Moral Relativism

[Franklin]

What is Moral Relativism? Probably depends on who you ask. A fundamentalist may think it's the process of someone defining their own morality, rather than have God, scriptures or clergy define it. Another definition could be the idea that everyone has their own morality and that some things that most people consider to be wrong may be right for some people. Within this definition, it may be OK for a person to steal, as long as that person believes it's OK.

Do we need moral absolutism in order to have an orderly and safe society? I think not. Laws - ideally, IMO - are based on pragmatism, not morality. It's not pragmatic to allow people to murder, rape, steal, pollute the environment, etc. Whether one has an abortion, gambles, gets high or eats meat is a personal moral decision and should not be legislated. The vast majority of people in all countries - be they "Godless communists" or Christian Capitalists - agree that murder, rape and theft are immoral as well as impractical - impractical on a societal level - legislation is meant to make them impractical on a personal level. So these can be legislated. We are greatly divided on issues of abortion, homosexuality, meat eating - these, IMO, are individual moral choices.

Is it always wrong to lie? There's the old adage about whether one would have a moral obligation to tell a Nazi storm trooper about the Jew hiding in the attic. Most people would agree that there is no such moral obligation. And if one felt that they had that obligation, I would suggest that they also would be obliged to tell the Jew that they will inform the SS if questioned, so the Jew can choose whether he wants to chance it.

So how does one decide when it's OK to lie, for example? Well, we can think and we can use discernment. And sometimes we could be wrong and sometimes have consequences to face whether we're wrong or right. When acting on our own conscience, the buck stops with us. We can't hide behind the fact that we were "just following orders" - orders from the Bible, the Koran, the preacher, etc.

As far as when it's OK to lie - I would suggest when the interrogator does not have a right to know. It would be better, IMO, to tell them that it's none of their business, rather than lie, but telling a storm trooper that it's not their business would be quite impractical. In the vast majority of cases, one's employer does not have the right to know whether someone smoke pot on their own time. Neither does the government have that right.

Authoritarians like to use the term, "moral relativism" derogatorily. How dare you follow your own conscience when I know better? Libertines go to the opposite extreme and feel that no one has the right to judge anyone else's actions. Of course that doesn't stop many of them from judging others for making judgments. We are very fortunate to live in a reasonably balanced society - one that recognizes natural, practical morality and also allows for personal conscience. It's certainly not perfect - we still have drug laws, for example. And there are those who wish to legislate their religious morality. For those fundamentalist Christians who think it's OK to put Christian morality into law, imagine a Hindu congressman sponsoring a bill to outlaw meat-eating or a Muslim congressman wanting to pass a law forcing women to wear burkas.

Perhaps instead of calling it, "Moral Relativism", we can call it, "Personal Morality".

[jhoffman]

Wow. I think I love you - I've got a big Philosophy exam on Tuesday and I have no notes on Moral Relativism because, I guess, I forgot to make them in class. So - crazy coincidence... This is a very interesting take on it and I will certainly consider this and get back to you when my exams are done :)

Thankyouuu!

[Franklin]

Hi Jade,

Welcome to the board. I'm glad you liked my dissertation. Please feel free to plagiarize for your exam - unless it's contrary to your own personal morality. Just change the"congressman" reference to "MP" :)

Also please feel free to kick around your ideas here.

[jhoffman]

Heehee - thanks Franklin! I did print out your post up there and give it a good read through so I'd have a range of viewpoints to draw upon in case I got that question. As it happened, there was a question of moral relativism, but I picked the other, easier, one and talked about Virtue Theory, Utilitarianism and the practical ethics involved with abortion.

I'm not so great at the meta-ethics, you see.

But it was very much appreciated. I am so very glad that my exams are over, though!

[NicoMoon]

Congratulations on having completed your exams, jade!:clapping:

You don't seem to be a person who should have much to worry about as far as academics go!

What level of school are you attending currently? You sound like a PhD candidate! :bubbly:

[jhoffman]

Heehee - thanks! I think I should've revised a whole lot more for my exams but my concentration is not the best. Plus, I don't tend to get too worked up about exams and tests, really - there's more important things in life!

I'm doing my AS levels. After this, I have to look at universities, fill out my UCAS form and write a personal statement to universities asking for places. Then I'll do some more exams, A levels, about this time next year which usually decides where I'm going... I have no idea where to begin looking at unis though! I don't mind where I go - I just want to go!

