Moral Relativism
POSTED BY: reaverman
UPDATED: Monday, May 8, 2006 01:43
VIEWED: 6596
PAGE 1 of 5
I apologise ahead of time if there has already been a thread about this, but I thought it was worth discussing.
I personally believe that in the grand universal scheme of things, that 'right' and 'wrong' simply dont exist. They are illusions created by our culture and biology. Things like 'killing is wrong'(
) and 'nurturing children is right'(
) are examples of morals that exist because during our evolution, those that didn't have these instincts died out by killing each other off or letting their young starve. I choose to follow certain morals because its easier that way (it's what I've been taught through my upbringing and genetics), but I don't believe that those concepts exist outside our heads.
I want this to be a calm, reasoned, honest discussion of what ya'll think. Lets try not to have any flame wars or snarkin' please(no matter how fun they may be 
). Also, if your argument is a religious one, please dont bother posting. We should be arguing facts, not faith.
So, what are your thoughts?
P.S. If your user name happens to be 'Piratenews', please just move on to the next thread. This isn't a discussion of how British-Commie-Nazi-Alien-Jews are ruining America. 
You're welcome on my boat. God ain't.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I agree with you in a certain sense, but your characterization is problematic. I do think that morals are simply tools for survival that run through the same evolutionary gauntlet that every human trait must survive. But most people, when they hear the term 'moral relativism', hear something more like a sociopathic creed, and that's not the way I see it at all.
Regardless of how morals have developed, or what their source utlimately is, they're very concrete and need to be to properly fulfill their societal function. So, while I do see some truth in 'moral relativism', I also think that some moral systems are better than others. History will tell us which ones were the best, or which ones were failures.
Also, your statement that morals don't exist 'outside our heads' seems unjustifiably dismissive. Ideas are powerful and longlived. They last far beyond their original conception and are, in fact, much more permanent and expansive than our bodies or individual minds.
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:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I agree with you in a certain sense, but your characterization is problematic. I do think that morals are simply tools for survival that run through the same evolutionary gauntlet that every human trait must survive. But most people, when they hear the term 'moral relativism', hear something more like a sociopathic creed, and that's not the way I see it at all.
Regardless of how morals have developed, or what their source utlimately is, they're very concrete and need to be to properly fulfill their societal function. So, while I do see some truth in 'moral relativism', I also think that some moral systems are better than others. History will tell us which ones were the best, or which ones were failures.
Also, your statement that morals don't exist 'outside our heads' seems unjustifiably dismissive. Ideas are powerful and longlived. They last far beyond their original conception and are, in fact, much more permanent and expansive than our bodies or individual minds.
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
You are right about our ideas in a sense. Per-maybe-haps I was a little dismissive.
P.S. thank you for not snarking/flaming.
You're welcome on my boat. God ain't.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ahh, well I wasn't meaning that you, personally, were being dismissive, but more that the popular conception of moral relativism is taken that way. To me, moral relativism is not saying that morals are 'imaginary', but just recognizing that they are somewhat different from culture to culture and not independent of human thought in the way that physical scientific laws are. But it seems too casual to say that morals are just 'made up', when they are actually as much apart of our evolutionary package as our genes. It's even arguable that they've worked their way down to the genetic level, given the deeply, hard-wired, nature of many of our more primal morals.
Quote:
Originally posted by reaverman:
P.S. thank you for not snarking/flaming.
Don't worry, I'm sure we'll get some of those before this thread is over.
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:
Originally posted by reaverman:
Also, if your argument is a religious one, please dont bother posting. We should be arguing facts, not faith.
Of course you realize that you too are arguing faith/philosophy/etc. not facts. So... religious discussion in the frame of philosophical belief must be allowed. Also, religion, because it has played such an important role in the development of humankind shouldn't be shoo shooed away. I always think it is funny how so many "open minded" people want to keep religion out of the picture. Not all religious people are zealouts. some of us are quite well educated and moderately minded.
Additionally, you cut out a good deal of the discussion. How can anyone believe that morals or ethics are anything but an internalization of survival techniques without entertaining an outside source (i.e. religious/spiritual). The way you have framed your discussion nearly forces us to agree with you.
Just my two cents.
JMB9039
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I've always considered that morals developed as a pro-survival learned behavior, just like knapping flint, language, etc. Take care of the kids, you got someone to work later. Don't steal, and you both cut down on strife within the tribe, and everybody doesn't have to spend valuable surviving time just guarding their stuff.
