Moral Relativism

[ProRealism]

What are your morals relative to?

I think it's somewhat irritating that moral relativism is not taught to children, at least where I lived.
Although it's obvious that everyone has opinions, I as a child was tossed into a sea of them with everyone screaming in my face "NO! MY WAY IS THE ONLY WAY! AND YOU'RE WRONG BECAUSE YOU'RE A KID!"

I think that's pretty rude not to give anyone else's opinions consideration and especially to invalidate someone because of their age.


It seemed the consensus was "do what you're told or else".

Of course I developed opinions of my own of "right and wrong" but the fact that other people still acted as if they were god bothered me.
So my morals were relative to authority but then I realized, they have no "real" authority over anyone more than I do.

Should morals be totally relative to individuals? If that's so then where does the respect for that come into play?
If one dao interferes with another is that not hypocritical?

[BadPoison]

I'm not really sure what you're getting at, or which aspects of morality you wish to discuss.

In my opinion the word "morals" can mean several things. A personal moral could be whatever an individual decides it to be (I will never lie.) Where as there also exists broader morals which would just be many people's personal morals agreeing with each other in any given society (We will not murder.)
Both types of morals are dynamic and may change as easily as the weather.
It has been suggested that ideas of right and wrong have an evolutionary origin. In other words, "acceptable behavior" has primarily become what it is today because of natural selection.

-BP

[Sophus]

Being an Ethical Nihilist I would say yes everyone should be allowed the chance to decide for themselves what is good and bad and not follow the herd. It disgusts me to see morals imposed on another, yet that is the very nature of morals anyway. Morality has too large an ego. Outside of our government morals should be treated as personal preference; shared and encouraged perhaps but not imposed. In most every action or belief there is good that can sprout from it or at the least good intentions.

[ProRealism]

I think that morals are more likely precautionary than anything else even if the consequences are self imposed.

like I might say it's immoral to hurt a puppy even though it cannot defend itself and if there are no witnesses I cannot be punished,  it's because of a self imposed consequence that I do not.

Oddly enough I took that from my belief in authority, what it should and should not do.

But realizing that authority was an illusion all along leaves me pondering.
If I have just as much authority as anyone else (which is none, other than of myself) then what's my responsibility to tell only myself what to do? I've never really been a demanding person but now that I realize I don't HAVE To do anything anyone else says either it makes it all seem kind of bland.

I'd like to see something wrong with kicking puppies but I see now that it was only because of a personal choice that I was ever opposed to it.

[daviddub]

This is all interesting that people attempt to speak affirmatively of moral relativism when I don't know a person on the face of the earth that wants to live in a world that follows that as truth.  If there is no right and wrong then would you be willing to live in a world where there are no laws.  That is not to say that current laws are necessarily right.  That is to say would you be willing to live in a world where there were no laws of a moral kind, only laws of a physical, mathematical, and logical nature (which we don't get to make up obviously).  With laws in place we still barely keep from destroying each other.  Suppose there was no imposition of one person/group's morals on another(meant in a total sense regarding all people whatsoever.)  We would have already destroyed ourselves as a race and probably most living things on the planet considering current technology.  The truth is that moral relativism is a self-destructive, internally inconsistent worldview.  Even if a person holds the position "Nobody should impose their morals on anybody else," that position itself is a moral position that that person is seeking to impose, or at least believes should be followed by all men.  So it is as self-destructive as the statement "there is no absolute truth."  For the statement itself must be absolutely true, which destroys the substance of the statement "there is no absolute truth."  Secondary to that...I've never met a person, nor have I ever heard of a person that didn't make a moral claim of some kind regarding someone else.  For even moral relativists, if ever such a thing truly existed, make moral statements regarding someone else such as (that's stupid, that's not right, he/she shouldn't have,...and last but not least "people should not impose their morals on others"/my favorite) Now note these examples don't have to actually be laws for the person to be imposing them on another.  For if morals are actually relative, if the statement "morals are relative" accurately reflects reality, then these statements made about other people do not apply, nor are they valid in any sense.  If it is true that morals are relative, then to make a moral statement or even to have a moral feeling regarding someone else is as invalid as feeling or stating that atoms are very loving.  You see it is absurd to speak of atoms being loving because the term is invalid referring to atoms.  What you do not see is that same absurdity in saying "people should not rape one another."  And do you know why it is not just as absurd to make latter statement as it is the former? ... ... I'll let you figure it out.  
If moral relativism is true then the only person anyone could make a moral statement about is self.  But the conscience wouldn't allow this.  For even if you said nothing of a moral nature regarding someone else, your conscience would scream "THIS IS WRONG," when you witness some of the atrocities of mankind.  When you witness someone abusing a child, or raping another, or torturing others for fun, etc.   So even if you mustered all of your consciousness and strength to never ever say another word of a moral nature regarding someone else, your conscience would scream with fervor and compassion that some things are just wrong.

