Subjective moral relativism and the denegration of society.

Alright, I've been directed here.

Let me see if I have this right.

In moral relativism, the "good" and "evil" of an act take a back seat to the intent of an act.

Like the act killing someone. Sounds bad, right?

Killing is a horrible thing.

Yet, according to moral relativism, if the intent was to protect yourself or someone else, what you did was not wrong.



Did I get that right?

 

I think people have a problem with moral relativism because it goes too far out of their security zone. People like to believe good and evil exist, but how many times have you seen something so clean cut? I have never seen something so black and white.

 

No, that's not the case.

Moral relativism is basically the dismissal of bad behaviors/wrongs in society via excuse making based upon subjective ideas of what is right and wrong and the dismissal of absolute truths as merely subjective realities and nothing concrete.

The article below is a decent description of what moral relativism is:

Moral Relativism and the Religion of Tolerance

By Donovan Martin

In the last few decades, there has been a wave of cultural changes that has prompted the existence of divergent value and belief systems. As a result, it is commonplace to hear people lobbying for lofty social ideals such as ?tolerance?, ?freedom of choice?, ?equality? and ?diversity?. These concepts would appear to be at the root of familiar statements such as ?whatever is true for me may not be true for you? and ?that may be your truth, not mine?. As a common denominator to these notions, there seems to be an undercurrent of making morals and truth all a matter of personal preference. On the surface, this ideology appears to be the pragmatic approach in establishing common ground between people of different belief systems. However, this philosophy, known as moral relativism and tolerance, is inherently flawed. When objective truth is suppressed and labeled intolerant, no moral law exists, and chaos and the destruction of society subsequently follow since people trust and act upon their own feelings instead. This belief can be illustrated by examining the innate flaws within moral relativism/tolerance, the effect of the philosophy on modern society and solutions for a culture indoctrinated with moral pluralism.

The philosophy of moral relativism and tolerance is extremely pervasive and is gaining greater acceptance in North American society every day. This is not to say that people understand or have even asked the questions ?what does it really mean? and ?at its core, what are its tenets?? Moral relativism and tolerance rest upon the central axiom that all viewpoints be equally valid and thus tolerated. However, this fundamental of relative morality is self-refuting. One such inconsistency of relative morality is that it does not allow for a dialogue on what constitutes truth.

At the crux of the matter is the question as to whether or not absolute truths exist that can be applied to all people, at all places and at all times. By definition of logic, truth cannot contradict itself. It is impossible for something to exist and to not exist simultaneously. Simply put, something cannot be true and false at the same time, but rather one or the other. An example of this would be gravity? one always sees that a ball thrown upwards into the air invariably falls back to the ground every time. Although much of what constitutes ?truth? has to be admittedly accepted on a similar basis of faith, and in many cases, cannot be proven empirically, a counter approach is to recognize that truth is also defined (by Webster?s dictionary) as ?the absence of error? and ?fidelity to the original?. With regards to morality, the absolute moral standards that comprise the framework of our legal and judicial systems are ultimately derived from religious principles, particularly the Judeo-Christian Bible, where all the principles as well as the historical writings have proven to be consistently true over the course of time without error. Upon this premise of rationalizing and reasoning, absolute moral standards must exist and consequently, all belief systems are not equally valid and truth is not relative to the individual.

If all viewpoints were equally valid, ill deeds such as Hitler?s annihilation of six million Jewish people during the Second World War could be justified as an outgrowth of truth. Although one might claim that murder is generally accepted by society to be a crime, it would be impossible to rationalize the statement ?Hitler?s genocide of the Jews was a crime against humanity? if no common standard of right and wrong existed. The assertion would si

 

Moral relativism is basically the dismissal of bad behaviors/wrongs in society via excuse making based upon subjective ideas of what is right and wrong and the dismissal of absolute truths as merely subjective realities and nothing concrete.

That seems a rather biased definition.

 

Moral relativism is basically the dismissal of bad behaviors/wrongs in society via excuse making based upon subjective ideas of what is right and wrong and the dismissal of absolute truths as merely subjective realities and nothing concrete.


You call it excuse making, but what is "good" and "evil" are these also not excuses? "He did this because he's evil!" Is that not an excuse? Does everything have to be concrete to build a proper society?

 

Of course, there are grey areas F_I_D. However, there are absolute truths moral relativism dismisses as merely subjective and with no basis in objective reality.

 

Of course, there are grey areas F_I_D. However, there are absolute truths in my opinion that moral relativism dismisses as merely subjective and with no basis in objective reality.

Well, that's your truth, not mine.

Moral relativism isn't a bad thing as you'd like to have people believe.

 

If the truth is not subjective, then whose truth do we go by? I know my truth is not yours and that your truth is not mine. Does that mean that we hold to someone else's truth? And if so, who would that be?


That article is also funny, my morals are not this guy's and vice versa. Morals are up to the individual. I believe that it's all right to betray someone if they absolutely deserve it. I doubt this guy would like having that.

 

Edited most recent above post for clarification.

I will quote from the above article some pertinent passages:

At the crux of the matter is the question as to whether or not absolute truths exist that can be applied to all people, at all places and at all times.

By definition of logic, truth cannot contradict itself.

As a common denominator to these notions, there seems to be an undercurrent of making morals and truth all a matter of personal preference... When objective truth is suppressed and labeled intolerant, no moral law exists, and chaos and the destruction of society subsequently follow since people trust and act upon their own feelings instead.

Clearly, the very system that preaches tolerance is completely intolerant to those predisposed to disagree with the theory of relative morality.

Please refer to the article posted above, "Moral Relativism and the Religion of Tolerance", for its full content.

 

I did, and he's still wrong, IMO at least. There are no conerete morals, though if you wanna get technical, there aren't, we call them laws, but not morals. See how that works? Moral code. Ha! Like everyone follows that.


The philosophy of moral relativism and tolerance is extremely pervasive and is gaining greater acceptance in North American society every day. This is not to say that people understand or have even asked the questions ?what does it really mean? and ?at its core, what are its tenets?? Moral relativism and tolerance rest upon the central axiom that all viewpoints be equally valid and thus tolerated. However, this fundamental of relative morality is self-refuting. One such inconsistency of relative morality is that it does not allow for a dialogue on what constitutes truth.

At the crux of the matter is the question as to whether or not absolute truths exist that can be applied to all people, at all places and at all times. By definition of logic, truth cannot contradict itself. It is impossible for something to exist and to not exist simultaneously. Simply put, something cannot be true and false at the same time, but rather one or the other.



The thing about this passage is that he thinks that relativists think of everything as true or false. I don't see it that way. I see it as equal and valid, not true or false. And a lot of the relativists I've met see it this way too. He's making a false presumption on something he cannot understand.



As used today, "moral relativism" and "tolerance" are very misleading terms that are at the heart of a move to redefine good and bad behavior, a cultural change historically proven to destroy the world's greatest empires. The Romans are a typical example, as they collapsed from within due to corruption and moral decay. Similarly, North America society has slid a long way. However, acknowledging the errors of our ways is the first step to getting back on the right track.


Okay, this guy's amusing, is he religious by chance? Is he in his early 50's? If so, I think I know what his problem is. Generally older folk resist change.

 

So, because he doesn't agree with moral relativism, he's making 'false presumptions' on something he 'doesn't understand'?

He was exactly right here:

Clearly, the very system that preaches tolerance is completely intolerant to those predisposed to disagree with the theory of relative morality.

 

So, because he doesn't agree with moral relativism, he doesn't understand?

He was exactly right here:


Clearly, the very system that preaches tolerance is completely intolerant to those predisposed to disagree with the theory of relative morality.


I'm not intolerant, I just don't think he's right. I can tolerate his view, as laughable as it might be. If he doesn't understand, I doubt he's met anyone who believes in moral relativism. If he did, he'd have a better insight as to what it is.

 

Maybe it's time to get stuck into the nitty-gritty. OK, DM, judge for us - in the context of your moral absolutism (black/white/right/wrong) - some contentious issues:

* Homosexuality

* Abortion

* Captial punishment

* Pre and extra-marital sex

* Drugs

* Pre-emptove war

* Murder

* The fascist far right

* Socialism



So you should able to judge these examples of modern political/moral battlefields with a single word. Right or Wrong. No extra info is needed, no science or logic is required, no background is required.

And what would you have done...the moral judgements made law? Or not, and leave your society wilfully unmoral because it's unrealistic to apply absolute morals...in which case, what's the point of absolutes other than to enable empty moral posturing and meaningless, sanctimonious rhetoric?

 

Those are issues that I have elaborated on a very many times in other threads. Please refer to those if you need clarification on my position, thanks.

 

Would you mind reitterating them for us?

 

Do me a favour and reply in this thread. Please? Just to condense the info and further the discussion here.

 

Maybe it's time to get stuck into the nitty-gritty. OK, DM, judge for us - in the context of your moral absolutism (black/white/right/wrong) - some contentious issues...

So you should able to judge these examples of modern political/moral battlefields with a single word. Right or Wrong. No extra info is needed, no science or logic is required, no background is required.

That's silly, scum. Objectivism doesn't mean that the details are always irrelevant.

You act as if relativism means, "the details matter in determining what's right and wrong."

The reality is that relativism means, "there's no such thing as right and wrong."

Big. Dang. Difference.

 

DM isn't taking the Objectivistic view. Objectivism is strictly athiest. DM's view is a Catholic one, and hence his morality is defined. As an individual, I consistently find DM attacking any form of PC moral relativism...which he sees as 'excuse making' - a woefully blinkered view to hold. Have a read back through this thread and see what I mean. Any mitigating circumstances in any issue are always washed away as irrelevancies or excuses. And also, relativism doesn't not dictate that 'nothing is wrong' - it is more complex than that (which everybody would understand commonly as total anarchy); it's about a) rejecting the principle of absolute morality and b) accepting that morality can be subject to social shift.

I'm calling DM out as I believe the absolute morality he uses to criticise relativism and left-wing thinking is flawed at the stage where morals meets society; in the law courts, in the social policy units, in the schools. I also presonally wish to see if DM - being such a vocal critic of everything he disagrees with - is a hypocrite. Quoting O'Reilly and other conservative whingers is all well and good, but the trouble with traditional conservatism is that hypocrisy is always looming around the corner; how does DM feel about pre-marital sex? How does he feel about homosexuality? If these God-given absolutes are to be the platform he builds his self-righteous moral crusade on, how does he a) obtain these absolutes b) approach them in real life and c) how would he wish to see them dealed with within society.

Bubba - our discussion of the last week or so in the Thou Shall Not Murder thread was a good one; I felt we reached an understanding (if not a compromise). My philospohy has been open and available for all to see. I believe in a a relativistic society where morals are founded on science and logic. There's significant agreement with today's morals and typical Christian morals, and I'm fine with that. And from what you were saying, your philosophy allows you to morally abhor certain behaviours and social trends without suppressing them. I want to know how DM feels. I'm also keen to know whether DM, after having analysed his morality and its effects within society, will be willing to let go of the constant bombardment against moral relativism and liberal thinking, as hopefully he'll come to accept that moral relativism is the way most healthy for society.

 

In order for there to be a truth, you should be able to explain it. 2+2=4, that is a truth and it can be easily explained by explaining how we define the symbols 2,+,=,4, and with examples, we see that our description of combining things is accurate.

To say that there are moral truths, you must explain why the morals you believe (know?) are true to be as such. Murder can be explained to be wrong, but I have not yet heard why being gay is wrong (aside from God says so). You also must say why morals are good to have. What I mean is that they describe what is good, but are they themselves (morals) good?

Or you could just prove that whatever God you might believe in actually does exist, and that He must be perfectly good. So whatever He says is good. That may be useful anyway should there be any morals that involve God.

Until you do one of those things, or something that I missed, you have no reason to claim that there are moral truths. There are morals that make sense; morals that can be explained, and to me those are the closest things that come to moral truths.

 

The interesting thing is what may happen should genetics or psychology ever prove that homosexuality is a physiological stae, not a purely psychological state, or whether it can be proved that individuals have a predisposed tendancy to substance addiction and abuse, or violence and crime. That proff isn't there, but there's rumblings.

It's a hypothetical question (and I dislike hypothetics immensly) but where would that leave Absolutism, other than at a total loggerhead with scientific understanding.

 

scum, I've always been under the impression that objectivism is not necessarily an atheist system of belief -- that it merely asserts the existence of absolute truth. True, Ayn Rand and her followers seem to insist on objectivism being atheistic, but I think they're wrong.

There is a position which does not insistent on atheism but does embrace the idea of absolute truth. That's clearly not relativism, and if you're saying it's not objectivism, what should we call it?


And also, relativism doesn't not dictate that 'nothing is wrong' - it is more complex than that (which everybody would understand commonly as total anarchy); it's about a) rejecting the principle of absolute morality and b) accepting that morality can be subject to social shift.

If you reject the principle of absolute morality, does that not imply this: that there is no act that ultimately, absolutely wrong?


And to say that "the trouble with traditional conservatism is that hypocrisy is always looming around the corner"... that's first of all debatable, and one could argue that liberalism suffers from the same malady.



Enforcer, it may be the case that many moral truths are self-evident truths -- such as the morality of honesty and the immorality of theft. At the very least, the vast majority of men and societies in general have acted and continue to act as if these truths are obvious -- hence the constant attempts to rationalize and excuse individual acts of dishonesty and theft.

I honestly believe that theft is genuinely immoral, obviously so. If you don't, explaining why it is could be like explaining to someone who's color-blind why a particular apple is red.

I know that this answer won't satisfy, but it may be pretty near to the truth.

 

Bubba, if we move away from strict Objectivism, then we're left with what I'd call Absolutism; a belief in undeniable, eternal morals. I think it's acceptable in the context of this debate to assume this applies to traditional Christian morals.

"If you reject the principle of absolute morality, does that not imply this: that there is no act that ultimately, absolutely wrong?"

