Moral Relativity?

[Logiclul]

Why are morals completely up to each person? Are you implying they cannot be defined, and if so, why is it any different from other things that CAN be defined?

They are completely up to each person for the reasons I described.

They cannot be universally defined, as there is no objective way to define "good".

As for definition, I think you misunderstand my point. The word 'good' can be broadly defined much in the same way as the word "ecstatic" can. We know what we mean by the word, but when one applies the word, another could object, and say: "I do not believe that that person was ecstatic". To which you could only reply: "given my idea of what ecstatic looks and feels like, I think it is" which is hardly conclusive.

What we cannot do then, is to universally apply an adjective which is not definite (and most are) to anything without the risk of many objections.

 

[FalloutJack]

-Moral objections-

I like how, after my long and well-thought-out words spoken with a decent attitude, you go "Wrong" and blah away. No discussion, no consideration, just that. Kneejerk. I label you as trouble, and deny your position. Please try not to talk AT people in the future.

 

[Logiclul]

-Moral objections-

I like how, after my long and well-thought-out words spoken with a decent attitude, you go "Wrong" and blah away. No discussion, no consideration, just that. Kneejerk. I label you as trouble, and deny your position. Please try not to talk AT people in the future.

..?

Would you feel better if I had started that with "FalloutJack, please sit down.. I have some bad news... my opinion.. it is different than yours!"

I was started discussion, I had hoped that you would respond to me, but I guess not.

I'm truly sorry if I offended you, though.

 

[MonkeyGH]

They are completely up to each person for the reasons I described.

What I'm getting at is you didn't really describe anything. You stated that all morals are subjective, and the reason for that being it is based off of a person's own experience. Everything is based off of man's experiences. Is everything subjective?

 

[ACman]

If moral relativity was true then we would have no reason to treat a murdering rapist any differently from your aged mother.

That is far too simplistic; that's not what you compare.

You've got to compare the same act in different cultures.

In the extreme case you compare a rich western person who has committed murder for financial gain to a Somali pirate who does the same. Both crimes are obviously abhorrent but we find the rich westerner's crime more so because of a cultural expectation that business be done in a none violent way.

A less extreme case is that it's traditional to wear black clothes to a funeral. In Japan, I hear white is a traditional colour.

In western countries if you wore white, under most circumstances, people would judge as doing something wrong. Yet the reverse is true in Japan!

 

[zehydra]

The "Moral Relativity" card only works if you believe that morality can't be argued objectively, and there are many philosophers who disagree.

Including myself. In fact, the whole idea behind moral relativism is due to a misunderstanding of morality itself.

 

[Logiclul]

They are completely up to each person for the reasons I described.

What I'm getting at is you didn't really describe anything. You stated that all morals are subjective, and the reason for that being it is based off of a person's own experience. Everything is based off of man's experiences. Is everything subjective?

Something which is subjective is something which each individual person may make their own conclusion of and still be right (while having differing results).

There are many things like that, but there are many things which are objectively true (there is some plane of existence, blue has the properties of blue, a square has four right angles) and there are many things which are also subjective. So no, I would say that not everything is subjective.

 

[zehydra]

If moral relativity was true then we would have no reason to treat a murdering rapist any differently from your aged mother.

That is far too simplistic; that's not what you compare.

You've got to compare the same act in different cultures.

In the extreme case you compare a rich western person who has committed murder for financial gain to a Somali pirate who does the same. Both crimes are obviously abhorrent but we find the rich westerner's crime more so because of a cultural expectation that business be done in a none violent way.

A less extreme case is that it's traditional to wear black clothes to a funeral. In Japan, I hear white is a traditional colour.

In western countries if you wore white, under most circumstances, people would judge as doing something wrong. Yet the reverse is true in Japan!

I think you're confusing cultural customs with morality. It's like confusing rudeness with evilness. Rudeness is cultural, evil is universal.

 

[Logiclul]

The "Moral Relativity" card only works if you believe that morality can't be argued objectively, and there are many philosophers who disagree.

Including myself. In fact, the whole idea behind moral relativism is due to a misunderstanding of morality itself.

If you have time, please burden yourself to read my posts on this page, and then argue for an objective system of morality (hint: ethics boards all over the world will tell you that none exist).

 

[zehydra]

The "Moral Relativity" card only works if you believe that morality can't be argued objectively, and there are many philosophers who disagree.

Including myself. In fact, the whole idea behind moral relativism is due to a misunderstanding of morality itself.

If you have time, please burden yourself to read my posts on this page, and then argue for an objective system of morality (hint: ethics boards all over the world will tell you that none exist).

I will take the time to read your posts, but first I will respond with that it is not really that difficult to come up with an objective system of morality. It is on the other hand QUITE difficult to come up with an EFFECTIVE objective morality.

 

[MonkeyGH]

They are completely up to each person for the reasons I described.

What I'm getting at is you didn't really describe anything. You stated that all morals are subjective, and the reason for that being it is based off of a person's own experience. Everything is based off of man's experiences. Is everything subjective?

Something which is subjective is something which each individual person may make their own conclusion of and still be right (while having differing results).

There are many things like that, but there are many things which are objectively true (there is some plane of existence, blue has the properties of blue, a square has four right angles) and there are many things which are also subjective. So no, I would say that not everything is subjective.

Blue has the properties of blue.

I'm color blind. Blue looks like purple to me. Doesn't that mean blue isn't actually blue according to your own description of subjectivity? Of course not, it's blue.

It seems that something you listed as an objective truth, something needing no initial proving, can in fact be interpreted differently by my own experience. Yet you and I both know it's still blue.

Why can't morals be held to the same standard? Perhaps morals ARE an objective truth, despite there being differing experiences with it. Is there a reason why they can't be? It obviously can't be because of differing experience anymore, because my experience with colors differ, yet they remain an objective truth. I have determined differing experiences are not an adequate way to determine objectivity, because even objective things can be experienced differently.

 

[zehydra]

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.

Actually yes, I can show you an "equation" that defines morality.

 

[zehydra]

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.

I disagree. If you believe that morality has a purpose then you do not have to worry about societal upbringings. It just means that the society is evil.

 

[Logiclul]

They are completely up to each person for the reasons I described.

What I'm getting at is you didn't really describe anything. You stated that all morals are subjective, and the reason for that being it is based off of a person's own experience. Everything is based off of man's experiences. Is everything subjective?

Something which is subjective is something which each individual person may make their own conclusion of and still be right (while having differing results).

There are many things like that, but there are many things which are objectively true (there is some plane of existence, blue has the properties of blue, a square has four right angles) and there are many things which are also subjective. So no, I would say that not everything is subjective.

Blue has the properties of blue.

I'm color blind. Blue looks like purple to me. Doesn't that mean blue isn't actually blue according to your own description of subjectivity? Of course not, it's blue.

It seems that something you listed as an objective truth, something needing no initial proving, can in fact be interpreted differently by my own experience. Yet you and I both know it's still blue.

Why can't morals be held to the same standard? Perhaps morals ARE an objective truth, despite there being differing experiences with it. Is there a reason why they can't be? It obviously can't be because of differing experience anymore, because my experience with colors differ, yet they remain an objective truth. I have determined differing experiences are not an adequate way to determine objectivity, because even objective things can be experienced differently.

Haha, clever work there.

But no, even to a color blind person, blue has the properties of blue. This is because the phrase "blue is purple" is a fallacy, as purple is no longer purple, rather it is some other arbitrary color. Blue is still blue, it is a medical condition with the vessels in the retina which cause the eye to not perceive colors correctly as they cannot see one of the three primary colors at least. However, subjectively, blue is still blue.

 

[Logiclul]

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.

I disagree. If you believe that morality has a purpose then you do not have to worry about societal upbringings. It just means that the society is evil.

What is and isn't evil is subjective, my friend, and thus is highly up for debate.

 

[MonkeyGH]

They are completely up to each person for the reasons I described.

What I'm getting at is you didn't really describe anything. You stated that all morals are subjective, and the reason for that being it is based off of a person's own experience. Everything is based off of man's experiences. Is everything subjective?

Something which is subjective is something which each individual person may make their own conclusion of and still be right (while having differing results).

There are many things like that, but there are many things which are objectively true (there is some plane of existence, blue has the properties of blue, a square has four right angles) and there are many things which are also subjective. So no, I would say that not everything is subjective.

Blue has the properties of blue.

I'm color blind. Blue looks like purple to me. Doesn't that mean blue isn't actually blue according to your own description of subjectivity? Of course not, it's blue.

It seems that something you listed as an objective truth, something needing no initial proving, can in fact be interpreted differently by my own experience. Yet you and I both know it's still blue.

Why can't morals be held to the same standard? Perhaps morals ARE an objective truth, despite there being differing experiences with it. Is there a reason why they can't be? It obviously can't be because of differing experience anymore, because my experience with colors differ, yet they remain an objective truth. I have determined differing experiences are not an adequate way to determine objectivity, because even objective things can be experienced differently.

Haha, clever work there.

But no, even to a color blind person, blue has the properties of blue. This is because the phrase "blue is purple" is a fallacy, as purple is no longer purple, rather it is some other arbitrary color. Blue is still blue, it is a medical condition with the vessels in the retina which cause the eye to not perceive colors correctly as they cannot see one of the three primary colors at least. However, subjectively, blue is still blue.

Then I will make the statement that the phrase "Murder is right" is a fallacy.

My whole argument is that it seems like you have it in your mind from the get go that morals can't be objective. And again, I ask, why?

 

[zehydra]

Why are morals completely up to each person? Are you implying they cannot be defined, and if so, why is it any different from other things that CAN be defined?

They are completely up to each person for the reasons I described.

They cannot be universally defined, as there is no objective way to define "good".

As for definition, I think you misunderstand my point. The word 'good' can be broadly defined much in the same way as the word "ecstatic" can. We know what we mean by the word, but when one applies the word, another could object, and say: "I do not believe that that person was ecstatic". To which you could only reply: "given my idea of what ecstatic looks and feels like, I think it is" which is hardly conclusive.

What we cannot do then, is to universally apply an adjective which is not definite (and most are) to anything without the risk of many objections.

It's quite easy to define "good", you just need a context. Good is an adjective. Whether or not an object is "good" is relative to the intended purpose of the object. So a "good" chair is one which allows a person to sit in without falling through. What you, the moral relativist is saying, is that "Good cannot be established, the purpose of the chair is subjective to each person who uses it". To which I respond,

Is not the very definition of a chair it's purpose?

So, morality is the chair, but what is it's purpose? Some like to say that there is no purpose, that things are simply right and things are simply wrong, but they offer to answers as to why. Why should I believe that actions are "simply right" or "simply wrong" without an argument to support it? You see, these people define morality as an abstract: as "goodness". This action is "good" and this action is "bad", but this is really an abuse of the words "good" and "bad", since they offer no purpose to which "good" and "bad" correspond to.

Follow me?

I am not a moral relativist, because I believe that there is a way to get an objective morality, because morality does have a purpose.

 

[zehydra]

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.

I disagree. If you believe that morality has a purpose then you do not have to worry about societal upbringings. It just means that the society is evil.

What is and isn't evil is subjective, my friend, and thus is highly up for debate.

No it isn't. Evil corresponds to morality, and morality isn't some kind of universal thing which can be subjective or objective. Either you have an objective morality, or you have a morality which is based off of whim.

 

[Joccaren]

Is it possible for someone to feel murder is a moral act?
Sure, I'd imagine them sort of like Zasz from Batman - liberating them from the torture of life, or something along those lines.
Does this mean they should get away with murder? No. They live in a society where it is commonly accepted that murder is wrong. If they feel otherwise, they should go live on a small island of people who think murder is right, and stay away from the rest of society. By using the excuse of moral relativity, they are being largely hypocritical. They are trying to force their morals onto society to let them go easier.
Same sort of thing for piracy. You live in a society where it is considered wrong to pirate. If you don't think it is, go to a country that thinks otherwise or sail the high seas as a pirate.

Captcha wants me to write in Greek Symbols. How the f...

 

[Logiclul]

Don't want to quote walls, so hopefully you two see this post:

@MonkeyGH: I would be fine with you making that statement, and I agree with it. I believe that morality is subjective because I believe that morals aren't integral laws of humanity, rather are interpreted guidelines which do not truly confine us, and are determined then by each person. consider:

Murder is bad because it is in no ones' right to take away anothers' life.

Murder is good because it tones down population and like it or not, it sorts out problems between nations and in the past has done justice.

Both arguments may be said to be valid while contradicting each other.

@zehydra: A good chair could be defined in many ways. Is it the stability of the chair which makes it good? Is it the design? The material used? How well it fulfills its supposed purpose (by which we likely have no way of truly measuring)? Some combination of those and other factors? Also Morality isn't simply good. Morality is whether or not an ACTION is good. Look at my murder example to MonkeyGH above to see why all morals may have reasons and still contradict each other.