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

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

It is also clear that people are quite willing to cause suffering in people outside of our tribe. Humans have often been quite willing to morally justify (and inflict) incredible cruelty on other humans... once these humans have been defined as "others".

1) You are exaggerating what I said into something that's beginning to look like a strawman. I'm not saying that people universally want to eliminate suffering. I said that "empirically, it's what people generally want to minimize". I was talking about a statistical tendency, not an ironclad law of nature.

2) That point aside, these people are wrong, because they're callously ignoring that these 'others' don't want to suffer. They are wrong in the same way as the Catholic Church was wrong when it taught that the sun rotates around the Earth, rather than the other way round. (Or, for astronomers, that the Sun and the Earth both rotate around the solar system's center of gravity---which usually sits somewhere inside the sun.)

1 Reply

@Jebediah,

No Jebediah you misunderstand.

Scientific Truth can be measured, the statement "Some things are blue" is just as measurable as the size of the sun compared to the earth (blueness is a frequency of light that can be quantitatively measured). And no, this is not about the definition of words (let's not get into the meaning of the word blue... which is a can of worms... but is unrelated to my point).

Quote:

Objective when it comes to morality just means that it is free of personal bias and based on observed phenomena.

This is absolutely correct; a perfectly good definition of the word "objective".

And that is the point... Morality is not free of personal bias, and it is not based on observed phenomena.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Maybe I misunderstood you... here is my understanding of this sub-thread.

1) I asked why minimizing suffering was better then any other basis for a system of morality. I asked specifically about why "minimizing suffering" takes precedence over "national glory", or "efficiency" or "order".

This is a valid question about the foundation of what you suggest is a universal system of morals.

2) You responded that minimizing suffering was better then any other goal because that is what people want. This is the only argument you offered about why the key part of the universal system of morality is univerally true.

If this wasn't what you meant; then my question is unanswered. Why is minimizing suffering a more valid basis for a system of morality then any of the other ones that have been mentioned?

3) Now are you really suggesting the key to your foundation of a Universal Morality is just a "statistical tendency"? This isn't very satisfying especially since I am not even sure that this "statistical tendency" is scientifically valid.

4) The Catholic Church here was offering a vision of Universal Truth based on unprovable axioms. The astronomers presented a testable model of the universe that was based on evidence that challenged the axiom that had always been assumed to be true. Ironically now we understand that there is no absolute center of the Universe. The center of the Universe is relative, it depends on the perspective of the person asking the question. Each point in space can be considered the center of the Universe.

Science is about questioning and insisting that there be proof. Asking the "why?" questions is part of science, as is skepticism of theories that can't provide a good answer for them.

2 Replies

@ebrown p,

I would be interested to know which science is concerned with the minimization of suffering, and whether the minimization of suffering includes redistribution of income (for example), universal healthcare, and equality of access to educational opportunities.

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

jeeprs wrote:

There are no short answers to that question. If you're prepared to read up on it there are some good books. Quauntum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness, Kutner & Rosenblaum, would be a good place to start.

I'm disappointed, jeeprs. That's the sort of bullshit non-answer that I expect from fresco. But I'm not really interested in the epistemological side of this issue. I'll be satisfied if you explain how quantum theory makes it impossible to have an objective system of morality.

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

I agree with Joe on that. Quantum Mechanics has no more to do with human behavior then any other part of brain chemistry (i.e. that salt dissolves or that ions carry a charge).

I think we all agree (correct me if I am wrong) that human understanding of morality (be it absolute or not) is a function of how the chemistry in our brains evolved.

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

No Jebediah you misunderstand.

Scientific Truth can be measured, the statement "Some things are blue" is just as measurable as the size of the sun compared to the earth (blueness is a frequency of light that can be quantitatively measured). And no, this is not about the definition of words (let's not get into the meaning of the word blue... which is a can of worms... but is unrelated to my point).

Some things cause the sensation of blue that we have, you see how it is dependent on us. Whereas the sun is larger than the earth is completely human independent.

ebrown wrote:

Quote:
Objective when it comes to morality just means that it is free of personal bias and based on observed phenomena.

This is absolutely correct; a perfectly good definition of the word "objective".

And that is the point... Morality is not free of personal bias, and it is not based on observed phenomena.

Yes it is. I don't know why you think otherwise so I don't know what to say here. People are remarkably consistent. Don't overgeneralize from the differences there are.

People do have individual differences in how they approach morality. But it isn't like eating ice cream where if you have individual differences you just eat what flavor you like. The rules are broader than that. If I don't mind people stealing my possessions, I can be aware that most people do and that it is therefore wrong. For me to be free of personal bias in this situation is to see beyond my own preferences. And people certainly can do that, I mean I hope you can right?

And how is it not based on observed phenomena? The rules come about from our instincts and from study of humans and society.

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

I think we all agree (correct me if I am wrong) that human understanding of morality (be it absolute or not) is a function of how the chemistry in our brains evolved.

OK, that made me laugh out loud.

0 Replies

@Jebediah,

Quote:

People do have individual differences in how they approach morality. But it isn't like eating ice cream where if you have individual differences you just eat what flavor you like. The rules are broader than that. If I don't mind people stealing my possessions, I can be aware that most people do and that it is therefore wrong. For me to be free of personal bias in this situation is to see beyond my own preferences. And people certainly can do that, I mean I hope you can right?

First, the biggest influence on your understanding of morality is your culture. There are individual differences, but most Americans are far more similar in their understanding of morality to other Americans, then they would be to Indians.

Second, these are hardly "flavors of ice cream". Different moral systems have very important differences.

- Should homosexual behavior be punished or accepted?
- Is it ever moral to kill unborn babies? Under what conditions?
- Is it ever moral to kill enemies threatening your country (i.e. terrorists)? Under what conditions?
- Should the government restrain the wealthy from exploiting the poor?
- Should women be allowed to vote?

Any significant question will be answered very differently by sincere people with different cultures in different times.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

You're dissappointed? What expectations do you have?

It is a very difficult point to explain in a few paras and now I note you are referring to 'an objective system of morality', which broadens the scope even more but I will start with the ontological aspect of the argument.

QM undermines the idea of atomism, which is the idea that the Universe consists of discrete eternal particles. Historically, atomism provided the philosophical basis for the idea that matter was the final reality. The simplest formulation of this view was that 'all that exists are atoms and the void'. Atoms were held to be eternally existing; all that changes are the ways in which they are combined. In early philosophy, this is where atomism (and materialism) sought to locate the eternal: as the ground or basis of material reality. This view was enthusiastically embraced by the European Enlightenment in the aftermath of the scientific revolution, and for some time was felt to be the most accurate paradigm of the nature of the universe.

But 20th century physics has put a complete end to that idea. First of all atoms were shown to be mainly empty space. Then the ontological status of the sub-atomic particle was shown to be doubtful as in some circumstances they appeared as waves, and in another as particles. The duality between waves and particles is a particularly difficult one to conceptualise, as they are not even the same kind of phenomenon. Finally such entities as electrons were shown to exist only as 'probability waves' - that is, a statistical, or mathematical, possibility that a measurement would identify the particle within a particular range at the time it was measured.

Quote:

To account for the demonstrated facts, quantum theory tells us that an observation of one object can instantaneously influence the behaviour of another greatly distant object - even if no physical force connects the two. Einstein rejected such influences as "spook actions" but they have now been demonstrated to exist. Quantum theory also tells us that observing an object someplace causes it to be there. For example, an object can be in two, or many, places at once - even far distant places.

Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness By Bruce Rosenblum, Fred Kuttner, p 12.

The philosophical implications of these theories are very challenging and highly technical and I don't claim to have mastered them. However I believe that it is fair to say that they undermine the idea of a mind-independent reality at the most basic level of existence. They certainly undermine the idea of classical atomism and materialism.

