Moral Relativism
POSTED BY: reaverman
UPDATED: Monday, May 8, 2006 01:43
VIEWED: 6596
PAGE 4 of 5
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn Mac Cumhal:
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.
Undoubtedly, Morals I think are an abstraction of something deeper.
Just as Feral children undoubtedly have the capacity for higher level thought, and I suspect actually do it, they can't articulate it because articulation, language, is an abstraction of higher level thought.
So I think both sides of this debate are right, Morals are based in something deeper, genetic, but the abstractions of what we call morals, right and wrongs are just constructs from society.
Like no animal, nor feral child, will attack for no reason, but they don't assign a concept of 'wrongness' to this action. The morality is a 'higher-level' expression of a baser instinct.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.
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.
I disagree. There are certain things that are instinctive in humans that promote survival as a group. One is that we have a natural aversion to killing our own. It can be consciously overridden, but it is there. Why do you think that people feel guily if they look a man in the eye and end his life? (that was from a study shown on the Discovery channel about 6 or 7 months ago)
Quote:
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?
No, thats exactly the point of Moral Relativity. It isn't a creed for sociopaths, but a term applying to recognizing that all morals are relative (as the name implies), not universal.
Quote:
So I don’t believe that there is any such thing as inbuilt morals or genetic morals.
Have you ever had the thought that killing a baby is alright? No, because it is genetically programmed into you that you dont kill your young to ensure that the next generation survives.
Quote:
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.
That is not the true meaning of moral relativism, as I have already said. It's not a justification for "immorality", but an acknowledgement of the subjective nature of right and wrong.
Quote:
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... 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.
We are predisposed to a social lifestyle. We are predisposed instinctively, because, as you said, we are a feeble race, and we needed all the advantages we could get. Therefore, we evolved to hold certain behaviors as good (nurturing children, defending females and young) and others as bad (killing others, starving children). If we hadn't evolved these instincts, we wouldn't still be aroud. We would have gone extinct hundreds of millenia ago.
Not all morals are inborn. In fact, most aren't. Take sexual taboos, for instance. That actually goes against instinct and nature. However a few core things are the products of our evolution.
You're welcome on my boat. God ain't.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
No, thats exactly the point of Moral Relativity. It isn't a creed for sociopaths, but a term applying to recognizing that all morals are relative (as the name implies), not universal.
That´s it. Morals aren´t universal. To judge, if an action is morally or immorally, it is necessary to look at, what the purpose of the action was/is. Usually it´s not a moral thing for us to chop someones leg off with a sharp knife and a bonesaw. It´s a whole different story, when a doctor does that in a hospital, in order to save your life. There you have it: a social system of what´s right or wrong. It´s not the point, if basic morals are instinctive or not, because we ARE living in a social context and whether it´s right or wrong will be judged from that standpoint.
Which rises a lot of very complicated questions.
Is it morally to kill your neighbour?! No it´s not. I think, the most of us do agree, although we do not know your neighbour.
Is it morally for the government to kill someone for murdering your neighbour? This is judged quite differently in the U.S. or in Europe, isn´t it?! The argument in Europe is, that killing is immoral, even when it´s done by the administration. That´s – if you like - a more “universal” approach.
Is it morally to kill a few people in order save more people from dying? E.g., is it right, to shoot down a plane with innocent passengers that´s going to crash in a large building with more people?! That´s a very very difficult question to answer. Is it right to do something wrong in order to prevent something even worse to happen?! I don´t know. I don´t want to make such a decision.
So. The problem with morals IS their relativity. That´s why the 911 terrorists might have been thinking, they were acting morally, and we definitely don´t. If it´s true, that you can act morally by doing something unmorally, it´s no longer a question of right or wrong, it´s a question of the social context.
A.
Browncoats Unite!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Arabikum:
The problem with morals IS their relativity. That´s why the 911 terrorists might have been thinking, they were acting morally, and we definitely don´t... it´s no longer a question of right or wrong, it´s a question of the social context.
Exactly. You are absolutely correct.
You're welcome on my boat. God ain't.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think it's possible to create emotional but non-religious morals in a society.
If you knew in the bottom of your bones, that your security and peace of mind, and that of your children and their children, depended on maintaining social rules of equitability and sufficiency, you would support them.
Just enough ....
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I take the view that there are certain actions that are wrong, and this is a universal thing. But that there are times and cirucmstances when doing something that is wrong can be justified. This justification has no bearing on if the action is right or wrong. Example: killing is wrong, yet in self-defense killing is justified. This is why a self-defence argument in the American Criminal system is not an argument that the killer is innocent but rather that he or she is not-guilty of murder.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I picked this from Wikipdia
Quote:I wanted to mention also that moral relativism's history goes back to at least to Herodotus (480-420 BC), so current pundits who treat moral relativism as a modern disease are wrong.
Moral relativism does not equate to moral pluralism, or value pluralism (which acknowledges the co-existence of opposing ideas and practices, but does not require that they be equally valid). Moral relativism, in contrast, contends that opposing moral positions have no truth-value, and that no preferred standard of reference exists by which to judge them ... To some extent, the increasing body of knowledge of great differences in belief among societies caused both social scientists and philosophers to question whether any objective, absolute standards pertaining to values could exist. This caused some to posit that differing systems have equal validity, with no standard for adjudicating among conflicting beliefs
However, I DO find something in common with all moral systems (that I know of).... they are all founded- at least in concept- on the greatest good for the greatest number. Gotta sacrifice your child? That's so the rain will fall and everyone else can eat. Feeling the pain of corporatism? Eventually it will lead to a better life. Burning witches at the stake, torturing unbelievers in the dungeon, and making converts at the point of a sword? Society must be be purified so that more people will enter heaven. Starving under the emperor's taxes? The kingdom of heaven-on-earth must be kept stable or the earth will wobble. Don't like your current station in life (caste)? Hey, you'll build up some good karma for the next time around.
I don't know of any moral system that blatantly states "It's all for me, and f*ck the rest of you". It couldn't possibly be that way because "most" would never accept that they were getting screwed over for no reason whatsoever.
So I'm going to assume that our BASIC moral principle is "the greatest good for the greatest number". And later, the definition of good...
---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
StillFlyin
I don't believe in 'universal' morals as that implies an absolute standard. Human morals are in part a product of human evolution. I do think morals are also a product of culture. While empathy and cooperation are normally inbuilt, a brutal un-giving culture (and childhood) can developmentally erase those capacities. It often permanently changes brain architecture and chemistry, creating people incapable of either. Those people then go on to raise their children in a brutal and uncaring way ... and so on down the line.
What we tell ourselves 'we are' does determine what we are. If you think that social Darwinism is a law of nature, you will create that brutal society, and the brutal people in it. If you have a different view, you will create a different culture and different people.
There are differences in culture. Though people have a hard time imagining 'better' cultures (they do exist), they recognize as worse the cruel nature of the Taliban warlord culture for example.
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That doesn't explain social Darwinism. People are taught to accept it as a basic 'law of nature' with no particular benefit.
So I'm going to assume that our BASIC moral principle is "the greatest good for the greatest number".
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Social Darwinism is at it's heart the same thing as the old idea that it's easier for a poor man to get into heaven -- a mechanism that supports the status quo by discouraging the numberous "have nots" from overthrowing the "haves" by force of numbers.
In the religious case you have a shitty life while others live in luxury but you will be rewarded after you die. In the case of Social Darwinism it's the idea that you should accept uneven distribution of wealth in the hope that someday you yourself will be wealthy.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME