Moral Relativism

[methamaniac]

post has made me pause to consider what your motives are in creating this thread. I hope you didn't make this thread in order to feel justified in harbouring some kind of bias. Forgive me if I have misinterpreted you, but it sounds like there is some anti-Islamic sentiment behind this comment.

I agree with you that moral relativism is false, but I want to put it out there that I have nothing against Muslims (or any religious or ethnic group) and if you do, I hope you do not take my arguments as being in support of that.

First and foremost, I made this thread to discuss moral relativism and that which relates to it-
That's the extent of my motive.
Where it goes with respect to that or one's personal opinions on morality......is all good with me.

Yes, you have misrepresented my views via innuendo. I was merely using said statements as an example in response to your post. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that it was unintentional as you seem very fair minded.
I'm not anti-Islamic, I am anti- a group of people cutting off my (or your) head for not adhering to their particular dogma, and anti- anyone who supports this ideology. And futhermore, anti- anyone who doesn't have the conviction to condemn this ideology.
Fair enough?

If moral relativism is true, then anything goes, people can decide that it is good to discriminate against those whom they disagree with, and under the doctrine of moral relativism there would be no objective moral fact to say this was wrong

Bingo! If you want objective morality you have to believe something is a fact. If you deny this , you have no foundation to condemn the action of another.

Why should I trust anyone human who claims to know the mind of god?

You shouldn't. IMO you should trust God and what he reveals to you through his word and Holy Spirit.

I feel like this morality is inherently tainted by the medium it traverses; the fickle, emotional human.

^ This is exactly why cultural relativism doesn't work. And I would argue, its why trying to use personal preference to adjudicate what is ultimately true in respect to morality doesn't work either. Sometimes emotions get the better of us and clouds our judgement.

It adds further reason to distrust the claims of those who say they know absolute morality

Like I was saying, I too would be skeptical of anyone who claims to know absolute morality absolutely. This is not to the same as trusting someone who holds (and can rationally explain) why an absolute truth is correct.
In trusting someone, it is important to really evaluate the words they profess and weigh them with your conscience. The reason I have full trust in Jesus/the word of God is because I have evaluated,measured, and subsequently applied them. I have found them to be inherently true time and time again.

I love playing with my 1 year old niece, who has no morality. She is yet to learn it, IMO

Your niece (and small children in general) have no awareness of right and wrong. This is what makes them innocent. This doesn't mean a child is incapable of commiting a right or wrong act.

Absolute morality from god, and built into the human machine, should not need to be learned or accumulated; it would already fully exist.

Morality (absolute) does fully exist. I don't see how a child (or adult) becoming aware of this disproves its existence. That's like saying anything you learn/become aware of can not exist because you were previously unaware of it. Children learn how to lie, does that mean lying doesn't really exist?
Or that lying isn't wrong?

Your conscience is a tool used to understand absolute morality. As different input is presented- higher states of awareness can be achieved.
IMO The more you study and trust the word of God, the more of his nature and truths are revealed to you.
Sometimes we surpress the conviction of our conscience in order to do what we know is wrong. I knew my drug use was wrong and was hurting my family, I just didn't pay attention(ignored) to the conviction my conscience was making me aware of. The result/effect was a lot of pain to me and my family.

an indivual must learn right and wrong, it is not absolute but relative to the context that they have existed/grown within, relative to the data fed into their neurons at specific times.

As I said an individual becomes aware of right and wrong. The only thing relative in respect is they may become aware of what is ultimately right and wrong in different situations

There is a beauty in moral relativism. It means you have the ultimate power to live a life that you want, free of other people telling you that you're wrong.

Sounds great on the surface. But do you really want to live that way? Do you not want someone to tell you how wrong you are for driving drunk?
What if your wife said she was relatively
faithful to you. Would you have a problem with that?

 

[methamaniac]

i'm sorry man, but if what i believe characterizes me as a moral nihilist, than i wasn't a moral relativist in the first place. i did not slid down no slippery slope. i didn't post to defend moral relativism

Yeah, i didn't necessarily mean you (although I know it reads that way)
I just meant if one holds that view.
Sorry if I misrepresented your view.

why not? the aztecs thought it was OK to sacrifice thousands of their people, so in their society, human sacrifice wasn't wrong. in our modern society, it is wrong. just like many other things that were frowned upon in certain societies, but not in others, like homosexualism, polygamia, alcohol, etc... i don't believe in absolute morality. things need a human observer for them to be morally wrong or right.

You have to have a moral fact in order to distinguish between what is right and wrong/ good and evil. Assuming you believe these exist.
If you are a moral nihilist then you shouldn't even use the word right or wrong. They do not technically exist.


What your are saying is fallacious because you are expecting me to accept that human sacrafice (with respect) is "ok" so long as a consensus of people agree it is ok. I do not accept that.
You will have to do more to further your argument.
You could start with defining what you mean by right and wrong giving you made this statement :

morality doesn't exist absolutely, nothing is wrong, nothing is right

But however you define right and wrong ,
it seems to me you believe what is right and what is wrong is merely a matter of opinion. That their validation comes when people's opinions agree and then vanishes when they do not. Before I critique this, I want to be sure exactly what is your view.

 

[psychedelicsoul]

Some accuse me of being a moral relativist because of my views... but that's untrue. I don't like moral relativism, or nihilism, or humanism, or progressivism, or traditionalism, or elitism or any philosophy that doesn't say, "You can swing your fist as much as you want as long as you don't hit another persons face"

Nihilism and moral relativism got it halfway right. You can do whatever you want. However, such philosophies don't create an objective barrior protecting other peoples freedoms.
Progressivism is sort of like "It's 2015, so stop thinking you're way and think like me"
Traditionalism is like, "It's 2015, think like it's 1915"

For example, when I was bashing the Trevor Project and saying it should be banned from public schools I said, "Teen suicide isn't an issue because morality is subjective". Some people took that as saying I don't believe in morality. That's not true... I'm just an extreme individualist. If I were a moral relativist, then I wouldn't care at all. However, I believe that anti-suicide programs are wrong because I think the government shouldn't interfere with something that is an act of free will that doesn't directly harm others. I think ones focused on sexuality are wrong because they attack the religious liberties of parents.
If I were truly a moral relativist, then I wouldn't care about free will or freedom or anything like that. I'd just say "whatever happens happens"

I believe that everyone has an individual soul within them. A spirit. I believe that (without hurting others) one is free to explore that spirit and grow along with it. I think it's morally wrong to stand in their way, hurt them, or kill them for any other reason than the defense of ones own or anthers freedom or life. (especially if you're a public establishment)
However, I acknowledge that it's impossible for humans to follow that. If my friend tried to kill himself, I'd stop him, because as a human being, I'm a selfish hypocrite. However, to some extent, all people are hypocrites. Just like if you say you're not a liar, a situation will come where you'll probably have to lie.
I think interfering with suicide is wrong, and if I did it, I would call myself wrong for doing it. The reason why is because I'd be putting my will over anothers will.

I think the problem with some nihilists and moral relativists is that they don't wanna see certain actions they do as wrong. Personally, I know a lot of my behaviors and decisions in reality would be considered "wrong" by my own philosophy. However, I acknowledge that as a human being, that's inevitable.

 

[methamaniac]

Nihilism and moral relativism got it halfway right. You can do whatever you want. However, such philosophies don't create an objective barrior protecting other peoples freedoms.

I would say one has it almost all the way wrong and another all the way wrong.☺

some people took that as saying I don't believe in morality. That's not true... I'm just an extreme individualist.

If your truly going to hold to subjectivism with respect, you better be able to tolerate the opinions of others. Because whether you realize it or not, your oposition's opinion is just as valid as yours. Pointing out or arguing your differences is not being consistent with your world view and is like two people who don't believe in unicorns arguing over what color unicorns are.

were a moral relativist, then I wouldn't care at all.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that. Being a moral relativist doesn't mean you are morally bankrupt.

However, I believe that anti-suicide programs are wrong because I think the government shouldn't interfere with something that is an act of free will that doesn't directly harm others. I think ones focused on sexuality are wrong because they attack the religious liberties of parents.

But why is attacking the religious liberties of parents wrong? Why is the government interfering with and individuals free will wrong?
What I am getting at is what makes something inherently wrong? If it's subjective to the individual, and morally relative, than two opposing views on the exact same issue can be correct at the exact same time.

I were truly a moral relativist, then I wouldn't care about free will or freedom or anything like that. I'd just say "whatever happens happens"

Determinsim doesn't have to logically follow moral relativism.

believe that everyone has an individual soul within them. A spirit. I believe that (without hurting others) one is free to explore that spirit and grow along with it. I think it's morally wrong to stand in their way, hurt them, or kill them for any other reason than the defense of ones own or anthers freedom or life.

I can follow this philosophy, but would you say a violation of this is absolutely wrong? ie violating right to life?

However, to some extent, all people are hypocrites. Just like if you say you're not a liar, a situation will come where you'll probably have to lie.

If I am being completely honest, an argument from this line of reasoning is probably the best argument against moral absolutism.
i.e. Is it still absolutely wrong to lie if by lying you will be upholding another moral you believe to be absolute?

think the problem with some nihilists and moral relativists is that they don't wanna see certain actions they do as wrong. Personally, I know a lot of my behaviors and decisions in reality would be considered "wrong" by my own philosophy. However, I acknowledge that as a human being, that's inevitable.

I completely agree, and at least your being honest. We are all hypocrites at times. I just strongly believe there is a way things ought to be even if I don't always follow it.

 

[swilow]

I strongly disagree with this, for reasons I touched on in an earlier post. I don't want to get back in to that because it would be taking the thread a little off-topic, but I would like to note that I believe quite strongly in some absolute moral facts. I have identified as an atheist all my life, until recently when I started to identify more as agnostic. You would be hard pressed to find someone less convinced of the existence of God than me.

I think I knew that you were an atheist. I share some atheistic views, so would be really interested in what you consider the source of absolute morality is...

I could imagine it being related to instincts. We have a survival instinct that is a distinct commonality amongst us. Many morals are, either directly or indirectly, related to an individual negatively influencing the possibility for survival (and reproduction) of another.

 

[neurotic]

But however you define right and wrong ,
it seems to me you believe what is right and what is wrong is merely a matter of opinion. That their validation comes when people's opinions agree and then vanishes when they do not. Before I critique this, I want to be sure exactly what is your view.

pretty much. i wouldn't use the word 'opinion' though, it feels too light for it.

I was trying to extract an argument from your post which I hadn't already demonstrated was false. If what I extracted was not what you meant, then I stand corrected. It would be nice if you could provide a logically valid argument for your position.

I have already touched on how I believe one determines objective morality. I am happy to go in to a bit more detail, but I would like you to actually defend your own views first.

yeah, i read your post but to be honest i didn't exactly get it. i think one cannot reach objective morality. you'd have to define "wrong" (and considering that things that are not "wrong" are then "right") and from that proposition you could extract if something is wrong or right for all things, but how does one define "wrong"? i don't know how to define it, it's not obvious. from my experience, people feel things are wrong.

i think i made my point across, the universe doesn't care about right/wrong, wrong/right just like beauty is in the eye of the beholder, etc, and i am genuinely interested in how one could reach a consistent and objective morality

 

[psychedelicsoul]

If your truly going to hold to subjectivism with respect, you better be able to tolerate the opinions of others. Because whether you realize it or not, your oposition's opinion is just as valid as yours. Pointing out or arguing your differences is not being consistent with your world view and is like two people who don't believe in unicorns arguing over what color unicorns are.

But I'm not a subjectivist. I have a clear moral viewpoint that is related to my religion. I believe humans have souls, within our souls is our free will and conscience. I believe that mankind is to explore ourselves and our mind through deep thinking in order to modify and discover ourselves within our own image. I believe it's morally wrong to deprive people of that. So I do believe in objective morality.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that. Being a moral relativist doesn't mean you are morally bankrupt.

