Moral Relativity?

[Logiclul]

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.

Morality doesn't have to be true, which is good because it cannot. Morality serves one purpose: to give people a subjective view on if they are doing something right or wrong. The good news is that since morality is subjective, they can change these views to better represent what is "good" over the course of time.

 

[Joccaren]

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.

So morality is based off whim. There is no objective morality, no force in the universe that defines what is good and bad. We as humans create these sorts of things to help govern society. Murder is considered wrong not because the universe demands it be so, but because it does little to help society, instead harming it. Take a look at capital punishment. In numerous places it is considered completely fine and fair. It is pretty much legalised murder though. There is no objective 'it is evil' or 'it is good', merely an opinion formed by who you grew up around. If they think its good, you'll most likely think its good. They think its bad, you most likely think its bad.
Morality is not objective. It is the result of people conforming to what society believes is right, and these beliefs differ from place to place.

As an exercise, why is murder wrong? Lets see just how far we can get with this.

 

[zehydra]

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.

Morality doesn't have to be true, which is good because it cannot. Morality serves one purpose: to give people a subjective view on if they are doing something right or wrong. The good news is that since morality is subjective, they can change these views to better represent what is "good" over the course of time.

what is something "right" and what is something "wrong"? What are these adjectives corresponding to? An action in itself cannot be inherently wrong or right without corresponding to SOMETHING

 

[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.

"Morality is whether or not an ACTION is good" good with regards to what exactly?

Ah, the good old Euthyphro Dilemma, you never seem to disappoint.

Is what is moral moral because it is good, or is what is good good because it is moral?

I respond to that question with saying that something is moral once it is declared good. It is not declared good because it is moral, it is declared good because one feels like it fits the attributes of good, thus making it moral.

 

[Logiclul]

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.

Morality doesn't have to be true, which is good because it cannot. Morality serves one purpose: to give people a subjective view on if they are doing something right or wrong. The good news is that since morality is subjective, they can change these views to better represent what is "good" over the course of time.

what is something "right" and what is something "wrong"? What are these adjectives corresponding to? An action in itself cannot be inherently wrong or right without corresponding to SOMETHING

People decide if something is right and wrong by seeing how well the action corresponds to their definition of good. They define good differently. For instance one may say "whatever is the most fair is good" while another may say "whatever gives respect for all persons is good".

 

[zehydra]

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.

So morality is based off whim. There is no objective morality, no force in the universe that defines what is good and bad. We as humans create these sorts of things to help govern society. Murder is considered wrong not because the universe demands it be so, but because it does little to help society, instead harming it. Take a look at capital punishment. In numerous places it is considered completely fine and fair. It is pretty much legalised murder though. There is no objective 'it is evil' or 'it is good', merely an opinion formed by who you grew up around. If they think its good, you'll most likely think its good. They think its bad, you most likely think its bad.
Morality is not objective. It is the result of people conforming to what society believes is right, and these beliefs differ from place to place.

As an exercise, why is murder wrong? Lets see just how far we can get with this.

No, morality is not necessarily based off of whim. Illogical, or irrational morality is based off of whim. Objective morality is based off of logic.

Murder, in my view is wrong, because morality is all about community. Without a community to live in, there would be no need for self-preservation against members of the community and self-preservation of the community. Murder destroys the community.

 

[MonkeyGH]

@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.

If you agree my statement is fallacious, then you can't also believe it is subjective. If it is truly subjective, then it cannot be fallacious. Something being fallacious implies it is held to a higher objective standard.

There is no perfect cone of ice cream. There is no best martial art.

There is the color blue. There are absolute morals...

 

[Logiclul]

@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.

If you agree my statement is fallacious, then you can't also believe it is subjective. If it is truly subjective, then it cannot be fallacious. Something being fallacious implies it is held to a higher objective standard.

There is no perfect cone of ice cream. There is no best martial art.

There is the color blue. There are absolute morals...

No, because I can now turn around and say that the statement was not fallacious, and I'm still right.

 

[zehydra]

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.

"Morality is whether or not an ACTION is good" good with regards to what exactly?

Ah, the good old Euthyphro Dilemma, you never seem to disappoint.

Is what is moral moral because it is good, or is what is good good because it is moral?

I respond to that question with saying that something is moral once it is declared good. It is not declared good because it is moral, it is declared good because one feels like it fits the attributes of good, thus making it moral.