[Melos]

Excellent example of moral relativism... or personal morality... when Nico told JHoffman it was okay to plagerise his writing. My morality would consider that cheating and not practical on a societal level because JHoffman could fail to learn how to write something on the topic him/herself and would thus be less educated in some way.
The problem would arise if I tried to insinuate my morality above yours, Nico, which I would never try to do :)

[eneagirl]

Unfortunately, America is a christianity based country. Every time we spend $1 we are reminded that this country is founded on the principle "In God We Trust."

Moral Relativism allows individuals to justify behaivor to fit the moment.
But, our country and laws were established by founding fathers that knew you can't change law to fit the moment.

[Franklin]

Hi eneagirl,

I'm sorry, but I must disagree with pretty much everything in your post :)

Unfortunately, America is a christianity based country.

Nope, it was founded on the idea that people have certain inherent rights, including the right to make moral choices. The absence of a state religion is spelled out very clearly in the First Amendment. What the founders wrote about in letters to their friends and family does not trump what they painstakingly debated and eventually agreed upon.

Every time we spend $1 we are reminded that this country is founded on the principle "In God We Trust."

Did the Founders put that on our currency? I honestly don't know. But the currency does not say, "In Jesus we trust". It could refer to Krishna, Allah or an impersonal god. It's no evidence that they meant America to be Christian.

Moral Relativism allows individuals to justify behaivor to fit the moment.

Freedom allows that. Moral Absolutism allows a small, elite group to define morality for everyone and claim that they received the information directly from God. I would wager that if I told you that God told me how you should live your life, you would think me either a liar or a nut. What evidence do we have that those who write it down in scripture are honest or sane, especially when so many of them contradict each other?


But, our country and laws were established by founding fathers that knew you can't change law to fit the moment.

Actually they created an amendment process for the Constitution that allows just that.

[katharina]

Very interesting thread and I've enjoyed reading the various posts. Great points (and clarifications) in your last post there, Franklin. Thank you for making the points... now I won't need to do it. :dance: Especially the point about the "In God We Trust"... I never did really "get" the whining about that... all major religions have their god.

[wilma50]

Franklin ... interesting post. Quite interesting.
"Moral relativism" is, perhaps, a choice. After all the very phrase means that morality to one individual is only relative to another's.
Perhaps your synopsis is correct ... perhaps not?
I have a buddy at work who had stated that if he found someones wallet,he would remove the cash & return everything else to the owner. When I told him that this would be stealing, he came back with what he thought was okay. He'd told me that the owner of the wallet would never expect to have the entire contents returned. I then asked him how he would feel if it had been his wallet & property. He told me that it would never upset him because he would not be surprised that the money was gone. You see, he never believed that it was 'stealing'.
Well, about 4 years later, this man had lost his wallet & oddly enough, it was returned to him - MINUS the cash. He was quite verbal in regard to how upset that he was, even though every ID and personal photoes were returned to him ... the cash was not.
When I reminded him about the conversation from a few years before, he was clearly upset.
What I am getting at here, is that to me, this is 'relative morality'.

People really only find morality when they are at the - shall we say - 'dirty' end of the stick.

Take good care Franklin!
wilma

[karenlyn]

My idea of morality is pretty simple. If it doesn't hurt anybody else, it's fair game. If your intentions truly are good, don't beat youself up too much about the result. I think true morality should be very personal and individual-- not something imposed by a society or a religion or a government. Do what truly feels right to you. It usually will be.

[wilma50]

My idea of morality is pretty simple. If it doesn't hurt anybody else, it's fair game. If your intentions truly are good, don't beat youself up too much about the result. I think true morality should be very personal and individual-- not something imposed by a society or a religion or a government. Do what truly feels right to you. It usually will be.

Hi karenlyn.
There was a phrase back in the late 70s / early 80s : if it feels good, do it.
I feel quite strongly that this is a dangerous area to 'dip your toe in'.
What might seem like a good thing for you, may not do too well for others. I guess that I'm referring to things like adultery, cheating on exams, plagerism & such. Please don't get me wrong karen - I'm not trying to infer that you would ever do such things.
I believe that if you treat all people the way that you want to be treated, you should be okay.
Now don't get me wrong here either.
My mother used to say to "turn the other cheek" - just like in the bible. HOWEVER, she added her own wisdom by saying:"just remember, God only supplied us with 4 cheeks ... 2 in the front & 2 in the back. When they are all used up ... well ... it's time to take control"
My mother was pretty cool like that.

