The Problem With Moral Relativism

[Legion]

Well Shyone thank you, but I can point to Vigile specifically. (Sorry to single you out Vigile.) He seems to delight in pointing out that life is not black and white, as if I needed to be reminded. His efforts seem to be geared towards highlighting moral ambiguity. And he seems to criticize Kant's imperative because it is too effective.

 

And so I'll ask again. (And I hope not to be directed to take an ethics class. Those are for lawyers.)

 

Can someone offer me moral clarity? Right here, right now. Mano y mano.

[Shyone]

Well Shyone thank you, but I can point to Vigile specifically. (Sorry to single you out Vigile.) He seems to delight in pointing out that life is not black and white, as if I needed to be reminded. His efforts seem to be geared towards highlighting moral ambiguity. And he seems to criticize Kant's imperative because it is too effective.

 

And so I'll ask again. (And I hope not to be directed to take an ethics class. Those are for lawyers.)

 

Can someone offer me moral clarity? Right here, right now. Mano y mano.

Maybe you could be more specific.

[agnosticator]

Can someone offer me moral clarity? Right here, right now. Mano y mano.

 

I googled "moral clarity", and came up with mostly religious absolutist mumbo-jumbo. Then I found this. Susan Neiman is a philosopher I know nothing about, and don't have the time to read her view right now. The title of her book is MORAL CLARITY, so she might help you!

[Guest end3]

Well Shyone thank you, but I can point to Vigile specifically. (Sorry to single you out Vigile.) He seems to delight in pointing out that life is not black and white, as if I needed to be reminded. His efforts seem to be geared towards highlighting moral ambiguity. And he seems to criticize Kant's imperative because it is too effective.

 

And so I'll ask again. (And I hope not to be directed to take an ethics class. Those are for lawyers.)

 

Can someone offer me moral clarity? Right here, right now. Mano y mano.

 

Wasn't she a stripper back in the '70s?

[Legion]

Maybe you could be more specific.

I'm not trying to resolve a specific moral dilema Shyone. I'm just casting about for general moral guides, if such a thing exists.

 

I googled "moral clarity", and came up with mostly religious absolutist mumbo-jumbo. Then I found this. Susan Neiman is a philosopher I know nothing about, and don't have the time to read her view right now. The title of her book is MORAL CLARITY, so she might help you!

The all powerful Google. I didn't think of that. I was mainly hoping to interact with my fellow heathens, but I am also curious about this. I will most likely look further into this book Agnosticator. Thank you.

 

Can someone offer me moral clarity? Right here, right now. Mano y mano.

Wasn't she a stripper back in the '70s?

Not bad End, not bad.

[The-Captain]

And he seems to criticize Kant's imperative because it is too effective.

 

No, just that if you carry out the imperative to it's furthest conclusion (as Kant would want) it takes you to some untenable positions. The imperative fails in some regards.

 

As for moral clarity I can offer none. Our world and the situations interactions can through us into are to complex to reduce to a few dictums or a coherent moral ideology. I do however believe that most of us have an innate sense of conscience that is a far better guide than any dusty book or philosopher's musings.

[RankStranger]

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.

 

 

 

The lines are already blurred- moral relativism didn't DO it... it only describes the fuzzy morals that we already have. You can go out and seek moral clarity, and find dozens of conflicting and exclusive claims of it... many involving religion. But I haven't seen one yet that holds up to criticism.

 

But moral relativism, as a model, describes this whole situation pretty well. You seem to WANT an easy answer... but I don't think the situation is nearly that simple.

[oddbird1963]

Well Shyone thank you, but I can point to Vigile specifically. (Sorry to single you out Vigile.) He seems to delight in pointing out that life is not black and white, as if I needed to be reminded. His efforts seem to be geared towards highlighting moral ambiguity. And he seems to criticize Kant's imperative because it is too effective.

 

And so I'll ask again. (And I hope not to be directed to take an ethics class. Those are for lawyers.)

 

Can someone offer me moral clarity? Right here, right now. Mano y mano.

 

 

I haven't read the book in its entirety yet, but Robert A. Burton in On Being Certain maintains that such clarity has a neurophysiological basis. Perhaps your neurons aren't firing with the proper amount of zest or something. Maybe there are some pills someone can introduce you to that can give you the clarity you need.

 

But riddle me this: Would you rather be morally clear but wrong where it counts or morally uncertain and right where it counts? Some of the most dangerous people in the world have perfect moral clarity. I think most people have a good sense of what's right. They may not always have perfect moral clarity, but more times than not, they will do the right thing.