As far as 'objective systems of morality' go, which science provides that? How is 'scientific thought' an arbiter of moral value? What scientific reason is there for ethical decisions? I am sure it is not physics, and the idea that it is 'brain chemistry' is simply laughable. Social sciences, perhaps? Psychology? Where do you start?

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

First, the biggest influence on your understanding of morality is your culture. There are individual differences, but most Americans are far more similar in their understanding of morality to other Americans, then they would be to Indians.

Why do you think that? They do studies where they pose moral problems to people from various cultures and (for the ones I've heard of) it is very consistent.

I think the wording you use is kind of tricky. The biggest influence on my culture is my human nature, so it isn't a contradiction of "human nature influences morality" to say that our culture has a the biggest influence. The main differences from culture are religious and poverty driven.

Quote:

Second, these are hardly "flavors of ice cream". Different moral systems have very important differences.

- Should homosexual behavior be punished or accepted?
- Is it ever moral to kill unborn babies? Under what conditions?
- Is it ever moral to kill enemies threatening your country (i.e. terrorists)? Under what conditions?
- Should the government restrain the wealthy from exploiting the poor?
- Should women be allowed to vote?

Any significant question will be answered very differently by sincere people with different cultures in different times.

Yes, but so what? None of this says that there aren't objective moral facts. this is called like the argument via widespread disagreement or something. Sincere people have given various answers to economic questions throughout history, and many of them have been wrong. Hard to answer is not "subjective".

It is obvious that some particular morals can and have changed. For example, the moral imperative to be true to your word is not as strong as it was in the days before written contracts when people had to rely on spoken promises. But you can objectively say that for those societies it was moral to do this, and for our society it is moral to this. And the basics remain the same. The basics, aka the most important things by far.

2 Replies

@Jebediah,

the problem with all of this is the equation "objective = real". Reality is neither objective or subjective. It has objective and subjective aspects.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs wrote:

the problem with all of this is the equation "objective = real". Reality is neither objective or subjective. It has objective and subjective aspects.

I think we are talking about moral realism though.

I don't know what you mean by the last 2 sentences. You mean some part of reality is my own experience?

0 Replies

@Jebediah,

Quote:

Yes, but so what? None of this says that there aren't objective moral facts. this is called like the argument via widespread disagreement or something. Sincere people have given various answers to economic questions throughout history, and many of them have been wrong. Hard to answer is not "subjective".

Here is the question for you Jebediah. What are objective moral facts based on. If you are arguing that objective moral facts are based on "human nature", then anything that is part of human nature is moral (which opens up all sorts of behavior that modern Americans would not consider moral).

If it is not human nature, then what measure will you use to determine in an objective way which behaviors are "moral" and which are "immoral".

The answer most people give (although they don't like to say it directly) is that "my moral beliefs are correct, and anyone who disagrees with them is incorrect". If you can't give me anyway to measure the difference, then you are basically saying the same thing.

Quote:

Yes, but so what? None of this says that there aren't objective moral facts. this is called like the argument via widespread disagreement or something. Sincere people have given various answers to economic questions throughout history, and many of them have been wrong. Hard to answer is not "subjective".

Hard to answer is not the issue.

In science, every concept is defined in a measurable way. Every claim is testable and measurable with an experiment. Some of these measurements are "difficult". Once the measurement is made, there is little question.

The problem is that every system of morality is based on things that can't be testable. They must be accepted by faith. You accept some moral precepts, another person has a different set of moral precepts. Without any way to test which one is "valid", there is no answer. It is not just that they are difficult to answer.

The answer about which of competing ideas about morality is "valid" doesn't exist. The question isn't defined.

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

Here is the question for you Jebediah. What are objective moral facts based on. If you are arguing that objective moral facts are based on "human nature", then anything that is part of human nature is moral (which opens up all sorts of behavior that modern Americans would not consider moral).

No. Moral facts can be of the type "this is moral", "this is immoral", or "this has nothing to do with morality". So if we base these facts on human nature, than anything that is part of human nature is moral, immoral, or has nothing to do with morality.

It is not the naturalistic fallacy (or Appeal to nature). We simply know that it is immoral to deprive a child anaesthetic for no reason when they are about to undergo an extremely painful surgical procedure, for example. We know that it is wrong to not aid a baby that is drowning when we can easily save it. These are the basic values and instincts which the definition of morality comes from.

You understand it starts very simply with our instincts. Those provide us with a decent moral system. It worked quite well for primitive societies where survival takes precedence over gender equality. Then thinkers began to look at why we had those instincts, and the ways in which they can be clouded. They aren't just automatic, they work off of information. If you see other people as inhuman you won't treat them as morally, for example.

It's a bit farcical to deny that this is the basis, because you certainly aren't claiming that morality has to do with how to order books on a shelf, or how to play darts. Is it just a big coincidence that everyone who says that morality is subjective agrees on the framework for morality? But clearly the basis of murder being wrong is that it is human nature to value our lives, the basis for hurting something being wrong is that it is human nature to not want to be in agony, the basis for theft being wrong is that it is human nature to value our possessions and that our possessions provide many other things that are important to us.

Quote:

The answer most people give (although they don't like to say it directly) is that "my moral beliefs are correct, and anyone who disagrees with them is incorrect". If you can't give me anyway to measure the difference, then you are basically saying the same thing.

You think most people are arrogant hypocrites? I don't agree.

Quote:

Hard to answer is not the issue.

In science, every concept is defined in a measurable way. Every claim is testable and measurable with an experiment. Some of these measurements are "difficult". Once the measurement is made, there is little question.

The problem is that every system of morality is based on things that can't be testable. They must be accepted by faith. You accept some moral precepts, another person has a different set of moral precepts. Without any way to test which one is "valid", there is no answer. It is not just that they are difficult to answer.

The answer about which of competing ideas about morality is "valid" doesn't exist. The question isn't defined.

This isn't true, but I think the above answers it. We certainly can test and measure our basic human values. As if many of them aren't common sense anyway.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs wrote:

You're dissappointed? What expectations do you have?

I have high expectations. I'm frequently disappointed.

jeeprs wrote:

The philosophical implications of these theories are very challenging and highly technical and I don't claim to have mastered them. However I believe that it is fair to say that they undermine the idea of a mind-independent reality at the most basic level of existence. They certainly undermine the idea of classical atomism and materialism.

How can science, which assumes a mind-independent reality, undermine the idea of a mind-independent reality?

jeeprs wrote:

As far as 'objective systems of morality' go, which science provides that? How is 'scientific thought' an arbiter of moral value? What scientific reason is there for ethical decisions? I am sure it is not physics, and the idea that it is 'brain chemistry' is simply laughable. Social sciences, perhaps? Psychology? Where do you start?

You're asking me? I'm not the one who thinks that quantum theory renders objective morality impossible. Try answering some of those questions.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

How can science, which assumes a mind-independent reality, undermine the idea of a mind-independent reality?

If you don't understand this, and won't read up on it, there is no point pursuing it.

2 Replies

@Jebediah,

Quote:

We certainly can test and measure our basic human values.

Can you give an example? How are basic human values to be tested and measured?

For example - say that I argue that theft is OK, provided the person I am stealing from is wealthy, and nobody is hurt. You say that theft is wrong, no matter what the circumstances. How you can you prove that your view is the correct one?

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

Quote:

In philosophy the authoritarian dominance of the realist dogma (be it materialistic or metaphysical) has certainly been shaken by the manifested unreliability of political and social "truths" as well as by the revolution in the views of physics....
...The belief in the possibility of acquiring knowledge about an objective reality, a world-in-itself, as Kant would have said, can be demolished the arguments formulated by the sceptics.

Von Glasersfeld

But Joe doesn't want to listen to the arguments which devalue "objectivity" because it pulls the rug from under his rhetorical comfort zone. He is going to cling to that rug like a dog on the end of a bone.

2 Replies

What I think the real discussion here is: How do we justify jail, knowing that it is necessary, while accepting moral relativism?

I have my own ideas about this, but I'm going to refrain from posting them until I've seen others thoughts.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know