Moral Relativism is starting to look better and better

[Catz Part Deux]

Actually, its quite a bit harder because you really have to think about issues to arrive to a conclusion due to the recognition of gray areas. There are rarely easy answers.

Indeed. The weak-minded are the people who want a slate of rules that they never have to think about.

 

[Councilman]

Seek and you will find. Knock and the door will open.

I have arrived at this somewhat against my own desires, but I am finding it difficult to navigate around this particular philosophical stumbling block.

I want to know there is an absolute black/white good/bad standard for things like morality...but as far as I can see, there is none.

The classic desert island scenario where two men are shipwrecked on an island helps highlight this. One man takes a knife and kills the other, what about this was wrong?

Everything about the sequence, if examined, is considered perfectly morally acceptable in certain circumstances. We have surgeons that cut into flesh, many people dont want to die, and many people harbor the intent or thought of killing others.

So what about a higher arbiter, a deity? If a deity is the source of absolute morality, then where did he/she receive the authority to create and enforce morality? In the end, they have the power to create and enforce morality only because they have power, so might makes right?

First of all there is no middle ground when it come to Morality but it is an individuals choice to either be a Moral person or not, and once you have made up your mind based on what you have been taught and have learn yo need to live within that paradigm you've set.

In other words be true to yourself and in doing so if you have children around you they learn to be moral and presumably good people in your image.

If you try to play the middle of the road you end up like one of my favorite quotes says: Those who stand for nothing fall for anything, and believe that is as true today as it was when Alexander Hamilton, first said it over 200 years ago.

Next people are always saying Desert Island, when I believe they mean deserted, becaue anyone stranded on a desert Island is going to die in a few days because of the survival rule of 3.

Nothing grows on a desert island, and there is no water source,that's why it's called a desert island. The Rule of 3s says: A human cannot live three minutes without air, three days without water, or three weeks without food.

So killing the other person would be futile.

So we now move on to a higher arbiter, or deity. well if you are a Christian Morality has been make clear already, however the part about "the authority to create and enforce morality" is a little off as I see it.

Remember we're talking about being a believer a Christian, the Authority comes from being the almighty so there is no room to question that, and Jesus laid down the morals we should follow every minute of every day. So we come to enforcing Morality and there is where we are fortunate indeed.

The Lord is not there to enforce Morality it is set up and we are to learn what it is and to live within the boundaries the Lord has set for us but we were given free will and we are not perfect and bound to make mistakes and from time to time do the wrong thing, and break with the Moral code laid out for us, but we can be redeemed if we acknowledge our mistakes and simply ask for forgiveness in Jesus name.

As long as we are constantly trying to live right and be a good person there is no enforcement until we face out maker in the end and if we did our best and didn't live in sin and ignore what we knew to be the right thing we have nothing to fear from the Lord.

But if we run around as hell raisers always trying to live in the gray areas we then might find we have lived a life less likely to be rewarded.

Many believe we make our own Heaven or Hell right here on earth and I guess that can be very true but if we are always trying to be the best person we can be and treat others as we wish to be treated there is no Hell to be found in that and goodness and kindness has it's own rewards because what you with and for others comes back to you.

Doing the right thing takes no more effort than doing the wrong thing Morally but one has good returns and the other leads to problems and often misery not only for you but those you love and who love you.

There was a time I didn't get it and then in 1984 I died for a time and a few days later when I was able to understand what all had happened and figured out why I changed and turned my life in a whole new direction because I get it, and playing in the gray areas will only lead to darkness in the end.

I hope this made sense to anyone who reads it because it is all to real and the sooner we all catch on the better off we will all be, and it's not a bout religion as much as it is about humanity and being a good person. You can take all the references to the Lord away and it doesn't change the message of being a good person and doing the right thing by yourself and others.The reward while we are here is the same.

 

[hallam]

To call morals objective is to turn a blind eye to reality. Thus only a theist could make this claim. A simple cross section of the world today clearly shows that morality is subjective and deeply influenced by the culture you were brought up in.

For instance in Japan it is completely moral to have sexual relations with 13 year old children. Yet for the majority of the audience here, such an act would be an atrocity. In many middle east countries the treatment of women is abdominal, but make not mistake, the people doing these acts think themselves moral and just. Here in America, the manner that we deny gays equal marriage rights is petty, mean spirited, and hateful. But once again, the people doing these acts claim moral superiority.

The fact that we can not judge morals as absolute is more proof that there is not an ultimate answer. The lack of a standard does nothing to prove an existence of a god. We will be arguing about proper morals long after the bible myths fade from our collective memories.

I don't know who told you that it was okay to sleep with children in Japan. It isn't. It is a taboo left for hentai. Now it is okay for children to sleep with children: say two 13 year olds. But then again that is okay now in the States too. So this is not a statement of moral relativity being different.

