I was on some other forums talking about moral relativism and my inability to reconcile it with my others views, such as condemning rape. Here was the argument someone put forward:
You can easily believe intellectually in moral relativism logically but, as there is no logical reason to think logically, you can take a further step back and say that, despite (or because of) moral relativism, something is objectively bad. You can reconcile illogical thoughts as there is no reason to live your life in any specific way under moral relativism and, therefore, inhibiting yourself with logical thought isn't necessary.
Basically, you can believe two conflicting things and still make an objective judgment about something because moral relativism allows you to be illogical.
To which I responded that it seemed like circular reasoning because the argument is saying you can believe whatever you want and still be right because you can be illogical. And you can be illogical because you can believe whatever you want.
And it also seems contradictory, for instance: Moral relativism allows you to choose to be illogical and therefore illogically objectively define something. But based on moral relativism you can't objectively define something. But because you are illogical you can. But because you are a moral relativist you can't. And so on. I don't see how one enables the other as a simultaneous belief.
To which the response was, "based on the original argument, there is nothing wrong with being contradictory."
I'm sort of stumped. It just seems wrong to me, but I can't put into words why. I don't know if my argument that he was using circular reasoning actually debunks his argument in any way. I think the major flaw lies in his claims of objectivity. Even if you believe that you are being objective (using being illogical as justification) it doesn't really mean you are being objective.
Once you introduce illogic into an argument, the argument ends. I don't mean it ends well; it ends in the same way the argument "I'm right because fee fah foo biddiboing" ends.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The argument is technically incorrect, though the wording is very obtuse.
You can easily believe intellectually in moral relativism logically but, as there is no logical reason to think logically,
The problem with the statement is that you don't need a reason to justify "thinking illogically". "Thinking illogically" is not a "choice". "Thinking illogically" is something that people of all flavors engage in, whether theists, atheists, moral relativists or whatnot. It's simply a FAILURE to think "logically".
"Moral relativism" is a philosophy, but "belief" "moral relativism" in it can't magically force your brain to think illogically.
you can take a further step back and say that, despite (or because of) moral relativism, something is objectively bad. You can reconcile illogical thoughts as there is no reason to live your life in any specific way under moral relativism and
All they've described is "cognitive dissonance", something almost everybody engages in. This psychologic phenomenon occurs with people of all flavors, and does not invalidate or validate "moral relativism".
therefore, inhibiting yourself with logical thought isn't necessary.
Does not follow from anything that came before.
The reason the argument "sounds" sort of like it's about "moral relativism" is that it parallels the criticism of "pure" or "extreme" moral relativism, which some say leads to "anything you do is morally defensible".
Personally, I think arguing at the extremes of moral relativism and moral absolutism is moot anyway, because neither even remotely describes actual human behavior or thought.
You can easily believe intellectually in moral relativism logically
No, you can't. Ethical relativism is illogical.
but, as there is no logical reason to think logically, you can take a further step back and say that, despite (or because of) moral relativism, something is objectively bad. You can reconcile illogical thoughts as there is no reason to live your life in any specific way under moral relativism and, therefore, inhibiting yourself with logical thought isn't necessary.
Yeah, all of this is crap.
The humorous thing, though? This guy's argument is entirely bogus, but I think, in the sense that it is possible to make 45 wrong turns that end up getting you to the right destination, this guy lead you to something true.
His argument is bogus (nothing is objective in moral relativism, that's the WHOLE point), but this statement, taken on its own out of context: "there is no reason to live your life in any specific way under moral relativism and, therefore, inhibiting yourself with logical thought isn't necessary", is correct.
Moral relativism is garbage. When you come in with a statement that anything can be correct as long as you think it is, then things become both correct and incorrect at the same time. Which is both wrong and dumb. Ethics cannot be relative. My murdering someone isn't wrong because I think it's wrong, or right because I think it's right. It's also not wrong because someone doesn't like it. It's wrong for concrete reasons that we can define and create a logical argument around.
Moral relativism and ethics are incompatible for this reason. Indeed, Moral relativism and REASON are incompatible for this reason. One person sees another person killing someone and stealing his wallet. The witness says it's wrong. The thief says he's right. According to moral relativism, the action is both wrong and right. Except that doesn't make any ☺☺☺☺ing sense. Of course the thief is wrong. He's wrong because he just killed a guy and took his wallet! There are REASONS why he's wrong. In moral relativism, you don't have reasons for anything, or doing anything, or justifying anything. Everything is right or wrong, which renders both terms meaningless.
The problem is, if that's what you're dealing with, then yes, that's true. The problem is you didn't get there through a valid argument. It would be like if you made several wrong mistakes in a math problem but answered x=5 and x=5 is the correct answer.
I was on some other forums talking about moral relativism and my inability to reconcile it with my others views, such as condemning rape. Here was the argument someone put forward:
Basically, you can believe two conflicting things and still make an objective judgment about something because moral relativism allows you to be illogical.
To which I responded that it seemed like circular reasoning because the argument is saying you can believe whatever you want and still be right because you can be illogical. And you can be illogical because you can believe whatever you want.
