The Problem With Moral Relativism

[Guest end3]

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.

 

Can we call it rape in the animal kingdom? Do we know that the "agression" doesn't trigger some physiological response in the female ferret. Not that I have raised the little boogers, but I thought I would ask.

[Guest end3]

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.

 

Damn it, this is twice in recent days to agree with Vigile.....and I may be wrong, but can moral relativism be labeled grace in some Christian instances? I mean....where's the line except through discernment of the situation.

[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.

 

Can we call it rape in the animal kingdom? Do we know that the "agression" doesn't trigger some physiological response in the female ferret. Not that I have raised the little boogers, but I thought I would ask.

 

I would think that the idea of imposed sex as kind of a universal idea, so I would consider it rape. The Female comes into heat very strongly, and without mating, she may die due to an ever weakening imune system response to the extended heat session, or so it was explained to me. But I have observed the act dozens of times and I can say that without fail, if at any time the female can get away, she will. I don't know why that is.

 

Also, I think that the women on this board would attest, that they would consider a rape a rape no mater of the victims physiological response. I.e. Its still rape no matter how Masterful the man is with his tool. I mean, the woman may wish to forgive his initial rape, if he were to be totally mind-blowing, but that doesn't make the initiation of the act not rape.

[Dagan]

Morality is pretty simple to me.

 

If it hurts someone else, it's wrong.

 

If it hurts yourself, it's wrong.

 

Of course, there are lots of "what if" scenarios where it becomes necessary to hurt someone or yourself. In those cases, I figure the best way to proceed is to decide whether the short-term pain is better than the long-term pain. Will a little hurt now reduce a lot of hurt later?

[oddbird1963]

I think moral relativism is pretty much inevitable. Why? Relativism reflects the truth of the nature of things.

 

Sure, there are many points of overlap between different cultures' sense of morality both in the current time and in times past. These might possibly be called enduring moral principles, but I don't think of them as eternal. I certainly don't believe they are objective in the sense that there is one set of principles that exists authoritatively outside of culture and applies to all cultures and all times.

 

Moral Objectivism is wishful thinking, born of a desire to avoid the constant dialog, development of empathy, and training in ethical thinking required to avoid civilization slipping into a dark ages of oppression and conflict.

 

I think the idea of objective morality belongs in the trash heap with the concept of God. It is an understandable concept from primitive, pre-scientific days. But now we know more about the universe. It's time to put away false, disproved concepts that have outlived their usefulness.

[Shyone]

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.

 

Damn it, this is twice in recent days to agree with Vigile.....and I may be wrong, but can moral relativism be labeled grace in some Christian instances? I mean....where's the line except through discernment of the situation.

Grace doesn't mean much to me anymore, but I'll grant that Christians use moral relativism when they "discern a situation" and refer to their own moral precepts. I think Christians get their moral precepts from selectively absorbing moral rules from a variety of sources as do we all.

 

When the Christian gets it right, I'll call that grace. Until Christians drop the bigotry, hate, prejudice and hypocrisy, I'll call it "ungrace".

 

As in, many Christians are "ungraceful."

[chefranden]

(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.

 

Since we are herd (troop) animals this isn't surprising. Nietzsche had syphilis which colored his thinking in dark oils rather than sunny pastels. I often bitch about people being sheep, but we are sheep so what should I expect?

 

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.

 

From a evolutionary perspective it makes sense that morals be somewhat situationally relative while at the same time resistant to change. This makes the species somewhat more adaptable then a social species that always must relate in certain ways.

 

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.

 

Morality is always a problem because there are conflicting goods. Morality doesn't just have to decide between good and bad behaviors. That would be pretty easy. Morality has to decide between good and good and between bad and bad. That's what causes trouble.

 

In 60 years of experience I've found that people are not very relativistic about their morals. They pretty much stick to their rules, which are not necessarily the rules they may vocalize. That is I've never known anyone to get up each morning and rationalize a new set of rules.

 

That doesn't mean that folks don't use relativism to explain why their rules are what they are. This is not necessarily bad. Coming to the conclusion that slavery is evil was a relativistic moral change.

