Moral Relativity: Where moral values come from?

@coldjoint,

Good work!
Your gracious attitude will call attention to the relevance of your posts.

1 Reply

@neologist,

Quote:

Your gracious attitude will call attention to the relevance of your posts.

How gracious is Max? You do not believe in the Golden Rule. Is that relative also?

1 Reply

@coldjoint,

If you believe max is taking the low road, try taking a higher road.

1 Reply

@neologist,

Quote:

If you believe max is taking the low road, try taking a higher road.

Comments like Sweet Cheeks ,and asking if I work out come from his convos with LvB and that is as low as you can go. The guy is a criminal from Amkon and Max is an idiot who believes character assassination somehow changes fact.

He is shallow and transparent and telling him so is my pleasure. I guess that is the high road to me. I do not like arrogance. And arrogance + Maxes limited scope and understanding of reality is intolerable.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

I like utilitarianism which basically states that moral actions should be aimed at maximizing happiness and reducing suffering.
"In utilitarianism, the moral worth of an action is determined only by its resulting outcome, although there is debate over how much consideration should be given to actual consequences, foreseen consequences and intended consequences"

Every situation is unique and there is no simple straight forward answer.

I think taking ideas such as utilitarianism into account when deciding whether something is morally justifiable is a good start. Genocide is obviously wrong, like when tens of millions of Russians (Lenin, Stalin) and Chinese (Mao) were systematically starved to death. Obviously suffering was maximized and happiness reduced. Everyday situations are more complex, and require deeper analysis.
Is it wrong or right to kill someone? Depends. If you could have killed Mao and saved around 80 million lives, suffering would have been reduced and happiness increased. What if you kill someone while defending yourself. I think that would normally be morally justifiable. What if someone robs you and you shoot them in the back of the head while they are running away from you. That's more difficult to decide. That's what courts are for. I think if you are flexible with utilitarianism, it can be a pretty good guide in deciding wrong from right. Of course there are other situations where that may not apply as well. Say someone's a career criminal and rapist, you are unprovoked yet you walk up and kill them. Well you may be reducing future victims' suffering in the long run, but you can't just walk up and kill someone. Is vigilantism morally right? That could lead to anarchy which may increase suffering...
...Anyways, I think morality is very complex and each situation is unique and deserves its own critical analysis.

1 Reply

@Germlat,

Quote:

Let me giggle a little here..so good and evil defined within a culture right? That fits...yep! It was culturally acceptable to starve people, perform medical experiments on children etc...but their culture justified it. Evil exists outside of the confine of your theoretical brain.

I think you are sort of missing his point. He's not saying genocide is justifiable just because a society thinks that it is. He's saying the Nazis (along with communist Russia, China, North Korea and Cambodia) were examples of totalitarian societies that viewed morality as absolute. Religions (at least fundamentalists) , cults, and totalitarian societies generally view morals as absolute. The authors of religious holy books, cult leaders, and dictators all decide for their adherents what is morally acceptable. There is no debate with dogmatic adherents of any of those groups. Morality was and is determined by an authoritative text or an authoritative leader in their minds.

1 Reply

@Jpsy,

I like utilitarianism too. That doesn't make it an absolute standard. There is no reason that happiness should be maximized and there is no absolute truth to tell us that reducing suffering is desirable.

There are plenty of systems of morality that don't maximize happiness or reduce suffering including our own.

Vegetarianism is a good way to reduce suffering world-wide, it saves resources and even lowers greenhouse gasses. Yet most Americans aren't vegetarians (in fact it is a pretty small minority). More importantly, most Americans don't see vegetarianism as a moral imperative.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

I agree with you. In the grand scheme of things, there is no such thing as wrong or right. However, I think human beings evolved enough intelligence and decent enough consciences, that most of us could sort of generally agree that things such as genocide and senseless torture are wrong. Then there are those gray areas. Is torture OK if it saves lives? Is abortion morally acceptable? We my be debating those issues until the end of time.

1 Reply

@Jpsy,

My point is the values of the Nazis were relative to their assumed culture. Their degraded morality caused unspeakable harm to millions. They savored perpetrating this harm with a proud and narcissistic attitude. Perfect example of evil.

0 Replies

@Jpsy,

What makes a conscience decent if there are no absolute morals?

1 Reply

@Germlat,

What makes a song beautiful? What makes a woman attractive? There are no absolutes for these things and different cultures have very different ideas.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I like utilitarianism too. That doesn't make it an absolute standard. There is no reason that happiness should be maximized and there is no absolute truth to tell us that reducing suffering is desirable.

Utilitarianism is a system of absolute morality. And, as thinkers such as Bentham and J.S. Mill theorized, there is a reason that happiness should be maximized. You may want utilitarianism to be as arbitrary and formless as your own morality, but it simply isn't.

maxdancona wrote:

There are plenty of systems of morality that don't maximize happiness or reduce suffering including our own.

What do you mean by "our own?" Whose morality are you talking about?

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Hmmm Joe, I think you are using a different meaning of the word "absolute" than I am.

I accept that Utilitarianism is one of many systems of "absolute" morality (in the sense that Utilitarianism presents a clear line between right and wrong). But there are many other systems of morality with that property. The Judeo-Christian system of morality is another system of "absolute" morality. (The Judeo-Christian morality states that the Creator is the ultimate defining judge between good and evil).

When I use the term "absolute morality" I am using "absolute" in the sense of "the one true morality". If there is an absolute morality (by my definition) then there only can be one. If there is an absolute morality, all other moral codes, particularly those that contradict the one true morality must by definition be wrong.

Quote:

There are plenty of systems of morality that don't maximize happiness or reduce suffering including our own.

By "our own", I mean the modern American/Western European system of morality. I can give you plenty of examples (in addition to vegetarianism) where the modern American moral values don't maximize happiness or reduce suffering.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

When I use the term "absolute morality" I am using "absolute" in the sense of "the one true morality". If there is an absolute morality (by my definition) then there only can be one. If there is an absolute morality, all other moral codes, particularly those that contradict the one true morality must by definition be wrong.

That's not the typical definition, but I think it's inherent in any system of morality that claims to be absolute rather than relative. I'm not sure how two different systems of morality can both be "moral" as to each other.

maxdancona wrote:

By "our own", I mean the modern American/Western European system of morality. I can give you plenty of examples (in addition to vegetarianism) where the modern American moral values don't maximize happiness or reduce suffering.

But you don't believe in a system of morality. At best, you believe in your own version of morality. If others share your views regarding morality, that's more-or-less happenstance. That's not a system, that's a coincidence.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

What makes a woman attractive?

She could try wearing one of your skirts.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

I'm not sure how two different systems of morality can both be "moral" as to each other.

Multiple languages can co-exist and both be equally valid. Each language has its own set of rules and own system of syntax. I don't use my language to criticize other languages as "incorrect".

Multiple musical systems can co-exist and both be equally valid. I try to listen to music from other cultures. I don't understand it and it doesn't sound beautiful or meaningful to me as the music of my culture does. I would never say that another cultures system of music is incorrect.

If you can show a universal advantage of one language over another, or one musical taste over another, then so be it.

As of yet no one has come up with a moral belief system that is objectively superior to any number of other systems.

Quote:

But you don't believe in a system of morality. At best, you believe in your own version of morality. If others share your views regarding morality, that's more-or-less happenstance. That's not a system, that's a coincidence.

You haven't been reading. Go back and read my first post. Of course I believe in a system of morality. I believe in many systems of morality

I believe in the modern Western system of morality the same way that I believe in the English language. Of course I also believe in Mandarin... but English is the language that I apply in my daily life. The fact that I accept the existence and validity of Mandarin doesn't hurt my use of English to live my life.

And a modern Western system of morality is the moral system that I apply in my daily life.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

As of yet no one has come up with a moral belief system that is objectively superior to any number of other systems.

Are you saying that we have failed in our desire to distinguish good from bad.

Who woulda thought? See Genesis ch 3.

1 Reply

@neologist,

Sure. the Bible has been used to define an absolute system of morality (actually it has defined many... but that is another discussion).

Of course you have an absolute morality, in the sense of the one true morality, if you accept the existence of God, and then define a system of morality based on Him. If there is a God, then the problems I am raising with absolute morality go away.

But, this system of morality doesn't work for those of us who either don't believe in God or who don't accept that God is moral by definition.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Multiple languages can co-exist and both be equally valid. Each language has its own set of rules and own system of syntax. I don't use my language to criticize other languages as "incorrect".

That's a flawed analogy. Languages don't claim to be absolute in the same way that moral systems do.

maxdancona wrote:

Multiple musical systems can co-exist and both be equally valid. I try to listen to music from other cultures. I don't understand it and it doesn't sound beautiful or meaningful to me as the music of my culture does. I would never say that another cultures system of music is incorrect.

This is another flawed analogy, but it illustrates an important point. You view your choice of musical system as simply an esthetic choice. I agree. What you fail to recognize is that your choice of a moral system is likewise an esthetic choice. You adhere to your "western system of morality" because you find it accords with your esthetic sense, not from any sense of duty. That's no different from your choice of a style of music because you find it more pleasing than others. But a system of morality that is based on your esthetic sense is no system of morality at all. It's merely personal taste elevated to a personal obligation.

maxdancona wrote:

As of yet no one has come up with a moral belief system that is objectively superior to any number of other systems.

How do you know that?

maxdancona wrote:

You haven't been reading. Go back and read my first post. Of course I believe in a system of morality. I believe in many systems of morality

No, you clearly don't understand. If you believe in many systems of morality, you don't believe in any. You want to believe in morality, because you want to think of yourself as a moral person, but you're just kidding yourself. There is no morality where there is no duty, and if you believe in a moral code that applies only to yourself, then you have only a duty to yourself, which is no duty at all.

maxdancona wrote:

I believe in the modern Western system of morality the same way that I believe in the English language.

Yes, I know. That's the problem.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Sure. the Bible has been used to define an absolute system of morality (actually it has defined many... but that is another discussion).

Actually, only one. But that is another discussion.

maxdancona wrote:

Of course you have an absolute morality, in the sense of the one true morality, if you accept the existence of God, and then define a system of morality based on Him. If there is a God, then the problems I am raising with absolute morality go away.

But, this system of morality doesn't work for those of us who either don't believe in God or who don't accept that God is moral by definition.

A shame, eh?

0 Replies

Moral Relativity: Where moral values come from?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know