[baileym1]

I tire of moral relativism as well. People see it as a way to justify the whole "anything goes" philosphy. I just don't buy into that. I'm not necessarily strict to one religion or creed, but there are just some things that are wrong.

[Zanzi]

I think the idea that "anything goes" has done more harm than good. I also believe that my rights end where someone else's rights begins. Unfortunately, it appears that society is currently segmented into endless splinter groups of individuals who believe that because of their special status (be it because of religion, race, status, or anything else) certain rules and regs should not pertain to them, and therefore their rights go well past where my right begin. I think this is moral relativism at its worst.

[wilma50]

"anything goes" is pure horse-puckey!
Treat each other as you would want to be treated and your life should be okay.
Well, people may step on you & your rights, but isn't the bottom line how you look at YOURSELF in the mirror?

Don't "suffer fools gladly" - or bullies, for that matter.
Show kindness toward animals, children, and the elderly.
Take special care & concern toward the 'down-trodden'.
Always embrace the earth, the sun & moon ... and certainly the stars.
Show kindness when needed & graceful resistance when faced with adversity.
I was taught these things by a tiny 85 lb. woman who gave birth to 4 children, ( I was the smallest @ 9 lbs.)
I DO believe that I was blessed.

[NicoMoon]

Wow, what a great discussion! It is truly gratifying to read these thoughtful and impassioned posts in support of morality and sanity!

I'm running out of steam here for the moment, but I just wanted to thank everyone who chimed in for giving me a true moment of pleasure and hope!!

Thank you, thank you, thank you!! I am so delighted to see you here!!

[NicoMoon]

Excellent example of moral relativism... or personal morality... when Nico told JHoffman it was okay to plagerise his writing.

For the record, that was Franklin, and Nico is a "she". Franklin is my husband, FYI.


My morality would consider that cheating and not practical on a societal level because JHoffman could fail to learn how to write something on the topic him/herself and would thus be less educated in some way.


My sense of pragmatism would consider it to be kind of silly for Jade to plagiarize any message board post for a university exam, actually. :)


The problem would arise if I tried to insinuate my morality above yours, Nico, which I would never try to do :)

Not even if I thought it was ok to abuse your credit cards, slander you, or maybe exercise undue influence to encourage your children to lives of irresponsibility and crime, for example? Society insinuates our collective morality on others every day in our courts and prisons, don't forget, and for the most part I think that's a good thing.

I depart from Franklin's thinking that everything is an issue of "Personal Morality". If that were the case, we could not have an orderly or reasonable society.

Of course there are absolutes that we can hang our hats on when evaluating morality and social problems. Franklin and I have never agreed on this issue, and likely never will.

[NicoMoon]

[quote=Zanzi;10323]I also believe that my rights end where someone else's rights begins.[quote]

Yes, very succinct, and a very accurate summation of the philosophy behind our US Constitution. :clapping:

It takes a lot of character and respect to support and protect this philosophy, and that's what I find to be missing in many of the arguments in favor of relativism, personal morality, or whatever folks like to refer to when seeking to ignore the part of the equation that has to do with the rights of others.

[NicoMoon]

What I am getting at here, is that to me, this is 'relative morality'.

People really only find morality when they are at the - shall we say - 'dirty' end of the stick.
wilma

Great story, Wilma!! And of course you are correct about the definition of relativity.

If we are to agree that all things to do with human interaction are relative to the beliefs or inclinations of the individual, we are also agreeing to default against the wisdom and knowledge gained through history, experience, science, and even common sense.

This is what bugs me most about the concepts of "moral relativism" or "personal morality". They so often ignore the obvious, as is so well illustrated in your story, the obvious fact that we do share common human experiences and feelings, so therefore what hurts one person will also hurt someone else no matter how much I choose to deny, justify, or rationalize that fact away with claims of specialness, privilege or even oppression.

