An argument that moral relativism is wrong.

[Nicomachus]

--Deleted--

 

[Njorl]

And maybe on the other side of this debate -- In an attempt to narrow the issue and in an attempt to understand what sort of relativism people who say they are relativists – advocate, I wonder if a Relativist here might address the following: Taking a strictly logical position for now -- Would it be fair to say that IF morals are relative, as as a relativist would claim, than the relativist should grant me – and others – the claim that they are not relative?

No, that is a non-sequiter.

Morals are not facts, but the nature of morality is a fact. It is a debated fact which might never be certainly known, but a fact nonetheless. While a moral relativist might argue that stealing is not wrong in some situations, they are not justified by their worldview to say that up is down.

What a moral relativist will grant you is that your belief that morality is not relative is a valid belief - for you.

Njorl

 

[Njorl]

I don't know that morals differ as much as you think they do.

Abortion, war, pre-marital sex, drug use, alchohol use, capitalism, communism are all fine and are also the ultimate evil. Morals differ wildly.

People often cite the phenomenon of Eskimos killing off their old, but I would argue that every culture believes unjustified killing to be wrong. They simply disagree as to what constitutes proper justification.

You are essentially saying that all people share morality because they believe what is unjustified is wrong. Or, more clearly, people agree that what is unjustified is unjustified.

The fact that culture has badly clouded the basic underlying moral structure of a human being doesn't mean that that structure is invalid or even relative.

Culture is the clouding. Without the clouding, there would be only one culture.

Either way, the existence of a disagreement very obviously does not rule out the possibility of one party being correct and the other being incorrect.

No, it is possible that there is one, right morality. I just think that, at most, one person would have it.

Njorl

 

[Njorl]

Just to make what sort of "morality" is being advocated - a response to a portion of an earlier post -

Njorl wrote:



This is not what it being said. If there's a God lawgiver who handed down an Absolute Moral Code, then the question would be easy to answer. ‘It is what it is’ – 10 Commandments style. End of debate. If not from a god, then it becomes trickier. I’m not arguing for an absolute morality any more than to say that language only comes in one flavor. And to carry the language analogy forward, Norm Chomsky suggests that ALL languages follow a certain underlying structure and, unlike writing and reading – don’t take years of direct study to master. Langauge is acquired without effort, very quickly, and at a very young age. An innate grammar or language logic may be what causes children to say “gooder” rather than “better” even though they have never heard the word “gooder” before. I suspect that like this argues for language acquisition being coded in our genes while reading and writing language isn’t. Language, like number recognition (e.g. recognizing that three bears went into the cave and two come out has an obvious survival advantage) and other abilities offers a survival advantage to the individual. So does acting in the interests of others in your social group.

As Steven Pinker wrote in The Blank Slate, The Modern Denial of Human Nature – “…genes have metaphorical motives – making copies of themselves – and the organisms they design have real motives. But they are not the same motives. Sometimes the most selfish thing a gene can do is wire unselfish motives into the human brain – heartfelt, unstinting, deep-in-the-marrow unselfishness.” That’s the sort of “morality” I’m discussing and advocating.

I think we might be on the same track here, just using terms that are traditionally antithetical here.

I am perfectly open to the idea that there is an underlying genetic, evolutionary trend toward behaviour that benefits the propogation of our genes. I have no problem labelling these behaviours as a source of morality. I could even be convinced that these behaviours are an absolute moral code. However, there would be so many layers of contingencies that such an absolute basis for morality would appear to be moral relativism at face value.

When you factor in all of the environmental contingencies, a genetically based absolute moral code looks like moral relativism.

Njorl

 

[Tigers2B1]

No, that is a non-sequiter.

Morals are not facts, but the nature of morality is a fact.

Can you expand on this – I’m not sure I understand the distinction you’re making here. Is it your position that morals aren’t discoverable and at the same time asserting that it is possible to discover the source of morals? That while there may be a source in our genes, for example, it does not follow that there are set moral rules clear enough to distinguish what we refer to as morals?

What a moral relativist will grant you is that your belief that morality is not relative is a valid belief - for you.

Then, considering your response to the above, maybe you’ll tell me why you agree or disagree my statement below –

“--- under moral relativism, can anything and anyone be a “evil” or “good” if the speaker believes it so? And if I, or anyone else for that matter, doesn’t agree than they are right in their worlds and you remain are right in yours? They are even right in their profession that you are wrong – and likewise. In other words, if everything is morally relative as an absolute relativist would say, he can’t even argue for his case. To argue a moral case is to try to prove your point to another -- and therefore presupposes a common morality – which can’t be true for a relativist.”

 

[Tigers2B1]

Abortion, war, pre-marital sex, drug use, alchohol use, capitalism, communism are all fine and are also the ultimate evil. Morals differ wildly.

I’ll let loseyourname speak for him/herself -- but as to my understanding of what loseyourname said - I don’t see you responding to the point made. “Values” differ wildly – not bedrock, discoverable morals. For example - if pushed on the subject of ‘pre-martial sex,’ forcing one to dig deeper to justify their position, both sides of the issue would ultimately have to base their respective arguments in either an appeal to a higher authority (e.g. “God is against “pre-martial sex” – end of story”) OR based their reasons in a common understanding of right and wrong. A common understanding? Right.

And, on a second point, without this common understanding how do you use the term “ultimate evil” and make the statement “Morals differ wildly” and maintain the position at the same time that these statements are without any common meaning? How does the meaning you intend to transfer to me with those words work in the relativist’s world? In that world, where good and bad have lost all meaning, how do people even talk to each other with any purpose?

In short, how do you expect anyone to understand what you’re talking about if these words "differ wildly" and, why are you debating here – if, as you maintain, everything I say is 'right' for me (by definition) and everything you say is 'right' by definition?

You are essentially saying that all people share morality because they believe what is unjustified is wrong...

Again, loseyourname can speak to this but as I read this the point made wasn’t that 'what is wrong is wrong but, instead, that cultures have shared ideas about what is wrong behavior. Killing is generally considered 'wrong' behavior – but the circumstances of different cultures bring different exceptions to that general rule. That humans, as social animals, live in social groups --- and as such function in social systems. A social system that tolerated wholesale random killings brings nothing to the security of the individual and therefore, they don’t exist.

 

[Tigers2B1]

...When you factor in all of the environmental contingencies, a genetically based absolute moral code looks like moral relativism.

Well, as originally stated, I’m not arguing for an absolute moral code --- I’m arguing AGAINST Relativism.

And your statement that it "looks like relativism" might be explained by the focus on individual trees rather than the forest. A focus just like the analogy to world languages that vary to a great degree on the surface but which, according to Chomsky, ALL follow the same universal logical structures. A structure that allows such easy acquisition of language in early childhood ----------- and a genetic structure that allows access in early childhood only. After that it must be learned the hard way – just like reading and writing are at any age. [My prior post has a link to Chomsky's theories regarding the shared universal structure of all languages.]

 

[Nicomachus]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigers2B1
And maybe on the other side of this debate -- In an attempt to narrow the issue and in an attempt to understand what sort of relativism people who say they are relativists – advocate, I wonder if a Relativist here might address the following: Taking a strictly logical position for now -- Would it be fair to say that IF morals are relative, as as a relativist would claim, than the relativist should grant me – and others – the claim that they are not relative?

No, that is a non-sequiter.

Morals are not facts, but the nature of morality is a fact. It is a debated fact which might never be certainly known, but a fact nonetheless. While a moral relativist might argue that stealing is not wrong in some situations, they are not justified by their worldview to say that up is down.

What a moral relativist will grant you is that your belief that morality is not relative is a valid belief - for you.

Njorl

That is not a non-sequitur. The assertion Tigers2B1 made about moral relativism follows from its premises. When you give the example "While a moral relativist might argue that stealing is not wrong in some situations ..." It makes me think you are confusing moral relativism with contextualism. Obviously stealing, in itself, is not wrong because it is an action category. Moral relativism is also much different from the relational-dichotomy of up and down so I don't really see the problem.
*Nico

 

[Njorl]

Can you expand on this – I’m not sure I understand the distinction you’re making here. Is it your position that morals aren’t discoverable and at the same time asserting that it is possible to discover the source of morals? That while there may be a source in our genes, for example, it does not follow that there are set moral rules clear enough to distinguish what we refer to as morals?