[Guest end3]

Was just thinking Legion, that moral clarity might be defined by the actions within a relationship.....even if the action is silence.....just a thought.

 

Then if you could know the questions within each relationship, I assume you could tally the responses and calculate/describe the "normal" morality.....you know, give it a varible like physics does, the constant M. You would be famous man!

[Ouroboros]

Again, morality stems from values. Moral certainty comes from a solid understanding of your own values.

[Guest end3]

Again, morality stems from values. Moral certainty comes from a solid understanding of your own values.

 

Do you think there is a common morality that is shared/constant within all groups/values?

[Ouroboros]

Again, morality stems from values. Moral certainty comes from a solid understanding of your own values.

 

Do you think there is a common morality that is shared/constant within all groups/values?

Some values we share, some values we don't.

 

Most of us (perhaps not everyone) value ourself and our family. And most of us value a certain level of personal freedom and happiness. We also (most of us) value health and a pain-free life.

 

But of course, it doesn't account for 100% of the world, but at least the majority.

 

So if we value these things, we can look at how we should treat others in how it is reflected on ourself and our own values.

[Vigile]

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.

 

Morality is ambiguous at times. Life is after all a many colored experience as we all traipse through the various shades of grey. Easy answers are for kids and Rush Limbaugh fans.

[Vigile]

Well Shyone thank you, but I can point to Vigile specifically. (Sorry to single you out Vigile.) He seems to delight in pointing out that life is not black and white, as if I needed to be reminded. His efforts seem to be geared towards highlighting moral ambiguity.

 

This is probably a critique but if it is I somehow find it difficult to be insulted by it.

 

And he seems to criticize Kant's imperative because it is too effective.

 

Not too effective, too heavy. Using a power drill to remove a sliver too heavy.

[Legion]

I do however believe that most of us have an innate sense of conscience that is a far better guide than any dusty book or philosopher's musings.

I tend to agree with this. But speaking from personal experience, judgement sometimes falters which impairs conscience. It would be nice to have some guide or set of guides for those times when conscience is impaired.

 

Morality is ambiguous at times.

I agree, which for me only increases the demand for moral clarity.

[Vigile]

I agree, which for me only increases the demand for moral clarity.

 

Well you tell me that reminders that life is ambiguous is beating a dead horse. It seems to me you just answered your question. Moral clarity is impossible since it depends on the circumstances and even then choosing the best path might leave someone with the short end of the stick.

 

Where is absolute right and wrong in a society that has utilitarian needs?

[Aliix]

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

 

What is unchanging about morality is that it can be seen, to an extent, in all peoples because of evolutionary processes. Group selection favors altruism, and empathy, in fact, is biological to an extent. This isn't to say, however, that religion can't override this inherent morality(although it is worth noting that the morality we all have is malleable, not strict). In my opinion, there is a certain moral progression which should naturally advance as our understanding of the world we abide in develops.

 

You are certainly correct that the situational nature of morality does precipitate careful thought, yet it is also essential to differentiate between complete moral relativism and situational morality. Moral relativism is believing that no moral system is superior to any other; situational morality is deciding morality based on circumstances. Situational morality is certainly rational as our actions should logically adapt to any given circumstance; moral relativism, however, is irrational. Moral relativism and cultural relativism are also connected, as they both support one another.

 

Moral and cultural relativism promote the equality and tolerance of different moral worldviews. The issue with this assumption is that varying moral standpoints are not always equal, and this can be seen in no starker contrast than between the Western and Islamic civilizations. The Islamic world lags behind the West in science, they often permit the abuse of women and see them as less valuable than men, and they base many of their laws and policies on a various holy texts which promote inequality. According to Islamic law, women are to be given one half of a man's inheritance in court, apostates can be rightfully murdered for changing their religious beliefs, and adulterers can be stoned to death in extreme conditions; is this brazen barbarism equal to Western law and thought?

 

The West has had such prominent thinkers as Aristotle, Galileo, Socrates, Nietzsche, Plato, Einstein, and Hawkings. The vast majority of books and publications about science are being produced in the West. In the Islamic world, many of those great philosophers and scientists would be prosecuted for blasphemy. It is time that we stop pretending that all cultures and systems of morality are equal, they are not.

 

If you state that those who make a simple decision not to believe in a religion should be slaughtered for the sake of what a self-proclaimed prophet stated hundreds of years ago, you are living in a moral stone age; your views are not equal to those who carefully analyze their beliefs everyday using science.

 

And now the virus that is moral relativism, along with excessive multiculturalism, is vitiating public policy in Europe. This is why Islamic, Beth Din, and other religious courts exist in Britain and why there are parts of European countries where the common law is no longer enforced. It is because of this moral relativism and multiculturalism(although I do value diversity) that a person, if they call themselves a Muslim, can beat their wife senseless in Britain and receive no punishment. This is not rational and runs contrary to a secular society in which all people must abide by a singular system of law. Yet these are the fruits of complete cultural and moral relativism.

 

 

Lastly, I would like to define a legitimate morality as one which does not revolve around religious texts but has been independently constructed by careful thought and reflection.

[oddbird1963]

 

Lastly, I would like to define a legitimate morality as one which does not revolve around religious texts but has been independently constructed by careful thought and reflection.

 

 

Thanks for sharing your point of view. It was very well written.

 

What books have you seen that come close to a sound secular morality that has been independently constructed by careful thought and reflection?

[Aliix]

 

Lastly, I would like to define a legitimate morality as one which does not revolve around religious texts but has been independently constructed by careful thought and reflection.

 

 

Thanks for sharing your point of view. It was very well written.

 

What books have you seen that come close to a sound secular morality that has been independently constructed by careful thought and reflection?

 

While I do believe that morality should be seen through the lens of rationality; people's minds work differently. Therefore, in my opinion, it is really not something you can find in one book, it is something one creates by their own thought. Although one book which is eloquently written on a variety of topics including rationality(although it speaks mainly on Islam) is The Force of Reason, which I have read and recommend.

[Kerplunk288]

No one has put forth any arguments either for or against moral relativism. Instead we have all drawn unjustified conclusions from a single premise.

 

Simply stated, we all agree that there has been a wide diversity of moral opinion. Yet it does not logically follow that because there is a diversity of opinions that all opinions are equal, or that none of these opinions rightly correspond to an objective morality.

 

In mathematics there may be a diversity alleged solutions. I may say 2+2=4, you may say 2+2=5, although we disagree it does not follow that we must both be wrong, or that both solutions are qualitatively equal. Morality does not have the geometric precision of mathematics - understood. And for this reason there is great ambiguity. This ambiguity does not mean that there are not better and worse opinions, however. The problem of moral relativism stems from the rejection of Aristotelian ethical teleology. Kant tries to salvage morality with his categorical imperative, presuming that reason alone can account for all morality. Yet even Kant must presume that it is better to be rational than it is to be irrational. Before we can talk about rights, liberties, obligations, we must first ground our opinions by some ultimate good. The good is prior to the right.

 

To quote Aristotle's Ergon Argument from 1.7 of the NE:

 

"Presumably, however, to say that happiness is the chief good seems a platitude, and a clearer account of what it is still desired. This might perhaps be given, if we could first ascertain the function of man. For just as for a flute-player, a sculptor, or an artist, and, in general, for all things that have a function or activity, the good and the 'well' is thought to reside in the function, so would it seem to be for man, if he has a function. Have the carpenter, then, and the tanner certain functions or activities, and has man none? Is he born without a function? Or as eye, hand, foot, and in general each of the parts evidently has a function, may one lay it down that man similarly has a function apart from all these? What then can this be? Life seems to be common even to plants, but we are seeking what is peculiar to man. Let us exclude, therefore, the life of nutrition and growth. Next there would be a life of perception, but it also seems to be common even to the horse, the ox, and every animal. There remains, then, an active life of the element that has a rational principle; of this, one part has such a principle in the sense of being obedient to one, the other in the sense of possessing one and exercising thought. And, as 'life of the rational element' also has two meanings, we must state that life in the sense of activity is what we mean; for this seems to be the more proper sense of the term. Now if the function of man is an activity of soul which follows or implies a rational principle, and if we say 'so-and-so-and 'a good so-and-so' have a function which is the same in kind, e.g. a lyre, and a good lyre-player, and so without qualification in all cases, eminence in respect of goodness being idded to the name of the function (for the function of a lyre-player is to play the lyre, and that of a good lyre-player is to do so well): if this is the case, and we state the function of man to be a certain kind of life, and this to be an activity or actions of the soul implying a rational principle, and the function of a good man to be the good and noble performance of these, and if any action is well performed when it is performed in accordance with the appropriate excellence: if this is the case, human good turns out to be activity of soul in accordance with virtue, and if there are more than one virtue, in accordance with the best and most complete."

