A Defense of Moral Relativism
- Login to post comments
A Defense of Moral Relativism
The following was motivated by a conversation I had with Liberallies and Slyrr.
I’ll preface this by saying that my thoughts on and understanding of the topic of morals and ethics is a pedestrian one and my presentation here is admittedly simplistic. So I’ll go ahead and apologize ahead of time to any who might read this that have a deeper understanding of this topic than I.
Objective versus Subjective Moral Codes
For the sake of this discussion, I’ll take “objective moral code” and “universal moral code” to mean a moral code created or set down or established by a supreme being who has, in some sense, the authority to impose such a code on humans.
I should point out that there are those who believe in the existence of objective morals who reject the necessity that they be created by a supreme being. But this view won’t factor into my discussion so I won’t get into it.
By contrast, I’ll use “subjective moral code” to mean a moral code created by a human or group of humans.
Absolute versus Relative
The term “absolute” will be taken to mean “applies to everyone, everywhere under all circumstances”. To keep things simple, I’ll take “relative” to mean that which isn’t absolute.
As an illustration of the distinction between the two, I’ll do what I typically do and use an example from physics.
Consider the idea of speed. If I were a passenger in a car and ask the driver how fast we were going, most people would implicitly understand that I’m asking for the speed relative to the Earth (plus that’s how car speedometers are set up to report speeds anyways). In fact, this is usually how we think of speeds. But from a general standpoint, there is nothing particularly special about the Earth which requires us to use it as our reference frame for measuring speeds (other than the fact that it’s convenient). We could use the Sun or the Moon or the center of the Milky Way. In fact, we could choose from an infinite number of reference frames to measure speeds from.
A consequence of this is that there is no fact of the matter about what the speed of an object is (with one exception, which I’ll get to below). In other words, there is no absolute or universal value for the speed of an object. The speed of an object is always relative to some reference frame.
Of course, there is one exception to this – light. It turns out that no matter what reference frame you use, when you measure the speed of light – any light – you always get the same speed. This fact serves as the basis for Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity.
So we can say that the speed of light is absolute in the sense that all people in all places under all circumstances always measure light as having the same speed while the speeds of all other objects are always reported or measured as relative to some reference frame.
Moral Relativism
There are actually a lot of different moral relativist views which distinguish themselves from each other based on things like the ontological status of morals, the classification of moral statements, the proper implementation of morals into actions and bunch of other things.
The central idea (as I understand it) of moral relativism is that there isn’t an objective or universal moral code and so there isn’t an objective standard by with to judge actions or ideas as right or wrong.
My view of moral relativism parallels my view on the relativity of speeds (excluding that of light). An individual or group can create or adopt a (subjective) moral code. This parallels a person’s ability to choose a reference frame from which to measure speed. Once set, definitive statements can be made about whether an action or idea is right or wrong based on the moral code that’s been adopted in the same way that I can make definitive statements about speeds once I pick a frame of reference.
I also recognize that other people or groups may adopt different moral codes. But my recognition of that fact doesn’t require me to accept their moral codes or their judgments. I am free to give my moral code precedence over any other. I’ll expand on this later in this post.
I should point out that there is a class of moral relativists, called normative relativists, who do seem to work from the idea that all moral codes should be given equal status in the sense that no judgment from any moral code should be given special status of any others.
I bring this up because many people who argue against moral relativism seem to assume that all moral relativists are normative relativists. That isn’t the case. The fact is that the normative view is generally held to lead to (at best) incoherence and (at worst) flat out contradictions and most moral relativists don’t accept this view.
First Argument
In my discussions with people, I’ve gotten the impression that many hold to the view that morals, by definition, have to be objective or else they are not really morals at all.
The problem with this is that the existence of an objective moral code is precisely the point of contention and so asserting that the existence of morals is predicated on the existence of an objective code does little more than beg the question. In other words, this argument isn’t an argument but simply an assertion of the view that there is an objective moral code. It’s a circular argument.
You would have to argue why morals, based on a generally accepted definition of what morals are, require that they be objective. The problem is that there are a zillion different views on what constitute morals so coming up with a compelling argument based on a definition of morals that most would accept seems a pretty difficult task. The second argument (below) takes a step in this direction by attempting to show that a failure to view morals as absolute necessarily leads to contradictions.
Second Argument
Many who believe in an objective moral code argue that it isn’t possible to formulate a consistent moral code unless you assume that morals have an objective basis.
An example of this type of argument is given by Slyrr:
Listen to them when they talk. It's all moral relativism. To the non-believer, the individual's will trumps all. Each person decides what's right or wrong for his or herself. And that's it. Try to get one of them to admit that there are things in this life greater than his or herself. They won't do it. They'll hem and haw and stammer and stutter and come up with all kinds of philosophical gobbledy-gook, but in the end it goes back to 'I decide what's right, and therefore everyone who disagrees with my worldview is wrong.' It makes for amusing watching at times. Because when one person's beliefs happen to clash with another person's beliefs, and they're both moral relativists, who's 'right and wrong' wins out? By definition, BOTH are right, and BOTH are wrong.
Slyrr’s assertion is that holding a moral relativist view forces you into a position of accepting that actions or ideas can be both right and wrong and so forces you to hold contradictory views. There are two problems here.
The first is that in order for Slyrr’s argument to work, you have to accept that an action or idea can’t be both right and wrong at the same time. This is true if there is an objective standard by which to judge all actions and statements. But of course, the moral relativist doesn’t accept this. So Slyrr is taking for granted the very idea which serves as the point of contention to dismiss the other side’s argument.
I can counter Slyrr’s argument by saying that holding the view that a belief can be both right and wrong relative to two different moral codes results in no more a contradiction than holding the view that a car can be both moving and not moving at the same time relative to two different reference frames.
For a moral relativist, the rightness or wrongness of an action or idea is judged relative to the moral code that a particular person has adopted. Consequently, when talking about whether an action or idea is right or wrong, one has to specify which moral code is being used to make that judgment (though it’s typically just assumes that it’s one’s own). Once a particular moral code is adopted, definitive statements about whether an action or idea is right or wrong can be made. Despite Slyrr’s assertion, a moral relativist isn’t obligated to accept an action or idea as both right and wrong at the same time.
Again, to draw a parallel with speed – if I’m travelling at 60 mi/hr relative to the Earth, I’m not suddenly going to feel compelled to close my eyes and take a nap because I recognize that there’s a reference frame relative to which I’m standing still. Despite understanding the relativity of speed (with the exception of light, of course), I’m never going to believe that an object has two different speeds at the same time relative to a particular reference frame and I’m certainly never going to act as if that’s the case.
The second problem is that Slyrr’s simply assumes (knowingly or unknowingly) that all moral relativists are normative relativists – that a moral relativist is obligated to give all moral codes and all moral judgments equal weight. But based on what I’ve stated above, that isn’t the case. As I’ve mentioned previously (and as Slyrr’s comments show) the normative view has its problems and I certainly don’t hold to it.
If Slyrr could argue why the core ideas of moral relativism ultimately require, for the sake of consistency, that all moral relativist be normative relativists then Slyrr would have a powerful argument against moral relativism.
Third Argument
The last argument I’ll address is one related to one that Liberallies has brought up.
In making the assertion “morals are relative” I am making a definitive (or absolute) statement about morals. Liberallies has argued that I contradict myself in doing this.
If statements about morals are themselves moral statements (or moral judgments) then Liberallies would be correct.
So is he?
Well, we should get straight what a moral judgment is. This isn’t an easy thing and it’s something that many have and do disagree about. But I’ll suggest the following criterion – if a statement can be translated into a form like “I believe it is morally acceptable/unacceptable that…” and still convey the same basic idea of the original statement, then the statement is a moral judgment.
As an example, consider the statement “one plus one does not equal three”. I think most would agree that translating this into “I believe it is morally unacceptable that one plus one should equal three” creates a statement which introducing something the original statement probably wasn’t meant to convey.
By contrast, the statement “killing is wrong” obviously does convey the same basic idea as “I believe it is morally unacceptable to kill”.
Of course, there are some statements which may or may not be moral, depending on the context. For example “Jack is laughing” could translate into “I believe it is morally unacceptable that Jack is laughing”. If it turned out that Jack is laughing during a funeral, then the original statement could be a moral judgment and the translated version would accurately convey the meaning of the original. But it might simply be meant as a statement of fact, in which case the translation wouldn’t convey the original idea behind the statement.
So let’s get back to me asserting that “morals are relative”. The translation would be “I believe it is morally acceptable that morals are relative”. This one might be up for interpretation except for the fact that I’m the one making the statement and I can clarify how I mean it. And the fact is that the translated statement certainly doesn’t convey the idea behind my original statement.
In asserting that morals are relative, I’m making a statement parallel to the assertion that speeds are relative. It’s meant as an objective statement about an aspect of human conduct and behavior and not as a moral judgment.
Liberallies might view it as a moral statement but that’s irrelevant unless he can demonstrate why I have to accept it as a moral statement as well
Conclusion
As a final comment, I should clarify that my arguments here are not meant to demonstrate that the relativistic moral view is correct but only that some of the more common arguments I’ve seen against moral relativism can be reasonably countered.
Please forgive me for being too simplistic.
For sake of argument it might be better to divide moral codes into three groups:
1) Divinity Objective – relating to a code created by a Supreme Being or ideology and given authority by the fact it is of divine origin
2) Social Objective – relating to a code create by select members of society and given authority by those who uphold societal laws
3) Subjective – relating to the idea that one’s own moral code has authority and should be recognized by others
It could be argued that everyone’s moral code is subjective in that even divine words are translated by different people in different ways and that makes the variances subjective but that would be starting a different argument - possibly for another time.
In any case the test for the truth in a moral code is consistency and why so many people fail morally when left to subjective morals only. For many subjective moralists, it is my opinion, their code is garnered from both the Divinity Objective and the Social Objective while weeding out the parts they don’t agree with or like. This is almost always a weakness in the Subjective Code. People remove a part of the Divinity Objective Code because it is inconvenient but when it effects them personally their views change.
Social Objectives are people of law – America was supposed to be a Nation of Laws but our system has been so corrupted and inconsistent by those who choose to impose their Subjective Morals on others that there is very little semblance left of the moral structure that created this nation outside of the Constitution.
There is supposed to be a hierarchy in moral standards:
1) The Divine Objective morals set forth the absolutes that must be followed to maintain a society of humans
2) The Social Objective morals set forth the minute to tie a society together and allow it to function in common and rational manner
3) The Subjective morals are created by the individual to create a path for personal growth
The Subjective morals created by an individual are usually mundane and don’t over ride the moral establishment of the Social and Divine Objectives. However, times and events do change and there are times when the Subjective morals enter into and change Social morals. The problem now is that the Social Objective network is too weak and it too often gives too much credence to the Subjective morals of small groups and to groups that don’t officially have representation within the social structure.
The topic of morals is, in my opinion, a philosophical mess.
We are talking about a field of study where there isn't even general agreement about what defines the core ideas of the subject - things like what is a moral or a moral code, what defines a moral statement or judgment or whether these have truth values or not.
My original post was written with a very narrow goal in mind - to offer a defense for on particular view (the moral relativist one) against three particular arguments I've seen made against it (with two specific NB members in mind).
Your post gets into the possible relations between different types of morals, how they should be judged and how they might evolve. This goes well beyond what I know about when it comes to the topic of morals and so I'm not in any real position to comment with any degree of knowledge on what you have written.
However, one comment that did jump out at me was: "In any case the test for the truth in a moral code is consistency and why so many people fail morally when left to subjective morals only."
I disagree with this. The notion of "consistency" makes sense when dealing with purely logical systems where all that is being tested is the structure of statements that have no semantic components. Once you introduce semantics, you introduce ambiguity and that pretty much destroys any hope of knowing for sure if some set of statements (which aren't completely trivial) are consistent with each other.
To put it another way, how can you possibly hope for consistency when you are dealing with concepts with vague definitions such as "good" and "evil"?
Hydro,
You personally believe that the concepts of good and evil are vague, but to many of us the concepts of good and evil are far from vague.
I can see how as a Moral Relativists you may believe these are vague, but there is very little ambiguity in the concept of morality. There are very little nuances.
