Moral Relativism

[AlP]

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?

First of all, regarding 1, although I was not clear, when I said "It describes what they do", I was attempting to clarify what I generally mean by "descriptive" rather than define "moral relativism".

Secondly, I did not mean that moralities themselves are descriptive. I think moralities are most often prescriptive, though sometimes expressed in a descriptive way and left to the audience to infer the prescriptive message (for example some of Aesop's fables). What I said is that moral relativism (not morality) is descriptive. Moral relativism is not in any way a morality in its own right, though a moral relativist might additionally behave according to some morality.

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.

In principle, people's behavior is only limited by what is possible. However, people often think about what they do before acting. Sometimes they think about moral concepts. I think of morality as a collection of concepts dependent on person and time that influences how that person behaves. Morality is not a behavior but rather a collection of concepts that influence behavior. Again, morality is prescriptive while moral relativism (which is not a morality) is not.

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 would agree that moral relativism is descriptive of different people's morality and that morality itself is prescriptive. I don't know what you mean by "prescriptive truth" though.

I don't see why a moral relativist cannot act in a moral way. The moral relativist position is not that it is impossible to act according to a morality or even that one should not. Again, moral relativism is not prescriptive. It does not prescribe that the moral relativist should not impose their morality on other people.

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. ...?

I think you're the one making the counter argument =).

I follow the scientific method (I'm a software engineer). I agree that the idea of the scientific method is prescriptive, kind of like morality. Some people will reject the idea (for example they might have post-modernist leanings). I follow the scientific method anyway but I accept that they do not. I might encourage them to do so. They might deconstruct my argument and disagree. I like your example. It parallels morality rather well.

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.

You are correct. But I was not sure if you were implying something. Thanks for clarifying.

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.

I don't think moral relativism is a counter argument to moral absolutism. In fact it seems to accept the idea that some people will believe that morality is absolute.

[Popo]

What are your morals relative to?

I think morals are conventions relative to groups that accept them.
I view moral systems as similar to languages and law codes. They are constructs designed (naturally or artificially) to fulfill certain needs. There is no "absolute" morality, anymore than there is a universal dictionary. What is moral or is not depends on the beliefs and attitudes of the group (or individual*) in question...

However, believing morality is relative doesn't mean all moralities are equally useful. A moral code which allows slavery, for example, is inferior to one that doesn't, since coercion is needed to make slaves obey (and we're wirded to desire fairness and not cause harm).

[AlP]

I think morals are conventions relative to groups that accept them.
I view moral systems as similar to languages and law codes. They are constructs designed (naturally or artificially) to fulfill certain needs. There is no "absolute" morality, anymore than there is a universal dictionary. What is moral or is not depends on the beliefs and attitudes of the group (or individual*) in question...

Well said. I would add though that morals tend to require an authority whereas regular conventions (like introducing a friend to your roommate) do not.

However, believing morality is relative doesn't mean all moralities are equally useful. A moral code which allows slavery, for example, is inferior to one that doesn't, since coercion is needed to make slaves obey (and we're wirded to desire fairness and not cause harm).

In your opinion? Morals are relative =). It seems you are taking a strong relativist stance whereas I take a weak one.

[Popo]

Hi daviddub,

If there is no right and wrong then would you be willing to live in a world where there are no laws.

Nope. But moral relativists don't believe that there is no right and wrong. Only that what is considered right and wrong depends on a specific context; just like laws, which are different in different places.

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.

I agree, to a certain extent.

It's possible to believe that imposing is immoral, AND to believe that even that moral rule is relative. But I don't personally believe in unqualified moral tolerance so I won't defend that view.

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.

I strongly disagree.

Morals being relative don't make morals meaningless. They are purposeful. For example, I could say "it's immoral to go outside in my state naked." What I'm telling you is that it's considered blameworthy in a specific context to do something. If you break moral rules, you face sanctions - like being arrested or not having very many friends (depending on the situation).

Let me give you another example:

Traffic law is relative. What side of the road people drive on is dependent on what people in a location have agreed to. Any useful traffic law will have people going in opposite directions drive on the same side of the road (from their perspective). In some places, people drive on the left and in others on the right. One isn't better than the other...

And there is tons of moral agreement, because only certain moral codes actually work.

[Popo]

Well said. I would add though that morals tend to require an authority whereas regular conventions (like introducing a friend to your roommate) do not.

Thanks. It's not "more moral" to be against slavery (unless you agree with me already). But if you want everyone to agree to your moral code without putting a gun to their head, treating them fairly works better.

It seems you are taking a strong relativist stance whereas I take a weak one.

That could be.

[daviddub]

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.