I stand with the Founders in my belief that certain Truths are self-evident, and therefore not accurately or appropriately re-created into matters of personal interpretation or inclination, as the moral relativists are so often wont to do when it serves their interests of the moment. It's a very shortsighted perspective, IMO, as your friend found out!! :rolleyes:

[Franklin]

Moral Relativism does not mean that anything goes. Perhaps Moral Nihilism means that. It means - to me, at least - that there is not some book, guru, religion, etc. that dictates morality to everyone. There may be a God who defines absolute morality, but who can honestly say that they have spoken with Her to find out what it is?

Even with Society's ostensible moral absolutism which dictates that killing is wrong, there are lots of grey areas. Is it wrong to kill in self-defense? Is abortion murder? Is it wrong to kill animals and eat them? Is euthansia wrong? If these were moral absolutes, then they can be legislated. The reason we don't legislate these issues - for the most part - is because they are relative. Pragmatic issues are legislated.

A proponent of moral relativism has no more license to infringe on others' rights than proponents of moral absolutism. In fact, the absolutist is more likely to infringe by limiting anothers' moral choices based on the absolutist's interpretation of "proper" morality. Moral relativism does not exclude the responsibility to analyze one's actions. The absolutist has less reason to analyze, as they only need to judge their actions by a limited, preset set of criteria. The relativist's criteria may expand endlessly.

Can a relativist justify bad behavior? Of course they can. Can an absolutist? Just choose a set of moral rules that fits their requirements. Or do something that they know in their heart/conscience is wrong, but make sure it's not explicitly prohibited in the rule book. Example: There's no Commandment or law that says, 'Thou shalt not shred another's self-esteem', so it must be OK.

I believe that Moral Relativity is well in sync with The Constitution. No moral code was set out in the Constitution. Rights were deliniated, including the right of personal conscience. (This is my interpretation of the First Amendment. I realize others may interpret differently). There is one moral absolute I will acknowledge, and that is that it is absolutely immoral to infringe on another person's rights, including the right to make decisions of conscience - whether it is moral to eat meat, commit suicide, smoke cigarettes, gamble or any of the other alleged vices put forth by those who think they have a special connection with absolute moral gods. Moral Relativism may open the door to justification; Moral Absolutism opens the door to Fascism.

This is not to say that anyone who espouses Moral Absolutism is a Fascist. And Moral Relativism is not always accompanied by justification. But neither paradigm guarantees righteous or responsible behaviour.

[wilma50]

No no, Nico.
I firmly believe that we should not go against any knowledge gained through the acts of human kind over the years.
But this is "moral relativism". This is the topic chosen by the poster who began this thread.
If we do not understand history, than we will repeat the same mistakes - I'm obviously paraphrasing & have absolutely no recollection as to who initiated this thought - but, you get it.
This is about "moral relativism", and as much that it doesn't make any logical sense in a caring society, it exists everyday.
It's sad and unfortunate, but, it is here.

[Franklin]

Hi Wilma,

This is about "moral relativism", and as much that it doesn't make any logical sense in a caring society, it exists everyday.
It's sad and unfortunate, but, it is here.

Are you suggesting that a moral relativist has no compassion? Why is it unfortunate?

[wilma50]

Hi Wilma,



Are you suggesting that a moral relativist has no compassion? Why is it unfortunate?

Holy crap! I'm in the soup now!

I am not suggesting that a 'moral relativist' has no compassion. Actually ... it's better, I suppose, that I ask you to clarify what you believe to be a 'moral relativist'.
I've posted what I believe this term to mean. What do you see this to be?

As far as it being 'unfortunate', I am referring to the way that people treat each other - on a general basis. That is usually very unfortunate.

[Franklin]

Hi Wilma,

You're not in any soup :) We can disagree peacefully.

I believe I defined Moral Relativism in my opening post in this thread. Also, I would prefer to use the term, "Personal Morality".

I don't have time for a long post right now, but I'll post more later today.

Anyway, don't be afraid to disagree.

[Franklin]

Hi again, Wilma,

I promised you a more in-depth description of Moral Relativity, so here goes...
For a more official definition of Moral Relativism, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism I tend to like the wikipedia pages because they strive for accuracy and objectivity - at least that's the impression I've gotten.

Again, I prefer the term "Personal Morality", meaning a morality that is defined and/or owned by the individual. Either the individual came up with the concepts themselves or they copied another definition - from scripture, from a guru, etc. - but made it their own by thinking about it, testing it, re-thinking, such that they can explain in their own words why something is moral or immoral. In other words, morality has much more power when one has put it through its paces, rather than simply accepting it because an authority figure said so.

