Moral Relativity: Where moral values come from?

@MWal,

So both teams are praying to the "air God" for a victory. Who does he listen to? What's considered virtue in one culture may be not considered that in another. How do you explain this? That whacky weed must be dulling your intellect.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Obviously as soon as you suggest a objective and universal source for a moral standard, for example the existence of God, then this implies that an absolute morality is possible.

Forget about "possible" for a moment, "intelligible" is enough --- it merely implies that the concept of a universal source for a moral standard is not nonsense. You might conceivably persuade me that such a standard is nowhere to be found in the real world. But if you did that, it would make me a moral nihilist, not a moral relativist. You would change the list of things that I believe exist in the world, but you wouldn't change my terminology for describing these things. And from previous exchanges, I gather that this is joefromchicago's view as well. (Not that I presume to speak for him.)

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

But if you did that, it would make me a moral nihilist, not a moral relativist.

I disagree with this statement.

I believe that velocity is relative.... that doesn't make me a velocity nihilist.
I believe that beauty is in the eye of the beholder... that doesn't mean that I don't think beauty exists.
I believe that language is based on culture (and that there isn't a single true language)... that doesn't mean that language doesn't exist.

My argument is that morality clearly exists as a cultural phenomenon. It exists the same as any other cultural phenomenon, art, music, religion. Yet, I state with some confidence there isn't one true art taste, or one correct musical system, or one true religion. There is not contradiction here.

Morality is an important part of culture. As a social species we need it as part of our ability to relate to each other. In this way it is similar to language. I don't think anyone would assert that there is one correct way to do language.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Objective moralism can never be achieved, because it's an oxymoron. Moralism is culturally based and learned, but even within cultures, opinions and real life experience about moralism differs. Put all the different cultures moralism into one pot, and what do we have?

There exists extremism in all cultures that departs from what they believe are cultural norms of moralism. That's because humans are not automatons that follows any cultural norms or almost anything else we consider as normal.

Even the idea on the "pursuit of happiness" gets very complex when it involves politics. Why does it take so much effort to get equality for all?

0 Replies

@Germlat,

That's why one culture where all ways meet is virtuous. We must come together to be absolute. One whole community... Heaven.

Can you give an example of what one culture might reject and why that culture itself is moral?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I believe that velocity is relative.... that doesn't make me a velocity nihilist.

Speak for yourself. To me, velocity doesn't exist. All that exists to me is what you would describe as velocity differences. And these differences exist in an absolute sense. Concepts like "my velocity" are merely shorthand for "the difference between my velocity and the velocity of my house".

maxdancona wrote:

I believe that beauty is in the eye of the beholder... that doesn't mean that I don't think beauty exists.

"Believe away", as they would say in The Producers. I believe that beauty is objective to the extent you can observe its influence on humans: Does it engage its viewers, listeners or beholders in general? Is it structurally complex? Is it difficult to repeat? Can it sustain interest in itself? Beauty does not exist to me insofar as the concept doesn't translate into observable properties like this.

maxdancona wrote:

I believe that language is based on culture (and that there isn't a single true language)... that doesn't mean that language doesn't exist.

I don't. I believe that everything interesting about language is laid out in Chomsky's Universal Grammar. The rest is detail. I am indeed either a nihilist or an absolutist about all the concepts you just listed to refute. And of all people, you as a relativist should be happy about that. Smile

maxdancona wrote:

My argument is that morality clearly exists as a cultural phenomenon.

... as do epistemology, the scientific process, and the rules of evidence in our court system. So what? The things that these cultural phenomena concern themselves with are still absolutes. Your conclusion that something can't deal in absolutes because it's a cultural phenomenon is simply a fallacy.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

The amusing contradiction here is in Joe's logic not in mine.

Nope, you have it backwards. There's no contradiction in my logic, and no logic in your contradictions.

maxdancona wrote:

My argument is based on my assertion that any absolute moral system must be based on something objective and universal (I argue this is true by definition; this is the definition of "absolute moral system").

No, that's not true by definition.

maxdancona wrote:

I then argue that there is nothing objective and universal (hence my statement that a moral system must be subjective).

How can you argue that there's nothing objective? Isn't the argument that nothing is objective an assertion that is purportedly objective?

maxdancona wrote:

Obviously as soon as you suggest a objective and universal source for a moral standard, for example the existence of God, then this implies that an absolute morality is possible. Other than God, I haven't found any other argument that meets this criterion (although I admit that your Utilitarianism is an interesting attempt at this, it is clearly not Universal).

That's just an argument for the fact that you're narrow-minded, not that there isn't an objective morality.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

My argument is that morality clearly exists as a cultural phenomenon. It exists the same as any other cultural phenomenon, art, music, religion. Yet, I state with some confidence there isn't one true art taste, or one correct musical system, or one true religion. There is not contradiction here.

Given that this thread has already established that you can't distinguish between morality and esthetics, that's no surprise.

maxdancona wrote:

Morality is an important part of culture. As a social species we need it as part of our ability to relate to each other. In this way it is similar to language. I don't think anyone would assert that there is one correct way to do language.

And you can't tell the difference between morality and cultural mores. Again, no surprise.

0 Replies

There's a breakdown in language going on here, what with the paradoxes that arise in regard to arguments about objectivity and morality.

Paradoxes exist only in language. They are contradictions in terms only. A truth cannot be un-true.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

But truth is subjective to the perceiver. That's the reason why there are so many gods that exist amongst us.

1 Reply

@MWal,

Pay attention to what I stated...you may view all cultures as possessing virtue. Point is the definition varies according to culture.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

It seems to me that what I take you to mean by "truths" are fundamentally INTER-subjective, social constructions. Moreover, Gods are not just subjective "truths" (except, perhaps, in the case of psychotics); they are more social or PUBLIC rather than PRIVATE in nature, properties of the cultural systems of societies than of individuals--although like everything they ultimately exist in the phenomenal fields of individuals. I suppose its a matter of degree rather than of one OR the other.

1 Reply

@Germlat,

Virtue is a innate thing.. And is what is it.. Not something made up.

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

It doesn't matter whether they are private or public. Subjective truths is somewhat of a constant in individuals who wish to believe or not.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

I feel morality is a human construct. Does morality exist if there is only one intelligent life left to roam the Earth?

1 Reply

@argome321,

argome321 wrote:

I feel morality is a human construct. Does morality exist if there is only one intelligent life left to roam the Earth?

No.

The Chinese symbol for money is two figures fighting over an object.

You need to have at least two humans before morality is necessary. Because morality is nothing more than a system of interactions between them.

This is why I don't think it is morally wrong to commit suicide. Or to use drugs or alcohol. Also why masturbation is not morally wrong. The acts don't directly effect others, however; they may indirectly effect others. But if we based morality on the indirect effect we have on others then EVERYTHING would be morally wrong. Because there are no actions that don't also have an indirect effect on someone else.

Religious people like to dance around this issue and claim that their god is offended by singular activities so they are therefore morally wrong when they offend their god. But these people have just bought into the concept that there is a divine being somewhere who cares about these things and gets offended by them.

Here is the thing though. If a god is offended by them, then there is no need to also punish the person here and now for those actions. Leave it up to your god to punish them. I think it is morally wrong to punish a person based on a religious notion that these acts offend your god. If they really do offend your god then you should leave it up to your god to deliver the punishment, not you.

This is why I think systems like Sharia law are immoral. Until you can demonstrate that certain acts offend your god any framework of punishing a person who commits these acts will always be immoral.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

If I hit you or kill your spouse or take your money all of a sudden you neither believe in relativism or cultural crap. As St Augustine noted : Even thieves punish stealing amongst themselves.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Personally, I think moral values are 'codes of conduct' developed for group survival. I do not think that there is an innate, a priori, and absolute moral law. No action is good in itself.
I am also a moral relativist Smile

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Morality is a subjective value.
Is the death sentence justified for a mass murderer?
What about pilots who drops bombs that kills civilians?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Morality is a subjective value.
Is the death sentence justified for a mass murderer?
What about pilots who drops bombs that kills civilians?

I'm well aware morality is arbitrarily subjective.
I think the death penalty is bad period.
I think all war is immoral. Doesn't matter if it's civilians or enemy combatants. I still think all war is immoral.

1 Reply

Moral Relativity: Where moral values come from?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know