And it also seems contradictory, for instance: Moral relativism allows you to choose to be illogical and therefore illogically objectively define something. But based on moral relativism you can't objectively define something. But because you are illogical you can. But because you are a moral relativist you can't. And so on. I don't see how one enables the other as a simultaneous belief.
To which the response was, "based on the original argument, there is nothing wrong with being contradictory."
I'm sort of stumped. It just seems wrong to me, but I can't put into words why. I don't know if my argument that he was using circular reasoning actually debunks his argument in any way. I think the major flaw lies in his claims of objectivity. Even if you believe that you are being objective (using being illogical as justification) it doesn't really mean you are being objective.
Please post your thoughts.
To me it just seems like "because it doesn't ultimately matter anyways, just live your life how you want" or something similar to that.
He's justifying contradiction (or illogicality) by saying it justifies itself?
Ummm, circular logic?
Also, exactly which moral relativism are we speaking of? From what I'm reading I'm thinking Meta-ethical relativism.
I also don't understand how he can make certain jumps like
there is no logical reason to think logically
Just because morality is subjective doesn't mean everything is. Logic still holds under the model, so there is still reason to think logically. There are still things to be gained from it, and while there isn't necessarily an inherent value from such things, that doesn't stop you from wanting to pursue them.
despite (or because of) moral relativism, something is objectively bad.
The theory itself literally assumes that nothing is objectively bad, so that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
You can reconcile illogical thoughts as there is no reason to live your life in any specific way under moral relativism and, therefore, inhibiting yourself with logical thought isn't necessary.
You can still have reasons, you just have to understand that they aren't objective and universal. Also, as I said before, logic still has uses.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Virtue, Jacques, is an excellent thing. Both good people and wicked people speak highly of it..."
Basically, you can believe two conflicting things and still make an objective judgment about something because moral relativism allows you to be illogical.
Moral relativism doesn't have anything to do with being illogical. It's not even tangentially related to logic or reason. It's highly associated with the realization that morality exists as it does for a reason (genetic fitness), and that it ebbs and flows like a tide in response to new demands. Sometimes, ☺☺☺☺☺☺☺s on the internet attempt to use it to justify murder. But it is not impossible to imagine some intelligent species similar to man to which rape was actually ethical: if females layed eggs, so pregnancy wasn't so much of an investment and risk, and males released sperm as a cloud, so the physical assault aspect was removed. Rape would be about as bad as farting near someone. You might even be able to imagine a situation (albeit a heavily contrived one) where rape is itself ethical in human behavior, like if you were the last humans on earth.
But being able to imagine a different brand of morality doesn't mean you can change your own. You are who you are, and humans share a common heritage. In that way, morality is objective, because we are all created from the same genetic pattern, raised in the same global society, and exposed to somewhat similar environments.
"there is no reason to live your life in any specific way under moral relativism and, therefore, inhibiting yourself with logical thought isn't necessary", is correct.
What do you think moral relativism is, highroller? Why do you think the idea that there is no absolute construct called morality, written into the fabric of the cosmos, imply that we can't be good people?
What about the consequences of ones actions? What about the sense of right and wrong given to us by our parents, peers, and society? What about personal reflection and the realization that other people are conscious entities with similar emotions, hopes, and dreams?
Why can't we be good for reasons other than: "It is so written."?
But being able to imagine a different brand of morality doesn't mean you can change your own. You are who you are, and humans share a common heritage. In that way, morality is objective, because we are all created from the same genetic pattern, raised in the same global society, and exposed to somewhat similar environments.
I understand what you mean to say here but strongly caution you against saying it this way. You might say "is unified" or something, but please don't toss out the O-word so hastily.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Virtue, Jacques, is an excellent thing. Both good people and wicked people speak highly of it..."
What do you think moral relativism is, highroller? Why do you think the idea that there is no absolute construct called morality, written into the fabric of the cosmos, imply that we can't be good people?
What about the consequences of ones actions? What about the sense of right and wrong given to us by our parents, peers, and society? What about personal reflection and the realization that other people are conscious entities with similar emotions, hopes, and dreams?
Why can't we be good for reasons other than: "It is so written."?
Many of the reasons you allude to potentially fall under the umbrella of moral objectivism. As you yourself say earlier in your post, there are more ways for morality to be objective than just "God/the universe says so".
I understand what you mean to say here but strongly caution you against saying it this way. You might say "is unified" or something, but please don't toss out the O-word so hastily.
That's a perfectly valid use of the word.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
What do you think moral relativism is, highroller? Why do you think the idea that there is no absolute construct called morality, written into the fabric of the cosmos, imply that we can't be good people?
What about the consequences of ones actions? What about the sense of right and wrong given to us by our parents, peers, and society? What about personal reflection and the realization that other people are conscious entities with similar emotions, hopes, and dreams?
Why can't we be good for reasons other than: "It is so written."?
You don't know what moral relativism is.
It is not "there is no objective morality". Moral relativism states that any action is correct as long as someone believes it is correct, and is incorrect based on whether or not someone says it's incorrect.
This is also called bull☺☺☺☺. The problems are numerous. One of them is that it doesn't just ignore the question of WHY someone believes something, but under moral relativism, why they believe it becomes entirely irrelevant. It doesn't matter why you believe something is right or wrong, only that you do, because you're correct or incorrect in doing something based on that.
This creates uncomfortable situations in which a man can run around murdering people because he thinks the ghost of Zombie Shakespeare told him to. Zombie Shakespeare doesn't exist? Doesn't matter! He's completely correct! He believes it! Oh wait, now he's undergone therapy and no longer believes his delusion. Now his actions are incorrect! Even though they weren't 3 days ago!
Then we get into the practice of how two people can believe the same thing is wrong and right. A witness to a murder says the murderer is wrong. The murderer says he is not. What is the correct answer? How should society proceed? Moral relativism has no answers. Why? Because moral relativism says everyone is simultaneously right and wrong at the same time. Why? Because it doesn't say jack ☺☺☺☺ about anything useful!
Ethics is the study of how we should live, of what is a good life, of what we should do. The intellectual laziness of ethical subjectivism is incompatible with ethics, and should be dispensed with accordingly.
It is not "there is no objective morality". Moral relativism states that any action is correct as long as someone believes it is correct, and is incorrect based on whether or not someone says it's incorrect.
Source? If this is indeed what OP was referring to you may be correct, but if we were indeed talking about what I previously stated I thought we were (I was, by the way, not corrected) then I still disagree.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Virtue, Jacques, is an excellent thing. Both good people and wicked people speak highly of it..."
Moral relativism may be any of several descriptive, meta-ethical, or normative positions regarding the differences in moral or ethical judgments between different people and cultures:
Descriptive relativism is merely the positive or descriptive position that there exist, in fact, fundamental disagreements about the right course of action even when the same facts obtain and the same consequences seem likely to arise.
Meta-ethical relativism, on the other hand, is the meta-ethical position that the truth or falsity of moral judgments, or their justification, is not objective or universal but instead relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a group of people.
Normative relativism, further still, is the prescriptive or normative position that, as there is no universal moral standard by which to judge others, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when it runs counter to our personal or cultural moral standards.
I was under the assumption that these discussions tended to focus on something like meta-ethical relativism. As normative relativism is prescriptive, obviously someone could very well be a "normative relativist", but it would be an ass-backwards way to live. "You may have killed my wife, but as there is no universal standard to judge your behavior, I cannot judge you."
Many of the reasons you allude to potentially fall under the umbrella of moral objectivism. As you yourself say earlier in your post, there are more ways for morality to be objective than just "God/the universe says so".
I don't necessarily care if I am wrong about this, but I highly doubt I'm a moral objectivist.
If, as highroller described, a man ran around murdering in the name of Zombie Shakespeare, and legitimately believed this, his actions very well may be morally correct, internally. By which I mean that he made decisions consistent with his values (his utility function).
Of course his actions would still be immoral to the rest of us, and corrective action would be necessary. This is possible because humans generally have functioning minds capable of reason, and a similar collection of emotions and values. So we can hopefully come to a compromise (we don't even have a choice here anyways), and label it as objective morality for those among us who may confuse philosophy as a license to act on their whims.
I was under the assumption that these discussions tended to focus on something like meta-ethical relativism. As normative relativism is prescriptive, obviously someone could very well be a "normative relativist", but it would be an ass-backwards way to live. "You may have killed my wife, but as there is no universal standard to judge your behavior, I cannot judge you."
I'm glad you and I can agree why this is a problem.
If, as highroller described, a man ran around murdering in the name of Zombie Shakespeare, and legitimately believed this, his actions very well may be morally correct, internally. By which I mean that he made decisions consistent with his values (his utility function).
Of course his actions would still be immoral to the rest of us
No, his actions would be wrong period. They would be wrong even if we all agreed on the existence of Zombie Shakespeare, because Zombie Shakespeare does not exist, and to claim an atrocity is morally justified because an imaginary figure told you to do it does not function.
I was under the assumption that these discussions tended to focus on something like meta-ethical relativism. As normative relativism is prescriptive, obviously someone could very well be a "normative relativist", but it would be an ass-backwards way to live. "You may have killed my wife, but as there is no universal standard to judge your behavior, I cannot judge you."
Why is it ass backwards? Can't the morality of every situation be relative to that specific event? Honestly I don't think killing someone is always bad it depends on the situation. If you shot someone who was going to kill a couple other people in say a hostage situation I would say you were morally right in doing so if that is the only way to resolve the situation without the hostages dying. However if you just shot someone cause you came home to find your wife cheating on you with the person you shot it would be morally wrong to kill them. Which makes murder not fall under universally objective moral standard. Also if someone killed my wife I a moral relativist would take into account the context and may not find how their wife was killed to be morally wrong such as a tragic accident.
Why is it ass backwards? Can't the morality of every situation be relative to that specific event?
That's not what he's talking about, although I will say the wording is shoddy in that article. What we're talking about is the idea that ANYTHING you do that you think is correct is morally justified as long as you think it is, and morally wrong as long as you think it is, but this only applies to you, and not to anyone else.
it would be morally wrong to kill them.
Except that doesn't exist in moral relativism. As long as that person thinks he's fine for committing wanton murder, he's fine.
See the problem?
Also if someone killed my wife I a moral relativist would take into account the context
Nope, context doesn't matter. As long as you think you're alright for doing it, you're alright according to moral relativism. That's why it's a problem.
That's not what he's talking about, although I will say the wording is shoddy in that article. What we're talking about is the idea that ANYTHING you do that you think is correct is morally justified as long as you think it is, and morally wrong as long as you think it is, but this only applies to you, and not to anyone else.
That isn't what moral relativism is at all because it is in no way relative. It's merely saying its wrong or right because you think so which is more in line with cognitive dissonance. It's purely objective in that what the person thinks is moral is moral and shows no relativism towards the action. It would be relativism if for example applied to a particular culture for example, which is a context. Relativism is something that leaves room for right and wrong not making anything absolute.
Nope, context doesn't matter. As long as you think you're alright for doing it, you're alright according to moral relativism. That's why it's a problem.
You act like a moral relativist would be an absolutist and takes nothing into consideration in looking at the morality of an action. As if they just say whatever everything is moral because if they do it they think its moral so it is. As a bit of a moral relativist myself context matters greatly and I always use it when looking at the morality of situation. I personally don't believe there is an absolute, objective, or universal morality which applies across the board. For me morality is all about context since really the morality of a situation depends on the situation. No two murders are exactly the same but they may still both be morally wrong while another murder could be morally right.
What you've defined (that is, looking at the context when establishing whether or not something is or isn't moral) isn't moral relativism, though.
Really? Its fits everything but the normative definition of from wikipedia. If I look at someone and say that their actions are morally relative then I'm looking at the context of there actions not just saying "oh they think it's right so if it's relative to them it is okay and is the right thing."
No, his actions would be wrong period. They would be wrong even if we all agreed on the existence of Zombie Shakespeare, because Zombie Shakespeare does not exist, and to claim an atrocity is morally justified because an imaginary figure told you to do it does not function.
The reason I dislike this is because this assumes that objective morality is possible. You say this is wrong period because zombie shakespeare did not exist, but what if we cannot be sure? What if someone bases their morals on a god, whose existence we can neither prove nor disprove?
On the one hand, from their point of view, the god does exist and the action is moral. However within our contemporary society, sacrificial rituals would be judged immoral by the majority. Since we're the majority, does that make them objectively immoral? Of course not. What if humanity is almost decimated, and for some reason the majority of the survivors are of this religion? Now the majority's stance is that sacrificial rituals are indeed moral. So now the morality behind sacrificial rituals is reversed? But, I thought it was objective...
Combine this with the fact that we have no 100% verified authority on morality and we are faced with the result: that the origin of any given moral is fallible. Yet a fallible moral could spread and gain root in the majority. To say a moral value is objective just because the majority holds it is a pretty frightening idea, to me.
That said, I'd also like to mention that regardless of the source of your morals (even a zombie shakespeare), all that matters is what the morals are. Not where they came from. So saying that the man was immoral because his morality came from a fictitious source and was opposed to the majority is... disagreeable to me.
I subscribe to this idea:
Quote from limecat »
Of course his actions would still be immoral to the rest of us, and corrective action would be necessary. This is possible because humans generally have functioning minds capable of reason, and a similar collection of emotions and values. So we can hopefully come to a compromise (we don't even have a choice here anyways), and label it as objective morality for those among us who may confuse philosophy as a license to act on their whims.
At least, within a single culture. Except I don't like labeling it objective morality. Perhaps collective morality.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Virtue, Jacques, is an excellent thing. Both good people and wicked people speak highly of it..."
The reason I dislike this is because this assumes that objective morality is possible.
In normal practice, the burden of proof is on the person asserting impossibility. We assume a proposition is possible until it has been demonstrated to be impossible.
On the one hand, from their point of view, the god does exist and the action is moral. However within our contemporary society, sacrificial rituals would be judged immoral by the majority. Since we're the majority, does that make them objectively immoral? Of course not. What if humanity is almost decimated, and for some reason the majority of the survivors are of this religion? Now the majority's stance is that sacrificial rituals are indeed moral. So now the morality behind sacrificial rituals is reversed? But, I thought it was objective...
You're contradicting yourself. You correctly state at the top of this paragraph that objectivism means the majority's opinion does not determine the moral truth. But at the bottom of your paragraph you assume that the change in majority causes a change in morality, which is of course false under objectivism.
I subscribe to this idea: At least, within a single culture. Except I don't like labeling it objective morality. Perhaps collective morality.
It's a matter of anthropological fact that the "common core morality"* is universal across human cultures, and psychologists are busily exploring what basic impulses create this behavior pattern. Now, these impulses may be genetically coded or memetically learned (or, most likely, both); either way, we can ask ourselves why they give us this behavior pattern and not another, and either way, the answer seems to be the same. Evolutionarily speaking, the behavior pattern we call "moral" is the peak in the fitness landscape of possible behavior patterns for intelligent social animals. A fitness landscape is objective (albeit abstract), therefore morality is objective.
*Roughly: be honest, be fair, respect others' autonomy, don't injure, avenge wrongdoing. Much stronger ingroup, weaker outgroup.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
In normal practice, the burden of proof is on the person asserting impossibility. We assume a proposition is possible until it has been demonstrated to be impossible.
Exactly. I then go on to explain one reason why I believe moral objectivity to be impossible.
You're contradicting yourself. You correctly state at the top of this paragraph that objectivism means the majority's opinion does not determine the moral truth. But at the bottom of your paragraph you assume that the change in majority causes a change in morality, which is of course false under objectivism.
I was pointing out a perceived flaw in Highroller's judgment; pointing out one reason I believe that it cannot be objective: because we have no way to determine which claim accurately highlights the objective moral value of an action. I wasn't contradicting myself, I was illustrating a perceived contradiction in another's viewpoint.
It's a matter of anthropological fact that the "common core morality"* is universal across human cultures, and psychologists are busily exploring what basic impulses create this behavior pattern. Now, these impulses may be genetically coded or memetically learned (or, most likely, both); either way, we can ask ourselves why they give us this behavior pattern and not another, and either way, the answer seems to be the same. Evolutionarily speaking, the behavior pattern we call "moral" is the peak in the fitness landscape of possible behavior patterns for intelligent social animals. A fitness landscape is objective (albeit abstract), therefore morality is objective.
But it (as you said) is abstract, and it has shades of gray because our species (or genetics or whatever you chalk it down to) has not come to a consensus yet. The concept (of an objective moral) itself can occupy many of these shades, because the concept is an amalgamation of the morals which the total population holds (resultant of evolution or socialization or whatever). However an individual cannot hold a moral concept in shades of gray, because that wouldn't make sense. It wouldn't lead to a practical use; while globally, abortion (for example, not a tangential bombshell :)) can be thought of as "somewhat right and somewhat wrong", if a person were to decide whether or not to get an abortion based on that idea, it wouldn't work. They need to pick a distinct point on the scale.
Doing so means to separate from the "objective" morality, because it exists across the shades of gray, not in a single spot. Because of this, all individuals (or groups as a whole, such as societies and cultures) who need to exercise morality will come to a point where they separate from the objective morality for practical purposes. In that way, while you could say it is objective in that it is global, different individuals will have different interpretations.
That's how I see it. Sorry if that reads confusingly, but I'm not really sure how to clear it up. If this is indeed what you mean by objective morality, then I agree. But I still say it should be called collective morality; I mean, hey, it wasn't clear enough for me, right?
*Roughly: be honest, be fair, respect others' autonomy, don't injure, avenge wrongdoing. Much stronger ingroup, weaker outgroup.
Definitely. I totally agree with this. The problem is that wrongdoing is defined in shades of gray, and can only be determined within a very small group who has an identical interpretation of the "objective" morality; this is why people so often see me advocating extreme meta-ethical relativism.
No, his actions would be wrong period. They would be wrong even if we all agreed on the existence of Zombie Shakespeare, because Zombie Shakespeare does not exist, and to claim an atrocity is morally justified because an imaginary figure told you to do it does not function.
I would agree with you that his actions were wrong. His actions would be going against my values. I can further condemn and punish this kind of behavior. However, I do not see how I can do much more then that.
It seems to me like error theory is the most accurate theory of meta-ethics. Note that this is separate from relativism, which is just silly.
I find this line of argument to be persuasive:
Quote from wiki »
The other argument often attributed to Mackie, often called the Argument from Disagreement, maintains that any moral claim (e.g. "Killing babies is wrong") entails a correspondent "reasons claim" ("one has reason not to kill babies"). Put another way, if "killing babies is wrong" is true then everybody has a reason to not kill babies. This includes the psychopath who takes great pleasure from killing babies, and is utterly miserable when he does not have their blood on his hands. But, surely, (if we assume that he will suffer no reprisals) this psychopath has every reason to kill babies, and no reason not to do so. All moral claims are thus false.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
EDH DECKS
EDH Decks -- Updated 9/28
----------------------- Child of Alara - 60 Land Shenanigans Progenitus - 5 Color Control Mangara - MWC Drana - MBC Ashling - 50 Mountain Death Karn - Typical Karn deck Kresh - Sac + Tokens Kamhal Fist of Krosa - Ramp + Eldrazi Sakashima - Morph and Wizard themes Flying Hippo - Spirit / arcane jank Teeg -30 disenchants
--------------------------- Dismantled Sen Triplets - Boring Control Uril - Enchantment Voltron
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Basically, you can believe two conflicting things and still make an objective judgment about something because moral relativism allows you to be illogical.
To which I responded that it seemed like circular reasoning because the argument is saying you can believe whatever you want and still be right because you can be illogical. And you can be illogical because you can believe whatever you want.
And it also seems contradictory, for instance: Moral relativism allows you to choose to be illogical and therefore illogically objectively define something. But based on moral relativism you can't objectively define something. But because you are illogical you can. But because you are a moral relativist you can't. And so on. I don't see how one enables the other as a simultaneous belief.
To which the response was, "based on the original argument, there is nothing wrong with being contradictory."
I'm sort of stumped. It just seems wrong to me, but I can't put into words why. I don't know if my argument that he was using circular reasoning actually debunks his argument in any way. I think the major flaw lies in his claims of objectivity. Even if you believe that you are being objective (using being illogical as justification) it doesn't really mean you are being objective.
Please post your thoughts.
Probably not an extremely good answer I guess, but that's my gut reaction reaction in 50 seconds.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The problem with the statement is that you don't need a reason to justify "thinking illogically". "Thinking illogically" is not a "choice". "Thinking illogically" is something that people of all flavors engage in, whether theists, atheists, moral relativists or whatnot. It's simply a FAILURE to think "logically".
"Moral relativism" is a philosophy, but "belief" "moral relativism" in it can't magically force your brain to think illogically.
All they've described is "cognitive dissonance", something almost everybody engages in. This psychologic phenomenon occurs with people of all flavors, and does not invalidate or validate "moral relativism".
Does not follow from anything that came before.
The reason the argument "sounds" sort of like it's about "moral relativism" is that it parallels the criticism of "pure" or "extreme" moral relativism, which some say leads to "anything you do is morally defensible".
Personally, I think arguing at the extremes of moral relativism and moral absolutism is moot anyway, because neither even remotely describes actual human behavior or thought.
Yeah, all of this is crap.
The humorous thing, though? This guy's argument is entirely bogus, but I think, in the sense that it is possible to make 45 wrong turns that end up getting you to the right destination, this guy lead you to something true.
His argument is bogus (nothing is objective in moral relativism, that's the WHOLE point), but this statement, taken on its own out of context: "there is no reason to live your life in any specific way under moral relativism and, therefore, inhibiting yourself with logical thought isn't necessary", is correct.
Moral relativism is garbage. When you come in with a statement that anything can be correct as long as you think it is, then things become both correct and incorrect at the same time. Which is both wrong and dumb. Ethics cannot be relative. My murdering someone isn't wrong because I think it's wrong, or right because I think it's right. It's also not wrong because someone doesn't like it. It's wrong for concrete reasons that we can define and create a logical argument around.
Moral relativism and ethics are incompatible for this reason. Indeed, Moral relativism and REASON are incompatible for this reason. One person sees another person killing someone and stealing his wallet. The witness says it's wrong. The thief says he's right. According to moral relativism, the action is both wrong and right. Except that doesn't make any ☺☺☺☺ing sense. Of course the thief is wrong. He's wrong because he just killed a guy and took his wallet! There are REASONS why he's wrong. In moral relativism, you don't have reasons for anything, or doing anything, or justifying anything. Everything is right or wrong, which renders both terms meaningless.
The problem is, if that's what you're dealing with, then yes, that's true. The problem is you didn't get there through a valid argument. It would be like if you made several wrong mistakes in a math problem but answered x=5 and x=5 is the correct answer.
And why is that wrong?
4th place at CCC&G Pro Tour
Chances of bad hands (<2 or >4 land):
21: 28.9%
22: 27.5%
23: 26.3%
24: 25.5%
25: 25.1%
26: 25.3%
To me it just seems like "because it doesn't ultimately matter anyways, just live your life how you want" or something similar to that.
Ummm, circular logic?
Also, exactly which moral relativism are we speaking of? From what I'm reading I'm thinking Meta-ethical relativism.
I also don't understand how he can make certain jumps like
Just because morality is subjective doesn't mean everything is. Logic still holds under the model, so there is still reason to think logically. There are still things to be gained from it, and while there isn't necessarily an inherent value from such things, that doesn't stop you from wanting to pursue them.
The theory itself literally assumes that nothing is objectively bad, so that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
You can still have reasons, you just have to understand that they aren't objective and universal. Also, as I said before, logic still has uses.
Moral relativism doesn't have anything to do with being illogical. It's not even tangentially related to logic or reason. It's highly associated with the realization that morality exists as it does for a reason (genetic fitness), and that it ebbs and flows like a tide in response to new demands. Sometimes, ☺☺☺☺☺☺☺s on the internet attempt to use it to justify murder. But it is not impossible to imagine some intelligent species similar to man to which rape was actually ethical: if females layed eggs, so pregnancy wasn't so much of an investment and risk, and males released sperm as a cloud, so the physical assault aspect was removed. Rape would be about as bad as farting near someone. You might even be able to imagine a situation (albeit a heavily contrived one) where rape is itself ethical in human behavior, like if you were the last humans on earth.
But being able to imagine a different brand of morality doesn't mean you can change your own. You are who you are, and humans share a common heritage. In that way, morality is objective, because we are all created from the same genetic pattern, raised in the same global society, and exposed to somewhat similar environments.
What do you think moral relativism is, highroller? Why do you think the idea that there is no absolute construct called morality, written into the fabric of the cosmos, imply that we can't be good people?
What about the consequences of ones actions? What about the sense of right and wrong given to us by our parents, peers, and society? What about personal reflection and the realization that other people are conscious entities with similar emotions, hopes, and dreams?
Why can't we be good for reasons other than: "It is so written."?
I understand what you mean to say here but strongly caution you against saying it this way. You might say "is unified" or something, but please don't toss out the O-word so hastily.
Many of the reasons you allude to potentially fall under the umbrella of moral objectivism. As you yourself say earlier in your post, there are more ways for morality to be objective than just "God/the universe says so".
That's a perfectly valid use of the word.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
It is, but I just know people will read it and jump to the (admittedly more common) usage which is totally opposite of subjective; set in stone.
You don't know what moral relativism is.
It is not "there is no objective morality". Moral relativism states that any action is correct as long as someone believes it is correct, and is incorrect based on whether or not someone says it's incorrect.
This is also called bull☺☺☺☺. The problems are numerous. One of them is that it doesn't just ignore the question of WHY someone believes something, but under moral relativism, why they believe it becomes entirely irrelevant. It doesn't matter why you believe something is right or wrong, only that you do, because you're correct or incorrect in doing something based on that.
This creates uncomfortable situations in which a man can run around murdering people because he thinks the ghost of Zombie Shakespeare told him to. Zombie Shakespeare doesn't exist? Doesn't matter! He's completely correct! He believes it! Oh wait, now he's undergone therapy and no longer believes his delusion. Now his actions are incorrect! Even though they weren't 3 days ago!
Then we get into the practice of how two people can believe the same thing is wrong and right. A witness to a murder says the murderer is wrong. The murderer says he is not. What is the correct answer? How should society proceed? Moral relativism has no answers. Why? Because moral relativism says everyone is simultaneously right and wrong at the same time. Why? Because it doesn't say jack ☺☺☺☺ about anything useful!
Ethics is the study of how we should live, of what is a good life, of what we should do. The intellectual laziness of ethical subjectivism is incompatible with ethics, and should be dispensed with accordingly.
I was under the assumption that these discussions tended to focus on something like meta-ethical relativism. As normative relativism is prescriptive, obviously someone could very well be a "normative relativist", but it would be an ass-backwards way to live. "You may have killed my wife, but as there is no universal standard to judge your behavior, I cannot judge you."
I don't necessarily care if I am wrong about this, but I highly doubt I'm a moral objectivist.
If, as highroller described, a man ran around murdering in the name of Zombie Shakespeare, and legitimately believed this, his actions very well may be morally correct, internally. By which I mean that he made decisions consistent with his values (his utility function).
Of course his actions would still be immoral to the rest of us, and corrective action would be necessary. This is possible because humans generally have functioning minds capable of reason, and a similar collection of emotions and values. So we can hopefully come to a compromise (we don't even have a choice here anyways), and label it as objective morality for those among us who may confuse philosophy as a license to act on their whims.
I'm glad you and I can agree why this is a problem.
No, his actions would be wrong period. They would be wrong even if we all agreed on the existence of Zombie Shakespeare, because Zombie Shakespeare does not exist, and to claim an atrocity is morally justified because an imaginary figure told you to do it does not function.
Why is it ass backwards? Can't the morality of every situation be relative to that specific event? Honestly I don't think killing someone is always bad it depends on the situation. If you shot someone who was going to kill a couple other people in say a hostage situation I would say you were morally right in doing so if that is the only way to resolve the situation without the hostages dying. However if you just shot someone cause you came home to find your wife cheating on you with the person you shot it would be morally wrong to kill them. Which makes murder not fall under universally objective moral standard. Also if someone killed my wife I a moral relativist would take into account the context and may not find how their wife was killed to be morally wrong such as a tragic accident.
Thanks to Magus of the Sheep at Scuttlemutt Productions for the best ever sig.
That's not what he's talking about, although I will say the wording is shoddy in that article. What we're talking about is the idea that ANYTHING you do that you think is correct is morally justified as long as you think it is, and morally wrong as long as you think it is, but this only applies to you, and not to anyone else.
Except that doesn't exist in moral relativism. As long as that person thinks he's fine for committing wanton murder, he's fine.
See the problem?
Nope, context doesn't matter. As long as you think you're alright for doing it, you're alright according to moral relativism. That's why it's a problem.
That isn't what moral relativism is at all because it is in no way relative. It's merely saying its wrong or right because you think so which is more in line with cognitive dissonance. It's purely objective in that what the person thinks is moral is moral and shows no relativism towards the action. It would be relativism if for example applied to a particular culture for example, which is a context. Relativism is something that leaves room for right and wrong not making anything absolute.
You act like a moral relativist would be an absolutist and takes nothing into consideration in looking at the morality of an action. As if they just say whatever everything is moral because if they do it they think its moral so it is. As a bit of a moral relativist myself context matters greatly and I always use it when looking at the morality of situation. I personally don't believe there is an absolute, objective, or universal morality which applies across the board. For me morality is all about context since really the morality of a situation depends on the situation. No two murders are exactly the same but they may still both be morally wrong while another murder could be morally right.
Thanks to Magus of the Sheep at Scuttlemutt Productions for the best ever sig.
Really? Its fits everything but the normative definition of from wikipedia. If I look at someone and say that their actions are morally relative then I'm looking at the context of there actions not just saying "oh they think it's right so if it's relative to them it is okay and is the right thing."
Thanks to Magus of the Sheep at Scuttlemutt Productions for the best ever sig.
On the one hand, from their point of view, the god does exist and the action is moral. However within our contemporary society, sacrificial rituals would be judged immoral by the majority. Since we're the majority, does that make them objectively immoral? Of course not. What if humanity is almost decimated, and for some reason the majority of the survivors are of this religion? Now the majority's stance is that sacrificial rituals are indeed moral. So now the morality behind sacrificial rituals is reversed? But, I thought it was objective...
Combine this with the fact that we have no 100% verified authority on morality and we are faced with the result: that the origin of any given moral is fallible. Yet a fallible moral could spread and gain root in the majority. To say a moral value is objective just because the majority holds it is a pretty frightening idea, to me.
That said, I'd also like to mention that regardless of the source of your morals (even a zombie shakespeare), all that matters is what the morals are. Not where they came from. So saying that the man was immoral because his morality came from a fictitious source and was opposed to the majority is... disagreeable to me.
I subscribe to this idea: At least, within a single culture. Except I don't like labeling it objective morality. Perhaps collective morality.
In normal practice, the burden of proof is on the person asserting impossibility. We assume a proposition is possible until it has been demonstrated to be impossible.
You're contradicting yourself. You correctly state at the top of this paragraph that objectivism means the majority's opinion does not determine the moral truth. But at the bottom of your paragraph you assume that the change in majority causes a change in morality, which is of course false under objectivism.
It's a matter of anthropological fact that the "common core morality"* is universal across human cultures, and psychologists are busily exploring what basic impulses create this behavior pattern. Now, these impulses may be genetically coded or memetically learned (or, most likely, both); either way, we can ask ourselves why they give us this behavior pattern and not another, and either way, the answer seems to be the same. Evolutionarily speaking, the behavior pattern we call "moral" is the peak in the fitness landscape of possible behavior patterns for intelligent social animals. A fitness landscape is objective (albeit abstract), therefore morality is objective.
*Roughly: be honest, be fair, respect others' autonomy, don't injure, avenge wrongdoing. Much stronger ingroup, weaker outgroup.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I was pointing out a perceived flaw in Highroller's judgment; pointing out one reason I believe that it cannot be objective: because we have no way to determine which claim accurately highlights the objective moral value of an action. I wasn't contradicting myself, I was illustrating a perceived contradiction in another's viewpoint.
But it (as you said) is abstract, and it has shades of gray because our species (or genetics or whatever you chalk it down to) has not come to a consensus yet. The concept (of an objective moral) itself can occupy many of these shades, because the concept is an amalgamation of the morals which the total population holds (resultant of evolution or socialization or whatever). However an individual cannot hold a moral concept in shades of gray, because that wouldn't make sense. It wouldn't lead to a practical use; while globally, abortion (for example, not a tangential bombshell :)) can be thought of as "somewhat right and somewhat wrong", if a person were to decide whether or not to get an abortion based on that idea, it wouldn't work. They need to pick a distinct point on the scale.
Doing so means to separate from the "objective" morality, because it exists across the shades of gray, not in a single spot. Because of this, all individuals (or groups as a whole, such as societies and cultures) who need to exercise morality will come to a point where they separate from the objective morality for practical purposes. In that way, while you could say it is objective in that it is global, different individuals will have different interpretations.
That's how I see it. Sorry if that reads confusingly, but I'm not really sure how to clear it up. If this is indeed what you mean by objective morality, then I agree. But I still say it should be called collective morality; I mean, hey, it wasn't clear enough for me, right?
Definitely. I totally agree with this. The problem is that wrongdoing is defined in shades of gray, and can only be determined within a very small group who has an identical interpretation of the "objective" morality; this is why people so often see me advocating extreme meta-ethical relativism.
I would agree with you that his actions were wrong. His actions would be going against my values. I can further condemn and punish this kind of behavior. However, I do not see how I can do much more then that.
It seems to me like error theory is the most accurate theory of meta-ethics. Note that this is separate from relativism, which is just silly.
I find this line of argument to be persuasive:
-----------------------
Child of Alara - 60 Land Shenanigans
Progenitus - 5 Color Control
Mangara - MWC
Drana - MBC
Ashling - 50 Mountain Death
Karn - Typical Karn deck
Kresh - Sac + Tokens
Kamhal Fist of Krosa - Ramp + Eldrazi
Sakashima - Morph and Wizard themes
Flying Hippo - Spirit / arcane jank
Teeg -30 disenchants
---------------------------
Dismantled
Sen Triplets - Boring Control
Uril - Enchantment Voltron