Moral Relativism: There are No Moral Absolutes

[learningphysics]

Another interesting point; in saying this you imply that something moral, something 'Good', is not in it's self positive, but rather merely the absense of evil. This implies that the world is inherently good, and assumes something 'immoral' as an invader of sorts. Or am I reading too much into it? What do you think?

You are very perceptive. I do consider 'good' in itself as a positive... however I believe that it is more important to prevent pain and suffering than promoting pleasure and happiness. For example I find it unacceptable to make one man suffer in order to make thousands of others experience pleasure (as opposed just a neutral feeling) This position is negative utilitarianism.

 

[Jameson]

You are right that my statement involved subjective language... I'll try a different approach. Is there no act or behavior that you'd consider wrong or evil?

That I'd consider? That sounds like a relative moral to me...

Just because I consider something moral doesn't make it absolute.

EDIT: I didn't answer your question. Yes there are acts that I would consider moral or immoral.

 

[learningphysics]

That I'd consider? That sounds like a relative moral to me...

Just because I consider something moral doesn't make it absolute.

EDIT: I didn't answer your question. Yes there are acts that I would consider moral or immoral.

I'm having trouble distinguish "immoral" and "absolutely immoral".

If you were to say:
"I consider torture immoral."

how is that sentence any different from
"I consider torture absolutely immoral."

It's like any other sentence. If I say: "The apple is red." how is that different from saying "The apple is absolutely red." ?

 

[Smurf]

Now a question: is logic/reason necessary for 'higher' form of life? Anywhere in the universe if we ever encounter inteligent life it must follow logic? THe same we follow? IF the answer is yes (which i think it is) than morals would be developed independently of us here. Even other 'inteligent' form would develop it.

We know nothing about what other life could exist. Our life is based on biochemistry, this is not the only way life is believed to be possible to exist. There could be life in gaseous form, this leaves the incredible possibility of living planets. (really, anything seems possible with what we know now)

What do you think about sneez?
Your next meal, some moral questions, a TV show, the body of a woman, the song you're writting, wether China will be the next superpower?

What do you think Jupiter thinks about?

I find it more likely that any other life on other planets will be almost unrecognizable to us, let alone follow our same thinking patterns.

SO my argument probably summarizes into logic=> morals. Is it reasonalbe. (note I am not trying to view their concept of morals relative to ours but rather say that MORALS because of them being 'inteligent' (logic) is necessary and therefore universal)

By my definition every life form would indeed have morals. How can intelligent life exist without instinct? Surely complex thought can't exist without first some basic ones. Therefor it is logical to assume that they would likely arrive at some generalisations about what is positive or negative about life. Then again, maybe not.

 

[Smurf]

What about empathy? The desire to save others from suffering... is that also instinctive?

You may be right that it is indeed all instinctive. But my position is that suffering would still be bad even if we didn't have the instinct to avoid it. I can't prove this though.

Empathy's more a matter of complex morals that arise out of these basic instincts. Instead of survival of the individual, you're not worrying about survival of the group.

This is, in part, due to the fact we no longer need to worry too much about our own survival. We've pretty much got most our needs taken care of with reasonable ease.

Suffering will always be instinctively undesired. The very definition of suffering requires undesirability. So yes, suffering will always be 'wrong'. At least to the individual that is having the suffering inflicted upon them.

 

[Smurf]

I'm having trouble distinguish "immoral" and "absolutely immoral".

If you were to say:
"I consider torture immoral."

how is that sentence any different from
"I consider torture absolutely immoral."

It's like any other sentence. If I say: "The apple is red." how is that different from saying "The apple is absolutely red." ?

James seems to have a problem here that I see quite common in these discussions. That is that we lack a proper understanding and/or definition for what an "absolute moral" is and what it means. And how it differs from any form of individual's moral thought.

 

[pallidin]

Morality is an issue of personal conduct with theirself and others and in respect(or lack of) their God or religion or whatever.

 

[force majeure]

Not if your society values sacrifice to the gods and free love and rejects material possessions.

Even a society which allows human sacrifices would have a definition for murder. I have yet to hear a society where you can go around killing anyone you like whenever you feel like it. Or a society where you can take someone else's spouse or estate just because they struck your fancy.

 

[Jameson]

I'm having trouble distinguish "immoral" and "absolutely immoral".

If you were to say:
"I consider torture immoral."

how is that sentence any different from
"I consider torture absolutely immoral."

It's like any other sentence. If I say: "The apple is red." how is that different from saying "The apple is absolutely red." ?

