Moral Relativism and "Opinions"

[Kittie Rose]

This is probably something oft discussed here, but I couldn't find any recent threads.

Basically, I have a problem with moral relativism and think it is potentially quite harmful, and may already have caused harm. My beef with it is this.

Person A believes killing Person B, merely to experience the act, is ethical.
Person B strongly believes he has the right to life, and nobody should interfere with this.

From a relativist point of view, these two are equal.

However, how does Moral Relativism deal with the idea that Person A's beliefs actually ultimately remove the right of others beliefs?

That's only the tip of the iceberg though. What I'm trying to get at is that what someone considers a set of morals has no real basis on what's actually right or wrong.

So what IS right or wrong?

The problem with making anything right or wrong is that "right" and "wrong" imply positive and negative. The only sensible way, as far as I'm concerned, of describing the ethical prospect of an action is to align them correctly; an action with a positive outcome; though replace for intent and how that intent was reached when judging how good or evil an actual person is.

There are complications with this, and that's fine. But the basic idea is what many of us do realise, deep down, before we shit on it with religious and cultural values. The fact that there are many common threads in the majority of moral systems show that at least with basic morals, there is some common ground. It is irrelevant if you cannot find a moral held by everything. That is missing the point. What morals someone holds does not change whether an action is correct or incorrect, good or bad.

Ultimately, whatever does the most good for the most people. I don't see why people have a problem with this, or feel the need to over write this. I feel there is a lot of conservative apologism going wrong.

Why I think this is hurting the world is simple; most people don't hold religious values as they used to, and are too stupid to reason universal, objective values of their own. So they just absorb whatever their culture tells them, a big part of which is Relativism.

A person with bad intents is someone who can potentially cause harm. A moral relativist is someone who may very well allow them to act on those bad intents, if they can present them as beliefs.

Moral relativists generally ask that we respect the beliefs of others and make those that don't out to be "Bad" in some way (ironically, a kind of objective belief in itself, and a bad one).

I would say that fighting for someone's rights is much more important than defending the right of a complete asshole to be a homophobe. I would say that no matter what your morals, one undoubtedly inflicts more "Positive" states on people as a whole. Bigots may kick up a storm but that doesn't mean they really care, just that they put their perogatives far, far beyond those of others. Also, even if they do care, they don't have to. It doesn't directly effect them. So in finding the greatest good for the most people, we have to find a way to make bigots, well, not bigots.

The almighty opinion is a problem with this world. Everyone wants to have a say, no matter how stupid or uneducated they know deep down they are. It doesn't matter if you point out 200 fallacies in someone's statement, it's their OPINION and you should RESPECT IT or you're a NAZI.

I'm not even going to get started on how much shit bigots get away with on the internet, since most mods seem to live their lives by the style over substance fallacy, banning only the angry people(generally the ones who are the most offended by bigotry). Though I think people should be dicks, mods should make sure the biggest dicks are kept in check to begin with. Thanks to the WONDERS of Moral Relativism, their opinions are equally valid! Yes!

I sympathise a little with the "I need an opinion!" thing think it can be very scary and I've even experienced it here a little, that you can't have an opinion without it being sniped at. Everyone experiences the world in different ways, and can see things others can't, patterns, pieces of knowledge.

This does not mean you are qualified to enter an advanced debate, or vote on issues you really are not educated on. "Opinions" are not what matter, in this sense. We have plenty of those. People don't seem to understand why you shouldn't vote on "Opinion". Opinion is personal bias and everyone should be allowed that. When making serious decisions, comments, or actions, you should realise your own bias, and temporarily drop it for an objective measure.
People seem to think the only true evil in the world is someone who tells someone else their opinion is wrong. But opinions very often are wrong.

What many people nowadays, especially neo-conservatives have, are not opinions, but claims. They pass them off as opinions and beliefs so they retain them long after they're proven wrong.

Moral Relativism is really what allows this to happen, because "Who are we to tell them they're wrong?"

I honestly die a little inside everytime I see a pretty muslim girl covering her hair up, or someone who's obviously hiding their sexuality.

Defending someone's right to belief is very often defending their right to force it on others.

We have to stop looking at flat out freedoms, and start looking at how those freedoms can affect others.

[Superman]

The almighty opinion is a problem with this world. Everyone wants to have a say, no matter how stupid or uneducated they know deep down they are. It doesn't matter if you point out 200 fallacies in someone's statement, it's their OPINION and you should RESPECT IT or you're a NAZI.

That's right! We can't judge. We can't judge... Me? I never judge. Everyone's belief in feng shui, faries, and astrology is just as valid as what any ohhh... say scientist has to say.

And every single aspect of every culture is beautiful and equal. Female genital mutilation is grand. GRAND! And don't get me started on slavery...

[Teebs]

You're assuming that there is agreement about what is positive.

As for moral relativism, I don't think you'll find many people in the West who would disagree with you that murder or genital mutilation of children or a variety of other things are simply wrong. On the other hand it certainly does have a place for moral questions which don't affect others i.e. things like sexual morality between consenting adults. I would say that leaving some subjective judgement of positive results as the only decider for such issues is certainly not the best solution and probably quite dangerous.

[R. U. Serious]

People seem to think the only true evil in the world is someone who tells someone else their opinion is wrong.

Who are these people? The only people I know who come close to this are often incredible hypocrits as they will never hesitate to judge anybody and everything loudly and without being asked (and react as being "persecuted" when you question what they're doing). But I am not aware of real people that have a consistent attitude of total moral relativism.

Moral Relativism is really what allows this to happen, because "Who are we to tell them they're wrong?"

If you think that the only problem with idiots, bigots or hate groups is that nobody told them they're wrong, I think you need a reality check. The question is not wether you think and say that they're wrong, but what you can and what you should do about it.

There is also a very fundamental difference between
- respect for the opinion of someone and
- respect for _the right_ of someone to have/voice an opinion
and I have a feeling you are conflating the two. I can respect that people can have and voice absurd opinions, but that I certainly don't therefore think they are valid opinions, or that I should somehow not challenge them.

most people don't hold religious values as they used to, and are too stupid to reason universal, objective values of their own. So they just absorb whatever their culture tells them, a big part of which is Relativism.

I hope you realize that the actual problem here is that they are too stupid and/or too uneducated to reason, and not the fact, that "their culture" is not forcing more positions on them. That which people must be forced is codified in law, and therefor already forced on people. And the kinds of decisions that are not prohibited by law, often are things which should not be forced on people. (of course the legal justice system is neither static nor perfect, so there is always plenty of real life counter examples, that - hopefully - are being worked on)

Defending someone's right to belief is very often defending their right to force it on others.

Actually they are very distinct. And I'll take the freedom to say that implying they are the same is full of shit.

I also get the impression you are having severe problems distinguishing several concepts. For example the difference between a legal system, that allows people live according to a basic set of rules together in a state, and a moral/ethics system which will usually help in making decisions within the framework of freedom that is guaranteed by the state. I almost get the impression that you are advocating that the legal system should be changed so that it codifies all moral behaviour, but I am not sure if that's what you're saying, because in your stream of unorganized babble it's hard to make out what it is you're actually saying.

[K. A. Pital]

I don't know if rationalism is a morally relativist system, but sure as hell admitting that morality is relative doesn't mean that all acts are equally moral. That's just weird.

Person A believes killing Person B, merely to experience the act, is ethical.
Person B strongly believes he has the right to life, and nobody should interfere with this.
From a relativist point of view, these two are equal.

Are they really? I always thought that "relative morality" meant that morality is a product of society and not the other way round, hence, what is deemed moral in a society at a given time may be immoral later for certain progressive individuals. Not that all actions are morally equal.

[Darth Wong]

Apart from the occasional pissant goth or whiny emo kiddie, moral relativists are imaginary bogeymen, usually dreamed up by Christian fundamentalists and right-wingers who try to strawman liberals into "relativists" even though they're not.

[General Zod]

You're assuming that there is agreement about what is positive.

As for moral relativism, I don't think you'll find many people in the West who would disagree with you that murder or genital mutilation of children or a variety of other things are simply wrong. On the other hand it certainly does have a place for moral questions which don't affect others i.e. things like sexual morality between consenting adults. I would say that leaving some subjective judgement of positive results as the only decider for such issues is certainly not the best solution and probably quite dangerous.