Personal morality should always be re-examined, whether ir originated solely with the practitioner, or it was derived for another source, such as scripture. If it can be defended, it's more likely to be respected. In this sense, I believe that all true morality is personal, even if it is also universal (absolute). I would think that one who believes in Absolute Morality as that which is dictated from On High (interpreted by some fallible human being, of course), but who has not put it through its paces, would be more easily swayed than one who owns their morality.

One very important question about Absolute Morality: Who defines it? Who can say they know what is moral for every situation? Unless one has direct access to God, one cannot dictate to anyone else how their morality should be exercised. Of course we can enforce laws against the most egregious and destructive behavior, but we have no right to enforce laws regarding rules defined by religion.

In a sense, we all practice personal morality - if someone else defines it, we still choose which set of rules we will follow - or claim to follow or hide behind ("You can trust me, I'm a Christian"), or use to insult or control others... We all decide everyday whether to continue with a set of moral rules, whether to discard morality totally, whether to makes adjustments, etc. I would not feel particularly trusting of someone who has not re-evaluated their morality since they were 10 years old.

[wilma50]

Franklin, I understand where you are coming from, and please do not take this wrong ... but, it sounds a little altruistic.
I'm not doubting your proclivity to be a good, kind and moral individual. I do, however, realize that the majority of folks are not so altruistic, kind and / or moral.
This, I am sure, most will find to be cynical ... and perhaps, after so many things that I have seen over the years, I am cynical.
Just watch the news ... follow mankind's history, no matter if you go back 100 years or 1 week.
Not everyone - and, I do fear that it is the majority - do not think of others. Most folks, it seems to me, display this "mememe" mentality.

Everyone on the planet is a 'moral relativist' and yes, unfortunately, some have no compassion.

[Franklin]

Hi Wilma,

I do, however, realize that the majority of folks are not so altruistic, kind and / or moral.

Well, that's debatable. I think most paople are, especially when they don't have someone else dictating values to them.

This, I am sure, most will find to be cynical ... and perhaps, after so many things that I have seen over the years, I am cynical.
Just watch the news ... follow mankind's history, no matter if you go back 100 years or 1 week.

Please see a thread I started a while back - http://livewire.fm/forums/accolades/1057-human-race.html I am not cynical.

If people are inherently immoral and therefore need to have morality dictated to them, then the person or people doing the dictating will also be immoral.

Everyone on the planet is a 'moral relativist' and yes, unfortunately, some have no compassion.

That's true - some have no compassion. But I don't it has anything to do with whether people believe in moral relativism, moral absolutism or anything else. Compassion comes from the heart, not the head.

[wilma50]

Hey Franklin!
I was referring to myself as the cynic - not you.
I understand that you are very sincere in your post & beliefs, and I do respect that.
It is - I'm sorry to say because it is at the risk of insulting you, which is not something that I want to do.
Ah, babblebabblebabble - sorry.

My bottom line here is that you are living in a utopian-frame-of-mind".

It would be an incredibley wonderful thing if we all really take care & kindness with each other.
But buddy, that just 'ain't real'.
No offence Franklin ... I've just seen too much in my 50 years - and that is up-close & personal ... not just the facts that are in the news.

[wilma50]

As an afterthought, the term "mob mentality" comes to mind.

Look at the Rodney riots in 1992.
The journalists that were there asked several of the looters if they knew what the riots were about.
A large number said "no".
I'm certain that you've seen these reports yourself on various programs like Dateline, 20 / 20, etc.
This is an extreme, but you catch my drift.
Over the years I've seen too much & have listened to too many people in a city of only 200,000, not to realise that altruism, kind acceptance & caring about others ... well, that is few and far between.

[hokeshel]

Just got around to reading this. It made me start thinking back to my philosophy class a few years ago. What a great class. Now I have all kinds of philosophy goo oozing around in my brain. My head hurts.

[nightgirl]

Lying? When is it ok to lie? I don't think lying will ever be ok, even if they are white lies or those that are done for the sake of a good cause. As the saying goes "the end does not justofy the means". If it's wrong what ever the result it brings it would always be wrong. That is how I understand the laws of God but we as human beings, we tend to favor the result of things because we try hard to understand and put ourselves in the position of the person who is in the scenario.