Re-reading my post, I must admit I phrased that very poorly.

Let me try and make this clear. Moral relativism applies only to morality, value judgements etc. It does not apply to facts in general. A moral relativist is consistant in saying that your system of morality is right for you. However, the true and undetermined nature of morality is not a matter of morality, it is a matter of fact. Many commentators make the mistake that moral relativists believe facts are also at an individuals discretion to accept or reject. This is not so.

This is still a bit fuzzy, so I will try to simplify.

A moral relativist believes that the moral code of a moral absolutist is valid for him. He does not believe that the moral code of the moral relativist is true.

Then, considering your response to the above, maybe you’ll tell me why you agree or disagree my statement below –

“--- under moral relativism, can anything and anyone be a “evil” or “good” if the speaker believes it so?

A moral relativist would rarely label something as evil. I would use it as shorthand for what most people would consider to be evil. The word exists, so using it this way is convenient, and achieves the desired result. If I say "Hitler was evil.", it is shorthand for "Hitler had a radical morality that is so different from my own that it was frighteningly intolerable."

And if I, or anyone else for that matter, doesn’t agree than they are right in their worlds and you remain are right in yours? They are even right in their profession that you are wrong – and likewise.

Remember, moral relativism does not apply to matters of fact, only belief. They may believe that I am wrong. That is perfectly acceptable. Acceptable does not mean true, or accurate, or right, or correct, or good.

In other words, if everything is morally relative as an absolute relativist would say, he can’t even argue for his case. To argue a moral case is to try to prove your point to another -- and therefore presupposes a common morality – which can’t be true for a relativist.”

Not at all. A lack of a common morality does not prevent a moral relativist from arguing a moral point. The objective of an argument is not to be right, but to change the other person's thinking. A moral relativist in this circumstance is merely trying to change another's moral code from one valid belief system to another valid belief system.

The difference is that a moral relativist does this recognizing that it is a purely selfish act. By convincing people to alter their morality to more closely resemble mine, I will have a world in which I am more comfortable. The moral absolutist engages in this argument deluding himself that it is to make the other person think "right", when in reality, his motives are just as selfish as mine.

Don't get the idea that moral relativists are perfectly tolerant of everything around them. We are not. We just see the moral world in terms of "beneficial and harmful" rather than "good and evil" or "right and wrong".

Njorl

 

[Nicomachus]

A moral relativist would rarely label something as evil. I would use it as shorthand for what most people would consider to be evil. The word exists, so using it this way is convenient, and achieves the desired result. If I say "Hitler was evil.", it is shorthand for "Hitler had a radical morality that is so different from my own that it was frighteningly intolerable."

I do not accept the concept of "evil" as pertaining to morality. Evil is simply the intentional causation of calamity. Morality is about value based decision making.

In keeping with this, obviously moral-relativism cannot be equivocated with standard relativism, although I contend they both contain similar problems. As a moral relativist, you deny the objectiveness of values and therefore have no way to justify any of your moral positions. Keep in mind, I am not saying you cannot justify disliking another's system of morality, as in the case of Hitler, but you have no way to justify any moral position at all. Now we may assume this to be true but if this is the case by holding any moral positions you either are doing so on faith or, and this is not meant to be harsh, you (well any moral-relativist) are a hypocrite. To put simply, without the existence of a rational objective foundation you have no standard by which to build a system of morality. If we were all moral-relativists and many of us,despite lack of justification or acceptance of the existence of objective values, made similar moral decisions it would be nothing more than a statistical anomaly, to say the least. Although, I contend that under the system of moral-relativism no moral judgement should be made, but that is also a value judgement ... aaah the vortex of nothingness that follows relativism rears its head again ... =)
*Nico

 

[Tigers2B1]

A moral relativist would rarely label something as evil. I would use it as shorthand for what most people would consider to be evil. The word exists, so using it this way is convenient, and achieves the desired result.

Why do relativists think "most people" even understand the word "evil" and, from that understanding, form a common opinion about what is and isn’t an evil actor – such as in your Hitler example? How can relativists do this in a truly random and morally relative world? What is the coalescing force that drives this if not a beginning, genetically induced, predisposition? What is the mechanism that moves someone, by reaction and without thought, to feel 'sorry' or feel 'empathy' --- if not the genetic predisposition needed in a workable social system?