Fair enough, but a moral relativist would have to admit that they their convictions aren't actually "right" or "wrong" but simply a result of their feelings. Where as I can support things that feel wrong based on my ideology.
My belief that people should go and commit suicide whenever they feel like it and not concern themselves with loved ones feels wrong. It feels wrong to think it's okay to just do that and leave so many grieving people behind. However, because of my belief in free will. I can support such things as a result of ideology. That takes empathy out of the question.

But why is attacking the religious liberties of parents wrong? Why is the government interfering with and individuals free will wrong?
What I am getting at is what makes something inherently wrong? If it's subjective to the individual, and morally relative, than two opposing views on the exact same issue can be correct at the exact same time.

Well... I believe in a God. So such things go against my religion. And I feel that it's morally right to defend other religious people. I look at the issue and I question, "who's freedom is being infringed on" and in this case, I say that Christian parents are being victimized by a facist school system that seeks to eliminate religion through humanist propaganda. I see the suicide rate of LGBT teens to be an irrelevant matter, and for schools to get involved shows a disrespect for the freedom of christians, and the choice that those teens make. I honer their deaths by supporting their decision. I think to not support their decision is disrespectful to their former existence.
If you believe morality is subjective, then you should desire to protect that belief. Right now, states like DC are pushing pro-LGBT propaganda to children and forcibly defying the first amendment rights of their parents. When a governing force begins brainwashing children to abandon their ideology. It clearly doesn't feel that morality is subjective. If they can teach kids that their ideological views on gays are wrong. Then what else could they teach? I see a uniform system of objective morality as no different than a state church. It's a state ideology that's pushed on children. And that's what I call fucked up NWO shit. How can I respect the ideology of these LGBT advocacy groups if they can't respect the ideology of the children they indoctrinate or their parents.

Determinsim doesn't have to logically follow moral relativism.

good point

I can follow this philosophy, but would you say a violation of this is absolutely wrong? ie violating right to life?

I believe violating this is absolutely wrong. But not in the way most religious people do. I see absolute wrongs as inevitability in some cases. I think human nature forces us to sometimes commit absolute wrongs.

 

[methamaniac]

But I'm not a subjectivist.

I do believe in objective morality.

Well... I believe in a God

All apologies,
I wan't trying to necessarily label you but more trying to make a point.
I'll have to admit (if I can be completely honest) from some of the post I have read of yours, you kinda strike me as a subjective individualist (of sorts) with ethical/moral egoist tendencies.
(That's not an attempt at an insult)


I guess one question I still have for you is- do you believe the god of your understanding is responsible/establishes objective morality?

My belief that people should go and commit suicide whenever they feel like it and not concern themselves with loved ones feels wrong. It feels wrong to think it's okay to just do that and leave so many grieving people behind. However, because of my belief in free will. I can support such things as a result of ideology. That takes empathy out of the question.

^Case in point........

I don't feel you can take empathy completely out of the equation with respect. IMO how we affect others matters and should be morally considered.
Moreover, we shouldn't "rest on our laurels" in respect to our convictions. Objective morality should ultimately trump the free will with respect.
Sometimes application of this can be achieved verbally, sometimes it has to be done physically.

Fair enough, but a moral relativist would have to admit that they their convictions aren't actually "right" or "wrong" but simply a result of their feelings. Where as I can support things that feel wrong based on my ideology.

Not exactly, a moral relativist is allowed to use their conscience and declare right and wrong, they just have to admit their declartions are subject to change at any time.☺

And I feel that it's morally right to defend other religious people.

What if their religion directly violates what you believe to be an objective moral?
(That's not an easy question. I'm not expecting you to answer, just to think)

believe violating this is absolutely wrong. But not in the way most religious people do. I see absolute wrongs as inevitability in some cases. I think human nature forces us to sometimes commit absolute wrongs.

Yes I agree, living in a sinful world it is impossible to perfectly adhere to moral absolutes absolutely.

 

[drug_mentor]

yeah, i read your post but to be honest i didn't exactly get it. i think one cannot reach objective morality. you'd have to define "wrong" (and considering that things that are not "wrong" are then "right") and from that proposition you could extract if something is wrong or right for all things, but how does one define "wrong"? i don't know how to define it, it's not obvious. from my experience, people feel things are wrong.

i think i made my point across, the universe doesn't care about right/wrong, wrong/right just like beauty is in the eye of the beholder, etc, and i am genuinely interested in how one could reach a consistent and objective morality

If by you made your point, you mean that you stated clearly that you don't think morality is objective, then I agree with you.

However, I don't think you have presented any kind of argument in favour of moral relativism, apart from an invalid one (twice), which I had already demonstrated was false prior to either of your posts.

I think I knew that you were an atheist. I share some atheistic views, so would be really interested in what you consider the source of absolute morality is...

I could imagine it being related to instincts. We have a survival instinct that is a distinct commonality amongst us. Many morals are, either directly or indirectly, related to an individual negatively influencing the possibility for survival (and reproduction) of another.

I have a few different ideas on where objective morality comes from.

One idea is that it is derived from a rational collectively self-interested set of principles, what I mean by this is that it is in the interests of all people to live in a society where rape and murder (among other things) are unacceptable. Empathy and morality could be evolutionary tools that we have developed so we have a sense of how to live in a manner that is most conducive to the thriving of not just ourselves, but the society we live in. From this perspective, there are certain actions which would always be wrong, because they can't forward the agenda of collective self-interest under any circumstance.

I am an animal lover, so I find the explanation that I just offered intuitively unappealing. I also dislike the fact that it would define morality as largely a function of utility. But rationally, it does make sense (to me, anyway).

Another possible explanation, is that morality is simply the realisation that you are no more special than anyone else, and behaving in a morally acceptable manner entails that when performing an action, you must consider the rights and interests of all those affected by said action. Something can never be justified morally purely from an appeal to self-interest, it must be justifiable to an impartial observer. It is something that is derived from our empathy, if we are capable of knowing that we would not want something done to ourselves, then it would be wrong to do it to someone else.

