Moral Relativity?

[lionrwal]

I was having a discussion with my friend about his justifications for piracy, and he told me a story about "moral relativity." Basically it went that these two people murdered someone, and they claimed that it was because of moral relativity, and the judge gave them a very short sentence instead of life. If you don't know what it is, it's the belief that you can't impose your own morals on someone because there are no set morals for anyone. This was literally his only justification.

I do believe that people have different sets of morals, but I don't buy that someone could believe murder is good.

So what's your take on moral relativity?

 

[Baneat]

That's a weak response on his part to be honest. "Why? fuck it, I play the insta-win card!"

Anyway, I don't like moral relativity because if it's all relative then it may as well not exist, and I'm not keen on a world where morality is irrelevant. I'm appealing to the consequences, it's not really convincing but I have nothing to lose from assuming it does exist, in the end.

 

[JoJo]

Moral relativity is an interesting idea in theory that falls down when you try to apply it to reality. If all morals are relative, why do we bother to enforce the law? If moral relativity was true then we would have no reason to treat a murdering rapist any differently from your aged mother.

In truth, all "good" actions have a positive, whereas all "bad" actions have a negative effect. Where disagreements arise is where people can't agree on whether an action results in a positive or a negative, which is especially evident in moral dilemmas where you have to choose between the lesser of two bad actions.

 

[the spud]

I'm not sure society should follow a strict moral code, but rather I think we should all try to be empathetic to others. Morality will come as a result.

 

[evilneko]

Since there's no such thing as objective morality, all morals are subjective. That is, relative.

Moral relativity is an interesting idea in theory that falls down when you try to apply it to reality. If all morals are relative, why do we bother to enforce the law? If moral relativity was true then we would have no reason to treat a murdering rapist any differently from your aged mother.

In truth, all "good" actions have a positive, whereas all "bad" actions have a negative effect. Where disagreements arise is where people can't agree on whether an action results in a positive or a negative, which is especially evident in moral dilemmas where you have to choose between the lesser of two bad actions.

This is simply untrue. I suggest you actually read a few things about subjective morality, or watch a video on the subject of relative vs. objective morality or the evolution of morality from AronRa, Thunderf00t, or dprjones.

Moral relativism does not mean complete, utter anarchy at all. It means that what is and isn't moral is defined by society at large. Thus while a disturbed individual may have no moral qualms with skinning cats and raping dogs, society does and will punish him for those acts.

 

[Axolotl]

Since there's no such thing as objective morality, all morals are subjective. That is, relative.

Do you anything to back this up? Becuase on the face of it, it's a very wrong statement.

 

[lionrwal]

I was having a discussion with my friend about his justifications for piracy, and he told me a story about "moral relativity." Basically it went that these two people murdered someone, and they claimed that it was because of moral relativity, and the judge gave them a very short sentence instead of life. If you don't know what it is, it's the belief that you can't impose your own morals on someone because there are no set morals for anyone. This was literally his only justification.

I do believe that people have different sets of morals, but I don't buy that someone could believe murder is good.

So what's your take on moral relativity?

Moral relativism isn't just the belief that you cannot impose your morals on others. Just because morals aren't objective doesn't automatically lead to the conclusion that you cannot impose them on others. In fact such an idea is incompatible with true moral relativity as it tries to give one particular moral belief, that you cannot impose your morals on others, an objective status.

I'm just restating exactly what my friend told me. I never even heard of i before he told me.

 

[TheIronRuler]

I was having a discussion with my friend about his justifications for piracy, and he told me a story about "moral relativity." Basically it went that these two people murdered someone, and they claimed that it was because of moral relativity, and the judge gave them a very short sentence instead of life. If you don't know what it is, it's the belief that you can't impose your own morals on someone because there are no set morals for anyone. This was literally his only justification.

I do believe that people have different sets of morals, but I don't buy that someone could believe murder is good.

So what's your take on moral relativity?

.
But... Rule of the Majority... In a Democracy, the Majority usually DOES impose their morals like they do in not letting Gays marry in most countries (And killing them in some).
But in a multi-party system, not a retarded one like the USA's, Minority groups will fight for the welfare of their own minority...
Pirates aren't a minority group whose rights need to be protected... They are criminals.

 

[evilneko]

Since there's no such thing as objective morality, all morals are subjective. That is, relative.

Do you anything to back this up? Becuase on the face of it, it's a very wrong statement.

The way morals change over time and differ--sometimes wildly--across cultures shows pretty conclusively that morality is subjective. Even for things that the vast majority of human beings consider immoral, you can find groups who disagree, or qualify it differently. (Hell, the very idea of applying qualifiers to moral questions shows its subjectivity) Morality is a man-made product, shaped by and subject to the beliefs and emotions of the society. It is not a quantifiable thing, you can't show me an equation that defines morality, so it is subjective.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

I was having a discussion with my friend about his justifications for piracy, and he told me a story about "moral relativity." Basically it went that these two people murdered someone, and they claimed that it was because of moral relativity, and the judge gave them a very short sentence instead of life. If you don't know what it is, it's the belief that you can't impose your own morals on someone because there are no set morals for anyone. This was literally his only justification.

I do believe that people have different sets of morals, but I don't buy that someone could believe murder is good.

So what's your take on moral relativity?

It makes me think of something Sir Charles Napier once said about the English ban on the practice of burning widows(called Sati)....

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."​

I bring that quote up because it touches on one culture(English/British) judging and punishing another culture(Indian/Desi).

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

Since there's no such thing as objective morality, all morals are subjective. That is, relative.

Moral relativity is an interesting idea in theory that falls down when you try to apply it to reality. If all morals are relative, why do we bother to enforce the law? If moral relativity was true then we would have no reason to treat a murdering rapist any differently from your aged mother.

In truth, all "good" actions have a positive, whereas all "bad" actions have a negative effect. Where disagreements arise is where people can't agree on whether an action results in a positive or a negative, which is especially evident in moral dilemmas where you have to choose between the lesser of two bad actions.

This is simply untrue. I suggest you actually read a few things about subjective morality, or watch a video on the subject of relative vs. objective morality or the evolution of morality from AronRa, Thunderf00t, or dprjones.

Moral relativism does not mean complete, utter anarchy at all. It means that what is and isn't moral is defined by society at large. Thus while a disturbed individual may have no moral qualms with skinning cats and raping dogs, society does and will punish him for those acts.

This. Everything is relative, as they say. You only believe a large number of things because of the culture you were raised in. We all think rape is bad, but a person in a war torn third world country where rape is used as a tool of war would have a different opinion. There are no objective rules or morality.

 

[Axolotl]

Since there's no such thing as objective morality, all morals are subjective. That is, relative.

Do you anything to back this up? Becuase on the face of it, it's a very wrong statement.

The way morals change over time and differ--sometimes wildly--across cultures shows pretty conclusively that morality is subjective.

Our claims about physics and the nature of the universe vary wildly as well (far more than morality even) would you claim that as evidence that the physical world is subjective?

Even for things that the vast majority of human beings consider immoral, you can find groups who disagree, or qualify it differently.

The majority of Humans claim that there is a God others disagree, or define the God differently, is God's existence subjective?

(Hell, the very idea of applying qualifiers to moral questions shows its subjectivity)

How?

Morality is a man-made product,

So is mathematics, doesn't make it subjective.

shaped by and subject to the beliefs and emotions of the society.

Once again, do you have anything to back this up? Why would morality be changable? You've siad that moral claims have changed but that doesn't in any way mean that morality itself has changed.

It is not a quantifiable thing, you can't show me an equation that defines morality, so it is subjective.

Really? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felicific_calculus]
Sure you can argue with that specific equation but it shows you can make equations for it and you can quantify it.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Mortal relativity is great if your studying people or cultures. It's not so good when it comes to law because law isn't a subjective thing like morals, law is an objective set of rules. No body cares wither or not you believe in the law, if you break it then certain actions will be taken against you. You can argue up one way and down the other about the morals of that but that's just the way the law works.

 

[JoJo]

Since there's no such thing as objective morality, all morals are subjective. That is, relative.

Moral relativity is an interesting idea in theory that falls down when you try to apply it to reality. If all morals are relative, why do we bother to enforce the law? If moral relativity was true then we would have no reason to treat a murdering rapist any differently from your aged mother.

In truth, all "good" actions have a positive, whereas all "bad" actions have a negative effect. Where disagreements arise is where people can't agree on whether an action results in a positive or a negative, which is especially evident in moral dilemmas where you have to choose between the lesser of two bad actions.

This is simply untrue. I suggest you actually read a few things about subjective morality, or watch a video on the subject of relative vs. objective morality or the evolution of morality from AronRa, Thunderf00t, or dprjones.

Moral relativism does not mean complete, utter anarchy at all. It means that what is and isn't moral is defined by society at large. Thus while a disturbed individual may have no moral qualms with skinning cats and raping dogs, society does and will punish him for those acts.

If you're going to bother to quote me, please actually refute my arguments rather than telling me to read stuff which I've already looked at and holds no answers to my questions.

I'll repeat it, for anyone on this thread to answer. If morals are truly subjective, why bother enforcing an arbitrary law system on anyone? Heck, we might as well just let all the murderers and rapists out of jail since their moral opinion is equal to the rest of ours.

 

[evilneko]

Since there's no such thing as objective morality, all morals are subjective. That is, relative.

Moral relativity is an interesting idea in theory that falls down when you try to apply it to reality. If all morals are relative, why do we bother to enforce the law? If moral relativity was true then we would have no reason to treat a murdering rapist any differently from your aged mother.

In truth, all "good" actions have a positive, whereas all "bad" actions have a negative effect. Where disagreements arise is where people can't agree on whether an action results in a positive or a negative, which is especially evident in moral dilemmas where you have to choose between the lesser of two bad actions.

This is simply untrue. I suggest you actually read a few things about subjective morality, or watch a video on the subject of relative vs. objective morality or the evolution of morality from AronRa, Thunderf00t, or dprjones.

Moral relativism does not mean complete, utter anarchy at all. It means that what is and isn't moral is defined by society at large. Thus while a disturbed individual may have no moral qualms with skinning cats and raping dogs, society does and will punish him for those acts.

If you're going to bother to quote me, please actually refute my arguments rather than telling me to read stuff which I've already looked at and holds no answers to my questions.

I'll repeat it, for anyone on this thread to answer. If morals are truly subjective, why bother enforcing an arbitrary law system on anyone? Heck, we might as well just let all the murderers and rapists out of jail since their moral opinion is equal to the rest of ours.

You've obviously not even given a cursory look at what subjective morality actually means, otherwise you wouldn't have constructed such a strawman.

Well, there are a couple of alternative explanations for why you've built and stuck to your strawman, but I won't go into them because it wouldn't be very nice.

 

[JoJo]

I'll repeat it, for anyone on this thread to answer. If morals are truly subjective, why bother enforcing an arbitrary law system on anyone? Heck, we might as well just let all the murderers and rapists out of jail since their moral opinion is equal to the rest of ours.

Because we don't like it that way would be an obvious enough reason. I don't need an objective morality to tell me what I prefer. It's silly to ignore the fact that a lack of objective morality doesn't equate to me being happy with whatever occurs.

But why are you unhappy for murderers to go free? If you don't believe that their actions are wrong then imprisoning them for punishment or rehab so they don't reoffend is pointless. If you don't like people being murdered, why not?

You've obviously not even given a cursory look at what subjective morality actually means, otherwise you wouldn't have constructed such a strawman.

Well, there are a couple of alternative explanations for why you've built and stuck to your strawman, but I won't go into them because it wouldn't be very nice.

Fine, it's pretty clear you don't have anything with which to actually answer my question, otherwise you wouldn't have resorted straight to using ad hominem twice. Please don't quote me again unless it actually relates to the argument, I suggest you look at Mortai's posts for examples of good pro-subjective responses.

 

[evilneko]

I wouldn't say that the way they change over time and differ is any sort of proof that they're subjective. At least not in anything but a descriptive sense, but it wouldn't make sense to be talking in a descriptive sense for this thread. All it shows is people have different opinions, what it takes for it to not be subjective is for one set of morals, known or unknown, to be true. That there are varying opinions don't make it so that one cannot be true. Really all there is to say that morality is subjective is that there is no reason to think that it is objective.

I think you're getting subjective and objective confused. You mixed up the definitions there. "Is Star Wars a good movie?" is subjective, because each person has a different definition of "Good movie" and will thus have a different opinion. "The light is on" is, on the other hand, objective, it can be proven to be so, or proven not to be so, and a person's opinion on it doesn't make it any less so.

I'll repeat it, for anyone on this thread to answer. If morals are truly subjective, why bother enforcing an arbitrary law system on anyone? Heck, we might as well just let all the murderers and rapists out of jail since their moral opinion is equal to the rest of ours.

Because we don't like it that way would be an obvious enough reason. I don't need an objective morality to tell me what I prefer. It's silly to ignore the fact that a lack of objective morality doesn't equate to me being happy with whatever occurs.

But why are you unhappy for murderers to go free? If you don't believe that their actions are wrong then imprisoning them for punishment or rehab so they don't reoffend is pointless. If you don't like people being murdered, why not?

You've obviously not even given a cursory look at what subjective morality actually means, otherwise you wouldn't have constructed such a strawman.

Well, there are a couple of alternative explanations for why you've built and stuck to your strawman, but I won't go into them because it wouldn't be very nice.

Fine, it's pretty clear you don't have anything with which to actually answer my question, otherwise you wouldn't have resorted straight to using ad hominem twice. Please don't quote me again unless it actually relates to the argument, I suggest you look at Mortai's posts for examples of good pro-subjective responses.

I bite my thumb at you, sir. I have committed no such fallacy.

 

[Woodsey]

That's almost as good as (see: 'retarded') "well, I wouldn't bother to buy it anyway".

 

[Gloomsta]

I was having a discussion with my friend about his justifications for piracy, and he told me a story about "moral relativity." Basically it went that these two people murdered someone, and they claimed that it was because of moral relativity, and the judge gave them a very short sentence instead of life. If you don't know what it is, it's the belief that you can't impose your own morals on someone because there are no set morals for anyone. This was literally his only justification.

I do believe that people have different sets of morals, but I don't buy that someone could believe murder is good.

So what's your take on moral relativity?

On some level, Murder is neither wrong or right and we create our own morals.

However i seriously believe that violence and murder only has outcomes such as breeding hate and misery, which is not a good outcome for anyone.

 

[JoJo]

I'll repeat it, for anyone on this thread to answer. If morals are truly subjective, why bother enforcing an arbitrary law system on anyone? Heck, we might as well just let all the murderers and rapists out of jail since their moral opinion is equal to the rest of ours.

Because we don't like it that way would be an obvious enough reason. I don't need an objective morality to tell me what I prefer. It's silly to ignore the fact that a lack of objective morality doesn't equate to me being happy with whatever occurs.

But why are you unhappy for murderers to go free? If you don't believe that their actions are wrong then imprisoning them for punishment or rehab so they don't reoffend is pointless. If you don't like people being murdered, why not?

I don't want people getting murdered, I don't want to get murdered myself. I simply don't like it.

Furthermore prove that it's pointless. It's petty of you to ask for proof and then make such declarations without any yourself.

Why does it matter why I don't like it? It simply makes me feel bad.

I wasn't asking for asking for proof, I'm asking for what you feel. You see, the problem I have with moral relativism is that it almost always seems to be a reskin of universal morality rather than being truly relativistic. You seem to believe in the same universal morality as I do, just rather than believing some actions are fundamentally wrong you simply don't like some actions. I don't see the difference.