[AlP]

Interesting post... I think I disagree.

This is all interesting that people attempt to speak affirmatively of moral relativism when I don't know a person on the face of the earth that wants to live in a world that follows that as truth.

I think moral relativism, broadly speaking, is descriptive rather than prescriptive. It doesn't tell people what to do. It describes what they do. I'm not saying some people don't draw a prescriptive conclusion directly from the idea of moral relativism and I'm not saying that some people don't take the idea of moral relativism and stretch it to the point where it is false. But that is to my mind an error. Broadly speaking, what it means is different people have different morality. And that seems true to me. Different people at different times do have different morality.

I think it is possible that there is a universal (absolute?) morality. It is possible that some number of people are practicing it. That would not be inconsistent with moral relativism because even if there is a universal morality, the vast majority of people are not practicing it. If they were they would all be practicing the same morality. I think it is more likely that there is no universal morality.

If there is no right and wrong then would you be willing to live in a world where there are no laws.  That is not to say that current laws are necessarily right.  That is to say would you be willing to live in a world where there were no laws of a moral kind, only laws of a physical, mathematical, and logical nature (which we don't get to make up obviously).  With laws in place we still barely keep from destroying each other.

I don't see how the truth of moral relativism would have anything to do with there being no right and wrong. They would just mean different things to different people. And this seems to me to be a reasonable model for reality. Right and wrong do mean different things to different people. Likewise with laws. Different regions of the world have different laws.

Suppose there was no imposition of one person/group's morals on another(meant in a total sense regarding all people whatsoever.)  We would have already destroyed ourselves as a race and probably most living things on the planet considering current technology.  The truth is that moral relativism is a self-destructive, internally inconsistent worldview.  Even if a person holds the position "Nobody should impose their morals on anybody else," that position itself is a moral position that that person is seeking to impose, or at least believes should be followed by all men.

Moral relativism as I understand it is not prescriptive. Someone might interpret it as such and they might choose to interpret it to mean that they should not impose their morality on others. But that's just one person's morality and I don't see why that idea necessarily follows from a belief that the claims of moral relativism are true. They might believe that moral relativism is true and that they should impose their morality on other people. I don't see why that would be inconsistent, since moral relativism is not prescriptive.

So it is as self-destructive as the statement "there is no absolute truth."  For the statement itself must be absolutely true, which destroys the substance of the statement "there is no absolute truth."

The moral relativist position does not claim there is no universal or objective truth. It makes claims related to morality but not for example to logic, at least not the versions I've read. A moral relativist might claim without any inconsistency that it is universally true that 1 + 1 = 2.

Secondary to that...I've never met a person, nor have I ever heard of a person that didn't make a moral claim of some kind regarding someone else.  For even moral relativists, if ever such a thing truly existed, make moral statements regarding someone else such as (that's stupid, that's not right, he/she shouldn't have,...and last but not least "people should not impose their morals on others"/my favorite) Now note these examples don't have to actually be laws for the person to be imposing them on another.  For if morals are actually relative, if the statement "morals are relative" accurately reflects reality, then these statements made about other people do not apply, nor are they valid in any sense.  If it is true that morals are relative, then to make a moral statement or even to have a moral feeling regarding someone else is as invalid as feeling or stating that atoms are very loving.  You see it is absurd to speak of atoms being loving because the term is invalid referring to atoms.  What you do not see is that same absurdity in saying "people should not rape one another."  And do you know why it is not just as absurd to make latter statement as it is the former? ... ... I'll let you figure it out.


If moral relativism is true then the only person anyone could make a moral statement about is self.  But the conscience wouldn't allow this.  For even if you said nothing of a moral nature regarding someone else, your conscience would scream "THIS IS WRONG," when you witness some of the atrocities of mankind.  When you witness someone abusing a child, or raping another, or torturing others for fun, etc.   So even if you mustered all of your consciousness and strength to never ever say another word of a moral nature regarding someone else, your conscience would scream with fervor and compassion that some things are just wrong.