There are moral absolutists - even Christian ones - who acknowledge that you can come up with scenarios where it isn't clear whether to judge an action as right or wrong.
That aside, the main point of my comment had to do with a more general idea - that the notion of logical consistency becomes problematic when you start to deal with systems with semantics, in no small part because there isn't a consistent theory of reference.
And being a moral relativist doesn't lead you into being vague or ambiguous about morality. I'd be willing to bet that my views about right and wrong are just as clear and precise as yours are - though they might be different and, of course, I wouldn't claim them to be absolute.
Part of the point of my speed analogy was to suggest that even though speeds are relative, I can give you a very precise answer to what the speed of an object is once I've picked a reference frame. Relativity doesn't imply ambiguity or vagueness.
Hydro,
I am on vacation, per the private message I sent you in reply to yours. However, in the mean time, I urge you to read these links.
http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio/05_relativism/relativism_transcription.htm
this one refutes Moral Relativism pretty well. I am interested to see responses to Prof. Peter Kreeft.
and
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm
You have claimed in a few posts already that it can't be proven that God exists. I 100% disagree with this.
Also, I would urge you to read all of St. Augustine's and St. Thomas Aquinas' writings, each and every one of their writings and books. Once you are done with those, I urge you to read all of C.S Lewis' writings and books.
I have zero doubt that once you are finished readings all of their writings and books, you will never again be able to make the absolute moral statement that there is no way to prove God exists.
However, if you refuse to read them, then it is impossible for you to make the absolute moral statement that there is no way to prove God exists. Which of course contradicts your moral relativism stand. How can you make a moral absolute statement such as, "there is no prove of God"? you can't, this is merely your moral opinion, correct?
Here is something to think about....
I have zero doubt that you have an opinion about what happens after we die, correct? But just because you hold this opinion, does it make it real? Does you holding an opinion about the afterlife or no such thing as afterlife make either one happen? both can't be correct since we have different opinions about this. Either you or I are correct. The afterlife is not going to exist as we think it is going to exist, it already exist or does not exist. Just because we hold an opinion about the afterlife or lack there of, it does not mean that what happens after our death is going to morph into our opinion of it. It is what it is, regardless of the opinion we have about it. It is a moral absolute.
Thanks for the links. I will be sure to read then and respond.
However, before getting to that, I will say this.
I have never once - anywhere here or in any of my posts on this website - said or claimed that it is impossible to prove the existence of God.
I have no idea where you are getting that from. Perhaps you can provide me with a quote?
What I have and do contend is that I have never seen an argument which proves the existence of God.
Those are two very very different statements.
So no. Again you have unintentionally mischaracterized my stand point in an attempt to catch me in a contradiction and again, there is none.
In our discussion, I have assumed that you couldn't provide such an argument since a) if you could, you would just provide it and that would be a simple and quick end to our disagreement about moral relativism b) if you had such an argument, you would probably be the most famous human to ever live seeing as you would have finally put an end to one of the, if not the, biggest mysteries in human history and c) if I turned out to be wrong, I think I could live with that if the trade off was being provided with such an important proof.
Like I said, I'll read through your links. I'm actually more interested in the first one. The second one (which I think I've seen before) is maybe more appropriate as the basis for another forum topic.
As for your suggested readings - how about this? Let me go through that second link and start another forum topic on it and let's see how that goes. I suggest this since I'm sure some of Aquinas' arguments are in that second link and I can tell you that I am familiar with some of them and there are flaws in them. But we will leave that for that other topic.
1) Yes, it looks like here you have not challenged the existence of God. In fact, if I remember correctly from another forum, you claim to be more of an agnostic.
2) Well not providing it and the other person not accepting the argument are two very, very different things. Sound, logical, strong unable to contradict arguments can be provided. However, it is up to the other side to accept it as such.
Human beings are quite proud, you know.
That there are many who can’t accept the existence of God is very different than not providing the strong, unbreakable arguments.
Same thing with Moral Absolutes. Just because someone else does not accept your argument or denies it, it doesn’t mean that a strong, sound, unbreakable argument was not provided.
3) Excellent, read through the links. Yes, for this forum, the first link is the relevant one. The second one was more to answer, which I was wrong in assuming as much, you supposed assumption that prove of God can’t be provided.
However, to find other good, concrete and unbreakable arguments proving the existence of God, you do have to read a lot more than the second link I provided. St. Augustine, St. Thomas Moore, St. Thomas Aquinas, C.S. Lewis just for starters and not merely what is on the internet, but what they originally said, how they said it and ALL of their work.
I also believe that when one reads these, they must be read with a certain sense of humility, Knowing and believing that we do not know everything.
Hydro,
WOW.....good start. Hmmmm.....where to start tackling this, though?
1) I believe that comparing morals to the physical world is a mistake. I just don't think it can be done. However, this being said, I find it interesting that you did a lot of comparison with speed of all objects, but left out the one that was absolute in the physical world, light.
None of your arguments when compared to the speed of light, instead of the speed of all other things, would work. Am I correct in assuming this?
I will establish and admit here and now the fact that physics is no where near my forte. In fact, I have always stayed away from the sciences. So, I apologize upfront and in my first post if I do not get, understand or interpret correctly your analogies when you use science.
My strong points, or at least that is what I tell myself :-), are history, religion (Christianity to be exact), politics. Being that I am a Political Science major with minors in Latin american studies and international studies this makes sense. My facination with religion is my personal wish and desire to grow in my love, relationshop and understanding of God.
2) I have a question. If you have two moral relativist making laws, attempting to assert which morals society should follow, given what you said above, how do you envision these individuals agreeing to which morals should be followed or not.
As I understand moral relativist, and I could be wrong, many of them, at least the majority of them do hold aboslute moral values, but they believe that these only need to be followed by him/her, not by anyone else since his personal absolute moral values are not the same as someone else's, correct? does this make sense?
Thus, though, how would a moral relativist morally justify following the morals code, the laws of another moral relativist? You, hydro, assert that most moral relativist will claim that their morals are better than someone elses, that normative relativism is not that popular or common amongst relativist. How can a moral relativist claim that his/her morals are superior to someone elses? This, to me, seems to be a contradiction.
I see this frequently with, say for example, abortionists, or individuals who believe that animals have the same rights or more so than humans. They will start by asserting to the pro-lifer, the anti-abortionists that morality is relative, thus that believe that the belief that a human baby is a baby inside the womb is dependent on the individual, not the whole society. However, this same individual will then turn around and claim that abortions are a moral good and ok for everyone. Thus in a matter of a sentence or two, they declare moral relativism when someone tells them that their morals are wrong, but quickly turn around and claim moral absolutes for their morals. These are the same individualsl who have no problem forcing pro-lifers to pay for abortions through our taxes. Thus, the relativist, just contradicted himself/herself. In the one hand, when it is not convient to their beliefs, they will claim moral relativism, but when it is time to force their moral codes on others, they claim moral absolutes. I see this constantly all over the place with moral relativists.
How can a moral relativist argue that his/her morals are better, superior to that of someone else? By definition, they can't and any attempt to do so is attempting to use moral absolutes, thus then the moral relativists, is not a relativists at all. Well, they are when they feel that others are imposing their moral codes on him/her, but they are moral absolutes when it comes to him/her imposing his/her beliefs, moral codes on other.
Do you see the contradiction? The problem with a moral relativist?
How can a moral relativist go to a moral relativist in Nazi Germany and claim that killing Jews is wrong? The moral relativist in Nazy Germany will tell him, "Thanks for letting me know that killing Jews is wrong for you. But I do not beleive it is wrong, thus I am not doing anything wrong. It is none of your business what I do since my moral code tells me I am doing a good thing". How can the anti-Nazi moral relativist now justify stoping the Nazi from killing a Jew? Moral relativism doesn't allow for this. If you claim that killing Jews is wrong and that it can't be done. It must be stopped at all causes and you raise an army and destroy Nazi Germany. Well, you just impose your moral code on another nation, on another set of beliefs. How can you justtify this as a moral relativist? How can a moral relativist claim that his morals are superiors to someone elses? This would mean that somehow you, as a human being, are superior to another human being.
How can one human being, without proof that his/her moral code is superior, convince another one that their moral code is wrong?
How can two moral relativists convince each other that his/her moral code is superior and the one that must be follow? It is simply, impossible.
3) I have attempted to explain in the past my argument that it is an absolute statement about morals to claim, "All Morals Are Relative". We went round and round and ended up yelling at each other and getting upset. Let us hope this time goes much, MUCH better.
This is a moral statement. Using your example, "I believe it is morally acceptable that morals are absolute". This makes 100% sense and it clearly speaks to morality.
Furthermore, you left it a bit ambiguous and did not explain it all the day. You said that your statement, "I believe it is morally acceptable that morals are relative" does not convey the same message of your original statement, "All Morals are relative". The way that I read it, both statements mean exactly the same thing. If you could go a bit deeper and explain the difference, as you see it, between these two statements, it would help me into further understnad your argument.
4) I will add here a few rules. a) if this gets heated, first time it gets heated, I am walking away. b) No need for sarcasm, put downs, direct or under handed. c) If I come across as arrogant or you feel I am coming across as superior, please tell me. I have a tendency to do this in my writings in blogs and in fact when I debate people face to face. I would truly appriciate a good and direct fraternal correction from you or anyone else that reads this.
5) I am here for an intellectual, deep argument where two or many more individuals can hopefully exchange ideas and make each other further think about their strong held beliefs. I am not here to prove that I am right or that anyone else is wrong. I hope all those that come into this forum, come in with the same spirit. WE can all learn a lot from each other if nothing else to learn how to better sharpen our arguments for those beliefs we hold so dearly.
6) I look forward to a great exchange!
Hydro,
(I wonder if we should focus on one of the numbers below. The posts get rather long. What do you think?)
1) No, no. I know you did talk about the speed of light. My point is, which you readily acknowledged, that using the speed of light, which is absolute, does not work for your speed analogy.
I believe that just like in physics, the speed of light is absolute, there are absolute morals.
None of your arguments, none of your analogies work the second you use the speed of light.
2) I think you have stated well the problem with moral relativism, there is no way for a relativist to convince another moral relativist that their morals are superior. There is no amount of logic that will do it.
I believe, and I have seen it done, you can convince individuals with logic and evidence that there is a God. And if there is a God, well, then there is a superior moral code.
If morality is relative and it is impossible to figure out which morality is superior, then how can a moral relativist who is against mass murdering Jews convince a moral relativist Nazi that it is wrong? In fact, I’ll take it a step further since as you said, wars usually “convinces”. Using the moral relativist logic which you have presented, as I understand it, it was neither good nor bad that the Jewish mass murderers were ended. Yes, you may say, “no, it was a great thing that these mass murderers were ended”. But a Nazi moral relativist will tell you, “No, it was terrible that it was ended”. Using your logic, both are morally correct according to their personal beliefs, right? Since there are two individuals who think differently, then Slyrr is correct, it is both Wrong and Right while both of these individuals are alive, but that is a contradiction. The Nazi will say that his morals are superior, but the anti-Nazi will say his morals are superior. While both of these individuals are alive, it is both Superior and Inferior. Once again, you have a contradiction
Morality is not dependent on time, culture or person. I think we can all agree that killing of Jews is evil, it is wrong, no matter if someone else believes that it is not wrong.
All civil societies have come to the conclusion that there needs to be ONE set of laws and rules for a society to function. In fact, I believe that we also need one set of morals to function which is more often than not reflected in the law. As societies start embracing moral relativism, you get chaos in the streets, in the court rooms, in making laws as the Western cultures are experiencing right now.
But the American Constitution, the laws created by Congress are absolute not dependent on who violates them.
You are right, it is next to impossible to convince anyone that your morals are superior if you can’t convince them that they come from a superior being, God. We are in 100% agreement on this.
However, civil societies have developed into absolute moral codes/laws that must be obeyed or else. Why do we allow governments to punish using absolute laws?
I can’t argue with the policeman and tell him, “Well it is your opinion that I was speeding, but my opinion is that I was not. So you can’t give me a ticket!” No, the speed limit is absolute.
Charles Mason, as much as he tried, a moral relativist, was not excused for his murders because he believed they were not wrong, but the jury and the judge knew that murder is wrong.
All of our laws are absolute and there is no arguing with the judge or jury whether they apply to all of us or not. The argument is whether a crime was committed or not based on the law that it is believed was violated. Thus, civil societies have moved toward absolute moral codes. Just imagine the chaos if we all decided that we could practice our own personal laws.
If morality is relative, why have societies adopted absolute moral codes? In fact, most places with rules have adopted absolute moral codes of behavior, correct? Why?
3) You are 100% right, I don’t view it like you do. To me, or as a moral absolutist would say, as it is, the statement “all morals are relative” is not merely an observation, but a description of morals, of morality. I hope I don’t sound insulting, and maybe I am misreading your words, but I don’t view humanity as mere animals that over time developed codes and rules of how to behave just like animals have developed a hierarchy of who is in control.
On this one issue, I will concede that we will go round and round and get nowhere fast. I think we both have said what needs to be said. If someone else reads it and can add to either side of the argument, more the welcome, but I think you can agree we will go in circles on this one.
I think we can see the problems of moral relativism in real life situations. How do we convince individuals living in a culture that their culture is wrong, say for example the practice of Hindus, that the English found when they entered India, of burning the wife alive during the husbands funeral. The English put a stop to this. The English had the superior moral hand on this one instance, at least. But using the moral relativist argument, we would say no. Hindu culture believed this and it was ok for them. However, it was wrong for the English. The English were stronger, military wise, and they conquered India and put a stop to the Hindu cultural practices they found wrong.
Saying that moral relativism is the way to go, then in the statements below, there are exceptions.
It is always wrong to burn alive the wife of a dead husband.
It is always wrong to murder anyone.
It is always wrong to have sex with minors.
It is always wrong to rape.
If I can’t prove that my morality is superior then the statements above to not count for everyone, at least not for those who do not believe it, right? Do you see the problem?
This is a horrific thing. Take the example in the case of rape. A man is stronger physically than a woman. He argues with the woman that rape is morally good, thus she must allow him to do it. She argues that it is not morally good. In a honest intellectual debate, the woman can’t convince the man. Thus since he is stronger physically he attempts to “convince” her that it is morally good through his actions. According to this man, he did nothing wrong. The law does say that there needs to be intent in order for a crime to be committed. The man had no intention of harming the woman, as he beliefs it, right? So, was there an intent to commit a crime if the man truly believes that rape is not wrong, a crime? Another problem of moral relativism. That crime is wrong for you, but not for me.
Take stealing for example.
Liberallies’ moral beliefs say that stealing is not wrong. Hydro says that stealing is wrong. Liberallies steals from Hydro. Did I do wrong? From Liberallies’point of view, moral beliefs, no. From Hydro’s point of view, moral beliefs, there was wrong done. Who is correct? Thus, Slyrr’s argument comes back, the action, according to moral relativists, was both Right and Wrong. But this is a contradiction and contradictory statements are never true at the same time. It is not about which morality is superior, Liberallies’ or Hydro’s, rather in the eyes of Liberallies’ there was no wrong committed, but in Hydro’s eyes there was a grave wrong committed. Who is right? Both? How do you convince either one of the opposite?
This is why the need and the reason there exists a Superior Being who exists above the “fray”.
Can you be convinced that there is a God. I think it can be done, I have done it. Much more intelligent and well versed individuals than me, who were atheist, became Believers through their scientific studies, studying the Bible, etc.
But without a Superior Being then I can see why everyone would hold their own personal morality. 99% of us would hold a morality that benefits us, it is human nature. I think we can all agree that if all of us did what personally benefited us, the world would go into chaos rather quickly. Yes, chaos is not beneficial for all, but some would welcome it.
1) Since I think we have cleared up my use of the speed analogy as a convenient way to get across the idea of “absolute” and “relative” and to distinguish our two sides of the argument regarding morals, I’ll move on to your second point.
2) You say: “Using the moral relativist logic which you have presented, as I understand it, it was neither good nor bad that the Jewish mass murderers were ended. … Since there are two individuals who think differently, then Slyrr is correct, it is both Wrong and Right while both of these individuals are alive, but that is a contradiction.”
I’ll go back to my speed analogy. Is there a contradiction in pointing out that an object can be moving relative to one reference frame and standing still relative to another? No. There would be a contradiction if a person asserted that an object was both moving and not moving relative to the same reference frame.
The same action can be viewed as morally right relative to one moral code and morally wrong relative to another. There is no contradiction here. If a person asserts that an action is both right and wrong relative to the same moral code, then a contradiction would seem to occur. But as I pointed out, this is only a problem for normative relativists.
In order for Slyrr’s (and I guess now your) argument to work, you would have to explain why I am required to view actions as both right and wrong from the standpoint of my moral code because the fact is, I don’t. I have a very clear moral code which reflects the moral code of the society I grew up and live in and my own personal views. I give precedent to my moral code over others which conflict with it. You might ask how I justify this as moral relativist. My answer is that I don’t need to or feel the need to.
I see you going round and round on this in your comments. You seem to think that because a moral relativist can’t justify his moral code in an absolute, God given sense, then he can’t justify it at all.
Well, as I’ve pointed out, you can’t really prove the superiority of your moral code, any more than the Hindu in your example can. Consequently, you are in exactly the same position, from a practical stand point, as the moral relativist. You can keep insisting that your code is the one true one but the Hindu will do the exact same thing.
From the moral relativist stand point, this argument simply doesn’t exist. If a moral relativist chooses to defend or impose their moral code on another person or group, their justification can be based on any number of things which will ultimately just come down to opinion or maybe emotion.
So what’s the difference between asserting your moral code is the best because it is God given but can’t be proven to be so and asserting your moral code is the best based on some other argument which is ultimately based on opinion or emotion? From a practical standpoint, I see no difference.
You say: “Morality is not dependent on time, culture or person. I think we can all agree that killing of Jews is evil, it is wrong, no matter if someone else believes that it is not wrong.”
You are basically asserting your assumption that morals are absolute to back up your point here. I, of course, don’t believe that morals are absolute so I obviously don’t agree with this. On top of that, the Nazis obviously didn’t believe it was morally wrong to kill the Jews so your statement isn’t correct.
You say: “As societies start embracing moral relativism, you get chaos in the streets, in the court rooms, in making laws as the Western cultures are experiencing right now.”
And
“If morality is relative, why have societies adopted absolute moral codes? In fact, most places with rules have adopted absolute moral codes of behavior, correct? Why?”
I view this as a pragmatic defense of moral absolutism – that is, you seem to be arguing that moral absolutism should be adopted because it works better than moral relativism.
I’ll counter with the following. History shows that groups of humans (or societies) tend to adopt uniform moral codes and that individuals within those groups are expected to conform to them. This makes sense given that humans are social animals and need to be able to coexist with others within their group to survive and thrive. Different groups might and (as history shows) will adopt different codes and will view things as right and wrong relative to their own group’s moral code. And although an individual might adopt a personal code which differs from the one of the group he lives in, if his code deviates too drastically from it, he will be punished or shunned.
Just to be clear – the above explanation isn’t meant to convince anyone that moral relativism is correct, only that a reasonable argument can be given for how things are from the moral relativist perspective.
I’ll also point out that you used the term “absolute” a number of times when talking about the laws a society might develop (like your speeding ticket example). Using that word I think conflates what is being discussed. In my original post, I said I would use the word “absolute” to refer to something that applies to all people under all circumstances – like absolute God given moral laws. Based on that, I wouldn’t use that word to describe the laws set down by a given society.
Going back to your speed limit example, even if all folks within that society are expected to follow speed limits (which isn’t true actually – police and paramedics can break speed limits under certain circumstances), those laws don’t apply to people half way around the globe in some other country.
3) Regarding the topic of “morals are relative” and whether that statement is a moral one or not, I tend to agree with you about us fundamentally disagreeing with each other. I understand your view and I think you understand mine.
I guess the main point is that there is a contradiction from your point of view and there isn’t one from mine. But then, that’s sort of the case with this entire argument – you think that there is an absolute moral code and I don’t. From your standpoint, my view contradicts how you think reality is and from mine it obviously doesn’t.
Hydro,
1) I probably made a mistake in my earliest post claiming what Slyrr's argument is or isn't. Like you, I am saying what I believe to be true, not the beliefs that other's hold. I apologize for that.
2) You have shown the problem with moral relativism. According to moral relativism, it was good, ok, moral not immoral to kill Jews under Nazy Germany. Why? Because the moral code of the Nazis said it was morally good to kill Jews. Thus, once again as I understand your theory of morality, under certain moral conditions, it is good, moral, ok to kill Jews and anyone who is considered a subhuman. I am not saying that you believe this is morally good, not even close. What I am saying that according to moral relativists, given the right society with the right moral codes, there is nothing wrong with killing a Jew or anyone considered a subhuman by that society.
Let's give another example. If a society's moral code says that it is morally good to rape women, to have sex with children, a moral relativist may say, "Well that is evil and wrong according to my moral code, but not according to theirs." Right? Thus, once again, given the right society with the right moral codes, rape and having sex with under age kids is morally good.
3) You said that societies adopt absolute moral codes in order for humans to be able to coexist with one another and for the group to survive and thrive. Well, I think this makes my point for me. If moral relativism is the way to go, why is it that societies have not adopted laws and rules that are dependent on each individual? Obviously, it has been proven through time that a society's best way to function is to adopt rules and laws that are absolute, correct?
There is no scenario that can be given in which adopting relative rules and relative laws make a society work. Even companies have absolute rules and policies. What is it about having absolute laws and rules that works? I can believe anything I want, for example, that females should be paid less. Does this make it moral and good? Why have laws said that you can't treat others differently based on race, sex, national origin or religion? If moral relativism is the way to go, why it is wrong to discriminate? Discrimination, in fact, is a moral relativism, is it not? Why have we decided as a society, that this is wrong? And using the moral relativist logic, it would be ok to discriminate if a society accepted it, correct?
You use the speed of objects to make your analogies. That is great, but one I disagree with. You are attempting to define morality with your comparison to the speed of objects. I will say that it can't be done or seen this way. This is where I believe you are seeing it wrong. Comparing physics to morals is impossible, in my humble opinion. Furthermore, I will say, that if you hold fast to your speed analogy, you must concede the point that at least some times, there are moral absolutes, just like the speed of light is absolute. You can’t exclude from your speed analogy the parts of speed that are inconvenient for your arguments and assertions.
For example, the speed of all objects depends on the point of reference. You say that the same goes for morality. I say, wrong, just like the speed of light is absolute and it does not matter the point of reference, the same is with morality. It doesn’t matter the point of reference, morality is absolute.
Your speed analogies do not work since I can always point to the absolute in speed, light. Am I making sense? I hope so.
If relativism is the way to go and good for everyone, why is it that the Father's of the Constitution laid down an absolute moral code for our nation? Why is it that universities lay out an absolute moral code of how to behave in universities? Why do companies do it? Why do high schools do it? What is it about absolute moral codes that work? If relativism is the way to go, why aren’t companies, schools, colleges, etc, etc adopting laws, rules, policies, etc. that are dependent on the individual and not to be enforced across the board equally?
In my speeding example, 1) I am limiting myself to the United States, not any other nation. I am talking about the absolute moral laws for the United States of America. 2) It is always wrong to speed inside the USA. Yes, speed limits vary, but it is always wrong to go over the speed limits. You have it wrong when you say that the ambulance or policeman is speeding in an emergency. They are not speeding. For them the speed limit, in an emergency, does not exist. Thus, they are not speeding. My analogy stands.
I will give you another law which in fact is global. It is illegal in every single nation in the world to steal. Punishments differ, but it is wrong to steal in all nations of the world. Another absolute moral law in all nations, it is wrong to kill the leader of a nation. I can go on....but I think my point has been made. There are absolute moral codes which have been adapted, however, there is no system, no country in the world today which has adopted a relative moral code for its people.
Thus the question has to be asked, why do human beings adopt absolute laws, rules, policies? You claimed, as I stated earlier, that it is necessary to do so in order for the group to survive and thrive. Thus, in so many words, you admit that moral relativism, that if a nation adopts laws that are relative to each individual, this society will not survive. I say...exactly!!! Laws=morality, not always, but most of the time. Just apply your logic to morality now. A society that chooses to adopt a moral relativist outlook to morality, will not survive and will not thrive.
4) I will also make the strong statement that as a Christian, in my case a Roman Catholic, I can certainly make the moral argument that Christianity is the one and only moral code that must be followed. This would be a subject for yet another forum, but the argument can be clearly and easily made with proven facts, backed up with history, statistics and other things to back up the fact that Christianity is the correct moral code. Logic, not emotion can be used to make this point.
Furthermore, God believers, those of us who believe in a higher power, but we have a difference on how to worship, praise and obey God, have a common thing to start off on. God, a higher power. We all hold the absolute belief that there is a higher being. This is a great place to start from.
On the other hand, as you said, the moral relativist will use emotion to justify his imposition of his morals on others. He has no other choice. There is no amount of logic that will ever back up a moral relativist moral stands. There is zero common ground the is held among moral relativist when it comes to where did our morals come from. Thus you can never logically and reasonably argue that your morality is the better one. The second he attempts to argue his points, the other moral relativist will say, "Well thank you for letting me know your morals, but I disagree. And since I am the one who decides my morals, who are you to even attempt to tell me what is Right or Wrong. I decide what is Right and Wrong for me?" How do these individuals reconcile? They can't and never will. You agree to as much. However, you go a step farther and make the assertion that this would be the same case with God believers in the argument of which religion is the correct one. I 100% disagree with this latter assertion. Believers of God have much more in common that many of us even realize.
5) You are right, for you, you do not see killing Jews as Right and Wrong, you see it as always Wrong, no matter what. The Nazi will see that killing Jews is always Right, no matter what. Hmmm...two things. a) Both of you have a personal absolute moral code as in regards to killing Jews. In your case, it is absolute for you that killing a Jew is always wrong. I have zero doubt that you will always say without any exception, that killing a Jew in the past, present, future, in all cultures and societies has been, it is and will always be wrong, for you. Correct?. However, the Nazi will hold the opposite, but also an absolute moral code for him, that killing Jews is always morally good. While you hold a moral relativist view when it comes to the moral codes of others, you hold an absolute moral code for yourself. Correct? Such as, it is always wrong to kill a Jew, no matter the time, place or society. If you do not hold an absolute moral code for yourself, personally, then, you must agree that there are times that you believe killing Jews is morally good. This, I believe, is the conundrum of moral relativist. They personally hold absolute moral codes for themselves, but they believe that their personal absolute moral code does not apply to anyone else, but themselves. Another contradiction. Holding absolute morals, but holding others to moral relativism.
b) I will go back to the fact that nothing in this world, in the universe, can be its opposite at exactly the same time. This is a contradiction and contradictions are wrong, an error. Using physics, which is your field of expertise. Can a particle be both at exactly the same time, an electron and a proton? I could be wrong, but from my understanding of the rudimentary physics I took up to my first year of college the answer is no, never. The same applies to morality. Something can't be both good or bad at exactly the same time. Yes, you do not view a moral act as both good and bad at the same time. This is not what I ment with my argument in my earliest post. What I mean is that when two individuals see the same thing, but hold moral opposite views, one or the other must be right. It is an impossibility to claim that both are correct even though one believes it is Right and the other one believes it is Wrong. Nothing in the universe can be its opposite at exactly the same time. This is a contradiction. Yes, for you it is wrong, for the Nazi it is right. Thus, what you are saying that in the universe, at exactly the same time, something is both Right and Wrong. You still hold that it is Wrong, always wrong to kill a Jew(as I pointed out earlier, interesting that you hold absolute moral code for you personally). The Nazi holds that it is always Right to kill a Jew. Thus, at exactly the same time in this universe, something is being held as both Right and Wrong. Something is being said to be what it is plus its opposite at exactly the same time. This is a contradiction in the universe and contradictions are always wrong. Thus, killing Jews is either always wrong or always right independent of your personal beliefs/moral code and/or that of the Nazi.
1) Yes, according to moral relativism, any conceivable action might be justifiable (considered morally good) according to some individual’s or societies’ moral code. And yes, that includes things like genocide and rape.
It would seem that you keep using these types of examples to point out an obvious problem with moral relativism but it doesn’t. Although my above statement might seem unappealing, it’s consistent.
2) In my first post here, I explained how I would use the word “absolute” and I most certainly did not say that “societies adopt absolute moral codes in order for humans to be able to coexist with one another and for the group to survive and thrive.”
You asked: “Well, I think this makes my point for me. If moral relativism is the way to go, why is it that societies have not adopted laws and rules that are dependent on each individual? Obviously, it has been proven through time that a society's best way to function is to adopt rules and laws that are absolute, correct?”
I’ve already addressed this. From the moral relativist stand point, since humans are social animals, it benefits a society to adopt uniform (not absolute) laws of conduct so the society can function. Allowing individuals to follow their own codes would upset this. But this is a practical matter and different societies can adopt different rules and still manage to function. In fact, I’m pretty sure one of the main issues in politics is precisely deciding which rules to adopt and which not to.
Again, you seem to think that moral relativism implies having to allow or give equal weight to all moral codes – even those to individuals who wish to be part of a group or society. It doesn’t. As I’ve said a couple of times now, a moral relativist can argue or justify the adoption of one moral code over another through any number of arguments. The above arguments regarding the usefulness of a group or society following a uniform (again, not absolute) set of rules to achieve a common goal is such an argument. But it doesn’t rely on the idea that the moral code that is adopted is absolute or God given. It’s based on the idea that things work better that way from a social standpoint.
Consider athletic sports. If you want to play the sport, you voluntarily choose to adopt the rules of the sport so you are allowed to play. You aren’t obligated to play the sport or to follow its rules while not playing and if you do play and break the rules, you get penalized. You will also note that the rules of most sports change somewhat over time. There’s nothing wrong with that since, although the rules might be uniform, they aren’t absolute (as in, God given).
For me, society in general and its use of rules operates pretty much the same way.
3) You said: “You are attempting to define morality with your comparison to the speed of objects.”
No I’m not. My use of the speed analogy is just that – an analogy. It’s mean to illustrate that there is nothing inherently inconsistent with the idea that something can be both relative and still have the ability to be precisely defined since there is an actual example of such a thing.
You said: “Furthermore, I will say, that if you hold fast to your speed analogy, you must concede the point that at least some times, there are moral absolutes, just like the speed of light is absolute.”
No I don’t. Again, the speed analogy was simply meant to get across my ideas of “relative” and “absolute” and how both ideas are self-consistent.
The fact that there happens to exist an entity in our universe which has the same speed for all observers says nothing about the existence of absolute morals. You take the analogy too far. By that argument, would you argue that morals are inherently probabilistic since quantum mechanics says that’s how the properties of all entities ultimately are? No, of course not.
4) I’m sure you can provide an argument to support your theological views. I have no doubt of that. But I’d be willing to bet that people with other views can do the same. Having said that, I would be very much interested in seeing such an argument. Perhaps you could put up a forum topic on it?
You said: “On the other hand, as you said, the moral relativist will use emotion to justify his imposition of his morals on others. He has no other choice. There is no amount of logic that will ever back up a moral relativist moral stands. There is zero common ground the is held among moral relativist when it comes to where did our morals come from. Thus you can never logically and reasonably argue that your morality is the better one.”
What I said was: “If a moral relativist chooses to defend or impose their moral code on another person or group, their justification can be based on any number of things which will ultimately just come down to opinion or maybe emotion.”
I didn’t say that the only way a moral relativist to defend his moral code was through pure emotion without the use of a reasonable argument. (Aside: I avoid the use of the word “logic” since for me, that word only has a specific meaning within certain areas of study. I’ll use “reasonable argument” instead.) Go back to my original post and look at that part about picking reference frames when dealing with physics problems.
You say there is zero common ground, but based on what I’ve said in this post, that’s obviously incorrect. All people share that fact that they are humans who wish to survive and do well and since humans are social animals, most do it within a society. That commonality sets the basis for adopting certain rules which serve as the basis for a moral code because doing so helps individuals achieve the goals they want in life. But, from the moral relativist standpoint, there is nothing absolute or God given about a particular social moral code and different societies will adopt different ones over time.
And again, you keeping coming back to the idea that moral relativism is fundamentally problematic or flawed because an individual moral relativist (or even a society of them when confronting an individual within that society) can’t involve a God to justify their moral code.
You are right - a moral relativist can't invoke God to justify his code. But until you provide definite proof of God and that your moral code is the one he intends for mankind, neither can you. I don’t mean to sound harsh there, but you insisting that you can use logic to convince any reasonable person of your view is something hundreds of thousands of people over the course of human history have said and to my knowledge, the issue of God’s existence still isn’t resolved.
5) You said “This, I believe, is the conundrum of moral relativist. They personally hold absolute moral codes for themselves, but they believe that their personal absolute moral code does not apply to anyone else, but themselves. Another contradiction. Holding absolute morals, but holding others to moral relativism.
Again, you are using the word “absolute” in a way that I’ve explain I don’t.
I don’t view my personal moral code as “absolute”. That would make me a moral absolutist.
I follow the moral code that I have and I believe it to be a good one but I don’t view it as absolute.
Again, is there a contradiction is pointing out that a car can, at the same time, be moving relative to one reference frame and not moving relative to another? I know you don’t like me using a physics example but the fact is, my argument for moral relativism exactly parallels my argument about the relativity of speeds. If there is a contradiction in one, then there must be a contradiction in the other. But, of course, in the case of speed, there is no contradiction.
Your last comments about particles and morality are sort of interesting. For one, you said earlier that you don’t think you can use physics to back up an argument about morals but then you do it.
For another, all your argument really does is give an example of the idea “absolute” and then you assert that morals are absolute. I already understand the idea of “absolute” and I already know you think morals are absolute.
You said: “This is not what I ment with my argument in my earliest post. What I mean is that when two individuals see the same thing, but hold moral opposite views, one or the other must be right.”
Here, I think, is the central problem. In asserting that “one or the other must be right” I’m not sure that you understand that you are making a moral absolutist statement. I also don’t think you understand that I do not agree with the assertion that “one of the other must be right”. If I did, I wouldn’t be a moral relativist.
You said: “Nothing in the universe can be its opposite at exactly the same time. This is a contradiction.”
Again, I’ll refer you to the example of speed. Moving and not moving seem like opposites to me, and yet it is an empirical fact that an object can be both moving and not moving relative to two different reference frames.
I’ll also ask this. Would you say that an object being at point A and not being at point A are opposites? Seems like it to me. But the fact is that elementary particles, while not being observed, can be in situations where they exist at more than one point in space.
Empirical reality is rich enough to give examples of physical systems which mimic each of our views on morality. But you can’t use a physical example to argue that your moral view is the right one.
My use of the idea of speed isn’t meant to argue that moral relativism is correct. As I said, it’s to give an physical example of how something can be relative and yet still be well defined and so is meant to illustrate or explain my view on moral relativism and to show that there is no inherent contradiction.
Edit: Clarification
Hydro,
1) No, I know it is consistent. You haven’t deviated from it, agreed. But it does present a problem. Any type of behavior can be justified with moral relativism. I have always believed that this is a convenience for too many moral relativists, not saying you personally, just in general. The second the moral relativist Nazi becomes a moral absolute what happens? He realizes that his actions are either Wrong or Right. Thus, he rather believe in a moral system that allows him to feel comfortable and not guilty.
Moral relativism attempts to remove guilt from the consequences of our actions. In fact, I’ll take it a step farther and say that moral relativism takes away any type of feelings that are due to our actions. How can you have feelings about something, feel guilty or good about an action since at the end of the day, it is neither Right nor Wrong. Yes, to you personally it might be Wrong or Right, but in the grand skim of things, it is an action that it is neither Wrong nor Right.
Furthermore, the problem with moral relativism is that then there are no inalienable Rights and Freedoms. These are dependent on the society and government we live under. Thus, if in a society rape is morally good and acceptable, then so be it. Moral relativism can justify any action, any. Do you honestly not see a problem with this?
There is something else, with what moral Right do we punish individuals whose morality says that it is ok to rape, murder, steal, and commit all kinds of heinous crimes? Aren’t we imposing our morals on a moral relativists? In fact, the crime at the end may be heinous to you or me, but if it is not horrific for the person that did it, then he did a morally good thing.
You may say that the individual decided to live under our rules and laws, thus he accepted the consequences of living under such society. Two things with this. 1) How about if the individual doesn’t believe like and he believes that he shouldn’t accept the consequences of his actions under our society? 2) how about if the individual had no choice, he doesn’t have the money, time, etc to leave the society which with he disagrees with?
At the end, a moral relativist must admit to the fact that they will do what feels morally good to them non matter the consequences, good or bad, to others. You argue that societies will ultimately adopt uniform laws, etc. This is denying human nature. Human nature is selfish and self-seeking. This is a fact. Watch a child in action. All he/she wants is me, me and then some more me. Look at many an adult today and they are no different than that child, me, me and then some more of me. Thus, ultimately, your morality becomes what feels good to you and who cares about the consequences to others. We do not have to go too far to see this since we are living it already.
Say a moral relativists believes that sleeping around and not using condoms is a good thing. Shoot, it feels good and why use a condom if they do not believe in it, right? Thus, every time this moral relativist sleeps with a different person they are risking the life of the other person, correct? But this is not bad from the stand point of the moral relativist who is doing the sleeping around.
If moral relativism is good, why is it that the consequences to another due to your actions could cost someone else their life?
2) I have to completely disagree that human laws are merely uniform. Using the word “uniform” gives the moral relativists wiggle room to adapt his arguments to the reality he wants, not the reality we live under. Our laws are absolute, not merely uniform. Murder is absolutely wrong under the United States of America’s laws. There are different degrees of punishment depending on the type of murder, but murder is always wrong. Speeding is always, absolutely wrong. There are many other examples of absolute laws in the USA. These are not merely uniform laws, these are absolute laws. Once again, just talking about the USA, the American Constitution is absolute law on all American citizens, not relative and not merely uniform. In fact, I am sure that you are aware that the Father’s of the Constitution chose their wording very, very carefully. That today moral relativists want to interpret the Constitution in a way that matches their morality is something else. The intention of the Founding Fathers was for absolute laws which protect our God given Rights and Freedoms. The way we choose our President is absolute under our Constitution, Right? This is not merely uniform.
Also, I have to say something and I not being condescending or saying this as an attempt to put you down, but merely as a fact. The Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, etc were incredibly well read individuals. Each one of them alone read anywhere between 10,000 to 20,000 books in their life time! They were well versed in Classical history, modern times (for when they lived), etc, etc. all of them believed in absolute morality. In fact, quite a few, including John Adams, said that the American Constitution only worked under a Christian, absolute set of beliefs, nation, not any other type of nation. Once again, I believe we are living under the great decadence of the USA thanks to moral relativism. The end results of an idea is more important than the words, arguments that back it up.
The fact remains that if moral relativism was the way to go then why do we not have relative laws which depend on the individual. You skipped over the fact that if moral relativismwas the way to go, why do societies adopt absolute laws? Why are these necessary for humans who as you claim are, “…social animals, it benefits a society to adopt uniform (not absolute) laws of conduct so the society can function. Allowing individuals to follow their own codes would upset this.” Why does it benefit society to adopt absolute laws over relative laws? Why doesn’t it benefit societies to adopt relative laws? I honestly believe that you are making my argument for me. Absolute moral codes are needed since human beings, who are social animals, will benefit from it because it will allow a society to function. Allowing individuals to follow their own moral codes, moral relativism, would upset this.
Why does it benefit societies to adapt absolute moral laws? This must be answered, not merely stated as you did.
You also skip over the fact that there are laws which have pretty much been adopted by all civil societies, laws which are absolute in all civil societies. Murder is wrong in every single nation on planet Earth, so is killing the leader of a nation?
What has happened to nations that start allowing different laws with in their system? The nation breaks down. Watch as this happens to European nations, like England, France, etc, which are allowing Sharia law to rule certain sectors of their society.
You give the analogy of sports. Let me put it this way to you with the same analogy. Soccer for example, it has had the same rules and regulations. Yes, some have changed and some have been added, but the rules and regulations that make soccer, soccer have been absolute since the beginning of the game. One rule which is absolute in soccer, for example, is that you can never touch the ball with your hands while it is on play unless you are the goalie. This rule has been, is and will always be if soccer wants to remain soccer. If this rule is changed then you get what happened when people attempted to change this rule, something else, Football. Thus proving, with your sports analogy, that there are absolutes.
The fact is that relativism has not created good societies, it hasn’t created good nations. As I have said already a few times, in order for an idea, argument, etc to be true, not only must you prove it with words, the end results must support such an argument. The end results of moral relativism are horrific to humanity.
Here is a quote from a moral relativist, “Everything I have said and done is these last years is relativism, by intuition. From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology, and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable. If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories, and men who claim to be the bearers of an objective immortal truth, then there is nothing more relativistic than fascism.” Benito Mussolini
Mussolini’s Itality, Hitler’s Germany, Mao Tsung’s China are the end results of moral relativism. This alone should send shivers up the spine of any human being. Hundreds of millions dead because of moral relativism. The French Revolution is another example of moral relativism where the goddess of reason ruled the day and Christianity, an absolute, was attacked. In fact, not only attacked, but an attempt to eradicate it from France was made by the atheists and moral relativist. The so called “Enlightment” in France was nothing more than a period of when moral relativism became very popular and countless of Roman Catholic men, women and children were mass murdered. The same thing with Nazi Germany, moral relativism ruled the day and where did it lead to?
Maybe I have approached this all wrong, I think what I need to do is point to where moral relativism has lead humanity. Many more hundreds of millions have died under the hands of atheist and moral relativists than under any other form of morality.
We can argue all we want about which logic is correct, but I think giving examples of where societies which have adopted each of our moral stances have ended is fair game.
If moral relativism is the way to go, why is it that it hasn’t produced one golden age, one prosperous nation, society where everyone thrives and survives?
The practical end results of our moral stances, absolute or relative, are as important as the arguments themselves.
3) Ok, thank you. This makes a lot more sense. I am sorry that I was so incredibly slow and it has taken me a few posts to understand this. The way I look at it, is that you have used the speed analogy a few times and I was scratching my head since none of your analogies work when using the speed of light. Thanks for your patients and explaining this to me.
4) But that is just it, a moral relativists arguments will ultimately come down to opinion and maybe emotion. He/She can’t appeal to anything but himself/herself when attempting to assert that their moral stance is the Right one. Thus, it begs the question, why do they dare believe that they have a moral superiority? They simply don’t. Thus, you must agree with the statement that for a moral relativist everything is an opinion, there are no facts, there are no theories, and everything is merely an opinion of someone which is being expressed by the same individual or another individual.
There is zero common ground amongst moral relativist. I know moral relativists who do not consider themselves humans. I also know moral relativists who could careless about surviving. You just applied an absolute on others, your personal absolute belief that everyone considers themselves “humans who wish to survive and do well and since humans are social animals, most do it within a society.” This statement of yours is merely your opinion, using your arguments so far. Using your points in this forum, it can’t be a fact since I know moral relativists who will 100% disagree with you. Thus, my assertion that moral relativists, while they can be grouped together, not all agree, thus moral relativist do not have a common ground, not even close.
5) But that is just it, if you do not hold your personal moral code to be absolute then you must agree with the statement that killing Jews is morally good. This is a horrific statement, it is, but a reality that many moral absolutes refuse to accept since the ultimate conclusion to their arguments leads to this end.
Yes, you will say, “For me killing a Jew is wrong!”, however, you must admit, using your arguments, that the moral relativist Nazi will say, “For me killing a Jew is Right”. Thus, according to a moral relativist killing a Jew can be Wrong or it can be Right. It is neither one nor the other, it can be both. This is what I believe you refuse to accept. Yes, personally you will say that it is Wrong. You will not hold both views. This you established already and I understood. However, this does nothing for the fact that at exactly the same time the Nazi believes it is morally good and you will believe it is morally wrong. Thus, personally you disagree with the Nazi, however, the statement killing Jews is morally good must be accepted by a moral relativist even if he/she disagrees with it. Just like the Nazi moral relativist would have to accept that the statement “killing a Jew is wrong”.
If morality is relative, if morality is dependent on individuals then the statements, “killing Jews is morally Right” and “Killing Jews is morally Wrong” are both Right and Wrong, it just depends on the person, correct?
6) If you do not believe your personal moral code to be absolute then at some point your moral code could come to the conclusion that killing another human being is morally good, raping a woman is morally good, having sex with a child is morally good. If your moral code is not absolute, then every single action I just pointed to could at some point be morally good, morally acceptable, correct? Not only that, all of the actions I described can be argued to be morally good by someone who believes as much, correct?
I have to ask, how would you argue with someone that killing a Jew is wrong? I am asking a serious question. How would you, as a moral relativists, argue with the Nazi moral relativist?
7) Well, I don’t know if I am making a moral absolute statement. Rather, I am making a logical statement. In logic a statement can’t be both what it is and its opposite. This is a fact of logic, not mine.
8) But this is why I have a hard time accepting your analogy because this is not true. For example, I am writing this on my computer which is sitting on top of my home office desk. None of the objects around me seem to be moving, right? Except for the key strokes moving the keyboards, nothing else seems to be moving. Well, I know this is not true. Everything around me is moving at the same speed as the Earth is moving, the Earth is moving at the same speed as the solar system, the solar system is moving at the same speed as the galaxy. In fact, everything in and on Earth is moving at the same speed as the galaxy. So, while things appear to not be moving the reality is completely different, correct? This is the same thing with morality. While morality seems to change with time, while morality seems to be different from society to society, person to person, ultimately, it is not, The reality is something else despite of how we perceive it or believe it.
Someone who hasn’t studied enough will claim that the pens resting on my desk are not moving. This is false, they are moving regardless of the point of view of the individual, regardless of that person’s reality. Everything is always moving.
It may seem that I am not moving inside of a car, this is false, I am moving even when I am standing still inside of a car. My perception, if I am inside of a car in which I can’t see outside or feel anything, is that I am not be moving, but just because I perceive it, feel it this way, the reality is that I am moving.
Just because something feels a certain way, it does mean that it is.
A candle standing on a table may seem that it is not moving. Relative to me, it is not moving at the same speed that I am as I walk by it, but that candle which is standing “still” on a table, is always moving, always.
9) Yes, it was inconsistent of me to use physics after I said I do not like you using it. However, to be fair, and I should have explained it why I used it after I told you did not like you using it is because I thought you would understand my point better. Sorry for not explaining this.
However, using your speed analogy. I could be wrong, more likely I am, but I thought of something. When I am driving on the road, a cop who is moving and a cop who is not moving can both detect whether I am speeding or not. In fact, a cop in point A, a cop in point B, a cop in point C, while all in different places and different reference points of view as in regards to my moving vehicle can detect that I am speeding. Thus, all cops, whether they were moving in opposite direction than me, whether they were moving behind me or they were standing still in different points can all detect whether I was speeding or not. Thus, it seems to me that even with speed of objects there seems to be a constant, an absolute. By no means am I physics major, so please correct my error if such exists in my logic with regards to speed.
1) What if the Nazi becomes a moral absolutist but adopts a moral code in which it is OK to commit genocide on groups that are judged to be undesirable? He will assert that his moral code is absolute and that it has been given to him by his God. Then what? How do you convince him that his moral code – which he views as absolute, just as you view yours – is wrong?
You seem to assume that if a person becomes a moral absolutist, then they are obligated to adopt your moral code. A quick look at the world around us shows that that obviously isn’t true. There a ton of moral absolutists on this planet who hold to moral codes which fundamentally disagree with yours.
Your comments about why a person might become a moral relativist will, I think, lead this discussion to a dead end. Trying to speculate about why a person adopts one world view over another or trying to attribute general characteristics or motives to a group whose defining characteristic doesn’t justify it is pointless. Your comments about guilt would be like me suggesting that people become moral absolutists because they want to feel superior to others. It’s neither accurate nor useful.
Yes, an individual can adopt a moral code, view it as relative and use it to justify just about any action they can think of. An individual can also adopt a moral code, view is as absolute and use it to justify just about any action they can think of as well. History is full of moral absolutists who have used their moral codes to commit horrible acts as well. What’s the difference?
And how do you prove to these moral absolutists that their moral codes are wrong?
Again, the issue of justification. I’ve already explain that a moral relativist’s justification for following one code over another can be based on any number of arguments (except, obviously, that it’s absolute or God given). They can be based on philosophical or anthropological or pragmatic arguments. None of these arguments are meant to suggest that a given moral code is absolute but they can be used to argue that it’s the best for the circumstances.
Same goes with imposing a moral code on another person who doesn’t follow it. Recognizing that morals are relative doesn’t prevent me from believing in the benefits of my code and doesn’t prevent me from being able to justify the imposition of that code on another based on the same types of arguments I mention above. To a moral relativist, the fact that I can’t say my moral code is God given doesn’t pose a problem.
Consider a parent with a child. If that parents imposes the restriction that the child can only watch ten hours of television per week, can the child side-step that rule by pointing out that there is nothing absolute or God given about ten hours of TV? I’m sure they can try, but I’m figuring the parent will go ahead and impose the restriction anyways, despite the fact that they will recognize that there is nothing objectively absolute or God given about that number of hours. They will justify it based on their views of how best to raise a child and what they know about the effects of TV on child development and any number of other factors – including “’Cause I said so” – as well as the fact that they are in a position to impose the code with or without justification.
Justification of a moral code from a relativist standpoint is problematic for you since to you, a moral code has no justification if it isn’t the one absolute moral code given by God. But you are using your criterion of justification to criticize a view point which doesn’t use that criterion.
By your standard, no argument a moral relativist could present to justify his moral code is sufficient since, pretty much by definition, the moral relativist is wrong from the start.
But as I’ve pointed out before, you can’t justify your view either, so what’s the difference other than one of view point of opinion.
You wrote: “At the end, a moral relativist must admit to the fact that they will do what feels morally good to them non matter the consequences, good or bad, to others.”
I flat out disagree with this statement. I’m a moral relativist. Are you suggesting I go about my day doing whatever I feel like doing, regardless of the consequences?
Regardless of how selfish some humans might be, the fact remains that they need to survive with other humans in a social environment and that takes precedents (for most) over the desire to simply go around doing whatever you want.
You seem to be confusing moral relativism with hedonism. They are not the same thing.
And I’ve never said “moral relativism is good”. My assertion that morals are relative is more along the lines of an observation about humans and is no different than holding the view that humans tend to like being with other humans or that children tend to be selfish.
2) My use of the word “uniform” to describe the legal rules societies tend to adopt isn’t meant as wiggle room for my argument. This argument is about moral codes – not legal ones. You can call the laws of some country or society “absolute” if you want but I’ve already defined how I’m using that word and the fact – to use your example – that murder is and has been allowed under the laws of certain countries and societies demonstrates that legal rules don’t apply to everyone, everywhere under all circumstances (which is the definition I said I would adopt in the post which began this forum topic).
Given that, the rest of your argument here seems to basically parallel mine – except you assert that laws are “absolute” while I do not.
The fact that most societies tend to adopt certain core rules can be explained by the simple fact that all societies are made up of humans who are (for the most part) social animals who want to stay alive and maybe even live a comfortable life. That commonality can be used as the basis for why societies tend to adopt uniform rules (as in generally applying to large segments of their population) and why different societies tend to have some rules which are basically the same (although the fact that there are exceptions undermines your assertion that these rules are absolute).
Also, please point out to me where I’ve ever said or even suggested in this conversation that moral relativism is the “way to go”. I haven’t.
You wrote: “Soccer for example, it has had the same rules and regulations. Yes, some have changed and some have been added, but the rules and regulations that make soccer, soccer have been absolute since the beginning of the game.”
How can something which has changed be absolute? I’m not asking to be snide, but the fact that you would write this tells me that we are not even on the same page when it comes to the words “relative” and “absolute” which is a huge problem given what this discussion is about.
Your arguments about the results of moral relativism in Italy, Germany and China mean nothing to this conversation. I could just as easily give you a long list of atrocities committed in the name of just about any religion you like – including Christianity. So what? In what way does that address my argument that moral relativism can be formulated in a way that is self consistency? It doesn’t.
3) No problem.
4) Your wrote: “Thus, you must agree with the statement that for a moral relativist everything is an opinion, there are no facts, there are no theories, and everything is merely an opinion of someone which is being expressed by the same individual or another individual.”
I’ve already addressed the idea of justification above. A moral relativist can obviously use whatever facts and theories he has at his disposal and whatever argument he can come up with to justify their moral code or the imposition of it. The fact that the moral relativist doesn’t believe his moral code is God given doesn’t prevent this.
But let me turn this around, for a moment. How do you justify your moral code? Can you prove that there is a God and that your moral code is the one he intends for humans? Or, instead, can you offer a reasonable argument backed up with facts and theories which support it? If it is the latter then what is the difference between you and a moral relativist?
As for commonality – yes, of course there are exceptions. Please don’t tell me that you expect me to write out things like that for every point that I am trying to make – otherwise these posts will become ten times longer than they already are – and please don’t use the fact that I didn’t as an excuse to accuse me of trying to assert something that I obviously wasn’t.
So you know moral relativists who don’t consider themselves human and you know moral relativists who don’t care about survival and so all moral relativists fail to have anything in common? I’m sorry but I don’t see how that follows.
Can I use the same argument to suggest that since I know some moral absolutists who are thieves that all moral absolutists lack scruples?
5) You wrote: “But that is just it, if you do not hold your personal moral code to be absolute then you must agree with the statement that killing Jews is morally good.”
You also wrote: “It is neither one nor the other, it can be both. “
I honestly don’t know how else to explain this to you.
Moral judgments are assessed relative to a moral code. An action or thought can be judged as morally right relative to one moral code and morally wrong according to another. Just as an object can be moving relative to one reference frame and standing still to another, there is no contradiction since contradictory characteristics are never assessed at the same time from a given reference frame.
OK, I’m going to go back to the speed analogy and I’m going to ask you a simple question. Let’s say that you drive past me in a car. From your frame of reference, the car is standing still relative to you. From my frame of reference, the car is moving relative to me. Who’s right?
(Actually, I address this in more detail at the end of this post - so don't answer this until you get to the end)
6) It would seem that we are back to the idea of justification. This seems to be a big issue with you.
Yes, I suppose it’s possible that I could have some sort of complete mental break down and accept the things you mentioned as morally good. I’m guessing you could too.
And as I’ve said, if I were inclined to try to argue with someone who had a different moral code than mine I would try to put forth the best argument I could given my view of things, their view of things, what things they accept as givens and given the circumstances and the specific topic being discussed.
Why? How do you argue things?
Of course, I’m being a bit flippant. If it was 1943 and I was wearing the uniform of an American soldier, I don’t think I’d be trying to convince a Nazi of anything. As an American moral relativist, I think I would do my duty and but a bullet or two in him.
7) I’m not sure which statement of mine you are referring to so I can’t comment.
8) I should clarify something about my speed analogy. The examples you use – of the Earth, Solar System and Sun – are complicated by the fact that all of these systems are undergoing accelerations by virtue of the fact that they are in orbit (i.e. have forces acting on them). So in those cases, you can’t argue that those systems are standing still since you can’t really get rid of an acceleration by an appropriate choice of non-accelerating reference frame. (You can go to what’s called a non-inertial reference frame where you imagine that the Earth, for example, is standing still and the rest of everything else if revolving around it but even then, you end up introducing what are called fictional forces which make it clear that your are just using a trick to maybe make the analysis of the system easier).
In the case of non-accelerating systems, you can always pick a reference frame where any given object isn’t moving (except for light, of course). For accelerating ones, you can’t.
So let me clarify a little – or at least ask a question which still gets my point across – what was the average speed of the Earth today?
In order to answer that question – in order to be able to give me an actual numerical answer – you have to ask me to specify a reference frame to measure that speed from. Should it be relative to the Moon or Mars or the Sun or the center of the galaxy or where? If the Earth had an absolute speed, then it would have to be relative to some absolute reference frame. So which reference frame is that?
Similarly, going back to the car example, if I ask you what your average speed was over the course of some part of your trip, you would have to ask me to specify the reference frame.
I think you would agree that your speed relative to the Earth would be different than relative to the Sun, right?
So which is the real (or absolute) speed?
The answer is that there is no such thing. All speeds are relative to a reference frame (again, with the exception of light).
Regarding your question about cops being able to detect your speed – a moving cop has to account for his speed relative to yours in order to determine if you are speeding. Since I’ve never asked a cop about this, I’m guessing back in the day they had to just keep track of their speed but these days, I would guess that GPS systems make it pretty easy.
Look – consider the following. What if you are going 70 mi/hr (relative to the Earth - notice how I have to specify that) in a car and there is a cop sitting next to you in the passenger seat and let’s say he points a radar detector at you. Do you think it will read 70 mi/hr? No, it will read 0 mi/hr. What if he is in a car traveling right next to your car and going 70 mi/hr as well? Does moving the cop ten feet from you and putting him in another car, but otherwise keeping him going at the same speed make a difference to what his radar gun will read? Nope. If the cop in his car is going a little slower than you – say 69 mi/hr – then what will his radar gun read? It will just read the difference between your two speeds, 1 mi/hr.
You see where I’m going with this. Radar guns read the relative difference is speeds. To find the speed relative to the Earth the cop has to somehow add or subtract off his speed if he is also moving relative to the Earth (or let a GPS system do it for him).
Edit: Clarification
Hydro,
1) But that is just it. If the Nazi adopts a Moral Absolute to justify his atrocities, at least you can argue with him/her about what is Right and Wrong. As an absolutist, they will believe that there is One Right and One Wrong, not merely human opinions, which is what Moral Relativism is all about, mere human opinions.
Muslims, which I know are 100% wrong in their beliefs, can be debated against and be converted to Christianity. Why? Because they understand the concept of Moral Absolutes and believe in them. They just have their moral absolutes wrong.
As to your assertion that I can’t argue my point of view about Moral Absolutes or prove that it is Right. Hmmm….this is your mere opinion, Hydro. It is not fact based. It is your mere opinion, as a mere human, that Moral Absolutes can’t be proven. But I whole heartily reject this! Or are you willing to make a Moral Absolute Statement that Moral Absolutes can’t be proven?
This might offend you, but I do not believe you can deny it. Yes, in those things that you believe will not affect other human beings negatively, based on your mere human opinion of what is morally negative, you will do what pleases you. You will be selfish and do what pleases you. In those things that your mere human opinion has concluded that it will harm other human beings, you will not act selfishly.
However, I think you are an older person. Probably past your early 40s, am I correct? Today’s younger generation of Moral Relativists think very different than you. Whether you admit it or not, you probably have a lot of traditions and moral beliefs based on Christian virtues, principles and moral absolutes. Today’s younger generation beliefs of Moral Relativism are all about what pleases them without a care in the world of what hurts others. Moral Relativism has led to hedonism being widely accept it.
How do I convince a 20 year old college kid, who is a Moral Relativists, that sleeping around is morally wrong if in his morality, it is Right? It is not Wrong? I can’t, and I won’t. I can appeal to STDs, I can appeal to how he is going to get emotionally hurt and hurt others. But my mere human opinion, as he will see it since he is a Moral Relativist, will not convince him that he is doing Wrong by sleeping around. Now multiply this one 20 year old kid with the hundreds of thousands if not millions that are in college today.
Working with 18 to 25+ year olds, I have countless of times been asked, but why shouldn’t I do what pleases me or what makes me happy? Why should I sacrifice my happiness to make others happy? I believe my happiness comes first, not that of others.
Human beings have, sadly, a way of being self-destructive. I am unsure why, but you seem to deny human nature which can be seen throughout history. It is selfish and self-destructive. You seem to believe that your personal beliefs is what is believed by all Moral Relatives.
You use the analogy of a child to explain how moral codes are imposed. However, I disagree with the analogy. In your analogy you are comparing children to adults! You can’t simply tell adults, “My moral code is superior because I said so. Now follow it or else!”
For me, for any moral absolutist to follow your moral code, Hydro, you MUST justify why your moral code is superior. You MUST justify how my moral code is inferior to yours.
And this is not only with any Moral Absolutists, but also with any Moral Relativist. Yes, you can impose your moral code. However, in order for people not to rebel against your moral code you must justify how your moral code is superior to any other moral code.
From your personal point of view, since it is you holding the “superior” moral code which is being imposed, you do not see a problem. But for those individuals who are being subjugated to your moral code there will be a huge problem if you can’t justify how your moral code is superior, holds more weight, thus it is the one that needs to be followed.
And once again, that my point of view can’t be justified. I 100% disagree with this absolute moral statement of yours. I urge you to read St. Augustine, St. Thomas Moore, St. Thomas Aquinas, C.S. Lewis. Now one who has read these with an open mind, and who has read every single book and writings of theirs can honestly claim that there is no prove of God or Moral Absolutes!
But I must ask. how can you make the absolute moral statement that I can’t justify my moral code and then claim that you are a Moral Relativists? And it is a moral statement about my morality which you are making. There is no way to get around it. Or is it that your morality holds more weight than mine? But if this is true, prove it. Prove how your moral code holds more weight than mine.
2) You are not getting to the core of the issue here. Why do all humans want to stay alive? Why do we have this instinct in us? And if Absolute laws exist in nations and nations are a human invention, ultimately it is for ALL humans, regardless of nations to live in harmony, why wouldn’t there exist Absolute Moral Codes which will help ALL human beings, regardless of nations to live in harmony?
You seem to contradict yourself. So, Absolute Moral Laws exist in nations because human beings want to live in harmony, but they do not exist as a whole for all human beings? Do human beings only want to live in harmony with their fellow patriots and forget the rest of the world?
And where do these laws come from? Why have we decided as human beings that murder is Morally Wrong? Instinct? Anthropological? Societal? So, once it murder is not needed to keep humans living in harmony it will be ok to murder. Using your logic, yes.
The Soccer analogy. I don’t think I explained myself well. There is an absolute rule in soccer. It has always existed and it will always exist. Unless you are the goalie, you can’t touch the ball with your hands while it is in play. Do you deny the existence of this absolute rule in soccer? You can’t, if you deny this rule, then soccer isn’t soccer, it is another game. That there have been some rules changed, modified, etc. yes, but there core, the absolute rule has never once changed! Thus my analogy stands.
Also, as a Moral Relativist, you do not believe in our Declaration of Independence or Constitution. In it, it clearly says, that all Rights and Freedoms given to men are UNALIENABLE Rights and Freedoms. If our moral codes, if our Rights and Freedoms come from men then as men change, moral codes will change and the Rights and Freedoms of men will change as time passes. Thus they become rights and freedoms which are dependent on the whims of men. Thus, the Rights and Freedoms spelled in the Constitution, “…that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” If you believe in this part of the Constitution, you are a Moral Absolute. If you do not believe in it, then you believe that human rights and freedoms are merely the opinions of a few men and women at a given time and place. You did not address this point.
I mean no insult by this, but I believe you are being somewhat naïve when you claim that for the most part, human beings want to live in harmony with each other. I think this doesn’t explain centuries, upon centuries, countless upon countless of wars from the very beginning of our existence.
3) You are right, a moral relativists can use any and all arguments it wants and can which are at his/her disposal. This does not explain why their morality is superior and should be followed. All you would be doing is stating your opinion and then backing up your opinion with things you believe help you back it up. However, at the end, it is merely you human opinion.
Why does your human opinion have more weight than my human opinion? It simply does not! Unless you are willing to admit that in order to hold a superior moral opinion, you have to also believe that you are a superior human being.
You will say, “My moral judgments are based on my moral code, my moral points of views.” Yes, so what?! How does this make you Right or Wrong? This does not change the fact that it is your opinion about morality, not a fact.
4) You have to explain how your moral code, your moral point of view is superior! You can’t simply state, “My moral code which states that killing Jews is bad is superior to yours, you evil Nazi! Who believes killing Jews is good!” So what you believe this?! What moral superiority, what moral authority do you hold to make such a claim?! That your moral point of view tells you so? Really? Who cares! You are a mere human being equal to me, to the Nazi. Why does your morality weight more than mine?
I completely understand that from your moral point of view, from your moral code, you asses what is right and wrong (not capitalized since you do not believe in moral absolutes). But so what? This is your moral code that you hold as a mere human being.
How does using moral judgments based on your points of view, assessed relative to your moral code, make your moral code superior to the Nazis? How can you claim that your moral code holds more weight than the Nazis when both are mere human moral codes and human beings are all equal? Or are you saying that there are human beings who are superior to others and these are the ones who hold the superior moral codes?
Yes, justification is a very important part of this.
You said, “Let’s say that you drive past me in a car. From your frame of reference, the car is standing still relative to you. From my frame of reference, the car is moving relative to me. Who’s right?”
This analogy seems to imply that there are no Rights or Wrongs, merely opinions based one ones point of view!
I ask you, using your “I do not believe all moral codes are equal, more weight is put on some than others” Who is right? Me, who saw the car standing still or you who sees the car moving relative to you? Even according to you, there is only one answer which should be given more weight than the other! The only way to give more weight to one answer over the other is to claim that one of the two is a superior human being, one has more knowledge, more education, superior intelligence, etc, etc. If not, then both answers are correct which then contradicts, using this analogy, what you have said that moral codes are weighted, not considered equal to each other by most Moral Relativists.
As I said, though, I completely reject the notion that you can compare Moral Codes to the Laws of Physics. However, you insist on using them which just contradicted one of your own personal premises.
At the end of the day, what you have failed to explain is how two human beings, who are Moral Relativists and who hold different moral codes can come to the conclusion that one of the two Moral codes is superior to the other.
Part of your defense is to claim that Moral Absolutist are not able to do this either, which I disagree, but that is a red herring.
By the way, if Morality is Relative and it all depends in our points of views, on our personal moral codes. Why argue, debate about them? Is it not as trivial then as to argue about fashion? Is it not as trivial as to argue which is the best television show?
When you began this it was during a forum in which I said that Moral Relativists can easily be proven wrong. You said otherwise and here we are. But if morality is based on our opinions, in what we believe to be personally right and wrong, no different than what we believe to be good fashion, which is different from person to person. No different than our favorite car, then why argue about such a trivial things as morality?
Don’t worry, I am not trying to end this, I am asking an honest question.
5) Well, back in 1940, if I had been a soldier, I too would have served my nation well and probably killed quite a few Nazis, Japanese and Italians.
However, the question is, how did we know we, the Americans, the Allies, held the superior moral code?
Moral Relativists can state all they want that their personal moral code is the better one, but at the end of the day, it is no better, from a human stand point, than that of any other human being. Unless of course you can prove to everyone else that you moral code is superior.
To go back to the beginning of this post. You, of course, will not have a problem imposing your moral code on someone else. It is your moral code which you believe it to be superior to all others. However, you will have a very hard time convincing other human beings, that a moral code created by another human being is superior to theirs. In fact, it is next to impossible.
Here is another problem with Moral Relativist. They claim that morality is dependent on the individual. Each individual will have their own personal moral codes. Thus they admit that other moral codes exist which are different than theirs. They may disagree with it, but they must admit that other moral codes exis.
For example, a moral relativist arguing against a Nazi moral relativist must admit that there exists a moral code which allows for the killing of Jews. Thus, you as a Moral Relativist must accept that there are Moral Absolutes, why? Because I believe as much. This is my moral code. You may disagree with my moral codes all you want, however, my moral code exists. My Moral code is that there are Moral Absolutes. Thus, Moral Absolutes exist according to the logic of moral relativism.
If moral codes are dependent upon the individual's personal beliefs and that person holds their Moral code to be based on moral absolutes, then the Moral Relativist has no choice, but to accept that moral absolutes exist. If you do not accept this, then you are denying the basis of Moral Relativism that morality is dependent on the individual. This, of course, creates a contradiction, a conundrum.
By claiming that my moral code does not exist then you are contradicting Moral Relativism. My moral code does exist, at minimum within me along within any other individuals who believe in moral absolutes. And of course, if moral absolutes exist...then moral relativism doesn't. The problem with moral relativism is that it negates itself.
This just sounds like Slyrr's argument again.
As a moral relativist, I'm not obligated to accept the beliefs of your or any moral code other than, perhaps, my own (and even then, I won't believe my own are absolute).
The fact that your moral code entails a belief in absolute morals doesn't require me to accept that idea as well and nothing in the moral relativist view entails that.
By that argument, if I acknowledge that different people have different views about the existence of the Higgs boson - with some believing that it exists, other that it doesn't and most not caring one way or the other - then somehow that requires me to accept that all of those views are all correct at the same time?
I think you are unintentionally mischaracterizing what moral relativism is in order to try to show that it leads to a contradiction. In my initial post here, I pointed out that the only group of relativists who this type of argument might work against are the normative relativists and they are a small subgroup of this moral relativist view. And I'm certainly not one of them.
Unless you can explain how the belief that different people have different moral codes and that none of them are absolute requires me to accept the views and judgments of any and all conceivable moral codes, the above argument doesn't work against most moral relativists.
Hydro,
I think I did not state it well.
1) Moral Relativists acknowledge the existence of other moral codes. Correct? Yes. (I do not believe this is a mischaracterization of moral relativists).
2) You said, in an earlier post, "Yes, according to moral relativism, any conceivable action might be justifiable (considered morally good) according to some individual’s or societies’ moral code. And yes, that includes things like genocide and rape." Thus, you acknowledge the existence of countless other moral codes. You will not put the same weight in all of them, but you agree, nonetheless, that these exist.
3) Question. Hydro, do I have a moral code? Do you acknowledge that I have a moral code? Or do you acknowledge the moral code of the Nazis, the rapist, the murderer, but just no mine because it has that absolute thing in it? or do you deny that I hold a moral code because it is an absolute moral code? If the latter is the case, you are contradicting one of the central premises of Moral Relativism which is acknowledging the existence of different moral codes, for different people and societies.
There are countless of peoples and societies which have held moral absolutes. These have existed. Or do you deny the existence of such moral codes?
It seems that Moral Relativists have no problem acknowledging the existence of the moral code of the Nazis, of the Aztecs, of the Communist, but wow, careful, you can't acknowledge the existence of the moral code of anyone who beliefs in moral absolutes.
but if you deny the existence of one moral code, you are denying Moral Relativism. But, if you acknowledge the existence of my moral code, which has absolutes, well you also deny Moral Relativism.
4) As a Moral Relative, who is not a normative moral relativists, how can you put any more or less weight in any moral code? You have mentioned this a few times, but have not justified how you do this?
In order to put more weight in any moral code which a human being or group of human beings have come up with, you must hold the opinion that you are superior to other human beings. This might be that you believe you have a superior education or that you have superior knowledge or that you are just a superior human being. However, in order to put in order, to put weight, on moral codes, you must believe that some of these are superior and others inferior.
Moral Relativists believe that humans, societies, who are made up of humans, are the ones who create moral codes. In order to claim that some moral codes, created by humans, have more weight than other ones, also created by humans, you must believe that somehow you as a human, and your morality is superior.
But humans create moral codes, if all moral codes are not created equal, that means that there are superior and inferior human beings.
So, I ask again, how do you decide, what authority do you put behind your moral code to believe it is has more weight and is the one that you must follow?
and of course, you once again hold a moral absolute standard, that not all moral codes are to be given the same weight! You hold an objective truth about morality, that all moral codes are not created equal. Not to mention the Moral Relativist's holy grail, THE one objective moral truth they can't get away from, that there has never been, there isn't and there will never be an objective moral truth.
1) Yes.
2) Yes.
3) I acknowledge that you have a moral code and that part of it is the idea that morals are absolute. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that this entire discussion has been predicated on me acknowledging that. If I didn't acknowledge that, then how could I possibly acknowledge that you and I have differing views on morals.
Besides, in my last post I fully acknowledged that there are people who have moral codes that they view as absolute, so I have no idea where this is coming from.
Again, I don't see how me acknowledging that you have a moral code which you view to be absolute forces me to deny moral relativism. Unless you think that the word "acknowledge" means to "accept as true"? It doesn't. I can acknowledge that my five year old niece believes in Santa Clause but that doesn't mean that in doing so, I also believe in Santa Clause.
4) I've already talked about justification in my other (longer) post here today.
But I will add this - are all cars equal? Are there cars that perform better than others, which last longer than others, which look better than others, which do the job they are designed for better than others?
I think most people would have no trouble saying yes to those questions. And I think you would agree that different people would come up with different answers as to which cars are better, last longer, etc.. and I'm sure those people - particularly those who know about cars - could provide you with well thought out arguments about why.
Explain to me why the same can't apply to moral codes on the assumption that morals are relative.
As for you last comment, first I'll say that being a moral relativist doesn't require you to think that there never has been, is or will be an absolute moral code. As a simple counter example, you can hold the belief that it is possible that there is an absolute moral code but that it's unknown to humans at the present. Consequently, humans have had to come up with their own, relative, moral codes. So, again, you seem to be attributing views to the moral relativist which they are not obligated to hold.
Second, we have already gone over this. You view comments about moral codes as moral judgments and I don't. I thought we had agreed that this was an impasse since it basically came down to a difference in opinion. So I'm not sure why you are bringing this up again.
Hydro,
1) Yes. Agreed.
2) Yes. Agreed.
3) Wait! You acknowledge in in the first one, in (1) the existence of other moral codes!, but now you are saying that you only acknowledge that I believe in a moral code that is absolute?
Of course, I know what acknowledge means, no need to define it for me. But Moral Relativists do not merely acknowledge that others have or believe in moral codes. Moral Relativists acknowledge the EXISTENCE of other moral codes, not merely that others believe other moral codes, as you asserted with a "YES" to my question in number (1).
To use your Saint Nicholas analogy. A Moral Relativists would not simply acknowledge that your daughter believes in Santa, they would acknowledge the existence of Santa. Of course, now replace Santa with Moral Code. However, as you have said, they would not put weight in that moral code. But they would acknowledge the EXISTENCE of the moral code, not merely that someone believes in another moral code.
You acknowledge the existence of a moral code that says that killing Jews is morally good, correct? It is not merely that the Nazi believes in this moral code, but rather that this moral code exists. As Moral Relativist you must believe this. However, you do not acknowledge the existence of my moral code, which includes moral absolutes. You only acknowledge that I believe in moral absolutes?
You can’t say yes to 1 and 2 and then claim that my moral code does not exist. This goes well beyond you simply acknowledging that I believe my moral code with absolutes exists. It is that you accept the existence of my moral code. No different than you accepting the existence of the Nazis moral code. If you do not accept the existence of my moral code then why do you accept the existence of the moral code of the Nazi or of anyone else? Then there aren’t different moral codes, there is only Hydro’s moral code which gets to pick and choose which moral codes exists and which ones do not. Of course one must ask, why is you moral code superior?
So, I ask again, do you acknowledge the existence of my moral code? If you do not, then you are contradicting one of the premises of Moral Relativism. If you acknowledge the existence of my moral code, which as a Moral Relativist you must accept the existence of other moral codes, then Moral Relativism contradicts itself.
If you hold, as a moral relativists, that you merely acknowledge that others believe that their moral codes exist you are implying, then, that in your view, no other moral code exists, but yours. Just because someone believes that their moral code exists it doesn’t make it so. This, of course, completely contradicts the premise of Moral Relativism which does a lot more than merely acknowledge that others believe that their moral codes exist. Moral Relativism accepts the existence of many moral codes, of other moral codes. You accept this when you said “Yes” to (1) and (2). Thus, as a Moral Relativist, you must accept that my moral code, which includes absolutes, exists. Just like you accepted that the moral code of a Nazi exists. The problem is, that the second you accept my moral code, which includes absolutes, you contradict Moral Relativism.
Hydro, I just hold Morality in a much, much WAY higher plain and I do mean in a WAY higher plain than cars. In the grand scheme of things what car is the best vs. which one is not is trivial. I don't hold Morality to be as trivial as a car.
A discussion of Rx-8 versus a Supra is nowhere near as important to humanity as to whether it is morally Right or Wrong to kill another human being. I will be honest. If you can’t see how different this is then we have come to an impasse which makes this conversation as trivial and silly as talking about which fashion of clothes is better for the Fall 2011. In other words, it is a airheaded, pointless and meaningless conversation. Correct me if I am wrong, I don’t think you believe this is a trivial conversation, correct?
Additionally, when people argue about cars there is one constant, each one claims that the car manufacturer, the engineers, designers and builders are the superior ones! When you speak of which car is better, you don’t merely say. “This car is better. Period!” No real car aficionado will take you seriously. You have to prove why the car you claim is superior is superior. And the car can’t be superior merely because I believe it, because it is my point of view, because I hold this opinion. I prove it! How? By pointing out to who built it, how it was built, the engineering behind it, how well it has done in the test drives, in real life driving etc, etc, etc. And that is exactly my point.
You can’t simply tell others that your morality is superior, that you hold more weight to your morality because it is yours and you say so. You need to prove why if you want others to follow your morality. Yes, justification. And pointing out that human beings need morality and giving anthropological, psychological or societal reasons are not good enough to prove that your moral code deserves more weight than mine.
Why does your moral code deserve more weight than mine? Why is your moral code, in your eyes, superior to mine?
In order to debate what moral code is to be given more weight, naturally, you have to talk about which one has the superior “manufacturer”! In order to hold the belief that any moral code is superior, in order to believe that you can’t weigh all moral codes equally then you must believe that the force that created that moral code is superior and worthy of giving it more weight than others. No escaping this logic Hydro.
Your car analogy does you in.
4) I think you are getting backed up into a corner and stating things that Moral Relativist do not believe. I know of no Moral Relativist, studied, read or debated against who will EVER accept that there are Moral Absolutes now or in the future. Moral Relativism would fall apart if they acknowledge this. The whole premise of Moral Relativism is that there has never been, there isn’t and there will never ben Moral Absolutes.
Yet, now, given that I have presented you with an argument that you can't break, you claim that a Moral Relativist would claim that there can be Moral Absolutes, just that we do not know what these absolutes are? I am sorry, Hydro, no true Moral Relativist would ever make such an acknowledgement. If this is in fact true, then it is over. You just acknowledge the existence of Moral Absolutes. You just believe that so far we do not know which ones they are. But if there are Moral Absolutes, as you claim, then Moral Relativism IS wrong, even if we are using them until we find out the Moral Absolutes.
Additionally, you did not answer the question. What authority do you put behind any moral code, as a moral relativist, to claim that some moral codes are superior to others? Where does your authority come to make such a decision?
1) I’m a little confused by your suggestion that I didn’t mention the speed of light because I did. In fact, I mentioned light precisely to demonstrate the difference between the terms “relative” and “absolute”.
My point in doing that was to suggest that attributing the properties of “absolute” and “relative” to an idea or concept doesn’t, in and of itself, introduce anything problematic or contradictory since there is a physical, empirically supported, example of this in the case of the idea of speed.
Your view of morality is analogous to the view that the speed of light is absolute. My view of morality is analogous to the view that the speed of all other objects is relative.
2) A moral relativist wouldn’t view their own moral code as “absolute”, as you suggest. Otherwise they wouldn’t be moral relativists.
However, a moral relativist might view his or her moral code as “better” or “superior” to another based on the perceived merits they attribute to it.
Going back to my speed analogy – when dealing with certain physics problems, one of the first things you have to do is pick a reference frame. Which one you pick ultimately doesn’t matter since the physics of what’s going on doesn’t depend on this choice. However, which reference frame you pick will make a difference as far as the details involved in solving the problem mathematically.
Some reference frames will make the math harder than others or will require certain mathematical techniques which another choice won’t require. So in a sense, for a given problem, there are some reference frames which are “better” or “superior” to others in that they make the job of solving the problem easier.
But acknowledging that isn’t the same as suggesting that there is an “absolute” reference frame which I must use in tackling the problem.
I would suggest that moral codes are treated in a similar manner – at least in theory. In practice, I don’t think there is that much of a real choice when it comes to which moral code a particular person has adopted. I think people tend to gravitate toward a certain moral code based on their upbringing and on the core ideas they have.
3) You argue that moral relativists who try to argue for the merits of their moral code are basically contradicting themselves.
Well, if they argue that their moral code is superior in an absolute sense, then yes they do – and they obviously don’t understand what moral relativism is. I like to think that I’m not one of these people. If, on the other hand, they argue that their moral code is, in some sense “better”, then there isn’t necessarily a contradiction.
Going back to my speed analogy - I can argue that one particular reference frame is a better choice over another because it makes the problem easier to solve or maybe because it provides some insight which another doesn’t. There is nothing contradictory in this. In a similar fashion, a moral relativist might argue in defense of their moral code based on any number of factors which they think make their moral code the best choice. As long as they recognize that ultimately their moral code has no more absolute justification than any other – that they are defending one moral code over another based on their person views on things – then there is no contradiction – just a difference of opinion.
4) You ask how two individuals or groups consisting of moral relativists with differing moral codes reconcile differences. Well, they certainly can’t do it by appeals to an absolute or God given moral code. I’d imagine the situation is no different than one involving two moral absolutists with moral codes based on two different and incompatible religions. Sometimes they agree to disagree, sometimes they get into arguments and sometimes they get into fights.
Related to this, you asked: “How can one human being, without proof that his/her moral code is superior, convince another one that their moral code is wrong?”
Well, until you can prove the existence of God and prove that he is the God which your religion and your moral code is based on, you are basically in the same boat as a moral relativist. The difference is that the moral relativist believes there is not absolute code while you do but are unable to prove it. The end results seems the same to me.
You also ask: “How can two moral relativists convince each other that his/her moral code is superior and the one that must be follow? It is simply, impossible.”
As I indicated above, you either have to try to convince them that your moral code has more merit than theirs or, as history seems to suggest, you do it by force. Of course, many moral relativists (such as me) don’t feel compelled to convince others of their views so the situation might not even come up. For example, you would be hard pressed to find any posts from me on this website where I advocate one moral stance over another which is why I typically avoid topics like gay marriage and abortion.
5) Now onto the issue of whether the statement “morals are relative” (or “all morals are relative”) is or isn’t itself a moral statement. In my original post, I said that this statement is “…meant as an objective statement about an aspect of human conduct and behavior and not as a moral judgment.”
To elaborate on this, I’ll say that statements or observations about morality are, for me, basically observations about human conduce and so might count as anthropological statements. For me, morals are simply codified rules of conduct developed over time by humans as a result of the fact that we are social animals.
Pointing out that different groups of humans develop different moral codes and that moral judgments are made in relation to a given moral code is, to me, no more a moral statement than pointing out that in some animal societies, there is a hierarchy in which the dominant members have more control over less dominant members and that there are animal societies in which this doesn’t happen.
I understand that, from your standpoint, you don’t view morals like this. My point is that there is nothing, on the face of which, which prevents me from viewing statements about morals in the way that I’ve described above. Consequently, from my standpoint, saying that “morals are relative” doesn’t entail a moral judgment – it’s more along the lines of an empirical observation in the same way that pointing out that speeds are relative (with the exception of light, of course).
6) As a final comment, I understand that your view of moral relativism might be based on your interactions with other moral relativists and the way they argue about morals but I'm not those people and I can't (and don't want to) speak for them. I did make some comments in this post where I speculate (in a general sense) on the reasons why a particular moral relativist might do or say what they do but I'll avoid doing that in the future since I can only speak for myself.
7) And to echo your sentiments, I look forward to a friendly exchange.
- Login to post comments
What I refer to as "Human Moral Code" is what was called the "Natural Law" from classical antiquity. Today it is so taken for granted in our everyday life (including this very forum), that we've now lost this basic notion of the Natural Law.
Unfortunately, I am time limited to fomulate a well written "Defense of the Existence of a Universal Human Moral Code." In fact, you'll forgive me that I haven't even the time right now to have read through the entire thread before jumping in (call me impulsive). So please pardon me if I've missed something. And I now offer some disjointed thoughts here.