The Problem With Moral Relativism

[Legion]

(Disclaimer: The following is only a first attempt to express my half-baked thoughts. It is only my opinion at the moment and is subject to change.)

 

The purpose of morality is that it acts as a guide to behavior. More specifically, its purpose is too curb behavior that may be of benefit to the individual but a detriment to the society, and promote behavior which benefits all. As Nietzsche said succinctly in his characteristically moribund style, "Morality is the herd instinct in the individual." Morality directs and constrains. It prohibits options and acts as a barrier.

 

However any glance at history readily produces the fact that morality changes through time and across cultures. What was once prohibited is now acceptable. What was once acceptable is now prohibited. So the barriers implied by morality are not immutable, just as societies are not immutable. This is the seed of moral relativism.

 

Now here is the problem as I see it. At any given moment in time the barriers placed on behavior by morality must be effectively immutable lest they loose their ability to constrain. Thus moral relativism has become for many a way to rationalize their immoral behavior.

 

Now rip me a new one.

[MereChristian]

I essentially agree. I take it as a matter of faith that morality is objective and not subject to change, simply because I instinctively feel this to be true, and I see it as far better to advocate than moral relativism. Now, obviously, individual situations complicate matters, but there is still right and wrong, or, as I like to think of it, virtuous behavior and unvirtuous behavior. I don't think certain acts are intrinsically wrong, but I think there are attitudes and behaviors that it is better to cultivate than not.

[Guest Valkyrie0010]

I essentially agree. I take it as a matter of faith that morality is objective and not subject to change, simply because I instinctively feel this to be true, and I see it as far better to advocate than moral relativism. Now, obviously, individual situations complicate matters, but there is still right and wrong, or, as I like to think of it, virtuous behavior and unvirtuous behavior. I don't think certain acts are intrinsically wrong, but I think there are attitudes and behaviors that it is better to cultivate than not.

what about sin then in the christian case. Isn't to paraphrase, then end of first john, all wrongdoing a sin

[Guest Valkyrie0010]

Depends on what changing really, and also what is in question.

 

The crimes of hitler will never be moral, but homosexuality might be. Though, we will always have basic moral ethics, like don't murder, otherwise we would not have survived are evolution,

[MereChristian]

If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death, he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that he should pray about that. All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death.

 

Two things:

 

1) What is 'wrongdoing' here? Is he really saying, e.g., lying in every circumstance is wrong? Couldn't he as easily be saying that all unvirtuous behavior is a sin?

 

2) You already know how I take the Bible, man. I don't think it's a precise, literalistic handbook.

[Legion]

I take it as a matter of faith that morality is objective and not subject to change,...

I know you qualified this statement MC, but I have to disagree. It seems to me that objectivity is about what IS, morality is about what SHOULD BE. There is no way to scrub it of our subjective values.

[MereChristian]

I take it as a matter of faith that morality is objective and not subject to change,...

I know you qualified this statement MC, but I have to disagree. It seems to me that objectivity is about what IS, morality is about what SHOULD BE. There is no way to scrub it of our subjective values.

 

Well, that's a linguistic difference, I think, not a substantial one. I agree that morality is about what should be. I'm not particularly attached to the word 'objective'.

[Guest Valkyrie0010]

If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death, he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that he should pray about that. All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death.

 

Two things:

 

1) What is 'wrongdoing' here? Is he really saying, e.g., lying in every circumstance is wrong? Couldn't he as easily be saying that all unvirtuous behavior is a sin?

 

2) You already know how I take the Bible, man. I don't think it's a precise, literalistic handbook.

 

Stuff that is not what God wants, name a few interesting ones, masturbation, polyester, women being a leader in household.

 

These are considered wrong and unvirtous. If you say the bible is relativistic, then how are these wrong.

Commandments that are supposed to be from God.

[MereChristian]

If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death, he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that he should pray about that. All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death.