I should note that obviously if someone wants to be killed or hurt or something, but is rationally capable of knowing that other people don't share these desires, this obviously would not excuse them killing or hurting others.

I prefer this explanation because it isn't a function of utility. Also because I believe it can be extended to animals somewhat, without necessarily entailing that we all become vegetarians (assuming we say they have less rights than persons, and that their interests are weighted less heavily).

I don't have (anywhere near) all the answers on morality, but I do believe quite firmly that there is an objective right and wrong. There are certain things which I believe can never be justified, except from a deeply self-interested perspective, I have touched on a few of them in this thread already. In my opinion, these things are objectively wrong.

Someone could certainly pick some holes in my explanations, or ask questions I don't have the answer to. But frankly, at this point I have offered a more robust defense of objective morality (whilst also discrediting moral relativism) than anyone has offered in favour of moral relativism so far.

 

[methamaniac]

one idea is that it is derived from a rational collectively self-interested set of principles, what I mean by this is that it is in the interests of all people to live in a society where rape and murder (among other things) are unacceptable. Empathy and morality could be evolutionary tools that we have developed so we have a sense of how to live in a manner that is most conducive to the thriving of not just ourselves, but the society we live in. From this perspective, there are certain actions which would always be wrong, because they can't forward the agenda of collective self-interest under any circumstance

This seems like a form of "moral naturalism"
Under this, it seems to me that whatever would further/benefit the the human species would define- what is right, and what did not- would be wrong. My problem with this philosophy would be the obvious "is/ought" problem in respect, and having to accept unavoidable naturalistic fallacies that would arise.

I am an animal lover, so I find the explanation that I just offered intuitively unappealing. I also dislike the fact that it would define morality as largely a function of utility. But rationally, it does make sense (to me, anyway).

It seems to me another consequence would be having to accept the negative aspects of consequentialism.

Another possible explanation, is that morality is simply the realisation that you are no more special than anyone else, and behaving in a morally acceptable manner entails that when performing an action, you must consider the rights and interests of all those affected by said action.

But what is it that makes people equal/no less special? Just something to think about.

Something can never be justified morally purely from an appeal to self-interest, it must be justifiable to an impartial observer.

Firth's 'ideal observer theory' is great in theory, but who's hypothetical observer do we go with when disagree?
Yours? Mine? My neighbor's?

I don't have (anywhere near) all the answers on morality, but I do believe quite firmly that there is an objective right and wrong.
There are certain things which I believe can never be justified, except from a deeply self-interested perspective, I have touched on a few of them in this thread already. In my opinion, these things are objectively wrong.

Someone could certainly pick some holes in my explanations, or ask questions I don't have the answer to. But frankly, at this point I have offered a more robust defense of objective morality (whilst also discrediting moral relativism) than anyone has offered in favour of moral relativism so far.

I don't think anyone has all the answers in repect.
I respect your honesty (thoughout this thread) and willingness to put your views out there.

IMO it comes down to there are a lot more reasons/evidence to believe in objective morality than there is to deny the existence of objective morality and accept everything is subjective in respect.
In a case where you can not fully prove which of two diametrically opposing premises may be ultimately true, the reasons you hold to your premise should be heavily weighed.
The question with respect shouldn't be whether the evidence in support of one's premise can be avoided, but whether there exists better evidence to deny what your premise ultimately postulates (and in this case subsequently accept your opposition's premise)
I believe your view is a rational one.

 

[swilow]

I have a few different ideas on where objective morality comes from.

One idea is that it is derived from a rational collectively self-interested set of principles, what I mean by this is that it is in the interests of all people to live in a society where rape and murder (among other things) are unacceptable. Empathy and morality could be evolutionary tools that we have developed so we have a sense of how to live in a manner that is most conducive to the thriving of not just ourselves, but the society we live in. From this perspective, there are certain actions which would always be wrong, because they can't forward the agenda of collective self-interest under any circumstance.

This doesn't explain, though, why animals don't exhibit morality. All other species appear to survive without this trait. I can't say for sure, but the evolution of morality in one species only is not really evidence of absolute morality in general. Morality may be of utility, but it doesn't appear to be a more useful trait then claws or tails.

Is collective self-interest an oxymoron? :D

Another possible explanation, is that morality is simply the realisation that you are no more special than anyone else, and behaving in a morally acceptable manner entails that when performing an action, you must consider the rights and interests of all those affected by said action. Something can never be justified morally purely from an appeal to self-interest, it must be justifiable to an impartial observer. It is something that is derived from our empathy, if we are capable of knowing that we would not want something done to ourselves, then it would be wrong to do it to someone else.

That makes sense to me. My only concern is that empathy, by its very nature, is highly subjective. Can something that is subjective give rise to objective truth?

 

[drug_mentor]

This seems like a form of "moral naturalism"
Under this, it seems to me that whatever would further/benefit the the human species would define- what is right, and what did not- would be wrong. My problem with this philosophy would be the obvious "is/ought" problem in respect, and having to accept unavoidable naturalistic fallacies that would arise.

It seems to me another consequence would be having to accept the negative aspects of consequentialism.

I was under the impression that the is/ought problem was an issue for morality in general, but I confess I am not well read on it at all.

I agree with your consequentialist critique of that conception of morality. I was hinting at that when I said I took issue with the fact that it largely defined morality as a function of utility.

But what is it that makes people equal/no less special? Just something to think about.

It is moral equality, the acknowledgement that we all share equal rights. We may not be equal in strength, ability, character, or any number of things, but it doesn't necessarily follow from this fact that those with greater ability should be afforded greater rights. Ranking people in terms of moral importance would be one hell of a slippery slope.

I have some sympathies towards Singers take on the Principle of Equality, but again that has the problem of taking us towards a more consequentialist conception of morality.

Firth's 'ideal observer theory' is great in theory, but who's hypothetical observer do we go with when disagree?
Yours? Mine? My neighbor's?

I guess the point isn't that there should be a tangible person to go to and adjudicate moral matters, it is just a hypothetical perspective we can consider to help us think outside of our own interests. There will always be some subjective things which people disagree on, but I think if people follow a common sense interpretation of the Golden Rule then they are very much on the right track.

I don't think anyone has all the answers in repect.
I respect your honesty (thoughout this thread) and willingness to put your views out there.

Anyone who claims they do is either deluded or lying.

The respect is mutual. It is nice to encounter people with an interest in philosophy and a well informed perspective on morality.

IMO it comes down to there are a lot more reasons/evidence to believe in objective morality than there is to deny the existence of objective morality and accept everything is subjective in respect.
In a case where you can not fully prove which of two diametrically opposing premises may be ultimately true, the reasons you hold to your premise should be heavily weighed.
The question with respect shouldn't be whether the evidence in support of one's premise can be avoided, but whether there exists better evidence to deny what your premise ultimately postulates (and in this case subsequently accept your opposition's premise)

I agree with you here 100%.

This doesn't explain, though, why animals don't exhibit morality. All other species appear to survive without this trait. I can't say for sure, but the evolution of morality in one species only is not really evidence of absolute morality in general. Morality may be of utility, but it doesn't appear to be a more useful trait then claws or tails.

Is collective self-interest an oxymoron? :D

Some animals do exhibit some kind of morality. I know that certain primates have a strong expectation of reciprocity, which I would regard as a basic moral principle. In general, I think morality is something which is largely only graspable by beings with the capacity for higher level reasoning. I think that it is fairly non-instinctual for more basic life forms to spend any time considering a perspective that was not their own, or perhaps that of their offspring.

I would point out that humans are particularly social creatures, with a tendency to form large communities. Considering the perspectives of other people is probably more relevant to our own self-interest than could be said of other animals. I would be inclined to think that if one wanted to find examples of morality in the animal kingdom, the best places to start looking would be animals which are also highly social.

Collective self-interest can be an oxymoron, I suppose it comes down to how you look at it. It might be self-contradictory if you are imagining a collective of lots of individual selves. If you are taking the self to be the collective as a whole, then I don't think it is an oxymoron.

That makes sense to me. My only concern is that empathy, by its very nature, is highly subjective. Can something that is subjective give rise to objective truth?

Perhaps we could consider empathy as somewhat analogous to the senses. Our senses can be quite subjective, however there is an objective truth that they are pointing us towards. A severely sight impaired person might not see the train that is coming towards them until it is too late, but it was coming the whole time. Similarly, we may have different levels of ability to empathise with others, but it does not change the fact that our rights are no more stringent than theirs, and our interests no more important.

 

[methamaniac]

I was under the impression that the is/ought problem was an issue for morality in general, but I confess I am not well read on it at all.

Yes, you're correct. Hume's law is an "issue" for morality in general . By problem I meant "gap" in respect. I should have used the phrase 'is/ought gap'.
Hume doesn't argue that you can't necessarily derive an is from an ought, or there is no relationship between an ought and an is;
but more that you have to combine a factual desciptive statement (an is) with an ethical principle/ assumption (a goal) before an ethical/moral prescriptive statement (an ought) can be derived. Without doing this you have a gap.
The goal is to solve the is-ought problem without committing a logical fallacy. Or at least commit as few as possible. ?

What I was really getting at with respect was avoiding the 'is/ought fallacy. i.e naturalistic fallacy/appealing to nature fallacy :
"What is natural is good, therefore we ought to do what is natural".
" X is beneficial/naturally selected, therefore we ought to do X"
" X is product of evolution, therefore we ought do X to help evolution along". etc.

We saw social Darwinism spring forth from a similar line of faulty reasoning. I think we both can agree we don't want to revive that philosophy ?

agree with your consequentialist critique of that conception of morality. I was hinting at that when I said I took issue with the fact that it largely defined morality as a function of utility.

Yeah, I figured that was what you were alluding to.
My fear/concern would be an extreme application with respect. i.e "the ends justify the means"

is moral equality, the acknowledgement that we all share equal rights. We may not be equal in strength, ability, character, or any number of things, but it doesn't necessarily follow from this fact that those with greater ability should be afforded greater rights. Ranking people in terms of moral importance would be one hell of a slippery slope.

I agree with you. But for some reason nature doesn't seem to agree with us?
Why is our conscience so often incongruent with nature?

have some sympathies towards Singers take on the Principle of Equality, but again that has the problem of taking us towards a more consequentialist conception of morality.

I agree.
It's hard to completely reconcile utilitarianism with equality.

I guess the point isn't that there should be a tangible person to go to and adjudicate moral matters, it is just a hypothetical perspective we can consider to help us think outside of our own interests. There will always be some subjective things which people disagree on, but I think if people follow a common sense interpretation of the Golden Rule then they are very much on the right track.

I have a moral adjudicator and he is not hypothetical.
The Golden rule is my second favorite commandment ☺

respect is mutual. It is nice to encounter people with an interest in philosophy and a well informed perspective on morality.

Ditto

 

[swilow]

Drug_mentor, you present your idea's really well. Its a pleasure to read for someone with limited comprehension abilities like me :D

I find that I'm really responding to the logic of your argument. But I wonder if it stands up in the real world?

Some animals do exhibit some kind of morality. I know that certain primates have a strong expectation of reciprocity, which I would regard as a basic moral principle. In general, I think morality is something which is largely only graspable by beings with the capacity for higher level reasoning. I think that it is fairly non-instinctual for more basic life forms to spend any time considering a perspective that was not their own, or perhaps that of their offspring.

I would point out that humans are particularly social creatures, with a tendency to form large communities. Considering the perspectives of other people is probably more relevant to our own self-interest than could be said of other animals. I would be inclined to think that if one wanted to find examples of morality in the animal kingdom, the best places to start looking would be animals which are also highly social.

I think the jury's out as to whether animals share in what we call morality. I think its impossible to substantiate.