Sorry I've been out of the loop for a while.  

Sophus could you then help me out with something:  correct/incorrect is a set of descriptions that essentially say whether or not something corresponds to reality...which could also be said 'accuracy'.  right/wrong can either be the same, OR it can be a description of what ought to be...that is, right/wrong either describe correspondence to reality (CR) or correspondence with moral law (CML).  There is no other general definition that I know of, since there are only two general types of imposition.  Now my question is this.  In saying that "morals should not be imposed" on others, you are either saying that that doesn't correspond to reality, or that it is morally wrong.  It is incorrect to say that it doesn't correspond to reality to impose morals on other's, since people indeed do it all the time.  You must therefore be saying that it is morally wrong.  There are only two general types of imposition; correspondence to reality (CR) and correspondence to moral law.  
A (CR) imposition, for instance, would be that a man cannot run (unaided) @ 150mph.  It is naturally/physically impossible.  Now, for someone to say that children shouldn't run over 7 mph in school is not an imposition of the (CR) kind, as indeed people/children can and do run over 7 mph.  It must therefore be of the moral kind.  Likewise to say that morals shouldn't be imposed is not an imposition of the CR kind seeing as people/groups impose morals ALL THE TIME...it must therefore be a moral imposition(CML).
If a thing can be done, and is done (ie. imposing morals); then it inevitably corresponds to reality.  Therefore to say that the thing "should not" be done is a moral statement.  

In even using the word "should" correctly, one must be using it in a moral sense.  Because to say that someone should do something, is to imply that they have the ability to do otherwise.  Therefore to say that someone should do anything is a moral imposition/constriction, not a imposition that says that the action doesn't correspond to reality.

So then another question: how do you know that morals are subjective, as you state?  I'll expound after your answer since this post is long enough.

[daviddub]

WOW...
1. In saying, morals are relative, are we saying simply that people choose their own version of right and wrong, calling it morality?

2. Or are we saying that there is no universal moral law, therefore what different people term morality is actually different morality?

Moral relativism is absolutely without weight if ALL THAT IS BEING SAID is 1.
If all that is being said is that people choose what they call right and wrong and term it morality, then my question is WHO QUESTIONS THAT!!!!!!

This may be a bit sickening to me because of my naivety...but why would there ever need to be coined a word for a perspective that says people do what they want, essentially?  WHO in the world disagrees with that?

The question remains are there any absolute moral laws...in your perspective?
It may be helpful to then also answer:
Do all people have certain inalienable rights?

[AlP]

Sorry I've been out of the loop for a while.

I thought we had exasperated you into leaving!

Sophus could you then help me out with something:  correct/incorrect is a set of descriptions that essentially say whether or not something corresponds to reality...which could also be said 'accuracy'.  right/wrong can either be the same, OR it can be a description of what ought to be...that is, right/wrong either describe correspondence to reality (CR) or correspondence with moral law (CML).  There is no other general definition that I know of, since there are only two general types of imposition.

I'm not answering for Sophus but this is how I see it. I agree with your definitions of corrent and incorrect. I agree that right and wrong are sometimes used to mean correct and incorrect. Example: "you got the right answer" means the same as "you got the correct answer". Right and wrong can also be used to make normative statements: "the right thing to do is keep the baby" means the same as "you should keep the baby". Good, bad, evil and others can also be used. Normative statements often appeal to morality or law: "you must not murder". Sometimes they don't: "you should tie your shoelaces". Normative statements have an "if" part that is often implicit. Making them explicit for the examples:

You must not murder, if you don't want to go to prison. (appeal to law)
You must not murder, if you want to get to heaven. (appeal to Christian mortality?)
You should tie your shoelaces, if you don't want to trip over them.

Descriptive statements don't need an "if' part to have truth value whereas normative statements need more than "you should X" to have truth value and that additional part can usually be turned into an "if".

Now my question is this.  In saying that "morals should not be imposed" on others, you are either saying that that doesn't correspond to reality, or that it is morally wrong.  It is incorrect to say that it doesn't correspond to reality to impose morals on other's, since people indeed do it all the time.  You must therefore be saying that it is morally wrong.  There are only two general types of imposition; correspondence to reality (CR) and correspondence to moral law.

It isn't my view that "morals should not be imposed". But for the sake of argument, here's an example that might make sense in some context: "Our morals should not be imposed, if we want to study the ethics of this culture". Normative statements aren't always about morality.

A (CR) imposition, for instance, would be that a man cannot run (unaided) @ 150mph.  It is naturally/physically impossible.  Now, for someone to say that children shouldn't run over 7 mph in school is not an imposition of the (CR) kind, as indeed people/children can and do run over 7 mph.  It must therefore be of the moral kind.

