moral relativism

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by iambiguous »

Recognizing Moral Identity as a Cultural Construct
Fanli Jia and Tobias Krettenauer at Frontiers In Psychology website
Like many other moral constructs, the moral identity concept is rooted in a Western cultural context that stresses an individually oriented morality.

Being a moral person results from a desire to be consistent with one’s moral concepts through which individuals are motivated to gain independence from social conventions.
Exactly! "I" construed by those in the West is in large part derived from the historical advent of capitalism. In particular, the consequences for human interactions derived from the Industrial Revolution where the "wage slave" became deeply engrained in such "scientific management" techniques as Taylorism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientifi ... management.

We now take all of that for granted of course. It's just the way things are. And yet historically there were any number of communities that revolved far, far more around "we". Around the community as a a whole. Around the village.

In fact there are still pockets of them around the globe. In the Amazon rainforest, for example.

Instead, there are those who try to argue that the "what's in it more me" mentality is predicated entirely on what Nature commands or [re those like Ayn Rand and the Libertarians] on what constitutes philosophically the most rational human interactions.

Capitalism becomes just another historical rendition of "social conventions". Indeed, let the workers try to gain "independence" from it when they get around to paying their bills at the end of the month.
In contrast, people from Eastern cultures consider a highly moral person to be societally oriented. In this moral orientation, people tend to define themselves in the context of collectivism and an interdependent self.
Right, tell that to the working class in China...now that the powers that be have embraced state capitalism as the political economy of choice.
Social relationships and group membership are linked to the motivation to adjust to the demands of others and to maintain harmony within one’s group. Being a moral person in Eastern societies may be more reflective of group norms than of an individual’s morality.
Still, in nations around the globe these days there will almost always be a complex intertwining of government policies that aim for something in the middle...not quite me and not quite we.

The welfare state it is often called.

And, as such, moral relativism thrives.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: moral relativism

Post by henry quirk »

I remember one was about appropriation of private property by the state where we were on opposite sides in the unexpected way with me on the libertarian and you on the authoritarian one.
Can you show me the posts? Me, supportin' the theft of property, by The State? That doesn't sound right.
We were speculating how you might revisit the question of lies...
If I use my shotgun to stop an offender from doin' injury to me or my kid, most certainly I've taken his life, but it ain't *murder, it's defense of self and other (a just killing).

...on the other hand...

If I use my shotgun to gut shot a man to take his property (car, cash, etc.), most certainly I've taken his life and it's murder (an unjust killing [and theft on top of that]).


If I tell a guy holdin' a gun to my head, no, there's no one else in the house, when I know my kid is hunkered down under his bed on the other side of our home, most certainly, I've lied, but it's just. Generally, I have no obligation to be honest with someone who's demonstrated a willingness and capability to hurt me. Specifically, I'm defendin' my kid in the best way possible in the moment.

....however...

If I sell my car to a fella, sealin' the deal with assurances the vehicle is in great condition, knowing the alternator is shot, the brakes are a hair's width from failure, and the fuses all need replacin', most certainly I've lied, and unjustly. I've hoodwinked the man out of his money.




*I use this not in its legal sense but to distinguish it, an unjust killing, from a just killing, self- and other- defense.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by FlashDangerpants »

henry quirk wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 5:13 pm
I remember one was about appropriation of private property by the state where we were on opposite sides in the unexpected way with me on the libertarian and you on the authoritarian one.
Can you show me the posts? Me, supportin' the theft of property, by The State? That doesn't sound right.
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=26914&p=415572&hil ... an#p415572
TBH I half remembered it because of the Austrian thing, that's how my memory works, there has to be a word I remember within the conversation for some reason.
henry quirk wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 5:13 pm
We were speculating how you might revisit the question of lies...
If I use my shotgun to stop an offender from doin' injury to me or my kid, most certainly I've taken his life, but it ain't *murder, it's defense of self and other (a just killing).

...on the other hand...

If I use my shotgun to gut shot a man to take his property (car, cash, etc.), most certainly I've taken his life and it's murder (an unjust killing [and theft on top of that]).


If I tell a guy holdin' a gun to my head, no, there's no one else in the house, when I know my kid is hunkered down under his bed on the other side of our home, most certainly, I've lied, but it's just. Generally, I have no obligation to be honest with someone who's demonstrated a willingness and capability to hurt me. Specifically, I'm defendin' my kid in the best way possible in the moment.

....however...

If I sell my car to a fella, sealin' the deal with assurances the vehicle is in great condition, knowing the alternator is shot, the brakes are a hair's width from failure, and the fuses all need replacin', most certainly I've lied, and unjustly. I've hoodwinked the man out of his money.




*I use this not in its legal sense but to distinguish it, an unjust killing, from a just killing, self- and other- defense.
So you went with there being nothing in particular wrong about lying, or dishonesty unless there is quantifiable loss of property?

Or to put it another way, when everyone else thinks that honesty id a good thing in itself, Henry says it is fact that we are all mistaken, and honesty is just a thing we feel good about, not a good thing as such?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: moral relativism

Post by henry quirk »

half remembered
Mebbe, but better than me. Lord I was bone-headed in that section of the conversation.
everyone else thinks that honesty id a good thing in itself
Honesty is the best policy.

What is honesty?

Define it.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by FlashDangerpants »

henry quirk wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 12:54 am
half remembered
Mebbe, but better than me. Lord I was bone-headed in that section of the conversation.
everyone else thinks that honesty id a good thing in itself
Honesty is the best policy.

What is honesty?

Define it.
honest
/ˈɒnɪst/
adjective
free of deceit; truthful and sincere.

People tend to think that stuff is good because of what it is, not as a secondary effect of safeguarding property. Is it a Henry Moral Fact that we are all mistaken in this assessment, and that honesty is only good on the conditional basis that property is protected by some particular act of honest telling?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: moral relativism

Post by henry quirk »

People tend to think that stuff is good because of what it is,
No one sez Joe is honest if he's demonstrated he's not.

No one sez Stan is such a big liar if he's demonstrated otherwise.

No one would say Henry is not to be trusted if I preserved my kid by lyin'.

No one would say Henry is trustworthy if I sell a junker under false pretenses.

The assessment of honest or dishonest is always attached to an act and context.

Most folks, it seems to me, when they bother to think it thru, understand this.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by FlashDangerpants »

henry quirk wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 1:39 pm
People tend to think that stuff is good because of what it is,
No one sez Joe is honest if he's demonstrated he's not.

No one sez Stan is such a big liar if he's demonstrated otherwise.

No one would say Henry is not to be trusted if I preserved my kid by lyin'.

No one would say Henry is trustworthy if I sell a junker under false pretenses.

The assessment of honest or dishonest is always attached to an act and context.

Most folks, it seems to me, when they bother to think it thru, understand this.
Yeah yeah yeah, there are times when you do the small naughty for the greater good.

You avoided the question.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: moral relativism

Post by henry quirk »

You avoided the question.
I answered, just not as you'd like.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: moral relativism

Post by henry quirk »

Is it a Henry Moral Fact that we are all mistaken in this assessment, and that honesty is only good on the conditional basis that property is protected by some particular act of honest telling?
The assessment of honest or dishonest is always attached to an act and context.

Most folks, it seems to me, when they bother to think it thru, understand this.


-----

You have a dim view of property.

Why?

...each individual, according to our understanding of the natural order of things, is the owner of himself, the ruler of his own person. Preservation of this self-ownership is essential for the proper development and well-being of man. The human rights of the person are, in effect, a recognition of each man's inalienable property right over his own being; and from this property right stems his right to the material goods that he has produced. A man's right to personal freedom, then, is his property right in himself... from The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty, April 1959

On what basis can we say theft is wrong, rape is wrong, slavery is wrong, murder is wrong, if not on the basis of life, liberty, property belonging to an individual?

It does not seem to me to diminish a man that I recognize he is his own, that his life, liberty, and property are his. Quite the opposite.

It does seem to me those (not necessarily you) who frown on property usually do so so as to exploit another's life, liberty, and property.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by FlashDangerpants »

henry quirk wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 2:16 pm
Is it a Henry Moral Fact that we are all mistaken in this assessment, and that honesty is only good on the conditional basis that property is protected by some particular act of honest telling?
The assessment of honest or dishonest is always attached to an act and context.

Most folks, it seems to me, when they bother to think it thru, understand this.
Nonsense.
For honesty to be 'wrong' you need to tell a story in which there is some greater evil that is only preventable with a lie.
You never need any story to justify honesty being the good choice.
That is because honesty is almost universally considered the morally good choice all other things being equal.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: moral relativism

Post by henry quirk »

honesty is...universally considered the morally good choice all other things being equal.
Not as some free-floatin' abstract it isn't.

Always: honesty is assessed by way of act and context.
You never need any story to justify honesty being the good choice.
Okay, illustrate that honesty is the best policy without tellin' a story (givin' an example).
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by FlashDangerpants »

henry quirk wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 4:08 pm
honesty is...universally considered the morally good choice all other things being equal.
Not as some free-floatin' abstract it isn't.

Always: honesty is assessed by way of act and context.
You never need any story to justify honesty being the good choice.
Okay, illustrate that honesty is the best policy without tellin' a story (givin' an example).
I already told you that if you want to make honesty the bad choice you have to construct a story.
And I correctly pointed out that it doesn't go the other way round.

I am not prepared to feign respect for a conversation in which we assume that lies and truths are equally 'good' unless there is a story that makes one better than the other. It would be dishonest of me and that would be a bad thing.

I wasn't buying the stupid thing about the bum holes before and I'm not falling this one either.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by iambiguous »

henry quirk wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 12:54 am

Honesty is the best policy.

What is honesty?

Define it.
This reflects the classic mentality of the moral objectivists among us.

For them morality revolves around definitions. If you can define words properly you can come up with the only logical deductions about good and evil.

Which necessarily leads us to arguments like their own.

Take the Supreme Court ruling on abortion here in America today.

For the moral objectivists, if you define the meaning of abortion and the meaning of morality in the only possible "logical" manner then abortions are necessarily immoral.

Of course here, some [Supremes or not], include God as well. Human logic is either in sync with God's Scripture or it's not. And to drive that point home, most religious folks invoke Judgment Day.

Abortion here and now given the context of Heaven or Hell there and then.

With henry's God, however, who really knows if there is a Judgment Day.

Instead, his God provides each of us with the capacity to "follow the dictates of Reason and Nature". And then He splits the scene.

In other words, He leaves it up to us to figure out that if we do "follow the dictates of Reason and Nature" on abortion, we'll think exactly like henry does.

And, to the best of my own recollection, about everything else too.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: moral relativism

Post by henry quirk »

I correctly pointed out that it doesn't go the other way round.
Becuz, as you say, People tend to think that stuff is good because of what it is.

Why do they think honesty is good?

Explain it to me without a story, an example, of act and context (an evidence).
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by FlashDangerpants »

henry quirk wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 7:00 pm
I correctly pointed out that it doesn't go the other way round.
Becuz, as you say, People tend to think that stuff is good because of what it is.

Why do they think honesty is good?

Explain it to me without a story, an example, of act and context (an evidence).
I'm not a moral realist Henry, why are you testing me as one?

What is a fact is that everybody, and I mean everybody including you when you aren't cutting off your own nose to spite your face on the internet, does agree that lying is is wrong unless there are extenuating circumstances.

I don't need to show why they must believe that, with or without a story, because, and try to follow this ... my argument is not that it is real, nor is it that they are justified by some fact of the universe in this practice. No such excuse is ever needed for it to be right to tell the truth.
Post Reply