One could argue that the true test of absolute morality would be whether it is found to manifest in animals in the same way as us. Absolute morality would be a morality that isn't relative to ones species, would it not? But it is hard to argue that what is right for humans is also right for animals.

I'm of the opinion that animals should be taken into consideration when forming ideas and making judgements about the treatment of other beings. If it is immoral to do something to a human, I tend to think it might be the same when done to an animal. And yet I find it very difficult to blame an animal for doing something that I see as wrong, because it feels natural that myself and the animal would have different values, and shouldn't be judged using the same criteria.

But I digress.

Perhaps we could consider empathy as somewhat analogous to the senses. Our senses can be quite subjective, however there is an objective truth that they are pointing us towards. A severely sight impaired person might not see the train that is coming towards them until it is too late, but it was coming the whole time. Similarly, we may have different levels of ability to empathise with others, but it does not change the fact that our rights are no more stringent than theirs, and our interests no more important.

In the example of the train, you aren't really talking about senses, but the reality of the existence of the train. I know that you said that already but I wanted to demonstrate that I don't think the two are analogous. Empathy is the potentiality for humans to feel what others are feeling. Rather then being objective, like electromagnetic radiation being reflected through the eyes into the brain, empathy is an educated guess at experiencing the emotions of another. Whilst we are excellent at reading the emotional states of others, we are experiencing that state largely in our imagination. In my opinion, our physical senses are very different from the capacities of our imagination. In our mind is the realm of subjectivity, though certainly objective truths can emerge from that place. I certainly agree that empathy has probably given rise to a lot of our morals, but it is a reflection of what another may be feeling and what people feel and respond to can be highly contextual and personal. There are 'base' states that we all agree that we experience, but we cannot know, we can only infer and assume. In that way, I don't feel like we can do anything different when it comes to morality. Its an agreement between people that we make and renew constantly, through choice.

This is probably a really basic example, but the child-sacrifice of the Aztecs. Sure, generally their society did view that as a bad thing (so we all agree there) but they still did it. That has to mean that their notion that killing a child as wrong was relative to the context the moral question arose within.

Perhaps morality evolves? Or, perhaps, it could be absolute, but isn't currently.

 

[drug_mentor]

Yes, you're correct. Hume's law is an "issue" for morality in general . By problem I meant "gap" in respect. I should have used the phrase 'is/ought gap'.
Hume doesn't argue that you can't necessarily derive an is from an ought, or there is no relationship between an ought and an is;
but more that you have to combine a factual desciptive statement (an is) with an ethical principle/ assumption (a goal) before an ethical/moral prescriptive statement (an ought) can be derived. Without doing this you have a gap.
The goal is to solve the is-ought problem without committing a logical fallacy. Or at least commit as few as possible. ��

What I was really getting at with respect was avoiding the 'is/ought fallacy. i.e naturalistic fallacy/appealing to nature fallacy :
"What is natural is good, therefore we ought to do what is natural".
" X is beneficial/naturally selected, therefore we ought to do X"
" X is product of evolution, therefore we ought do X to help evolution along". etc.

We saw social Darwinism spring forth from a similar line of faulty reasoning. I think we both can agree we don't want to revive that philosophy ��

Whilst I appreciate you explaining the is/ought problem in a bit more depth for me, and I certainly agree with you that I would not want to see a resurgence of social Darwinism, I don't think I was committing a naturalistic fallacy. I did not intend to say that moral principles were good because they were natural, but rather that moral principles could possibly be derived from a rational calculation about what kind of behaviour was good for society in general. However we have discussed other problems with this theory, and I am more inclined to adopt the other stance which I outlined in post #29.

I agree with you. But for some reason nature doesn't seem to agree with us��
Why is our conscience so often incongruent with nature?

I wish I had a satisfactory answer for this, but unfortunately I don't. I may revisit this point, after some further thought.

It's hard to completely reconcile utilitarianism with equality.

It certainly is.

I think the jury's out as to whether animals share in what we call morality. I think its impossible to substantiate.

One could argue that the true test of absolute morality would be whether it is found to manifest in animals in the same way as us. Absolute morality would be a morality that isn't relative to ones species, would it not? But it is hard to argue that what is right for humans is also right for animals.

I don't think this is necessarily a true test of absolute morality. There are many facts which animals are incapable of knowing, I don't think it follows that morality should necessarily be any different. I am of the opinion that some basic morality can be observed in the animal kingdom, reciprocity in primates (as I already mentioned) is what immediately springs to mind. But, even if all animals were incapable of knowing absolute morality, I don't think this would serve as proof that such a thing did not exist.

I'm of the opinion that animals should be taken into consideration when forming ideas and making judgements about the treatment of other beings. If it is immoral to do something to a human, I tend to think it might be the same when done to an animal. And yet I find it very difficult to blame an animal for doing something that I see as wrong, because it feels natural that myself and the animal would have different values, and shouldn't be judged using the same criteria.

I largely agree with you here, and I think this can be explained by the fact that morality is not something which we can really expect animals to grasp. This lends support towards my previous passage.

In the example of the train, you aren't really talking about senses, but the reality of the existence of the train. I know that you said that already but I wanted to demonstrate that I don't think the two are analogous. Empathy is the potentiality for humans to feel what others are feeling. Rather then being objective, like electromagnetic radiation being reflected through the eyes into the brain, empathy is an educated guess at experiencing the emotions of another. Whilst we are excellent at reading the emotional states of others, we are experiencing that state largely in our imagination. In my opinion, our physical senses are very different from the capacities of our imagination. In our mind is the realm of subjectivity, though certainly objective truths can emerge from that place. I certainly agree that empathy has probably given rise to a lot of our morals, but it is a reflection of what another may be feeling and what people feel and respond to can be highly contextual and personal. There are 'base' states that we all agree that we experience, but we cannot know, we can only infer and assume. In that way, I don't feel like we can do anything different when it comes to morality. Its an agreement between people that we make and renew constantly, through choice.

