Moral Relativity?

[CrystalShadow]

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.

That's circular reasoning. Criminals are defined by what it considered illegal.

What is illegal is related (but not identical) to what is considered immoral by the majority in a society.

Pirates, like any other group have a particular view that they attempt to argue for, just like any other.

To say they are criminals implies by definition that their actions are immoral.
But if morality is relative, then whose definition of immorality are they being judged by?

You can't say one minority group's ideas (which the majority disagrees with) are implicitly more valid than another without making a moral judgement on those ideas.

I could use the same argument you just made to support anything.
For instance:
"Gays aren't a minority group whose rights need to be protected..."
"Black people aren't a minority group whose rights need to be protected..."
"Women aren't a minority group whose rights need to be protected..."
"People who own cars aren't a minority group whose rights need to be protected..."
"Children aren't a minority group whose rights need to be protected..."

And so on, and so forth. To make such a statement at all requires you to already have a moral judgement of some kind. Which says nothing at all about whether morals are relative, but merely illustrates your own personal moral biases.

 

[Smiley Face]

The issue of contention here seems to be on the one side, people arguing that morality is subjective, and on the other hand, people claiming that such a situation would entail consequences so severe that it shouldn't be entertained.

First, I think the 'morality is subjective' point has been put forward pretty well. For example, the death penalty - on the one hand there's the argument that for some crimes, it would be wrong not to enact a level of punishment of that severity, and on the other hand there's the argument that killing is wrong (these aren't the only reasons, but they are important ones). Both are moral judgements, both conflict. And, more importantly, declaring one to be objectively 'right' or 'wrong' isn't possible, because... what objective standard can you hold that to? Laws ultimately come around from some proportion of agreement of Society as a Whole, which in turn doesn't have an objective standard of 'right' or 'wrong' that it can point to.

There's a flurry of counter-moves to this, like the arguments towards what everyone agrees on, or makes everyone happy, or that the consequence of there not being such a thing would be anarchy, but that's missing the point. The point, what needs to be provided to demonstrate objective morality, is an objective standard - something from which we draw our judgements of right and wrong, and are epistemologically justified in doing so. It's the burden of proof. Until such a thing is provided, moral relativists are justified in claiming morality is subjective, regardless of what that entails. If such a standard is provided, and is shown not to be a definitive and objective standard from which to draw absolute judgements of right and wrong, then it is not an objective standard, and moral relativists continue to be justified.

Now,to deal with the counter-moves of absolutists:

There's the 'what makes everyone happy' or 'do not cause harm to others' arguments, which everyone would agree to. But the thing is, those aren't ONLY justified by absolute morality. They're justified by being things people want, not because they're right or wrong - they're logically consistant with personal and general well-being, as is a coherent legal system to safeguard the interest of the general public. What those things AREN'T is provable to be DEFINITIVELY right or wrong, and that's fine.

 

[Agayek]

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.

This guy is 100% correct. There is absolutely no such thing as objective moral standards. Morality, in and of itself, was a human invention that every single individual interprets in different ways.

That said, Moral Relativism as an excuse for committing a crime simply does not fly. The Law is not about morality, it's about imposing social order. If you violate the law, you suffer the consequences.

 

[Beryl77]

It's true that morals are just made by humans and have changed a lot during history. There is no absolute moral. You can think what ever you want and no one can say your wrong and prove it unlike for example a physical law. We decided that murder is wrong, we didn't decided that time and space exist.
But you can't live in a society if you don't obey the general morals, especially if there is hardly anyone who doesn't share your morals. You can still think what ever you want but you'll be punished if your actions go against the general moral, like murder is wrong etc.
So it's surprising for me to hear that the judge gave them a shorter sentence but I have no idea why he did it. You can't really prove that your morals are different, anyone could claim that. I just don't see how this could work in our society.

 

[MonkeyGH]

In my mind morals are mostly cultural and societal. For instance: Stoning adulterers would be seen as barbaric and sick in America but in several (not all) middle eastern countries it is seen as the just thing to do and not seen as immoral.

Here's one.

In what culture is it acceptable to be denied something deserved? A culture where a person would have absolutely no qualms with being deprived of something that is his. Everybody talks about how it's wrong to be denied what people have earned or deserved...in other words, rights.

If you say that they are taught to think that way, that means the feeling of being deprived existed there initially, and logically is NOT subjective, and was there from the beginning.

There's no way around it. All of us are born with a sense of justice. Justice also implies right vs wrong...

 

[MonkeyGH]

It's true that morals are just made by humans and have changed a lot during history. There is no absolute moral. You can think what ever you want and no one can say your wrong and prove it unlike for example a physical law. We decided that murder is wrong, we didn't decided that time and space exist.
But you can't live in a society if you don't obey the general morals, especially if there is hardly anyone who doesn't share your morals. You can still think what ever you want but you'll be punished if your actions go against the general moral, like murder is wrong etc.
So it's surprising for me to hear that the judge gave them a shorter sentence but I have no idea why he did it. You can't really prove that your morals are different, anyone could claim that. I just don't see how this could work in our society.

"We decided that murder is wrong, we didn't decided that time and space exist."

We didn't decide that time and space exist? Are you implying someone else did beforehand?

 

[gilgamesh310]

Morality is clearly subjective. I can't believe so many of you think it's objective. And for the person that said mathematics is man made, you are wrong. Mathematics is fundamentally built into the fabric of the universe. Everything in mathematics can be proven. Morality can't. I say murder is right. Prove me wrong.

 

[Beryl77]

"We decided that murder is wrong, we didn't decided that time and space exist."

We didn't decide that time and space exist? Are you implying someone else did beforehand?

No I don't but I don't really get what you're trying to get at with that question.

 

[JonnyHG]

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.

A distinction needs to be made between what is legal and what is moral. If we choose to live in a certain society, then we must follow the laws of that society. This doesn't not mean that we need to agree or disagree with what is legal or illegal, only that we must follow the law. The legal system is far from arbitrary, and is supposed to be based on justice.

I honestly find it hard to believe that you posed that as a serious question.

Justice is meaningless without morality though, otherwise it's just causing more suffering because the majority thinks the law-breaker deserves it. I agree that the legal system is far from arbitrary, though I don't agree with every single law in either my country or the world. Under moral relativism laws are simply arbitrary opinions of the majority, something I cannot believe.

Even under moral relativism, most laws aren't arbitrary. Laws are in place for a society to function. Perhaps one might say that for a society to function, there might need to be some broader laws that aren't subjective because every society needs a form of those laws in order to survive.

Relative morality isn't about taking everyone's morality into consideration in terms of the legal system, that is impossible and impractical. Morality is what we ought to do in certain situations. The reality is that many people will come up with different answers to the same scenario.

 

[MonkeyGH]

"We decided that murder is wrong, we didn't decided that time and space exist."

We didn't decide that time and space exist? Are you implying someone else did beforehand?

No I don't but I don't really get what you're trying to get at with that question.

We didn't have various historical figures discover laws of science and math and decide to prove them? Are you saying that it didn't need proof in the first place and was instantly accepted by all to be considered a fact of life?

I just find it odd because it seems we did in fact decide those things were true.

 

[Arsen]

Murder is universally wrong, regardless of culture. Unless of course, it involves something in terms of warfare, societal need, etc. AKA: Spartans chucking their babies off of cliff sides, people needing to hang deserters, etc.

There's "that stipulation" here and there depending on the situation.
But more on point, the only definable situation within the question would be if the individuals who killed the other had a legitimate reason for doing so. "He was about to hurt others, he was raping someone...". There are justifications, but overall?

No one has the right to imply morals which are infact, not actual morals.

 

[MonkeyGH]

Murder is universally wrong, regardless of culture. Unless of course, it involves something in terms of warfare, societal need, etc. AKA: Spartans chucking their babies off of cliff sides, people needing to hang deserters, etc.

There's "that stipulation" here and there depending on the situation.
But more on point, the only definable situation within the question would be if the individuals who killed the other had a legitimate reason for doing so. "He was about to hurt others, he was raping someone...". There are justifications, but overall?

No one has the right to imply morals which are infact, not actual morals.

Hey there. Hope you don't mind me asking...how are actual morals determined?

 

[Beryl77]

"We decided that murder is wrong, we didn't decided that time and space exist."

We didn't decide that time and space exist? Are you implying someone else did beforehand?

No I don't but I don't really get what you're trying to get at with that question.

We didn't have various historical figures discover laws of science and math and decide to prove them? Are you saying that it didn't need proof in the first place and was instantly accepted by all to be considered a fact of life?

I just find it odd because it seems we did in fact decide those things were true.

I'm not talking about us discovering and accepting them. What I'm saying is that, morals are just an invention by humans, however the laws of physics were merely discovered and proven to exist by us but not invented. Whether we accept gravity or not, it's still there.

 

[Logiclul]

The reason the argument doesn't work is because law =/= morals.

Moral relativity is a term I don't like. Try Arbitrary-Moral-Law for a more accurate way of communicating what you are trying to articulate. If morals justify actions, and morals can be anything some thing for any reason (such as "i decided it be") then morals are arbitrary and have no place in society.

However that is not what morals are. Morals are things which the persons devoutly believe are the right ways to live. One can abuse that and go "I believe X" while not really believing that in an attempt to break the idea of morality. However the only way to break morality is to make it irrelevant if something is good or not. In that example, simply saying you have some moral X doesn't mean that you necessarily have it.

 

[MonkeyGH]

"I'm not talking about us discovering and accepting them. What I'm saying is that, morals are just an invention by humans, however the laws of physics were merely discovered and proven to exist by us but not invented. Whether we accept gravity or not, it's still there."

I'm asking how you determine what you believe. It just sounded like circular logic to me. "I believe the laws of physics are real because they are the laws of physics."

 

[FalloutJack]

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?

Well, in your case, he was just giving his testimony a precident example. The point wasn't to prove murder itself bad or good, and it must've been some lenient judge besides.

As for moral relativity itself, I don't think that would hold to MY set of beliefs. So, to throw a philosophical curveball at it, I do thus deconstruct the a deconstruction of the morals itself. The truth is that in a court of law, there is the letter and the spirit of the law. Most people want to outrun the spirit by holding to the letter. The letter dictates that you should not do something by quote and wording, and the spirit is meant to say that you must do no harm by causing such.

It isn't about morals. In moral relativity, you could say that you believe piracy is good because you hate the company, but that would be wrong. It's deliberate maliciousness. On the other hand, if you were to not harm but actually help in a way... See, there are games with patches, yes? Games thrown out the door without their pants on happen all the time and they have to wait for little scraps until they're done. Do you know what some pirates know how to do for free? Fix the game and all its bugs, plus add fun stuff for free. And the game company will be mad not because it's morally unsound, but because they don't get a cut. They object to used games as well for the same reason. Moral relativity doesn't give anyone the right to attack Gamestop or The Exchange or some other place. That's just business. You want to compete? Do better business.

This is the part where I also saw that the best piracy defense is The Neil Gaiman Defense. The writer of many fine novels/comics said one day that piracy was much like going to the library, borrowing and not stealing, since it's not as though the owner has lost possession of it. And this rather mature way of looking at things can generate free advertising and extra interest in the product. Furthermore, HE certainly got more books ordered to places that they were never sold before, the act which brought the whole situation to light. It's things like this which makes the issue entirely gray. it's because of business and either handling it well or not. Neil handles it very well. Other places...rather poor.

It's not about simply what you believe. It has to make sense. It has to work. These things are a gray area because there are people who do it wrong and people who do it right. But there IS a line drawn in the sand. There is a definition in there somewhere. And you can't just defend it with "It works according to my morals.". It's...a bit similar to saying you can't be prosecuted because of their religion. Things you do can't be scapegoated by morals. When you do wrong, you KNOW you are doing wrong and you've just decided to live with it.

 

[Logiclul]

On the developed conversation:

Morals are all subjective. They are all based off of personal experience and thought, and there are thus no universally true morals. It is feasible for murder not to be considered truly morally wrong by someone in any context.

If something "is moral" what that really means is "there is something which is 'good' to do and also 'not bad' to do". Well then we go about defining what "good" and "not bad" mean, and that is completely up to each person, and is why morals are all subjective.

 

[MonkeyGH]

On the developed conversation:

Morals are all subjective. They are all based off of personal experience and thought, and there are thus no universally true morals. It is feasible for murder not to be considered truly morally wrong by someone in any context.

If something "is moral" what that really means is "there is something which is 'good' to do and also 'not bad' to do". Well then we go about defining what "good" and "not bad" mean, and that is completely up to each person, and is why morals are all subjective.

I like your argument.

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?

 

[Logiclul]

It's not about simply what you believe. It has to make sense. It has to work. These things are a gray area because there are people who do it wrong and people who do it right. But there IS a line drawn in the sand. There is a definition in there somewhere. And you can't just defend it with "It works according to my morals.". It's...a bit similar to saying you can't be prosecuted because of their religion. Things you do can't be scapegoated by morals. When you do wrong, you KNOW you are doing wrong and you've just decided to live with it.

Wrong. You can have morals which contradict each other and they are still subjectively morally valid. Morals won't acquit you in court because law is constant and is unaffected by the definition of the term "good" (as in court, good is following the Law, thus there is easy resolution), and all morals do is personally determine if something is good. However the Moral "good" and the Law "good" are two separate definitions for most people.

"I'm not talking about us discovering and accepting them. What I'm saying is that, morals are just an invention by humans, however the laws of physics were merely discovered and proven to exist by us but not invented. Whether we accept gravity or not, it's still there."

I'm asking how you determine what you believe. It just sounded like circular logic to me. "I believe the laws of physics are real because they are the laws of physics."

Your post reminded me of the Euthyprho Dilemma. In case you're interested in it (I just like to share all my thoughts which is why I'm responding):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_problem

 

[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.