Moral Relativity?

[Grichnoch]

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?

Tell him that moral relativity, while completely valid, is an an idealistic scenario that never addresses the consequences. Everyone assumes that morals exist simply to tell us what is right and wrong. While they do this, they do it for a reason; that is to help support and build social groups. Imagine a world where everyone didn't blink an eye at the idea of murdering, stealing, and so forth if it benefited them. It is unlikely society would have reached the point it has; or if the species would exist at all if this were the case.

Now he may state something to the effect that piracy isn't nearly as detrimental to society as physical theft or murder and couldn't possibly lead to the downfall of civilization. However that wasn't the argument he made, he made a argument for moral relativism, which is an impractical approach on real world situations. It also makes the assumptions that morals are a construct of the individual, which is arguably wrong and thus the entire argument can be said to be unsound.

I could go on, but I'll leave it with these brief remarks. Philosophical ideas, such as moral relativism, should be used to define, predict, categorize, explain, and so forth. It shouldn't be used as a scapegoat to do whatever you want as it is both meaningless and dangerous (you can use valid, and even sound arguments to justify virtually every action, even conflicting actions). The whole point of moral relativity is to state that morals are inherently meaningless as they are subject to each individuals viewpoint. However this is arguably not the case. Morals can be said to extend beyond an individual and are controlled by and in a sense created on a social group level.

While you're heading in the right direction, there ares still some things that need adressing.

How is this supposed to work? If a social group decides morals ultimately, then one of two things can happen:

1. Everyone who is completely and totally like-minded (and nobody truly is) gravitates toward each other, therefore forming so-called "utopias"... which we know don't exist, and therefore discount that idea.

2. People can't totally agree, and therefore, even if the majority decides on subjective morals, those morals become objective and absolute for the indivdiuals inside the group, and for those that don't totally agree with the morals forced upon them, the whole point of moral relatavism goes out the door cause their morals don't count, but other's do. So while you're idea saves subjective morality on one level, it destroys it on a fundamental level, because all of a sudden an objective moral system is forced onto individuals.(That said, I am not arguing for subjective morals).

 

[Grichnoch]

Great wall of text

"subjective morals still allow people to agree while also causing disagreements."

You and I already determined that objective things allow that as well...(colors).

Your entire argument against Grich could be applied to almost anything. Colors. Shapes. Things you previously listed as objective.

What is your criteria for something objective?

No, what we determined is that objective morality can not exist, as there are moral disagreements wherein both sides of the argument are morally sound.

You'll have to explain how my argument can be applied to shapes, and how shapes are objectively moral (???).

Also this captcha is ridiculous. There's no way I can read that.

Wait, we haven't determined that objective morality can't exist, you did, and that does not make it true.

What Monkey is saying is that just because we can disagree under a system of subjectiveness, does not mean that we can't also disagree under a system of objectivity. So saying that we can still disagree under subjectivity is not your ticket to heaven.

Monkey brought colors and shapes into it because they are things we know to be objective. But even though they are objective, we can see them subjectively. If I look at a cube with each side a different color, I can say I see a cube that is red, white, and black, but you might see white, black, and yellow because you are at a different angle. That does not change what the cube is.

The same with morality, what you believe to be true about morality does not change what it really is. How you react to moral law does not dictate what moral law is.

 

[Grichnoch]

Neither relative or absolute morality are perfect. Relative allows people like Hitler to do what they do with a clear conscience, but according to absolute morality, killing him would have been a sin.

Because what Hitler did was not objectively "bad". We as humans decided that, for our preservation, unmitigated murder was a bad thing to do, so we created a morality to uphold that idea.

Wrong. Like Jakub said: "Relative allows people like Hitler to do what they do with a clear conscience."

You all are working under the assumption that all killing is murder. This is not the case. During wartime, it would have been perfectly reasonable to kill Hitler, it would not have been murder, because we were at war. He would have been a casualty. Capital punishment is not murder, it is justified consequences. Medically necessary abortion (to save the mother... ONLY) is not murder. So saying that objective morals dictate that killing Hitler would have been wrong is flawed, because in the case of wartime, killing is not murder, it is war.