What I was getting at, is that empathy allows (some of) us to realise certain truths, namely that other people have rights which are just as stringent as our own, and interests which are no less important. While empathy is not one of the formal senses, it is analogous to sight in the sense that it is something which people possess to varying degrees, and the greater degree to which they possess it enables them to see certain truths about the world more clearly.

Of course, there are also many differences between empathy and the senses, but they are analogous in the relevant sense of my example. I don't disagree that empathy is largely subjective, but there is a wider truth which can understand through empathy.

I should clarify that I am not trying to say that morality and empathy are the same thing, empathy is the tool by which we realise we are no better than others, morality is the rational application of this knowledge to ones own actions.

This is probably a really basic example, but the child-sacrifice of the Aztecs. Sure, generally their society did view that as a bad thing (so we all agree there) but they still did it. That has to mean that their notion that killing a child as wrong was relative to the context the moral question arose within.

Perhaps morality evolves? Or, perhaps, it could be absolute, but isn't currently.

I think you are confusing truth with practice here. For example, (in my opinion and that of most scientists) climate change is a fact, yet for the most part we behave as though it is not. Our behaviour in relation to climate change does not alter the fact of the matter on whether climate change is occurring or not. I believe morality is similar, just because people do not behave morally does not suggest that an objectively moral way to behave doesn't exist.

 

[methamaniac]

I don't think I was committing a naturalistic fallacy. I did not intend to say that moral principles were good because they were natural, but rather that moral principles could possibly be derived from a rational calculation about what kind of behaviour was good for society in general.

I didn't mean to imply you necessarily committed a naturalistic fallacy (apologies if it came across that way and for not being clear).
I said/meant " my problem with [that] (naturalistic) philosophy" is not being able to bridge the gap between what 'is' and what one 'ought' to do. Moreover, in my mind, I can easily envision many scenarios where someone could attempt to justify something I feel is absolutely wrong by saying something like,
"Helping the human species is good"
" X helps the human species, therefore X is good".
" since X is good, I ought to do X"
My problem with respect would be, if someone invokes that line of reasoning I don't see anyway to condemn them if I have to ground my morality solely in nature.
I see the obvious fallacy in respect, but it seems to me my hands are tied when I have to justify to someone why they are being fallacious.
When you define wrong as anything that "can't forward the agenda of collective self-interest under any circumstance".......it seems to me you are defining right as- "anything that can forward the agenda of collective self-interest under any circumstance" That hill seems a bit slick?☺

moral principles could possibly be derived from a rational calculation about what kind of behaviour was good for society in general

While this does attempt to reconcile the issue at hand with objective morality, thinking about where this might go (in respect to extremes) worries me.
What happens when "herd mentality" kicks in?
Sometimes we humans can rationalize just about anything.
This seems a lot like cultural relativism in disguise. It addition to that, it seems like "right" and "wrong" are being smuggled into the equation without ever really being shown to exist.

However we have discussed other problems with this theory, and I am more inclined to adopt the other stance which I outlined in post #29.

I think you are more on the right track with this stance. I find appealing to an ideal observer a much better philosophy. Which is one of the many reasons I champion and believe in Jesus Christ.
( please note it is not my attempt to be judgmental in any of my comments to you)

I wish I had a satisfactory answer for this, but unfortunately I don't. I may revisit this point, after some further thought.

I sincerely wasn't expecting you to answer.
I was just posing the question to ponder.☺

But, even if all animals were incapable of knowing absolute morality, I don't think this would serve as proof that such a thing did not exist.

+point

largely agree with you here, and I think this can be explained by the fact that morality is not something which we can really expect animals to grasp. This lends support towards my previous passage.

+point

it [empathy] is analogous to sight in the sense that it is something which people possess to varying degrees, and the greater degree to which they possess it enables them to see certain truths about the world more clearly.

+ point

I believe morality is similar, just because people do not behave morally does not suggest that an objectively moral way to behave doesn't exist.

+point

If we all suddenly became psychopaths would chopping little kids heads off for amusement still be absolutely wrong?
Something to think about.

 

[ForEverAfter]

I can't think of anything that is absolutely wrong, if you remove yourself from the human perspective.
I haven't read this thread, and I'm not going to, so this has probably already been covered.
But, what are some examples of things that are objectively wrong?

When I have this discussion with people, it always goes in the same way.
They say killing innocents for fun is wrong, which is were I got up to with d_m.
But it's only wrong - I forced him to clarify - if it's done to humans.
This applies to everything.

Our entire sense of right and wrong revolves around what is convenient.
The universe functions because different species have different values.
Survival is greedy and fiercely competitive: we can't all hold hands.

I don't know what objectively wrong even means, if you dissect it.
Are people doing things that they're not supposed to be doing?
Are we arrogant enough to assume we know?

Maybe everything is as it is because it needs to be that way, and there is no right and wrong.
Maybe right and wrong - like everything else - is illusory?

And, if it isn't, why assume that we have any idea yet? If this - our development from animal to human - is an awakening and we are approaching enlightenment (or, approaching our objective moral values; whatever you want to call it)... why assume that we can even see the finish line yet? Or that there is a finish line?

There is, and there isn't, any such thing as right and wrong.
Just as there is, and there isn't, any such thing as anything.
Good and evil is an illusion, necessary for us to function as a species.
Consciousness develops on a need-to-know basis.

We believe in right and wrong, because we are supposed to.
But that doesn't have to be the case.

Although we must practice and enforce it (right/wrong), we should understand - on some level - that it, too, is illusory.
This resembles enlightenment more, IMO, than approaching (or even believing in) a perfect universal moral code.

What people don't need to know, they cannot know.
This renders the vast majority of discussions sterile.
I don't expect anything, any more, other than argument.
Often, it seems, the effort required to significantly influence another person is far greater than the reward.

NSFW:

After spending a fair bit of time on this forum over the past year, I've become increasingly convinced that there is little point discussing religion or philosophy. We're all so stubborn and vain. There's so much intellectual showboating on this sub-forum. And, so many petty arguments. It's been interesting studying people, like this. Without social ties - and with the distance and anonymity of the internet - people just present themselves, spread eagle their psyches. And, it's not pretty. We're all pretty fucked up. And, this forum may be doing more harm than good. I've suspected that for a long time... I've run out of steam. I don't know how I kept going for God knows how many hours.

I don't want to discuss this, back and forth.
You've been talking about moral relativism for like a year, meth.
Keep your response simple: name five objective morals.

 

[drug_mentor]

When I have this discussion with people, it always goes in the same way.
They say killing innocents for fun is wrong, which is were I got up to with d_m.
But it's only wrong - I forced him to clarify - if it's done to humans.
This applies to everything.

I named something which I said was absolutely morally wrong and said killing innocent people for fun, I actually think it is wrong to kill animals for fun (unlike yourself), but I do think it is justified to eat them. First of all, I would clarify my original comment by saying that I should have used the term innocent persons (not necessarily restricted to humans). Second of all, just because I believe that persons have more stringent rights than other animals does not mean it is not objectively wrong to treat them in certain ways.

I don't know what objectively wrong even means, if you dissect it.
Are people doing things that they're not supposed to be doing?
Are we arrogant enough to assume we know?

There is, and there isn't, any such thing as right and wrong.
Just as there is, and there isn't, any such thing as anything.
Good and evil is an illusion, necessary for us to function as a species.
Consciousness develops on a need-to-know basis.

We believe in right and wrong, because we are supposed to.
But that doesn't have to be the case.

Although we must practice and enforce it (right/wrong), we should understand - on some level - that it, too, is illusory.
This resembles enlightenment more, IMO, than approaching (or even believing in) a perfect universal moral code.

What people don't need to know, they cannot know.
This renders the vast majority of discussions sterile.
I don't expect anything, any more, other than argument.
Often, it seems, the effort required to significantly influence another person is far greater than the reward.

It seems a little odd to me that on one hand you would imply that it is arrogant of myself and others to presume to know that there is an objective morality (which btw, at least myself and others bothered to make an argument for). On the other, you have gone on to assert a number of claims which arguably require a more robust defense than the claim that absolute morality exists, without any attempt to establish the logic behind them, or providing any other reason(s) why someone should take them to be true.

As a general rule, if you want to influence people, make a logical argument. You shouldn't be surprised when people don't swallow a number of unsupported claims.

After spending a fair bit of time on this forum over the past year, I've become increasingly convinced that there is little point discussing religion or philosophy. We're all so stubborn and vain. There's so much intellectual showboating on this sub-forum. And, so many petty arguments.

I really resent this comment. I am not making any attempt at intellectual showboating, I stated my reasoned opinion on the thread topic. If you think philosophy is about being stubborn or vain, you don't understand philosophy. It is about being willing to constantly question your own views, consider the views of others, and adopt the most intellectually honest position you can. It has little to nothing to do with vanity, and is the opposite of being stubborn.

I must say, of all the times it could honestly be said that I have engaged in petty arguments in my years on bluelight, this has certainly not been one of them.

I can't think of anything that is absolutely wrong, if you remove yourself from the human perspective.
I haven't read this thread, and I'm not going to, so this has probably already been covered.
But, what are some examples of things that are objectively wrong?

I don't want to discuss this, back and forth.
You've been talking about moral relativism for like a year, meth.
Keep your response simple: name five objective morals.

I am 90% certain if someone behaved like this in a thread of your creation, you would flip out. I have seen it on a number of occasions.

If you want to avoid back and forth discussion, it helps to read the thread. It is also ridiculous to think it is acceptable philosophical practice to interject yourself in the middle of a good discussion, without bothering to familiarise yourself with the previous points which have been made, make a number of claims you never bothered to argue for, and then hijack it further by demanding that other people defend their position.

You know I was (genuinely) anticipating a strong contribution from you in this thread. As I mentioned in my first post, I had been writing down some thoughts on this topic with a view to starting a virtually identical thread, and this was largely due to a conversation we had in another thread. Unfortunately, it seems like you would rather go on a semi-off topic rant than make an argument in defense of your views.

I hope you will reconsider your views on this forum, as I generally consider you to be one of the stronger contributors here.

I am thoroughly enjoying this thread, and I don't intend to engage in any further off-topic conversation. If you want to address some points which have been made, or make some of your own, I will be happy to engage you further.

 

[ForEverAfter]

NSFW:

Okay, dude. Whatever.
I'm just a bid fed up with this forum.
It's all semantic crap. Nobody listens.

if you want to influence people, make a logical argument.

Like I said, I've run out of steam. I couldn't be bothered anymore.
I don't see a lot of people being influenced around here.

I really resent this comment.

Well, it's my opinion nonetheless.

So, I take it you can't name five objective morals.
That's weird, huh?

And, the killing innocent persons thing.
Let's say you were talking about animals.
What about viruses?

We take pleasure in killing innocent insects (animals) and viruses. Don't we?
I don't see how you can deny that, or explain how it is wrong (objectively or otherwise).

 

[conscious-observed]

Though I'm ignorant of the philosophical concept of moral relativity (plan to do further reading after this post), I do see that morality is a personal belief that most of us subscribe to like flocked sheep, and that these prescribed notions of morality aren't always things with which I agree. I believe morality is something we should consider closely and objectively in order to see truth through the wool of influence pulled over our eyes. Morality is surely a man made concept, largely influenced by society, culture and the religions that tend to guide them. As a person with somewhat "unique" perspectives on laws, behavior and morality, at least in immediate interaction, it's hard for me not to see morality as a relative concept.

As for the existence of right and wrong, and the possibility of making a wrong decision, more often than not, these things can only be seen in retrospect. Wrong, to me, is to be defined by the individual. Though this calls into question what things, such as rape, are inherently wrong... Opinion? Murder is likely to be judged in context and motive as it pertains to morality.

Very interesting topic. Thanks for posting. I'm going to go read up on philosophy! Haha -a subject I've yet to research in depth.