Moral relativitiy : I'm starting to believe....

[Hatuey]

...that moral relativity is bull**** to some extent. Why? Easy. There are some things which CAN be gray but there are others that are simply black and white. So far I've come to the conclusion that I can only determine conclusively that some things are clearly wrong. While I have not been able to come up with things which are always right I can say that there are some which are always wrong. Raping somebody. Always wrong. Killing a man because of his race. Always wrong. Destroying your family for cheap thrills with hookers. Always wrong. I can't really see how one could defend any of those actions and say 'it depends on the situation'. I simply can't. While I still consider most of morality to be relative I think there are some things which are always either right or wrong.

 

[Cephus]

While I can understand your difficulty, there simply is no way to objectively determine which moral precepts are factually and demonstrably "right" and which ones are factually and demonstrably "wrong" because most of them depend heavily on the cultural context in which they are set. I agree with you wholeheartedly that, at least from our shared cultural perspective, rape is always wrong. Yet if you grew up in a theoretical culture where rape was not wrong, where it was an accepted and perhaps expected part of the society, would you still come to the conclusion that it was wrong and upon what basis would you have for doing so?

We all come up with our own internal moral compass, based on how we're raised, what we believe and how those around us act. As a group, we come up with an acceptable social dynamic for the society in which we live, we make laws, we decide what should and should not be allowed and we enforce the group will upon those who would violate the social norms. Unfortunately, what you see some people doing, and I won't name names, is thinking they can impose the social norms of their culture on everyone else because somehow, their social norms are "right" and everyone's that disagrees with them are "wrong". That's just not a defensible position one can take.

 

[mikhail]

...that moral relativity is bull**** to some extent. Why? Easy. There are some things which CAN be gray but there are others that are simply black and white. So far I've come to the conclusion that I can only determine conclusively that some things are clearly wrong. While I have not been able to come up with things which are always right I can say that there are some which are always wrong. Raping somebody. Always wrong. Killing a man because of his race. Always wrong. Destroying your family for cheap thrills with hookers. Always wrong. I can't really see how one could defend any of those actions and say 'it depends on the situation'. I simply can't. While I still consider most of morality to be relative I think there are some things which are always either right or wrong.

Hatuey you are coming round to my way of thinking i knew you would.Yes moral relativity is bull****.Now follow the next step of why multiculturalism is bull****.

 

[MrFungus420]

...that moral relativity is bull**** to some extent. Why? Easy. There are some things which CAN be gray but there are others that are simply black and white. So far I've come to the conclusion that I can only determine conclusively that some things are clearly wrong. While I have not been able to come up with things which are always right I can say that there are some which are always wrong. Raping somebody. Always wrong. Killing a man because of his race. Always wrong. Destroying your family for cheap thrills with hookers. Always wrong. I can't really see how one could defend any of those actions and say 'it depends on the situation'. I simply can't.

But, you are already supplying the situation in which said activity is wrong.

The activities are sex and killing. In and of themselves, there is nothing moral or immoral about the activities themselves.

The relative situation of it being rape or murder is what makes the activity wrong.

While I still consider most of morality to be relative I think there are some things which are always either right or wrong.

Let's hear an instance of an activity that is, in and of itself, independent of the situation, right or wrong.

 

[Hatuey]

But, you are already supplying the situation in which said activity is wrong.

The activities are sex and killing. In and of themselves, there is nothing moral or immoral about the activities themselves.

The relative situation of it being rape or murder is what makes the activity wrong.

I did not say 'sex'. I said rape. Which is a lot different. Sex is not forced upon. Sex is voluntary. Rape is not.

Let's hear an instance of an activity that is, in and of itself, independent of the situation, right or wrong.

Rape?

 

[Cephus]

Hatuey, unfortunately you're still simply making assertions that things are wrong without backing them up. Certainly you're welcome to BELIEVE they are wrong, you're welcome to follow the dominant social paradigm in thinking they are wrong, that still doesn't justify asserting, without evidence, that they are, in fact, objectively wrong.

So how about it? Why is rape, for the sake of argument, objectively wrong?

 

[jallman]

...that moral relativity is bull**** to some extent. Why? Easy. There are some things which CAN be gray but there are others that are simply black and white. So far I've come to the conclusion that I can only determine conclusively that some things are clearly wrong. While I have not been able to come up with things which are always right I can say that there are some which are always wrong. Raping somebody. Always wrong. Killing a man because of his race. Always wrong. Destroying your family for cheap thrills with hookers. Always wrong. I can't really see how one could defend any of those actions and say 'it depends on the situation'. I simply can't. While I still consider most of morality to be relative I think there are some things which are always either right or wrong.

I agree with you one hundred percent. If a man listens to his conscience, there are things that are always wrong no matter how you dice it. Every example you gave falls in that category.

 

[Hatuey]

Hatuey, unfortunately you're still simply making assertions that things are wrong without backing them up. Certainly you're welcome to BELIEVE they are wrong, you're welcome to follow the dominant social paradigm in thinking they are wrong, that still doesn't justify asserting, without evidence, that they are, in fact, objectively wrong.

So how about it? Why is rape, for the sake of argument, objectively wrong?

Forcing somebody to have sex against their consent is right in which circumstance?

 

[Thorgasm]

Forcing somebody to have sex against their consent is right in which circumstance?

Retaliation for raping someone else?

 

[Felicity]

Forcing somebody to have sex against their consent is right in which circumstance?

I think they are saying that the relative situation you apply to the act of sex is what one deems moral or immoral and that makes it relative morality rather than objective.

You have to get to the basic core of the thing to see whether there is any relative construct.

For example. One can say that lying is objectively wrong because it is diametrically opposed to the purpose of communication. Communication is to exchange information--lying corrupts that purpose. Lying is ALWAYS wrong because it is the opposite of the purpose of communication.

However, you impose a situation onto it..."does my butt look big in these jeans?" You weigh the relative cost of the lie.

...but then....one also has to look at the question also. Does she REALLY want to know?

Still--when you strip away all the situations and look at the thing itself--is it moral or not? Lying is an example of an objectively immoral act.

 

[jallman]

Retaliation for raping someone else?

No, never. A tire iron to the skull is suitable retaliation, however.

 

[Thorgasm]

No, never. A tire iron to the skull is suitable retaliation, however.

I was trying to throw something out there. An eye for an eye and all. Old school.

But what about a breech of contract? Let's say the consent for sex is conditional. If you don't pay the prostitute or if a roadie doesn't let you meet the band or give you a t-shirt let's say?

 

[jallman]

I was trying to throw something out there. An eye for an eye and all. Old school.

But what about a breech of contract? Let's say the consent for sex is conditional. If you don't pay the prostitute or if a roadie doesn't let you meet the band or give you a t-shirt let's say?

You rape them for it? No. Still morally wrong.

 

[1069]

...that moral relativity is bull**** to some extent. Why? Easy. There are some things which CAN be gray but there are others that are simply black and white. So far I've come to the conclusion that I can only determine conclusively that some things are clearly wrong. While I have not been able to come up with things which are always right I can say that there are some which are always wrong. Raping somebody. Always wrong. Killing a man because of his race. Always wrong. Destroying your family for cheap thrills with hookers. Always wrong. I can't really see how one could defend any of those actions and say 'it depends on the situation'. I simply can't. While I still consider most of morality to be relative I think there are some things which are always either right or wrong.

Those aren't actions you're describing and condemning. They're motivations.
The actions themselves ("killing someone", "destroying your family") aren't "always wrong".
The motivations you mention ("because of his race", "for cheap thrills with hookers") are what you're actually condemning, and you'd probably condemn these motivations no matter what action was attached to them.
It's wrong to spit on a guy/ call him a derogatory name/ look at him funny/ cut in line in front of him because of his race.
It's wrong to sell your stereo/ raid your child's piggy bank/ cheat on your taxes/ borrow ten bucks from your mom for cheap thrills with hookers.

It's the motivations you're claiming are unworthy, and I'll bet you'd think they were unworthy motivations for any action, not just murder and the wanton destruction of families.

 

[MrFungus420]

I did not say 'sex'. I said rape. Which is a lot different. Sex is not forced upon. Sex is voluntary. Rape is not.



Rape?

The activity itself is sex. It is the relative circumstances that make it rape.

 

[scourge99]

Morality is not a thing. It is a artificial construct, an abstract idea. Its made up, its imaginary, its non-real. It can not be found under a rock, gazed upon from a distance, or measured by even the most precise of scientific equipment. Its existence is only known by conscious beings. It is an abstraction or explanation of the zeitgeist. Morality is whatever the conscious beings wish it to be.

Granted, it can be argued that particular morals, that is, particular societal beliefs of what is right or wrong, can have probable results in certain societies, thus, societies may have propensity to evolve/subscribe to certain morals as a means of achieving desired resultants within society. But this is proof of nothing on a universal scale other than an example of complex cause and effect.

 

[DAR]

Morality is not a thing. It is a artificial construct, an abstract idea. Its made up, its imaginary, its non-real. It can not be found under a rock, gazed upon from a distance, or measured by even the most precise of scientific equipment. Its existence is only known by conscious beings. It is an abstraction or explanation of the zeitgeist. Morality is whatever the conscious beings wish it to be.

Very well put, scourge99.