 

[theheroofaction]

I mean, to avoid flaming between any other moral objectionists as to where exactly the line is crossed I'll invoke godwin.
Now, we all hate the third reich,right?
They're a relatively small group who did what just about everyone would agree is wrong to what is a much larger group, that being everyone else.
Hence, they are objectively bad, pretty simple logic to that.

Wrong - you can find people who wouldn't agree with you. You can only determine that 3rd reich was wrong subjectivily. And judging from how people feel about the atrocities done by the US past to present, I'd say that had the Axis won the war, most people would be ok with what had taken place.

Like I said, I only picked them because they were somebody we could all agree to hate. That is, a group set out specifically for the elimination of all other groups.

It's groups for whom that isn't the motive that things get a little ambiguous.

Moreover, I never said that the popular opinion is always right, I was just using something we all love hating.

 

[Grichnoch]

Neither relative or absolute morality are perfect. Relative allows people like Hitler to do what they do with a clear conscience, but according to absolute morality, killing him would have been a sin.

That's a horrible misunderstanding of what both relative morality and moral absolutism are.

Moral relativity does not 'allow' people to do anything at all. Further, it's counterpart would be moral universalism, not moral absolutism. Moral relativity is a meta-ethical stance.

Moral absolutism would not necessarily say that killing Hitler is wrong. Moral absolutism says that at least on particular principle should never be violated, regardless of the circumstances. It is not necessary for someone who believes in moral absolutism to have their absolute principle be that no one should ever be killed.

Wrong again. Relative morality *does* allow anyone to do what they want and justify it(in theory). Otherwise, what is the purpose of it?
It may not allow a person to do what they want in actuality(because various things [such as law enforcement] would stop them), but it allows them to hypothetically justify anything they want.
Secondly you are assuming again that kill = murder. It does not. To say that moral relatavists believe that all killing is wrong always is not true. We do believe that murder is wrong, but only under the proper definition of murder. We do believe that we(meaning humanity) are held to a strict code of conduct as defined by the morals we live by, but for you to make such specific comments such as "no one should ever be killed" is inaccurate and you should check your sources or have a serious talk with an 'absolutest'.

 

[El Presidente]

To an extent it's true, yes. There are things such as murder, rape and theft that are generally agreed upon to be evil, the "moral relativity" card is moot in those situations. On the other hand there are smaller things like gambling or sex outside of marriage where morals differ from person to person. For that kind of thing, moral relativity is applicable as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Grichnoch]

I am choosing to opt out of this conversation because I can see that you all want to embrace blatant logic errors. Having come from multiple logic courses and hours spent studying the topic, I find it impossible to converse with someone who finds in nesseccary to suspend the laws of logic in order to make a point. I mean to insult noone here, but it is true. I am arguing based on the rock solid principles of universal logic, whereas you are suspending it completely, like El Presidente saying that morals are aboslute sometimes, but relative at others... Hmmm.

Thanks for the discussion.

 

[ThreeWords]

This [http://xkcd.com/103/] immediately springs to mind. I may not be the first to bring it up, but I think it important to note that you're thinking of Moral Relativism.

 

[Grichnoch]

Neither relative or absolute morality are perfect. Relative allows people like Hitler to do what they do with a clear conscience, but according to absolute morality, killing him would have been a sin.

That's a horrible misunderstanding of what both relative morality and moral absolutism are.

Moral relativity does not 'allow' people to do anything at all. Further, it's counterpart would be moral universalism, not moral absolutism. Moral relativity is a meta-ethical stance.

Moral absolutism would not necessarily say that killing Hitler is wrong. Moral absolutism says that at least on particular principle should never be violated, regardless of the circumstances. It is not necessary for someone who believes in moral absolutism to have their absolute principle be that no one should ever be killed.

Wrong again. Relative morality *does* allow anyone to do what they want and justify it(in theory). Otherwise, what is the purpose of it?

What do you mean 'again'?

Anyway, moral relativity doesn't allow anything. It's a position on the truth value of a moral statement.

Also, "Othrwise, what is the purpose of it?" is a terrible argument. It's an argument from ignorance. It also ignores that moral relativity doesn't need a purpose, it's a stance on the nature of ethics. Might as well ask the purpose of knowing a star exists a billion light years away.

It may not allow a person to do what they want in actuality(because various things [such as law enforcement] would stop them), but it allows them to hypothetically justify anything they want.

