The relativity of morality

[Rye]

Ha, it's not a form of solipsism at all, it describes the way things are. Subjective value systems, irrespective of whether the majority agree with them or not are still subjective.

There is no universal moral system, it's as simple as. Moral relativism describes the way things are, it doesn't prescribe anything beyond that, moral systems are pretty much absolute within their own systems, but not outside of them too, thus they are not objective.

Morals tend to stem from social animal behaviour, and they do apply to most people, however, for every moral rule there are people who don't see something as immoral or moral, thus morals are relative to the person.

[kojikun]

I said it was the moral equivalent of solipsism, not that it was a form of it. ::smack::

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Ha, it's not a form of solipsism at all, it describes the way things are. Subjective value systems, irrespective of whether the majority agree with them or not are still subjective.

There is no universal moral system, it's as simple as. Moral relativism describes the way things are, it doesn't prescribe anything beyond that, moral systems are pretty much absolute within their own systems, but not outside of them too, thus they are not objective.

Morals tend to stem from social animal behaviour, and they do apply to most people, however, for every moral rule there are people who don't see something as immoral or moral, thus morals are relative to the person.

This is one of it's major problems according to many curriculae. It describes the way things are, but not as they should be. Morality is defined as what ought to be. Just because something is, doesn't mean it ought. Now, I do agree with you that it comes from people, but it seems to not coincide with the purpose and defintion of morality. Of course, the books and professors could be wrong. THa tis always a possibility.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

[quote] Also Known as: The Subjectivist Fallacy.
Description of Relativist Fallacy

The Relativist Fallacy is committed when a person rejects a claim by asserting that the claim might be true for others but is not for him/her. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. Claim X is presented.
2. Person A asserts that X may be true for others but is not true for him/her.
3. Therefore A is justified in rejecting X. [/quoite]

According to my curriculum, it is referred to as moral relativism, and this is one reason why it is wrong. They say there are truths, and these moral truths serve the purpose of morality where subjective ethics don't.


Although, one could say there really IS no truth in this matter, which I think might very well be the case right? I mean, it comes from people and there is no objective standard other than what someone says there is. It is unlike science (in which there really is an objective world).

[kojikun]

The real problem with systems of ethics is that in reality, there is no such thing as moral and immoral. When you murder someone, it's people that punish you, not the universe. When a lion kills an antelope, there is no punishment at all. The universe is amoral. It's hard to come up with any objective system of morals. But regardless of the system, there are acts that people will always be injured by, and for them those acts are wrong. I think that is the way humans should seek an objective ethics system, because its the one thing that everyone has in common -- there are things that people don't want done to them, and doing them always is immoral in that persons eyes. this doesn't, obviously, include things not done to them that they don't like.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

I like utilitarianism, beause it seems (eventhough it is flawed somewhat) to provide for the greatest good. People live in societies, and the best way to keep a society healthy is to have some "objective" standard based on universal health, happiness, and prosperity.

[ukamikazu]

Then may I humbly suggest buffet style Humanism/Philosophy/Legalism.

With all the other humanistic systems out there, there is no reason why one couldn't cobble together a workable, agreeable and correct system. What we don't use from the other systems, burn.

Take the ethics and morality, make your test arguments, and if you are so lucky, codify them into law, or lobby your representative to do so, so long as your arguments demonstrate that there is no cost, no harm, and only benefit to all.

In these matters it can help to think like an econometricist and/or a game theorist.

[kojikun]

tigerlilly: utilitarianism is less of a system of ethics and more of a system of implementation of a system of ethics. afterall, ethics is about defining good, not providing it. and with utilitarianism, whos to define what is good and what isnt? christians would say that good is serving god, i would say that good is freedom.

ukami: personally im a humanist, so..

[Andrew J.]

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

You just say, "Hey! You, the tinpot dictator! That was a crime you just committed! We're going to invade your country and blow up your military and hang you."

Quite simple, really.

[ukamikazu]

ukami: personally im a humanist, so..

I thought so. I noticed that some days you're just so damned reasonable, and others, when your hackles are up, justifiably so.

Now what bothers me, are people who call themselves humanist, but lack the wherewithal to investigate their position, make arguments, accept criticism and remain closeted about the supernatural. Rather cowardly in my opinion.

Armchair philosophers, the lot of them. And I mean that with the utmost disdain.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

tigerlilly: utilitarianism is less of a system of ethics and more of a system of implementation of a system of ethics. afterall, ethics is about defining good, not providing it. and with utilitarianism, whos to define what is good and what isnt? christians would say that good is serving god, i would say that good is freedom.

ukami: personally im a humanist, so..

I wouldn't know what to say. I have only been taught (indoctrinated) to think Utilitarianism is a Ethical theory up there with Kantian Ethics, Subjectivism, Ayn Rand's stuff. I guess it is technically generally accepted as one (right or wrong), since it is taught as such. I really don't know what to say about it. I just liked the idea

I can't see how it can define good per se, no. That is a flaw, and ther eis also a flaw in that its hard to dermine what is good at the right time. Hindsight would be a godsend. In a way, Utilitarianism would be based partly on subjectivity. What is considered good, beneficial could be this subjective criterion.

Although they did have hedonic calculus, but that was odd in many ways. Perhaps they could modify it to suit more acceptable situations.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

You just say, "Hey! You, the tinpot dictator! That was a crime you just committed! We're going to invade your country and blow up your military and hang you."

Quite simple, really.

This is why subjective morality is pointless, since it really accomplishes nothing. No one outside the subjective community should, or has to follow them. This leads to lack of regard for others, since you can just believe you are right in doing whatever you want, right? Might = right as someone above agreed.

So Hitler was right to try to purge the world of all undesireable people because his government believed it was saving humanity and doing good. According to subjectivism, he WAS moral, and a good man, but this is silly, since he was destructive, evil, and totally against a peaceful, prosperous world.

This is a problem. With subjective morality, morality becomes useless, and the REAL issue is not really whether or not something is right or wrong (which IS the object of morality), but whether or not you can impose your whims on a weaker people.

[Aeolus]

Kojikun:

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

there is no such thing as international law. It's just a bunch of treatys binding only the signataries. His question is valid

[Aeolus]

So basically...Might makes right?

in "international law" ..yes

[Aeolus]

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.

Society has laws and customs which make it wrong. There is no higher authority to force suh a condition on Nations however

[SWPIGWANG]

Subjective morality is a explaination, not a justification.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

whether or not something is moral is supposed to be the justification, not an explanation for reason. If something is moral, it is justiified. If subjective morality does not justify something, how morally effective can it be?

[SWPIGWANG]

Not at all of course.

It is an hypothesis explaining moral codes, not a moral code itself.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Then which theories are actually moral codes and not moral explanations/ administration tools.