When I first read the OP, I considered it from this perspective: If morality is not relative, then what is the objective, absolute, impartial reference point? Societal norms, conventions, trends, both individual and shared values, religious teachings all seem to play a part in our moral foundations. Yet none provide for both an absolute and objective moral code. Heck, it wasn't too many generations ago that interracial marriage, for example, was deemed by some as "immoral."

Regards,
DAR

 

[mikhail]

Very well put, scourge99.

When I first read the OP, I considered it from this perspective: If morality is not relative, then what is the objective, absolute, impartial reference point? Societal norms, conventions, trends, both individual and shared values, religious teachings all seem to play a part in our moral foundations. Yet none provide for both an absolute and objective moral code. Heck, it wasn't too many generations ago that interracial marriage, for example, was deemed by some as "immoral."

Regards,
DAR

So whats your point because interacial marriage was once seen as immoral rape maybe seen the same way one day?

 

[MrFungus420]

So whats your point because interacial marriage was once seen as immoral rape maybe seen the same way one day?

No, the point is that morality changes with time and culture.

I see that you are still trying to use the example of sex in the relative context of it being rape.

I'm still waiting for an example of an activity that is moral without putting the activity into a relative context.

 

[Felicity]

I'm still waiting for an example of an activity that is moral without putting the activity into a relative context.

Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the sick and imprisoned, shelter the homeless, bury the dead, forgiving, ...

 

[Ethereal]

No, the point is that morality changes with time and culture.

I see that you are still trying to use the example of sex in the relative context of it being rape.

I'm still waiting for an example of an activity that is moral without putting the activity into a relative context.

Alright. So morality is a relative concept. Does this mean it is impossible to objectively validate a concept simply because it is relative? There are certain objective truths which apply roughly uniformly to all humans. Humans seek to maintain their own lives. They maintain their own lives by establishing the sovereignty of the self. These objective constructs can serve as a foundation for an equally objective moral code, relative or not.

The truncated version of my argument would conclude - given its foundation in these objective constructs - that so long as one does not harm others without good cause they are acting morally. These objective constructs can be referenced for any situation, for example, Cephus's rape society...

Those committing the rape could objectively determine the morality of said act by referencing things they know to be true of themselves. Do I want to live? Yes. Do I gaurd the sovereignty of my own body? Yes. In raping this person am I violating things I know to be true of myself? Yes. If this subjective determination can apply roughly uniformly to all people then how is it not objective? If 1000 people are looking at the sun and one man proclaims "there's nothing there!" does that make the sun's existence subjective?

 

[Dezaad]

No, the point is that morality changes with time and culture.

I see that you are still trying to use the example of sex in the relative context of it being rape.

I'm still waiting for an example of an activity that is moral without putting the activity into a relative context.

You are proving nothing with your semantic contruct:

You attempt to defend that morality changes with time and culture. Then you say that the 'fact' that rape is a 'relative context' of sex supports your assertion. Yet you've said nothing about how morality concerning rape may someday change due to the times or culture. You would have to do this in order to speak to the point.

You are simply arguing against blanket statements, and then incorrectly asserting that their sometime invalidity proves that morality is relative.

The other side is simply arguing that some sufficiently qualified moral statements will always be true in all times and cultures. Your pseudo-counterexamples don't address this idea at all. Take the moral statement "Rape is wrong". They say that this moral statement will be true regardless of the time or culture. The only relevant question is whether their assertion about this statement is true, because if it isn't, then moral statements about rape are relative.

It is irrelevant ( a straw man, actually) to say that the moral statement "Sex is wrong" can be incorrect, and that this somehow proves that "Rape is wrong" is relativistic.

 

[Cephus]

Forcing somebody to have sex against their consent is right in which circumstance?

To save the species, we do that between animals all the time, I can see cases where it may be not only acceptable, but expected to breed as much as possible, whether you want to or not, in order to keep the species going.

 

[Hatuey]

To save the species, we do that between animals all the time,

Key word underlined. Animals. Who we don't expect to follow ANY kind of rules man made or otherwise. Who do not have the level of intelligence and convictions humans do. Who for the most part do not have the capacity to understand most things humans take for granted. HORRIBLE example if this is the one you're willing to use for justifying HUMAN RAPE.

I can see cases where it may be not only acceptable, but expected to breed as much as possible, whether you want to or not, in order to keep the species going.

Such as?

 

[rathi]

Morality is relative insofar as it is a purely human construct. The universe has no sense of right or wrong, only cause or effect. However, who really gives a damn. Human beings make ethical choices based on personal beliefs combined with group expectations, not by examining the universe for answers. Why look for cosmic justification? Money is nothing more than a shared belief in the value of some worthless piece of paper and we run our entire civilization on it. Rape is not wrong in some cosmic sense, hell it was legal to rape your wife in the past. That doesn't stop me from personally considering rape wrong and condemning it.