What is Morality? Is it Real?

"It's wrong to commit murder" is true for everyone?

“There are four kinds of Homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable, and praiseworthy.” (Ambrose Bierce)

I said "in the final analysis." What difference in behavior do you think we'd see between a relativist and a nihilist?

Quote:

Yes, and that sends us off on a search for an ultimate, objective moral imperative or standard. I haven't been able to find one. I've only been able to find conventional ones. Do you know of an objective one?

Whatever the outcome of that search may be, don't you still feel that "It's wrong to commit murder" is true for everyone?

Yeah, Tuna, because it's tautological. But looky here:

Seems to me that a relativist would accept and abide by the conventions of the society s/he is in. A nihilist wouldn't feel compelled (morally) to abide by any convention. S/he would probably be more likely to do whatever s/he could get away with.

Some people consider abortions and capital punishment to be murder.
Soldiers kill in the name of country and duty, often non-combatants, too. Vegans go around chanting "Meat is Murder," I'm told

Quote:

Seems to me that a relativist would accept and abide by the conventions of the society s/he is in. A nihilist wouldn't feel compelled (morally) to abide by any convention. S/he would probably be more likely to do whatever s/he could get away with.

True. But what magic is there in the borders of society that obligate the relativist?

Quote:

Some people consider abortions and capital punishment to be murder.
Soldiers kill in the name of country and duty, often non-combatants, too. Vegans go around chanting "Meat is Murder," I'm told

Exactly. A relativist will have to say all of the above are right or wrong depending on point of view. A moral realist can put up a fight to defend meat or whatever without being inconsistent. A moral relativist is going to have a problem there.

The law. Threat of punishment. Or simple ostracism and economic failure.

But the moral realist needs to demonstrate that here is an objective basis for morality.

Quote:

The law. Threat of punishment. Or simple ostracism and economic failure.

But those are the same things that would limit the behavior of a nihilist (who would do what he or she can get away with.) That's why I say that in the end, in terms of behavior, relativism and nihilism amount to the same thing.

Quote:

But the moral realist needs to demonstrate that here is an objective basis for morality.

Not really. The realist can say things like: "I strongly feel that torture is morally wrong.".

Does the relativist really have a justification for moral statements? If it's just "Torture is wrong because everybody around me says so.", that's not really morality is it?

And someone says elsewise. How do we decide who is right?

Why isn't it?

If they disagree strongly enough about society's conventions, then they can either set out to change them, like by starting a campaign, writing books, etc. Or they may move to a society that has more agreeable conventions.

If morality reduces to convention (which is in keeping with a nihilistic view) then there doesn't appear to me to be any feeling to it. Ultimately, the moral judge is the heart, not the mind.

For a nihilist "It's wrong to commit murder" isn't a true statement. It's not truth-apt because it's nonsense.

The point a moral realist makes is that if we disagree, one of us is right. This is in keeping with my experience.

I see how fear, anger, and greed can blind me. I feel lure of wanting to say the ends justify the means. What I seem to wake up to (when I do get a clue) is truths. So I'm a working moral realist. My philosophy doesn't justify this. It's challenged by it.

But aren't you the same?

If morality reduces to convention (which is in keeping with a nihilistic view) then there doesn't appear to me to be any feeling to it. Ultimately, the moral judge is the heart, not the mind.

On the second point, I'm not sure why a moral relativist would want to persuade others to change their minds. Why not just assume everyone is doing right?

Sure it's wrong for a nihilist. The definition of "murder" is generally phrased in terms of "wrongfully causing the death of another human being." Sure, there's more, too, such as "with intent," etc. But it's wrong by definition, see. They will fry the nihilist's ass just as quick as mine. Wait, I am a nihilist.....

OK, but that doesn't address the question of how you figure out who is right. Also, have you never been on the sidelines of an argument regarding the morality of this or that, but thought that both interlocutors were wrong? I have. I think a moral realist must inevitably take recourse to some sort of third-party objective source of criteria for certainty.

Tuna wrote:

I see how fear, anger, and greed can blind me. I feel lure of wanting to say the ends justify the means. What I seem to wake up to (when I do get a clue) is truths. So I'm a working moral realist. My philosophy doesn't justify this. It's challenged by it.

But aren't you the same?

I'm not sure I understand this part well enough to respond to it. If you'd like to unpack it a bit, that would help me.

In moral relativism, morality is reduced to convention, and therefore there are correct and incorrect answers to moral questions. The criteria exist. In moral nihilism, there are no correct or incorrect answers. There are no criteria by which to judge.

If a moral relativist is emotionally invested in family, local community, state or national identity, I can see how there would be a great deal of feeling in upholding that group's mores. An outsider who comes in and challenges them would be met with emotionally charged resisitence, I'd think.