The relativity of morality

Trytostaydead · Post by **Trytostaydead** » 2004-07-04 12:44am

If morals are relative, how do you accuse someone of a crime if they do not live in your society?

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2004-07-04 01:04am

Your question is meaningless. Crime is not a question of morality, it is defined by law.

Trytostaydead · Post by **Trytostaydead** » 2004-07-04 01:24am

Pablo Sanchez wrote:Your question is meaningless. Crime is not a question of morality, it is defined by law.

Sorry, I should've been more specific. Say war crimes, crimes against humanity, etc. If one country believes action A is okay and acceptable and has been for countless generations, who says its a crime?

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2004-07-04 01:47am

When the morals of one person start inflicting harm on another person and breach their morals, thats when. If moral are relative, then people must have the freedom to have relative morals otherwise theyre not relative. If they are not relative, then the question doesn't matter because it's a matter of might and that's how it goes. Either way..

lgot · Post by **lgot** » 2004-07-04 01:54am

read what Pablo answered, you just changed it to international laws.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2004-07-04 01:56am

igot: international laws are only valid if, you know.. the country agrees to them. doesnt really help when the country decides it doesnt want to listen, which is exactly what warcrimes are.

Xon · Post by **Xon** » 2004-07-04 02:01am

Trytostaydead wrote:If morals are relative, how do you accuse someone of a crime if they do not live in your society?

Just because something is relative doesnt prevent you from making value judgments based on your own POV.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2004-07-04 02:04am

ggs, that is a horrible idea. it relegates the nature of right and wrong to whim and fancy and effectively says that anything is okay if you feel it is.

lgot · Post by **lgot** » 2004-07-04 03:00am

Kojikun:

so, you are saying they are war crimes because the country does not follow the international laws ? uh ? shocking.

Guy N. Cognito · Post by **Guy N. Cognito** » 2004-07-04 03:14am

I hate to say it, but those who win the war make the rules and they are the ones who decided which rules are "morally" right. If some on has different beliefs in their country adn lost the war, it's to f-ing bad. They lost and are being charged with the winners version of morality.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2004-07-04 03:33am

No, learn English. I said that international law doesn't really apply, because for it to apply, the various countries that it applies to have to agree to it applying to them, and therefore any act that violates laws they agree to is defacto withdrawal of support for that law. International law doesn't serve any purpose other than as a definition of what will get your ass invaded. It's merely a list of things that will piss other countries off.

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2004-07-04 03:33am

I think morality is good in some respects, but since morality is relative it is really pointless, since the only morality that counts is the morality of the group who is powerful enough to enforce it.

You can say it is not moral to kill babies, but it seems irrelevant if you can't stop it because some in power think it is moral.

Relative morality becomes silly after a while. If every society is right just because they say it's relative, then you cannot judge someone as right or wrong because your standard for judgement is no better/more right than theirs.

It is also very hard to get a good definition of what relative morality is. In my school, they teach it as such :

My morality is just as good as your morality because there is no standard of judgement other than what we say.

It goes on to say Relative morality is bad and wrong because of this:

1 .If one morality is just as good/correct as another morality, according to the ones who make it up, they have to accept that everyone else's morality is just as good as theirs, forming a contradiction.

the book said A and not A cannot exist simulateously.

Exampe : If one group says it is moral to kill babies, and the other says it is immoral to kill babies, they would have to accept each other's moraltiy is just as good since it is all relative and equally correct.

2. It is impractical. If everyone has his on morality, there is no standard of judgement other than each individual person/society depending on what type of relativism one follows. There is no way to morally judge someone because they will always be right according to relativism. THis they relate to number 1.

3. It is lazy and eschews responsiblity burden. If a society does something wrong, they can just say "it's all relative."

4. It is harmful to society.

That's the way my college teaches it, and I don't know of any other way because of this. I don't see why they would be lying either, since they are a college. This is also the argument I always see on online philosophy sites and in books.

Anyone know if this is true or where one could find a real definition of it if it is wrong?

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2004-07-04 03:34am

ggs, that is a horrible idea. it relegates the nature of right and wrong to whim and fancy and effectively says that anything is okay if you feel it is.

My book makes the same case about relative morality as you did above.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2004-07-04 03:36am

You wouldn't happen to be quoting from a book on Objectivism, would you? lol

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2004-07-04 03:45am

Which type. I know there are two types;

1. Ayn Rand's Objectivism
2. MOral Objectivism.

I thought they were the same, but apparently my course says they aren't. It places all objective morality theories under objectivism.

It is just a standard Ethics book from school.

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2004-07-04 03:46am

Edit: I really didn't find anything objective about Ayn Rand's verison either.

Xon · Post by **Xon** » 2004-07-04 06:09am

kojikun wrote:ggs, that is a horrible idea. it relegates the nature of right and wrong to whim and fancy and effectively says that anything is okay if you feel it is.

And so?

Concepts of right and wrong are predominantly determined by the culture you are exposed to and are deeply influenced/constrained by the physical limitations of the human body.

And most people take that path anyway, that its Okay if it feels good.

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2004-07-04 09:07am

Trytostaydead wrote:Sorry, I should've been more specific. Say war crimes, crimes against humanity, etc. If one country believes action A is okay and acceptable and has been for countless generations, who says its a crime?

In terms of war, the morality and legality of an action are decided by the side that won. It's a simple question of force and it's very possible for miscarriages of justice to take place (Versailles being an example).

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2004-07-04 01:46pm

So basically...Might makes right?

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2004-07-04 02:32pm

ggs: cultures have different views of right and wrong, but so do people. moral relativism effectively says there is no such thing as right and wrong and that to discuss and debate it is pointless, so people should just act on their morals alone and to hell with everyone elses freedom.

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2004-07-04 02:37pm

Boyish-Tigerlilly wrote:So basically...Might makes right?

In international relations, yes.

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2004-07-04 02:43pm

ggs: cultures have different views of right and wrong, but so do people. moral relativism effectively says there is no such thing as right and wrong and that to discuss and debate it is pointless, so people should just act on their morals alone and to hell with everyone elses freedom.

What source did you get that out of? It's pretty much the same as mine. But it is, in this book, listed as a relativistic fallacy because it does not follow the purpose of morality or the definition of morality. It is very confusing.

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2004-07-04 02:44pm

So basically...Might makes right?

In international relations, yes.

I agree that might makes these doable, but not right per se. If I can beat someone to a bloody pulp and steal all his money, it doesn't mean my actions were just, or right, but rather I was able tod o it because no one could stop me.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2004-07-04 02:46pm

Moral relativism is the moral equivalent of metephysical solipsism. The arguments against solipsism work pretty well against moral relativism as well -- It's a useless idea that tries to pass of antimorals as morals and defeats the whole purpose of morals.

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2004-07-04 02:54pm

I think it is stupid as well, but I am sure other's here don't think so. At least that is what I gathered from reading old morality threads. One thing that confused me, however, is that where from would morality come, if not from societies or people?

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

The relativity of morality

The relativity of morality

Re: The relativity of morality