Moral Realitivity

[TheBigDog]

Morals do not exist in a vacuum. The reason that we see conflict in morality is because the moral judgment is the outcome of a decision tree that runs through our value system. Our values are where our morals are determined.

 

For example, man with a gun. You make a determination based upon your values. It is important not to lie, but it is more important to prevent people from being killed. You value of life over truth in that instance justifies the lie. Another person could just as easily make the opposite decision if the value of the life of the person in the room were very low, or the value they placed in being compliant to the man with a gun were very high.

 

Is this moral relativity? I don't think so. It is the outcome of the human use of value in decision making. This is an abstract art that the human brain does naturally. And it is the basis of the diversity of opinion found on issues with a fixed set of facts.

 

Whenever our "morals" come into conflict our values are how we resolve the situation internally. In the example of "stealing or my child's life", what is valued more? Stealing involves a risk of being caught, the risk of setting a bad example for the child in question, the flip side is a risk of death to your child. Most people value the child over the chances of getting caught and punished, but the example is intentionally oversimplified to present a conflict that is morally irreconcilable. That is never the case. The hierarchy of values reconciles the conflict, although others without the same motivations, data and values might argue otherwise.

 

As a society we set firm boundaries around certain behaviors, and we call them laws. This is an external force that is intended to influence the value judgments that lead to moral decisions and guide the general behavior of the population. Such social engineering is for the general benefit of peaceful society where the bounds of normal behavior are such that conflict is minimized, but it is not and cannot be eliminated. Punishment for violating laws is critical for establishing a value to them beyond a good feeling inside, but a society also needs to be flexible to the circumstances that lead to violations of the law, and have the capacity to adjust punishment to special circumstances.

 

There is not golden rule. Do unto others as you would have others do unto you, unless you are a masochist, or suffer from fetishes.

 

Bill

[Sacri Sankt]

Kriminal99:

 

you misunderstood me, i think. i wasnt arguing for white lies, or that 'no harm is done' by lying, just that since you are aware of the 'tricks', as it were, shouldnt you use them to better your own life? its not your fault if someone believes you have some magic beans, if you can sell them and make a handsome profit, shouldnt you do so?

[Agememnon]

...its not your fault if someone believes you have some magic beans, if you can sell them and make a handsome profit, shouldnt you do so?

 

This sounds like a case of social irresponsibility.

 

 

Take a look at this:

[Kriminal99]

Kriminal99:

 

you misunderstood me, i think. i wasnt arguing for white lies, or that 'no harm is done' by lying, just that since you are aware of the 'tricks', as it were, shouldnt you use them to better your own life? its not your fault if someone believes you have some magic beans, if you can sell them and make a handsome profit, shouldnt you do so?

 

No. In an anarchist society once I found out that you had done this, I would just find you and either demand my money back and then some, or just kill you. Or I would get the word out so someone else would do the same.

 

In a society where everyone agrees not to resort to violence when someone does harm against you, I would sue you or you would be arrested.

 

Morality is the idea that if you do something that pisses someone else off, they will try to stop you, as will people that sympathize with that person. Selfish goals are bad at motivating others to take your side, so you are outnumbered. Selfish goals on the behalf of your tribe might provide you with equal numbers to whoever you are fighting right now, but the best situation that creates is that you are constantly fighting people who your selfish actions harm. Constant fighting means you will take losses, and your existence will be miserable. And anyone outside of your tribe will join against you perhaps until you are outnumbered.

 

In other words, the golden rule OR ELSE.

[Turtle]

I think all these examples, counter examples, counter-counter examples, ad infinitum go to the heart of the matter and affirm that morality is relative to many factors such as time, place, culture, nuance of circumstance, etcetera. The only reliable constant is change.

 

Oh yeah, and the title is misspelled. :lol: :hyper: :)

[HydrogenBond]

One argument against relative morality, is this is what the criminal uses. According to the criminal code, they can steal, rape, murder, whatever, they want, as long as they don't get caught. The logical result, of such a culture, would be social chaos, i.e., if we all take relative morality to mean doing whatever floats each person's boat.

 

Most people are willing to accept some fixed (nonrelative) standards, for the extremes. This what keeps culture from degenerating into chaos. Maybe the question should be where should the relative morality line be drawn, which would maximize the indivudal without disrupting culture?

 

The line in the sand, was discussed by St Paul in the New Testament a few years after the death of Christ. One of his quotes was "All things are lawful, but not all things edify". Another is "Blessed are those whose sins the Lord will not take into account". The point he was making was that as long as one loves their neighbor as themselves (don't violates others with your relative morality), all the man-made morality, such as don't taste, touch, drink, etc., are no longer sins in the eyes of God. Men may still hold you accountable for such laws, but God won't.

 

"But men, wishing to have their ears tickled, accumulated for themselves leaders and laws in the accordance with their own desires." Culture and the church creates laws for any number of phychological reasons such as politics and power. "Christ is the end of law for righteousness for all those who believe." The historical result was the laws of men being used to kill those who practiced a faithful type of relative morality, where the line in the sand, didn't violate others.

[Sacri Sankt]

i agree. morality exists in a fixed form presicisely because it is relative. in order to be of any use for social control, arbitrary lines favouring stability and order were drawn. now, after thousands of years of living in such societies, these moral codes have come to seem natural, or even divinely ordained.

 

a modern moral philosophy should uphold these principles of order, but do any with notions of morality having anything to do with sexual practise (bar non-consentual) or personal narcotic consumption. such a purely functional legal system would give the benefits of a stable, law abiding society and of an anarcho-liberal lovefest.

[CraigD]

One argument against relative morality, is this is what the criminal uses.

Though an argument, it is purely a ad hominem one. The observation that criminals subscribe to the philosophical position moral relativism is also, in my personal experience with incarcerated criminals, inaccurate. Most of the criminals with whom I’ve spoken about morality subscribe to an absolutist position, believing certain acts (eg: raping young children) to be intrinsically wrong. The difference between their sense of morality and those of law-abiding people is not one of moral relativity vs. absolutism, but a difference in what acts are considered wrong. This difference is not just one of criminals considering fewer acts wrong – though, in my experience, they do – but different acts. For example, law-abiding people typically consider it moral to report non-threatening criminal activity, such as public drunkenness, to police, while most of the criminals I’ve known consider this very immoral, a violation of the commandment “though shall not narc out thy neighbor”.

 

Criminals also tend to be moral absolutists, I think, because it is the simpler philosophical position, one that they are likely to have become acquainted with from parents, church, and popular culture. Moral relativism, on the other hand, is typically taught at an advanced high school or college level, and culture catering to the more educated. Criminals are much less likely to have advance high school or college educations than the general population.

 

In short, I’ve seen little evidence that people who agree with the statement “right and wrong can’t be reduced to simple lists or dos and don’ts, but depend on the situation” are more likely to be socially disorderly than people who do not. Due, I suspect, to the correlation between agreement with this statement, higher education, higher income, and other related factors, I believe the opposite to be true – that people subscribing to moral relativism are less likely to be disorderly than people who do not.

a modern moral philosophy should uphold these principles of order, but do any with notions of morality having anything to do with sexual practise (bar non-consentual) or personal narcotic consumption. such a purely functional legal system would give the benefits of a stable, law abiding society and of an anarcho-liberal lovefest.

This sounds to me almost exactly a statement of the political philosophy of libertarianism, a historied and rationally appealing philosophy, if not a main-stream one (except, perhaps, on the internet :eek:).