Happy Atheist Forum

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

Interesting post... I think I disagree.

Quote from: "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.

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.

Quote from: "daviddub"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.

Quote from: "daviddub"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.

Quote from: "daviddub"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.

Quote from: "daviddub"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.

@ AIP

 

Quote from: "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

Quote from: "joeactor"

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "Sophus"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

To AIP...

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "wikipedia"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).

Quote from: "AIP"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. ...?

Quote from: "AIP"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.

Quote from: "AIP"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.

Quote from: "Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy"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/ (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/)

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.

Quote from: "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).

Quote from: "JoeActor"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

Quote from: "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.

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.

Quote from: "daviddub"

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "daviddub"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.

Quote from: "daviddub"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.

Quote from: "daviddub"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.

Quote from: "daviddub"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.

Quote from: "daviddub"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.

Quote from: "daviddub"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.

Quote from: "Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy"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.

Quote from: "ProRealism"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).

QuoteI 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.

QuoteHowever, 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.

Hi daviddub,

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "daviddub"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.

Quote from: "daviddub"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.

Quote from: "AlP"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.

Quote from: "AIP"It seems you are taking a strong relativist stance whereas I take a weak one.

That could be.

Quote from: "Sophus"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.

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?

Quote from: "daviddub"Sorry I've been out of the loop for a while.

I thought we had exasperated you into leaving!

Quote from: "daviddub"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".

Quote from: "daviddub"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.

Quote from: "daviddub"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.

Quote from: "daviddub"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.

Quote from: "daviddub"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!

Quote from: "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?

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.

Quote from: "daviddub"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.

Quote from: "daviddub"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.

Quote from: "AIP"

Quote from: "davidub"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.

QuoteThere 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."

QuoteIn 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.

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.

Quote from: "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?

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.

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?

Quote from: "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.

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.

Quote from: "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?

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.

Quote from: "Kylyssa"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.

You're back =).

Quote from: "daviddub"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.

It depends exactly what you mean by moral universals. There appear to be some ideas that are very widespread. Like not arbitrarily killing people. In other areas, like what is okay to eat, humanity is all over the place. There are some things not directly related to morality that might be universal to all "normal" humans. There are some physiological things like empathy and fear. There are some more philosophical things like people tend to do what they want to do, they want respect, etc. My hope is to be able to construct some kind of rational ethics from these universal things. That wouldn't make the ethics universal though. In fact it would probably only be known to and practiced by me!

If by moral universals you mean a morality that comes from a God, I don't believe that there is such a thing though I cannot prove it. I just think that based on the evidence we have, it seems extremely unlikely.

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

That's actually my signature! It wasn't intended as part of my response but I suppose it is relevant. I'm a reluctant nihilist. Some day I hope to find a more positive perspective. I'm leaning towards some kind of existentialism.