...If I say "Hitler was evil.", it is shorthand for "Hitler had a radical morality that is so different from my own that it was frighteningly intolerable."

Here's what I don’t understand about your statement. In a truly relative system, - why is it "frighteningly intolerable" to almost anyone that hears about Hitler’s "radical morality?" Also, saying that it is radical implies a center position, a common understanding of what is aberrant – otherwise it could never be recognized as “radical”-

…Don't get the idea that moral relativists are perfectly tolerant of everything around them. We are not. We just see the moral world in terms of "beneficial and harmful" rather than "good and evil" or "right and wrong".

By what touchstone do relativists make "beneficial and harmful" decisions in matters that have no personal concern to them? In the relativists' world how can you decide what is or isn't beneficial or harmful to others -- since that is always relative to them?

And as a thought experiment - take this hypothetical situation which seems to give the 'wrong' answer under the relativist's 'cost-benefit' analysis ---> The 'beneficial' consequences of taking the heart, lungs, liver and other organs from one person, without his consent, and giving those various organs to five people so they can live - would result in more 'benefit' (five live) than 'harm' (one dies) – no? So --- is there nothing more than a cost-benefit analysis to the relativist’s system or is there something more? If there is more to the analysis here, as a relativist, what would it be? Or are you free to harvest the organs in this situation -

 

[Nicomachus]

Yes Tigers2B1, essentially what you have said is anecdotally true and compliments my specific criticism of moral-relativism. Cheers.
*Nico

 

[loseyourname]

Thanks, guys. Your defense of my position is more than adequate. My knowledge runs more toward the sociobiological aspects of this issue, so as the discussion has taken a distinctly philosophical turn, I will accordingly bow out.

Anyway, my point about disagreement not equating with a lack of objective truth is sufficient to reveal the cultural argument for relativism as invalid, although that doesn't necessarily establish the untruth of relativism. I will leave it up to the rest of you to debate that.

 

[Njorl]

Why do relativists think "most people" even understand the word "evil" and, from that understanding, form a common opinion about what is and isn’t an evil actor – such as in your Hitler example?
-

Because dictionaries exist.

How can relativists do this in a truly random and morally relative world?
-

By choosing to do so.

What is the coalescing force that drives this if not a beginning, genetically induced, predisposition? What is the mechanism that moves someone, by reaction and without thought, to feel 'sorry' or feel 'empathy' --- if not the genetic predisposition needed in a workable social system?

-

Such a predisposition is not inconsistent with moral relativism.

Here's what I don’t understand about your statement. In a truly relative system, - why is it "frighteningly intolerable" to almost anyone that hears about Hitler’s "radical morality?"
-

Most people's moral codes have similar aspects, and, on the whole, are not too different from each others. That does not mean they are not all different. Hitler's differed significantly.

Also, saying that it is radical implies a center position, a common understanding of what is aberrant – otherwise it could never be recognized as “radical”-

-

If all morality could be catagorized, and averaged over all humanity, I suppose you could find a center position - an average morality. That does not make it the "right" morality. You can average the wavelengths of everyones favorite color too.

By what touchstone do relativists make "beneficial and harmful" decisions in matters that have no personal concern to them?
-

They don't. That's the whole point.
However, matters that seem to have no impact upon one at face value often do.

In the relativists' world how can you decide what is or isn't beneficial or harmful to others -- since that is always relative to them?
-

I have ears and can hear what they say. I have eyes and can read what they write.

And as a thought experiment - take this hypothetical situation which seems to give the 'wrong' answer under the relativist's 'cost-benefit' analysis ---> The 'beneficial' consequences of taking the heart, lungs, liver and other organs from one person, without his consent, and giving those various organs to five people so they can live - would result in more 'benefit' (five live) than 'harm' (one dies) – no? So --- is there nothing more than a cost-benefit analysis to the relativist’s system or is there something more? If there is more to the analysis here, as a relativist, what would it be? Or are you free to harvest the organs in this situation -

By no means do I get a "wrong" answer. I do not approve of taking the organs from a healthy person. There would be a net harm. If I were to approve of such a thing, I would live in a world in which people can be randomly harvested for organs. The terror that would be inspired is not worth the lives of a few people.