It doesn't ALLOW it hypothetically. It's not an ethical stance. It's a meta-ethical stance.

Secondly you are assuming again that kill = murder. It does not. To say that moral relatavists believe that all killing is wrong always is not true.

Actually "Never murder" isn't very much a moral absolutist principle because it is context specific, while moral absolutism ignores context. So I picked the word 'kill' rather carefully there.

I also didn't say that moral absolutists believe that all killing is wrong. Good grief, can you at least read my post before replying to me? I only said something about killing in reference to moral absolutists and even then I outright said that they needn't take that as a principle.

We do believe that murder is wrong, but only under the proper definition of murder.

Oh hahaha. You're trying to speak for moral relativists' ethical positions? Give me a break. You can't because moral relativism doesn't have any specific associated ethics.

We do believe that we(meaning humanity) are held to a strict code of conduct as defined by the morals we live by, but for you to make such specific comments such as "no one should ever be killed" is inaccurate and you should check your sources or have a serious talk with an 'absolutest'.

Oh so you're speaking for absolutists? Well they need a representative that can read basic things like me saying that they needn't pick a principle saying all killing is wrong. Oops.

Anyway, you're no representative of absolutists. That you made an ethical claim on behalf of all of them just goes to show that you don't even know how a moral absolutist is defined.

Hmmm. It's a common rule of the art of debate (which I have studied extensively), that the losing party always resorts to insults and accusations of ignorance when they know they are losing. Thanks for boosting my confidence and solidifying my standpoint Mortai. Your comments only serve as
1. Another case of 'debate loser tactics'
2. Insight showing me I am getting to you and you know it.

Thanks again!

Have a good afternoon all!

 

[Phisi]

I tend to lean towards Moral nihilism but I do believe there are rules and order that society creates and uses to survive, depending on the society, I don't think a communist (Marxist) society would have the same rules of ownership as a capitalist one. Also ethics and other jazzy stuff regarding humans as special and stuff... What were we talking about again?

 

[baconfist]

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.

Not sure If I would say that pirates are a minority. Personally I don't think I've ever met a person who hasn't pirated at least one song.

Also morality and law are really two different things. Morals are things you follow because you feel that they are the right thing to do. Laws you must follow or face the courts.

But laws are based on morals, or else they wouldn't exist. You can't tell an officer: "Well yes sir, I broke in to this house, but I think it was morally ok to that." He would say: "No, it wasn't. The law decides right and wrong, not you."

I would argue that most laws are based on practicality. I could tell an officer that breaking into a house was moral and if he shared my view strongly he would let me go.

Morals change quite often, and they are simply a reflection of current public opinion in a given area.

 

[ThreeWords]

Hmmm. It's a common rule of the art of debate (which I have studied extensively), that the losing party always resorts to insults and accusations of ignorance when they know they are losing. Thanks for boosting my confidence and solidifying my standpoint Mortai. Your comments only serve as
1. Another case of 'debate loser tactics'
2. Insight showing me I am getting to you and you know it.

Thanks again!

Have a good afternoon all!

I thought people who have no answers fall back on non-answers to attempt to humiliate their opponent.

Like you just did.

I have to say that Gravesend knows what he's talking about, but I don't need to repeat his words. He can fight his own battles, assuming you actually manage to find grounds to argue.

 

[MonkeyGH]

Morals change quite often, and they are simply a reflection of current public opinion in a given area.

Sure. Examples? What are some morals that have "changed" recently?

Also, what's your source for saying that? Where can I find the information to inform me that some specific moral has changed today?

 

[Cpu46]

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.

em·pa·thy   [em-puh-thee]
noun
1.
the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.

We feel empathy with others. We know how it feels to be slighted so we are less likely to slight others. People with less empathy will slight others more often while people with more will forego their own benefit to make sure they don't slight someone else. It is more or less the golden rule in its purest form.

How it feels to be slighted? As in something wrong? I thought that was subjective.

Slighted as in being deprived of something you have come to expect or deprived of one of your basic needs. Not at all subjective.

And you're saying that in no way relates to something of the moral variety? It's just straight up, basic need things?

No, I am not. My example dealt with basic needs.

To put it in the simplest I can. You know something is wrong because you don't want it to happen to you. You know that you don't want it to happen to you from both personal and observed experience. Empathy is what keeps you from doing it to someone else.