While I think these morals developed over time, rather than being presented full-grown by some higher power or universal rulebook, I don't think they are any less useful as guidelines than if Og the Great came down from his/her mountain and presented them. In fact, the "God-given" morals has the inherent problem of Deital infallability, which makes it awful hard to change the rules when the game changes due to larger populations, technological advances, etc.
As for "Moral Relativism", As Sgt.X noted, this has become sort of a hot-button phrase, like "spin" or "pro-life/choice". It's come to mean something other than "What has been considered moral may have to change due to changing times.", and become "There's really no right or wrong".
I note that the Vatican is considering permitting condom use, in certain limited circumstances, to reduce the spread of AIDs. I bet they'll call this decision something other than "Moral Relativism"
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think the basic moral hardwired in us is: treat others the way you wish to be treated.
Nice people want others to be nice to them; killers want to be killed.
(And peeps that start flame-wars want to fight)
I may, however, be over-simplifying things...
Succinct Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hmmm... nice topic. I agree there is nothing immutable about "right" and "wrong" but I also think that humans do have hardwired tnedencies that make certain behaviors more "normal" than others. That being said, there is an awful lot of gray area, and many behaviors are permitted as long as they don't lead to the death of a society.
From and individual frame of reference, people are- for the most part- social critters who do almost everything else but hunt. "Man the Hunter"- sillhouetted against the savannah, spear in-hand: that's not us. In fact, since our young are so highly dependent for SOOO long, we have more of an inbuilt tendency than most animals for social behavior because it really DOES "take a village" to raise a child. We can see this with PET scans and so forth - huge areas of our brain "light up" for intepreting and predicting another preson's behavior, just as the reward areas of our brain "light up" when we find cooperation with someone. Like all social animals, we create hierarchies.
The problem comes in when society grows so large that it is no longer within reach of, negotiation among and correction by individuals (direct democracy).
The concept of "right" and "wrong" gets manipulated by those with the most power- usually those who by nature or training are less cooperative and suffer less guilt than others (ie sociopaths). When "right" and "wrong" become a matter of state and religious enforcement, you can almost always bet that it's the average person's ox that's getting gored and the power structure that benefits. "People" usually accept this as long as their lives remain more or less under their immediate control, predictable, and rewarding (or at least survivable). Unfortunately, the institution of "right" and "wrong" by power structures becomes a postiive feedback systems by which the somewhat powerful gain even more power (it's "right" to pay taxes and "wrong" to agitate against corporations) leading to even greater control of social mores... until the either the average person's situation becomes so intolerabel that they have nothing left to lose or a viable alternative develops, such as the emergence of mercantalism within the fuedal structure.
So, if I had to sum up this meandering post, it would be that we have to be careful of how "right" and "wrong" come into being, because they almsot always represent a power structure and take advantage of the average perons's willingness to cooperate.
---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by jmb9039:
...Also, religion, because it has played such an important role in the development of humankind shouldn't be shoo shooed away.
I don't see any reasons to keep religion out of it. I think maybe reaverman was just trying to avoid the "God said it, I believe it, that settles it" arguments as they aren't very interesting.
Quote:
...How can anyone believe that morals or ethics are anything but an internalization of survival techniques without entertaining an outside source (i.e. religious/spiritual)?
That's the interesting bit, really, and sort of what we're trying to discuss.
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
But some religions clearly said that it's right to sacrifice children. We can see this in Phonecian and Incan relgions. My take on religion is that it has very little to do with an inbuilt or god-given sense of right or wrong because so many sincere, heartfelt religions profoundly violate our own religious ethics. You argue for Jesus and I argue for Moloch and we come ot loggerheads because the people in each society clearly felt it was the "right" thing to do (or not do).
As far as I can tell, religion is just another tool in the "social control" toolbox, along with armed law-enforcers and economic rewards and punishments. And god? He, she, or they are the ultimate enforcers 'cause they can get you even AFTER you're dead. :) I find it interesting that the one long-lasting society (Mohenjo-daro, Allepo and related cities) that had no religion- no temples, altars, statues or scriptures- also had no apparent armed presence- no ramparts, armories- and no palaces and no slums.
BTW- to get back to my previous post: I think where we really come into trouble with "wrong" and "right" is when we allow insitutions (church, government, coporations etc) to do things that individuals are not empowered to do. or we apply "right" and "wrong" differentially. For example, an individual is not allowed to kill another, but we allows the death penalty. It's not right to evade individual taxes, but in the corporate world that's just sharp business practice. It's not right to cheat and steal- unless you're a business. I think you see where i'm going with this.
---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME