[quote]vroom wrote:
Apparently there never has been and there never will be any true moral relativists then.
[/quote]
That’s the problem. Many people “believe in” moral relativism insofar as it says there is nothing absolutely good or bad. Most of these same people are unwilling to accept the logical consequences of these beliefs… which means that their beliefs are internally inconsistent.
[quote]karva wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
There are essential attributes and accidental attributes. Skin color is accidental, for ex. To think forming CONCEPTS is, as Aristotle said, an essential attribute. We are the animal that thinks conceptually. (He’s using rational as a property, not as a state of mental function.)
From a scientific point of view, this seems like an acceptable defining characteristic for us. We all have this property, unless there’s some accident or something like that.
So, whatever preserves or enhances someone as a rational being is THE GOOD. I think this should form the basis for any ethics.
How about lying and stealing? I could steal from a rich man. Just a little, it isn’t going to hurt him or endanger his existence as a rational being, but I could buy philosophical books and protein powder. [/quote]
LOL! Anyway, since you are both rational beings (human), stealing means that what’s ‘good’ for him is the same for you. It becomes open season on your possessions, especially if the thief is less well-off than you.
Remember: if you steal from, lie to, murder (etc) a rational being, you pronounce that this may be done to you, since you did it to them.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
vroom wrote:
Apparently there never has been and there never will be any true moral relativists then.
That’s the problem. Many people “believe in” moral relativism insofar as it says there is nothing absolutely good or bad. Most of these same people are unwilling to accept the logical consequences of these beliefs… which means that their beliefs are internally inconsistent. [/quote]
Moral relativism is not only real it is most certainly present. It is argued that what we believe and practice in western ideology and culture is only valid in so far as we are physically strong enough to back it up. In other words, we may not be “good” but our weapons say otherwise. Weapons can be taken to mean munitions and capital.
So yes, what is “good” is relative to who has the most bullets–in a “Nietzscheian” framework. To paraphrase, the good guys always win and write history. The great thing about this is that it can and usually does change hands.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
That’s the problem. Many people “believe in” moral relativism insofar as it says there is nothing absolutely good or bad. Most of these same people are unwilling to accept the logical consequences of these beliefs… which means that their beliefs are internally inconsistent. [/quote]
I don’t think you should equate a lack of belief in “absolute external definitions of good and bad” as “no such think as good and bad”.
The problem is that situations do influence judgment… which destroys the concept of absolute, but there is still judgment.
I think positing the logical end as no such thing as good and bad is simply a ploy used to discredit those that have different influences on their judgment.
At least that is the way it has been used around these parts.
In more formal arenas it may be the recognized end-point, but to put it in mathematical terms, the solution may only be achieved at the limit, such that the limit is ill-defined and never actually visited in real world situations.
So, while all good and bad might be subject to judgment, under some conditions, those conditions are so strange and bizarre as to never truly override some of the more basic evaluations of good and evil.
For example, the fact that many people have recently justified torture, which in general is thought of as “bad”, would imply that terrorism is getting closer to some theoretical limit. However, even so, many people are not budging in their belief that torture is bad… so that limit must still be somewhere in the theoretical distance.
Of course, this opens up a huge Pandora’s Box of how to determine what is actually good or bad when large segments of society disagree. Religion has been turned to as one arbiter, but it too is subject to much interpretation, judgment and variation, which doesn’t actually solve the “problem”.
However, I’m not certain there really is a problem. Is the search for “the” answer merely a way to avoid conflict and have everyone agree with some groups viewpoint, or be coerced to agree when differences occur? Is elimination of all conflict even a desirable outcome?
I’m now drowning in a sea of questions. Would you mind putting the lid back on Pandora’s Box?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
LOL! Anyway, since you are both rational beings (human), stealing means that what’s ‘good’ for him is the same for you. It becomes open season on your possessions, especially if the thief is less well-off than you.
Remember: if you steal from, lie to, murder (etc) a rational being, you pronounce that this may be done to you, since you did it to them.[/quote]
Unfortunately, the poor person may not have enough resources for it to be worth the effort of the rich person to steal from him (at least not directly).
Also, unfortunately, whether or not you YOU commit such an act, there are others who are doing such things, and worse, every day. Are they really rational acts?
You might find yourself all alone in an ivory tower if you think everyone operates in the same way, intellectually.
[quote]vroom wrote:
nephorm wrote:
Vroom, you asked how one would decide… moral relativism says we can’t decide.[/quote]
I always thought of moral relativism as a moral being a concept that exists within a larger context, not that you can’t decide becasue all morals are relative.
Understanding this concept doesn’t invalid the moral within the context.
Saying moral relativity makes it impossible to be moral is to misunderstand the concept.
It seems really simple to me.
Or maybe I dont get it?
Howabout we start from some basic natural first principles?
Something that causes you pain or harm can be termed “bad”.
Through natural survival instincts, something that causes your family or your group pain or harm can be termed “bad”.
Through compassion or empathy, something that increases the amount of pain or harm in other families or groups can be termed “bad”.
Suddenly, a lot of decisions people make, make sense. Stealing from someone will increase my well-being, but this is often rationalized as “I need it more than they”.
Also, a lot of the more irrational actions can be explained. You anger me, you cause me mental anguish, I bash you on the head, mental anguish gone. That is good.
Alternately, you steal my wife, you break my family, I kill you. I keep my family. Whether or not this is the actual thought taking place, or just instinct, these types of “decisions” are made on the planet every day. We surely have to account for the realities of life.
Hell, in pure philosophical terms, we don’t even know that anyone but ourself actually exists. Should we not start by defining something as good and bad based on our own experience and then expand it from there, just in case other people really do exist?
Just a “thought”.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Of course, this opens up a huge Pandora’s Box of how to determine what is actually good or bad when large segments of society disagree. Religion has been turned to as one arbiter, but it too is subject to much interpretation, judgment and variation, which doesn’t actually solve the “problem”.
[/quote]
“In our society, widows are thrown on the funeral pyres of their husbands.”
“In our society, we sacrifice virgins to the gods of war.”
“In our society, we have African slaves.”
“In our society, we gas and then incinerate Jews.”
Under moral relativism, all of this is ok. Well, I should refine it: apparently modern societies have some nebulous standard they can be held to, while “primitive” societies cannot be judged.
Attending a nearly all-black highschool, I was appalled to hear from black, liberal teachers that we couldn’t “judge” people of the past for holding slaves… that was “just their culture.” But most people seem to think, reflexively, that slavery is simply wrong. It isn’t a preference of the day. So to excuse a previous generation for the offense is just disingenuous, just as we don’t want to excuse Germans who participated in the holocaust. It wasn’t “just their culture.” It was absolutely wrong.
Of course, that’s also where historicism (the next big philosophical danger) comes in. “Gee, we can’t say that something is right or wrong absolutely, but we think it is, so we have to have some sort of explanation. I know! Progress! The future is simply more enlightened than the past!” I believe that a thinking person, upon reflection, should realize that this is simply absurd. Certainly there are things that the ancients understood better or more completely than we do, now. And so-called progress isn’t always beneficial, and there’s no guarantee built into the universe that human beings are on a path to perfection and the “end of history.”
Part of the problem in this discussion, I think, is that most of the posters would like a ten-commandments-styled ethical template that can be universally applied. When I say that there are things that are “simply good,” that’s not what I’m talking about. Classical philosophy understood that there are different kinds of people. Some will be capable of acting with prudence, able to discern the results of their actions with foresight. The many, however, will require simple rules of behavior to follow any at all. Most human beings are simply not wise enough to see in advance the consequences of their actions.
Plato gave us examples of how men could live such that all worked toward the good, and he knew that they were implausible. Life was very structured, some might say oppressive, in his cities. Liberal democracies, like ours, take a sort of middle road. We think that there are some things that must be mandated by law, because they are so egregious, and the consequences so dire, that we cannot trust human beings to use their own judgment. Other things we have decided are not legitimate state interests, or that they are not such great sins that individuals live with the consequences.
But the prevalence of relativism and historicism undermines the trust between man and his fellow citizens; whatever is not mandated by law is neither good nor bad. Part of “progress” is to eschew traditional values in favor of an inflated sense of liberty - what the ancients called “license” - and this leads to a breakdown of the societal bond.
Few really want to consider that, however…
Good Lord these arguments are all over the map. What are you arguing about whether moral relativism exists, or whether the fact that exisits is a good thing? Or are you just arguing with each other for one-upmanship?
Here is a good definition of moral relativism:
moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect absolute and universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. Moral relativists hold that no universal standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition’s truth.
In my opinion it is a bad thing. It’s like basing the value of your currency on the weather.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Has anyone devised an ethics that is clearcut, understandable, and we’d do naturally? I’d like to think of a moral choice as: “Well, of course! Why would I do anything else?”
[/quote]
This may not accurate, but ‘Meditations’ by Marcus Aurelius fits this bill.
[quote]pat36 wrote:
In my opinion it is a bad thing. It’s like basing the value of your currency on the weather.
[/quote]
Well put.
[quote]vroom wrote:
However, I posit that most people have trouble seeing beyond the surface of an issue to understand the real impact of their actions on society.[/quote]
Awareness isn’t a requirement of the living.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
“In our society, widows are thrown on the funeral pyres of their husbands.”
“In our society, we sacrifice virgins to the gods of war.”
“In our society, we have African slaves.”
“In our society, we gas and then incinerate Jews.”
Under moral relativism, all of this is ok. Well, I should refine it: apparently modern societies have some nebulous standard they can be held to, while “primitive” societies cannot be judged.
Attending a nearly all-black highschool, I was appalled to hear from black, liberal teachers that we couldn’t “judge” people of the past for holding slaves… that was “just their culture.” But most people seem to think, reflexively, that slavery is simply wrong. It isn’t a preference of the day. So to excuse a previous generation for the offense is just disingenuous, just as we don’t want to excuse Germans who participated in the holocaust. It wasn’t “just their culture.” It was absolutely wrong.
Of course, that’s also where historicism (the next big philosophical danger) comes in. “Gee, we can’t say that something is right or wrong absolutely, but we think it is, so we have to have some sort of explanation. I know! Progress! The future is simply more enlightened than the past!” I believe that a thinking person, upon reflection, should realize that this is simply absurd. Certainly there are things that the ancients understood better or more completely than we do, now. And so-called progress isn’t always beneficial, and there’s no guarantee built into the universe that human beings are on a path to perfection and the “end of history.”
Part of the problem in this discussion, I think, is that most of the posters would like a ten-commandments-styled ethical template that can be universally applied. When I say that there are things that are “simply good,” that’s not what I’m talking about. Classical philosophy understood that there are different kinds of people. Some will be capable of acting with prudence, able to discern the results of their actions with foresight. The many, however, will require simple rules of behavior to follow any at all. Most human beings are simply not wise enough to see in advance the consequences of their actions.
Plato gave us examples of how men could live such that all worked toward the good, and he knew that they were implausible. Life was very structured, some might say oppressive, in his cities. Liberal democracies, like ours, take a sort of middle road. We think that there are some things that must be mandated by law, because they are so egregious, and the consequences so dire, that we cannot trust human beings to use their own judgment. Other things we have decided are not legitimate state interests, or that they are not such great sins that individuals live with the consequences.
But the prevalence of relativism and historicism undermines the trust between man and his fellow citizens; whatever is not mandated by law is neither good nor bad. Part of “progress” is to eschew traditional values in favor of an inflated sense of liberty - what the ancients called “license” - and this leads to a breakdown of the societal bond.
Few really want to consider that, however…[/quote]
Neph, very good post, and I agree on most points.
However, what are your thoughts on the nature of experience? After all, if we decide that morality is not relative, we must still acknowledge Man’s limitations in understanding what the Right Answers are.
While, like you, I tend to be skeptical of the messianic view of ‘Progress’ that grips so many, would you reserve some level of progress by virtue of being able to reflect on wisdom/mistakes/great thinking of the past to get closer to understanding the Right Answers?
I am reminded by the quote “we see at great length because we stand on the shoulders of giants” - and it seems to me that a level of progress has been made among our ancestors. Take for example slavery. While we now categorically think slavery is evil, our ancestors were born into a world that accepted it, and while none of them could wave a wand and fix it all as individuals, every piecemeal movement ranging from the ancient Greeks to the modern Anglo-American abolition of the institution got us inch by inch closer to the Right Answer that slavery is evil and won’t be tolerated.
I am curious as to your take on progress as contrast to ‘Progress’ - if there be Right Answers (as opposed to liquid relativism), in your view, is it fair to say that we can learn from reflections on thought of the past, build on them, and thereby get closer to the Right Answers?
But I wholeheartedly agree with your text on the belief in the ‘end of history’. While many think we are on a constant, linear trajectory toward a place of Progress, these same people forget that societies can and often have rotted in the opposite direction.
Ethics is relative and personal. Only in a collective, or hive mentality does the concept of ethics hold any defined set of values.
As an individual living entity, my “good” one day may actually be “bad” years from now. Good and bad are thus terms of the relative. Ethics change, as it relates to the individual and his life experiences over time.
What is good for you, now, is the only question one requires of ones self. It won’t necessarily be good for anyone else. Acting on a decision will invariably lead to consequences - another part of the equation.
If you’re crazy, all bets off.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
However, what are your thoughts on the nature of experience? After all, if we decide that morality is not relative, we must still acknowledge Man’s limitations in understanding what the Right Answers are.
[/quote]
Absolutely. Assuming the Epinomis to be authentic, I think Plato’s final point is that it is hard to know. As such, we must be very cautious in how we shape or reform society. It is given to some human beings to see further than others, but no one comprehends the whole… and the whole is the aim of Philosophy.
I’m ambivalent on this point, because I wonder if we don’t lose by distance and arrogance what we gain by the accumulation of experiences. Certainly I think progress holds in the context of the natural sciences. Can I, or anyone else for that matter, really understand Plato or Aristotle as well as the least of one of their students? I think we have the potential to progress, of course. Like you, I just don’t think it’s a foregone conclusion.
Aristotle provided solid arguments against slavery. Many learned men in the 18th century felt slavery to be a severe wrong, despite holding slaves themselves.
In some sense, we’ve had legal progress - laws catching up to the greatest minds. Yet the hoi polloi do not now understand something they did not understand in times past, or at least I do not think they do. Moral progress would mean a more thorough understanding of the bases for good, rather than simple adherence or emotional attachment to the rules.
If we were to ever again have Philosophers, and the Great Conversation were to be reinvigorated, I think you would be correct. Alternatively, if we are able to learn from the greatest minds, putting aside the arrogant belief that we know “more” than those who came before us, we could.
[quote]pat36 wrote:
In my opinion it is a bad thing. It’s like basing the value of your currency on the weather.
[/quote]
Why is it like basing currency on weather?
I dont get the similie.
What about this one:
Moral relativsim is like basing the value of the sails on your boat based on the weather?
“That’s a great sail if its not windy.”
[quote]nephorm wrote:
“In our society, widows are thrown on the funeral pyres of their husbands.”
“In our society, we sacrifice virgins to the gods of war.”
“In our society, we have African slaves.”
“In our society, we gas and then incinerate Jews.”
Under moral relativism, all of this is ok. Well, I should refine it: apparently modern societies have some nebulous standard they can be held to, while “primitive” societies cannot be judged.
[/quote]
I’d have to disagree… 
Moral relativism doesn’t mean that everything is okay. However, like it or not, some of those things were deemed okay at one point in time (by some people), weren’t they?
We don’t get to hide behind today’s moral standards and make claims about the ethics of others.
If at some point in time the Earth suffers greatly under global warming, who knows, then we will be branded as an unethical period that didn’t know right from wrong and selfishly condemned future generations with our wasteful ways.
However, right now, the information we know, the society we live in, we don’t have the convenience of 20/20 hindsight with which to judge our current activities.
Relativism shouldn’t be taken as an excuse to discard the concepts of right and wrong, but it does help explain how people within a microcosm of society are making their decisions.
If you aren’t too young, you’ll remember when the woman’s place was in the kitchen. Women were “different” and even many woman were prepared to argue that this was the norm.
Now, we judge such gender bias as wrong, but at some point in time during early history, when physical strength was more important, it may have made sense.
Finally, what you are referring to, with your disdain towards an inability to judge and change other societies, is a frustration over your inability to go in and apply your own standards anywhere you think they differ.
However, the living situations of the people in the other locations, other times, are different. Those differences, along with history, can possibly tilt what is appropriate and acceptable (within reason). If you don’t have the power to change those conditions then you probably don’t have the power to influence the decisions that are being made.
Your disdain notwithstanding, there are differences between cultures, including much simpler ones (tastes in food or music for example), that don’t require invoking the extreme in order to try to make your point.
To close, once again, I don’t think moral relativism should be used to state that there is no right and wrong. It instead is used to state that decisions are somewhat based on circumstances, and may reflect those circumstances (lack of an absolute definition that cannot change over time for all issues).
[quote]nephorm wrote:
Certainly there are things that the ancients understood better or more completely than we do, now.[/quote]
Interesting. Would you have an example?
[quote]kroby wrote:
Ethics is relative and personal. Only in a collective, or hive mentality does the concept of ethics hold any defined set of values.
As an individual living entity, my “good” one day may actually be “bad” years from now. Good and bad are thus terms of the relative. Ethics change, as it relates to the individual and his life experiences over time.
What is good for you, now, is the only question one requires of ones self. It won’t necessarily be good for anyone else. Acting on a decision will invariably lead to consequences - another part of the equation.
If you’re crazy, all bets off.[/quote]
This is moral relativism expressed perfectely.
[quote]pookie wrote:
nephorm wrote:
Certainly there are things that the ancients understood better or more completely than we do, now.
Interesting. Would you have an example?
[/quote]
Part of the problem, of course, is that what they knew that we don’t is, by definition, obscure.
Just as a very quick, not especially thoughtful example: a lot of the mathematical language Plato uses is almost impossible for modern scholars to get a handle on. Jacob Klein probably comes closest, but a lot of ancient Greek mathematical thought is lost to us.
More to my point about ethics, there’s not a lot of point in studying classical or medieval Philosophy, unless one is willing to accept that they might know something that we don’t.