But doesn't that position seem to stand out in the face of how you would treat the judgement of other things? Like the chair example. You don't say that what you are sitting on is a chair because it is good for sitting on. You say that you are sitting on a chair, because it provides a place for sitting. Whether or not it is a good chair is a different question entirely. This of course provokes the question: Then is not everything anything? Is not the fridge a bad chair? To which I respond, there is more to the idea of "chair" than just the idea of something to sit on. A chair is a device which specializes in the area of being sat on, that is, a device which has no other intended purpose than for sitting.

On a further note, "goodness" has no attributes of its own. It is solely dependent on the subject of which we are talking about.

 

[MonkeyGH]

No, because I can now turn around and say that the statement was not fallacious, and I'm still right.

I'm not following you.

But it's a moot point. I'm going to sleep. Thanks for the convo.

(Oh, and there are moral absolutes...better watch out. )

 

[Logiclul]

But doesn't that position seem to stand out in the face of how you would treat the judgement of other things? Like the chair example. You don't say that what you are sitting on is a chair because it is good for sitting on. You say that you are sitting on a chair, because it provides a place for sitting. Whether or not it is a good chair is a different question entirely. This of course provokes the question: Then is not everything anything? Is not the fridge a bad chair? To which I respond, there is more to the idea of "chair" than just the idea of something to sit on. A chair is a device which specializes in the area of being sat on, that is, a device which has no other intended purpose than for sitting.

On a further note, "goodness" has no attributes of its own. It is solely dependent on the subject of which we are talking about.

So you define good as something which fulfills its purpose? So then that would mean that a missile intended to kill innocents which ends up killing a group of terrorists would be evil, even after its deed?

I define good as something which serves humanity in a positive way as deemed by me.

 

[Logiclul]

No, because I can now turn around and say that the statement was not fallacious, and I'm still right.

I'm not following you.

But it's a moot point. I'm going to sleep. Thanks for the convo.

(Oh, and there are moral absolutes...better watch out. )

I was meaning that I can provide reasoning for why murder is bad and why murder is good, justifying both positions and making them both right.

Good night! I enjoyed talking with you!

 

[Cpu46]

Snip

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...

Ok I admit I was wrong. Morals define society not the other way around. However I do not believe that it starts at Morals, that they are somehow hard wired into our brain. I would argue that we are born with a sense of Empathy. Strong enough to promote the formation of society but weak enough to prevent us from sacrificing our own basic needs for the good of a complete stranger without one of our other needs being satisfied.

 

[MonkeyGH]

I was meaning that I can provide reasoning for why murder is bad and why murder is good, justifying both positions and making them both right.

Good night! I enjoyed talking with you!

Darnit, can't pass this up. One last post. I'll continue tomorrow afterwards if the thread is still going.

With that statement, all you've proven is the usefulness of murder, not whether it's right or wrong.

Murder is wrong. Sure.
Murder can be used for good. Also correct.

But good for whom? The thief indeed does use thievery to make himself happier...doesn't mean it's right. Does he have to acknowledge that it's wrong? Nope. But just like my color-blindness, I don't have to concede that blue is blue to make it the truth.

I don't like how I compared myself to a thief. Doh welll

 

[Smiley Face]

But doesn't that position seem to stand out in the face of how you would treat the judgement of other things? Like the chair example. You don't say that what you are sitting on is a chair because it is good for sitting on. You say that you are sitting on a chair, because it provides a place for sitting. Whether or not it is a good chair is a different question entirely. This of course provokes the question: Then is not everything anything? Is not the fridge a bad chair? To which I respond, there is more to the idea of "chair" than just the idea of something to sit on. A chair is a device which specializes in the area of being sat on, that is, a device which has no other intended purpose than for sitting.

On a further note, "goodness" has no attributes of its own. It is solely dependent on the subject of which we are talking about.

I find it amusing that you're using the example of a chair's definition to defend objective morality. You are on the right track, I feel, in your claim that something is what it is because it fits a certain set of qualities that define it.

So please give us the exhaustive definition of morality. And then explain why it is an absolute, universal truth. Because that is what 'objective morality' means - a set of exhaustive moral rules that are TRUE, independent of what humanity, or anything else, thinks of them. In order to support objective morality, you take on the burden of proof - it's up to you to demonstrate your source of these absolute moral truths that is unchanging and independent of any human interference. Turning the tables and demanding that we prove a negative ignores the facts of the matter, EVEN THOUGH it's possible to all-but prove that same negative.

You're also confusing the word good. There's good as in 'this is a good pie', and good as in 'a good deed'. One indicates superior quality of an article, and the other indicates a moral judgement. Same spelling, different meanings. The good of a 'good chair' is not the good of morality.

 

[MonkeyGH]

I would argue that we are born with a sense of Empathy. Strong enough to promote the formation of society but weak enough to prevent us from sacrificing our own basic needs for the good of a complete stranger without one of our other needs being satisfied.

Empathy towards what? A subjective sense of wrongdoing? Not much use if something hard wired may or may not be true if the system it is used upon is subjective.

Morals would have to be objective and hard wired into our minds in order for empathy to work alongside it, it seems.

 

[Logiclul]

I was meaning that I can provide reasoning for why murder is bad and why murder is good, justifying both positions and making them both right.

Good night! I enjoyed talking with you!

Darnit, can't pass this up. One last post. I'll continue tomorrow afterwards if the thread is still going.

With that statement, all you've proven is the usefulness of murder, not whether it's right or wrong.

Murder is wrong. Sure.
Murder can be used for good. Also correct.

But good for whom? The thief indeed does use thievery to make himself happier...doesn't mean it's right. Does he have to acknowledge that it's wrong? Nope. But just like my color-blindness, I don't have to concede that blue is blue to make it the truth.

I don't like how I compared myself to a thief. Doh welll

If something is used for good, then is it not good? How else do we determine if something is good, if not by the results it produces?

 

[zehydra]

But doesn't that position seem to stand out in the face of how you would treat the judgement of other things? Like the chair example. You don't say that what you are sitting on is a chair because it is good for sitting on. You say that you are sitting on a chair, because it provides a place for sitting. Whether or not it is a good chair is a different question entirely. This of course provokes the question: Then is not everything anything? Is not the fridge a bad chair? To which I respond, there is more to the idea of "chair" than just the idea of something to sit on. A chair is a device which specializes in the area of being sat on, that is, a device which has no other intended purpose than for sitting.

On a further note, "goodness" has no attributes of its own. It is solely dependent on the subject of which we are talking about.

So you define good as something which fulfills its purpose? So then that would mean that a missile intended to kill innocents which ends up killing a group of terrorists would be evil, even after its deed?

I define good as something which serves humanity in a positive way as deemed by me.

but surely you would not accept your "positive way" as arbitrary?

 

[zehydra]

But doesn't that position seem to stand out in the face of how you would treat the judgement of other things? Like the chair example. You don't say that what you are sitting on is a chair because it is good for sitting on. You say that you are sitting on a chair, because it provides a place for sitting. Whether or not it is a good chair is a different question entirely. This of course provokes the question: Then is not everything anything? Is not the fridge a bad chair? To which I respond, there is more to the idea of "chair" than just the idea of something to sit on. A chair is a device which specializes in the area of being sat on, that is, a device which has no other intended purpose than for sitting.

On a further note, "goodness" has no attributes of its own. It is solely dependent on the subject of which we are talking about.

I find it amusing that you're using the example of a chair's definition to defend objective morality. You are on the right track, I feel, in your claim that something is what it is because it fits a certain set of qualities that define it.

So please give us the exhaustive definition of morality. And then explain why it is an absolute, universal truth. Because that is what 'objective morality' means - a set of exhaustive moral rules that are TRUE, independent of what humanity, or anything else, thinks of them. In order to support objective morality, you take on the burden of proof - it's up to you to demonstrate your source of these absolute moral truths that is unchanging and independent of any human interference. Turning the tables and demanding that we prove a negative ignores the facts of the matter, EVEN THOUGH it's possible to all-but prove that same negative.

You're also confusing the word good. There's good as in 'this is a good pie', and good as in 'a good deed'. One indicates superior quality of an article, and the other indicates a moral judgement. Same spelling, different meanings. The good of a 'good chair' is not the good of morality.

here's a part of an objective morality. Morality serves to protect the community and the individual, since morality is something that is taught to individuals by the community. Murder then, must always go against the purpose of morality, and thus be considered "bad". However, some people may disagree with what the purpose or objective of morality is, and may thus have moralities differing from mine. It is not subjective, however, since our moralities do not differ due to our differences in experiences and senses.

I'm not confusing the word good, I'm disagreeing with you on what "good" means.

 

[ACman]

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

The point is that you can't just compare a murderer with a grandmother and claim that moral relativism sees them as the same.

You have to compare like with like. Is an American murderer more morally culpable than a Somali murderer. Moral relativism sees them as not being equivalent. They are both obviously objectively morally wrong but I would not hold a Somali to the same standards as an American.

The second standard is just an example of how culture can be differ when the objective morality is completely neutral.