Moral Relativism. It may be right but it must be wrong.

I realize this wasn't directed at me, but an answer came to mind.
If we put as a premise that humans existed before they started to invent religions, we might conclude that a moral instinct was the motivation to formulate religion.

Only religious fanatics think moral comes from religion. More balanced people tend to think that moral was what inspired us to invent religion in the first place. That and a need to explain the unknown.

Funny that the Bible also says that:
"For whenever people of the nations that do not have law do by nature the things of the law, these people, although not having law, are a law to themselves. 15 They are the very ones who demonstrate the matter of the law to be written in their hearts . . . " (Romans 2:14-15)

From an evolutionary point of view, moral behavior is seen in animals as well as in humans.

Animals, homo sapiens sapiens, included wouldn't exist if it weren't for moral behavior. This behavior preceeds mythopoeism.

Do you mean "preceed" only in the historical sense of primacy or that it is also more basic or primitive? It could be both, but it is my reading that you intend to stress that mankind probably developed his sense of morality before he developed myths that taught and elaborated on moral norms and rules.
Are we both thinking of Joseph Campbell?

Moral Relativism cannot be right. It creates contradiction.

I distinguish moral relativism from situational ethics. And I notice that most people neglect to make this distinction. It leads to a lot of confusion because when you place both relativism and situational ethics in the same category, the people debating end up talking past each other because they are in fact talking about two different subjects. So I make a clear distinction between relativism and situational ethics.

Relativism is when everybody is right. Everyone's belief is true. So in any given situation, two people can have completely opposite beliefs and both be right.

So for example: A child is starving and asks for food. A man says that if you feed the child, he will kill 1 million people.
Person 1 says: It's right to feed the child.
Person 2 says: It's not right to feed the child.
Person 3 says: If feeding the child creates the lesser harm, it's right to feed the child.
Person 4 says: if feeding the child creates the lesser harm, it's not right to feed the child.

The moral relativist would say that all 4 people are correct. The non-relativistic situational ethicist would say that only 1 person is correct; the correctness of the answer depends on the particular facts, the context, the situation.

Thus, the relativist is illogical. The relativist would say that Person 1 is right and that Person 2 is right. Therefore, it is simultaneously right and not right to feed the child. Breaks the first rule of logic - contradiction.

The situational ethicist, conversely, says that there is always one answer, but that answer depends on the situation. In the exact same way, a physicist says that there is only one rule of gravity, but the gravity of two objects depends on the distance between the two objects.

F=Gm1m2/r2 is a formula with variables. Thus, in each particular situation, there is a different answer. But in each particular situation, there is only one answer.

"What comes up must come down" is a categorical statement. Thus, in every situation, the truth is the same. We all find F=Gm1m2/r2 to be the better formula.

The same is true in ethics. What I'm emphasizing is this: The truth is variable. But variable truth is still universal and absolute. There is only one. It is not relative.

As much as I agree with you that moral relativism is incoherent, I don't think you've correctly identified its inherent flaw. A relativist wouldn't say "Person 1 is right and Person 2 is right," he would say "Person 1 is right insofar as he is being consistent in his moral beliefs, and Person 2 is right insofar as he is being consistent in his moral beliefs." Each person is right, therefore, to the extent that they adhere to their own set of moral beliefs. That's not a contradiction. It's like saying "Person 1 says red is his favorite color, while Person 2 says blue is his favorite color." As long as they're not lying, they can both be right without creating any kind of contradiction.


How is situational ethics not relative to each situation?

Joe, according to your post, a relativist would say: "Person 1 is right insofar as he is being consistent in his moral beliefs, and Person 2 is right insofar as he is being consistent in his moral beliefs." (btw, how do quote other people so that it draws those boxes around the quote?)

I think the relativist is saying much more than this. Almost everyone, including I, would conclude that both Person 1 and Person 2 is being logically consistent if say they had the following beliefs:

Person 1:
Feeding a person is always good
A child is a person
therefore
Feeding a child is always good

Person 2:
Torturing and murdering a person is always good
A child is a person
therefore
Torturing and murdering a child is always good


Now everyone agrees that Person 1 and Person 2 are being logically consistent with their beliefs. The two logic chains follow the rules of logic to the letter.

But a relativist says more than that they being logically consistent. The relativist is saying that their logic is sound and valid - that the two are justified in their beliefs. In other words, the relativist believes that (1) everyone's logic is correct and that (2) the assumptions in their logic are correct.

I do understand your point though Joe. I acknowledge that there is another type of relativism, which I like to call "qualified relativism". So let me distinguish the two.

The first type is the one I just went over, which like to call "pure relativism". Pure relativism is when Person 1 is actually right and Person 2 is actually right.

Qualified relativism is when x is true for Person 1 and x is not true for Person 2. By qualifying with the phrase "for Person 1," the qualified relativist superficially escapes the contradiction.

The qualified relativist believes that everyone's logic is consistent. But then, unlike the pure relativist, says that the assumptions in the logic are neither true nor false. At least - that's what most relativists have argued with me. So the real difference is that for the pure relativist, the assumptions are all true. But for the qualified relativist, the assumptions are neither true nor false.

Qualified Relativism:
Couple problems for the qualified relativist. It is a rule of logic that the premises have some sort of truth value. If not, then you can't draw a conclusion - especially not "True". So the relativist can't say that every person has a correct conclusion.

Moreover, if a thing can be neither true nor not true, then a set of things could be neither true nor not true. Thus, as a principle, a set x could exist where, x = {not{y, not y}}.

So then, I could have sets:
A = {not{B, not B}}
B = {not{C, not C}}

Thus, if x = {not{y, not y}} = true then:
A = {not{{not{C, not C}}, not {not{C, not C}}}} = true

Thus in possible set A, C is neither {neither true nor false} nor {not neither true nor false}. This is clearly absurd and impossible to comprehend - but a conclusion that a relativist would have to accept. Things existing outside of the categories true and false, and neither true nor false, not neither true nor false - I can't imagine things in that category. Further, this deduction can be carried out infinitely. Thus there will be things that exist further outside these "neithers".

Finally, a relativist accepts even the illogical beliefs as true for a given Person.

So if Person C believes:
All innocent children must live.
Fred is an innocent child.
Therefore
Fred must not live.

Person C's beliefs are true for Person C - even though Person C has clearly committed a logical fallacy.


Now addressing the situational ethics. Joe, you asked how a given outcome is not relative to each situation.

This is kind of a play on words. Yes, you used the words "relative to each situation". But even though you used the word "relative," it doesn't mean you're talking about relativism. In other words, a situational ethicist believes that the answer is relative to each situation. That doesn't make him a relativist.

Moreover, even though the gravity between objects is different in each situation - in one sense. In another sense, it is always the same. Universally, it is always F=Gm1m2/r2. The same is true in ethics. There are mathematical formulas that can describe the universal principles behind every moral situation. I just don't know what those formulas are. But those formulas are out there somewhere in the universe and they are applicable universally. So in this sense, the ethics are not relative to each situation. They are universal. It's kind of like derivatives in Calculus. Though the curve shows a kind of variability. If you find the derivative, you see the universal application. With enough derivatives you get a singular answer and that answer applies universally to every situation.

Excellent ! I am not a Logician not even a trained Philosopher but would like to ad that true or false depend on set size comparison, the operative field size of the function on which something is being true...my guessing around what you wrote is that true or false fit comparative context boxes although all those context boxes must have a final resting place, a solution...there is a Universal truth where those apparently relative states fit a correct and exact place...is that what you were trying to convey ?

You can either use the quote button above the space where you type your posts, and then copy/paste the text in between the two [...] [...].

Or you can copy/paste the text, then mark it and click the quote button. I prefer this method.

I doubt that very much. Accepting everyone's logic and assumptions isn't holding them to relativistic standards, it's holding them to no standards at all. Moral relativists actually believe that there is something called "morality," so they maintain a standard, even if it's a flawed one. It is unlikely, therefore, that a relativist would say "your logic and assumptions must be correct because ... well, just because they're yours."


Even if you're correct (which I don't think you are), that wouldn't necessarily entail a fatal contradiction for the relativist. If Person 1 says that lying is justified while Person 2 says that lying is unjustified, the relativist need not say that both are right. Instead, she could simply say that there is no standard by which one could say that one was right and the other wrong, since that would be imposing a moral standard that is prohibited by moral relativism.


If what you're interested in is the logic, I'm not sure why the truth or falsity of the assumptions should matter at all. If I say:

All unicorns are white;
This thing is a unicorn;
Therefore, this thing is white

That is a valid syllogism, even though there are no such things as unicorns. If a moral relativist, therefore, says:

All murderers should be executed;
Larry is a murderer;
Therefore, Larry should be executed

It really doesn't matter if Larry is indeed a murderer or is innocent. The logic is valid, even if its application in Larry's case may be unjustified. I don't think relativists contend that everyone's facts are correct. Rather, they contend that no one can dispute the moral conclusions that they draw from those facts.


Why not? After all, the relativist says that the person determines the ethics. If the situational ethicist says that the situation determines the ethics, how is that not relativism in another guise?


Then you're not talking about situational ethics, you're talking about universal ethics.

All the logic in the world can't transform what an assumption assumes into a fact. Assumptions are factual assumptions, facts are facts. True logic needs not to portray true facts, other then it is true self consistent logic...

I'm not really sure what to tell you. I think I've sufficiently addressed most of your concerns here. The only quick note I'd mention is that I define a relativist as someone who believes that the person determines the ethics, while the situational ethicist is someone who believes that the situation determines the ethics. That's precisely differentiation I'm making.

I'm not going to really counter anything else because I would just be repeating myself. I would recommend rereading my last post.

Hey Fil,

Thanks for the compliment. I am also no logician or philosopher. You kinda lost me there... I'm not sure what you mean. Which part of my response are you referring to? I address a number of subjects.

Informally, I can't do it in any other way, i've tried to convey the idea that true and false are functional relational categories with a given range, confined in contextual local operativeness...they probably must fit a larger structure on which both claims are correct depending on perspective...Einstein's relativity comes to mind as form of example...Event X both happen and did not happen at a given time depending on relative multiple observer's location and speed in relation to event X...what do you think could somehow the same sub intended idea be applicable to moral relativism?

No need to. I read it. I pointed out your errors. If you need to know more, I recommend re-reading my last post.

Fil - you wrote:
"true and false are functional relational categories with a given range, confined in contextual local operativeness" (I still can't find that Quote button.)

Honestly, I just don't know what these words mean. I'm obviously pretty ignorant here. "functional relational category" - don't know what that means. My best guess is that you're talking about a category that is defined by mathematical function? "contextual local operativeness" - I don't know what that means either. My best guess is that you're talking about a set defined by context and location? Sorry - my vocabulary is just a little weak.

Yeah - someone mentioned the Einstein thing to me in another forum, and I admitted that I'm not very educated in physics either. But the way I understood it was that a person moving towards a wall is the same thing as a wall moving towards a person. Under that framework, I see no contradiction. It's not that Event X did happen and didn't happen.

So if:

Event 1 = I moved towards the still wall.
Event 2 = The wall moved towards me as I stood still.

Relativity, from what I understood in my previous conversation, is simply that Event 1 = Event 2. They are synonymous. So instead of saying that Event 1 did happen and did not happen, Event 1 did in fact happen and it's the same thing as Event 2.

So I don't consider this a situation of a thing being both true and not true.

Regarding my original statement. What I was trying to show was simply a reductio ad absurdum - the relativist belief leads to an absurd conclusion. This is the proof I usually write:

Principle: {x, not x} = true

Given:
B = {A, not A}
C = {B, not B}

C = {{A, not A}, not {A, not A}}

So if a person believes in the principle: Something can be true and not true at the same time - then the person must conclude also that a thing can be simultaneously true, not true, and neither true nor not true.

And so focusing on the "neither true nor not true," I'm simply saying this is crazy. Can a thing be in a realm outside of both true and false? Can a thing live in the realm of neither true nor false? It seems crazy. Further considering the entire conclusion, can a thing exist in a realm outside both true and false and yet simultaneously live completely within the realm true and within the real false? {{A, not A}, not {A, not A}}? It's absurd.

But if someone insists on it's truth then I take the next step:
D = {C, not C}
therefore:

D = {{{A, not A}, not {A, not A}}, not {{A, not A}, not {A, not A}}}

Here, we are looking at things that are not in any of the following categories:
true, false, neither true nor false, and not neither true nor false.

So the deduction continually excludes things from more and more categories. But this is simply absurd. I dunno - does this clarify or make more confusing?

I'm saying I don't believe in logic that assumes {x, not x} = true. I'm saying that the only way to have any consistent beliefs, we must assume that nothing is simultaneously both x and not x. Otherwise, it leads to absurdity.

no - you really do need to reread it.

For example, your unicorn syllogism. You're trying to explain to me that there's a difference between logical consistency and truth. But if you had accurately read my post, you would have noticed that I fully recognize this and thus your unicorn proof is entirely pointless. Go through my post again. Take it slowly.

No you must consider both X and not X depending on time frame reference and local...it is literally true that at a given point an event was manifestly true for an observer and yet not manifestly true for another until later. So events are true inside space time frames, which is to mean they operate differently in different "local contexts"...what is hard to get about that ?

whoa - easy....

I was having difficulty with the terms...
Ok - I'm still trying to figure out what you're saying here. So you're saying that an event - say for example a birthday party at say 8:00am? - is true for someone who is observing the event? But then is not true for another until later? Is that what you mean or am I off? Yeah - I guess there is a lot that's hard for me get.

I just caught up on the last posts. You all are mucking around in the intellecutal weeds and missing the basic point.

The problem is that there is no absolute definition of "right" or "wrong". Once you get a definition, then it is very easy to set up a logical framework around it and to show logical inconsistencies between them.

In all of the pages of discussion on this topic, no one has suggested a good, objectively testable, way to define "right" or "wrong". I mean no one has been able to explain why something is right or wrong that works across culture (let alone across species).

Until we all have an agreed upon definition for "right" that is universal, objective and testable, all of the logical gymnastics you all are engaging in is futile.