Njorl

 

[hitssquad]

Does the word 'evil' have something to do with moral judgment

I do not accept the concept of "evil" as pertaining to morality. Evil is simply the intentional causation of calamity. Morality is about value based decision making.

What constitutes a calamity is a moral judgment.

• ¹evil
  
  1 a : not good morally : marked by bad moral qualities : violating the rules of morality

(From the M-W Unabridged dictionary.)

I contend that under the system of moral-relativism no moral judgement should be made

Relative moral judgments might be made, a la the moral judgments of Beyondism.

 

[Nicomachus]

I do not really accept your assertion that what constitutes a calamity is a moral judgement. Nevertheless, such is a minor point. I don't care about your cult and I don't see what point you are trying to make, maybe you don't understand the problem, but you did not respond to my criticism of moral relativism. In fact no one has responded to my criticism of moral relativism.
*Nico

 

[russ_watters]

[bold added]Don't get the idea that moral relativists are perfectly tolerant of everything around them. We are not. We just see the moral world in terms of "beneficial and harmful" rather than "good and evil" or "right and wrong".

Njorl

Gee, I was with you until here. You're a moral relativist? You were sounding like a moral absolutist. Maybe I didn't read enough of the thread...


...re-reading, I'm still not sure. "Beneficial and harmful" seems an awful lot like "right and wrong." What's the difference?

It sounds like you are saying since people are all different, what is "beneficial and harmful" to one may be different from another. I don't buy it: people are all fundamentally the same.

I also think though Hitler makes a good example of how far off the average a morality can be, you need to be careful: I think it can be successfully argued that he was mentally ill. Having an actual moral code requires rationality.

I personally am a scientific moral absolutist. I believe that you can get closer and closer (though maybe never achieve) Morality through scientifically analyzing moral challenges. As with any other theory, the correct one is quite simply the one that "works." What works is what enables a stable and prosperous society.

For some issues, its easy: murder is wrong. Why? Because if murder were right, society would disintegrate. Some issues aren't quite so simple.

 

[shadowman]

Obviously stealing, in itself, is not wrong because it is an action category. *Nico

how stupid is this statement? do you know what you are saying? yes the word "stealing" is not wrong, but the concept of staling is wrong. i think you are looking too deep into the picture to understand it. everything wrong and everything right can be determined by a scociety or culture. there is no universal wrong or right, because there are always excusable exceptions to the rule. ie. the guy who is homeless and hungry steals food...etc. but wrong or right is determined as an on-the-whole basis by the society or culure. stealing is usually, by most scocieties' morals, accepted as a wrong.

 

[Nicomachus]

Shadowman, I contend that you are a fool and have no idea of what you are discussing. Blah blah blah is all you present. Stealing is not wrong in itself, stealing is an action category. Please seek an education. You are arguing against contextualism while accepting contextualism ... Do you even know what you are talking about. Contextualism is true therefore action categories in themselves cannot be considered as right or wrong. Argument ad populum doesn't provide any basis for your argument.
You are simply contradicting yourself and yet you call my assertions stupid? You sir should evaluate your positions and intelligence before you presume to make criticism of mine. Obviously, you are uneducated in these matters.
*Nico

 

[loseyourname]

Not that I subscribe to Kantian ethics, but according to the categorical imperative action categories can have moral value without context. I'm not arguing with you, but you shouldn't speak as if you have some kind of monopoly on moral truth. I'm not sure that anyone has really figured it out quite yet.

 

[Nicomachus]

The categorical imperative has been shown to be faulty. If you want to deny contextualism then that is fine but if you assert that my acceptance of contextualism is "stupid" when you accept contextualism then I will call you ridiculous. Shadowman simply demonstrated that he didn't know what he was talking about and I simply educated him. But yes, if you want to deny contextualism then that is fine, but do not use the Stolen Concept Fallacy or I will think you ridiculous, though I think it is ridiculous to deny contextualism.

As a side note; I see no moral relativist has attempted to rebutt my criticism.
*Nico