Whether or not something causes harm is usually a pretty good way of objectively judging whether something is positive or negative. Unless of course you're one of those morons who likes to nitpick over what exactly harm is as well.

[Turin]

Apart from the occasional pissant goth or whiny emo kiddie, moral relativists are imaginary bogeymen, usually dreamed up by Christian fundamentalists and right-wingers who try to strawman liberals into "relativists" even though they're not.

Unfortunately I've also seen a lot of "relativism" in the university setting as well among academic liberal arts types. Call it the slightly grown-up version of whiny emo-ism. Whether or not these people are actually all that relevant in the total picture of political discussion is maybe another matter, but they do unfortunately exist.

It's not just a strawman, but it's also False Dilemma Fallacy. These sorts of people put forth two options: (1) the absolute word of God or whatever their particular flavor is vs (2) everything is relative and no one can make a moral decision. This leaves out a rather big third branch of ethics, the one General Zod is talking about, which is consequentialism.

[Darth Wong]

Apart from the occasional pissant goth or whiny emo kiddie, moral relativists are imaginary bogeymen, usually dreamed up by Christian fundamentalists and right-wingers who try to strawman liberals into "relativists" even though they're not.

Unfortunately I've also seen a lot of "relativism" in the university setting as well among academic liberal arts types. Call it the slightly grown-up version of whiny emo-ism. Whether or not these people are actually all that relevant in the total picture of political discussion is maybe another matter, but they do unfortunately exist.

It's not just a strawman, but it's also False Dilemma Fallacy. These sorts of people put forth two options: (1) the absolute word of God or whatever their particular flavor is vs (2) everything is relative and no one can make a moral decision. This leaves out a rather big third branch of ethics, the one General Zod is talking about, which is consequentialism.

Those would be the pissants I mentioned earlier. You tend to find that people who actually graduated after studying ethics or philosophy in a liberal-arts setting don't say things like that. But universities are full of people who haven't graduated yet (obviously), and I find that the least capable ones are the ones who spew the most supercilious tripe, which is where moral relativism comes in. It comes from the same jackasses who spout solipsism and think it's philosophy.

In a real sense, this is like saying that solipsism is a strawman of serious philosophy. Yes, a lot of posers subscribe to solipsism, and yes, you find a lot of them at university, but real philosophers don't.

[Turin]

Those would be the pissants I mentioned earlier. You tend to find that people who actually graduated after studying ethics or philosophy in a liberal-arts setting don't say things like that. But universities are full of people who haven't graduated yet (obviously), and I find that the least capable ones are the ones who spew the most supercilious tripe, which is where moral relativism comes in. It comes from the same jackasses who spout solipsism and think it's philosophy.

After reading this point, I tried to think of examples of people who I know who actually graduated from liberal-arts type programs. It seems like the only ones I know are the sorts of people I don't get into ethical discussions with (like my clients or random schlubs who work at the coffee shop or something). The sole exception is probably an old friend of mine who teaches English at the university level and isn't a relativist anyway. So, point conceded.

[Superman]

Apart from the occasional pissant goth or whiny emo kiddie, moral relativists are imaginary bogeymen, usually dreamed up by Christian fundamentalists and right-wingers who try to strawman liberals into "relativists" even though they're not.

Well said. Like everything else, they attack a straw man and then declare victory with their absolutist nonsense.

[Darth Wong]

This reminds me of the way people who want to attack university educations tend to focus almost 100% of their attention on students who haven't actually graduated yet, rather than looking at the attitudes and abilities of graduates. It's like judging the value of a high-school education by talking to a 13 year old junior. And then there's the imbeciles who attack the fact that radical ideas are allowed to gain free expression on campuses, as if one of the purposes of a university education is not to expose yourself to diverse and radically different ideas.

Usually, you hear that tripe from American Christians who think that Christianity is under-represented on campus because it's not as prevalent or domineering as it is outside of campus. As if students who have grown up in America are actually suffering from unfamiliarity with Christianity and need to use their precious few years of university to be exposed only to that which they already know.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Well, what type of ethical relativism are we talking about?

1. Are we talking about pragmatic, normative relativeism?
2. Are we talking about the more abstract metaethical relativism.

The first one, I think, is primarily where the problem lies. It's an entirely useless theory of what to do.

Metaethically, moral statements are not facts. They are subjective things. However, this doesn't mean ethics is useless or that the objectivist theories of ethics (Utilitarianism, Kantianism) are useless. Ethics is a lot like a tool, but a more abstract one. We generally have a purpose for each tool. The ethics tool isn't set up, nor does it rely on one theory being abstractly true or false. Such a requirement would be absurd anyway, since ethics offers suggestions.

Theories can be judged based on their hypothetical natures. If we want X, then we do Y. Some theories are better than others for a purpose we choose ethics to have. THey can be judged based on their relative utility even if there isn't a metaethical "ultimate" truth or falsehood behind it.

It's a tool. We create its purpose, just as we create the purpose of a hammer. Is a hammer "objectively" purpose X other than what we determine its use for? I doubt it. It still is useful.

[Kittie Rose]

The problem with Meta-ethics is that it's based around understanding rather than defined ethics.

I would argue that not only are ethics a useful tool for X to do Y, but that it's simply improper to have moral right and wrongs to conflict with this, and that ethics should be better defined to begin with.

Calling something positive with inflicts mostly negative states, calling someone negative which inflicts mostly positive states, etc., just doesn't seem to be the epitome of correctness for me, and ultimately, does not lead to the most good for the most people. Ethics are an inherent property of any system with multiple "players".


Being "Inherent" is the key here. Morals aren't set in stone as a physical property, a force, at least "not any more" since people don't leave it up to beardy forces of nature in the sky. But they are, as far as I can see, an emergent property of multiple sentient beings interacting.

[General Zod]

The problem with Meta-ethics is that it's based around understanding rather than defined ethics.

I would argue that not only are ethics a useful tool for X to do Y, but that it's simply improper to have moral right and wrongs to conflict with this, and that ethics should be better defined to begin with.

Calling something positive with inflicts mostly negative states, calling someone negative which inflicts mostly positive states, etc., just doesn't seem to be the epitome of correctness for me, and ultimately, does not lead to the most good for the most people. Ethics are an inherent property of any system with multiple "players".


Being "Inherent" is the key here. Morals aren't set in stone as a physical property, a force, at least "not any more" since people don't leave it up to beardy forces of nature in the sky. But they are, as far as I can see, an emergent property of multiple sentient beings interacting.

Any ethics system that can't define whether something is harmful or helpful is frankly worth all of jack and shit.

[Teebs]

You're assuming that there is agreement about what is positive.

As for moral relativism, I don't think you'll find many people in the West who would disagree with you that murder or genital mutilation of children or a variety of other things are simply wrong. On the other hand it certainly does have a place for moral questions which don't affect others i.e. things like sexual morality between consenting adults. I would say that leaving some subjective judgement of positive results as the only decider for such issues is certainly not the best solution and probably quite dangerous.

Whether or not something causes harm is usually a pretty good way of objectively judging whether something is positive or negative. Unless of course you're one of those morons who likes to nitpick over what exactly harm is as well.

I would agree with you, but then how do you define harm. Sure there are some things which everyone would agree on like murder is wrong, but when you get, for example, religious nuts who go on about homosexuality causing huge harm to society then you have some disagreement. That was more what my comment was aimed at - it's dangerous to just leave it at morality being about harm/good, some sort of clause about affecting others needs to be in there too.

Sorry if that's slightly incoherent, my original point wasn't that all good/harm is relative so much as letting people decide morality merely on the basis of what they see as a good for society is dangerous when you have fundies in charge.

[SAMAS]

You're assuming that there is agreement about what is positive.

As for moral relativism, I don't think you'll find many people in the West who would disagree with you that murder or genital mutilation of children or a variety of other things are simply wrong. On the other hand it certainly does have a place for moral questions which don't affect others i.e. things like sexual morality between consenting adults. I would say that leaving some subjective judgement of positive results as the only decider for such issues is certainly not the best solution and probably quite dangerous.

Whether or not something causes harm is usually a pretty good way of objectively judging whether something is positive or negative. Unless of course you're one of those morons who likes to nitpick over what exactly harm is as well.

I would agree with you, but then how do you define harm. Sure there are some things which everyone would agree on like murder is wrong, but when you get, for example, religious nuts who go on about homosexuality causing huge harm to society then you have some disagreement. That was more what my comment was aimed at - it's dangerous to just leave it at morality being about harm/good, some sort of clause about affecting others needs to be in there too.

Sorry if that's slightly incoherent, my original point wasn't that all good/harm is relative so much as letting people decide morality merely on the basis of what they see as a good for society is dangerous when you have fundies in charge.

Well, the differences in your example are that one has a direct, tangible, irrefutable harm(a dead person), while the other "harm" is mostly subjective and unquantifiable. In that case, the one with the quantifiable effect has a much greater priority over the one that "may" be bad because you say so.

[Spyder]

The problem is that non academic relativists don't realise that they're being relativists.

The NZ government displays some appalling relativism sometimes. Take Fiji for example, they're anti Bainamarama for overthrowing the democratically elected government citing that this is an obvious case of overturning democracy (leaving aside the fact that their old PM wanted Indian Fijians ethnically cleansed). Yet for some reason they're pro monarchy in Tonga. We can't help out the Tongan pro democracy movement because it would be disrespectful to Tongan culture or some shit like that.

Don't get me started on what happens if you try and hold traditional Maori culture to objective standards.

Christians are also arguably relativist when they argue that God cannot be held to the same standards as mankind.

[Teebs]

Well, the differences in your example are that one has a direct, tangible, irrefutable harm(a dead person), while the other "harm" is mostly subjective and unquantifiable. In that case, the one with the quantifiable effect has a much greater priority over the one that "may" be bad because you say so.

Fair enough, that's true.

[Darth Wong]

It's probably better to say "physical harm" rather than "objective harm". Most people have no fucking idea what "objective" means. Just this morning, some idiot Trekkie E-mailed me to say that I can't possibly be basing my analyses on objective data because I am an imperfect, biased human being.

People know what "physical harm" means without you having to explain it to them.

[Singular Intellect]

Just this morning, some idiot Trekkie E-mailed me to say that I can't possibly be basing my analyses on objective data because I am an imperfect, biased human being.

...you're still reading those?

[Darth Wong]

Just this morning, some idiot Trekkie E-mailed me to say that I can't possibly be basing my analyses on objective data because I am an imperfect, biased human being.

...you're still reading those?

I still do check my E-mail on occasion, yes. You figured I just reconfigured my website contact form to send the messages to /dev/null?

[Singular Intellect]

Just this morning, some idiot Trekkie E-mailed me to say that I can't possibly be basing my analyses on objective data because I am an imperfect, biased human being.

...you're still reading those?

I still do check my E-mail on occasion, yes. You figured I just reconfigured my website contact form to send the messages to /dev/null?

Oh, I had no doubt you recieved them. I said read them. I personally recieve spam all the time myself. Doesn't mean I read it however.

I would've figured you got tired of reading the same drivel over and over again.

[Darth Wong]

...you're still reading those?

I still do check my E-mail on occasion, yes. You figured I just reconfigured my website contact form to send the messages to /dev/null?

Oh, I had no doubt you recieved them. I said read them. I personally recieve spam all the time myself. Doesn't mean I read it however.

I would've figured you got tired of reading the same drivel over and over again.

I don't bother responding to that kind of idiocy, but I do check it. You never know, someone might say something interesting. It only takes a few seconds to read the typical site-related E-mail, and they're all marked by a subject line flag. It would take a long time to respond to all of them, but reading them is not much work. Hell, the vast majority of them are just one short paragraph at most.

[Singular Intellect]

I don't bother responding to that kind of idiocy, but I do check it. You never know, someone might say something interesting. It only takes a few seconds to read the typical site-related E-mail, and they're all marked by a subject line flag. It would take a long time to respond to all of them, but reading them is not much work. Hell, the vast majority of them are just one short paragraph at most.

Still holding that tiny flicker of hope for some intelligent pro rabid Trekkie saying something interesting?

Anyhow, I'm straying off topic, I was merely curious.