I don't agree that moral relativism is prescriptive.

[Jolly Sapper]

@ AIP

 

[joeactor]

Being an Ethical Nihilist I would say yes everyone should be allowed the chance to decide for themselves what is good and bad and not follow the herd. It disgusts me to see morals imposed on another, yet that is the very nature of morals anyway. Morality has too large an ego. Outside of our government morals should be treated as personal preference; shared and encouraged perhaps but not imposed. In most every action or belief there is good that can sprout from it or at the least good intentions.

Hmmm...  Mind if I ask a (hopefully related) question?

I do believe that morality is guided by the society one grows up in, and that individuals each develop their own standards.

What I really take issue with is people who have a standard, and continually violate it.  (is that situational ethics?)

For example, if you're going to say that drinking is bad, but you continue to drink and make excuses for it, I would rather you change your base position... or not make excuses.  In otherwords, admit when you've gone against your own rules, or decide that the rule was wrong - yes/no?

I guess the question I have is: Is there a relation between being an "Ethical Nihilist" and "Situational Ethics"?

It's Sunday and I'm Rambling,
JoeActor

[Sophus]

Being an Ethical Nihilist I would say yes everyone should be allowed the chance to decide for themselves what is good and bad and not follow the herd. It disgusts me to see morals imposed on another, yet that is the very nature of morals anyway. Morality has too large an ego. Outside of our government morals should be treated as personal preference; shared and encouraged perhaps but not imposed. In most every action or belief there is good that can sprout from it or at the least good intentions.

Hmmm...  Mind if I ask a (hopefully related) question?

I do believe that morality is guided by the society one grows up in, and that individuals each develop their own standards.

What I really take issue with is people who have a standard, and continually violate it.  (is that situational ethics?)

For example, if you're going to say that drinking is bad, but you continue to drink and make excuses for it, I would rather you change your base position... or not make excuses.  In otherwords, admit when you've gone against your own rules, or decide that the rule was wrong - yes/no?

I guess the question I have is: Is there a relation between being an "Ethical Nihilist" and "Situational Ethics"?

It's Sunday and I'm Rambling,
JoeActor

Not at all. I can't be hypocritical because I don't think anything is wrong (in the sense that a moral law is being broken).    I believe there are good ways and bad ways to achieve what you want to achieve and if love being one of them (which mine is) then I'm not going to do what I think wouldn't help me accomplish that. I've never really understood hypocrisy but I will say this:

That old saying/joke that goes: "It seemed like a good idea at the time." I think that's actually a very good philosophy.

FUN FACT: Buddhism is Ethical Nihilism as well.

[joeactor]

Not at all. I can't be hypocritical because I don't think anything is wrong (in the sense that a moral law is being broken).    I believe there are good ways and bad ways to achieve what you want to achieve and if love being one of them (which mine is) then I'm not going to do what I think wouldn't help me accomplish that. I've never really understood hypocrisy but I will say this:

That old saying/joke that goes: "It seemed like a good idea at the time." I think that's actually a very good philosophy.

FUN FACT: Buddhism is Ethical Nihilism as well.

I think I gotcha.  Based on that, I'm fine with Ethical Nihilism.  You have a goal and/or guiding principle (ie. "love" in the above example), and that's how you operate.  No hypocrisy there.  (also no excuses needed, as you are consistent within your own philosophy).

Buddhism's cool too,
JoeActor

[daviddub]

To AIP...

I think moral relativism, broadly speaking, is descriptive rather than prescriptive. It doesn't tell people what to do. It describes what they do. I'm not saying some people don't draw a prescriptive conclusion directly from the idea of moral relativism and I'm not saying that some people don't take the idea of moral relativism and stretch it to the point where it is false. But that is to my mind an error. Broadly speaking, what it means is different people have different morality. And that seems true to me. Different people at different times do have different morality.

To say:
1. Moral relativism is, broadly speaking, description of how people act.
2. Different people at different times to have different morality.
is to rob the word "morals" of any of its denotative meaning.  When you look up morals what definition lends itself to the idea that morals are simply a description, even within the same person?  If people "have different morality at different times", that is essentially to say that people do what they want; then the description that you are calling "morals" is more accurately rendered "behavior".  The term morals invariably carries with it the idea of right and wrong, so that to call morals simply a description is to rob it or its relationship to right and wrong; as descriptions are intrinsically morally neutral.