 

If I were explaining to a fundy why it is wrong to discriminate against gays he could argue that I was being relativistic to rationalize my point of view. On the other hand I could make the same argument. Both are making our arguments relative to how we understand the situation. Our arguments could well take the form of calling attention to the situation as we each saw it. The fundy's situation would include sin, and mine wouldn't. However our rationalizations wouldn't mean that either of us disrespected our own moral rules.

[Legion]

I think there have been many excellent posts here. Valk, MC, N4P, Vigile, Skankboy, Hans, Shyone, Jabbrwokk, Oddbird, for sake of expediency I am focusing on Chef's post here. But I think all of you have made salient points.

 

Since we are herd (troop) animals this isn't surprising. Nietzsche had syphilis which colored his thinking in dark oils rather than sunny pastels. I often bitch about people being sheep, but we are sheep so what should I expect?

Yes, it is easy to agree that we are social animals. I am somewhat resentful of Nietzsche in this quote for coloring this fact so negatively (e.g. herd). I think it has been of immense evolutionary advantage that we often cooperate in groups. And so I think that morality, in so far as it promotes cohesiveness, is a positive thing.

 

I think moral relativism can give the impression that morality is almost entirely arbitrary. But this cannot be the case according to my reasoning because morality serves a purpose, it has a function. And those guides to behavior which fail to fullfil this function cease to be moral.

[Guest Valkyrie0010]

I find it interesting, that Legion, if the problem you state is true, the same applies to theism. It is why doctrine in today's Christianity or Islam is not the same as say in the day of the puritans or whatever situation Muslims were in.

[Guest end3]

I think there have been many excellent posts here. Valk, MC, N4P, Vigile, Skankboy, Hans, Shyone, Jabbrwokk, Oddbird, for sake of expediency I am focusing on Chef's post here. But I think all of you have made salient points.

 

Since we are herd (troop) animals this isn't surprising. Nietzsche had syphilis which colored his thinking in dark oils rather than sunny pastels. I often bitch about people being sheep, but we are sheep so what should I expect?

Yes, it is easy to agree that we are social animals. I am somewhat resentful of Nietzsche in this quote for coloring this fact so negatively (e.g. herd). I think it has been of immense evolutionary advantage that we often cooperate in groups. And so I think that morality, in so far as it promotes cohesiveness, is a positive thing.

 

I think moral relativism can give the impression that morality is almost entirely arbitrary. But this cannot be the case according to my reasoning because morality serves a purpose, it has a function. And those guides to behavior which fail to fullfil this function cease to be moral.

 

So what do you deem the larger end to morality, the perpetuation of life?

[oddbird1963]

 

 

So what do you deem the larger end to morality, the perpetuation of life?

 

 

The larger end to morality is the perpetuation of life in that it seems designed to reduce the chaos that comes from people seeking vengeance of perceived wrongs. On the positive side, it is a form of cooperation that encourages harmony within the "group" a.k.a. society.

[Ouroboros]

I think moral relativism can give the impression that morality is almost entirely arbitrary. But this cannot be the case according to my reasoning because morality serves a purpose, it has a function. And those guides to behavior which fail to fullfil this function cease to be moral.

Well put.

 

The guidelines (morals) evolve in society, and as such we accept and adhere to them, which improves our place in society. It's the set of rules we unintentionally (or intentionally) have developed as a group, and many of us want to "win the game" and hence play by the rules. Many of these rules also make sense, like it's not acceptable to lie, steal, murder, rape, etc, because we know that would be destructive for all of us. (Something like that)

 

However, I don't like the term "moral relativism" because it has been defined as the sloppy morality where everything goes and no rules apply at all. It is the term for a game where no rules apply at all.

 

I have played around with using "subjectivism" instead, but too many equate it with "relativism." So there's no good word for the kind of morality system we have. And the rules have been accepted by people at large, and become in a sense "objective" (my personal opinion of socially accepted mores won't change the fact they are those accepted mores), but then there are subjective elements to it. So it's a subjective-objective morality.

