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
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by Sculptor »

Iwannaplato wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 11:14 pm
Sculptor wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 1:03 pm Morality has always been relative.
And thankfully so, since degrees of mitigation and context are all so important with sentencing and judgements.
Even outside the court people who are capable of understanding the person involved in the moral transgression provides for better outcomes for all.
So, it is objectively good to have context allow for mitigation? These better outcomes are objective measures?
How do we prove to those who think those are not better outcomes that they are objectively incorrect?
No there is no meaning in what you say. The word "objective" is nothing more than accretion and does not work in the sentence you use.
Eg. "So, it is good to have context allow for mitigation?" Does exactly the same job. And I should remind you that I am only expressing an opinion.
Nice try, but you really need to understand the meaning of "objective" if you are going to use it.
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 »

In that case do what you say you believe and get a better government.
The best government is no government...I'm tryin' my best to see that come to be.
Actually I thought again about my opinion on social controls and I wonder if your method of minimal or no control wouldn't be better than those of Hitler, the Mafia, or Putin.
Self-direction, self-reliance, self-responsibility is better than any alternative.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by Iwannaplato »

Sculptor wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 11:06 am
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 11:14 pm
Sculptor wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 1:03 pm Morality has always been relative.
And thankfully so, since degrees of mitigation and context are all so important with sentencing and judgements.
Even outside the court people who are capable of understanding the person involved in the moral transgression provides for better outcomes for all.
So, it is objectively good to have context allow for mitigation? These better outcomes are objective measures?
How do we prove to those who think those are not better outcomes that they are objectively incorrect?
No there is no meaning in what you say. The word "objective" is nothing more than accretion and does not work in the sentence you use.
Eg. "So, it is good to have context allow for mitigation?" Does exactly the same job. And I should remind you that I am only expressing an opinion.
Nice try, but you really need to understand the meaning of "objective" if you are going to use it.
I don't think there are/believe in objective morals. I think that is a confused term. I have gotten the impression you agreed as you seem to here. My point was that you say that you are grateful that morality is relative and always has been, you then imply that it is good that it is this way, for example in sentencing. Since it is important in sentencing and judgments. Not, for example, important to you. (others would argue that it is not important, because their values differ from yours)


And then more openly that this leads to better outcomes. That's a value judgment, presented, at least seemingly as simply true and objective.

Instead of, say.... I am glad that sentencing outcomes can be influenced by context. That leads to outcomes I prefer.

This would be clearer if the topic was, say, abortion. So, I am thankful that abortions are legal. Or, legal abortion allows for better outcomes for all.

(the opposite value could also be used here antiabortionists)

You simply state that understanding the person involved leads to better (a value laden word) outcomes for everyong. There are people who disagree and evaluate the outcomes differently from you. Your wording implies that they would be wrong. Not that you disagree about values or that you want a different kind of society or that you have different priorities.

Simply that that is better.

A legal system without that kind of flexibility (for example, the federal mandatory sentencing for drug crimes in the US) is worse.

I happen to prefer a more flexible system which you are advocating for.

I am saying your post read as a claim to an objective position.

This was understood by, for example, Peter Holmes above. But he and I have talked about the problems with the idea of objective morality.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by Sculptor »

Iwannaplato wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 11:38 am
Sculptor wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 11:06 am
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 11:14 pm So, it is objectively good to have context allow for mitigation? These better outcomes are objective measures?
How do we prove to those who think those are not better outcomes that they are objectively incorrect?
No there is no meaning in what you say. The word "objective" is nothing more than accretion and does not work in the sentence you use.
Eg. "So, it is good to have context allow for mitigation?" Does exactly the same job. And I should remind you that I am only expressing an opinion.
Nice try, but you really need to understand the meaning of "objective" if you are going to use it.
I don't think there are/believe in objective morals. I think that is a confused term. I have gotten the impression you agreed as you seem to here. My point was that you say that you are grateful that morality is relative and always has been, you then imply that it is good that it is this way, for example in sentencing. Since it is important in sentencing and judgments. Not, for example, important to you. (others would argue that it is not important, because their values differ from yours)


And then more openly that this leads to better outcomes. That's a value judgment, presented, at least seemingly as simply true and objective.

Instead of, say.... I am glad that sentencing outcomes can be influenced by context. That leads to outcomes I prefer.

This would be clearer if the topic was, say, abortion. So, I am thankful that abortions are legal. Or, legal abortion allows for better outcomes for all.

(the opposite value could also be used here antiabortionists)

You simply state that understanding the person involved leads to better (a value laden word) outcomes for everyong. There are people who disagree and evaluate the outcomes differently from you. Your wording implies that they would be wrong. Not that you disagree about values or that you want a different kind of society or that you have different priorities.

Simply that that is better.

A legal system without that kind of flexibility (for example, the federal mandatory sentencing for drug crimes in the US) is worse.

I happen to prefer a more flexible system which you are advocating for.

I am saying your post read as a claim to an objective position.

This was understood by, for example, Peter Holmes above. But he and I have talked about the problems with the idea of objective morality.
Actually I can imagine a world in which mitigations do not produce better outcomes. In general I think it might be better but there are no guarantees here.
Let's imagine an Israeli judge looking at the recent case where a sniper of the IDF shot a killed a journalist through her "PRESS" helmet. The judge might over compensate and consider more mitigation in favour of the IDF soldier allowing him to get away with murder.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/5/1 ... since-2000

Despite this I would not argue for an all too rigid adherence to sentencing, such as in the not too distant past the punishment for stealing a loaf of bread was transportation it Australia.

So I do not think "objective" has any meaning here.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by Iwannaplato »

Sculptor wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 12:51 pm Actually I can imagine a world in which mitigations do not produce better outcomes.
Better according to what you want, I suppose. Rather than just better, period.
In general I think it might be better but there are no guarantees here.
Better for whom according to whose values?
Let's imagine an Israeli judge looking at the recent case where a sniper of the IDF shot a killed a journalist through her "PRESS" helmet. The judge might over compensate and consider more mitigation in favour of the IDF soldier allowing him to get away with murder.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/5/1 ... since-2000
Sure, I can imagine arguments by people on both or several sides of the issue.
Despite this I would not argue for an all too rigid adherence to sentencing, such as in the not too distant past the punishment for stealing a loaf of bread was transportation it Australia.
So I do not think "objective" has any meaning here.
It sure seems like you keep implying it objectivity. It might be better. I can imagine a world where it would be better. Saying now, rather than earlier in the other post, that it could be better the other way still implies the same thing. That there are better ways of doing things. Better the comparative of good. Not better for you. Or fitting better what you want. Just better. Not that it would or would not be better for you or according to what you prefer, just better.

We can like it better. We can prefer a system were.....We can hope it will be like X.

But the moment we say it would be better like X. Or even the qualified, that it might be better, it is as if there is some objective standard.

I don't think there can be, but I sure see language implying it or openly saying. To point this out does not mean I think there are objective values or morals.

But I'll leave it here because at best we seem to be writing past each other.
Last edited by Iwannaplato on Fri May 13, 2022 4:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by Belinda »

henry quirk wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 11:18 am
In that case do what you say you believe and get a better government.
The best government is no government...I'm tryin' my best to see that come to be.
Actually I thought again about my opinion on social controls and I wonder if your method of minimal or no control wouldn't be better than those of Hitler, the Mafia, or Putin.
Self-direction, self-reliance, self-responsibility is better than any alternative.
Yes, but don't you see that while a good man may be self reliant, self responsible, and self directed, some bad man will try to steal his stuff? The good man will be safer from bad men if the community get together to repel the bad men.Your country and your local authority need tax money for law and order and for national defence. Do you imagine America would be better defended by a lot of householders saving their little guns and bullets for the Big Attack? Or is America better defended by a concerted effort to procure the latest and heaviest defence technology?

On an international scale, Ukraine was minding its own business getting on with growing wheat for export, and along comes the bad man Putin and tries to steal Ukraine. NATO is a great defence against Putin's colonialism. Finland and Sweden want to join NATO.
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 »

while a good man may be self reliant, self responsible, and self directed, some bad man will try to steal his stuff
Yeah, B: I know.
The good man will be safer from bad men if the community get together to repel the bad men.
That's the story, yeah.
Your country and your local authority need tax money for law and order and for national defence.
Too bad: they can't have mine.
Do you imagine America would be better defended by a lot of householders saving their little guns and bullets for the Big Attack?
America would be better defended without The United States.
America (is) better defended by a concerted effort to procure the latest and heaviest defence technology
That's the story, yeah.
Ukraine was minding its own business
The Ukraine State is a parasite. The Ukrainians would do well, as everything is in flux, to kill it along with the agents of the Russian State.
Putin and tries to steal Ukraine.
One Hydra head goin' at it with another Hydra head.
NATO is a great defence against Putin's colonialism.
NATO is a joke.
Finland and Sweden want to join NATO.
Two more Hydra heads.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by Sculptor »

Iwannaplato wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 1:29 pm
Sculptor wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 12:51 pm Actually I can imagine a world in which mitigations do not produce better outcomes.
Better according to what you want, I suppose. Rather than just better, period.
In general I think it might be better but there are no guarantees here.
Better for whom according to whose values?
Well ... exactly.

Sure, I can imagine arguments by people on both or several sides of the issue.



It sure seems like you keep implying it objectivity. It might be better. I can imagine a world where it would be better. Saying now, rather than earlier in the other post, that it could be better the other way still implies the same thing. That there are better ways of doing things. Better the comparative of good. Not better for you. Or fitting better what you want. Just better. Not that it would or would not be better for you or according to what you prefer, just better.

We can like it better. We can prefer a system were.....We can hope it will be like X.

But the moment we say it would be better like X. Or even the qualified, that it might be better, it is as if there is some objective standard.

I don't think there can be, but I sure see language implying it or openly saying. To point this out does not mean I think there are objective values or morals.

But I'll leave it here because at best we seem to be writing past each other.
No you just need to read more carefully, so that you are seeing what is on the page and not what you expect to see
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
Since Kohlberg’s time, other scholars have proposed different models to describe moral development for a broad range of cultures. Shweder et al. have outlined a different approach to moral development, which posits three ethics that are central to the moral belief systems in the majority of cultures around the world: autonomy, community, and divinity.
Autonomy of course because in lacking it how on earth can morality not be but another inherent manifestation of the only possible world. Yes, somehow the compatibilists will hold you morally responsible for something you could never have not done, but that's still beyond my grasping.

Community by all means because almost all of us were born into one. And being born into one means being indoctrinated to understand the world around you as they do. Or, rather, as those in the community who do the indoctrinating understand it.

And divinity because once you factor God and religion into it morality becomes just another component of Scripture. Only with God and religion it doesn't stop when you are in the grave, but continues on for all the rest of eternity. Up or down as it were.
This method of differentiating types of morality not only shows different domains of morality, but also gives us insight into cultural variations. For example, there is a more pronounced emphasis on the ethic of community in Taiwan than in the United States and a stronger emphasis on the ethic of autonomy in the United States than in Taiwan.
So, you're born and raised in Taiwan or you're born and raised in America. Consequently, the extent to which morality is thought to revolve more around "I" or "we" is going to become a factor in the lives of millions. Okay, Mr. Philosopher, given this cultural variance, ought morality to revolve more around the individual or the community?

And which frame of mind here gets you closer to the manner in which I construe the role that dasein plays with respect to our individual value judgments.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=175121
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by iambiguous »

Right, like here too, given your own private and personal understanding of the deist God's Reality, only you grasp Rationally and Naturally how this distinction is made. Indeed, noting any God's Reality is going to be subsumed in one or another Scripture. Otherwise, why the capital letter Reality.
henry quirk wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 6:08 pmIn this conversation between us, I'm the only one who can.
Come on, Henry, we all know by now there's how you grasp this distinction correctly and how all the wrong, dumb, diseased folks here -- the "big fat liars" -- grasp it incorrectly. How is this any different from bazookas and abortion?
henry quirk wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 6:08 pmConsider, you -- supposedly -- can't even tell the difference, or pick the good, between baby killin' and baby preservin'. By your own admission you're flummoxed by havin' to pick one or the other. If true (and I don't believe it is...your reaction to the possible nullification of R v W is tellin') then you're absolutely worthless as a measure of morality or truth or plain old fact.
On the other hand, I don't assume those here who don't share my own point of view -- my explaining it not you -- are wrong, dumb and diseased. For fulminating fanatic objectivists of your ilk, however, nothing about anything "flummoxes" them. On the contrary, their self-righteous arrogance regarding all things moral and political is on display in post after post after post after post.

The only difference being whether they come from the left or the right end of the ideological spectrum. And what their font -- God or No God -- happens to be.
[Ayn Rand] insisted that philosophically there was in turn a Reality. And that all rational and virtuous individuals were obligated to be in sync with her Reality.
henry quirk wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 6:08 pm I'm with her on the first: there is a reality, the Reality, but I don't share her conviction (if indeed it was her conviction) that rational and virtuous folks are obligated to be in sync with her, or my, reality. It's not her, or my, reality to enforce. If you choose to defy Reality by, for example, eatin' Drano, that's your business and your consequence.
Well, no, no one forces others to think just like you do. On the other hand, your own dogmatic assertions regarding guns and abortion are in sync with Reality. So, if they do not think exactly like you do, they are out of sync with Reality. Something like that, right?

Of course, now you are entirely in sync with those on the other end of the political spectrum who insist that those who buy and sell bazookas and force women to give birth against their will are the wrong, dumb, diseased, big fat liars.

Then back to this:

"You're wrong!"
"No, you're wrong!"
"You're dumb!"
"No, you're dumb!"
"You're diseased!"
"No, you're diseased!"
"You're a big fat liar!"
"No, you're a big fat liar"!
you are content merely to call them diseased dummies
henry quirk wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 6:08 pm And morons, asswipes, pinheads, degenerates, idiots, deficients, nutjobs, loons, wrong-headed, and on and on.
Of course: The Satyr Syndrome!!
As a fellow Deist participating in God's Reality, she is permitted her own understanding of "owning" herself in regard to bazookas and tanks. But if her own political prejudices rooted existentially in dasein are not entirely in sync with your understanding? She's wrong!!
henry quirk wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 6:08 pm Nope, she's a free will, no one permits her to think as she likes...not even God. It's her head: she owns it, she's responsible for it.
Again, you grant her the right to "own" herself of her own free will. But if, in so doing, she thinks the opposite of you, then she is out of sync with Reality, and is wrong, dumb and diseased. Sort of like IC's Christian God granting us free will but if we don't accept Jesus Christ as our personal savior we'll burn in Hell. We're free but there's only one right answer.
But if her own political prejudices rooted existentially in dasein are not entirely in sync with your understanding? She's wrong!!
henry quirk wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 6:08 pm Nope, if her own assessments -- which ain't got nuthin' to do with a fictional dasein -- bring her to conclude she has any say-so over the life, liberty, or property of another, when that other has done no wrong, then she's wrong.
Again, back to the reality that out in the real world, in most communities, laws exist pertaining to guns and abortions. We don't get to just say and do whatever we please as long as we can convince ourselves that we do others no harm. That's my point. That moral objectivists of your ilk, once in power, will often view the world around them as divided up between "one of us" [those in sync with Reality: the good guys] and "one of them" [those not in sync with Reality: the bad guys].

The rest, as they say, is history.
You just steer clear of probing the part about dasein because you have way too much accumulated "comfort and consolation" at stake here.
henry quirk wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 6:08 pm Nope, I steer clear cuz dasein is manure, and a particularly low grade of it. I got no reason to give it any real consideration in any of my responses.
Indeed. The closer you get to abandoning your own arrogant, self-righteous moral and political dictums, the closer you come to recognizing how "owning" your "self" is the existential embodiment of dasein. Then all that accumulated "comfort and consolation" derived from your own smug "my way or the highway" mentality, can begin to crumble.

I suspect you already recognize this given the manner in which you seem compelled to come after me here: derisively.
what is not a possibility is that if others believe they "own" themselves just as you do and as such believe that owning buying and selling bazookas is irrational and unnatural while having an abortion is rational and natural then God or No God they are inherently, necessarily wrong?
henry quirk wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 6:08 pm It's not possible to recognize the other guy has the same right to his life, liberty, and property as you do while declarin' it's forbidden he should own an item.
And yet in community after community after community, that is precisely what is being debated in regard to guns. Should the law of the land allow private citizens to own bazookas and tanks and IEDs and grenades and mines and rockets and chemical and biological weapons and dirty bombs?

Why? Precisely because people, in "owning" themselves, come to conflicting conclusions about guns. I merely suggest these differences are derived existentially from dasein rather than from a God or No God essential Reality whereby in following the dictates of Reason and Nature one can arrive at the optimal or the only reasonable conclusion. You can't even own up to the fact other Deists will embrace your arguments about "owning" themselves but then conclude the opposite of you in regard to issues like guns and abortions. The irony is that they are defending a Reality here as well. Only it's their Reality not yours.
henry quirk wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 6:08 pm It's not possible to recognize the other guy has the same right to his life, liberty, and property as you do while declarin' the baby in your belly ought to be rubbed out.
And then of course those on the other end of the political spectrum, in "owning" themselves just like you do, argue that it's not possible for women to attain political equality with men in a world where women are forced to give birth against their will.

Indeed, the political platform of the Libertarian Party says that...

"Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration."

By all means, keep the government out of it. Just don't assume that "liberty" here is applicable only to the unborn and not to the pregnant women.
henry quirk wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 6:08 pm In the first: you're a thief. In the second: you're a murdress. In both: you've declared the other guy is less than you. You're a monster (add that one to the list).
Yes, by all means, reduce complex issues like guns and abortion down to simplistic outbursts like this.

In fact, for some of us, this mentality pretty much encompasses the fulminating fanatic objectivists in a nutshell.
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 »

Pretty much your whole post is script, all of which I've addressed multiple times. I don't mind repetition when there's fire and novelty. You lack both.

This, however...
I don't assume those here who don't share my own point of view...are wrong,
...did stand out from the dreck.

Yeah, you do. Your schtick is that it's only proper to be fractured and anyone who disagrees is a fulminating objectivist.

So, we can add hypocrite to the list (though, I suppose, you're already covered with liar).

'nuff said
Advocate
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: moral relativism

Post by Advocate »

[quote="henry quirk" post_id=572849 time=1652554651 user_id=472]
Pretty much your whole post is [i]script[/i], all of which I've addressed multiple times. I don't mind repetition when there's fire and novelty. You lack both.

This, however...

[quote]I don't assume those here who don't share my own point of view...are wrong, [/quote]

...did stand out from the dreck.

Yeah, you do. Your schtick is that it's only proper to be [i]fractured[/i] and anyone who disagrees is a [i]fulminating objectivist[/i].

So, we can add hypocrite to the list (though, I suppose, you're already covered with [i]liar[/i]).

'nuff said
[/quote]

If someone doesn't assume that anyone who disagrees with them is wrong, they either have an inadequate epistemology or they're just speculating below their pay grade - a member of the Cult of Open-Mindedness.
User avatar
phyllo
Posts: 1465
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:58 pm
Location: Слава Україні!

Re: moral relativism

Post by phyllo »

"I am right. You are wrong."

That's a particular way of framing the situation. It's not the only way. And it's not a very good way.

"This idea is better than that idea."

That way of framing it focuses on the ideas rather than on the people involved. It doesn't pass judgement on the person.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by iambiguous »

henry quirk wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 7:57 pm Pretty much your whole post is script, all of which I've addressed multiple times. I don't mind repetition when there's fire and novelty. You lack both.

This, however...
I don't assume those here who don't share my own point of view...are wrong,
...did stand out from the dreck.

Yeah, you do. Your schtick is that it's only proper to be fractured and anyone who disagrees is a fulminating objectivist.

So, we can add hypocrite to the list (though, I suppose, you're already covered with liar).

'nuff said
Ah, back to your "snippet" philosophy again.

Meanwhile let's all try to imagine the carnage up in Buffalo today if the shooter had used a bazooka instead. :shock:
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by Belinda »

henry quirk wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 11:18 am
In that case do what you say you believe and get a better government.
The best government is no government...I'm tryin' my best to see that come to be.
Actually I thought again about my opinion on social controls and I wonder if your method of minimal or no control wouldn't be better than those of Hitler, the Mafia, or Putin.
Self-direction, self-reliance, self-responsibility is better than any alternative.
Say you are a farmer who has not the resources to dig his own deep water well. If you combine your resources with those of other nearby farmers you can all have fresh clean water.
Post Reply