Moral relativists hold that no universal standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth.

Moral relativism by this definition is not simply a description of people's actions, which is totally different from the definition here.  The definition here says that moral relativism is a description of prescriptive truth, or at least what the moral relativist holds to be truth.  To say it is a description of how people act is inaccurate.
Let's try an example.  I am correcting a friend of mine on what is right to do in a given situation.  A moral relativist (MR) attempts to correct me.  The only correction a moral relativist can give is of a moral nature.  For the relativist is not accurate in saying "you cannot correct them because that's just your opinion," for indeed I have corrected them, so to say that I cannot, which is to say I don't have the ability is inaccurate.  But the only valid correction would be of the nature "you SHOULD not..." but then the moral relativist is making a moral claim regarding someone other than self (inconsistent).

I think it is possible that there is a universal (absolute?) morality. It is possible that some number of people are practicing it. That would not be inconsistent with moral relativism because even if there is a universal morality, the vast majority of people are not practicing it. If they were they would all be practicing the same morality. I think it is more likely that there is no universal morality.

You essentially say that moral relativism is simply a description of the various ways people act in different situation.  The problem is that moral relativists position themselves against those who believe in universal morality.  If moral relativism is SIMPLY a description of how people act then it is not a valid counter-argument to universal morality.  For instance:  I hold that there is a scientific model and it ought to be followed.  Now if someone responds "but many people don't follow it,"  that is not a refutation to the idea that there is one and it ought to be followed.  Now I recognize that morals, if some are universal, are not derived by man and the scientific model is; but you get the point that in a similar sense:  I hold that there are universal morals and they ought to be followed.  Now if you respond (by your definition) that people don't, or that people choose their own morality; that is not a counter-argument to the idea that there are universal morals and that they ought to be followed.  That is tantamount to saying "but nobody follows them," which is not a valid counter-argument to the truth that they exist and ought to be followed.  It is irrelevant.  We're talking the difference between the epistemology of subjective morals (which varies inconceivably) and the ontology of objective morals.  The two are not at all the same subject.  Yet moral relativists position themselves almost invariably against universal moralists, or those that hold that some morals are universal and ought to be followed. ...?

The moral relativist position does not claim there is no universal or objective truth. It makes claims related to morality but not for example to logic, at least not the versions I've read. A moral relativist might claim without any inconsistency that it is universally true that 1 + 1 = 2.

What you quoted of me did not say that moral relativists say that there is not absolute truth.  I said that the two ideas are AS SELF-DESTRUCTIVE, or more properly stated they are as self defeating.

I don't agree that moral relativism is prescriptive.

Then can you please help me understand how if moral relativism is simply a description of various peoples' varying morality; then in what way is it a valid counter-argument to moral universalists?  If I say that they exist (universal morals) and ought to be followed then how is it a valid response that people don't follow the same morality?  This is not necessarily to say that you generally respond to them as such; but in responding to me you have responded to someone who says and indeed did say "some things are just wrong."

The only intelligible counter-argument to they exist is that they do not...an unintelligible counter-argument is people don't agree on them.  It is as unintelligible as the following: I say "toads exist and croak," and you say "not everyone has seen a toad."     ...wholly irrelevant.

Most often it is associated with an empirical thesis that there are deep and widespread moral disagreements and a metaethical thesis that the truth or justification of moral judgments is not absolute, but relative to some group of persons.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/

[daviddub]

On top of all of what I've said... I cannot see how it is consistent to hold that all people have inviolable rights and also hold that there are no universal morals.  In a society of sentient, moral beings the two ideas are mutually exclusive.  If you hold that all people have inviolable rights then you must also hold that all people are bound to respect all other people's inviolable rights, that is the very least.  For if the rights such as (those that imply one deserves not to be raped) are all physically violable; therefore the only type of imposition MUST therefore be of a moral kind, since they are apparently not of a physical kind.  YET in my experience the moral relativists are on the picket lines rallying for someone else's rights as much as any other.  They do all of this completely ignoring that if you hold that people have inviolable rights you must AT LEAST hold that all other people ought to respect them; which would make them universal.

[daviddub]

Outside of our government morals should be treated as personal preference; shared and encouraged perhaps but not imposed. In most every action or belief there is good that can sprout from it or at the least good intentions.

