Moral Relativity: Where moral values come from?

Please stop insulting White Castle.

Ok .... I admit that the scientific metaphor isn't perfect (not that any metaphor ever is). Clearly my argument can't have morality or culture existing as mathematical entities. Clearly I wanted to use the principle that "every frame of reference is equally valid"... this might work as example... it doesn't work as proof.

That being said... let me explore this idea a little (for my amusement and maybe yours if nothing else).

The transformation part of the metaphor may be of some interest. One system of morality can clearly be examined and described in terms of another.

I have seen descriptions of Asian morality written in terms of an American cultural framework. Asian morality is described as more interested in the good of the society contrasted with the American focus on the individual. Another interest of mine is game theory, I recently read an interesting experiment involving a prisoners dilemma type game that when run in real life had different results with Americans then with people from Japan.

This is even more valid since cultures have links and common roots. American Culture and German Culture have roots going back thousands of years. We have a shared cultural and moral framework. Even when there are differences (I don't think there are many) than can easily be understood by both sides in terms that both understand. Mapping American cultural values with those of ancient Aztecs or Tibetan values may be a little more difficult.

And I do accept the idea that there are some common human traits, for example the things that are required for us to live in social groups. These also provide a way to map one moral system to another. (Although it doesn't provide a way to judge between two successful societies, or even between a successful and a non-successful society)

My intention was never to recruit scientific authority. I was using a metaphor.

Gladly. My position is that moral relativism is logically indefensible. In this thread, I specifically focused on Maxdancona's position, which is particularly incoherent. Check out this gem from 2004 for a more in-depth analysis.

That 2004 "gem" (rather modest of you, I might add) is one straw man argument after another.

My axioms are simple:

1) There is no deity or any other Absolute Truth on which system of morality can be based that applies to all humans.
2) Lacking a Deity or Absolute Truth, any system of morality is necessarily based on cultural values as developed over time by members of that culture..
3) Based the first two assumptions, and since cultural values vary from culture to culture and from era to era, there will be very different ideas on moral behavior. Lacking an Deity or objective Absolute truth they can not be judged outside of a cultural context.

I think this is a good definition of Moral Relativity. I would be disappointed to find out that you arguing so harshly over the definition of words.

The rest of the stuff, either here or on the other thread, you are making up yourself.

I don't exist outside of a cultural context, and I have no trouble telling you what is morally correct to me (and to you) as members of a 21st century western society.

Pardon the interruption but no one here has mentioned that moral values comes from Walmart. Remember their motto, "Always low principals." Or is it, "Make money, profit better"?

Well, now we know something else that you don't know anything about - strawman arguments.


Indeed.


Now that's a strawman argument. And it begs the question as well.


On the contrary. Any system of morality that is not absolute is not a system of morality at all. At best, it's a social convention or a cultural more. No doubt you want it to be a system of morality, because you want to consider yourself to be a moral person. But you're merely deluding yourself.


Apart from the practical difficulty in determining what constitutes a "cultural value," what you're describing as "morality" can't be distinguished from "social convention." And if the two are indistinguishable, why make the distinction? For instance, in the US, one is taught to blow one's nose in one's handkerchief. In Japan, however, that is considered a breach of social convention. If I, an American, blow my nose in my handkerchief in Tokyo, am I acting immorally?


Well, it's a better definition of "moral relativism" than your previous one, so I suppose that's an improvement.


You have no basis to tell me that I am acting immorally. At most, you have a basis for telling me that I have committed a social faux pas.

Joe,

You don't seem to know the difference between an axiom and a strawman argument. It is kind of important, so I will try to explain it simply for you.

1. When I state an axiom I am defining my own position. This is legitimate since, after all, it is my position to define.

2. In a straw man argument, it is you who are defining my position. This is illegitimate because it isn't your position to define. When you set up an argument that you say is mine, and then argue against it... you are in effect arguing both sides of the argument. Rather than responding to the points I am actually making, you are inventing your own points to respond to. This may be satisfying to you, but it isn't helpful since there is no real discussion. This may go a long way to explain your dismissive tone.

