Glass Joe said:
[quote:]The moral relativist believes that ethical truths are relative to groups smaller than humanity as a whole. Moral relativism is the view that what determines the truth or falsity of moral beliefs is just what is endorsed by the prevailing culture. According to moral relativism, moral truths are made by the dominant view in a society, not merely propagated by the dominant culture.
To allow just one fundamental universal ethical truth that is independent of the say so of individuals or groups is to abandon relativism in favor of a realist view of ethical truth.
Sometimes our view about the moral status of some practice changes. A person might, for instance, think that eating meat is morally unproblematic at one time and then become convinced that animals deserve some kind of moral regard that speaks against eating meat. When a person?s moral views change in this fashion, they do not merely drop one moral belief in favor of another. Typically, they also hold that their previous moral view was mistaken. They take themselves to have discovered something new about what is morally right. Likewise, then the prevalent moral belief in a society undergoes a significant change, as in the civil rights movement, we are inclined to see this as a change for the better. But the relativist cannot account for changes in our moral beliefs being changes for the better. This is because the relativist recognizes no independent standard of goodness against which the new prevalent moral beliefs can be judged to be better than the old prevalent moral beliefs.
A closely related problem for moral relativism is the moral reformer's dilemma. We recognize a few remarkable individuals as moral reformers, people who, we think, improved the moral condition of their society in some way. Common examples might include, Buddha, Jesus, Ghandi or Martin Luther King. While the relativist can allow that these individuals changed the moral views of their societies, none can be said to have changed their societies for the better according to the relativist. Again, this is because the societal moral relativist recognizes no standard of moral goodness independent of what is accepted in a society according to which a society that has changed can be judged to have changed for the better. A relativist that takes ethical truth to be relative to the dominant view in a society seems to be committed to taking institutionalized racism to be morally right relative to per-civil rights American society and wrong relative to post civil rights American society. But since standards of goodness are determined by the prevalent views in a society, there is no standard goodness to appeal to in judging that the change our society underwent in the civil rights movement is a change for the better. According to societal moral relativism, anyone who takes Martin Luther King to have improved American society by leading it to reject institutionalized racism is just mistaken about the nature of ethical truth.
http://personal.bellevuecollege.edu/wpayne/Moral%20Relativism.htm
Do moral relativists believe that no society can change for the better? Are we just as moral now as we were in slavery days or when we were living in tribes? Are the Nazis morally justified? I believe not. Happy MLK day everybody!
Edit: A lot of people are arguing for individual moral relativism. I would then ask, is it possible to grow as an individual and become a better person? Why should one work harder or improve the lives of those around him if it is equally moral not to? If one always chooses to do the right thing from somewhere within himself, what is the source of that preference, and is it common among men?[/quote]
Of course I'll respond! First I'll explain why Payne's argument is wrong, then I'll get to your questions:
He first assumes that it is possible to have no moral for a situation and still make decisions based on it. If one eats meat, then they have a moral code which allows them to do so. That is to say, that they feel "one may eat animal as it is basic nourishment", or something similar, as most people have SOME view on the subject. And if we take that class, and narrow to meat-eaters, then we will find in Payne's example that if they become vegan, that they are then DROPPING one moral principle for another.
There is a way for society to improve, and that is for it to change to reflect the majority's moral beliefs when it does not. Slavery didn't end because the moral code which says no slavery all of the sudden spoke up and said "what the hell are you guys doing", it ended because the majority finally had the moral code which said "slavery is wrong". Their moral code finally changed.
That society was indeed moral from a subjective standpoint of the time. Using our current morals they weren't moral of course, however morals, being subjective and based off of experience, change.
The Nazis were, subjectively, morally justified. They were a minority acting on their moral principles just as MLK was a minority acting on his. I can compare MLK and Nazis because they were indeed doing the same thing: trying to drastically change a society to fit their moral principles. We think of MLK as just and Nazis as evil because the Nazis' failed and MLK succeeded.
A subjectively 'better' person is one who follows his own moral beliefs more accurately in life. An objectively 'better' person is one who follows the basic moral beliefs which the strong majority all possess more accurately in life.
It is moral to improve the lives of those around you most likely. It is doing good for your neighbor, it is lending a helping hand. I don't understand this point.
I already have explained the source of the preference, you'll have to find that post for yourself, but it is in response to Gregrench or something, and uses Axiom i, Theorem p, and Set T as examples.