I'm sorry I think this CR / CML idea is a false dichotomy. How about "Children shouldn't run over 7 mph, if they want lose the race". That's an odd example I know but it's hard to think of any reason for requesting a speed limit on children.

Likewise to say that morals shouldn't be imposed is not an imposition of the CR kind seeing as people/groups impose morals ALL THE TIME...it must therefore be a moral imposition(CML).
If a thing can be done, and is done (ie. imposing morals); then it inevitably corresponds to reality.  Therefore to say that the thing "should not" be done is a moral statement.  

In even using the word "should" correctly, one must be using it in a moral sense.  Because to say that someone should do something, is to imply that they have the ability to do otherwise.  Therefore to say that someone should do anything is a moral imposition/constriction, not a imposition that says that the action doesn't correspond to reality.

I think I answered this above.

So then another question: how do you know that morals are subjective, as you state?  I'll expound after your answer since this post is long enough.

I'll leave this to Sophus. To say that morals are subjective would be to imply that they exist. Good luck Sophus!

[AlP]

WOW...
1. In saying, morals are relative, are we saying simply that people choose their own version of right and wrong, calling it morality?
2. Or are we saying that there is no universal moral law, therefore what different people term morality is actually different morality?

Sorry, I don't see the difference. Also, it's a rare person that chooses their morality. Mostly, they learn it from those around them.

Moral relativism is absolutely without weight if ALL THAT IS BEING SAID is 1.
If all that is being said is that people choose what they call right and wrong and term it morality, then my question is WHO QUESTIONS THAT!!!!!!

This may be a bit sickening to me because of my naivety...but why would there ever need to be coined a word for a perspective that says people do what they want, essentially?  WHO in the world disagrees with that?

The question remains are there any absolute moral laws...in your perspective?

So we have a word to describe people who are not moral absolutists?

Edit: added this.
To my mind there are no moral laws of any kind. That is not the prevailing view among atheists. There are legal laws. There are physical laws (although I wish people wouldn't call them that). But there are no moral laws. People are deluded in their belief in all kinds of non-existent things.

It may be helpful to then also answer:
Do all people have certain inalienable rights?

By the laws of a lot of countries and I think international law too, supposedly. In reality, no.

[Sophus]

So then another question: how do you know that morals are subjective, as you state? I'll expound after your answer since this post is long enough.

I'll leave this to Sophus. To say that morals are subjective would be to imply that they exist. Good luck Sophus!

Of course morals exist, but only in the mind. They are man-made; a product of evolution. Thus Moral Laws; Moral Absolutes, do not exist.

There are only two general types of imposition; correspondence to reality (CR) and correspondence to moral law.

I call the first incorrect and the other is what is known as "wrong."

In saying that "morals should not be imposed" on others, you are either saying that that doesn't correspond to reality, or that it is morally wrong. It is incorrect to say that it doesn't correspond to reality to impose morals on other's, since people indeed do it all the time. You must therefore be saying that it is morally wrong.

No. I am saying it does not correspond with reality. The reality that there are no morals. Should as in if they were reasonable. Not should as in if they were ethical.

And remember, I have my own interpretation of what is ideal; what you might call good and bad, but I do not treat my opinion as if it were fact or absolute, unlike the religious. I am a Perspectivist.

[AlP]

Daviddub, if you are still here... I have reread this debate and I think you came to this realization first. I am arguing:

"What one person or group believes they should morally do differs from what another person or group believes they should morally do."

This is a simple description of reality and, I think, incontestable (though bring it on if you disagree). What I think you are against is an argument like this:

"What is right differs from person to person or group to group."

The latter argument is invalid for two reasons I can see. Most importantly "is right" on its own is meaningless. It needs a qualification such as "is right, if ..." to have meaning. Secondly, even if we ignore that shortcoming and temporarily imagine it has truth value, it's contradictory. For something to be true it must be true universally. Truth is not subjective. The closest subjectivity gets to truth is "I want" or "I like".

So if your argument is against that then I wholeheartedly agree with you. What's more, it seems there are people with this viewpoint who identify as moral relativists. They hold a different moral relativist view to me; there's is invalid.

[Popo]

WOW...
1. In saying, morals are relative, are we saying simply that people choose their own version of right and wrong, calling it morality?

2. Or are we saying that there is no universal moral law, therefore what different people term morality is actually different morality?

3. Morality is convention, relative to different contexts and relationships between groups.

Here's an example:

In my current relationship, I have a moral duty not to cheat, if the opportunity came up. And my partner is morally obligated to put out semi-regularly.