[Ouroboros]

So what do you deem the larger end to morality, the perpetuation of life?

Excellent question.

 

That's why I used the word "values" in an earlier post. What we consider the ultimate goal of our own lives, the goal of society, and our values all come together to what kind of moral rules we construct.

 

If there was a society where they valued to digress, lose, starve, and die, they would develop a very crude and violent morality. But that kind of value system and morality would most likely result in total destruction of that society within one generation. And that's why we can't find any society like that. They would have destroyed themselves. So societies where people value life, progress, children, food, etc, will construct morals which lead to these goals.

[Guest end3]

So what do you deem the larger end to morality, the perpetuation of life?

Excellent question.

 

That's why I used the word "values" in an earlier post. What we consider the ultimate goal of our own lives, the goal of society, and our values all come together to what kind of moral rules we construct.

 

If there was a society where they valued to digress, lose, starve, and die, they would develop a very crude and violent morality. But that kind of value system and morality would most likely result in total destruction of that society within one generation. And that's why we can't find any society like that. They would have destroyed themselves. So societies where people value life, progress, children, food, etc, will construct morals which lead to these goals.

 

I can see your point Hans and I agree to a point. We can live in a society/group where acts happen on a regular basis and are accepted by that group. But, this doesn't mean that the underlying current of the group always condones these acts. My point is that the consensus within a group may be repressed for various reasons.

[Ouroboros]

I can see your point Hans and I agree to a point. We can live in a society/group where acts happen on a regular basis and are condoned by that group. But, this doesn't mean that the underlying current of the group always condones the act. My point is that the consensus within a group may be repressed for various reasons.

I think you're right. Sometimes there could be certain values and mores which are shared by a majority of people but still not accepted on a legal or judicial level of society. Take blasphemy for instance. A majority of Americans are Christian, and most of them would consider blasphemy a violation of their mores, but yet the law allows people (like me) to do it.

 

There tends to be a difference between what is legally accepted and what is the moral consensus of the majority group.

 

What you have to realize here is that there is not one coherent and united group, but there are groups within groups within groups... and each level of group have some form of agreed standards and rules. The group "Americans" have certain values and mores, while "Christian Americans" have additional and sometimes replacing values and mores, and then you have "Pagan Americans" which have yet other additional or replacing values and mores, and so on. So the principle of how morals work is one thing, but then in reality it's even more complex.

[Guest end3]

So how do would we measure a standard of "life", or what is a standard of "life" across these groups that have different values, (if that is the right word)? Edit: Or should we try?

[Vigile]

I think it has been of immense evolutionary advantage that we often cooperate in groups. And so I think that morality, in so far as it promotes cohesiveness, is a positive thing.

 

I think that's a very good point. But for me it begs an interesting question. Just because collaboration got us where we are at does it necessarily make it wrong that outliers question the values and the morality of the masses? I'm not talking about throwing caution to the wind here and becoming a social burden or common criminal. I'm talking about those who, like many here, tend to see things from a different perspective than the average person. We tend to sometimes get the red letter because we question the norm and, as you point out, the norm helped us as a species greatly, but does that mean the norm is necessarily the ultimate, or rather the 'right way'?

 

 

I think moral relativism can give the impression that morality is almost entirely arbitrary

 

I don't see that at all. This seems to me to be the same as an IDer saying that evolution is random. Of course it is not. But just because it isn't random it isn't guided by an intelligent or immutable force. Rather, it's adaptive to environmental or social pressures.

[chefranden]

I think moral relativism can give the impression that morality is almost entirely arbitrary. But this cannot be the case according to my reasoning because morality serves a purpose, it has a function. And those guides to behavior which fail to fullfil this function cease to be moral.

 

Impressions and reality are not necessarily the same thing. Nobody can live as if morality is entirely arbitrary, at least not for very long. Even Kings find it difficult to change the rules to suit their whims.

 

Moral behavior evolved for the good of small groups. This would be the kind of morality that could be written in hearts and minds. "Love God with all your heart mind and soul and love your neighbor as yourself." This is not so tough to accomplish when you actually know your neighbor and even easier if your neighbor happens to be your cousin. When it comes to my moral obligation to say the Haitians I'm in a much more ambiguous and hazy realm.