In the case above... what you are claiming is a strawman argument is actually an axiom. I am stating my own position. An axiom is also not "begging the question" (i.e. using a statement to prove itself). This axiom is something that I am proposing on its own that you can either accept or contest. I offer no proof here on whether there is a deity or not. It is clear that if God exists then there is an obvious basis for an Absolute Morality.

Now please... this is an important key to my argument. And, if you want to participate in any meaningful way then you really should address this.

I have stated as an axiom (since I am stating my own position) that



It would be interesting to hear whether you agree with this or not. If there is an Absolute Truth on which a system of morality can be based, I would like to hear what you propose that Absolute Truth is.

Joe forgot to apply his Jiu-Jitsu on this one, so I'll do the honors this time. If you think your non-existence claim in axiom #1 is an Absolute Truth, you contradict the position you're defending by the reasoning you defend it with. If it's not an Absolute Truth, why bother stating it --- as an axiom, no less?

Read the axiom again... it stands on its own.You are quibbling over semantics.

Clearly an "Absolute Truth" on which a system of morality can be based refers to a "higher power". It is something that compels me to act a certain way. It necessarily has the property of being able to confer obligation. Scientific truths... such as gravity, or mathematical truths like pythagorus are truths, but they don't have this property.

I am not arguing against truth in general. I am asserting that there is no truth on which a universal system of morality that all humans have a duty to follow is based.

I did read your axiom again, and no, it still doesn't. Its rationale still contradicts what it's claiming: The claim that there is no absolute truth is a putative absolute truth.

Merry Christmas Thomas.

I just edited my response to clarify it. I will repost the addition.

You are quibbling over symantics.

Clearly an "Absolute Truth" on which a system of morality can be based refers to a "higher power". It is something that compels me to act a certain way. It necessarily has the property of being able to confer obligation. Scientific truths... such as gravity, or mathematical truths like pythagorus are truths, but they don't have this property.

I am not arguing against truth in general. I am asserting that there is no truth on which a universal system of morality that all humans have a duty to follow is based.

'Tis the season of giving, Max, so I'm sure you won't mind giving me an answer to the question I posed in my previous post before I respond to anything subsequent that you posted. For your benefit, I'll repeat it:

I noted that Max was begging the question, but you raise a very good point.

So true...but playing Devil's advocate is fun...

Do the moral principles have any real basis and fixed criteria or are they only a cover to conceal the personal and class objectives of some groups and individuals?
Have the rich and powerful classes of society, with a view to exploit the masses, invented and raised such questions as those of patience, contentment, regard for the rights of others, tolerance etc. so that they may utilize the under‑privileged classes for their own ends, compel them to total submission and keep their mouths shut in the name of adherence to moral principles?
Have the under‑privileged classes invented such moral conceptions as love, charity, justice, modesty etc. with the intention of gaining the favor of the ruling classes?Or have the moral principles any real basis and firm infra‑structure?
There is no doubt that some of the moral teachings have been and are still being put to misuse in various ways. Those who are bent on self‑aggrandizement, especially if they have power and influence, do not
hesitate to employ any possible means to achieve their ends. As scientific research, in spite of its firm basis, is used sometimes for the purpose of oppression, tyranny and torturing the working classes, in the same way
moral concepts are also misused. How often freedom is taken away in the name of freedomand injustice is done in the name of justice and equality! Every good and beneficial thing can be put to misuse. Anyhow, there is no
doubt that howsoever the name of justice is misused, it cannot become the same thing as injustice. They will always remain two different things. Similarly, howsoever it is misrepresented, true freedom cannot be
equal to slavery.So it is no wonder if the Islamic teachingshave been exploi­ted for personal or class interest or have been imposed on the under‑privileged classes in a distorted form. That does not mean that
they are spurious or worthless. On the other hand, this position demands a
vigilance on the part of society so that it is not defrauded and values are not misused by the exploiters to serve their own selfish ends.
In fact morals are deeply rooted in human nature. In spite of his animal propensities, man by nature wants to possess such qualities as are in keeping with his human dignity. All the exponents of the moral principles such as the prophets and the philosophers have set them forth only for safeguarding the interests of the entire mankindand not for the benefit of
any particular class and to the detriment of another class.
Those who hold that the moral principles areonly conven­tional, point to the difference of opinion in regard to them and ask, if these principles had any firm basis, how the views differ about them.In this connection it may be
said that the diversity of views about any point does not prove that it has no firm basis.We see that difference of opinion exists in regard to most of the questions. Views differ even about such questions as the freedom of
will and the universal human rights. Divergent views exist about the nature of life and the nature of existence. In all these cases there has been a difference of opinion over the ages.But does that mean that in all these
cases real infra‑structure does not exist. Even in regard to physical
phenomena and medical questions which are perceptional, observable and
experimentable, wide differences have existed over thousands of years, although physical phenomenaand medical questions are actually
governed by decisive and unalterable principles.Furthermore, the difference
between morals and the rules of conduct should not be over‑looked. Morals are related to the discipline and promotion of a quality of feelings, emotions and tendencies, whereas the rules of conduct are the practical rules of
behavior which are subject to a number of other considerations
and conven­tions, though of course, sometimes they conform to the moral criteria. For example,
self‑respect, perseverance, boldness, piety and the like are moral qualities.
They were good qualities thousands of years ago and they are still so. On the other hand the conventional rules of eating and wearing
dress are mostly local and relative. They are not directly linked to the spiritual and moral systems.Thus neither the wrong exploitation of
the moral teachings, nor the divergence of opinion in regard to them, can be advanced as an argument to prove that they have no firm basis.
The same is true of the diversity of the traditions and rules of social life existing among various peoples.
Anyhow, though the moral principles are universal and stable, they are more or less flexible.If some such thing is meant by the relativity of morals, it may be said that Islamic moral teachings are also relative.
Anyhow, that does not mean that on principle morals have no firm basis, and that they are merely conventional.Morals have been defined as good thinking, good saying and good doing. Is this definition adequate?
Many acts are moral and desirable from the view‑point of certain schools, but they are immoral and undesirable from that of others.
For example, a moral school recommends submission in the face of force and regards it a moral duty. It says that if anybody slaps you on your right cheek, turn the left one to him. But there is another school which says that if
anybody does you any harm, check him and give him tit for tat. Both the schools regard the action suggested by them as good. In spite of all the divergence of their views, every school calls the attitude or quality
recommended by it as `good saying' or `good doing'. Hence if moral action is
defined by `good doing', that definition will not be self‑explanatory.Sometimes it is said that it is the moral qualities on which
human perfection depends. But still the question remains what constitutes human perfection?Does man gain perfection by acquiring wealth and material comforts? Does he gain perfection by attaining physical power, by acquiring knowledge, by obtaining social position,
by securing personal pleasures or by doing social service?
Or does he gain perfection by having all these things together?
Or does perfection mean something else?
That is why the most important point discussed by ethics is the determination of criteria and the true infra‑structure of morals.

Do we encounter moral facts or do we deal only with moral interpretations (of facts)?

Sociology is very subjective. It is a representation of how we came to realize that our biology in proximities is significant. I say this for there was never an intent on our part to create it . All our set modes of behaviour , everything we expect from life, the very humanitas we self respectingly demand, represents us "becoming" conscious in the universe rather than already being conscious; put it like this : the "social mindness" in totality represents an early juncture of our finishing material relativism toward the rest of the universe. Our improvement requires us to face the deterministic nature of the universe as included in it rather than counterpoised to it. The less counterpoised we become the closer to the ultimate logic of reality we move. We have to understand that our biology preceded cognitive development and that this means psychology and sociology cater to our anatomical state . What I'm sugesting here is that there is something better than "thinking" , better than "biologicalized community"- we can't rationally see ourselves "other" than the totality of reality.

Individualism is psychologic. Community is sociologic. Both will recede as we engage a new human material relativism

If anyone is buying this nonsense...I know several members of the forum have bridges they want to sell.

Seriously frank , I Can't reply to a thread without you replying negatively right after?

I'm picturing you now my friend, in a packed townhall back in the 1800's , arguing vehemently that evolution is radical nonsense , the newly initiated towns people cheering in your favour , huxley and Darwin sitting to the side of you , composed but slightly bemused, wondering when are you going to come to terms