SHOULD?  This word is interestingly used, if it is corresponds to reality that there are no universal morals that should be followed.  The word SHOULD coming from a moral nihilist ought only to apply to self.  Yet in my experience moral nihilists use the word "should" in relation to other's as much so as the next person does.  This is wholly inconsistent with their worldview.  I would say moral nihilism is a worldview that NOBODY holds practically, only philosophically.  BUT if the idea of moral nihilism corresponds to reality then it should be no problem for the moral nihilist to live this out practically.  Just as it is impossible for me to live inconsistently with the law of gravity, it should be impossible for the moral nihilist to live inconsistently with their worldview.  YET they do without fail.  Secondarily why should it be held within our government?  Not even all the people in our government agree on legislation.  So by what OBJECTIVE standard is any legislation passed over others???  It seems to me that the only "government" consistent with moral nihilism is anarchy.  That is not to say that every moral nihilist is an anarchist.  It is to say that whenever the word "should,' or even the idea is conveyed or even held by the MN regarding someone else...they do it inconsistently with their own worldview.  All of this to say you may hold it philosophically (illusion); but you do NOT, as indicated in your own post, hold it practically.  If the philosophical will not, or cannot be transformed into the practical it is mere sophistry and illusion...at least in the eyes of the proponent (falsely so called).

[Sophus]

I think I gotcha. Based on that, I'm fine with Ethical Nihilism. You have a goal and/or guiding principle (ie. "love" in the above example), and that's how you operate. No hypocrisy there. (also no excuses needed, as you are consistent within your own philosophy).

Buddhism's cool too,
JoeActor

Cool, usually people think I'm evil for it.  

Here's the difference between Amoralists and Immoralists if you're interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amoralism

On top of all of what I've said... I cannot see how it is consistent to hold that all people have inviolable rights and also hold that there are no universal morals.  In a society of sentient, moral beings the two ideas are mutually exclusive.  If you hold that all people have inviolable rights then you must also hold that all people are bound to respect all other people's inviolable rights, that is the very least.  For if the rights such as (those that imply one deserves not to be raped) are all physically violable; therefore the only type of imposition MUST therefore be of a moral kind, since they are apparently not of a physical kind.  YET in my experience the moral relativists are on the picket lines rallying for someone else's rights as much as any other.  They do all of this completely ignoring that if you hold that people have inviolable rights you must AT LEAST hold that all other people ought to respect them; which would make them universal.

I believe it's a matter of being able to see it through the eyes of another. Very important to do. People who believe in absolute morals aren't usually very accepting of people who believe in a different moral system. Ironically to be an extremely moral person can cause great friction, thus being very immoral. If you look for good in people you will find good. If you look for the bad you will very soon find the world a bad and ugly place.

[Sophus]

Outside of our government morals should be treated as personal preference; shared and encouraged perhaps but not imposed. In most every action or belief there is good that can sprout from it or at the least good intentions.

SHOULD?  This word is interestingly used, if it is corresponds to reality that there are no universal morals that should be followed.  The word SHOULD coming from a moral nihilist ought only to apply to self.  Yet in my experience moral nihilists use the word "should" in relation to other's as much so as the next person does.  This is wholly inconsistent with their worldview.  I would say moral nihilism is a worldview that NOBODY holds practically, only philosophically.  BUT if the idea of moral nihilism corresponds to reality then it should be no problem for the moral nihilist to live this out practically.  Just as it is impossible for me to live inconsistently with the law of gravity, it should be impossible for the moral nihilist to live inconsistently with their worldview.  YET they do without fail.  Secondarily why should it be held within our government?  Not even all the people in our government agree on legislation.  So by what OBJECTIVE standard is any legislation passed over others???  It seems to me that the only "government" consistent with moral nihilism is anarchy.  That is not to say that every moral nihilist is an anarchist.  It is to say that whenever the word "should,' or even the idea is conveyed or even held by the MN regarding someone else...they do it inconsistently with their own worldview.  All of this to say you may hold it philosophically (illusion); but you do NOT, as indicated in your own post, hold it practically.  If the philosophical will not, or cannot be transformed into the practical it is mere sophistry and illusion...at least in the eyes of the proponent (falsely so called).

You sir need to educate yourself on Moral Nihilism. There is a difference between Right and Wrong and Correct and Incorrect. You are confusing the two. When I say we should do this is does not imply you are breaking a moral law if you don't but rather we need to understand morality is subjective.