The Problem With Moral Relativism

[Shyone]

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

 

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

No argument is necessary. Morality is relative just as the sky is blue. Except at night. Or sunrise. Or sunset. Or during storms.

 

Ultimate good is as meaningless as ultimate blue. While we may all agree on what blue is, and we may all agree on what good is, people use the concept of ultimate good to push an agenda, not arrive at a consensus.

 

I have seen people say, "God is ultimate good". They mean they want crosses in schools imprinted with the 10 commandments - and equally unthinking types of proselytizing. They don't mean they want to discuss what good is and which commandments are good (and which aren't). They don't want to discuss which other religions have good ideas that may be better than Christianity, or which philosophers have described goodness in ways that are independent of religion.

 

Morality is not just what we think now is moral, or what people thought in the past was moral. It is a process that strives for a better civilization. Ultimate morality will never be achieved. It is driven as much by necessity as it is compassion, and the outcomes of our deliberations will be dependent on our needs and our empathy, and sometimes these forces are opposed to one another.

[Legion]

Ultimate good is as meaningless as ultimate blue.

I don't understand this.

 

If by some strange fate a powerful race of non-terrestrial beings pushed the entire Earth into the sun, then wouldn't we generally think this bad?

 

And if, stranger still, some hyperdimensional beings were capable of destroying our universe and all life in it then wouldn't this be very, very, bad?

[Shyone]

Ultimate good is as meaningless as ultimate blue.

I don't understand this.

 

If by some strange fate a powerful race of non-terrestrial beings pushed the entire Earth into the sun, then wouldn't we generally think this bad?

 

And if, stranger still, some hyperdimensional beings were capable of destroying our universe and all life in it then wouldn't this be very, very, bad?

Ah, but bad for whom? Ultimate should mean more than just "human".

 

Those aliens will be laughing their collective asses (assuming they have asses) off, relishing the energy release, consuming our burned flesh or whatever they would do to benefit from the destruction of our puny helpless planet.

 

To them, ultimate good has nothing to do with us. To us, Ultimate good has nothing to do with them.

 

Now back to our regularly scheduled program...

[Legion]

Ah, but bad for whom? Ultimate should mean more than just "human".

I don't know about that. I really don't.

 

I take great care of my cat. Why? Because I'm selfish and enjoy his company.

[Shyone]

Ah, but bad for whom? Ultimate should mean more than just "human".

I don't know about that. I really don't.

 

I take great care of my cat. Why? Because I'm selfish and enjoy his company.

[ultimate] Good for you! Nice that it's good for the cat too. Mutual benefit seems to make "good" better.

[Kerplunk288]

 

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

 

I appreciate the greeting. For the sake of this argument, I am not concerned whether God exists or not. We can investigate this issue at a later time. Instead, I am interested in the necessary implications if God exists or not.

 

Sartre makes the metaphysical assumption that if a personal creator God does not exist, human nature does not exist. (I apologize for the long block quotes, but it seems necessary so that we may have a mutual understanding of the terms and arguments at hand.)

 

If one considers an article of manufacture as, for example, a book or a paper-knife – one sees that it has been made by an artisan who had a conception of it; and he has paid attention, equally, to the conception of a paper-knife and to the pre-existent technique of production which is a part of that conception and is, at bottom, a formula. Thus the paper-knife is at the same time an article producible in a certain manner and one which, on the other hand, serves a definite purpose, for one cannot suppose that a man would produce a paper-knife without knowing what it was for. Let us say, then, of the paperknife that its essence – that is to say the sum of the formulae and the qualities which made its production and its definition possible – precedes its existence. The presence of such-and-such a paper-knife or book is thus determined before my eyes. Here, then, we are viewing the world from a technical standpoint, and we can say that production precedes existence.

 

When we think of God as the creator, we are thinking of him, most of the time, as a supernal artisan. Whatever doctrine we may be considering, whether it be a doctrine like that of Descartes, or of Leibnitz himself, we always imply that the will follows, more or less, from the understanding or at least accompanies it, so that when God creates he knows precisely what he is creating. Thus, the conception of man in the mind of God is comparable to that of the paper-knife in the mind of the artisan: God makes man according to a procedure and a conception, exactly as the artisan manufactures a paper-knife, following a definition and a formula. Thus each individual man is the realisation of a certain conception which dwells in the divine understanding. In the philosophic atheism of the eighteenth century, the notion of God is suppressed, but not, for all that, the idea that essence is prior to existence; something of that idea we still find everywhere, in Diderot, in Voltaire and even in Kant. Man possesses a human nature; that “human nature,” which is the conception of human being, is found in every man; which means that each man is a particular example of a universal conception, the conception of Man. In Kant, this universality goes so far that the wild man of the woods, man in the state of nature and the bourgeois are all contained in the same definition and have the same fundamental qualities. Here again, the essence of man precedes that historic existence which we confront in experience.

