absolute vs. relative morality

Post Reply New Topic

Dude, just because I have said I no longer wish to make any points in no way indicates that I have conceded your point but do not wish to make it public. I said such because I have already answered BOTH your questions and you refuse to look reality in the eye. Therfore I am done repeating myself and merely rephrasing the same points over and over again.

If you wish to live your life by instinct... go right ahead. You'll deserve everything that happens.

We just have to agree to disagree then. You didn’t make any argument. You merely stated your opinions with an air of superiority and pretentious language. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that there was some nugget of reason hidden in there but there just isn’t.



I think it’s your instinct to think that you can figure out exactly how people “should” live their lives. You are instinctually arrogant. It’s ironic.

Morality is, by definition, relative.

People who say they are "pro-life" are often "anti-life" on issues of capital punishment (pro-death penalty).

People who oppose killing, when it is labeled as murder, may support it, when it is labeled as war.

People who oppose suicide may favor it when a soldier jumps on a grenade to protect his comrades.

Many societies will prosecute people for involuntary manslaughter (or the equivalent), but they will excuse "friendly fire" on a war stage.

We convince ourselves of a supposed absolute morality by coming up with different labels for what is, basically, the same behavior in different social contexts.

And moral realism is dismissed by a blithe comment!


But we perceive differences social contexts as having moral importance and there is no reason why social context cannot have a moral importance.

Then you did not read the rest of my posting.



However, the importance of social context in defining morality is the definition of moral relativism.

I think that this depends on a bad definition of moral relativism as by your definition, utilitarianism can be labeled a form of moral relativism as can anything but perhaps a Kantian moral imperative or similar such idea. To take a definition of moral relativism from the Stanford dictionary of philosophy
http://www.seop.leeds.ac.uk/entries/moral-relativism/
"Metaethical Moral Relativism (MMR). The truth or falsity of moral judgments, or their justification, is not absolute or universal, but is relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a group of persons."

You have not proven that universal values do not exist, therefore, you have not proven relativism. Frankly, that was not what you explicitly sought to do, but a question "Are morals absolute or relative?" makes more sense in our cultural context if it is between moral realism and moral relativism, rather than Kantian imperative vs the world.

If one says that morality is socially contingent, one is making a morally relativist argument. My contention is that appeals to universal values are nothing more than metaphysics - speculative philosophy.



That is the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. I do not have to prove that the yeti does not exist either. I can simply affirm that there is insufficient evidence for it. The burden of proof is on the person who claims otherwise.

I would say that all appeals to morals are nothing more than metaphysics.


I never claimed that morality existed in the first place, so I am not shifting the burden of proof at all. My ideas are that if morality exists, then moral truths exist, and if moral truths exist then morality is universal/absolute. Frankly though, if we stuck to logic I would argue that the best assumption on the moral structure of reality would be moral nihilism. Moral relativism, in so much as it isn't nihilism, must argue for a different conception of morality than found in moral realism or other systems where moral truths can exist.

Technically, no. If I accede to a particular moral code simply because of personal taste or preference, I am not engaging in metaphysics. For instance, I might say that I find it easier to simply conform to existing social norms, i.e., that I recognize the possible negative social consequences of nonconformity or, in extreme cases, deviance.



You said that I did not disprove the existence of universal values. To set that as a condition is logically fallacious.

I would stand by this quote by Sartre:
"To choose this or that is to affirm at the same time the value of what we choose, because we can never choose evil. We always choose the good, and nothing can be good for us without being good for all."

By holding to a moral code you hold that it is right to do so. You may do so using some elaborate self-justification, but your choice is labeled correct by your mind.


Well, ok, fine, you did not prove that morality existed while universal values not existing. You are right, my words were wrong in that instance.

But Sartre's statement, like "existence precedes essence," is an assertion, not an argument.



Actually, no, I don't. I make no such assumptions. I simply act based on my willful responses to existing social conventions. I recognize that my values, like those of others, are products of social construction. I attribute no ultimate meaning to them.

Well, I think that it's a gimme to assume that Aspie's think of most things in absolutes too. I do. Either somethings right or somethings wrong...there is no in between.

Right, however, the issue is that it relates back to the long-standing and oft-noted issue of mankind believing in an absolute moral truth. This seems to imply that the original definitions of the term morality refer back to an absolute.


Umm... I say bs, but I doubt I would get anywhere with you.

To quote from the 1828 Webster dictionary what I think morals and morality are:

Moral
MOR'AL, a. [L. moralis, from mos, moris, manner.]

1. Relating to the practice, manners or conduct of men as social beings in relation to each other, and with reference to right and wrong. The word moral is applicable to actions that are good or evil, virtuous or vicious, and has reference to the law of God as the standard by which their character is to be determined. The word however may be applied to actions which affect only, or primarily and principally, a person's own happiness.

Keep at the least within the compass of moral actions, which have in them vice or virtue.

Mankind is broken loose from moral bands.

2. Subject to the moral law and capable of moral actions; bound to perform social duties; as a moral agent or being.

3. Supported by the evidence of reason or probability; founded on experience of the ordinary course of things; as moral certainty, distinguished from physical or mathematical certainty or demonstration.

Physical and mathematical certainty may be stiled infallible, and moral certainty may be properly stiled indubitable.

Things of a moral nature may be proved by moral arguments.

4. Conformed to rules of right, or to the divine law respecting social duties; virtuous; just; as when we say, a particular action is not moral.

5. Conformed to law and right in exterior deportment; as, he leads a good moral life.

6. Reasoning or instructing with regard to vice and virtue.

While thou, a moral fool, sitt'st still and cri'st.

7. In general, moral denotes something which respects the conduct of men and their relations as social beings whose actions have a bearing on each others's rights and happiness, and are therefore right or wrong, virtuous or vicious; as moral character; moral views; moral knowledge; moral sentiments; moral maxims; moral approbation; moral doubts; moral justice; moral virtue; moral obligations, &c. Or moral denotes something which respects the intellectual powers of man, as distinct form his physical powers. Thus we speak of moral evidence, moral arguments, moral persuasion, moral certainty, moral force; which operate on the mind.

Moral law, the law of God which prescribes the moral or social duties, and prohibits the transgression of them.

Moral sense, an innate or natural sense of right and wrong; an instinctive perception of what is right or wrong in moral conduct, which approves some actions and disapproves others, independent of education or the knowledge of any positive rule or law. But the existence of any such moral sense is very much doubted.

Moral philosophy, the science of manners and duty; the science which treats of the nature and condition of man as a social being, of the duties which result form his social relations, and the reasons on which they are founded.

MOR'AL, n. Morality; the doctrine or practice of the duties of life. [Not much used.]

1. The doctrine inculcated by a fiction; the accommodation of a fable to form the morals.

The moral is the first business of the poet.

MOR'AL, v.i. To moralize. [Not in use.]



Morals
MOR'ALS, n. plu. The practice of the duties of life; as a man of correct morals.

1. Conduct; behavior; course of life, in regard to good and evil.

Some, as corrupt in their morals as vice could make them, have been solicitous to have their children virtuously and piously educated.

What can laws do without morals?



Morality
MORAL'ITY, n. The doctrine or system of moral duties, or the duties of men in their social character; ethics.

The system of morality to be gathered from the writings of ancient sages, falls very short of that delivered in the gospel.

1. The practice of the moral duties; virtue. We often admire the politeness of men whose morality we question.

2. The quality of an action which renders it good; the conformity of an act to the divine law, or to the principles of rectitude. This conformity implies that the act must be performed by a free agent, and from a motive of obedience to the divine will. This is the strict theological and scriptural sense of morality. But we often apply the word to actions which accord with justice and human laws, without reference to the motives form which they proceed.




-Noah Webster's 1828 Dictionary of American English

Sartre did not accept the notion of absolute moral truth either. That is why I referred to his "existence precedes essence" quotation. To Sartre, truth is, like all essences, an emergent property of one's human predicament.



There is a difference between being confident in one's own moral constructs, which I sometimes am, and believing that they have some kind of universal applicability.

I think there's a middle ground in which thoughts are based on axioms such as "suffering is bad" and developed from there.