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 »

8 Sources Of Morality
Nick Byrd
7. Non-natural or Supernatural

Of course, not all religions involve gods. And not all supernatural beliefs are religious. For example, one can believe in spirits or magic without believing in a god or being committed to a religion.
That's true. But once you leave God out of it, what on earth are we to make of spiritual or magical morality? And here I always come back eventually to why I imagine that many will in fact embrace a No God morality. In short: it can mean practically anything. So, therefore, practically anything you believe about it is sufficient to make it true. After all, few experience a magical or a spiritual sense of reality/morality such that they invent an actual Scripture for others to follow in connecting the dots between morality here and now and immortality there and then. Each individual is able to claim their own spiritual or magical sense of reality. And, thus, since you are not them, what can you possibly really know about it?
Some supernaturalist beliefs can inform morality. For example, you might think that what is true and good is transcendent in way that makes it inaccessible by ordinary experience. On this view of truth and goodness, what makes 2 + 2 equal to 4 is not something we discover by implying observation and the tools of science, but by accessing something beyond the realm of experience.
What?! Assessments of this sort just go completely over my head. In and around one or another New Age nostrum from my frame of mind. Does anyone here have specific examples of this? Things in your life that "you might think are true" but are "inaccessible by ordinary experience"? What on earth does that even mean?

2 + 2 = 4...beyond the realm of experience?!
Similarly, one may think that what makes stealing wrong is not something that can be discovered via science. Rather, stealing is determined to be wrong by something transcendent or supernatural that science is unable to study.
Okay, if this is not God, what is it? Is it in the general vicinity of pantheism? That somehow we can be at one with the universe spiritually and "just know" that stealing is wrong transcendentally or supernaturally?

Admittedly, I have never been able to grasp what that might mean. God, sure. An actual entity that created existence itself. The Creator. Someone "out there" or "up there" able to judge us when we do steal something. Say, bread to feed our starving family?

Bur something other than God?

Enlighten me.
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by Belinda »

Iambiguous wrote:
What?! Assessments of this sort just go completely over my head. In and around one or another New Age nostrum from my frame of mind. Does anyone here have specific examples of this? Things in your life that "you might think are true" but are "inaccessible by ordinary experience"? What on earth does that even mean?
Your psyche is not only prudent it's also hopeful.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by iambiguous »

8 Sources Of Morality
Nick Byrd
8. Pluralism
Pluralism is an appeal to more than one thing—e.g., authorities, principles, etc. So pluralism about the sources of morality would hold that there are multiple sources of morality. Indeed, some have proposed that more than one of sources above accounts for the origins of morality.
In other words, common sense.

Choose God, choose philosophy, choose science, choose experience, choose reason, choose tradition, choose culture, choose race, choose ethnicity, choose gender, choose Fox News or MSNBC.

Or -- gasp! -- choose two or more of them.

Yeah, that works for me.

Only I'll still need a context.

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 »

Why Moral Nihilism is Problematic
From The Retrospective
Nihilism is the idea that nothing really matters.
Back to that again. When, as we all know, lots and lots and lots of things matter to each and every one of us. Only suppose we assume that there is No God. And suppose we assume further that in a No God world, we die and tumble over into the abyss that is oblivion. An eternity of "nothingness at all" for each of us one by one. That is the part, some argue, where our individual lives become essentially meaningless. And that is the reason so many go to religion...to God...to make that part go away. At least in their heads.
It has been associated with several other outlooks and views, and it typically has pessimistic connotations. Nihilism has often been associated with atheism, since theists often believe that the divine gives life its purpose and meaning. Theists often characterise atheists as nihilistic, because they think that without divine belief, atheists cannot possibly find true meaning or purpose.
Yeah, that works for me. No God, no transcending font/foundation that brings/links us all together teleologically. We make up our own meaning existentially. And our purpose for living can be practically anything...sex, love, careers, sports, fashion, entertainment, the arts, politics.

On the other hand, if it can in fact be almost anything then, in a No God world, what is to be done when, in the pursuit of our own particular goals, we come into conflict with others pursing their own particular goals? In other words, the stuff that those big bold newspaper headlines are often created from.
However, many atheists do find meaning and purpose without theological beliefs. This means that one can be an atheist without being a nihilist.
True. But, come on, the meaning and purpose of life for the atheist, in not revolving around Commandments, can only be derived historically and culturally from an enormously complex intertwining of genes and memes. Out in a particular world understood by mere mortals in particular ways. And while some invent philosophical and ideological fonts, or narratives pertaining to assumptions about Nature, it's never quite the same as God, is it? And, besides, it only covers this side of the grave.
Nihilism has often also been considered liberating, since proponents of the idea think it untethers people from their everyday desires and commitments, when faced with what nihilists think to be the ultimate meaninglessness, randomness, and finitude, of human experience.
Over and again, I come back to this. If from day to day you basically abandon the rigors and the restrictions of "what would Jesus -- or His equivalent -- do?", then you can pursue so many more possibilities. You can focus more on, say, "can I get away with it?"

On the other hand, isn't that what the sociopaths ask themselves?
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by iambiguous »

Why Moral Nihilism is Problematic
From The Retrospective
Granted, there are good reasons to think if one is an atheist or has occasional atheistic inclinations, that there is no higher purpose to life and that our existences are the results of random cosmic luck.
Anyone here believe that there are not good reasons to believe this? Those sophisticated enough to accept that intelligent reasons can be given, but that they have found reasons of their own to reject it?

Let's hear your reasons please. In particular, those who don't fall back on either God or religion as a foundation to sanctify their moral narrative.
However, that many people find justifiable purposes in their own lives should divert us away from a total nihilism, from the belief that nothing at all matters and that action should therefore be suspended. Moreover, there is a particular form of nihilism, moral nihilism, which is especially pernicious.
Yes, I agree. Existential meaning is everywhere. And it can revolve around many things: relationships, education, employment, political commitments, social interaction, sports, the arts.

"Total nihilism"? What on earth is that? Is it the belief that meaning is entirely absent from our lives if we don't have a God or an ideology or some other essential font to anchor an intrinsic Self -- soul -- to?

And, yes, moral nihilism can provoke a pernicious -- ghastly, deadly -- frame of mind. Think of all the terrible pain and suffering brought about as a result of those who become narcissists or sociopaths. Some in embracing nihilism philosophically, others through the accumulated circumstances in their lives.

On the other hand, moral nihilism can persuade others to embrace "moderation, negotiation and compromise" as the best of all possible worlds...in the absence of objective morality.
The Problems with Moral Nihilism

Moral nihilism is a philosophical position which was formalised in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, mostly in European and American philosophy departments. It is true that moral nihilism arose partly through a burgeoning loss of faith across the world, caused by advances in scientific knowledge and understanding, a trend which continues to the present day.
And it's not just a coincidence that, given the First World War, the Great Depression, the Second World War and the accumulation of nuclear bombs able literally to destroy the world, it has been all the more a frame of mind that cannot simply be dismissed as inherently unreasonable.

Though, sure, the reality of a world that, more and more is able to be explained through science rather than through God and religion, is going to be an important factor.

On the other hand, what can science provide us in the way of objective morality, immortality and salvation? So, don't expect God and religion to go away anytime soon.

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 »

Why Moral Nihilism is Problematic
From The Retrospective
Previously, theists had considered rules for human action to be derivative from a deity, God, a position termed Divine Command Theory, which proposed that moral behaviour is ordered by God. However, scientific research provided many reasons to doubt the need for a first mover (God), and so belief that the universe is self-sustaining became accepted.
Accepted by who?

After all, is science able to provide us with a font from which to derive moral Commandments? Is science able to provide us with the crucial source of comfort that when we die immortality and salvation awaits us?
If the universe is self-sustaining, a view held by many philosophers and scientists today, then there is no need for a first cause and hence God becomes unnecessary. Acceptance of this view is incompatible with Divine Command Theory, because if God does not exist, then a deity cannot be responsible for transcendental imperatives to behave in certain moral ways.
Now that always gets tricky. To speak of the universe as being in possession of a "self". Isn't that basically what the pantheists embrace? As though the universe itself were Divine. As though it really does have a plan for us. As though nature "up there", "out there", "in our head" encompassed a teleological component. It's all about something and we are "as one with it"..."somehow".

But then the part where, as with God, if morality -- the human condition -- is attributed to the universe then the universe also has some explaining to do about this:

...an endless procession of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions and tornadoes and hurricanes and great floods and great droughts and great fires and deadly viral and bacterial plagues and miscarriages and hundreds and hundreds of medical and mental afflictions and extinction events...making life on Earth a living hell for countless millions of men, women and children down through the ages...

Any pantheists among us care to take a crack at it?
Obviously, this posed substantial moral problems for philosophers who rejected arguments for God’s existence. From the late 19th century until the present day, following a burgeoning loss of faith, philosophers have sought to understand what morality actually is if it does not derive from a God many find impossible to believe in, and why some think it is important.
Of course it's important. When have human beings ever interacted without "conflicting goods"? Either in terms of how to secure our needs [capitalism or socialism] or in how to sustain our wants [mine or yours].

I am "fractured and fragmented" here myself. For better or for worse. And all I can do is to come to places like this and hear out those who assure me that not only is there no need to be drawn and quartered when confronting the moral conflagrations of our day and age, but there already exists the One True Path to objective morality without God.

Their own!

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=175121
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by popeye1945 »

Moral relativism depends upon morality in differing parts of the world being based upon illogical foundations. If human morality is based upon anything other than our common biological humanness, it is bound to be a hodgepodge of nonsense. Morality, like any other human creation, is a biological extension of humanity, an expression of human nature. Until morality is based on this rational insight it will always be a source of much international conflict. We are one species inhabiting one world which has become through communication much smaller than our ancestors knew. Let reason create a new religion/mythology to carry us into a more civilized future. Biology is the measure and meaning of all things.
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by Belinda »

popeye1945 wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 10:09 pm Moral relativism depends upon morality in differing parts of the world being based upon illogical foundations. If human morality is based upon anything other than our common biological humanness, it is bound to be a hodgepodge of nonsense. Morality, like any other human creation, is a biological extension of humanity, an expression of human nature. Until morality is based on this rational insight it will always be a source of much international conflict. We are one species inhabiting one world which has become through communication much smaller than our ancestors knew. Let reason create a new religion/mythology to carry us into a more civilized future. Biology is the measure and meaning of all things.
When you say "an expression of human nature" I agree with you that "biology is the measure and meaning of all things." We are animals whose cultures of belief have often made life harder instead of better. Other animals have cultures too however other animals don't have creative language that expresses their cultures so their cultures remain affixed to the present and concrete.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by popeye1945 »

Belinda wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 12:24 am
popeye1945 wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 10:09 pm Moral relativism depends upon morality in differing parts of the world being based upon illogical foundations. If human morality is based upon anything other than our common biological humanness, it is bound to be a hodgepodge of nonsense. Morality, like any other human creation, is a biological extension of humanity, an expression of human nature. Until morality is based on this rational insight it will always be a source of much international conflict. We are one species inhabiting one world which has become through communication much smaller than our ancestors knew. Let reason create a new religion/mythology to carry us into a more civilized future. Biology is the measure and meaning of all things.
When you say "an expression of human nature" I agree with you that "biology is the measure and meaning of all things." We are animals whose cultures of belief have often made life harder instead of better. Other animals have cultures too. However, other animals don't have creative language that expresses their cultures so their cultures remain affixed to the present and concrete.
Yes, culture is a complex thing but it is plastic and a reflection of the population's psyche. Also, culture has as its foundation in the physical geography of place and climate. Culture is there for us to read and partake of it as tutor, if what we see is ugly, we need to look at the collective psyche that manifested this ugliness. I do think that is what people do anyway but it seems often without any first principles to guide them, so they end up creating chaos. As far as any social order goes it cannot please everybody, that is the recipe for chaos. This is without considering the global community but the principles would be the same I think, we would still be talking about community.
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by Belinda »

popeye1945 wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 2:42 am
Belinda wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 12:24 am
popeye1945 wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 10:09 pm Moral relativism depends upon morality in differing parts of the world being based upon illogical foundations. If human morality is based upon anything other than our common biological humanness, it is bound to be a hodgepodge of nonsense. Morality, like any other human creation, is a biological extension of humanity, an expression of human nature. Until morality is based on this rational insight it will always be a source of much international conflict. We are one species inhabiting one world which has become through communication much smaller than our ancestors knew. Let reason create a new religion/mythology to carry us into a more civilized future. Biology is the measure and meaning of all things.
When you say "an expression of human nature" I agree with you that "biology is the measure and meaning of all things." We are animals whose cultures of belief have often made life harder instead of better. Other animals have cultures too. However, other animals don't have creative language that expresses their cultures so their cultures remain affixed to the present and concrete.
Yes, culture is a complex thing but it is plastic and a reflection of the population's psyche. Also, culture has as its foundation in the physical geography of place and climate. Culture is there for us to read and partake of it as tutor, if what we see is ugly, we need to look at the collective psyche that manifested this ugliness. I do think that is what people do anyway but it seems often without any first principles to guide them, so they end up creating chaos. As far as any social order goes it cannot please everybody, that is the recipe for chaos. This is without considering the global community but the principles would be the same I think, we would still be talking about community.
Moral relativism is an aspect of cultural relativism so the culture I am immersed in holds that some other cultures of belief and/or practise are bad cultures. My culture holds that Taliban culture is bad, and that Nazism is a bad culture, and that building faulty blocks of flats is a bad culture.
I'd like to find first principles as a guide to what constitutes a good culture.
The front runner in the first principle race is human nature as a biological animal.

The biological animal is innocent not guilty of original sin. As innocent, the human is entrapped in shades of the prison house while still a child
Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting:
The Soul that rises with us, our life's Star,
Hath had elsewhere its setting,
And cometh from afar:
Not in entire forgetfulness,
And not in utter nakedness,
But trailing clouds of glory do we come
From God, who is our home:
Heaven lies about us in our infancy!
Shades of the prison-house begin to close
Upon the growing Boy,
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by popeye1945 »

Belinda wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 11:47 am
popeye1945 wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 2:42 am
Belinda wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 12:24 am
When you say "an expression of human nature" I agree with you that "biology is the measure and meaning of all things." We are animals whose cultures of belief have often made life harder instead of better. Other animals have cultures too. However, other animals don't have creative language that expresses their cultures so their cultures remain affixed to the present and concrete.
Yes, culture is a complex thing but it is plastic and a reflection of the population's psyche. Also, culture has as its foundation in the physical geography of place and climate. Culture is there for us to read and partake of it as tutor, if what we see is ugly, we need to look at the collective psyche that manifested this ugliness. I do think that is what people do anyway but it seems often without any first principles to guide them, so they end up creating chaos. As far as any social order goes it cannot please everybody, that is the recipe for chaos. This is without considering the global community but the principles would be the same I think, we would still be talking about community.
Moral relativism is an aspect of cultural relativism so the culture I am immersed in holds that some other cultures of belief and/or practise are bad cultures. My culture holds that Taliban culture is bad, and that Nazism is a bad culture, and that building faulty blocks of flats is a bad culture.
I'd like to find first principles as a guide to what constitutes a good culture.
The front runner in the first principle race is human nature as a biological animal.

The biological animal is innocent not guilty of original sin. As innocent, the human is entrapped in shades of the prison house while still a child
Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting:
The Soul that rises with us, our life's Star,
Hath had elsewhere its setting,
And cometh from afar:
Not in entire forgetfulness,
And not in utter nakedness,
But trailing clouds of glory do we come
From God, who is our home:
Heaven lies about us in our infancy!
Shades of the prison-house begin to close
Upon the growing Boy,
WOW! I could not agree more, and beautifully put!!
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6209
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Belinda wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 11:47 am
popeye1945 wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 2:42 am
Belinda wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 12:24 am
When you say "an expression of human nature" I agree with you that "biology is the measure and meaning of all things." We are animals whose cultures of belief have often made life harder instead of better. Other animals have cultures too. However, other animals don't have creative language that expresses their cultures so their cultures remain affixed to the present and concrete.
Yes, culture is a complex thing but it is plastic and a reflection of the population's psyche. Also, culture has as its foundation in the physical geography of place and climate. Culture is there for us to read and partake of it as tutor, if what we see is ugly, we need to look at the collective psyche that manifested this ugliness. I do think that is what people do anyway but it seems often without any first principles to guide them, so they end up creating chaos. As far as any social order goes it cannot please everybody, that is the recipe for chaos. This is without considering the global community but the principles would be the same I think, we would still be talking about community.
Moral relativism is an aspect of cultural relativism so the culture I am immersed in holds that some other cultures of belief and/or practise are bad cultures. My culture holds that Taliban culture is bad, and that Nazism is a bad culture, and that building faulty blocks of flats is a bad culture.
I'd like to find first principles as a guide to what constitutes a good culture.
The front runner in the first principle race is human nature as a biological animal.

The biological animal is innocent not guilty of original sin. As innocent, the human is entrapped in shades of the prison house while still a child
Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting:
The Soul that rises with us, our life's Star,
Hath had elsewhere its setting,
And cometh from afar:
Not in entire forgetfulness,
And not in utter nakedness,
But trailing clouds of glory do we come
From God, who is our home:
Heaven lies about us in our infancy!
Shades of the prison-house begin to close
Upon the growing Boy,
That's viciously circular. You want to use the moral framework derived from your cultural preference to determine which cultural preferences create the best moral frameworks.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by popeye1945 »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 4:52 pm
Belinda wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 11:47 am
popeye1945 wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 2:42 am

Yes, culture is a complex thing but it is plastic and a reflection of the population's psyche. Also, culture has as its foundation in the physical geography of place and climate. Culture is there for us to read and partake of it as tutor, if what we see is ugly, we need to look at the collective psyche that manifested this ugliness. I do think that is what people do anyway but it seems often without any first principles to guide them, so they end up creating chaos. As far as any social order goes it cannot please everybody, that is the recipe for chaos. This is without considering the global community but the principles would be the same I think, we would still be talking about community.
Moral relativism is an aspect of cultural relativism so the culture I am immersed in holds that some other cultures of belief and/or practise are bad cultures. My culture holds that Taliban culture is bad, and that Nazism is a bad culture, and that building faulty blocks of flats is a bad culture.
I'd like to find first principles as a guide to what constitutes a good culture.
The front runner in the first principle race is human nature as a biological animal.

The biological animal is innocent not guilty of original sin. As innocent, the human is entrapped in shades of the prison house while still a child
Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting:
The Soul that rises with us, our life's Star,
Hath had elsewhere its setting,
And cometh from afar:
Not in entire forgetfulness,
And not in utter nakedness,
But trailing clouds of glory do we come
From God, who is our home:
Heaven lies about us in our infancy!
Shades of the prison-house begin to close
Upon the growing Boy,
That's viciously circular. You want to use the moral framework derived from your cultural preference to determine which cultural preferences create the best moral frameworks.
No, I think you missed the point, morality should be based upon its proper subject and that subject is our common carbon-based biology; which means in essence our common humanity. Culture is something with teaching qualities as it reflects back to us the state of the psyche of the general population. Think of the state of Germany in the late thirties, it reflected back to anyone observant a dark pathology; the creation of psychopath/s but already it was too, certainly the writing was on the wall/culture so to speak.
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by Belinda »

popeye1945 wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 1:41 pm
Belinda wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 11:47 am
popeye1945 wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 2:42 am

Yes, culture is a complex thing but it is plastic and a reflection of the population's psyche. Also, culture has as its foundation in the physical geography of place and climate. Culture is there for us to read and partake of it as tutor, if what we see is ugly, we need to look at the collective psyche that manifested this ugliness. I do think that is what people do anyway but it seems often without any first principles to guide them, so they end up creating chaos. As far as any social order goes it cannot please everybody, that is the recipe for chaos. This is without considering the global community but the principles would be the same I think, we would still be talking about community.
Moral relativism is an aspect of cultural relativism so the culture I am immersed in holds that some other cultures of belief and/or practise are bad cultures. My culture holds that Taliban culture is bad, and that Nazism is a bad culture, and that building faulty blocks of flats is a bad culture.
I'd like to find first principles as a guide to what constitutes a good culture.
The front runner in the first principle race is human nature as a biological animal.

The biological animal is innocent not guilty of original sin. As innocent, the human is entrapped in shades of the prison house while still a child
Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting:
The Soul that rises with us, our life's Star,
Hath had elsewhere its setting,
And cometh from afar:
Not in entire forgetfulness,
And not in utter nakedness,
But trailing clouds of glory do we come
From God, who is our home:
Heaven lies about us in our infancy!
Shades of the prison-house begin to close
Upon the growing Boy,
WOW! I could not agree more, and beautifully put!!
Wordsworth !
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6209
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by FlashDangerpants »

popeye1945 wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 7:35 pm No, I think you missed the point, morality should be based upon its proper subject
I coloured in the circular bits for you.
Post Reply