But Spinoza, like Plato, believes that a reasonable person will live up to a certain standard of virtue. Pretty much what is traditionally thought of as virtue. He felt that when guided by reason, a person will live virtuously, and that will lead to happiness. How is that relativity of good and evil? Yes morality is, according to Spinoza, relative to the individual. But, he believes that human nature is such that all individuals need to be virtuous to be happy.The relatavism of Good and evil in Spinoza’s philosophy is flawed.
Whilst the acceptance of Scotist metaphysics in Spinoza deserves some mention; his Ethical ideologies are undoubtedly flawed.
To say nothing inheres goodness or badness per se is to deny univocity; which entails a contrarity; as a per se universal cannot be inhered in an individual subjectivally; and if it does not inhere at all then it is not the case that it is within an individual.
Kant accurately undermines the religious & moral views of people like Spinoza; in fact activelly mentioning Spinoza in Section 87 of the Critique of Judgement.But Spinoza, like Plato, believes that a reasonable person will live up to a certain standard of virtue. Pretty much what is traditionally thought of as virtue. He felt that when guided by reason, a person will live virtuously, and that will lead to happiness. How is that relativity of good and evil? Yes morality is, according to Spinoza, relative to the individual. But, he believes that human nature is such that all individuals need to be virtuous to be happy.
Saying that morality has no ontological existence is not the same as moral relativism. Morality can be subjective, and universal to all humans, if one has a certain theory of human nature, which Spinoza and Plato both had.Kant accurately undermines the religious & moral views of people like Spinoza; in fact activelly mentioning Spinoza in Section 87 of the Critique of Judgement.
To say that Morality is subjective to to deny it has any real substance or anything that it can inhere within; it cannot then be predicated of a subject; so we cannot say “x is moral” and so forth - thus the word loses all pracitcal meaning. We can only say “x *believes *he is moral” which is entirely a different case altogether.
You mention Plato believes people will live up to a standard of virtue; if this virtue is not a per se universal that can be inhered of or predicated of a subject; then this virtue is meaningless; and thus relative. If virtue is not subjective; and has a per se existance then there is no reason to believe that morality operates differently.
It may be accurate to say people percieve or manifest morality in a subjective way; but that essential inherance cannot be subjective per se; or it is not real. There is no such thing as subjective truth.
If morality has no ontological existence it has existence only as what is called appellative personal suppositio (Summa toitus logicae I,c. Ixii-Ixviii); in so far as it is appellative to objects of conception which are generated (for they cannot be recognised if they do not have a per se existence) – thus; they are essentially subjective.Saying that morality has no ontological existence is not the same as moral relativism. Morality can be subjective, and universal to all humans, if one has a certain theory of human nature, which Spinoza and Plato both had.
lolIf morality has no ontological existence it has existence only as what is called appellative personal suppositio (Summa toitus logicae I,c. Ixii-Ixviii); in so far as it is appellative to objects of conception which are generated (for they cannot be recognised if they do not have a per se existence) – thus; they are essentially subjective.
It follows that since a subjective order is necessarily individual; it is necessarily relative to the experiences and understandings of the individual; and not some per se ontological reality.