 

Two things:

 

1) What is 'wrongdoing' here? Is he really saying, e.g., lying in every circumstance is wrong? Couldn't he as easily be saying that all unvirtuous behavior is a sin?

 

2) You already know how I take the Bible, man. I don't think it's a precise, literalistic handbook.

 

Stuff that is not what God wants, name a few interesting ones, masturbation, polyester, women being a leader in household.

 

These are considered wrong and unvirtous. If you say the bible is relativistic, then how are these wrong.

Commandments that are supposed to be from God.

 

I'm just making a note that I answered this in the shoutbox.

[Not4Prophet]

I take it as a matter of faith that morality is objective and not subject to change,...

I know you qualified this statement MC, but I have to disagree. It seems to me that objectivity is about what IS, morality is about what SHOULD BE. There is no way to scrub it of our subjective values.

 

 

I have to disagree.

If a person can establish for themselves a standard which is not elastic... which then admits to cherry picking and then embraces what they feel is best... without resorting to revising the need to cherry pick for justification, then that is not much different from an atheist picking what they believe is a proper, inflexible standard based on their own criteria.

 

If I can live with the fact that Stalin was an atheist, and disagree with his actions, then a christian can say, "okay... Joshua was a really bad PR nightmare but parts of this book have some merit..." That is hugely different from inerrancy.

[MereChristian]

If it isn't objective, then we can just say it's not subject to change. Again, I think this is a semantic problem.

[Vigile]

Now here is the problem as I see it. At any given moment in time the barriers placed on behavior by morality must be effectively immutable lest they loose their ability to constrain. Thus moral relativism has become for many a way to rationalize their immoral behavior.

 

Yeah, so?

 

It's not as if individuals can just change it on a whim. It's a social construct, which requires something of a consensus before it occurs.

 

I find some of my own culture's sense of morality to be immoral.

 

I guess I don't get your point. What other options are there?

[Vigile]

I essentially agree. I take it as a matter of faith that morality is objective and not subject to change, simply because I instinctively feel this to be true, and I see it as far better to advocate than moral relativism. Now, obviously, individual situations complicate matters, but there is still right and wrong, or, as I like to think of it, virtuous behavior and unvirtuous behavior. I don't think certain acts are intrinsically wrong, but I think there are attitudes and behaviors that it is better to cultivate than not.

 

Which objective morality would that be? Denial of rights based on sexual orientation? Slavery? Encouraging guilt for normal biological urges? Refusal to believe without evidence?

 

BTW, I've never met anyone who subscribes to objective morality regardless of what they may claim.

[Legion]

What other options are there?

 

Good question in my opinion Vigile. I am leaning towards Kant's work at the moment. But in no way does it circumscribe specific behaviors, or lay out numerous prohibitions.

[Vigile]

What other options are there?

 

Good question in my opinion Vigile. I am leaning towards Kant's work at the moment. But in no way does it circumscribe specific behaviors, or lay out numerous prohibitions.

 

I've studied Kant but even so my understanding of his philosophy is probably elementary. That said, it seems to me it's like using a sledge hammer to kill an ant.

 

As I understand it, Kant argued a categorical imperative; if the cashier gives me back an extra .25 and I don't say anything about it, would I that the world were based on stealing? I would hardly equate my laziness to walk back into the store and give back a bit of extra change with a theftocracy such as exists in places like Nigeria.

 

According to Kant, again my understanding, watching a movie online is no different than robbing a liqueur store.

 

Is lying always immoral? Is it ever wrong to steal a loaf of bread? Is it always wrong to break the law?

 

Seems to me that relativity always comes into play when it comes to morality. Maybe Kant addressed this, but what I've studied indicates he was pretty black and white.

 

Frankly I think Rousseau offered a more useful look at morality than Kant. He recognized social contracts. He argued law is developed based on the general will of the people in a particular society.

 

Our system of law is of course influenced by both these men. Kant's philosophy is probably found in DEA policy for instance whereas Rousseau's philosophy can be viewed in our system of legal precedence and generally describes the contract citizens make with their representative government. Again, I find Rousseau more useful and reasonable here.

