So, we're stating Ethics in my intro to philosophy course tomorrow, and I thought it might be fun to talk a little about the subject before class. My professor wants us to think about it anyway. I wonder what informs the Escapist's moral codes.
tldr:
I believe moral relativism is true, because there's no apparent objective source for morals. I think that life as we know it (er, here in the first world anyway) is still pretty muchconsistent compatible with this view.
EDIT: I think that's a better way to put it.
I have what I think is best termed a relativistic view of morality. It's on every individual to decide what is right, and this will be determined by their personal goals, aspirations, and intuitions. Every moral system is equally as valid as any other.
I arrive at this conclusion by process of elimination -- what objective standard can be referenced when trying to establish an absolute moral code? It can't be our feelings, because they contradict each other and they change all the time. They certainly aren't absolute. It can't be tradition or law -- that would be the naturalistic fallacy. The way things are says nothing about the way things should be. And (though I'm sure someone will disagree on this) it can't come from God -- either physical or otherwise. If it's physical I'm almost positive it's non-existent and therefore irrelevant, my hesitation coming only from the strictest adherence to empirical uncertainty (I'll take you up on your particular God's ethics if you think you have a demonstrably existent one). If it's non-physical, it can't be empirically verified, and once you start allowing dubious alternative methods of investigation, any and every God concept becomes equally as valid as any other, and therefore each moral code supposed to have been invented by each God becomes equally valid. We still arrive at irresolvable contradictions.
The obvious objection to the relativistic claim is that it implies we are supposed to live and let live while young girls are being circumcised in barbaric cultural rites and people terrorize others because of their skin color or sexual orientation. I think that that misses the whole point. Part of my understanding of ethics is that we're allowed to decide that certain actions of others are wrong, and thus are justified to try and stop them. This starts to sound like an advocation of anarchy at this point, but I don't believe that would be best. If everyone began acting on their own, deciding for themselves what was right and wrong, not only would the world dissolve into chaos, but few, if any, people would actually be able to satisfy their moral code (i.e., the elimination of evil and the attainment of good). Luckily, there's a loop hole. It seems to me that almost everyone shares quite a lot of basic, fundamental ethical assertions -- things like, "it's good for me to be happy" and "it's bad for those I love to be hurt," etc. Naturally people want to have the most good things and the fewest bad things possible. It's possible (indeed, we've done it for ages) to construct a society out of rules that facilitates that basic desire. While you give up the right to do whatever you want, by doing so you enable yourself to satisfy more of the rest of your moral code than you otherwise would. It's simply social contract, John Locke and all that. Thus, our modern apparatuses of justice and law are perfectly consistent with this relativistic view, even if the underlying concepts need to be tweaked a little.
As an addendum, it occurs to me that it's the consistency of beliefs that allows the whole social contract thing to work, and inconsistency that creates perceived injustice. A perfectly moral society, therefore, could only be achieved if every member held the exact same beliefs (and the simpler the beliefs, the easier the associated perfect social structure would be to invent). Thus, unilateral brainwashing and reduction to the lowest common denominator would allow for the best possible society at the lowest cost! Sounds positively Orwellian, don't it? But would you be unhappy?
I arrive at this conclusion by process of elimination -- what objective standard can be referenced when trying to establish an absolute moral code? It can't be our feelings, because they contradict each other and they change all the time. They certainly aren't absolute. It can't be tradition or law -- that would be the naturalistic fallacy. The way things are says nothing about the way things should be. And (though I'm sure someone will disagree on this) it can't come from God -- either physical or otherwise. If it's physical I'm almost positive it's non-existent and therefore irrelevant, my hesitation coming only from the strictest adherence to empirical uncertainty (I'll take you up on your particular God's ethics if you think you have a demonstrably existent one). If it's non-physical, it can't be empirically verified, and once you start allowing dubious alternative methods of investigation, any and every God concept becomes equally as valid as any other, and therefore each moral code supposed to have been invented by each God becomes equally valid. We still arrive at irresolvable contradictions.
The obvious objection to the relativistic claim is that it implies we are supposed to live and let live while young girls are being circumcised in barbaric cultural rites and people terrorize others because of their skin color or sexual orientation. I think that that misses the whole point. Part of my understanding of ethics is that we're allowed to decide that certain actions of others are wrong, and thus are justified to try and stop them. This starts to sound like an advocation of anarchy at this point, but I don't believe that would be best. If everyone began acting on their own, deciding for themselves what was right and wrong, not only would the world dissolve into chaos, but few, if any, people would actually be able to satisfy their moral code (i.e., the elimination of evil and the attainment of good). Luckily, there's a loop hole. It seems to me that almost everyone shares quite a lot of basic, fundamental ethical assertions -- things like, "it's good for me to be happy" and "it's bad for those I love to be hurt," etc. Naturally people want to have the most good things and the fewest bad things possible. It's possible (indeed, we've done it for ages) to construct a society out of rules that facilitates that basic desire. While you give up the right to do whatever you want, by doing so you enable yourself to satisfy more of the rest of your moral code than you otherwise would. It's simply social contract, John Locke and all that. Thus, our modern apparatuses of justice and law are perfectly consistent with this relativistic view, even if the underlying concepts need to be tweaked a little.
As an addendum, it occurs to me that it's the consistency of beliefs that allows the whole social contract thing to work, and inconsistency that creates perceived injustice. A perfectly moral society, therefore, could only be achieved if every member held the exact same beliefs (and the simpler the beliefs, the easier the associated perfect social structure would be to invent). Thus, unilateral brainwashing and reduction to the lowest common denominator would allow for the best possible society at the lowest cost! Sounds positively Orwellian, don't it? But would you be unhappy?
tldr:
I believe moral relativism is true, because there's no apparent objective source for morals. I think that life as we know it (er, here in the first world anyway) is still pretty much
EDIT: I think that's a better way to put it.