To say morality is relativistic one has to demonstrate a clear difference between the moral rules. One can not pick a far outlier, i.e. drinking behavior, and make this statement. I have read most of this thread and not one has shown a definitive moral difference between cultures. Further, moral relativity doesn't match social theory. Moral objectivity remains as the human experience is not that different from each other. Stealing in one culture is as bad in any other. No societal culture practices stealing, or murder, or adultery, or lying as good things. They may accept these things. They punishments may be different but the moral stance is the same.

Morality is objective whether you come from a sociological stand point or a religious one. The Golden rule stands true whether you read it in the Bible or you think it is an evolutionary selected trait. Those who link morality is a relative have to show that stealing, murder, adultery, lying, or another main moral stance is taught to that society as good. This also has to be shown as an in-group behavior.

 

[Guy Incognito]

What about it? Bacteria have no choice. Survival is seemingly ingrained in their being. This is true for all animal and plant life. Humans, on the other hand, have a frontal lobe which allows us the ability for discernment. Thus, the option to go against our "nature" is free for all to choose should they desire to.

Just so we're clear, your claim is that if an organism exhibits a "frontal lobe" which allows for moral "discernment," as you put it, this is what elevates a creature to the status of moral agent, like a human being? If so, I wonder if you'd be surprised to learn that a number of animals also have frontal lobes, and a number of animals exhibit the ability to make moral decisions.

Animals can tell right from wrong.

Obviously it is something other than brain structure that makes human beings unique.

 

[First Thought]

Just so we're clear, your claim is that if an organism exhibits a "frontal lobe" which allows for moral "discernment," as you put it, this is what elevates a creature to the status of moral agent, like a human being? If so, I wonder if you'd be surprised to learn that a number of animals also have frontal lobes, and a number of animals exhibit the ability to make moral decisions.

Animals can tell right from wrong.

The difference between humans and other animals, cognitively, is the highly developed frontal lobe. Other animals may have a frontal lobe, but none are even close to those of human beings. As for human beings as arbiters of right and wrong, who knows if we have it right? I certainly do not.

Obviously it is something other than brain structure that makes human beings unique.

I would agree. I would probably say it's consciousness. But then what is consciousness?

 

[Mach]

Hoplite,

Reality is all we acknowledge as existing. As such, any notion of morality is either a facet of reality, or not. And if not, it's fiction.

If its a facet of reality, it's likely we can and do study it. If you want black and white, you have the issue of time and lack of omniscience, which makes everything problematic to really "know". Also, we may have an issue *knowing* the black and white part due to uncertainty (principle)...we may be left with a really really really close to black grey

As for studying such moral choices there are two areas that get focused on, that are really just aspects of one another:

1. evolutionary adaptation - what we prefer and don't prefer can become our basis for morality. Both our perception and the underlying brain functioning that triggers and creates them, along with considering reality distinct from that, and as the source of our observation (which triggers moral distinctions), are all aspects of reality. People feel that way because of specific events in reality. That's pretty black and white. For example, killing is bad when someone is killing you or your family, sure, but when you're doing the killing...meh, it might be OK. That is a clear indication that morals are in that sense, necessarily relative.

2. mathematical analysis of morality - game theory. They have shown principles such as being "nice", "forgiving", etc., as being mathematically/statistically better than not behaving that way. The fact that certain behaviors result in certain outcomes, reliably, gives rise to at least mathematic justification for the evolution of certain behavioral strategies that humans employ. As such, when you crunch those numbers, you are seeing the abstract representation of that black and white that you're searching for. Cooperate with another cooperate and win, over time? That's pretty cut and dry.

If you haven't read wiki prisoner's dilemma, it's a great introduction to all of that. You already intuitively know this stuff, they just put the math behind it to seal the deal. Everyone in business employs this sort of thing regularly, when developing pricing, to marketing, to negotiations. It's part of our everyday life not just accidentally, but because it's real.

Sure, many religions and other power groups co-opt real things, and attempt to show that these real, good things, originate with their deity but only for their faithful. But that's all nonsense. Morals aren't any more spawned from religions than super powerful omniscient beings are spawned from religions.

 

[b.larset]

Against your desires, and not by design of your personal philosophy to adopt or reject the relative morality that is subjected to ones own desires and needs based on their own judgement of right and wrong. Relative to the individual. Each to his own?

 

[ecofarm]

"To each their own" and "different strokes" are for things that don't matter, not moral questions. Should we murder? To each their own!

Moral relativity is garbage. To ascribe to it is merely to make excuses. One either makes an excuse for their inability to decide or for their fondness of doing something wrong. Moral relativity is not proven true by the question "is killing someone wrong?" The question is insufficient to render judgement. In any specific situation, what is wrong and what is right can be known and judgement can be rendered.

Something is either right, wrong or doesn't matter. People should not hide behind inferior cultures (all cultures are not equal, just as all beliefs are not). Some cultures are full of sexist inhumane rot and I will not have cultural relativity excusing such things as FGM and Honor Killings.

I can give many examples of behavior that in any culture is deemed right or wrong. No one thinks murder is right. No one thinks rape is right. People do it because they are selfish pieces of garbage that hide behind moral relativism to continue barbarism and tyranny.

Democracy is right. Freedom of speech is right.

If you don't think so, you're wrong.

 

[Hoplite]

"To each their own" and "different strokes" are for things that don't matter, not moral questions. Should we murder? To each their own!

Moral relativity is garbage. To ascribe to it is merely to make excuses. One either makes an excuse for their inability to decide or for their fondness of doing something wrong. Moral relativity is not proven true by the question "is killing someone wrong?" The question is insufficient to render judgement. In any specific situation, what is wrong and what is right can be known and judgement can be rendered.

Something is either right, wrong or doesn't matter. People should not hide behind inferior cultures (all cultures are not equal, just as all beliefs are not). Some cultures are full of sexist inhumane rot and I will not have cultural relativity excusing such things as FGM and Honor Killings.

I can give many examples of behavior that in any culture is deemed right or wrong. No one thinks murder is right. No one thinks rape is right. People do it because they are selfish pieces of garbage that hide behind moral relativism to continue barbarism and tyranny.

Democracy is right. Freedom of speech is right.

If you don't think so, you're wrong.

Can you make a convincing argument against moral relativism?

Where does morality come from?

 

[rathi]

Moral relatively doesn't mean that you have to accept or tolerate other moral viewpoints. I would cheerfully shoot Hitler in the face, committing murder as it were, because I couldn't morally tolerate his actions. All it means is that you understand morality is a personal viewpoint, not a universal truth. The universe has no concept of right or wrong, and only individual humans can make the distinction.

 

[Mach]

If you don't think so, you're wrong.

lol. So much for a philosophy debate.

I especially like the part about culturally accepted Honor Killings, followed by " no one thinks murder is right". Then mixed in for fun "some cultures are not equal but inferior". Wow.

 

[Mach]

Moral relatively doesn't mean that you have to accept or tolerate other moral viewpoints. I would cheerfully shoot Hitler in the face, committing murder as it were, because I couldn't morally tolerate his actions. All it means is that you understand morality is a personal viewpoint, not a universal truth. The universe has no concept of right or wrong, and only individual humans can make the distinction.

From one angle, that's well said. But, from a stricter angle, I think the universe does in fact exhibit certain truths that we label as "moral". These are universal, and they are measurable, and objective.

Prisoner's dilemma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By analysing the top-scoring strategies, Axelrod[citation needed] stated several conditions necessary for a strategy to be successful.

Nice
The most important condition is that the strategy must be "nice", that is, it will not defect before its opponent does (this is sometimes referred to as an "optimistic" algorithm). Almost all of the top-scoring strategies were nice; therefore a purely selfish strategy will not "cheat" on its opponent, for purely utilitarian reasons first.

Retaliating
However, Axelrod contended, the successful strategy must not be a blind optimist. It must sometimes retaliate. An example of a non-retaliating strategy is Always Cooperate. This is a very bad choice, as "nasty" strategies will ruthlessly exploit such players.

Forgiving
Successful strategies must also be forgiving. Though players will retaliate, they will once again fall back to cooperating if the opponent does not continue to defect. This stops long runs of revenge and counter-revenge, maximizing points.

Non-envious
The last quality is being non-envious, that is not striving to score more than the opponent (impossible for a ‘nice’ strategy, i.e., a 'nice' strategy can never score more than the opponent).


So jealous, pushovers, who are mean and never forgive, don't succeed under certain behavior test conditions over time (within the parameters of the experiments). I think most mothers and dating girls know this intuitively...why is that? chance? Hardly.

Nice, non-envious, forgiving, non-pushovers are qualities that contribute to success. You mean the very same qualities we like to see in our fellow humans?

You think that's random? It's certainly not relative to the individual (assuming culture/tradition, etc., are kept controlled for the example).

It's not even remotely a plausible suggestion that morality as humans typically describe, are not some fundamental result of the universe, given how many people share so many similar beliefs that transcend cultural bounds. Humans are so complex it blows the mind. Human societies that interact are that raised to some power probably, in complexity. Yet they all seem to function off similar rules, and what ends up being a very intricate series of if/then/evaluate that despite being so vast and varied, all appear to share rules. Rules that given certain inputs, yield reliably certain outputs. Morals are a description of an aspect of the universe at root.