 

That we can abstract moral behavior to those we don't know is actually pretty amazing, even if it doesn't work very well. A chimp is very comfortable with the rules of his troop, but take him out of his troop and put him in a different one and he's in trouble. If he is not murdered outright he will have a great deal of trouble, and will probably never fit in well. A bee that shows up at the wrong hive is just dead period.

 

On the one hand the rules have to remain constant, because it would take too much time and energy to renegotiate the rules every morning. On the other hand the rules have to be flexible enough to allow the group or part of the group to move over the mountain. The rules also have to flexible enough to allow trade with those dumb fucks that dance around the fire to the left.

[Aliix]

I think moral relativism is pretty much inevitable. Why? Relativism reflects the truth of the nature of things.

 

Sure, there are many points of overlap between different cultures' sense of morality both in the current time and in times past. These might possibly be called enduring moral principles, but I don't think of them as eternal. I certainly don't believe they are objective in the sense that there is one set of principles that exists authoritatively outside of culture and applies to all cultures and all times.

 

Moral Objectivism is wishful thinking, born of a desire to avoid the constant dialog, development of empathy, and training in ethical thinking required to avoid civilization slipping into a dark ages of oppression and conflict.

 

I think the idea of objective morality belongs in the trash heap with the concept of God. It is an understandable concept from primitive, pre-scientific days. But now we know more about the universe. It's time to put away false, disproved concepts that have outlived their usefulness.

 

As an atheist, I strongly disagree. Moral relativism, if embraced whole-heartedly, will lead the downfall of civilization as we know it now. The reality is that it is possible, and essential, to judge traditions under the lens of rationality as immoral because they harm people needlessly. In Britain, moral and cultural relativism have become extreme problems and in Islamic courts, abusive husbands can now escape punishment when they beat their wives; per Qur'an 4:34. Should this be allowed because morality is subjective? No. The same is true with bull fighting, Islamic law in general, and all religious law. Call me a radical; however, those practices should be done away with entirely peacefully. There is no room in a world based on rationality and reason for harmful traditions, unchallenged because of moral and cultural relativism, which are purely nonsensical.

 

What is true with moral relativism is also correct with cultural relativism. Should we respect another culture because it is "diverse" when it encourages hatred towards non-believers and actively punishes innocent people for non-crimes based on the sayings of a genocidal seventh-century self-proclaimed prophet? I believe the answer is clear; absolutely not. I refuse to respect any traditions or cultures which harm others and are not based in rationality.

[Franko47]

I think moral relativism is pretty much inevitable. Why? Relativism reflects the truth of the nature of things.

 

Sure, there are many points of overlap between different cultures' sense of morality both in the current time and in times past. These might possibly be called enduring moral principles, but I don't think of them as eternal. I certainly don't believe they are objective in the sense that there is one set of principles that exists authoritatively outside of culture and applies to all cultures and all times.

 

Moral Objectivism is wishful thinking, born of a desire to avoid the constant dialog, development of empathy, and training in ethical thinking required to avoid civilization slipping into a dark ages of oppression and conflict.

 

I think the idea of objective morality belongs in the trash heap with the concept of God. It is an understandable concept from primitive, pre-scientific days. But now we know more about the universe. It's time to put away false, disproved concepts that have outlived their usefulness.

 

As an atheist, I strongly disagree. Moral relativism, if embraced whole-heartedly, will lead the downfall of civilization as we know it now. The reality is that it is possible, and essential, to judge traditions under the lens of rationality as immoral because they harm people needlessly. In Britain, moral and cultural relativism have become extreme problems and in Islamic courts, abusive husbands can now escape punishment when they beat their wives; per Qur'an 4:34. Should this be allowed because morality is subjective? No. The same is true with bull fighting, Islamic law in general, and all religious law. Call me a radical; however, those practices should be done away with entirely peacefully. There is no room in a world based on rationality and reason for harmful traditions, unchallenged because of moral and cultural relativism, which are purely nonsensical.

