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

Of course, nobody should be stoned to death for adultery, or for anything, and the Iranian theocracy is indeed barbaric, and repressive.

But does that mean adultery is morally permissible? Is it a matter of individual conscience?

I too am talking about moral relativism. The OP says 'there must be hard and fast rules'. I am asking: whose rules?

Take any deed deemed immoral. Spend enough time investigating and contemplating the circumstances around said deed and you can make a plausible argument for why it was understandable, if not justified, and that the perpetrator of the deed was, in some way, as much a victim as his or her victims.

Most abusive pedophiles were abused as children.

Many violent crimes are perpetrated by people who, themselves, were the long time victims of violence.

If you and your family are starving, is it immoral to steal bread?

If someone is convincingly threatening the lives of your family, is it immoral to proactively resolve the threat by killing the person you legitimately fear?

Anyone with any intelligence appreciates that not-with-standing our desire for a black and white world, reality is represented in shades of grey.

Fortunately or unfortunately (depending upon your point of view) Society cannot exist under the tenants of moral relativism.

With thousands and millions of people living with one another, Society cannot afford to surrender to grey. There must be hard and fast rules.

Accepting that any behavior can be right is asserting that no behavior can be wrong.

This mindset is in direct contrast to the concepts of society.

In a certain way, moral relativism is akin to quantum physics and, indeed, it was this theoretical breakthrough that contributed to post-modernist thought.

Reality is dependent upon the observer.

If this is the case, then the opinions of any particular observer are as valid as any other (even for a nano-second) in determining what reality might be.

There is a (currently) unfathomable paradox between Quantum Physics and General Relativity Physics. Clearly, this doesn't mean that one cannot be so, but it does challenge us who must operate in the "real" world rather than the "theoretical" world to attempt to reconcile what we can perceive with our senses and what we can imagine with our minds. The Holy Grail of a TOE still eludes us.

In building a bridge, developing computers, or putting a man on the moon, we have given, predominately, our collective nod to the physics of Newton and Einstein rather than Bohrs and Heisenberg.

There are actually solid, as opposed to simply theoretical, reasons to believe the latter, but for 99.9% of the earth's population, the former rules, in practice, over the latter, and yet we appreciate that Quantum Physics represents "truth" too.

Eventually there may be a TOE we can comprehend, and eventually there may be a reconciliation between moral-relativism and societal imperatives, but both are mighty challenges we may not solve for decades if not centuries to come, and in any case we will have to be wiser as well as smarter to do so.

In the mean-time, we must live within the framework of what actually works, not what should work.

Moral relativism is a great topic for discussion but it doesn't work in the currently "real" world.

But you have to agree that there are facts, and that we are just having difficulty seeing them.

If facts are things that are products of the human mind as developed in a specific culture, then sure... there are facts. In that case we can agree... although I believe that human minds are diverse and different people in different places have different facts.

The core problem of you arguments is the key question: What are "moral" facts based on?. Your answer was "instinct" and "common sense".... And, I agree with your answer. This means that anyone who understands morality based on their instinct and common sense is, by definition, correct.

I would also suggest that the discussions of how barbaric Muslims are is not a good argument. This is an example of prejudice, not of morality. There is more prejudice, fear and hatred of Muslims in the US then ever... picking out practices that can be labeled "barbaric" in your enemies, is not that hard.

There is nothing new here. Twenty years ago, the Russians were barbarians. Fifty years ago, it was the Japanese and Germans. Before that it was the Italians and the Jews. Before that it was the Chinese.

Hating the "barbaric" actions of an enemy is not an example of moral thinking.

If you want to make your point, why not address moral problems in our own society?

We kill enemies using unmanned planes in a way that is deadly to civilians around them.
We celebrate and even sell adultery.
We kill unborn babies.
We use sex for entertainment and to market products.

Do you think our enemies might use these things to refer to us as barbaric?

If there is an absolute moral truth, then we should apply it first to our own society.

Your problem is that you aren't willing to extend that criticism to other countries,

Quote:

There must be hard and fast rules.

I agree that moral relativism is illusory, and that there are real ethical standards. On the other hand, if you insist that there are standards that are right for others, then you end up with something very much like the religious right, who seem overly concerned with how other people behave.

You are slipping into relativisim. It is not enough to simply concern oneself with one's own ethical standards and trust that everyone else will do the same. There is no evidence to believe they will which is why societies establish laws which require certain behaviors and prohibit others. Obviously it is a matter of degree and to preserve personal liberty and guard against tyranny, deliberate restraint must be exercised in the establishment of laws.

It's interesting and far too common that people tend to think of the so-called "religious right" when they discuss the imposition of overly stringent laws and standards of behavior. The "socialized left" does the same thing. It's simply a matter of personal ideological opinion concerning the issue at hand.

How far out the circle of rules is drawn is clearly an appropriate topic for societal debate in a free democracy, but it is in all of our best interests to keep the circle as tight as possible.

Your statement about 'hard and fast rules' reminds me of that. America is a very fearful society at this time: scared of each other, scared of the world, and scared of the rate of change. I think this fear is driving a lot of the conservatism we are seeing. We desperately want to return to the good 'ol days when right was right, God was in his heaven, and John Wayne was sherriff.

The world is a fearful place and if American society is more fearful than others (and I don't accept that it is) it is because it either has more to fear, or is more alert.

Your characterization of what "we" (Americans) want is a sweeping generalization with little more than conventional wisdom to inform it. Most of the conservatives I know and interact with are not desperate to return to some Golden Age of John Wayne and Sunday School, and if liberals long for such a time, it certainly doesn't meet your specifications.

You have hit upon a flaw in what generally amounts to current Progressive thought. Because I don't want certain existing standards to erode doesn't mean that I have a general and fundamental fear of change. Everything doesn't have to materially change. For the sake of changing that which needs to be changed, we are not required to accept the change of that which should remain the same.

I think the only resolution to the dilemma is that the individual needs to recognise ethical standards voluntarily, rather than having them imposed.

Because a rather large number of individuals will not voluntarily abide by an agreed upon set of ethical standards and if left to their own devices will set for themselves those which do not recognize the rights of others, there must be laws --- hard and fast rules.

A person needs to be intelligent enough to understand what is right and follow it, without having it imposed upon them. So I agree with your post in that sense: citizens must be recognised as responsible for their own actions. Only a small percentage of people may actually be able to voluntarily seek and practise that, but hopefully their influence will be disproportionate to their numbers. So, presumably, education should be aimed at instilling this sense of moral autonomy in individuals. I don't know if I see much of that in the cultural war between 'religious' and 'secular' views.

Frankly, this is pretty fanciful stuff. What a person may "need" to be in the limited confines of a philosophical discussion of utopia has very little to do with reality, and the notion of an Elite class of ethical humans leading solely by example may make for interesting fiction, but has no relevance to our world.

Incidentally, as regards the way in which quantum theory undermines the idea of absolute objectivity, I hope you don't regard this as a liberal conspiracy to destroy the American Way.

Of course not. It simply can be seen as a a primary influence on post-modernist thought.

Because it is a fact that QM does undermine the idea of absolute objectivity and naive realism. This does represent a crisis in Western philosophy, no question about that, and I don't think there is enough discussion of it, or awareness of what it means. My hope is that resolution of these very difficult issues will actually bring about a radically new understanding of the world and will have positive consequences, but that is far from certain at this time. The planet is in a pretty dire situation at this point.

Quote:

Your problem is that you aren't willing to extend that criticism to other countries,

You are wrong about that... I am perfectly willing to criticize the actions of other countries. I have no problem with condemning the stoning of Adulterers in Iran (in fact I do).

The difference is that I am condemning these actions as a liberal American based on my own beliefs. I don't claim any source of superiority, and I don't claim to have any access to Universal truth... my interest is in making the world (and especially my own society) into a place that I would prefer to live.

I have a strong sense of morality, and plenty of opinions... some of which are strong enough for me to act upon.

The only difference between you and me in this respect, is that I don't claim any supernatural basis for my opinions.

Because a rather large number of individuals will not voluntarily abide by an agreed upon set of ethical standards and if left to their own devices will set for themselves those which do not recognize the rights of others, there must be laws --- hard and fast rules.

You are claiming that if you had been brought up in Iran, you would have followed your beliefs as a conservative Iranian, and supported the stoning of women for adultery. Perhaps you would have thrown stones yourself. And probably you would have if this is the level of critical thinking you deem sufficient.

Huh? Where did I claim this?

My nature is to be a skeptic of my own cultural standards. I don't accept the American standard cultural view in many areas... in fact, I am well to the left of center in the context of my own culture.

It is at least possible that the same would be true were I an Iranian.

I'll match your three "bullshits" with three "woofs".

Well, joe from chicago, our relationship has been short, futile and mutually exasperating, so go well, and be happy.

How are you skeptical of your own cultural standards if you are a moral relativist? On what basis would you change a belief? Basically what you're telling me is that you operate in every way like a moral realist, except that you say you aren't a moral realist. This is not surprising, but still, gives you a pause don't you think?