Yes. You reject the principle that anything can ever be wrong just for the sake of it being morally wrong. But it's also clear to me that before responding aghast at that reply, you understand that the circumstances required to change the moral outlook an any given issue may never actually be reached.

For example, let's take murder. I believe murder is wrong not because it's biblically declared wrong, but because it's the most absolute way of infringing another's rights and affecting their life in a negative way. Making murder morally acceptable would require such a shift in that thought process and social context that I can't realistically ever see murder not being morally wrong. Same for rape - the actual act is so drastic a crime against humanity and society that it will almost never be morally acceptable. Does that make sense? So in essence, yes, I reject the notion that something will always be morally wrong, but I also suggest that somethings will never be right.

You may argue that the potential for great moral wrongs to become the norm exists in my philosophy and I would have to accept that (though I'd stress that it's a only a potential). You could also argue that much of the relativism philosophy depends on your definition of human rights and what's good for society, to which I'd respond that I believe this kind of social thinking has had to evolve with human civilisation. The further we move away from instinctive animals, the less we need such tight controls and rigid social boundaries.

I'm interested that you adhere to an eternal morality - isn't there a possibility that conditions will change where some of the traditionalist values may have to adapt (not sure if you subscribe to traditionalist values, of course). I'm thinking of biological proof that homosexuality is genetic. Or emergence of a sudden, horrible, fatal disease that may alter the social thinking around self-euthanasia, or if 99% of men suddenly diedm how would society view monogamy etc. I know we're dealing with hypothetics here, but maybe it's essential when dealing with moral philosophies. How do you expect society to evolve around naturally selecting obstacles if your basic moral framework isn't flexible?

 

You know they found some clay tablet from ancient Persia lamenting the decline of morals. This was like 2000 years ago.

 

Absolutism may be right if enough things are taken into account. For example, it may seem random why a ball goes through a plinko a certain way, but if we knew enough about the angle of impacts, the compressability of the ball and the rods, other stuff, we could predict it. Likewise, if we understood morals and right and wrong enough, we could say that A is absolutly right when taken in the context of B as long as.... I hope that makes sense.

But except in a very few cases, I very much doubt that you can simply say X is wrong because of Y.

Bubba

Forgive me for being exahusted, but I do not follow how if morals are obvious, why people would be trying to rationalize an individuals immorality? It will probabally make sense tomorrow morning...

Also, very few of us are blind to explnations (just as very few people are blind visually); I have faith that nearly everyone can understand if explained, and that any and all obvious morals can be explained as well.

Also, could there may be explainable moral absolutes, but the reasons for them may not be absolute? Take theft. All people who believe that it is absolutly wrong may have diffrent reasons, but they are convincing reasons, and they all say theft is wrong. Do unto others, harm is bad, I could get into trouble... diffrent reasons, but they all agree that theft is wrong.

The only gray area to me is when God is mentioned. Using God as a reason for morals lets there be morals that can not be justified by the other means. To stay on course, I am not going to go through that reasoning for homosexuality.

As such, I asked for the proof of either why God is perfectally good, or why all the morals that can only seem to be justified by 'God says so' are right?

 

Not sure if I've answered this thread or not.

Moral relativism is fine to a point. There are some fundamental truths that encompass every belief system in the civilized world, such as do not murder, do not steal, do not hurt people. These should be absolutes with few exceptions. However, there are certain issues that conservatives would prefer to make black-and-white that are anything but.

My response to these issues:

* Homosexuality: Not harming anyone, leave it alone.

* Abortion: Should only be used as a last resort, not as birth control--which means that everyone should have easy access to birth control and education in how to use it. People who want to eliminate abortion and sex education from our society are either being highly unrealistic or are trying very hard to overpopulate the world.

* Captial punishment: I'm not crazy about the idea, but after 9/11/01--and my own desire to tie Osama Bin Laden down in Greenwich Village and throw pieces of the World Trade Center at him--I'm not opposed to it, either.

* Pre and extra-marital sex: Premarital sex between consenting adults harms no one. Leave it alone. Extra-marital sex is wrong because it harms an innocent spouse. The only exception would be if the marriage is an open one in which the spouse is allowed to cheat.

* Drugs: What you do in the privacy of your own home is your business. Just don't drive or go out in public.

* Pre-emptove war: I can't think of very many cases off the top of my head in which it would be right, except in extreme cases like to stop someone like Hitler.

* Murder: Wrong except in cases of self-defense. However, I do believe in cases of "temporary insanity", such as what happened to Anakin Skywalker in AOTC, and I believe that those people should pay a lesser penalty.

* The fascist far right: Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

Did I mention this is wrong?

* Socialism: Wouldn't function very well here in the US, but has done well in countries such as Sweden and Norway.