 

What is true with moral relativism is also correct with cultural relativism. Should we respect another culture because it is "diverse" when it encourages hatred towards non-believers and actively punishes innocent people for non-crimes based on the sayings of a genocidal seventh-century self-proclaimed prophet? I believe the answer is clear; absolutely not. I refuse to respect any traditions or cultures which harm others and are not based in rationality.

 

 

 

An interesting post, Aliix. In some respects, I find this to be one of the key issues of the 21st century. The survival of our western culture will depend upon how we handle many of these issues.

 

Sanctioning harm against an innocent person because it fits some kind of religious or cultural tradition is bullshit.

 

And it's time to put the world on notice.

 

Including the Roman Church. Equal rights for women, or you will be prosecuted. End of story, Same for Islam and all the other barbarian religious cults that infest this planet.

 

Amazing though, that what I just said sounds "heavy handed" or intolerant or something. This is how deeply the brainwashing has gotten in our society.

 

How long do we let the inmates run the asylum ? Or am I just being an elitist ?

[oddbird1963]

I think moral relativism is pretty much inevitable. Why? Relativism reflects the truth of the nature of things.

 

Sure, there are many points of overlap between different cultures' sense of morality both in the current time and in times past. These might possibly be called enduring moral principles, but I don't think of them as eternal. I certainly don't believe they are objective in the sense that there is one set of principles that exists authoritatively outside of culture and applies to all cultures and all times.

 

Moral Objectivism is wishful thinking, born of a desire to avoid the constant dialog, development of empathy, and training in ethical thinking required to avoid civilization slipping into a dark ages of oppression and conflict.

 

I think the idea of objective morality belongs in the trash heap with the concept of God. It is an understandable concept from primitive, pre-scientific days. But now we know more about the universe. It's time to put away false, disproved concepts that have outlived their usefulness.

 

As an atheist, I strongly disagree. Moral relativism, if embraced whole-heartedly, will lead the downfall of civilization as we know it now. The reality is that it is possible, and essential, to judge traditions under the lens of rationality as immoral because they harm people needlessly. In Britain, moral and cultural relativism have become extreme problems and in Islamic courts, abusive husbands can now escape punishment when they beat their wives; per Qur'an 4:34. Should this be allowed because morality is subjective? No. The same is true with bull fighting, Islamic law in general, and all religious law. Call me a radical; however, those practices should be done away with entirely peacefully. There is no room in a world based on rationality and reason for harmful traditions, unchallenged because of moral and cultural relativism, which are purely nonsensical.

 

What is true with moral relativism is also correct with cultural relativism. Should we respect another culture because it is "diverse" when it encourages hatred towards non-believers and actively punishes innocent people for non-crimes based on the sayings of a genocidal seventh-century self-proclaimed prophet? I believe the answer is clear; absolutely not. I refuse to respect any traditions or cultures which harm others and are not based in rationality.

 

 

Aliix,

 

I must confess I am not very proficient in the study of ethics and morality. I understand your issues with the kind of moral egalitarianism you depicted where one moral system is upheld as just as good as another because there is no basis for saying one is more superior than another no matter how cruel or dehumanizing they might be. I share those issues as well.

 

But you said it yourself, this is moral relativism taken to an extreme. The extremism, as I see it, is fed by political and pragmatic cowardice. If people used their moral courage to stand up to this moral/cultural egalitarianism we might see less harm being done to people in the long run by these throwback moral systems.

 

And that's what the moral systems you illustrated are: throwback moral and ethical systems that belong in the pages of a history book and not enacted in this present era. It is there claim to moral objectivity that seems to be the reason why they are doing so much harm. They refuse to yield to the moral imperative we have realized for today that all people deserve to be treated with dignity and respect regardless of gender, heritage, race, religion or country of origin. In the example of bull fighting, the moral system refuses to realize that relative to days gone by, we have an elevated sense of responsibility to preventing suffering in other species.

 

It is because morals are relative and ever-changing that we have come to a place where we realize that woman should not be beaten by their husbands or anybody for any reason. It is because there is no one set of morals that stands outside of culture and society that we must apply tools of reason and rationality to the dialog about what is right and good in the way we behave towards one another.

 

But, please note that the standard of "do no harm" when applied to morality is itself quite arbitrary. That seems to be how moral systems are derived. Even in older systems the intent of moral systems seemed to be "do no harm" within the context of the village, the tribe, or the greater society. Only later was the emphasis placed on doing no harm to people outside your society. "Do no harm" is a great foundational principle for a moral system, but it is also a product of the relative nature of morality that we see in the evolution of human societies.

 

I guess my question for you , Aliix, would be what is Objective about morality? The foundational principle of most moral systems used to be explicitly God or some theistic basis. Now, we have replaced it with something like "do no harm." What is it that is unchanging and transcendent about morals?

 

Of course that is the way I see it based on a limited understanding of the complexities of the subject. Perhaps relativism is different from what I think it is. Perhaps its very definition encompasses cultural and moral egalitarianism. If that is the case, then my view on relativism is some hybrid of the standard concept.

 

Thanks for your viewpoint on this. You do raise some important points. And I would be interested in your response to my inquiries.

 

OB '63

[Vigile]

In Britain, moral and cultural relativism have become extreme problems and in Islamic courts, abusive husbands can now escape punishment when they beat their wives; per Qur'an 4:34.

 

I think you are talking about an entirely different concept than what we have been discussing in this thread and given the apples and oranges positions we might end up talking over each other unless that is recognized.

 

On one hand you have the questions is morality immutable and do moral laws just somehow exist out there in the ether or are they social constructs? These are the questions we have been discussing primarily. On the other hand, the point you raised is, should we just consider morality to be relative to the society in which it exists and respect it for that reason?

 

It's an interesting question which raises some interesting issues and problems, such as, do we have a right or an obligation to intervene in sovereign countries when parts of their moral code stack up against our own sense of values? And this question begs another question, is intervention a greater or lessor evil considering that intervention necessarily means a lot of lives get wasted and disrupted in the process; many of them innocent.

 

As an atheist, I strongly disagree. Moral relativism, if embraced whole-heartedly, will lead the downfall of civilization as we know it now.

 

This seems a bit hyperbolic to me. I think a lot of what is taking place in Europe in regards to Islamic immigrants is being overblown or misrepresented in the media. Can you provide some references as it would be helpful in discussing this further.

[NotBlinded]

So it's a subjective-objective morality.

Just as everything is. It's all in relation to each other. The term "relativism" itself should point to this not being just a one-sided understanding. I don't see why that term should signal something exclusive.

[Legion]

The problem with moral relativism is that it blurs the lines. It creates moral ambiguity when what is needed is moral clarity.

 

Can someone please give me moral clarity? If I knew every time what would benefit both me and everyone else, I would do it every time.

[Shyone]

The problem with moral relativism is that it blurs the lines. It creates moral ambiguity when what is needed is moral clarity.

 

Can someone please give me moral clarity? If I knew every time what would benefit both me and everyone else, I would do it every time.

Perhaps if you took a course in ethics...

 

There exist morally ambiguous situations and these are unavoidable. It has nothing to do with moral relativism however.

 

There are two scales of moral relativism. I think of the long term scale. Ancient Israel versus today. Moral standards have changed considerably for a number of situations. Even the moral idea of following a leader who claims to speak for god and gives commands that he claims are from that god is no longer acceptable, and particularly if the acts themselves are no longer consider moral - executing prisoners, genocide, keeping prisoners that are virginal to swell the population by rape...

 

You, I think, are considering a short term type of moral relativism: "Should I follow the law, or rape, kill and steal? Hey! It's all relative, so it doesn't matter what I do!"

 

I contend that the latter doesn't exist. There is no one advocating that kind of moral relativism at all anywhere or at any time. Never. You have created a straw man and knocked him down.

 

The morality of society is built on history, tradition, law and mutual agreement about acceptable behavior, and these things do not change quickly - if at all. When they do change, as for slavery, it may even require a war to change it. Change in morality does not just happen for no reason.