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 »

Why Moral Nihilism is Problematic
From The Retrospective
The problems with moral nihilism can be illustrated by simply thinking about historical and present social events which provoke most of us into feelings of moral disgust. Think of, say, events like the Holocaust, terrorism, child abuse, or murder. The moral nihilist’s account of morality prevents them from condemning these sorts of events in any persuasive way, since the moral nihilist thinks that morality as a concept is completely redundant.
This comes closest to upending my own "fractured and fragmented" frame of mind. People tap me on the shoulder and ask "can you seriously believe that the Holocaust or abusing children or cold-blooded murder is not inherently, necessarily immoral?"

And, sure, the part of me that would never, could never imagine my own participation in things of this sort has a hard time accepting that, yes, in a No God world they are still behaviors able to be rationalized by others as either moral or, for the sociopaths, justified given their belief that everything revolves around their own "me, myself and I" self-gratification.

And what is the No God philosophical -- scientific? -- argument that establishes certain behaviors as in fact objectively right or objectively wrong? Isn't it true that philosophers down through the ages who did embrace one or another rendition of deontology always included one or another rendition of the transcending font -- God -- to back it all up?

For all I know, had my own life been different...for any number of reasons...I would myself be here defending the Holocaust. Or engaging in what most construe to be morally depraved behaviors.

After all, do not the pro-life folks insist that abortion itself is no less a Holocaust inflicted on the unborn? And do not the pro-choice folks rationalize this behavior with their own subjective sets of assumptions.
The moral nihilist may defend their opposition to these events by stating the correctness or desirability of social conventions which dictate the sorts of behaviour which given cultural and social communities consider morally wrong. But the nihilist does not enquire far enough into the reasons why people think some actions and events are morally wrong.
Far enough? Well, for some that means bringing morality around to God. For others around what they construe to be "nature's way". The Know Thyself mentality of those like Satyr. For still others it is one or another "ism" in the Humanist catalogue. Or one or another political ideology.

Though, okay, if someone here is convinced they have in fact discovered the optimal reason why we should behave one way and not any other, let's explore that in a No God world.

What would be argued when confronting the Adolph Hitlers and the Ted Bundys and the 9/11 religious fanatics and the sociopaths among us. Arguments such that they would be convinced that the behaviors they choose are indeed inherently, necessarily immoral.

How would you reason with them?
User avatar
Agent Smith
Posts: 1442
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2022 12:23 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by Agent Smith »

Moral relativism consists of ((un)resolvable) contradictions.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by iambiguous »

DOES POSTMODERNISM MEAN MORAL RELATIVISM?
Guest Contributor Gary Aylesworth at Philosophy Talk.
Toward the end of last Sunday’s broadcast of Philosophy Talk, a caller asked whether the “moral relativism” supposedly rampant in our time was part of postmodernism. While I would certainly agree that the current hysteria over moral relativism is a postmodern phenomenon, I don’t agree that postmodern thought takes an “anything goes” view of politics or ethics, or that it prevents us from saying that the terrorists of 9/11 committed mass murder.
The "current hysteria" over moral relativism? Well, this was written in 2009. So, sure, maybe back then hysteria reigned when some [postmodernists or otherwise] sanctioned the "anything goes" approach to human interactions. On the other hand, think of the "current hysterias" that cropped up any number of times historically when dealing with the consequences of "moral objectivism"...God or No God. Those who sanctioned the "nothing goes unless we say so" approach to human interactions. From the Nazis to the Ayatollahs.

To wit...
Instead, I see postmodern thought as a kind of moral humility, a humility that prevents us from assuming that the world divides neatly into “us” and “them” or that “others” are simply evil while “we,” by mere opposition, are assured to be in the right. Such absolutism, after all, has the same structure as the ideology of the terrorists.
Exactly. My own frame of mind...in being a moral relativist...is aimed in the general direction of moderation, negotiation and compromise as the "best of all possible worlds" political agenda.

So, which is worse: "anything goes", "my way or the highway "or a "give and take" somewhere in the middle?
Several figures associated with philosophical postmodernism emphasize our obligation to the other as an other, that is, not as “one of us” but as one who marks the limit of our own identity or community. It is an obligation to receive the other as such and not to silence or eliminate her. We can agree that the 9/11 terrorists violated this obligation and that they are responsible for their actions, but it also forces us to examine our own sense of victimization. Nietzsche warned us against the moral righteousness of the victim; it is dangerous because it seeks to annihilate the other and tolerates no dissent.
In other words, instead of assuming that the "others" are necessarily evil because we are necessarily good, it's important to explore our assumptions about each other in order to see if something "in the middle" short of "anything goes" and "us vs. them" is possible. Perhaps it's not in some cases. For example, what might the compromise be in dealing with those who embrace "female genital cutting" as part of their own cultural or religious rituals? Okay sometimes, but not others?

We all have our own "no way" moral and political agendas given particular issues. But better "democracy and the rule of law" here than might makes right and right makes might.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by iambiguous »

Nietzsche & Values
Alexander V. Razin
In sharp contrast, the great philosopher Immanuel Kant had attempted to establish moral certainty through his concept of the categorical imperative; “Act only on that maxim which you can will to be a universal law.” In other words, when you are considering a course of action, ask “What would happen if everyone did that?”
As with the Golden Rule, the things that you do, you may well want everyone else to do. Whereas others will, instead, be absolutely appalled if anyone did it. And then back to Kant, the categorical imperative, moral obligation and...lying. To tell or not to tell the murderer at the door where the friend is hiding.

Clearly, exploring something of this sort in a philosophical exchange gets no one killed. And even if one does the "right thing" and refuses to lie, in the end Kant has his own rendition of God around to make sure that ultimately justice prevails.

Thus...
For Kant, moral judgments must be made independent of the particular circumstances, emotions and motives of the people involved. Thereby, he thought that moral certainty could be achieved in the area of human conduct. Ultimately, his ethical framework required a belief in free will, immortality of the human soul, and a personal God as the moral judge of human behaviour (of course, these are religious assumptions which the atheist Nietzsche would never have allowed in his own inquiry into values).
So, basically you tell the murderer where the friend is because even though it results in his or her death, you did the right thing before God and in the end you are vindicated in being reunited in paradise. Meanwhile the murderer writhes in agony for all of eternity for Hell.

Or have I got it all wrong?

So, is there anyone here who would seal a friend's fate? On this side of the grave. Though, sure, we know that some will. Those who hijacked the planes on 9/11 taking their own lives as well. Those who practice a religious faith that forbids them [or their loved ones] from seeking medical help or to have a blood transfusion. Putting everything in God's hands.

On the other hand, any atheists here who believe that in a No God world they would agree that under no circumstances is lying permitted? Telling the murderer where the friend is because it is the only rational thing to do.

This part...
Furthermore, Kant made a crucial distinction between duty and inclination in order to separate the moral motive from all other motives. An act was only moral if you did it out of duty, regardless of your inclinations. Yet, it is not clear why a human being must always follow a pure moral intention, which would require one to sacrifice his or her own interests for the benefit of others or for the good of the whole. One may argue that Kant arrived at an empty intention in his compulsory appeal to the method of universalisation.
Not an empty intention [from my frame of mind] so much as one confined to a "world of words"...a world of theoretical assumptions up in the intellectual clouds that the "serious philosophers" ascend to in order to keep things like lying and morality far removed from actual human interactions.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by Iwannaplato »

Agent Smith wrote: Thu Feb 23, 2023 6:16 am Moral relativism consists of ((un)resolvable) contradictions.
such as?
User avatar
Agent Smith
Posts: 1442
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2022 12:23 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by Agent Smith »

Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Feb 24, 2023 8:24 pm
Agent Smith wrote: Thu Feb 23, 2023 6:16 am Moral relativism consists of ((un)resolvable) contradictions.
such as?
Compare the ethics of various religions/cultures.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by Iwannaplato »

Agent Smith wrote: Sat Feb 25, 2023 3:16 am
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Feb 24, 2023 8:24 pm
Agent Smith wrote: Thu Feb 23, 2023 6:16 am Moral relativism consists of ((un)resolvable) contradictions.
such as?
Compare the ethics of various religions/cultures.
ok and?
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
Two American philosophers, Hilary Putnam and Charles Beitz, both say that the reasons we think some courses of action are wrong, are based on what the factual nature and consequences of these actions are for people.
Uh, no kidding?

On the other hand, which set of facts precipitating which set of behaviors precipitating which set of consequences?
From the 18th to the late 20th centuries, philosophers had considered there to be a sharp distinction between matters of fact and issues of ethics. But in the later 20th century, Putnam persuasively drew the sharpness of this distinction into question. Many philosophers, including Friedrich Nietzsche, had argued that there is no such thing as a moral fact. Most philosophers still agree on this today — it is widely considered uncontroversial.
Tell that to the moral objectivists here. On the other hand, in discussing conflicting goods there are any number of facts that both sides can agree on. It's not like the entire debate regarding conflicting value judgments revolves around mere personal opinion. A woman chooses an abortion as just another birth control option or she had been raped. The 4 week old embryo is "the size of a poppy seed", a 24 week old fetus looks much like a new born baby and is "approximately the size of an ear of corn". It is legal to have an abortion in a particular jurisdiction or it is illegal. The woman wants to give birth or the woman wants to end the pregnancy.
Putnam elaborated on Nietzsche’s initial proposition. He argued that even if there is no such thing as a moral fact, moral injunctions can still be derived from facts of human experience. Putnam thus argued that people’s moral judgements are shaped by perceiving the real, factual, tangible properties of certain actions.
Again, given what set of circumstances? If some people describe "the real, factual, tangible properties of certain actions" one way and others describe them another way, what then? The real, factual, tangible properties embedded in John murdering Jim? Or the real, factual, tangible properties embedded in the state executing John?
The corollary is that actions made to deliberately harm others are likely to be considered morally wrong, because of wide comprehension of how harm feels, empathy with the individual who has experienced the harm done to them, and the damages they suffer.
Yes, in any community behaviors such as this will involve some measure of prescription and proscription. But in the absence of God [and Judgment Day] mere mortals can easily be all over the map when it comes to "this is okay to do, but that isn't".

And the sociopaths will simply scoff at "society" and do whatever they are convinced is in their own best interest.
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
It is obvious that the wide acceptance of moral nihilism is unworkable for the health of cultures and political societies. The moral nihilist cannot persuasively explain why intuitively reprehensible events like the Holocaust, other genocides, violence against women, and child abuse, evoke such moral disgust from most people today. Even if these are just present conventions, there are reasons that underlie why this is the case.
Yes, I agree. That is certainly one way to think about it. But: Either we are genetically [intuitively] predisposed to react to those things as we do or we are not. Still, the bottom line is that not only are some not predisposed to react this way but, on the contrary, are able to actually rationalize doing these things themselves. In fact, events like the Holocaust are embraced by some as nothing less than a moral crusade to rid the community of those that are said to be behind all that is wrong in the world. Then the sociopaths and their "me, myself and I" moral agenda.

My point is that in a No God world there does not appear to be a way for mere mortals to establish a moral philosophy such that all rational men and women are obligated to embody it. Then back to the point that, in regard to abortion, some argue that it is itself the equivalent of the Holocaust on steroids to the unborn.
Putnam’s argument that moral judgements and moral conventions can be justified with reference to the facts of the matter is a straightforward refutation of moral nihilism, and it is an argument which should become common currency. Moral judgement is important, unlike nihilism.
Okay, for those who embrace Putnam's frame of mind, let's bring it out into the world and explore it in regard to conflicting goods of note. How straight-forward a refutation? And few would argue that in any community there need not be rules of behavior. Nor that these rules will revolve around moral judgments. Instead, the contention revolves around who will decide what those rules are to be. Then the part where that revolves politically around either might makes right or right makes might or democracy and the rule of law.

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 »

A conscious subject in isolation has no need for morality, morality is a prerequisite to the formation of society, and it is a demand of the community for society's protection. Through its morality, we relinquish our perceived free will. Moral relativism is the differing moralities of differing cultures and as long as those cultures do not come into contact there is no problem; but the citizens of each culture forfeit his thought free will to the culture of his birth.
User avatar
Agent Smith
Posts: 1442
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2022 12:23 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by Agent Smith »

Man is the measure of all things!?

The concepts right/wrong, true/false, seem important to the discussion, but probably not in the way most imagine them to be.
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

Conclusion
There are values which are worth defending and integrating within our social and cultural fabrics — kindness, community, compassion, bravery, and courage, are all examples of virtues that instigate positive moral behaviour.
Has that ever really been the problem down through the ages? After all, we all come into world hard-wired genetically to feel or to experience these things. No, instead, down through the ages historically and around the globe culturally when things "go bad" it's because different communities and/or different individuals insist that others are obligated to feel these things or to experience them as they do. And, as always, God or No God objectivist fonts being the main motivations.

Admit it, in regard to things like abortion or gender roles or sexuality or animal rights or guns or the government...your "positive moral behavior" or theirs?
While there may be no such thing as an absolute moral fact, alternative imaginations of how societies could function with the normalisation of less desirable, more damaging moral values and virtues, should prompt us to consider just how sensible moral nihilism really is.
Of course: morality encompassed in yet another "general description intellectual contraption".

And, from my own point of view, a virtue derived from moral nihilism is one where a community eschews both might makes right and right makes might and accepts that the best of all possible world is actually "moderation, negotiation and compromise." Democracy and the rule of law. Then the main concern [as always] will revolve around political economy. Acknowledging that even in a democratic republic the rich and the powerful -- the deep state -- will prevail in regard to economic and foreign policy. Whether in the form of crony capitalism in the West or state capitalism in nations like Russia and China.

Or, as The Onion quipped: "Congress Takes Field Trip To Goldman Sachs To Learn How Laws Get Made"

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 »

Moral Absolutism, Moral Nihilism, Moral Relativism
University of Notre Dame
There is an interesting contrast between many peoples’ intuitions about ethical claims, and their intuitions about other sorts of claims; this contrast can be brought out by considering some examples. Suppose that you are asked some controversial ethical question, like "Are middle-class people morally obliged to give money to the poor?" or "Is abortion ever morally permissible?"

Many people would respond to at least some questions of this sort -- even if not the examples above -- by saying something like:
“It depends on your perspective.”
“For me this is wrong, but that does not mean that it is wrong for everyone.”
“Well, I think that this is wrong, but that is just my opinion.”
And, as always, my own approach here would revolve less around asking them to explain why they believe one thing rather than another and more around asking them to explore with me how the life that they lived -- their indoctrination as children, their individual experiences as adults -- inclined them existentially to think one thing rather than another. The part I challenge others to peruse here...

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529

...in regard to questions like that.
It is interesting that we would not respond this way to questions about, for example, what is being served in North Dining Hall. In response to an important dining hall question like...

"Do they have beef stroganoff in North Dining Hall tonight?"

...no one would respond by saying...

“It depends on your perspective.”
“For me it is true that they are serving the stroganoff, but that does not mean that it is true for everyone.”
“Well, I think that they are serving stroganoff, but that is just my opinion.”
And, over and again, I come back to why that is the case: the distinction here between the is/ought world and the either/or world.

They are either serving beef stroganoff in North Dining Hall that night or they are not. No, instead, our reactions here [intuitive or otherwise] come into conflict when the question becomes, "should they be serving beef stroganoff in North Dining Hall at all?"

In other words, a question that a vegetarian might ask.

So, should they?

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 »

A Solution to the Trolley Problem
Rick Coste says the solution depends upon what we’ll realistically allow.


Of course, there is all the difference in the world between a solution to the Trolley Problem and the solution.

It's the difference between ten renowned ethicists proposing their own solution given their own set of assumptions and all ten of them then agreeing on the optimal solution. Or even proposing that the optimal solution is in fact the only solution. Then God sealing the deal by making it the Divine Solution.
In a famous essay in the Oxford Review in 1967, Philippa Foot presented us with ‘the Trolley Problem’. It is no small statement to say it has vexed anyone with an interest in moral philosophy ever since. For those of you who may not be familiar with it, one version goes something like this.

Imagine you’re out for an afternoon stroll and walk across a bridge that overlooks a train track. The track splits in two. Upon one track, five workmen are playing a game of cards as they eat lunch. On the other track is a solitary workman, who appears to be sleeping. As you look down upon this peaceful scene something horrific catches your eye: a runaway trolley (or tram) rounds a far corner and barrels down the track towards the five men playing cards – a fact of which they are unfortunately oblivious. They are too far away for you to call out to them. In your panic, you look around for some way to alert the men, when you see the track switch a few feet away. If you throw the switch, you will divert the trolley onto the track upon which lies the sleeping man. Although he will die, he won’t know what hit him, and you will have saved the lives of five men. Do you throw the switch?
I've read other versions of it as well. Different people will or will not die given different frames of mind regarding the trolley and the switch.

Me?

As I posted before...
I'd want to know who these people are. Are the five stuck on the tracks total strangers? Is the person on the other set of tracks my own beloved wife or son or daughter? Do I know the five stuck on the tracks but despise them? Or do I despise the person on the other set of tracks even more?

Or what if the five on one set of tracks were young children and the person on the other set was a very old man. Or a middle-aged pregnant woman?
And on and on and on. How can this not revolve basically around "the devil is in the details"? The details for you may prompt one reaction while the details for me and others prompt very different reactions.

And then the misanthropic sociopaths among us wishing there were two runaway trolleys.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by iambiguous »

A Solution to the Trolley Problem
Rick Coste says the solution depends upon what we’ll realistically allow.
A good utilitarian – such as John Stuart Mill – would opt to switch the track. For utilitarians, the good of the many comes first, and the only option here is to save as many lives as possible. When first presented with the problem, many of us would opt for the same action, whether we’ve ever heard the term ‘utilitarian’ or not.
Right, like for those like him, the actual reality of the situation is...moot? Instead, once you take the quandary up into the intellectual clouds, it can all revolve around the numbers...this many dead or that many dead. Or around this many dead or that many dead if you yourself are responsible for who does die. As though a philosopher or an ethicists can [deontologically] actually pin down the most rational answer...the wisest answer.

Whereas I prefer introducing actual existential elements. They aren't just abstract "workmen", but particular men or women or children. And, perhaps, you know one or more of them. Or there is someone nearby who is a witness to what you do. Or you believe in God and God sees all.

On and on and on regarding all of the different variables there might possible be once it all stops being just a "thought experiment".

For example...
Hold on. We’re not done yet. Let’s rewind the scene and start over. You’re on the bridge and the same runaway trolley is bearing down on the same five men. This time there is no split in the track, and no switch to throw. However, a rather portly gentleman stands on the bridge next to you, equally frantic. You notice that he is large enough that if he were to suffer an ‘accident’ and fall onto the track below, he might stop the trolley’s progress. Helping this ‘accident’ along would appear to be the only way to save the five men. So you must decide – and rather quickly – whether or not to push the man off the bridge to his death.
What changes here of course is your own involvement. It's more than just throwing a switch, it's you personally causing the death of another. As though this makes it more challenging for ethicists. Also, the more quickly you have to decide the more it takes it all closer to a "gut reaction" rather than a "thought through" reaction.

But either way, in my view, it still all comes down largely to dasein. Some will do one thing, others another thing. Why? Is it because someone is [philosophically] wiser than another? Or because given the existential trajectory of the life they lived, they are just more likely to choose one behavior over another?
Post Reply