Moral Relativism
POSTED BY: reaverman
UPDATED: Monday, May 8, 2006 01:43
VIEWED: 6596
PAGE 3 of 5
Quote:
Originally posted by RiveR6213:
...They are into life for themselves...they are the perfect survivors. If nuclear war happened, these people would survive. I would not, could not because I seemed to have the empathy, a conscious that rule my life.
Ahh... but this is where you are wrong! I propose that you would survive, while the selfish would perish. Morals are what bind us together and enhance survival. Without them, we're all on our own and relatively defenseless against the dangers we face. Morality isn't some sacrifice that leaves us at a disadvantage, quite the opposite in fact.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Reaverman,
I don't think we've quite jumped the reservation yet on the initial topic, in fact I think we are right on topic. Again, like Signym, you seem to be focused on religious beliefs, and if you believe that they in fact represent Morality, then your initial premise that there is no "right" or "wrong" is in jeopardy. I think most religions are very specific in their condemnation of "wrong" actions and in their praise of "right" ones. Clearly, if religious beliefs equal Morality, then there are definite "wrongs" and "rights".
You stated,
Quote:
" In more recent times, religious morality and secular legality have been seperated, but for most of recorded history, religion has run rampant as the final judge of ones actions. What does the world have to show for it? Inquisition, Crusades, Jihad, massacre, war, genocide, etc, etc..."
Despite your desire not to include religion in the discussion, unless we can eliminate it as a source of morality, it is impossible not to discuss it. I agree that Religion has been used as a social control mechanism, but the examples you allude to have religious beliefs being codified in some way by political leaders (granted who may themselves be religious leaders) into a social legal system.
I submit that these are not moral codes which I believe are individualistic traits, but rather represent social ones. I think religion is certainly a determining factor to an individual's formation of Morality, but not the sole factor. Would you agree with that general premise?
-----------------
"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon."
---Napoleon Bonaparte
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sarge,
I think you are right that we in the U.S. try to keep some separation between religion and politics, and rightly so! But let's face it, religious beliefs affect one's personal moral beliefs which in turn affect your political stances on the issues. We in the States attempt to keep religion out of politics, but all we really do is just make sure it doesn't effect our political process quite so directly as those theocratic governments you speak of.
-----------------
"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon."
---Napoleon Bonaparte
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This all makes me wonder why we can't perpetuate morals from a rational stance. There are countless logical justifications for most of the common moral values. Why do we need religion for people to embrace morality? It seems we are at a point in the development of civilization where we can move beyond religious mythology. I know that last sentence will be taken as inflammatory, but I don't mean it to be. I seriously think that moving beyond primitive mysticism is what is required if we're to survive on this planet.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Because religion evoke the emotional aspect or our thinking. Morals cannot be entirely be classed in a frame of mind of rationality. I used to think Rational thinking was what all we needed . I found that I was wrong. Why do we need religion for people to embrace morality? Because it is a component necessary in the beginnings of thinking period. It’s a fail safe form of thinking that prevents one from exercising their basic nature out side of instincts. Though history has shown that this method has been abused somewhat, it works if you ignore the fact that millions have died by this method.
I’m not really sure if what I just said made any sense. I lack the ability to articulate myself and my ideas, but I struggle forth anyway.
River
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Razza:
Reaverman,
I submit that these are not moral codes which I believe are individualistic traits, but rather represent social ones. I think religion is certainly a determining factor to an individual's formation of Morality, but not the sole factor. Would you agree with that general premise?
-----------------
"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon."
---Napoleon Bonaparte
Yes, you make very good points. I agree with you that religion isn't the only determining factor. I just get carried away when I talk about religion
.You're welcome on my boat. God ain't.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I’m not sure it makes sense to speak in terms of an innate morality. Instinct and morals are mutually exclusive. If something is instinctively driven to kill, then is it really morally wrong? Is a lion morally wrong for killing a gazelle? Is my cat morally driven to chase the laser point? The concept of morality implies an understanding of right and wrong. Instinct on the other hand implies impulse or thoughtless action. The two are really polar opposites. A truly instinctive action is always an amoral action. So I don’t believe that there is any such thing as inbuilt morals or genetic morals.
That does not mean that I subscribe to moral relativism, which I think is just a euphemism for immorality. Moral relativism is a word used to justify acts that a person knows to be wrong but wishes to do anyway and without judgment. An example in which this is used is statutory rape of young boys and sometimes girls. The most noticeable entity that advocates this kind of stuff is NAMBLA, but moral relativism of one thing or another is a justification by many, usually, Left-wing groups.
We create morality to define right and wrong for the individuals within social context, so this naturally evolves to religion then to social and legal order. Morality is not purely a product of individual conscious. Morals are learned behavior.
People are speaking of religion in terms of social control in a somewhat Marxist view, but social control is not bad. One might argue that too much is bad, but who among you would rather live in a “society” that lacked social control? In fact, there could be no society without it. From a purely natural standpoint, humans are too feeble to compete individually with animals half their size. We are a social species and to survive we have to be a social species. Morality and religion were the tools by which ancient man organized their society. If there is anything innate to morals at all, it is that humans seem to be predisposed to a social lifestyle and therefore we must create mores by which we can prosper in social contact.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn,
I like your juxtaposition of morals and instincts, it is a very apt one. I'm not so sure that I agree with your statment,
Quote:
"..We create morality to define right and wrong for the individuals within social context."
Since we're dealing with philisophical questions, can I indulge in a hypothetical? Suppose we have a person who is completely isolated from society. Do they no longer practice morality? They no longer have to engage in social interaction, but I think they would still have a sense of 'wrong' and 'right'. Would they start to be cruel to their pets all of the sudden just because there are no longer any social consequences to such actions? I'm sure we can think of other so called moral questions that aren't dependant on social contexts for their foundations. Again, I think social mores are different from individual Morality. I think you are right that they have great bearing on our Moral beliefs, but I don't believe they are the sole origin of them. Which begs the question, and I think the real issue of this thread, what is the origin of morality? That is a difficult question to answer and philosophers, theologians, and plain ordinary folks have been wrestling with that one for millenia. Makes for a very engaging discussions though, don't you think!
-----------------
"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon."
---Napoleon Bonaparte
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I’m not sure it makes sense to speak in terms of an innate morality. Instinct and morals are mutually exclusive. If something is instinctively driven to kill, then is it really morally wrong? Is a lion morally wrong for killing a gazelle? Is my cat morally driven to chase the laser point? The concept of morality implies an understanding of right and wrong. Instinct on the other hand implies impulse or thoughtless action. The two are really polar opposites. A truly instinctive action is always an amoral action. So I don’t believe that there is any such thing as inbuilt morals or genetic morals.
Excellent point. Morals are really rules that developed when the needs of the social group came into conflict with individual instinct. But there does seem to be room for the argument that humans have, or are beginning to, evolve instincts for social behaviour.
Quote:Unscrupulous people misusing a word doesn't nullify the concept or make it less valid. Moral relativism is an attempt to understand differing moral contexts.
That does not mean that I subscribe to moral relativism, which I think is just a euphemism for immorality. Moral relativism is a word used to justify acts that a person knows to be wrong but wishes to do anyway and without judgment.
As you point out, morality exists within a social context. When societies that have developed largely independently of each other come into contact there will be differences in their moral systems. Moral relativism is a recognition of that.
The problem with moral absolutism is that it requires some kind of objective decision procedure for determining which morals are 'right' and 'wrong'. I have some ideas on what this decision procedure should be, but I'm curious, what is your litmus test? Where does absolute morality come from?
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The question is actually not as hypothetical as you might think. There are examples of what are called “feral children,” who have been lost in a wilderness and have grown up without human contact. These children often develop animal-like behavior from mimicking the animals that they associate with in the wild, often dogs or wolves. Even though these children are technically not retarded, they carry all the outward appearance of severe mental retardation. They are unable to learn to associate with humans even unable to learn to speak. Except for outward appearances many feral children are essentially animals, but I can’t really say for sure that they don’t understand right from wrong. There may be a “genetic morality,” though I suspect that there is not.
Originally posted by Razza:
Since we're dealing with philisophical questions, can I indulge in a hypothetical? Suppose we have a person who is completely isolated from society. Do they no longer practice morality?
You can learn more about feral children at this site:
http://www.feralchildren.com/en/index.php
“Undoubtedly, the lack of normal developmental stimuli has a devastating impact on the development of the human brain. Feral children would not be classified as human using any of the traditional criteria.”
The human brain is born underdeveloped, and during the first several years of life the brain actually imprints with the social and linguistic characteristics of its environment. I don’t know of any other animals that do this, but the human brain actually becomes physiologically hardwired to its environments. So one might argue that morals, even though they are not instinctive, do become hardwired in the brain. But I don’t believe that any human is born with morality or a distinction between right and wrong innate. I believe that these represent learned behavior.
Now I would stress up on you, that not being moral doesn’t mean the same thing as being immoral. So a person, such as a feral child, that may lack morality, would not necessarily be cruel to anything without cause, but that doesn’t mean that it understands that cruelty is wrong.
I'm not really an expert on any of this though, and in all honesty, I really don't know.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME