What is the basis for ethical realism and why is it important?

[JoeDawg]

feeling good.

Junkies say that too.

 

[OB 50]

So you will argue that stoning women to death is OK in Iran, but not in America?

How can you be good if morals are relative?

You seem to use the word "relative" as if it means "arbitrary".

I am defining "good" as that which contributes to the betterment and health of society as a whole. Human society has many different levels, local, regional, global, etc. Within a certain subset of society, certain activities may be deemed acceptable, but it does not make them moral.

As you brought up before, Nazi Germany is a prime example of a case where acceptable behavior within a subgroup of people was deemed unacceptably immoral from the perspective of human society as a whole.

 

[superwolf]

Should we oppose it?

 

[OB 50]

Should we oppose what?

 

[superwolf]

I am defining "good" as that which contributes to the betterment and health of society as a whole.

Betterment is relative.

 

[superwolf]

Should we oppose what?

Stoning in Iran.

 

[JoeDawg]

Should we oppose it?

How do you intend to oppose it?

 

[OB 50]

Betterment is relative.

Not really. Every action taken by an individual either contributes to that society's ability to continue existing, or hampers it. The consequences may not be immediately obvious, but it's one or the other.

Stoning in Iran.

We should oppose it and make an effort to marginalize or eliminate those that endorse such a thing. There is no conceivable societal benefit to stoning or oppressing women. Personally, this is the kind of moral relativism I find disgusting. It is a symptom of an immoral society which will not be able to sustain itself if it continues to allow such things.

 

[JoeDawg]

Personally, this is the kind of moral relativism I find disgusting.

Not standing up for what you believe in is apathy, not relativism.

 

[OB 50]

Not standing up for what you believe in is apathy, not relativism.

Agreed. However, you have to resolve your stance on moral relativism before you can make a moral judgment on what it is you believe. If you think it's okay for women to be stoned in Iran because "that's acceptable in their culture", then you subscribe to moral relativism and it is not a violation of your beliefs.

I do not subscribe to that way of thinking, so I am merely apathetic.

 

[JoeDawg]

Agreed. However, you have to resolve your stance on moral relativism before you can make a moral judgment on what it is you believe.

Moral relativism and cultural relativism are not synonymous.
But both are descriptive, not proscriptive.

Understanding how one's own culture affects one's biases, and judgments helps anthropologists evaluate other cultures with the least amount of bias. Just like with any scientific experiment, outside contamination can ruin the observations we make. Cultural relativism really has nothing to do with whether one country chooses to invade another, except maybe that good reconnaissance also involves blending in and not affecting what you are trying to observe.

Moral relativism is simply an acknowledgment that there is no absolute/objective standard for morality. One must accept that the 'premises' that we rely on for ethical judgments are generally arbitrary. There is no 'right way'.

That said, once we accept certain premises, and decide to put value on consistency in behavior and such, we can certainly make decisions based on logic and/or instincts.

If you think it's okay for women to be stoned in Iran because "that's acceptable in their culture", then you subscribe to moral relativism and it is not a violation of your beliefs.

No. I acknowledge they have a different moral system than I do. I also put more value on mine. I just don't pretend mine is written in stone somewhere. I also put more value on mine, than on those shared by many Americans.

Being apathetic means you don't care what happens. Some moral relativists are apathetic to the plight of women in Iran. But its not a requirement. Some moral relativists put a high value on not interfering with other cultures. But its not a requirement. In fact, THAT'S the whole point. There are no requirements. It doesn't mean you can't build a straitjacket of moral rules to live by. You can do that too.

I value my own judgment on ethical issues, most people do. Right or wrong is little more than opinion. That said, I'm certainly willing to back up the ethical decisions I make, at least until someone convinces me to change my opinion.

 

[OB 50]

I get what you're saying, and I agree with you for the most part.

It's all about context. If we step back far enough, nothing really matters at all. Humans will be extinct one day, and nothing that anybody ever did will mean anything at all. The universe will die a slow heat death, and all is for naught.

However, while we're here and alive, we all have to play along within the context of our individual experience.

 

[JoeDawg]

I get what you're saying, and I agree with you for the most part.

It's all about context. If we step back far enough, nothing really matters at all. Humans will be extinct one day, and nothing that anybody ever did will mean anything at all. The universe will die a slow heat death, and all is for naught.

However, while we're here and alive, we all have to play along within the context of our individual experience.

Sounds about right.

 

[superwolf]

Not really. Every action taken by an individual either contributes to that society's ability to continue existing, or hampers it. The consequences may not be immediately obvious, but it's one or the other.

Why is existence better than non-existence?

 

[superwolf]

Agreed. However, you have to resolve your stance on moral relativism before you can make a moral judgment on what it is you believe.

Why "beliefs"? It's not a religion, is it? I reckon that intrinsic moral realities maybe don't exist, but does that mean that I have to be a moral relativist? Is there nothing in between the two extremes?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

That each case must be treated differently doesn't make moral realism untrue. If x makes X happy and y makes Y happy, it is moral to give x to X and to give y to Y.

All I want to rob poeple of, is the ability to determine that they don't value happiness. Even if different things make people happy, everyone must value happiess. Happiness is valuable per definition, I dare say. Since happiness is valuable, we should try to obtain as much as possible of it.

This is moral relativism. In moral realism, as I understand it, one must be able to make objective and empirically verifiable moral statements absent subjective opinion. If the factors in a proposition change value depending on the subjective opinion of individuals then no proposition will have a consistent moral outcome and is there for non-objective.

 

[JoeDawg]

I reckon that intrinsic moral realities maybe don't exist, but does that mean that I have to be a moral relativist?

Well, there are really two issues here.
First, is there an objective/absolute morality, and second, can I know, figure out, what it is?

If an absolute morality exists, we could simply be ignorant of what it is. In which case a god, with a couple of spare stone tablets, would come in handy.
If an objective morality exists, I need a system that provides some sort of conclusive way of identifying that standard.

I don't think gods exist, and I haven't seen a system able to derive an ought from an is.

Even if one, or the other, does exist though, if we are simply not privy to, or capable of, knowing it, then moral relativism is basically a fall back position, that acknowledges our ignorance.

The more affirmative relativism, denies the existence of any kind of standard. This seems an unreasonable and unnecessary step. If we can't get access to it, it might as well not exist, as far as we are concerned.

Morality seems quite distinctly a human issue, having to do with our ability to create abstractions from observation, nothing more. That's not a bad thing either in my mind. It gives us the freedom to decide how we will live.

 

[Moridin]

This is moral relativism. In moral realism, as I understand it, one must be able to make objective and empirically verifiable moral statements absent subjective opinion. If the factors in a proposition change value depending on the subjective opinion of individuals then no proposition will have a consistent moral outcome and is there for non-objective.

No, it is moral realism. Moral realism means that the validity of moral statements depend on reality, whereas moral relativism says morality is arbitrarily subjective.

 

[Moridin]

For example, theft is the simultaneous assertion and rejection of universal property rights, which cannot stand.

 

[Moridin]

Well, there are really two issues here.
First, is there an objective/absolute morality, and second, can I know, figure out, what it is?

If an absolute morality exists, we could simply be ignorant of what it is. In which case a god, with a couple of spare stone tablets, would come in handy.
If an objective morality exists, I need a system that provides some sort of conclusive way of identifying that standard.

I don't think gods exist, and I haven't seen a system able to derive an ought from an is.

Even if one, or the other, does exist though, if we are simply not privy to, or capable of, knowing it, then moral relativism is basically a fall back position, that acknowledges our ignorance.

The more affirmative relativism, denies the existence of any kind of standard. This seems an unreasonable and unnecessary step. If we can't get access to it, it might as well not exist, as far as we are concerned.

Morality seems quite distinctly a human issue, having to do with our ability to create abstractions from observation, nothing more. That's not a bad thing either in my mind. It gives us the freedom to decide how we will live.

Objective morality / moral realism is not moral absolutism and should not even be used in the same sentence :p. It is like confusing liberal Christianity with a satanic cult that eats babies. Moral realism is incompatible with god(s), since supernatural god(s) can arbitrarily change the facts of reality, thereby nullifying any empirical support.

 

[JoeDawg]

For example, theft is the simultaneous assertion and rejection of universal property rights, which cannot stand.

Well, that's one opinion.

Its way more complicated than that however.

First, it must be agreed that property rights exist.
Second, it must be agreed that a particular object belonged to a particular person
Third, it must be agreed that another person took possession of that object in a way that implied ownership, when ownership was not indeed transfered.

Individual property rights is a relatively new concept.
Its easy to claim ownership on all sorts of grounds.
There are all number of different levels of possession.

Ultimately it becomes a matter of legal consensus, not really morality.

 

[superwolf]

The problem with utilitarisnism is that it says that it may be right to kill innocent people.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

No, it is moral realism. Moral realism means that the validity of moral statements depend on reality, whereas moral relativism says morality is arbitrarily subjective.

Precisely as I said. If you apply values to your moral propositions based on subjective opinion it is moral relativism.

 

[superwolf]

Moral realism is established in the moment you can show that evverybody should value something. That people disagree is not an argument as long as the proof is valid. I came with this proof in the OP.

 

[JoeDawg]

Moral realism is established in the moment you can show that evverybody should value something. That people disagree is not an argument as long as the proof is valid. I came with this proof in the OP.

Thing about proofs is they depend on premises. Different premises, different logical results.

Your argument from life is incomplete. Most life that has existed, never lived long enough to procreate, and all life ends in death. If you take a representative sample of all life that ever lived on planet earth, your conclusion would be that life values death, above all else. Some just achieve that goal quicker than others. Procreation is therefore immoral.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Moral realism is established in the moment you can show that evverybody should value something. That people disagree is not an argument as long as the proof is valid. I came with this proof in the OP.

So you determine what other people should value? And exactly what value they should attach to it? Its one thing to say that everyone does or should value something (generally everyone values their own life for instance, easy argument) its a whole other issue to determine precisely what value should be placed upon that thing. Consistent relative values between different factors in moral propositions is necessary to an objective rule of measure.

 

[superwolf]

Everyone should value life, therefore ethical realism is true.

 

[Moridin]

Precisely as I said. If you apply values to your moral propositions based on subjective opinion it is moral relativism.

No, that is by definition moral realism, since the morality part is objectively true, even if the underlying values are relative. Morality is not equal to values.

 

[Moridin]

Well, that's one opinion.

Its way more complicated than that however.

First, it must be agreed that property rights exist.
Second, it must be agreed that a particular object belonged to a particular person
Third, it must be agreed that another person took possession of that object in a way that implied ownership, when ownership was not indeed transfered.

Individual property rights is a relatively new concept.
Its easy to claim ownership on all sorts of grounds.
There are all number of different levels of possession.

Ultimately it becomes a matter of legal consensus, not really morality.

Not at all. Any statement that simultaneously reject and affirm the existence of jaxyplonk is an invalid position, even if we know nothing about jaxyplonk.

 

[Moridin]

So you determine what other people should value? And exactly what value they should attach to it? Its one thing to say that everyone does or should value something (generally everyone values their own life for instance, easy argument) its a whole other issue to determine precisely what value should be placed upon that thing. Consistent relative values between different factors in moral propositions is necessary to an objective rule of measure.

Values are the functional equivalent to biological needs. But as stated earlier, even if values where subjective, that which we should do to fulfill values (= morality) is not. It is true that in order for my car to function, I ought to change the oil in my car. This is objectively true, even if other people do not value their cars. This is what individualist morality (as oppose to collectivist morality) is about.