These duties arise from a sort of implicit bargaining and often (when the two parties are rational and no coercion is involved) the duties roughly follow the Golden Rule.

But the rules in my relationship might not be the same as the rules of other people's relationships... Some people might be okay with open-relationships. Others may have more duties that are expected (some couples feel it's a moral obligation to buy presents on anniversaries, but I don't, etc).

NOTE:
Saying morals are relative is not saying that morals are arbitrary or meaningless. Morality is (more or less) rationally constructed. People usually don't accept moral codes which are unfair to them, unless they've been raised to or are coerced in some way.

[Kylyssa]

That's the big problem with using myths to determine morality - they are tales of imagination, neither inspired by empathy nor are they studies in logic.  They are often tales created to support the ruling class of the time they were imagined in and to give them a larger-than-life legitimacy.

Thus religious morality is full of rules which contradict compassion, empathy, and more evolved social paradigms because it is often created with an agenda - to maintain or create a status quo which favors a portion of society over the rest.  When morality is constructed from the self-interest of the powerful without regard to such things as rights, freedoms, and empathy it becomes a destructive force.

Christian morality holds that all men are not created equal, there are chosen people, people born to be kings, people of no value due to their birth, and people born to be slaves. Does any of this sound logical or compassionate?  Or does it sound like a political ad campaign for a savage time of tyrants and slavery?

[daviddub]

Daviddub, if you are still here... I have reread this debate and I think you came to this realization first. I am arguing:

"What one person or group believes they should morally do differs from what another person or group believes they should morally do."

This is a simple description of reality and, I think, incontestable (though bring it on if you disagree). What I think you are against is an argument like this:

"What is right differs from person to person or group to group."

The latter argument is invalid for two reasons I can see. Most importantly "is right" on its own is meaningless. It needs a qualification such as "is right, if ..." to have meaning. Secondly, even if we ignore that shortcoming and temporarily imagine it has truth value, it's contradictory. For something to be true it must be true universally. Truth is not subjective. The closest subjectivity gets to truth is "I want" or "I like".

So if your argument is against that then I wholeheartedly agree with you. What's more, it seems there are people with this viewpoint who identify as moral relativists. They hold a different moral relativist view to me; there's is invalid.

I think that using simply the information in this particular response of yours still doesn't approach whether or not there are any moral universals.  To say that people think... does not address whether or not there are moral universals.

But I do like the definition of philosophical nihilism, as it appears to be the only perspective consistent with materialistic worldview.

[daviddub]

That's the big problem with using myths to determine morality - they are tales of imagination, neither inspired by empathy nor are they studies in logic.  They are often tales created to support the ruling class of the time they were imagined in and to give them a larger-than-life legitimacy.

Thus religious morality is full of rules which contradict compassion, empathy, and more evolved social paradigms because it is often created with an agenda - to maintain or create a status quo which favors a portion of society over the rest.  When morality is constructed from the self-interest of the powerful without regard to such things as rights, freedoms, and empathy it becomes a destructive force.

Christian morality holds that all men are not created equal, there are chosen people, people born to be kings, people of no value due to their birth, and people born to be slaves. Does any of this sound logical or compassionate?  Or does it sound like a political ad campaign for a savage time of tyrants and slavery?

I'm at a loss.  Who is speaking of Christian morality?  Have you read the posts?  At least quote somebody so that we can establish that you are even in the right thread.  
Secondarily where did you get so many straw men arguments for Christianity from?  The majority of what you wrote about Christianity is flat out lies.  The rest has to be put into context to be understood, (ie chosen people).  Note: Chosen people was a statement of fact, not a statement of valuing one group over another.  Also 'chosen' only has relevance as it regards purpose.  Consider: What was the purpose for which they were chosen?  Seek first to understand (God/Jesus/Christian perspective)...then, and only then to be understood.  It is apparent you do not understand the Christian perspective.  Until you truly do, please spare yourself the embarrassment.  Please offer some support for the statements about Christian beliefs, especially that last paragraph. Let's keep the support Biblical as it is the foundation of Christian beliefs.

because it is often created with an agenda - to maintain or create a status quo which favors a portion of society over the rest

Last. Morals are always created with an 'agenda' more properly rendered purpose.  Morals lose value outside of the purpose for which they were created, therefore ALL morals are created with a purpose in mind.  That is all morals, not just "Christian" ones.  And all morals establish something of a preference, or category of what is right and wrong.  That's the nature of all morals, whether you call them universal or relative, so it bears no support for your position against Christian morality.  Your post, for the most part was an emotional rant, without even the slightest blush of logic or reason.