 

 

Understandably, there still will be a diversity of moral opinion. But in recognizing the necessity of an ultimate good, moral discourse will be meaningful.

[The-Captain]

The good is prior to the right.

 

Existence precedes essence

[Kerplunk288]

The good is prior to the right.

 

Existence precedes essence

 

On what basis does existence precede essence? It may sound clever but it is a completely unfounded assertion. The dog does not come into existence and decide to act like a dog. The flower does not come into existence and decide to act like a flower. There is an underlying dogginess and floweriness which is prior to any particular dog or flower. Why then would it be any different for humans?

 

Sartre hastily presumed that if a supernal artisan God did not exist then existence precedes essence. However, he not only failed to prove that such a deity did not exist (or at least give reasonable cause to presume such a deity did not exist), he failed to demonstrate that the deity's alleged nonexistence necessarily negates any innate essence. Aristotle's conception of the divine was far from the personal creator God of Christianity, nevertheless he insisted that essence preceded existence.

[The-Captain]

On what basis does existence precede essence? It may sound clever but it is a completely unfounded assertion. The dog does not come into existence and decide to act like a dog. The flower does not come into existence and decide to act like a flower.

 

Existentialism was never meant to be applied to dogs and flowers any more than it was meant for forks.

 

 

Why then would it be any different for humans?

 

Our capacity for introspection and sentience. We come into this world aware of little, what do we know of our nature? To even arrive at the conclusion of a human nature we have to assume and decide some things. Existentialism is an acknowledgment of this.

 

Sartre hastily presumed that if a supernal artisan God did not exist then existence precedes essence. However, he not only failed to prove that such a deity did not exist (or at least give reasonable cause to presume such a deity did not exist), he failed to demonstrate that the deity's alleged nonexistence necessarily negates any innate essence.

 

Oh we could go on that one for a while, suffice to say if we are getting to the roots of things there is no imperative to disprove deity when there is no evidence for deity. Furthermore I believe you are misappropriating the term essence, it is not to say there is nothing innate to man (genetics after all), it is to say the fundamental nature of man as a whole is not predetermined.

 

P.S.: Welcome to the site

[Ouroboros]

Welcome Kerplunk.

 

No one has put forth any arguments either for or against moral relativism. Instead we have all drawn unjustified conclusions from a single premise.

Sounds like a value statement.

 

Simply stated, we all agree that there has been a wide diversity of moral opinion. Yet it does not logically follow that because there is a diversity of opinions that all opinions are equal, or that none of these opinions rightly correspond to an objective morality.

Right.

 

In mathematics there may be a diversity alleged solutions. I may say 2+2=4, you may say 2+2=5, although we disagree it does not follow that we must both be wrong, or that both solutions are qualitatively equal. Morality does not have the geometric precision of mathematics - understood.

Except that 10+10=20, but it's also 10+10=100 (Base2).

 

And for this reason there is great ambiguity. This ambiguity does not mean that there are not better and worse opinions, however. The problem of moral relativism stems from the rejection of Aristotelian ethical teleology. Kant tries to salvage morality with his categorical imperative, presuming that reason alone can account for all morality. Yet even Kant must presume that it is better to be rational than it is to be irrational. Before we can talk about rights, liberties, obligations, we must first ground our opinions by some ultimate good. The good is prior to the right.

Totally agree.

 

All our views on morality stems from our opinion of what is good. What is good for me, for society as a whole, or for the whole world, will influence my position on morality.

 

So to arrive at some agreement of morality, first we must agree on what good is.

 

Understandably, there still will be a diversity of moral opinion. But in recognizing the necessity of an ultimate good, moral discourse will be meaningful.

I think that's part of why vulgar relativism is considered dangerous, it doesn't promote any particular ultimate good, it rejects any common good and only embrace individual desires and needs.

 

How can we arrive to an agreement of the ultimate good? Even if we look at the highest level we can consider regarding us humans, is humanity good for the planet? Which good comes first? Is the ultimate good the survival and "happiness" of all biological life on Earth, superceding human existence? Or is the ultimate good only a question of humanity's survival and happiness, supplanting animals' and plant's? Perhaps humans are the evil we should get rid of?

[Legion]

I think those were excellent considerations Hans. Excellent.

 

For me it only makes sense to say that human morality should serve humanity. That which benefits us is good. But even with this we will likely endlessly disagree about what benefits us and our progeny.