[Skankboy]

If it isn't objective, then we can just say it's not subject to change. Again, I think this is a semantic problem.

 

I'm sorry, but no matter how you describe the idea you are trying to convey (objective, eternal, unchanging, etc.), it doesn't line up with what history shows us. Morality varies from region to region, from nation to nation and through time as well. That very fact, in my opinion, negates the possiblity of any unchanging morality. Indeed, unchanging morality would be harmful to us as a species as it woudn't provide the flexibility humans need to survive under so many different conditions.

 

Everything you consider completely wrong was condoned by a society somewhere at some point. Can we say that these societies were immoral? Sure, from our ponit of view. But that's just the point, it's from our relative point of view. For most if not all of the people in those societies, anything else would have been viewed as immoral.

[MereChristian]

Which objective morality would that be? Denial of rights based on sexual orientation? Slavery? Encouraging guilt for normal biological urges? Refusal to believe without evidence?

 

You make me lol hard.

 

Thanks for assuming.

[Vigile]

Which objective morality would that be? Denial of rights based on sexual orientation? Slavery? Encouraging guilt for normal biological urges? Refusal to believe without evidence?

 

You make me lol hard.

 

Thanks for assuming.

 

I'm not assuming anything. I based this on both the bible and the mainstream xian's positions on these matters both present and past.

 

Enlighten me. What is objective morality?

[MereChristian]

Which objective morality would that be? Denial of rights based on sexual orientation? Slavery? Encouraging guilt for normal biological urges? Refusal to believe without evidence?

 

You make me lol hard.

 

Thanks for assuming.

 

I'm not assuming anything. I based this on both the bible and the mainstream xian's positions on these matters both present and past.

 

Enlighten me. What is objective morality?

 

Just this: that some acts (e.g. rape) are so heinous that by their very nature no moral justification exists. They should not be done. Not merely in my opinion your opinion or His Holiness Pope Shenouda III's opinion, but period.

 

With other acts, it gets a little hard to judge, but there is a firm polarization.

[Vigile]

Which objective morality would that be? Denial of rights based on sexual orientation? Slavery? Encouraging guilt for normal biological urges? Refusal to believe without evidence?

 

You make me lol hard.

 

Thanks for assuming.

 

I'm not assuming anything. I based this on both the bible and the mainstream xian's positions on these matters both present and past.

 

Enlighten me. What is objective morality?

 

Just this: that some acts (e.g. rape) are so heinous that by their very nature no moral justification exists. They should not be done. Not merely in my opinion your opinion or His Holiness Pope Shenouda III's opinion, but period.

 

With other acts, it gets a little hard to judge, but there is a firm polarization.

 

Surely you know that a valid scenario can be developed where even rape can be justified morally. For instance, a plane hijacker threatens to bring down the plane unless you rape the stewardess. It may not be likely, but nevertheless.

 

That basic human need dictates the vast majority would agree on certain basic principles in no way implies that morality is immutable. Even xian morality has evolved over the past two centuries. Quite dramatically in fact.

[Ouroboros]

Just this: that some acts (e.g. rape) are so heinous that by their very nature no moral justification exists. They should not be done. Not merely in my opinion your opinion or His Holiness Pope Shenouda III's opinion, but period.

So how do you know what should not be done?

 

How and when did rape become a sin in Christian theology? Have you read the Old Testament's law regarding rape, and the penalties? And then compare the penalties to the case of a disobedient son.

 

With other acts, it gets a little hard to judge, but there is a firm polarization.

Not quite.

 

Because the problem with rape is: what exactly is the definition of rape?

 

It's easy to throw out a word which has a huge baggage of connotations, but without the accurate denotation, it becomes meaningless as an example.

[Ouroboros]

What other options are there?

 

Good question in my opinion Vigile. I am leaning towards Kant's work at the moment. But in no way does it circumscribe specific behaviors, or lay out numerous prohibitions.

I think Kant did a good job, and I think other principles are good too. To me, it has been helpful to use several of them and not just one. Morality isn't black and white. There are moral dilemmas where no good outcome is the result.

 

There's a hypothetical situation where Kant's categorical imperative doesn't work. If you were a good person living under Hitler, and some Jews came to you to hide. You hid them in your cellar, and the SS Gestapo came to your door and asked if you had seen any Jews. According to Kant, you should not lie, but you should tell them you're hiding the Jews. That's how the categorical imperative works, you must always follow it, and lying is one "sin," while ratting someone out and causing his or her death is not.

[Shyone]

 

Now here is the problem as I see it. At any given moment in time the barriers placed on behavior by morality must be effectively immutable lest they loose their ability to constrain. Thus moral relativism has become for many a way to rationalize their immoral behavior.

 

Now rip me a new one.

Ok, let's examine what you are saying:

 

1. "barriers placed on behavior" would be social constraints, laws, traditions, teachings, etc. all of which presumeably agree, or at least closely agree, but each form of barrier has its own "strength" as a barrier. Laws are stronger than traditions.

2. Immutable: unchanging, but not necessarily eternally unchanging. "Stable" would be what I think you mean. No?

 

Christians claim that those who believe in moral relativism "rationalize their immoral behavior" but I have seen no evidence that moral relativists (e.g. atheists) are more immoral that Christians when we speak of nonreligious morality.

 

Whether we wish for their to be eternally immutable morality or not, it is clear that any particular moral standard is not eternal, but may change upon reconsideration and reevalution (or changing circumstances). Slavery is a good example, but what about the death penalty which is still legal in the United States, but not in much of the rest of the world? Can you predict which moral standard will prevail?

 

The unchanging nature of morality is at least in part due to the "barriers" which we set up to enforce those behaviors. Laws are hard to change and, for a time, they are effectively immutable (i.e. stable). Like Prohibition. This also applies to any other societal standard. The nature of humans is to want consistency (as your post implies), and so we tend to stick with our version of morality for at least a generation and perhaps beyond if our teaching is effective.

[Vigile]

Christians claim that those who believe in moral relativism "rationalize their immoral behavior" but I have seen no evidence that moral relativists (e.g. atheists) are more immoral that Christians when we speak of nonreligious morality.

 

Not only that but xians are moral relativists in practice as well despite what they preach. We all are. Life would be intolerable without subjective interpretation of morality.

 

In the few areas where xians don't bend, they become intolerable.

[Brakeman]

Which objective morality would that be? Denial of rights based on sexual orientation? Slavery? Encouraging guilt for normal biological urges? Refusal to believe without evidence?

 

You make me lol hard.

 

Thanks for assuming.

 

I'm not assuming anything. I based this on both the bible and the mainstream xian's positions on these matters both present and past.

 

Enlighten me. What is objective morality?

 

Just this: that some acts (e.g. rape) are so heinous that by their very nature no moral justification exists. They should not be done. Not merely in my opinion your opinion or His Holiness Pope Shenouda III's opinion, but period.

 

With other acts, it gets a little hard to judge, but there is a firm polarization.

 

Surely you know that a valid scenario can be developed where even rape can be justified morally. For instance, a plane hijacker threatens to bring down the plane unless you rape the stewardess. It may not be likely, but nevertheless.

 

That basic human need dictates the vast majority would agree on certain basic principles in no way implies that morality is immutable. Even xian morality has evolved over the past two centuries. Quite dramatically in fact.

 

I used to raise ferrets. The male ferret rapes the female ferret. The female struggles to escape and wants no part of it. You can tell that a female has been bred by the missing hair on her nape and many scratches and cuts.

Yet without the rape there would be no furthering of the species.

 

If Women around the world suddenly wanted no part of men, would we men willingly allow Homo sapiens to vanish without morally sanctioned rape? I don't think so.