Relativism- HANDS OFF!!!

[chris epic]

When there is an argument and the relevance of subjectivity creeps in, and the defense of relativity (as in "cultural relativity) becomes a waving flag, should this command the halt of an argument?

Is relativity good or bad? Does it force us to see just how subjective we are?

Should relativity be protested or advocated? Does it inhibit learning or contribute to it.

Or is it just as fuzzy or varying an expression as "perfection."

[JoeEllison]

What are you talking about specifically?

[Apathia]

I haven't a clue what he's talking about, but he is good looking.

[JoeEllison]

I haven't a clue what he's talking about, but he is good looking.

Possibly... but ridiculously so? I think not.

[plumjam]

I think there's some wiggle-room for cultural relativism, but it tends to get overplayed in the current politically correct 'respect for diversity' fad.
There are some absolutes, some basic underpinnings. In morality, for example, it is always wrong for sane adults to kill children purely for fun.

[JoeEllison]

I think there's some wiggle-room for cultural relativism, but it tends to get overplayed in the current politically correct 'respect for diversity' fad.
Actually, I think that "fad" is exaggerated and played up by bigots, so they can express their bigotry in a "politically correct" way.

[chris epic]

What are you talking about specifically?

Two things, I guess.

1) Is it just as fallacious to use, or appeal to relativism in an effort to blind-side an argument.

2) Is relativism a bad thing? Divisive or dangerous?

Because in the past I've heard it was dangerous because it can seemingly excuse immoral behavior if that immoral behavior is culturally accepted in its area, but immoral from the perception of those whose culture does not accept it (i.e. female genital mutilation in Africa).

But I've also caught myself during an argument thinking "Well, yeah, I guess it just depends. Its relative, so who am I to say???"

[chris epic]

Oh yes, ridiculously.

[Father Dagon]

Actually, I think that "fad" is exaggerated and played up by bigots, so they can express their bigotry in a "politically correct" way.Not really. If there was a general consensus that western values is to be defended, then the bigots would've not being able to play the role of the truth-teller.

[JoeEllison]

Two things, I guess.

1) Is it just as fallacious to use, or appeal to relativism in an effort to blind-side an argument.

2) Is relativism a bad thing? Divisive or dangerous?

Because in the past I've heard it was dangerous because it can seemingly excuse immoral behavior if that immoral behavior is culturally accepted in its area, but immoral from the perception of those whose culture does not accept it (i.e. female genital mutilation in Africa).

But I've also caught myself during an argument thinking "Well, yeah, I guess it just depends. Its relative, so who am I to say???"

What are you talking about when you say "relativism"? Because, it seems, you're using a definition that doesn't actually fit.

[chris epic]

What are you talking about when you say "relativism"? Because, it seems, you're using a definition that doesn't actually fit.I thought plugging "cultural" with it earlier would put it in its propper context. Moral relativism. Relative definitions/meaning/connotations of words... more?

[JoeEllison]

I thought plugging "cultural" with it earlier would put it in its propper context. Moral relativism. Relative definitions/meaning/connotations of words... more?

Yeah, spell out the specific definition of "cultural relativism" that you're using.

[Ryokan]

When there is an argument and the relevance of subjectivity creeps in, and the defense of relativity (as in "cultural relativity) becomes a waving flag, should this command the halt of an argument?

Is relativity good or bad? Does it force us to see just how subjective we are?

Should relativity be protested or advocated? Does it inhibit learning or contribute to it.

Or is it just as fuzzy or varying an expression as "perfection."

Well, it's all relative.

[jimtron]

There seems to be an argument put forth by some social conservatives, that "moral relativism" is promoted by liberals and is a bad thing because it's essentially saying anything goes (at least I think that's the argument--I'm not certain).

But what does "moral relativism" mean exactly? I'm sure we would all define it differently. In my view morality is by definition relative--one's morality is defined by where and when they're born, what their peers believe, etc. Of course some would argue morality is defined by god, and we shouldn't make up our own morals. Which is great if you're a slave owner, or believe in stoning disobedient children to death.

[chris epic]

Yeah, spell out the specific definition of "cultural relativism" that you're using.
You know what moral relativism is, right? Then I don't need to spell out "cultural relativism." I'm talking about relativism in general...

Okay, fine...

Relativism is the idea that some element or aspect of experience or culture is relative to, i.e., dependent on, some other element or aspect. Some relativists claim that humans can understand and evaluate beliefs and behaviors only in terms of their historical or cultural context. The term often refers to truth relativism, which is the doctrine that there are no absolute truths, i.e., that truth is always relative to some particular frame of reference, such as a language or a culture.

[JoeEllison]

You know what moral relativism is, right? Then I don't need to spell out "cultural relativism." I'm talking about relativism in general...

Okay, fine...

Relativism is the idea that some element or aspect of experience or culture is relative to, i.e., dependent on, some other element or aspect. Some relativists claim that humans can understand and evaluate beliefs and behaviors only in terms of their historical or cultural context. The term often refers to truth relativism, which is the doctrine that there are no absolute truths, i.e., that truth is always relative to some particular frame of reference, such as a language or a culture.So, since your definition of cultural relativism is completely and obviously an accurate reflection of reality, what's your problem? And, isn't the problem people have with interpretations of "cultural relativism", beyond its actual definition, a reflection of the truth of "cultural relativism" as a valid idea?

And, why do you think moral relativism is relevant to this discussion?

[jimtron]

Relativism is the idea that some element or aspect of experience or culture is relative to, i.e., dependent on, some other element or aspect. Some relativists claim that humans can understand and evaluate beliefs and behaviors only in terms of their historical or cultural context. The term often refers to truth relativism, which is the doctrine that there are no absolute truths, i.e., that truth is always relative to some particular frame of reference, such as a language or a culture.Of course it makes sense to study culture in the context of its historical context. When you talk about "truth relativism," that sounds like a different story. Proponents of woo often argue that the world is subjective, citing quantum mechanics and the like, whereas most skeptics would say that there is an objective reality regarding the natural world.

I think it would help to get as specific as possible, because moral, cultural, and truth relativism are each unique.

[Beth]

Two things, I guess.

1) Is it just as fallacious to use, or appeal to relativism in an effort to blind-side an argument.

2) Is relativism a bad thing? Divisive or dangerous?

Because in the past I've heard it was dangerous because it can seemingly excuse immoral behavior if that immoral behavior is culturally accepted in its area, but immoral from the perception of those whose culture does not accept it (i.e. female genital mutilation in Africa).

But I've also caught myself during an argument thinking "Well, yeah, I guess it just depends. Its relative, so who am I to say???"

I understand what you're saying here. I have had similar thoughts at times. In the end, it's really a moral/value judgement of where you draw the line about situations where it's reasonable to intervene in what other people are choosing to do and when it's not. I think it comes up a lot in discussions of what is it acceptable to let your neighbor do to his/her child. For us, it's clearly appropriate to step in when your neighbor is murdering someone - ANYONE - including his/her child, whether it is by starving him or by beating her to death. Female genital mutilation is illegal in America and the morality of circumcision is hotly debated but still quite legal. In other times and places, your neighbor might beat or starved his child or slave to death and you had no right to intervene.

My own wishy-washy answer is relativism is an excuse/rationalization for ignoring behaviors you don't approve (perhaps even find morally despictable) but don't feel comfortable (or perhaps capable of) intervening and imposing your morality on others.

[plumjam]

My own wishy-washy answer is relativism is an excuse/rationalization for ignoring behaviors you don't approve (perhaps even find morally despictable) but don't feel comfortable (or perhaps capable of) intervening and imposing your morality on others.

Exactly.
And this is where the fad of political correctness becomes a positive hindrance to morality. People are so petrified of being accused of racism that they are much less apt to intervene.

[jimtron]

For us, it's clearly appropriate to step in when your neighbor is murdering someone - ANYONE - including his/her child, whether it is by starving him or by beating her to death.

This does get tricky though; even murder isn't such a cut and dried moral issue. Think of abortion and capital punishment for example. Are either of those murder? Some would say one or both are. What about bombing Hiroshima? Terrorism/murder, or justifiable self defense/necessary to end the war? Morality is relative. We each make it up, whether we turn to religion for it or not (Christians can't even agree among themselves about god's morality).

[JoeEllison]

This does get tricky though; even murder isn't such a cut and dried moral issue. Think of abortion and capital punishment for example. Are either of those murder? Some would say one or both are. What about bombing Hiroshima? Terrorism/murder, or justifiable self defense/necessary to end the war? Morality is relative. We each make it up, whether we turn to religion for it or not (Christians can't even agree among themselves about god's morality).

Yeah, from your examples we can pretty much say that everyone in the world is a "relativist". Everyone has said something along the lines of "you had to be there", or "you have to understand the situation." We all do it.

[jimtron]

Yeah, from your examples we can pretty much say that everyone in the world is a "relativist". Everyone has said something along the lines of "you had to be there", or "you have to understand the situation." We all do it.

Yes, and I'm not just talking about making excuses. If morality isn't relative (ie, we make it up based on when and where we live, and who we are around), where does it come from? If it's not relative, what is the "correct" moral view of the world? Whom gets to make that determination?

[athon]

There are a few threads on the topic of cultural relativism. Dig them up if you're interested; they're quite interesting.

People often abuse cultural relativism or misunderstand it. Simply put, it's more or less stating that values and resulting behaviours of one culture cannot be understood in the context of another. This quickly gets changed by a lot of people into assuming that it means relativists don't believe in morality etc, which is bollocks. It means that there is no such thing as absolute, objective morality.

Somebody might say 'there are some objective morals, such as do not kill babies'. I'd ask where this exists independent of a culture's own values. It doesn't. You can only judge values within the context of your own set of values and biases.

The next problem is the extension of this into 'right and wrong'. Again, right and wrong can only exist in a context, usually in the community within which the behaviour is described. It isn't absolutely right or wrong to rape and murder - in fact, it is a nonsense statement when independent of a cultural context.

Athon

[JoeEllison]

Yes, and I'm not just talking about making excuses. If morality isn't relative (ie, we make it up based on when and where we live, and who we are around), where does it come from? If it's not relative, what is the "correct" moral view of the world? Whom gets to make that determination?

It isn't about excuses or even acceptance. It is about putting things in the proper context, which is probably even more important when you're talking about things you disagree with. How can you ever hope to ever change people's minds about something, if you refuse to take into account the reasons they believe something in the first place?

[plumjam]

It isn't absolutely right or wrong to rape and murder - in fact, it is a nonsense statement when independent of a cultural context.

Athon

When is it not absolutely wrong to rape and murder?

[athon]

When is it not absolutely wrong to rape and murder?

Case in point. I love it when somebody steps forward and provides a perfect example to my post. :)

Have a think as to why this emphasises what I was saying. If you're having problems, I'll give you a hint shortly. Re-read my post to figure it out.

Athon

[jimtron]

How can you ever hope to ever change people's minds about something, if you refuse to take into account the reasons they believe something in the first place?

I agree. For example, I think it's important to understand why our enemies hate us, like Al Qaeda. But for some it's easier to look at the world as black and white, where you have the good guys, and cartoon, pure evil, bad guys. If you try to understand the viewpoint of your enemies, you're humanizing them. Maybe the anti-moral-relativists want us to view the world as Bush does--either you're with us or against us. The U.S. is on the side of good, so if we have to break international law or get tough with enemy combatants, so be it. But the other side, the bad guys, they must obey international law and never torture, because they're the bad guys.

[jimtron]

When is it not absolutely wrong to rape and murder?

Please define murder (seriously).

ETA: Murder is not easy to define (see: abortion, capital punishment, war). Same with rape. If an adult woman has consensual sex with a 16 year old boy, is that rape? Some say yes.

[plumjam]

Case in point. I love it when somebody steps forward and provides a perfect example to my post. :)

Have a think as to why this emphasises what I was saying. If you're having problems, I'll give you a hint shortly. Re-read my post to figure it out.

Athon

It was a simple enough question I asked.

[chris epic]

When is it not absolutely wrong to rapein a culture that prohibits the chieften of a tribe to lay with the bride of a newly-wedded couple even if she personally disagrees with it (more tyrrany of the majority, or concensus of tribal laws.
and murder?Tribal sacrifice. Self defense.

[plumjam]

Please define murder (seriously).

There's no point descending into legalese. A spade is a spade. If someone is raped then murdered we can all recognise what that was.

[athon]

It was a simple enough question I asked.

I know. And the answer is in the post you quoted from:

The next problem is the extension of this into 'right and wrong'. Again, right and wrong can only exist in a context, usually in the community within which the behaviour is described. It isn't absolutely right or wrong to rape and murder - in fact, it is a nonsense statement when independent of a cultural context.

Then you immediately ask 'when is murder ever not wrong?'. Discussing murder as right or wrong outside of the context of a culture or set of values is meaningless. There is no system of absolute morality, as morality is intrinsic to values - values being the hierarchy of things a community of people base their decisions on.

To ask 'when is murder ever not wrong' outside of any such context of a set of values is an incomplete question, and therefore has no answer.

Athon

[jimtron]

There's no point descending into legalese. A spade is a spade. If someone is raped then murdered we can all recognise what that was.

In some states in the U.S., the age of consent is 18. I'm pretty sure that means that if an 18 year old has even consensual sex with a partner under 18, that is considered statutory rape (someone correct me if I'm wrong). Personally, I wouldn't call an 18 year old having sex with a 17 year old rape, but some would. I would say it's always wrong, in my personal view, to force someone to have sex, although there are some cultures where that is not always considered immoral. So it's not so easy.

As far as murder, I don't agree that we would all recognize murder in the same way. Again, what about abortion, capital punishment, and killing an enemy (civilian or not) during war time. All murder? None? Some?

[chris epic]

So, since your definition of cultural relativism is completely and obviously an accurate reflection of reality, what's your problem? I think your sarcasm is what is irrelevant to this discussion.

And, isn't the problem people have with interpretations of "cultural relativism", beyond its actual definition, a reflection of the truth of "cultural relativism" as a valid idea?Well, I knew that's why you were hell bent on getting me to define it. I pulled it from wikipedia, grudgingly. But I didn't even have too, because you weren't sincerely asking for it. You were just manipulating me so I would inadvertantly support what ever adversity you felt like you needed throw at me.

And, why do you think moral relativism is relevant to this discussion?Because I started the discussion, and moral relativism was part of the expansion of the OP, which you so eagerly asked from me.

So if you'd like to communicate with me constructively, I'm open to it. Otherwise, get over yourself.

[JoeEllison]

I agree. For example, I think it's important to understand why our enemies hate us, like Al Qaeda. But for some it's easier to look at the world as black and white, where you have the good guys, and cartoon, pure evil, bad guys. If you try to understand the viewpoint of your enemies, you're humanizing them. Maybe the anti-moral-relativists want us to view the world as Bush does--either you're with us or against us. The U.S. is on the side of good, so if we have to break international law or get tough with enemy combatants, so be it. But the other side, the bad guys, they must obey international law and never torture, because they're the bad guys.
Interestingly, there seems to be a sort of moral relativism there, don't you think? Those people who see things as so childishly black and white? They are the same ones who seem to define "ethical behavior" as "whatever we do, as long as it isn't as bad as the worst thing that our enemies do." The same people who claim that the terrorists are a representative of absolute evil, will engage in torture and violations of human rights and civil liberties, and excuse it by saying things like "you know they would do worse to us if they had the chance."

So, isn't defining "good" as "not as bad as the worst" a form of relativism?

[plumjam]

in a culture that prohibits the chieften of a tribe to lay with the bride of a newly-wedded couple even if she personally disagrees with it (more tyrrany of the majority, or concensus of tribal laws.
Tribal sacrifice. Self defense.

I think you meant 'allows' rather than 'prohibits'. Yeah, in that case I would say that that is morally wrong, and is a sign that that particular culture is morally inferior to a culture that disallows such exploitative behaviour.
Same for tribal sacrifice.

Self-defence.. well that would never, in a court of law, qualify as murder. Quite probably no charge would be brought at all, so long as it could be shown that reasonable force was used.

[JoeEllison]

I think your sarcasm is what is irrelevant to this discussion.

Well, I knew that's why you were hell bent on getting me to define it. I pulled it from wikipedia, grudgingly. But I didn't even have too, because you weren't sincerely asking for it. You were just manipulating me so I would inadvertantly support what ever adversity you felt like you needed throw at me.

Because I started the discussion, and moral relativism was part of the expansion of the OP, which you so eagerly asked from me.

So if you'd like to communicate with me constructively, I'm open to it. Otherwise, get over yourself.Why are you upset with someone honestly asking that you clarify what you mean? You need to take a step back and get some perspective.

[jimtron]

Interestingly, there seems to be a sort of moral relativism there, don't you think? Those people who see things as so childishly black and white? They are the same ones who seem to define "ethical behavior" as "whatever we do, as long as it isn't as bad as the worst thing that our enemies do." The same people who claim that the terrorists are a representative of absolute evil, will engage in torture and violations of human rights and civil liberties, and excuse it by saying things like "you know they would do worse to us if they had the chance."

So, isn't defining "good" as "not as bad as the worst" a form of relativism?

Yes. And I think we're all moral relativists. Even religious fundamentalists will pick and choose which scriptures to read, and how they should be interpreted. Why did we abolish slavery? Did god send down a memo saying he changed his mind about slavery being sometimes acceptable?

[chris epic]

I think it would help to get as specific as possible, because moral, cultural, and truth relativism are each unique.

Hey Joe, look over here! See. That's constructive.

Jim, I look at all three as being related through relativism. In that, for all of them, we can't make assumptions on something through our world view, whether it be morality, culture, or truth, and expect it to be the same for someone or some other culture. Hence; relativism... right?

[JoeEllison]

Hey Joe, look over here! See. That's constructive.
Well, I could always say that your opinion of "constructive" is based on cultural relativism... :D

[jimtron]

Hey Joe, look over here! See. That's constructive.

Jim, I look at all three as being related through relativism. In that, for all of them, we can't make assumptions on something through our world view, whether it be morality, culture, or truth, and expect it to be the same for someone or some other culture. Hence; relativism... right?

I agree that they're related. But they each are pretty complicated, so for the purposes of discussing them, it might be easier to pick one--just a suggestion. For example, I think morality is totally subjective and relative; not so for "truth," depending on what you mean by truth. As I said earlier, I do think there is an objective world out there, although we each see it in a different way. I'm not one for solipsism, if that's what you mean by "truth relativism."