 

Atheistic existentialism, of which I am a representative, declares with greater consistency that if God does not exist there is at least one being whose existence comes before its essence, a being which exists before it can be defined by any conception of it. That being is man or, as Heidegger has it, the human reality. What do we mean by saying that existence precedes essence? We mean that man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world – and defines himself afterwards. If man as the existentialist sees him is not definable, it is because to begin with he is nothing. He will not be anything until later, and then he will be what he makes of himself. Thus, there is no human nature, because there is no God to have a conception of it.

 

However, this assumption is far from self-evident. Personal creator God's are not the only authors of formal causes. Aristotle's conceives God as pure actuality, thought thinking about itself. It can not know of the particulars of the Universe. It can not enter into relationship with humans, let alone prescribe ethical commandments. For Aristotle, nature provides its own standard - rather than a creator God apart from nature. Therefore he asserts that human's have a preexisting function and nature.

 

Ironically, the very activities which you cite as evidence for existentialism (our introspection and sentience), Aristotle concludes is proof of an innate nature which is prior to any particular human existence. After all, Aristotle defines man as the "rational-animal" and the "political animal".

 

I am not claiming that our nature is immediately known to us, if it were, there would be little need to philosophize. However, our partial ignorance of our nature does not negate the metaphysical existence of said nature. (Perhaps on one level it may be indicative of our nature, e.g. man as the "perplexed animal".)

 

-Kerplunk

[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.

 

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

No argument is necessary. Morality is relative just as the sky is blue. Except at night. Or sunrise. Or sunset. Or during storms.

 

Your inability to recognize the necessity for an argument, let alone actually produce one, makes you no more insightful than the religious fundamentalist, who insist that the Scriptures are true because the Scriptures say so. Such people who refuse to engage in reasonable, dialectical, and critical discourse ought to be cast aside and ignored. Perhaps however, you can be swayed to the necessity of argumentation.

 

Ultimate good is as meaningless as ultimate blue. While we may all agree on what blue is, and we may all agree on what good is, people use the concept of ultimate good to push an agenda, not arrive at a consensus.

 

This reminds me of the opening chapters from the Nicomachean Ethics. Aristotle claims in the opening sentences of the Ethics, that "Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim."

 

Undoubtedly however there is a hierarchy of goods. Some goods are sought as means to other goods, while other goods are sought as ends unto themselves. Aristotle concludes that there must therefore be one unified human good, complete, self-sufficient, sought for its own sake, and which all other subordinate goods strive towards. This final end is happiness. On one hand this immensely profound - yet on the other, it is so seemingly self-evident. Of course we all act to be happy, however this does not settle the fact that there is a diversity of opinions about happiness.

 

Not all opinions are equal. For example, some people believe that the final end of life is to acquire money. But it is evident from the agreed upon premises that acquiring money cannot be happiness. Money is intrinsically worthless. It is only an instrumental good. Few people actually seek to acquire money for the sake of money (perhaps only Scrooge McDuck), instead people seek money for what it can buy. Immediately we see that there is a higher good necessarily above money. Therefore, the acquisition of money can not rightly be said to be the final end of humans.

 

Morality is not just what we think now is moral, or what people thought in the past was moral. It is a process that strives for a better civilization. Ultimate morality will never be achieved. It is driven as much by necessity as it is compassion, and the outcomes of our deliberations will be dependent on our needs and our empathy, and sometimes these forces are opposed to one another.

 

You assert that morality is relative, and then state moral absolutes. You presume that progress is preferable to regress, that harmony is preferable to chaos, or that peace is preferable to war. On what basis? I believe that your intuitions are accurate, but they are utterly irreconcilable with your initial premise that morality is relative.

 

Why ought we even spend time discussing such matters if morality is merely the result of our own individual and subjective perspective. If all values are equal, should I not be content with my preexisting values?

 

-Kerplunk

[Legion]

Not all opinions are equal.

I think that's a weighty opinion.

 

Welcome to ex-C Kerplunk.

[The-Captain]

However, this assumption is far from self-evident. Personal creator God's are not the only authors of formal causes. Aristotle's conceives God as pure actuality, thought thinking about itself. It can not know of the particulars of the Universe. It can not enter into relationship with humans, let alone prescribe ethical commandments. For Aristotle, nature provides its own standard - rather than a creator God apart from nature. Therefore he asserts that human's have a preexisting function and nature.

 

I've read Aristotle in only the most cursory manner, would you care to elaborate on his rationale for the detached God? It does not seem any more evident than Sartre's.

 

Man does of course have some a priori characteristics to his nature apart from those assumed by theism, his evolutionary heritage for one. I am not sure Sartre would dispute that.

 

A bit of honesty, I am not a complete proponent of existentialism. My own reading of the canon, as it were, goes no further than Existentialisme is a Humanism, and some Kierkegaard. The ideas did resonate with ideas I had formed on my own prior to reading. My earlier comment was just a bit of cheek, thought I'd posit the opposite philosophical position in a sound bite.

 

I'm glad you took up on it though, this should prove interesting.

 

I am not claiming that our nature is immediately known to us, if it were, there would be little need to philosophize. However, our partial ignorance of our nature does not negate the metaphysical existence of said nature. (Perhaps on one level it may be indicative of our nature, e.g. man as the "perplexed animal".)

 

Given that I would say that we since cannot definitively know our nature, and since we have the volition, for all intents and purposes we do create it ourselves.

[Kerplunk288]

However, this assumption is far from self-evident. Personal creator God's are not the only authors of formal causes. Aristotle's conceives God as pure actuality, thought thinking about itself. It can not know of the particulars of the Universe. It can not enter into relationship with humans, let alone prescribe ethical commandments. For Aristotle, nature provides its own standard - rather than a creator God apart from nature. Therefore he asserts that human's have a preexisting function and nature.

 

I've read Aristotle in only the most cursory manner, would you care to elaborate on his rationale for the detached God? It does not seem any more evident than Sartre's.

 

Man does of course have some a priori characteristics to his nature apart from those assumed by theism, his evolutionary heritage for one. I am not sure Sartre would dispute that.

 

A bit of honesty, I am not a complete proponent of existentialism. My own reading of the canon, as it were, goes no further than Existentialisme is a Humanism, and some Kierkegaard. The ideas did resonate with ideas I had formed on my own prior to reading. My earlier comment was just a bit of cheek, thought I'd posit the opposite philosophical position in a sound bite.

 

I'm glad you took up on it though, this should prove interesting.

 

I am not claiming that our nature is immediately known to us, if it were, there would be little need to philosophize. However, our partial ignorance of our nature does not negate the metaphysical existence of said nature. (Perhaps on one level it may be indicative of our nature, e.g. man as the "perplexed animal".)

 

Given that I would say that we since cannot definitively know our nature, and since we have the volition, for all intents and purposes we do create it ourselves.

 

This would just be too messy to partition with more quotes. Sorry. And understood, about your existentialist comment being tongue-in-cheek. Aristotle does not believe in a personal God because he does not believe that God as pure actuality can know about particulars. We as humans are this mixture of potentiality and actuality, a mixture of capacity and fulfillment. Aristotle's understanding of God, is an eternal first cause, which perpetually moves the Universe. (Interestingly for Aristotle the Universe is caused, but is eternal.)

 

It would negate God's full actuality if God could know of particular (i.e. not universal) and potential things. Humans may be able to have a relationship with the Aristotle's God, but only insofar as they seek to more fully actualize themselves, and reflect the first cause. Aristotle's account of God rejects Platonic Ideals, meaning Aristotle did not believe that there was some human form in the mind of God.

 

Sorry for the cursory explanation. It's pretty technical, and since much of his theology is in refutation of Plato's (which is incredibly vague), there remains a sort of inherited ambiguity. That and I still confuses the hell out of me.

 

As for your last statement. I think that there can be adequate answers to our nature. However, these answers are not like the answers of modern science, say the atomic masses of the elements, which once discovered, render the question obsolete or solved. Questions about our nature never go away, they remain relevant. The timelessness of these questions may be again be reflective of our own nature.

[Legion]

Questions about our nature never go away, they remain relevant. The timelessness of these questions may be again be reflective of our own nature.

I agree with this. I think humans, and all organisms, are complex. This may mean, among other things, that there is no largest or complete understanding of them. I see this as a reason for hope, because to my mind it implies that future humanity will always have room for discovery.

[Shyone]

Morality is not just what we think now is moral, or what people thought in the past was moral. It is a process that strives for a better civilization. Ultimate morality will never be achieved. It is driven as much by necessity as it is compassion, and the outcomes of our deliberations will be dependent on our needs and our empathy, and sometimes these forces are opposed to one another.

 

You assert that morality is relative, and then state moral absolutes. You presume that progress is preferable to regress, that harmony is preferable to chaos, or that peace is preferable to war. On what basis? I believe that your intuitions are accurate, but they are utterly irreconcilable with your initial premise that morality is relative.

 

Why ought we even spend time discussing such matters if morality is merely the result of our own individual and subjective perspective. If all values are equal, should I not be content with my preexisting values?

 

-Kerplunk

There are no moral absolutes in my statement. I do not presume the progress is preferrable to regress because I do not define progress. I do not claim that harmony is preferrable to chaos or that war is preferrable to peace. These are your interpolations.

 

I said morality is a process. Take war and peace. Is intervention is a situation where there are horrible crimes perpetrated on a people by an unjust government warranted? If the solutions requires war, then war is preferrable to peace.

 

I think that, through consensus and relying on traditions and history, we can make decisions. Given experience, we can hope that our decisions are better in the future, but "better" is relative.

 

There are many undecided moral questions, and several questions on which the vast majority have achieved consensus. But even consensus does not mean any absolute standard. Is slavery bad? We have consensus on that, but different from the consensus a few hundred years ago. Is the death penalty good? We do not yet have consensus on that, but we may be getting closer.

 

Will our current standards of morality hold for eternity? Unlikely regardless of whatever we may have decided. There is not progress, but process.

 

Process.