Ok. Take a controversial issue like gay marriage. I would say that this is moral, rational, and something our government should allow. Others would say that it is absolutely wrong, irrational, and would bring our government down. This is because our definitions of right and wrong are really our opinions, unless you are referring to some form of God, in which case this discussion could go on for a while.

Do you see how this is different from an apple being red? What issues are there surrounding the color of the apple?

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Even a society which allows human sacrifices would have a definition for murder. I have yet to hear a society where you can go around killing anyone you like whenever you feel like it. Or a society where you can take someone else's spouse or estate just because they struck your fancy.

Yes, but it is not the same definition as ours, therefore is relative. You don't have to look too far in Britain's past to find a time when it was acceptable to slay a Scot in York on a Thursday or something. We call it murder because it is a morally unacceptable killing (as opposed to, say, killing an enemy in war), however back in medieval times it would have been morally acceptable - indeed encouraged. Therefore that older society, or any that allows human sacrifice, would draw distinctions that we do not. True, they would not call it murder, since murder is unlawful killing, but if the concept of murder is relative, then one person's idea of a morally unacceptable killing will be different to another's.

 

[selfAdjoint]

How about this: "The social unit (band, tribe, nation, etc.) will define what killing is licit. Any other killing is punishable by death". We are a social species; we can expect that the more generally we consider our morality, the more we will find it contingent on society.

 

[learningphysics]

Ok. Take a controversial issue like gay marriage. I would say that this is moral, rational, and something our government should allow. Others would say that it is absolutely wrong, irrational, and would bring our government down.

Ok... you say: "Gay marriage is moral." Someone else says: "Gay marriage is not moral."

Are you saying both of you are right?

The statements are in direct contradiction. It seems to me that either the word "moral" is not defined (rendering the two statements meaningless), or otherwise: one statement is true, and one statement is false, in which case the morality seems pretty absolute to me. We may not know which statement is true, but that doesn't mean that both statements can be true.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Ok... you say: "Gay marriage is moral." Someone else says: "Gay marriage is not moral."

Are you saying both of you are right?

The statements are in direct contradiction. It seems to me that either the word "moral" is not defined (rendering the two statements meaningless), or otherwise: one statement is true, and one statement is false, in which case the morality seems pretty absolute to me. We may not know which statement is true, but that doesn't mean that both statements can be true.

No, in this discussion at least, both statements are wrong, since they both suggest that a different truth is a moral absolute, when the fact that there are two claims for what that truth is demonstrates otherwise.

 

[learningphysics]

Yes, but it is not the same definition as ours, therefore is relative. You don't have to look too far in Britain's past to find a time when it was acceptable to slay a Scot in York on a Thursday or something. We call it murder because it is a morally unacceptable killing (as opposed to, say, killing an enemy in war), however back in medieval times it would have been morally acceptable - indeed encouraged.

Moral does not mean "accepted by society". That's not how the word is used, or what people mean by it.

Would you say slavery was "moral" when it was taking place?

Would you say slavery "shouldn't" have taken place?

When I say tortue is "immoral"... I'm not saying that "society does not accept torture." I'm saying "torture should not take place".

 

[learningphysics]

No, in this discussion at least, both statements are wrong, since they both suggest that a different truth is a moral absolute, when the fact that there are two claims for what that truth is demonstrates otherwise.

Please distinguish how two statements like:

"The apple is red." and "The apple is not red." are in contradiction whereas "Gay marriage is moral." and "Gay marriage is not moral." are not.

Please define moral.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Moral does not mean "accepted by society". That's not how the word is used, or what people mean by it.

Would you say slavery was "moral" when it was taking place?

Would you say slavery "shouldn't" have taken place?

When I say tortue is "immoral"... I'm not saying that "society does not accept torture." I'm saying "torture should not take place".

Do you not understand that by asking me what I think is moral is demonstrating well enough that morality is relative? Yes, I believe all of those things... they are both my own personal moral code and that of my society. But that doesn't make them moral absolutes. The fact that other societies do or have performed torture or used slaves goes to show that they are not moral absolutes. Go back 60 years and ask a white man what the moral thing to do is when a black slave speaks to his master without calling him 'sir'. He'd probably say 'whip him'. Why? BECAUSE HE'S A SLAVE!

A society's moral code contains morals that, by definition, are accepted by society. I was comparing the different moral codes of different societies to highlight that they are not absolute. To say 'murder is immoral' when different people or societies define murder differently is absurd.

Take abortion, for instance. Some people define this as murder, so if murder is absolutely immoral then abortion is immoral. However, some people realize that in a lot of cases abortion seems the moral thing to do, so to deny a woman the right to abort is immoral. If you cannot have an absolute definition of 'murder', how can you say 'murder is absolutely immoral'?

 

[Jameson]

Moral - Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character (source - Dictionary.com)

It seems to me that you are saying any given action, thought, etc. is either moral or immoral. The only way I see a logical way of justifying this is if you say that some kind of God has expressed the morality of the universe.

Ok... you say: "Gay marriage is moral." Someone else says: "Gay marriage is not moral."

Are you saying both of you are right?

Of course not. I was simply showing a difference of opinion. One person could say that something is absolutely moral, while another says one is absolutely immoral. Who's right? I would say no one is, as both both statements are the personal opinions of the persons who said them.

By your absolute way of thinking, how do you justify your morality?

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Please distinguish how two statements like:

"The apple is red." and "The apple is not red." are in contradiction whereas "Gay marriage is moral." and "Gay marriage is not moral." are not.

Please define moral.

My post was in answer to the question of which one was right, not whether or not they contradicted each other.

 

[learningphysics]

Do you not understand that by asking me what I think is moral is demonstrating well enough that morality is relative?

Suppose some guy comes to you. He's learning the English language. He asks you what the word "moral" means. What would you say to him? That you can't say what the word means because morality is relative?

Unless I know what you mean by the word "moral", how can I understand what you're saying? You have to explain what the word means, because it seems that we mean two different things. If that is the case, then it is impossible to discuss. Communication is based on words having universally defined meanings to words.

If I said to you: "sdfsdfsdf is good.", would you have any idea what I'm talking about unless I defined what sdfsdfsdf means?

 

[Jameson]

You are correct in that we need a common ground to communicate on. In my previous post I gave the definition of moral, but perhaps I should expand on it more.

It seems that you define moral as "pertaining to things of absolute right or wrong nature". I'll post again the definion I gave above.

Moral - Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character (source - Dictionary.com)

This is how I use the world, pertaining to judgment of goodness or badness. This does not put an absolute association with it. If I said this was aboslutely moral or immoral, then I would mean just that. I think that you associate the word moral with absoluteless and that is why there is misunderstanding.

If this absoluteless is a view you hold, I can see that.

However, others hold the view that no single action can be right or wrong, it is simply what every person views it as. I think this view makes much more sense and describes why we as a human race have so many conflicting views of right and wrong: because we all have our opinions.

I would like it if you expanded on your thoughts some more.

 

[learningphysics]

There seems to be a miscommunication going on... The word "moral" is not about personal opinion. It is about rightness and wrongness... that's just what the word means. Now two different people may different opinions regarding the morality of an action, but that does not mean the action itself is morally ambiguous. Two people may judge actions differently, but that does not mean the action itself is morally ambiguous. It is the judgment that varies, not the actual morality of the action. In other words the action may have been morally right, but judged as wrong by someone in which case his judgment was incorrect.

One cosmologist has the opinion that the universe is finite. The other has the opinion that the universe is infinite. Now, just because they are both personal opinions, does not mean that the universe is neither finite nor infinite. That would be absurd. One person's personal opinion is correct, and the other one is incorrect.

Now if you are saying that all actions are morally neutral, that's fine. But I'd call that a morally absolute.

 

[Jameson]

Define morally right then.

 

[learningphysics]

Define morally right then.

It is difficult but... something like this.

A "moral" act, is an act that "should take place".

An immoral act, is an act that "should not take place".

All other acts are morally neutral.

Anyway, I wish to apologize Jameson, and El Hombre if I seemed contentious. I can get caught up in these debates sometimes, and come off as antagonistic. Sorry about that.

 

[Jameson]

No need to apologize, I have liked our discussion very much.

Do you see the possible subjectiveness in your definition? Can't you feel your opinion slipping in when defining right?

I would love to hear a rational justification for the absolutes of right and wrong without an appeal to a Creator. If you have time and are willing, take it away!

Jameson

 

[learningphysics]

No need to apologize, I have liked our discussion very much.

Do you see the possible subjectiveness in your definition? Can't you feel your opinion slipping in when defining right?

Not in my definition of "right". But my judgments of actions may be wrong as they will inevitably involve subjectiveness.

I'm curious as to how you approach this. How do you judge something to be moral when there is no absolute morality? If one believes there is no rightness or wrongness to abortion, then I don't see how one goes about making a moral judgment (absolute or not). On what basis do you make a judgment?

Glad you're enjoying our discussion. I am too.

EDIT: Got to run for now! Will return!

 

[Jameson]

Have you ever had a discussion where you and the other person make very good arguments and have very rational reasons for what you think, but for some reason do not reach the same conclusion?

I really believe that morality is something invented by humans. Most other species just live. We analyze why things are certain ways and if that is ok by different standards.

I'm curious as to how you approach this. How do you judge something to be moral when there is no absolute morality? If one believes there is no rightness or wrongness to abortion, then I don't see how one goes about making a moral judgment (absolute or not). On what basis do you make a judgment?

I am not saying that I do not feel abortion is right or wrong, what I mean is that I recognize that how I feel does not have to be how others do. And, that how I feel isn't the absolute right.

Right and wrong are concepts really. They are not as concrete as say, the apple you were talking about.

I personally decide what is right or wrong through logical thinking. My general philosophy on life is to allow as much freedom to all as possible and to harm as little as possible. It gets hard to draw lines, which is why I do not feel my lines are right for all.

 

[sneez]

Reading this interesting discussion you guys have it came to me that morality must be related to justice.



would not 'right' and 'wrong' needed to be defined through justice. Than the question of jameson would rather be if there is absolute justice.

what do u think?

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Suppose some guy comes to you. He's learning the English language. He asks you what the word "moral" means. What would you say to him? That you can't say what the word means because morality is relative?

Uhh... how did you figure that? No-one is saying the definition of moral, or morality, is relative, but that a particular moral itself is relative. Your question suggests you haven't quite got the gist of the discussion. Someone has already posted the definition of 'moral' - i.e. a judgement as to whether something is good or bad. That is not the question. The question is whether that judgement can be absolute and inherently true or not.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Define morally right then.

This could have several meanings:
1. Good in accordance with one's personal moral codes;
2. Good in accordance with a society's moral codes;
3. Absolutely good.

Again, the question is not what 'morally right' means - it's whether anything can be truly described as such.

For a Christian or a Muslim or such, it would be quite easy to determine something that is all three. For instance, to covet thy neighbour's missus is morally wrong for a Christian: personally, socially and absolutely. However, if that person is wrong in their beliefs, they would also be wrong in the assertion that the deed in question is absolutely morally wrong, since its 'wrongness' has been supposedly made absolute by an entity that does not exist (if they are wrong).

For a non-believer, the question of moral absolutes is much more difficult. We have not been raised in a world in which absolute truth is supplied. The nearest we have is science. If we believe that there is no influence of moral truth in the fundamental matter and forces of nature, and that morality is an emergent property, then it is difficult to claim any inherent moral good or bad in any event in spacetime, since you can break it down to quarks, leptons, photons and gluons and find no moral truth in it. Other than that, we have only the moral codes impressed upon us by society, and those we make for ourselves through experience. Since societies and personal experiences differ, these moral codes are relative to the society or person that holds them.

 

[learningphysics]

This could have several meanings:
1. Good in accordance with one's personal moral codes;
2. Good in accordance with a society's moral codes;
3. Absolutely good.

I don't think 2 works. Well... the way I use the word, "moral" means "right", "just"... something is "moral" when something is "the way it ought to be." People say that something is "moral" when they believe the act has a sense of rightness to it.

This point is important for the definition of "moral". To say something is "moral" is not to simply say "my society's codes agree with this." Suppose we traveled back in time to when slavery existed and was accepted by society. Would you or I say, "Slavery is moral." ? Using a peculiar definition of "moral" as reference to society's codes I guess it would make sense. But that's not what people mean by the word.

When someone says "Abortion is immoral", they are not saying "society's codes do not accept abortion"... they are saying that abortion has a wrongness to it. So the definition of moral as agreement with society's codes doesn't work.

I'd say "Slavery ought not to have happened." in other words "Slavery was immoral". I may be wrong when I say slavery ought not to have happened... but that's not the point here. When I use the word "moral" here, I'm not referring to a particular society or code or anything of the sort. All I have is a sense of the way things "ought to have been"... it is this sense of the way things "ought to have been" that gives the word "moral" or "good" or "just" their meanings.

When the people in society... after some time found that "slavery is immoral"... that didn't mean that the morality of slavery changed. Either slavery ought to have happened or not. That didn't change when society changed its viewpoint and its moral code. Most people would say "Society believed slavery was moral but they were wrong." Moral codes changed... morality didn't.

It's the same as with science... Just because Newton believed in his law of gravitation and society believed it was correct, does not mean he wasn't wrong at the time. Society's judgment changed when Einstein came along but the correctness of Newton's theory didn't. It was wrong all along.

This is why I'm thoroughly confused by the concept of "relative morality"... "Moral codes" may change frequently... but morality doesn't.