result of reaching out for ultimate objectivity in philosophical disccourse, and if extreme skepticism is the reason for the failure of such an enterprise, the Buddha, in his explanation of human experience, seems to have renounced the search for such objectivity and confined himself to a middle way, thereby renouncing both Absolutism and extreme skepticism.”

newbuddhist.com/discussion/3070/buddhism%3A-the-middle-way-between-absolutism-and-extreme-skepticism/p1
*

 

[inocente]

The third way still entails an absolute obligation to do what we believe is right.

Nope. I think we need a new way of seeing or a middle way. For example, don’t know much about Buddhism or whether it’s to be recommended but:

*David Kalupahana, in A History of Buddhist Philosophy, offers an interesting perspective when he concludes that:

"Whereas Sanjaya [a skeptic and original teacher of Sariputta and Maha-Mogallana] was reluctant to make any positive pronouncements through fear of falling into error, the Buddha was willing to recognize the limitations of human knowledge and provide a reasonable description of truth and reality without reaching out for ultimate objectivity. This approach allowed him to avoid any ontological or metaphysical commitments and deal with language in a more meaningful way. For these reasons, he refrained from either raising or answering questions relating to ultimate origins or destinies, questions that had haunted Indian philosophers for centuries…

“If Absolutism is the result of reaching out for ultimate objectivity in philosophical disccourse, and if extreme skepticism is the reason for the failure of such an enterprise, the Buddha, in his explanation of human experience, seems to have renounced the search for such objectivity and confined himself to a middle way, thereby renouncing both Absolutism and extreme skepticism.” - newbuddhist.com/discussion/3070/buddhism%3A-the-middle-way-between-absolutism-and-extreme-skepticism/p1
*

 

[Betterave]

jon gets the joke, but explaining another’s humor won’t be as funny.

Jokes are supposed to be funny. I get the feeling that maybe you think moral philosophy is a joke, even though it’s not funny, and even though your thinking it’s a joke seems have resulted in your cavalier attitude towards moral reasoning. Would you mind speaking seriously about these matters? If you can’t do that, I won’t waste my time trying to discuss such a serious subject with you any further.

The notion is that by killing off everyone who disagrees with a given morality, those left behind automatically must agree absolutely, through abject fear if nothing else. In the resulting mono-culture, it wouldn’t take long to birth the ideology that this morality was absolutely ordained.

The more I think of it, the more it has a ring of truth.

At this point I don’t know if this is supposed to be another joke. Is it?

 

[Betterave]

For the reason given – it’s a dumb reduction down to math that can’t hope to balance the needs of the individual with setting a direction for society. Like all these invented systems of ethics it’s grounded in some supposed absolute logic.

So Bentham is or isn’t a relativist, in your view?? Or is this supposed to be another joke? “For the reason given”?? How is that a ‘reason’ for classifying Bentham as a relativist??

 

[Betterave]

Different cultures have different moral standards.

Therefore…?

 

[jonfawkes]

At this point I don’t know if this is supposed to be another joke. Is it?

Something is happening here but you don’t know what it is do you, Mr. Jones? :frighten:

The more I think of it, the more it has a ring of truth.

Crusades, Inquisitions, and Colonialism, oh my! :knight2:

 

[jonfawkes]

Therefore…?

Despite belief in absolutes, reality marches on.

 

[inocente]

Jokes are supposed to be funny. I get the feeling that maybe you think moral philosophy is a joke, even though it’s not funny, and even though your thinking it’s a joke seems have resulted in your cavalier attitude towards moral reasoning. Would you mind speaking seriously about these matters? If you can’t do that, I won’t waste my time trying to discuss such a serious subject with you any further.

Now didn’t I say the humor might be lost third time around? And no more personal remarks? See you on another thread dude. Seriously.

 

[davidv]

Despite belief in absolutes, reality marches on.

Would that be absolute reality or relative reality?

 

[jonfawkes]

Would that be absolute reality or relative reality?

Exactly!!! Relatively Absolute, Absolutely Relative. :extrahappy:

 

[Betterave]

Now didn’t I say the humor might be lost third time around?

No, you never said that.

And no more personal remarks? See you on another thread dude. Seriously.

Asking you to speak seriously because I don’t understand (or even recognize as such) your ‘jokes’ is a ‘personal remark’??

And I take it that’s not a joke?

 

[Betterave]

So far the general strategies for defending ‘Relativism’ we’ve seen displayed here are:

When someone points out the rational problems with your defense of relativism, do one or more of the following:

1. ignore his argument and make some new claim with no relevance to the issue at hand (be sure never to explain the relevance of your remarks);
2. pretend he has said something funny and roflyao;
3. express outrage and exit the conversation.

 

[jonfawkes]

So far the general strategies for defending ‘Relativism’ we’ve seen displayed here are:

When someone points out the rational problems with your defense of relativism,

1. ignore his argument and make some new claim with no relevance to the issue at hand;
2. pretend he has said something funny and roflyao;
3. express outrage and exit the conversation.

There is no need to defend relativism - different societies and groups have different morals. There is concrete evidence that relative moralities exist. Whether they are valid or not is another question. They seem to be working out without our help, so I’m leaning that way.

There has been no evidence ( we’ve asked ) that absolute morals exist, only the presupposition that they must.

Sounds like a case of “There must be a edge to the Earth, it can’t go on forever.” :takeoff: