Hanfstaengl
New Member
Only time will tell and we'll all be dead so who cares? Me?
Moral Relativism - Is It Unavoidable or Unacceptable?
- Thread starter Dubversion
- Start date
MysteryGuest said:So nobody can have anything other than a ‘mere’ opinion. Which you’re now stating in the manner of an objective fact.You seem to be quite (understandably) upset regarding what you ‘merely in your opinion’ see as exploitation of women in the porn thread over in the Relationships forum, but by what you’ve posted here, you have to keep it to yourself. I can see why this would cause anguish. I feel your pain!
However…
I don’t understand why if morals need to be agreed by society, that counts as mere agreement, as if morals somehow ‘ought’ to have a deeper, more solid reality? The process of society agreeing on morals is the sum total of their reality but this is not reductive of the reality of morals. I am honestly fascinated in this thread at the constant use of deflationary, pejorative terminology when referring to the subjective aspect of morals.
Perhaps some of the problem comes from a feeling that we are somehow apart from reality, qualitatively different. So you (hovis I mean) refer to a greater, Other reality, in cosmic terms which you then place in opposition to ‘merely’ us. Yet I prefer a kind of ‘weak anthropological principle’ style shift of focus, or change of aspect (as in Wittgenstein’s duck/rabbit picture) which emphasises the fact that we are here now, and avoids hidden metaphysical assumptions that in some way we ‘ought’ not to be here (or indeed ‘ought’ to be here). And just as this shift of emphasis allows us to accept our existence, so it also allows us to examine our mental flora and fauna without this strange ambiguity towards morals where we are fascinated yet torn by anxiety as we cannot explain them. Morals seem to be mental flowers that are highly regarded as a genera, with various species and subspecies of varying degrees of beauty, or they could be viewed as part of the music of human interaction.
To use a musical analogy, some people may be tone deaf but that doesn’t mean music doesn’t exist.
A line must be drawn. The concept of compassion, or that of empathy is found in all humans. Sexual sadists are perfectly aware of the fact that they’re causing pain; otherwise they wouldn’t be interested in doing what they do. I’m specifically bringing up sexual violence here because imo it most forcefully undermines the relativist viewpoint. Issues of consent are what temper relativism. Issues of consent also bring in the matter of when to intervene. Moral relativism must be found wanting first (a priori I suppose) if it’s unable to give any reason to intervene when somebody’s being raped.
Which philosopher was it who pointed out that humans have this tendency to try to take arguments to infinity and thus nullify them? (Honest question… can’t remember now… was it Leibniz? Or not?)
Speaking more poetically, I feel that morals seem to appear out of the edges of the eyes of the mind, and only appear when the ‘seeing’ of intellectual analysis relaxes and looks more deeply ahead. It doesn’t mean that they have no reality. In a practical sense they could be treated as objects mostly behind our (metaphorical) ‘field of vision’ which we can only assess by ‘looking outwards’, ie in this metaphor by acting in the world.
There will always be a tension between the subjectivism with which we individually experience the world and form viewpoints, and the fact that we are able to imagine ourselves in somebody else’s place. This does not need to be regarded as a bad thing, just a thing that goes with creation of morality.
(There could be a corker of an essay to write on the psychological aspect of moral relativism, as regardless of the theory, in practice it often seems to be infused with self-loathing, or at least misanthropy).
Is that a "yes" then?
MysteryGuest
beyond boring and interesting
Masseuse said:Is that a "yes" then?
It's all relative.
I think morality is set upon an instinctual judgement we all possess. In short I believe we all know the difference between right and wrong.
The classic mistake is to think we can condense these judgements to a logical basis....who said we can....who said we would want to?
Half of our brains are logic, Half creativity and intuition.
Perhaps morality is under the domain of our intuitive side, which far from meaning we can never understand, means we aren`t going to be able to notate it in binary...
Who wants a mechanical binary world anyway?!
The classic mistake is to think we can condense these judgements to a logical basis....who said we can....who said we would want to?
Half of our brains are logic, Half creativity and intuition.
Perhaps morality is under the domain of our intuitive side, which far from meaning we can never understand, means we aren`t going to be able to notate it in binary...
Who wants a mechanical binary world anyway?!
flimsier said:
Don't agree.
Some cultures lived in material circumstances in which killing of new-borns served the purpose of furthering the survival of the group in conditions of scarcity. No such group does in the world today. (at least in normal circumstances outside of famine or some hypothetical case, and if i'm wrong it doesn't change the basic argument that once such things become unnecessary there's a basis for arguing to end the practice).
That's not to say that the Inuit were 'wrong' back then, but hangovers from it now are.
The problem with relativism is it leaves you with absolutely no basis for judging whether any aspects of a society are objectionable and need to change. So if women are denied the vote, or there is slavery, the relativist has no basis for arguing to change these things, and no basis for arguing that abolishing them is progress, or any more significant than a change in the fashion in clothes is this year.
The best argument I've seen is from a philosopher called Martha Nussbaum in the early 90's.
She argues that we should promote what she calls 'human capability' to engage in 'basic human functionings', which she summarises in a list of 10 features of all human lives. Things like the ability to choose ones own life goals, to avoid ill health, to form relationships with others.
She's done stuff with Amartya Sen who also talks about 'capabilities' as a goal in economic development but i think he's too pro-market.
Ref: Martha C. Nussbaum 'Human functioning and Social Justice, in defence of Aristotelian Essentialism' Political Theory Vol. 20 No.2 May 1992 202-246
Alex Callinicos adressed some ethical arguments from a marxist view in 'Anti Capitalism - a Manifesto' as well. Chapter 3
inflatable jesus
I used to be carried in the arms of cheerleaders
Right, here's what I think:
Ideas about right and wrong are socially agreed like most other rules and while the root of such ideas is not always clear, it can always be traced back to the dominant ideas of what a group thinks is in it's best interests.
It is for this reason that moral rules such as 'don't kill each other' or 'don't steal what belongs to others' are near-universallly acknowledged. The reason that these rules are constantly being broken is that individuals (and occasionally entire groups) will often see that the existance of this rule is not in their interest and as such, will feel less of an obligation towards it.
At this point, I should stress that what I refer to as the 'dominant ideas of what a group thinks is in it's best interests' are quite often not in the best interests of everyone in any group.
The process of agreeing on right or wrong actions is complicated both by the ability of humans to be part of various different groups and subgroups simultaneously, and by imbalances of power within any groups or subgroups. Disagreement about what is 'right' or 'wrong' will almost always take place along these divisions because there are competing interests that underlie them.
The powerful members of any particular group will often use their power to influence the other members into an agreement that what is in the interests of the powerful is in the interests of all members of the group. At other times, they will use their position to outright ignore the other members attempts at agreeing on moral issues and force others to follow rules that are solely in their interests.
Now, personally I think the assumption that moral rules are socially agreed does not mean that we also must say that there can be no arbitration about what is right or wrong. With any moral rule, there are always assumptions being made about what is in the best interest of a group or society (at some point in the construction of a rule) so it is perfectly reasonable to regard this criteria as the only true measure of what is right or wrong. It means that there will always debate about what moral rules exist and when we can disregard them, but such debate is healthy and it is the way in which sensible changes in our moral thinking are made.
Ideas about right and wrong are socially agreed like most other rules and while the root of such ideas is not always clear, it can always be traced back to the dominant ideas of what a group thinks is in it's best interests.
It is for this reason that moral rules such as 'don't kill each other' or 'don't steal what belongs to others' are near-universallly acknowledged. The reason that these rules are constantly being broken is that individuals (and occasionally entire groups) will often see that the existance of this rule is not in their interest and as such, will feel less of an obligation towards it.
At this point, I should stress that what I refer to as the 'dominant ideas of what a group thinks is in it's best interests' are quite often not in the best interests of everyone in any group.
The process of agreeing on right or wrong actions is complicated both by the ability of humans to be part of various different groups and subgroups simultaneously, and by imbalances of power within any groups or subgroups. Disagreement about what is 'right' or 'wrong' will almost always take place along these divisions because there are competing interests that underlie them.
The powerful members of any particular group will often use their power to influence the other members into an agreement that what is in the interests of the powerful is in the interests of all members of the group. At other times, they will use their position to outright ignore the other members attempts at agreeing on moral issues and force others to follow rules that are solely in their interests.
Now, personally I think the assumption that moral rules are socially agreed does not mean that we also must say that there can be no arbitration about what is right or wrong. With any moral rule, there are always assumptions being made about what is in the best interest of a group or society (at some point in the construction of a rule) so it is perfectly reasonable to regard this criteria as the only true measure of what is right or wrong. It means that there will always debate about what moral rules exist and when we can disregard them, but such debate is healthy and it is the way in which sensible changes in our moral thinking are made.
I'm unsure what you mean. That it is reasonable to regard this as a criterea for wrong, in the same way that it is reasonable to most people that I regard murder as wrong; or this is the only valid (universal) criterea for what is wrong - does this not put the content of the criterea outside subjective decision - and hence morality is also not subjective. Edit: Sorry, you probably do think that morality is objective!
Similar threads