[JoeEllison]

Yes. And I think we're all moral relativists. Even religious fundamentalists will pick and choose which scriptures to read, and how they should be interpreted. Why did we abolish slavery? Did god send down a memo saying he changed his mind about slavery being sometimes acceptable?

I think a lot of the anger directed at cultural relativism, besides the part that is based on dishonest misinterpretations of what it means, is based on the fact that it doesn't let people claim that their culture is objectively better than every other. It is important to many people to maintain their feeling of superiority, and they will go to extreme lengths to avoid losing that feeling.

[arthwollipot]

I suppose it's time for me again to pimp my article Moral Relativism (http://www.arthwollipot.com/articles/sciencereligion/moralrelativism/). At least it might get my Google rating up a little.

In essence I agree with Athon. You can't refer to anything as "right" or "wrong" - or "good" or "evil" - without putting it in its proper context.

One example from my article - the Old Religion of Fiji. In that culture, it was considered right and proper to cook and eat your enemies after you killed them. This wasn't done for fun, or for mere nutrition, it was done as a sacrament. It was a holy duty. You were protecting your own afterlife by consuming your enemy and thereby ensuring that they didn't get an afterlife in which your enmity would be prolonged for eternity.

[athon]

I think a lot of the anger directed at cultural relativism, besides the part that is based on dishonest misinterpretations of what it means, is based on the fact that it doesn't let people claim that their culture is objectively better than every other. It is important to many people to maintain their feeling of superiority, and they will go to extreme lengths to avoid losing that feeling.

I agree, although I think it is more unconscious than that. I feel through the very nature of moral behaviour, it is necessary to feel that any display of behaviour which conflicts with it is to be seen as 'bad' or 'wrong', regardless of social context. We don't necessarily just desire to hold our own society as objectively moralistic over others - it is an innate part of what morality dictates.

Athon

[plumjam]

Then you immediately ask 'when is murder ever not wrong?'. Discussing murder as right or wrong outside of the context of a culture or set of values is meaningless. There is no system of absolute morality, as morality is intrinsic to values - values being the hierarchy of things a community of people base their decisions on.

To ask 'when is murder ever not wrong' outside of any such context of a set of values is an incomplete question, and therefore has no answer.

Athon

To me that all sounds a bit like saying that unless we have a measuring stick we can't ever say whether an adult elephant is bigger than an adult ant.
Whether we have the culturally agreed-upon convention of particular measurement units or not, it will always remain true that the elephant is bigger than the ant.
Similarly, whether or not there is a culturally agreed-upon moral 'measuring-stick' it will always remain true that raping and murdering someone is morally wrong.

Unlike you, I do not believe that such moral basics as these are mainly arrived at via cultural constructs. I believe they are arrived at mainly through the innate conscience that every (non-mentally-ill) individual has access to.
In fact, history shows that when culturally constructed moral 'systems' are given their head, at the expense of individual conscience, then there can be pretty horrific consequences. The moral systems, being social, are open to abuse by political/ideological power.

Fortunately, though, usually morality is built up by the action of individual conscience. This will be why the great majority of moral systems coalesce around some basic underpinnings.. such as raping then murdering someone being wrong.
If this were not the case then we could expect moral systems not to coalesce as much.

[jimtron]

In that culture, it was considered right and proper to cook and eat your enemies after you killed them.

Now that's something that I think we can all agree is morally righteous. As long as you truly, in your heart, hate the person you're dining on.

Thanks for the link; I'll check out your article.

[JoeEllison]

I agree, although I think it is more unconscious than that. I feel through the very nature of moral behaviour, it is necessary to feel that any display of behaviour which conflicts with it is to be seen as 'bad' or 'wrong', regardless of social context. We don't necessarily just desire to hold our own society as objectively moralistic over others - it is an innate part of what morality dictates.

Athon

I don't think most people are doing it consciously at all... I think it just sort of happens, and almost everyone does it. I'm conscious of it, and I STILL find myself doing it. It also extends to other facets of life, that we really don't think about. We all assume that our favorite things are inherently better than things we don't like as much, even though it is mostly personal opinion.

And, I guess it would almost have to seem objectively better, because societies could hardly get anywhere is everyone questioned everything all the time. :D

[jimtron]

This will be why the great majority of moral systems coalesce around some basic underpinnings.. such as raping then murdering someone being wrong.


Plumjam, would you mind telling me if the following are murder or not?

- abortion
- capital punishment
- bombing Hiroshima (was the death of civilians from U.S. bombs murder, or not)

I ask because there is much disagreement on the above issues. I'm wondering how these things fit into the morality you're talking about. Who gets to say what the proper morality is?

[chris epic]

that particular culture is morally inferior to a culture that disallows such exploitative behaviour.


That sounds like something the Church or Throne would have decreed in response to the discovery and superficial observation of the natives in North America or the Philippines or Australia 500 years ago...

I don't think its appropriate to make kind of judgment. You're assuming that you are of a morally superior culture, are you? Are we?
You cannot know for certain, and that is why relitivism is used in defense.

[chris epic]

Why are you upset with someone honestly asking that you clarify what you mean? You need to take a step back and get some perspective.I apologize for jumping the gun, but I honestly felt that you started out on the offensive with me. Especially with "what's the problem," just sounded a little invasive so I was put on the defense. So then I couldn't tell if you were being sarcastic or sincere. Again, my apologies.

The "problem" with relativism for the sake of this thread was to explore relativism in that it appears to be problematic, which is being illustrated in the rapid growth of the thread.

[jimtron]

Perhaps another reason moral relativism is criticized, is that it might seem like we're (us moral relativists) saying any morality is acceptable, which is not the case (not with me anyway). Though I think morality is relative and we all basically just make it up, that doesn't mean I think any act that anyone considers morally OK is OK with me. I do have very strong opinions about ethics and "right and wrong", it's just that I don't believe we can or should turn to an absolute authority (god, or whatever) to tell us what's right and what's wrong.

[chris epic]

I'm not one for solipsism, if that's what you mean by "truth relativism."What's solipsism?

I don't know, I threw truth in there because I think someone else/others were using it in the discussion.

[jimtron]

What's solipsism?

I don't know, I threw truth in there because I think someone else/others were using it in the discussion.

Here's the Wikipedia article on it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

As I said, I've found it fairly common that proponents of woo, when challenged about scientifically testing their belief, will start to talk about how "truth" and/or reality are subjective, and how observers affect what they're observing, etc. I think "truth relativism" should get its own thread, or actually there probably already are threads discussing it.

eta: also see "brain in a vat"

[JoeEllison]

I apologize for jumping the gun, but I honestly felt that you started out on the offensive with me. Especially with "what's the problem," just sounded a little invasive so I was put on the defense. So then I couldn't tell if you were being sarcastic or sincere. Again, my apologies.

The "problem" with relativism for the sake of this thread was to explore relativism in that it appears to be problematic, which is being illustrated in the rapid growth of the thread.
It's that whole "you can't read someone's tone of voice" thing. No harm no foul. :D

The "problem" with relativism, that it claims that everything is acceptable because it is cultural, doesn't really much exist. I'm sure you can find someone to say it, but most people don't apply it that way. What it means is that saying something like "some cultures practice genital mutilation because they are stupid/evil/crazy cultures" is invalid. It doesn't mean that you accept or approve of mutilation, it just means that the "stupid/evil/crazy" description doesn't really tell us anything useful.

[chris epic]

Did god send down a memo saying he changed his mind about slavery being sometimes acceptable?Funny you should bring that up. This leads me to an interesting bit of history with the Philippines.

The Filipinos (pre-colonial) accepted, culturally, indentured servitude. In fact, an expression still exists today as a Filipino cultural construct that I believe stems from this: its called Unatang Lauob And means indebtedness.

See, believe it or not, when the Spanish went over to the Philippines, they had realized that some of their practices weren't very moral over in Mexico (which led to many bouts of civil unrest and uprisings) and they wanted to try things differently in the Philippines.

They even demonstrated some "cultural relativism," (suspending their belief in the idea that their language was more superior than the natives). Instead of forcing the natives to learn Spanish like they did in Mexico, each parishoner learned the native dialect of their local area.

And they most definately frowned upon the practice of indentured servitude. In the Philippines, then, people would go into servitude to pay off a debt. The Spanish looked upon this as slavery. But it really wasn't comprable to the chains and whippings of the Africans in the Americas.

Biblical slavery, I would say, was more close to the Filipino form of indentured servitude than in the Americas. The Hebraic slave was known to have a sense of pride in their master and understood that their master was their provider, so was inturn indebted to their master.

But we so often compare the two types of slavery like they were apples and apples.

But, anyway, this was an example of morality versus morality. Our modern morality versus theirs.

(Not to mention they even had a tradition of the bride and groom swaping sexual intercourse with their inlaws).

We might say that that is wrong, but in the context of their culture it was perfectly normal.

[plumjam]

Plumjam, would you mind telling me if the following are murder or not?

- abortion
- capital punishment
- bombing Hiroshima (was the death of civilians from U.S. bombs murder, or not)

I ask because there is much disagreement on the above issues. I'm wondering how these things fit into the morality you're talking about. Who gets to say what the proper morality is?

abortion - the morning after pill is a world away from an (universally illegal, I assume) abortion after 8 or 9 months. So abortion is not one thing, it is a graded thing according to development. Whether an abortion at 8 or 9 months would be regarded in law as murder, I'm not sure. To me it would be morally wrong.

capital punishment - is murder by the state. It is morally wrong. I therefore believe that societies which do not have capital punishment are morally superior to those that do.

Hiroshima - was a form of murder, yes.. you could maybe call it 'indirect' murder in the prosecution of a war in which many people, including civilians, were being murdered on all sides. This is a case where situationalism (not the same as moral relativism) is highly important. It was a complicated situation in which good arguments could be put on both sides.

Ultimately your conscience tells you what is right and wrong. That is not relativism either, because I believe some people have a better developed conscience than others, who tend to take refuge in denial, rationalisation, excuses, ideology etc.. in order not to have to squarely face what their consciences are telling them.
The more that people examine and exercise their conscience the better their moral behaviour is likely to become.

[athon]

To me that all sounds a bit like saying that unless we have a measuring stick we can't ever say whether an adult elephant is bigger than an adult ant.

No, because 'bigger' has been given a context here - one of size. Size is an objective quality. It is objective to say 'elephants are larger than ants'. It is subjective to say 'ants are small'.

Likewise, against what objective quality do you measure morality?

Whether we have the culturally agreed-upon convention of particular measurement units or not, it will always remain true that the elephant is bigger than the ant.
Similarly, whether or not there is a culturally agreed-upon moral 'measuring-stick' it will always remain true that raping and murdering someone is morally wrong.

But you provided a measuring stick - the elephant to the ant. That was objective. The quality 'size' exists objectively.

Morality can only be compared by way of a set of objective standards as well, which are determined by the values a community holds. Which is why it demands a context. To simply state 'murder is wrong' external to a set of comparisons is just like saying 'the ant is small'. You need to say 'the ant is small, against an elephant', or 'murder is wrong in this community which values life'.

Unlike you, I do not believe that such moral basics as these are mainly arrived at via cultural constructs. I believe they are arrived at mainly through the innate conscience that every (non-mentally-ill) individual has access to.

Innatism has died a long, slow death I'm afraid. There's no evidence that says community values themselves are inherited behaviours, although they can be influenced by biological factors. For instance, the desire to survive is a biological drive which influences most need-based community values. However the origins of values is another (very interesting) topic for another discussion.

The point is that values, which form the basis of moral behaviour, are social constructs.

In fact, history shows that when culturally constructed moral 'systems' are given their head, at the expense of individual conscience, then there can be pretty horrific consequences. The moral systems, being social, are open to abuse by political/ideological power.

I'm not sure what you are meaning here. I suspect you're confusing a few terms. Morals are social constructs by way of their method of adoption. You inherit them through the behaviour of those in your social group. I'm not meaning government teachings, but rather the values you inherit by way of growing up in a community and appreciating those things your social group feel are important.

Fortunately, though, usually morality is built up by the action of individual conscience. This will be why the great majority of moral systems coalesce around some basic underpinnings.. such as raping then murdering someone being wrong.
If this were not the case then we could expect moral systems not to coalesce as much.

Individual conscience is not an innate behaviour, though. It is socially adopted. You learn how to act through your social group. As I said, there is a biological influence underpinning it, but ultimately values vary with social constructs.

Even then, if you wish to say 'murder is wrong' and place it in a context of biological drive, it still requires that context in order to be discussed. It doesn't make 'wrong' objective isolated from the context by any means.

Athon

[plumjam]

That sounds like something the Church or Throne would have decreed in response to the discovery and superficial observation of the natives in North America or the Philippines or Australia 500 years ago...

I don't think its appropriate to make kind of judgment. You're assuming that you are of a morally superior culture, are you? Are we?
You cannot know for certain, and that is why relitivism is used in defense.

Yes, that's exactly what it is. Some cultures are just morally better than others. Britain in the 1950s was morally superior to the USSR.

[chris epic]

It's that whole "you can't read someone's tone of voice" thing. No harm no foul. :D

The "problem" with relativism, that it claims that everything is acceptable because it is cultural, doesn't really much exist. I'm sure you can find someone to say it, but most people don't apply it that way. What it means is that saying something like "some cultures practice genital mutilation because they are stupid/evil/crazy cultures" is invalid. It doesn't mean that you accept or approve of mutilation, it just means that the "stupid/evil/crazy" description doesn't really tell us anything useful.IN Cultural Anthropology (easy does it!) I learned that cultural relativity was the ability to suspend one's own beliefs, values, etc in order to objectively evaluate another's. Cultural Relativity was also used in response to its opposite, Ethnocentricity; the view that your beliefs and values were superior to that of another's. I think moral relativity fits in there somewhere.

[chris epic]

Yes, that's exactly what it is. Some cultures are just morally better than others. Britain in the 1950s was morally superior to the USSR.But be careful. Of course we, as Westerners, would make that evaluation, but would China? Cuba? Vietnam?

[chris epic]

To me it would be morally wrong.

I rest my case.

[chris epic]

I believe they are arrived at mainly through the innate conscience that every (non-mentally-ill) individual has access to.
.C'mon, dude. Now you're saying that all people with mental illness don't have access to an innate conscience? Where are you from?

I really don't mean this as an ad hominem but you're extremely naive.

[athon]

Yes, that's exactly what it is. Some cultures are just morally better than others. Britain in the 1950s was morally superior to the USSR.

This is not a claim that can be made without an outside, objective standard. Against what do you make this claim? How do you measure morals, if not against the values held by the community which embraces it? You're comparing the morals of various communities against a set of values you hold as significant due to your own background. Indeed, just because some values are consistently held by numerous communities, such as an aversion to murder, doesn't make them any more objective. The most it might do is insinuate a biological influence.

Athon

[politas]

C'mon, dude. Now you're saying that all people with mental illness don't have access to an innate conscience? Where are you from?

I really don't mean this as an ad hominem but you're extremely naive.Actually, he didn't. (A implies B) is not equivalent to (B implies A). "All Australians are laid-back people" is not equivalent to "All laid-back people are Australians". You would do poorly in an IQ test if you kept thinking that way.

[arthwollipot]

Thanks Politas. I was going to point this out, but I had the dumb and couldn't brain.

[plumjam]

No, because 'bigger' has been given a context here - one of size. Size is an objective quality. It is objective to say 'elephants are larger than ants'. It is subjective to say 'ants are small'.
Likewise, against what objective quality do you measure morality?
We only know the elephant is bigger than the ant through trusting our individual experience of seeing them side by side. We examine our perception of the two, and compare them. That can all be done without socially agreed-upon measuring units and a stick.

I cannot 'see' my friend's individual experience of conscience, and likewise I cannot see my friend's individual experience of perceiving the elephant and the ant. In both situations I am putting my trust in my individual experience, and am making the leap of faith that my friend's individual experience is very similar.

It applies both to judging size and judging right and wrong.
People with good eyesight and good conscience will all agree on the elephant=bigger-than-ant rape+murder=wrong propositions.


Morality can only be compared by way of a set of objective standards as well, which are determined by the values a community holds.
Yes, but ultimately these 'objective' standards only become validated or invalidated by being measured against the individual conscience.

Which is why it demands a context. To simply state 'murder is wrong' external to a set of comparisons is just like saying 'the ant is small'. You need to say 'the ant is small, against an elephant', or 'murder is wrong in this community which values life'.
Would you say that a community which values life is morally superior to a community which does not value life?


Innatism has died a long, slow death I'm afraid. There's no evidence that says community values themselves are inherited behaviours, although they can be influenced by biological factors. For instance, the desire to survive is a biological drive which influences most need-based community values. However the origins of values is another (very interesting) topic for another discussion.
I probably agree. I don't believe conscience is a biological thing; it's a spiritual thing. But then (I'm assuming), you probably don't believe in the reality of spiritual things; so there we'd meet a dead end.

The point is that values, which form the basis of moral behaviour, are social constructs.
When moral intuitions from the individual conscience are translated into language/forms of behaviour.. yeah, then they take on a social-construct aspect.



I'm not sure what you are meaning here. I suspect you're confusing a few terms. Morals are social constructs by way of their method of adoption. You inherit them through the behaviour of those in your social group. I'm not meaning government teachings, but rather the values you inherit by way of growing up in a community and appreciating those things your social group feel are important.
If this is the case how and why do forms of moral behaviour ever change? Where do the changes, such as Jesus' 'turn the other cheek' come from?


Individual conscience is not an innate behaviour, though. It is socially adopted. You learn how to act through your social group. As I said, there is a biological influence underpinning it, but ultimately values vary with social constructs.
I disagree. Given their education and indoctrination, and rationalised beliefs about 'untermensch', the SS murder detachments suffered a very large casualty rate (including suicide) from the psychological effects of implementing their moral system. This happened because it was going against their individual spiritual consciences.
So, it can be seen that in the worst cases, what is happening is that socially sanctioned moral systems are acting counter to the individual conscience. It's the conscience which has the clue to what is right and wrong, not the society in which the conscience is operating.

[plumjam]

C'mon, dude. Now you're saying that all people with mental illness don't have access to an innate conscience? Where are you from?

I really don't mean this as an ad hominem but you're extremely naive.
I wasn't implying that about all mentally ill people. But there is evidence from sociopaths that their minds function in a way which seriously clouds access to the individual conscience... difficulty empathising etc...

[plumjam]

But be careful. Of course we, as Westerners, would make that evaluation, but would China? Cuba? Vietnam?

They would if they were given accurate information and examined their consciences about it.

[athon]

We only know the elephant is bigger than the ant through trusting our individual experience of seeing them side by side. We examine our perception of the two, and compare them. That can all be done without socially agreed-upon measuring units and a stick.

You're starting to move away from the analogy here. The objective part is size. The contrast is ant against elephant by observing the difference in size.

Contrasting the morals of society A and society B isn't like a comparison of size. The objective part is the behaviour and the values from which they are derived. You're getting it confused.

It applies both to judging size and judging right and wrong.
People with good eyesight and good conscience will all agree on the elephant=bigger-than-ant rape+murder=wrong propositions.You're really going off road with the analogy now. Let's step back a moment.

You're equating 'size', which is a quantitative measure of physical dimensions, with 'morals', which is a qualitative description of behaviour. The former is strictly objective; even a subjective word as 'bigger' becomes objective when placed into a context through using 'than'. Morals, on the other hand, are subjective, and can only become objectified when placed into a context of values. A moral can only be 'bad' in the context of the value from which it is derived, just as a size can only be 'bigger' in contrast with another item.

The analogies aren't exact because you're comparing qualitative with quantitative. Not quite apples and oranges, but getting close.

Would you say that a community which values life is morally superior to a community which does not value life?Again, you need a context. Do I say a community values life is morally super superior to a community which does not value life according to my set of values? Yes. If I held no such value for life, then it wouldn't necessarily. If my value was to destroy life, then I would disagree.

I probably agree. I don't believe conscience is a biological thing; it's a spiritual thing. But then (I'm assuming), you probably don't believe in the reality of spiritual things; so there we'd meet a dead end.It depends what you mean by 'spirituality'. If you mean it in a metaphysical context, then no. If you mean it as a physical context, then definitely not. If you mean it poetically, then perhaps.

If this is the case how and why do forms of moral behaviour ever change? Where do the changes, such as Jesus' 'turn the other cheek' come from?Like any form of social evolution, it comes from various changes in values. some values are heavily influenced by biological drive, and change little. For instance, you won't find it becoming immoral any time soon to have babies. Other values are at the whim of constructed beliefs. Once it might have been immoral to walk through a particular sacred spot. When that belief is no longer past on to the next generation, the value changes and the moral behaviour with it.

I disagree. Given their education and indoctrination, and rationalised beliefs about 'untermensch', the SS murder detachments suffered a very large casualty rate (including suicide) from the psychological effects of implementing their moral system. This happened because it was going against their individual spiritual consciences.I still think you're confusing several things, although I can't quite see where. Moral behaviour isn't a code enforced through rule or law. It is a behaviour described with relevance to personal values. If my behaviour conflicts with the values I inherited, it could well create problems such as those you just described. That behaviour could come from a number of sources, be it an authority demanding it or peer pressure, but the values arise from the environment we are raised in.

So, it can be seen that in the worst cases, what is happening is that socially sanctioned moral systems are acting counter to the individual conscience.I can agree with that totally, if by 'socially sanctioned' you were to mean 'those imposed by the authority'. Not all of the SS were raised with values which made it acceptable to murder 'inferior races', even though this became a socially enforced view later through the propaganda machine.

However, again the individual conscience has to arise from somewhere, that being the values which are inherited from the immediate social group. Namely (though not always) one's family.

It's the conscience which has the clue to what is right and wrong, not the society in which the conscience is operating.A moral conscience arises from the social construct one develops in early in their life. The social group will vary as they age, however the most influential is that to which the individual belongs early in life.

That aside, you seem to be insinuating that the objective nature of morality is therefore biological. While I disagree, it still emphasises that morality needs a context, even if by that you are (erroneously) suggesting it is in the biological processing of human behaviour.

Athon

[plumjam]

Well this one's ballooning so I'll try to shorten it. :)

[QUOTE]You're starting to move away from the analogy here. The objective part is size. The contrast is ant against elephant by observing the difference in size.
Contrasting the morals of society A and society B isn't like a comparison of size. The objective part is the behaviour and the values from which they are derived. You're getting it confused.
You're really going off road with the analogy now. Let's step back a moment.
You're equating 'size', which is a quantitative measure of physical dimensions, with 'morals', which is a qualitative description of behaviour. The former is strictly objective; even a subjective word as 'bigger' becomes objective when placed into a context through using 'than'. Morals, on the other hand, are subjective, and can only become objectified when placed into a context of values. A moral can only be 'bad' in the context of the value from which it is derived, just as a size can only be 'bigger' in contrast with another item.
The analogies aren't exact because you're comparing qualitative with quantitative. Not quite apples and oranges, but getting close.

From the point of view of the individual (which is, after all, all we have) I do not see such a valuable distinction between qualitative and quantitative. To me they are all just individual experience. Some moral experiences, such as aversion to rape+murder, are so universal that I think they're as clear as the ant/elephant perception difference.

Again, you need a context. Do I say a community values life is morally super superior to a community which does not value life according to my set of values? Yes. If I held no such value for life, then it wouldn't necessarily. If my value was to destroy life, then I would disagree.
It depends what you mean by 'spirituality'. If you mean it in a metaphysical context, then no. If you mean it as a physical context, then definitely not. If you mean it poetically, then perhaps.
The thing about context is a bit of a tautology IMO. A bit like saying that we believe the things we believe because we believe them.

Like any form of social evolution, it comes from various changes in values. some values are heavily influenced by biological drive, and change little. For instance, you won't find it becoming immoral any time soon to have babies.
Just a quibble, but China. Another example of the social moral system going against individual conscience. (Though probably only quite a mild example).

I still think you're confusing several things, although I can't quite see where.
I think it seems like that because you and I are approaching the topic from opposite directions. You seem to be taking the naturalistic evolutionary paradigm view of morality (i.e. from the 'outside'), while I'm approaching morality from the direction of the spirit (from the 'inside').

Moral behaviour isn't a code enforced through rule or law. It is a behaviour described with relevance to personal values. If my behaviour conflicts with the values I inherited, it could well create problems such as those you just described. That behaviour could come from a number of sources, be it an authority demanding it or peer pressure, but the values arise from the environment we are raised in.
So, following on from above, the origin of values in your view is forced to come from the 'outside'. Ultimately the environment. (Pushing it onto other people, your family, society etc.. doesn't help at all, it just pushes the question back along the chain.)
This is something I cannot see at all. When I look at the environment I see nothing resembling values/morals. I only see these things when looking at my conscience/heart (whatever one chooses to call it). To me, the idea that a physical environment can be a source of values is.... well,.. I'm not trying to sound disparaging, but it just sounds like imagination, maybe faith too.

I can agree with that totally, if by 'socially sanctioned' you were to mean 'those imposed by the authority'. Not all of the SS were raised with values which made it acceptable to murder 'inferior races', even though this became a socially enforced view later through the propaganda machine.
However, again the individual conscience has to arise from somewhere, that being the values which are inherited from the immediate social group. Namely (though not always) one's family.
In my view the conscience is part of the soul, which enters the body before birth. It is a kind of link to the divine. So that's where my source of the sense of right and wrong is. It's not a perfect link, and needs to be cultivated.

A moral conscience arises from the social construct one develops in early in their life. The social group will vary as they age, however the most influential is that to which the individual belongs early in life.

I believe these are influencing factors, but not sources.

That aside, you seem to be insinuating that the objective nature of morality is therefore biological. While I disagree, it still emphasises that morality needs a context, even if by that you are (erroneously) suggesting it is in the biological processing of human behaviour.
Not biological. The soul inhabits the body, so yes, it could appear kind of biological from the outside.

[arthwollipot]

Plumjam, do you beleive that your moral conscience is the same as other peoples'?

[plumjam]

Plumjam, do you beleive that your moral conscience is the same as other peoples'?

It's a bit like eyesight. We're looking at the same things, but some people have better eyesight than others. If a person's eyesight is a bit off there are steps they can take to try to remedy that. Some people (like the sociopaths) will be partially sighted or blind for life. Some, like Jesus or Buddha, have 20/20 vision.
So, my moral conscience will be at least slightly different to that of others.

None of this means that the things we are trying to see are non-existent, imaginary, or simply useful social constructions.

[arthwollipot]

It's a bit like eyesight. We're looking at the same things, but some people have better eyesight than others. If a person's eyesight is a bit off there are steps they can take to try to remedy that. Some people (like the sociopaths) will be partially sighted or blind for life. Some, like Jesus or Buddha, have 20/20 vision.
So, my moral conscience will be at least slightly different to that of others.

None of this means that the things we are trying to see are non-existent, imaginary, or simply useful social constructions.Bolding mine.

So you agree then that different people see things differently, in terms of morals. How is this inconsistent with moral relativism?

[athon]

Well this one's ballooning so I'll try to shorten it. :)

Yeah, I noticed that too, but for as long as it's on topic, polite and interesting I don't see a problem.

From the point of view of the individual (which is, after all, all we have) I do not see such a valuable distinction between qualitative and quantitative.Quantitative is anything that can be objectified by way of numerical measurement. Qualitative tends to be a subjective descriptor. Which is why it's relative to this discussion.

You can measure size and compare it, hence size is a quantitative (and objective) descriptor. Morality has no quantitative measure.

To me they are all just individual experience. Some moral experiences, such as aversion to rape+murder, are so universal that I think they're as clear as the ant/elephant perception difference.The tautology you accuse me of later is evident here, though. 'Murder' implies killing in an illegal and/or immoral sense. Killing of another person has often occurred throughout history in a morally accepted capacity, yet it isn't described as murder. The same with rape - it's extremely common in many cultures throughout history to have sex where one party is not obliging, and has even been seen as moral by many individuals to do so.

The thing about context is a bit of a tautology IMO. A bit like saying that we believe the things we believe because we believe them.Not really. The context is 'values'. We all have a hierarchy of values which influence our decisions. They are the goals on which we make our choices. Morality is the behaviour which arises with direct respect to these values. Hence the context of behaviour can only be discussed with reference to the values from which they arise.

Simple. :)

Just a quibble, but China. Another example of the social moral system going against individual conscience. (Though probably only quite a mild example).You'd need to explain this further for me to comment.

I think it seems like that because you and I are approaching the topic from opposite directions. You seem to be taking the naturalistic evolutionary paradigm view of morality (i.e. from the 'outside'), while I'm approaching morality from the direction of the spirit (from the 'inside').Oh, I agree. And I take back my previous assertion that you were commenting on it as if morality was inherent directly in the biology. I should have said 'spirituality'.

Of course to discuss this further from here, it would become a debate of philosophy. And if it is a metaphysical view you have, it is beyond even that.

So, following on from above, the origin of values in your view is forced to come from the 'outside'. Ultimately the environment.
This is something I cannot see at all. When I look at the environment I see nothing resembling values/morals.Huh? You see behaviour. And that behaviour influences others in the social group to either work with or against that behaviour - either conflict with it, tolerate it or adapt to it. As for values, they are self-evident. They are the things you value, and therefore make decisions on.

If all values were innate in any fashion, they would be universal, which clearly isn't so. If they were inherited, they would exist independent of the social group (taking a child from one group into another would mean it brings its birth family's values...which again isn't so).

You are clearly stating that there are such things as universal morals born of the spirit. However, as I showed, this also isn't the case.

I only see these things when looking at my conscience/heart (whatever one chooses to call it). To me, the idea that a physical environment can be a source of values is.... well,.. I'm not trying to sound disparaging, but it just sounds like imagination, maybe faith too.You'd need to show that contrary to evidence, values are not inherited directly from the social group in which the individual is raised during the early, more formative years.

In my view the conscience is part of the soul, which enters the body before birth. It is a kind of link to the divine. So that's where my source of the sense of right and wrong is. It's not a perfect link, and needs to be cultivated.Again, if it is a metaphysical discussion, then there's nothing more I can add. It is not up for debate, as the very nature of such metaphysics precludes it.

Athon

[athon]

Bolding mine.

So you agree then that different people see things differently, in terms of morals. How is this inconsistent with moral relativism?

Not only that, but acknowledging that moral states can differ as some are 'flawed' implies a moral state against which these flaws are described. Who determines this state, and how is it known it is the archetype against which we should be comparing all others?

Athon

[plumjam]

Well, my first comment in the thread was that there is a bit of wiggle-room for cultural relativism, but that nevertheless there are absolutes underpinning it all. Subsequently one or two people came in arguing against 'objective' moral absolutes. It is the latter extent of moral relativism which I'm arguing against.
That's a kind of relativism in which there is, ultimately, no right or wrong.. no possibility of direction, meaning, or progress in life at all.
I'm arguing that the chair exists and we all see it slightly differently. The kind of moral relativism I was talking to was the kind that says because we all see the chair slightly differently then the chair does not exist, and thus any outlandish mental picture of the chair would be just as good as any other.

ETA: forgot to quote Arthwollipot, but that was in answer to you.

[arthwollipot]

I'm arguing that the chair exists and we all see it slightly differently. The kind of moral relativism I was talking to was the kind that says because we all see the chair slightly differently then the chair does not exist, and thus any outlandish mental picture of the chair would be just as good as any other.I don't think anyone actually subscribes to that kind of moral relativism. Not anyone I'd like to hang with, anyway.

[plumjam]

[QUOTE]Yeah, I noticed that too, but for as long as it's on topic, polite and interesting I don't see a problem.
Quantitative is anything that can be objectified by way of numerical measurement. Qualitative tends to be a subjective descriptor. Which is why it's relative to this discussion.
You can measure size and compare it, hence size is a quantitative (and objective) descriptor. Morality has no quantitative measure.
It's not as clear cut as measuring a sofa, but we measure morality all the time, dozens of times a day. We all know murder is worse than swearing, even if we can't put tidy units on it.

The tautology you accuse me of later is evident here, though. 'Murder' implies killing in an illegal and/or immoral sense. Killing of another person has often occurred throughout history in a morally accepted capacity, yet it isn't described as murder. The same with rape - it's extremely common in many cultures throughout history to have sex where one party is not obliging, and has even been seen as moral by many individuals to do so. It was you who mentioned rape and murder.

Not really. The context is 'values'. We all have a hierarchy of values which influence our decisions. They are the goals on which we make our choices. Morality is the behaviour which arises with direct respect to these values. Hence the context of behaviour can only be discussed with reference to the values from which they arise.

Simple. :)
I wouldn't wildly disagree. But this seems tangential to where our source of knowing what is right and wrong comes from.

You'd need to explain this further for me to comment.Chinese couples only being allowed one baby.

Oh, I agree. And I take back my previous assertion that you were commenting on it as if morality was inherent directly in the biology. I should have said 'spirituality'.:)

Of course to discuss this further from here, it would become a debate of philosophy. And if it is a metaphysical view you have, it is beyond even that. not entirely metaphysical. There's plenty of evidence of people living lives of spiritual practice and becoming a lot more morally sensitive as they progress.


If all values were innate in any fashion, they would be universal, which clearly isn't so. If they were inherited, they would exist independent of the social group (taking a child from one group into another would mean it brings its birth family's values...which again isn't so).

on the biggies like rape and murder morality is pretty much universal, not always in all systems, and not always in all individual consciences... but that's due to social or individual myopia. Not seeing the chair very well.

You'd need to show that contrary to evidence, values are not inherited directly from the social group in which the individual is raised during the early, more formative years.
Values and morality are not the same. Nazi values were passed on in the social group, but they were immoral values.. and this immorality was recognised implicitly in the effect such behaviours had on their perpetrators.

[plumjam]

I don't think anyone actually subscribes to that kind of moral relativism. Not anyone I'd like to hang with, anyway.

But you see, if, as some people argue (not you), morality is just a question of a kind of social evolutionary adaptation then the Pandora's box is open to invent whatever whacky system of morality you want, and no-one can come and argue that it's wrong. At least not with any real claim to authority.
Hitler and Stalin, were just 'as good' as modern day Sweden.
In fact, from an evolutionary standpoint Hitler's system was in some respects much better than what we have nowadays. He got rid of the burdensome mentally handicapped, the antisocial, some criminals, and 'inferior races'. That fits much better with the survival of the fittest.

[arthwollipot]

But you see, if, as some people argue (not you), morality is just a question of a kind of social evolutionary adaptation then the Pandora's box is open to invent whatever whacky system of morality you want, and no-one can come and argue that it's wrong. At least not with any real claim to authority.No, it really isn't. Even if morality is a social evolutionary adaptation, it certainly does not follow that because of this everything goes! Biological evolution is tightly constrained by the environment and the biochemistry of the existing organism, and social evolution is similarly constrained.

Put it this way. Let's say for the sake of argument that morals are relative, not absolute, in today's world. Does that mean that you are free to invent your own moral code that says that it's okay to go around raping and murdering? No, it does not. In fact, if you did decide to do that, society would put a stop to it in whatever way it can. Morals may not be absolute, but they are enforced by society as a whole - by the codes of laws that have been developed over centuries as a method of keeping society itself stable.

Hitler and Stalin, were just 'as good' as modern day Sweden.
In fact, from an evolutionary standpoint Hitler's system was in some respects much better than what we have nowadays. He got rid of the burdensome mentally handicapped, the antisocial, some criminals, and 'inferior races'. That fits much better with the survival of the fittest.Now you're talking about Social Darwinism which is a distortion of the concept of evolution. Where evolution (whether biological or social) describes how things change, Social Darwinism prescribes that people should behave in a manner that "supports" evolution. That's very different from moral relativism.

[plumjam]

[QUOTE]No, it really isn't. Even if morality is a social evolutionary adaptation, it certainly does not follow that because of this everything goes! Biological evolution is tightly constrained by the environment and the biochemistry of the existing organism, and social evolution is similarly constrained.
Social evolution is not particularly constrained, because social 'evolution' can be consciously and freely 'engineered' by human beings of all stripes. Whackos in the past have shown just how it's possible to 'socially evolve' societies of many millions of people into just whatever mess they like.

Put it this way. Let's say for the sake of argument that morals are relative, not absolute, in today's world. Does that mean that you are free to invent your own moral code...
absolutely.. if it's all relative one is quite literally as good as another.

...that says that it's okay to go around raping and murdering? No, it does not. In fact, if you did decide to do that, society would put a stop to it in whatever way it can.
I agree, and this shows that morality has universal underpinnings.

Morals may not be absolute, but they are enforced by society as a whole - by the codes of laws that have been developed over centuries as a method of keeping society itself stable. If a stable society is what is needed then best to kill all political dissidents. But then you'd agree that that's immoral, even though it makes for a more stable society.
And you know it's immoral from examining it in your conscience and knowing that individuals should not be treated that way.

Now you're talking about Social Darwinism which is a distortion of the concept of evolution. Where evolution (whether biological or social) describes how things change, Social Darwinism prescribes that people should behave in a manner that "supports" evolution. That's very different from moral relativism.
Yes, but if morals are relative, and the whole evolutionary paradigm is correct, there's nothing to stop Social Darwinism being adopted. If the evolutionary paradigm is how the universe and life came about who are we to say it shouldn't also work in human society?

[athon]

It's not as clear cut as measuring a sofa, but we measure morality all the time, dozens of times a day. We all know murder is worse than swearing, even if we can't put tidy units on it.

Really? We measure it subjectively, which is essentially a judgement of another's behaviour against our own values. But you surely must be implying we objectively measure it in a quantitative fashion. Care to explain this? How does one quantify a unit of morality? You can judge that one thing is more moral than another much like one thing is more beautiful than another, but both are qualitative assessments.

It was you who mentioned rape and murder.I was responding to your use of it in post 70. You also brought up murder in your first response to my original post. I'm saying in response to those words that 'murder' is a term which contains within its definition a conflict with morality (and law). One person killing another which does not conflict with one's morality would not be described as murder.

Chinese couples only being allowed one baby.Ah, that's what I thought. This is not a moral behaviour, however, but a law imposed by the state. That's not to say some would describe it as immoral...but I know of a fair few Chinese who do describe it as that. So I wouldn't see it as a good example of a social code of morality which causes conflict with individuals.

not entirely metaphysical. There's plenty of evidence of people living lives of spiritual practice and becoming a lot more morally sensitive as they progress.Regardless, either you're suggesting a metaphysical ground for spirituality (which precludes it from discussion) or a physical ground. If the latter, we again part on discussion as in spite of a lot of research into the field of mechanical 'vitalism' (as such) there is zero evidence for it. You'd of course offer what you feel would constitute evidence in favour of it, which would lead to a discussion on what 'good' evidence for spirituality is...and there goes this thread. :) I'll put the brakes on there, in which case.

If you're arguing a materialistic spiritual-based objectivity to morality, I'll just have to state I disagree any such thing exists and bow out.

on the biggies like rape and murder morality is pretty much universal, not always in all systems, and not always in all individual consciences... but that's due to social or individual myopia. Not seeing the chair very well.Which is something of a 'no true Scotsman' fallacy. This is cyclic reasoning on grounds with the bible. 'Morals are what I determine as moralistic' in other words. Absent of an external yard stick you can point out, it is a meaningless point to make.

Values and morality are not the same. Nazi values were passed on in the social group, but they were immoral values.. and this immorality was recognised implicitly in the effect such behaviours had on their perpetrators.You're right in the first part, and if I implied otherwise I apologise. Values, as I have already defined, are the hierarchy of entities which influence our choices. Morality is the behaviour which arises from this hierarchy.

Many Nazi values were external to the social group, though. This is where the conflict arose. While a value of racial supremacy might have existed, a greater value which valued the life of others was higher in the hierarchy for many. The pressure to contravene these values and act in accordance with a rule that emphasised a lower value over a higher one was what caused moral dissidence.

Athon

[arthwollipot]

Social evolution is not particularly constrained, because social 'evolution' can be consciously and freely 'engineered' by human beings of all stripes. Whackos in the past have shown just how it's possible to 'socially evolve' societies of many millions of people into just whatever mess they like.But not individuals! Not in most cases. Unless the individual in question is a dictator, and then I'll grant you your point. You and I cannot "force" society into one or another direction - it is the social context that determines what morality is followed by most members of the population. Currently, the social context supports a moral complex which is pretty much similar to the (modern) Judeo-Christian model. As I state in my article which I linked to earlier, this is because the (modern) Judeo-Christian model works!

It is the constraints of the group - the mass of human beings acting in gestalt - that creates the constraints. And individuals simply do not have the power to affect that. Unless, as I conceded above, the individual in question is a dictator.

absolutely.. if it's all relative one is quite literally as good as another.Whoosh! That was the sound of the point going straight over your head. Moral relativism doesn't say that one moral complex is just as good as another. It merely states that the moral complex of society is not universal. Currently on this planet, the (modern)Judeo-Christian moral complex is the most successful.

I agree, and this shows that morality has universal underpinnings.No, it does not. It shows that certain moral complexes are more successful at creating stable societies than others. The moral complex of the Roman Empire, with its emphasis on duty and its de-emphasis on individual freedoms, lasted for a very long time as well - longer, I propose, than our modern Western democracy, which has a pedigree of only a few hundred years.

If a stable society is what is needed then best to kill all political dissidents. But then you'd agree that that's immoral, even though it makes for a more stable society.And that's exactly what the Romans did, and their empire lasted a thousand years.

And you know it's immoral from examining it in your conscience and knowing that individuals should not be treated that way.Our consciences are shaped by the societies we grow up in. A Roman Senator's conscience would not have hiccupped at such a suggestion. In fact, for a Roman, it would probably have been immoral to allow such enemies of the state to live.

Yes, but if morals are relative, and the whole evolutionary paradigm is correctA false equation, but go on.

, there's nothing to stop Social Darwinism being adopted. If the evolutionary paradigm is how the universe and life came about who are we to say it shouldn't also work in human society?Social Darwinism is discredited nowadays because it is in conflict with the (modern) Judeo-Christian moral complex which emphasises the rights of the individual. It is currently regarded as "immoral" because society as a whole is not happy with the idea of wiping out large sections of the populations of nations in order to "improve the race". Most of this is because of the Nazis and the Holocaust. But I digress.

Social Darwinism is simply taking evolution further than we are comfortable with. I'm not comfortable with it, you're not comfortable with it, and society as a whole is not comfortable with it. As I said before - the theory of evolution is descriptive, not prescriptive. The scientific theory of evolution makes no statements at all about how things ought to be. Only how they are. The problem with Social Darwinism in the current moral context is that should someone with a lot of political power get it in his (or her) head to promote SD ideas, then they are enforcing their opinion on what the best means will be. In the current social context with its emphasis on the rights of the individual, no human should have the power to override the opinions of others. This is the whole point of democracy.

Which is a WHOLE nother subject that I won't go on about here.

[chris epic]

Actually, he didn't. (A implies B) is not equivalent to (B implies A). "All Australians are laid-back people" is not equivalent to "All laid-back people are Australians". You would do poorly in an IQ test if you kept thinking that way.

No, he said exactly what I phrased. But weigh it against his other posts and you'll see its not suprising. You're just trying to be clever and see if you can catch me on an illogical statement, but you didn't, so try again.

IQ test? Give me a break. I have no use for them, they're arbitrary, and they give little kids egos that they can't handle, or a complex that they have to live with for the rest of their young life.

I'm pretty sure you're just passive aggresively telling me that I'm idiot. As I'm sure you know by now, ad hominems really don't add any relevance to a discussion. I've caught myself doing it and had to apologize promptly.

[Phaedrus74]

Thought I'd chip in:

When there is an argument and the relevance of subjectivity creeps in, and the defense of relativity (as in "cultural relativity) becomes a waving flag, should this command the halt of an argument?


Depends on the way this relativity is used, and this should in general be immediately clear:
- Is it used to invalidate the discussion itself? (Generally used when the party in question is "on the ropes".) Yes, no point in arguing further, order some more beers and discuss something else.
- Is it used to make a serious point? No, of course not, but you knew this studying Cultural Anthropology...


Is relativity good or bad? Does it force us to see just how subjective we are?


Wrong question. Points of view are never "good" or "bad", only the way they are applied can be "good" or "bad".

Besides relativity is a fact of life...
(must....not....make.....Einstein-joke....:bwall )


Should relativity be protested or advocated? Does it inhibit learning or contribute to it.

Or is it just as fuzzy or varying an expression as "perfection."


It should be advocated, but in a way that shows how to properly apply the concept.

Aside: What's fuzzy about perfection? It's a perfectly clear concept, granted it doesn't apply to anything real, but it's perfectly clear nonetheless.

[Phaedrus74]

Of course it makes sense to study culture in the context of its historical context. When you talk about "truth relativism," that sounds like a different story. Proponents of woo often argue that the world is subjective, citing quantum mechanics and the like, whereas most skeptics would say that there is an objective reality regarding the natural world.

I think it would help to get as specific as possible, because moral, cultural, and truth relativism are each unique.

Actually these different relativisms share the same root (IMO) the fact that the concepts we use to speak and think about the environment (taken as everything that exists independently of us (the objective world)) are products of (some sort of) evolution.

I'd rather not use the term conceptual relativism since it has been abused quite thouroughly in the past, but it seems to cover my intended meaning the best.

[chris epic]

Aside: What's fuzzy about perfection? It's a perfectly clear concept, granted it doesn't apply to anything real, but it's perfectly clear nonetheless.

Go to the "Perfection is a Conundrum" thread ;)

[chris epic]

To me that all sounds a bit like saying that unless we have a measuring stick we can't ever say whether an adult elephant is bigger than an adult antEnter the improper validation of the Bible.

[chris epic]

I wasn't implying that about all mentally ill people. But there is evidence from sociopaths that their minds function in a way which seriously clouds access to the individual conscience... difficulty empathising etc...There you have it. Critics look here. He revised his statement specifically. Omit "non-mentally ill" and add "sociopaths." I wouldn't have argued that. "Mentally-ill" was too broad and rightfully called for criticism.

[chris epic]

So I'm allowing my pride to take me off topic via defensiveness. Well I'm emotional, sorry. Anyway... So are we now debating the differences between cultural and moral relativism?

I guess ultimately, is there really no legitimate way to cry "immoral" toward a subculture or culture outside your own?

It is okay to do it within your culture because you have an expectation for everyone to have a general understanding of morality in their culture.

That being said- if we view something immoral (the Fijians eating their enemies as a sacrament) but it is perfectly culturally accepted there, do we have an authority to go over there and educate them? Isn't that just as rude as what the Church has been doing for a couple thousand years?

The only difference between Christians, or the religious; and secularists is that they have an absolute measuring stick (the Bible), and secularists don't. I mean, there are things written down, but not validated by an omnipotent being. So what's their excuse?

[A Christian Sceptic]

This scientist believes there's evidence showing that all humans have underyling common builtin moral instincts or "moral grammar" as he puts it.

http://www.americanscientist.org/template/InterviewTypeDetail/assetid/52880

[Tumblehome]

When is it not absolutely wrong to rape and murder?


In some cultures, it was, and maybe still is in places, acceptable to kill female infants and twin babies.

[jimtron]

Originally Posted by plumjam http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3369105#post3369105)
When is it not absolutely wrong to rape and murder?



In the Bible, god kills a huge number of people, and command others to kill. Some would say this isn't "murder" though, because it was legal killing--and the Commandment forbidding murder doesn't mean "don't kill" it means, "don't kill unless it'sa legal killing."

Like I said before, you have to define murder before the above question can be answered.

[hammegk]

Likewise, against what objective quality do you measure morality?
Individual, group, cultural/societal, and species survival over a many generations time span, with due regard to competing cultures/societies who may have other ideas of morality.

Is that Objective enough for you?
[/QUOTE]

[hammegk]

duplicate post

[athon]

Individual, group, cultural/societal, and species survival over a many generations time span, with due regard to competing cultures/societies who may have other ideas of morality.

Is that Objective enough for you?


Actually, it serves as a fine marker. If that's what you're explicitly using to contrast different systems of morality. However, morality doesn't explicitly contain the qualifier of being concerned with survival, so if you're wanting to compare morality systems you'd need to supply 'when it comes to survival over a number of generations'.

Athon

[hammegk]

Actually, it serves as a fine marker. If that's what you're explicitly using to contrast different systems of morality.
I suspect what I use, or you use, is a bit irrelevant to the grinding wheels of history.


However, morality doesn't explicitly contain the qualifier of being concerned with survival, so if you're wanting to compare morality systems you'd need to supply 'when it comes to survival over a number of generations'.

Do you suggest a better way to rate conflicting moral systems?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

In a large Web survey, Haidt found that liberals put a lopsided moral weight on harm and fairness while playing down group loyalty, authority and purity. Conservatives instead place a moderately high weight on all five. It’s not surprising that each side thinks it is driven by lofty ethical values and that the other side is base and unprincipled.
I'd define "liberal" as the current thinking in much of Europe, Australia, and the US Democrat party. It does appear little thought is given to group loyalty, authority and purity by those factions in their moral choices which seem slanted towards harm and fairness for individuals.

Islam, unfortunately for those groups, appears to me to be the strongest dare I say 'conservative' group with us today and with the strongest regard to group loyalty, authority and purity. Other religions are in play to lesser degrees, and most seem to have a bit more balanced approach with some regard to harm and fairness for individuals.

Also unfortunately, to the victor go the spoils has yet to be proven wrong on this planet. :(

[TheChadd]

There are a few threads on the topic of cultural relativism. Dig them up if you're interested; they're quite interesting.

People often abuse cultural relativism or misunderstand it. Simply put, it's more or less stating that values and resulting behaviours of one culture cannot be understood in the context of another. This quickly gets changed by a lot of people into assuming that it means relativists don't believe in morality etc, which is bollocks. It means that there is no such thing as absolute, objective morality.

Somebody might say 'there are some objective morals, such as do not kill babies'. I'd ask where this exists independent of a culture's own values. It doesn't. You can only judge values within the context of your own set of values and biases.

The next problem is the extension of this into 'right and wrong'. Again, right and wrong can only exist in a context, usually in the community within which the behaviour is described. It isn't absolutely right or wrong to rape and murder - in fact, it is a nonsense statement when independent of a cultural context.

Athon

Agreed. I don't really find cultural relativism to be any more a problem for rational discourse than the lack of objective morals.

[athon]

I suspect what I use, or you use, is a bit irrelevant to the grinding wheels of history.

My point is that morality needs that qualifier in order to compare systems. Cultural relativism demands that in order to evaluate things such as morality, it can only be done in a context which acknowledges that they arise from subjective values.

Do you suggest a better way to rate conflicting moral systems?

Better? With respect to what? It feels like I'm repeating myself - these things require a context. I can compare morality by way of the effect the behaviour has on personal survival, or with regard to the production of wealth, or personal happiness...there is no 'better' system on which to compare moral behaviours. So long as it is kept in mind that there is no external yardstick against which morality can be measured as being 'good' or 'bad'. An action can only be described as good or bad in a context.

I'd define "liberal" as the current thinking in much of Europe, Australia, and the US Democrat party. It does appear little thought is given to group loyalty, authority and purity by those factions in their moral choices which seem slanted towards harm and fairness for individuals.

Islam, unfortunately for those groups, appears to me to be the strongest dare I say 'conservative' group with us today and with the strongest regard to group loyalty, authority and purity. Other religions are in play to lesser degrees, and most seem to have a bit more balanced approach with some regard to harm and fairness for individuals.

Also unfortunately, to the victor go the spoils has yet to be proven wrong on this planet. :(


That is definitely true. Where systems of morality conflict, it's the strongest community that will dominate. Our western systems of morality only exist because we inherited it from the communities which precede us. Yet we'll embrace them in some belief that they are 'right', while others are 'wrong'.

Athon

[hammegk]

My point is that morality needs that qualifier in order to compare systems. Cultural relativism demands that in order to evaluate things such as morality, it can only be done in a context which acknowledges that they arise from subjective values.
We have no argument there.


Better? With respect to what? It feels like I'm repeating myself - these things require a context.
At homo sapiens' stage of technology I again suggest cultural/societal, and species survival as the context.


I can compare morality by way of the effect the behaviour has on personal survival, or with regard to the production of wealth, or personal happiness...

To what, meaningful, purpose?


there is no 'better' system on which to compare moral behaviours.
And there we do disagree.


So long as it is kept in mind that there is no external yardstick against which morality can be measured as being 'good' or 'bad'. An action can only be described as good or bad in a context.
Indeed. Please provide a better context than that I've provided.


That is definitely true. Where systems of morality conflict, it's the strongest community that will dominate. Our western systems of morality only exist because we inherited it from the communities which precede us. Yet we'll embrace them in some belief that they are 'right', while others are 'wrong'.

All systems of morality exist because they were inherited from the preceding communities. So what?

The conflict between major systems, several currently in play, is the problem and challenge, and as usual "might" will determine "right", devil take the hindmost.

[plumjam]

The conflict between major systems, several currently in play, is the problem and challenge, and as usual "might" will determine "right", devil take the hindmost.

Martillo, I generally agree with almost everything in your posts. So congratulations to your parents for raising such an intelligent person ;).

To your comment I would add a kind of ....err... add-on. That being that in cases where 'might' comes in and determines what is 'right' in some society, then if that 'right' is far out from the objective morality which we perceive in our individual consciences then that 'might' does not last long. I think history bears this out. Thus societies based on patently immoral values such as communism or nazism either self-destruct or are destroyed from outside due to the moral abhorrence they create in the individual consciences of both their own citizens and exterior citizens.

[athon]

And there we do disagree.

Very well. Since this is where our views part, let's explore it.

I'll have to ask, therefore, what you mean by 'better'. It would be like me saying 'I am better than you'. You'd be forced to ask for a context there, by asking 'at what?'.

So, if moral systems are 'best' compared to one another by way of how they improve survival, on what grounds to you measure this form of comparison to be the 'best'.

I guess the overall message for this thread is 'any time we say one thing is better than another, we need to state the context within which we are making the claim'.

Athon

[leonAzul]

When there is an argument and the relevance of subjectivity creeps in, and the defense of relativity (as in "cultural relativity) becomes a waving flag, should this command the halt of an argument?

Only in the proper

context.

Peace,

paul

[arthwollipot]

To your comment I would add a kind of ....err... add-on. That being that in cases where 'might' comes in and determines what is 'right' in some society, then if that 'right' is far out from the objective morality which we perceive in our individual consciences then that 'might' does not last long.This concept seems to come up whenever I discuss the article I wrote (linked at the top of the thread) in which I make a statement to the effect that societies engage in a kind of pseudo-Darwinian conflict with one another, and the society with the most "effective" moral code outcompetes those with less "effective" moral codes. Tell me plumjam - did you actually read this article of mine?