Moral Relativism

[Collowrath]

I would like to note firstly that there are many different moral theories, each with their own merits and flaws; there is the Divine Command Theory, Utilitarian Ethics, Social Contract Ethics, Virtue Ethics, Pragmatism, Egoism, ad nauseum. But what I'm going to focus on in specific is Moral Relativism.

Moral Relativism is the claim that what is right is relative to each culture. That is to say, what is right in the United States is different from what is right in China, and what is right in Ancient Rome is different from what is right in its modern contemporary. This, Sociological Relativism is not a particularly controversial statement - it's simply a statement of fact that recognizes the objective fact that different cultures and times have different standards. Contrary to that, is the idea of Cultural Relativism: not only are there differing standards of conduct, but judgments about ethics and morality can only be made relative to the given culture.

That is to say, the death penalty might be a-okay in the United States, but absolutely abhorrently wrong in France; however, the death penalty in and of itself is not wrong per sé, because right and wrong are relative to the culture (and by extension, the person). There are no universal ethical principles.

There are some good things about Moral Relativism. Namely, it reminds us that different people do indeed think and conceptualize things in different ways than ourselves. It also reminds us that, at large, forcing our ideas on other cultures can be incredibly damaging; for example, forcing another culture to remove from itself its customs and language in order to adopt those of a conqueror has been observed clearly as damaging. In fact, it's called genocide nowadays - good examples off the top of my head include the continued treatment of Rroma people in Europe, the historical treatment of Slovak, Czech, Serb, and Polish peoples at the hands of the Hungarians in the mid-1800's up until its dissolution, and the continued campaign of active genocide against the Native peoples of the United States.

However - here's the clincher for Moral Relativism. While the Rroma, Slovaks, and Lakota who are on the receiving end of these genocides are definitely of the opinion that they are atrocities, the Hungarians, US Americans, and others who perpetrate them are of the opinion that not only is it a good thing, but often that it is a necessary act. The Moral Relativist is in this case, forced to say simply: "Well, they might not like it, but the perpetrators think it's okay, and since genocide isn't objectively wrong in any way, I'm going to have to say it's okay with me too." Conversely, they can say: "I agree with the (group having genocide committed on them), but since the perpetrators are okay with it, I can't do anything about it."

Another clincher for Moral Relativism is its lack of explanatory power. It can tell you to follow your culture or personal moral whims, but it cannot tell you why without defeating its own premise. In that way, it is intellectually empty.  

[Collowrath]

Here is the basic premise of Moral Relativism and why it is so easily defeated:

"There are no objective moral facts."

---> "I disagree; in reality, there are moral facts."

"You're wrong."

The Moral Relativist, in claiming a subjective morality, has made an exclusionary, objective moral statement about the nature of ethics and morality, which is something they have already agreed is incorrect. The Relativist's position is indefensible because it ties their hands behind their backs and prevents them from making meaningful judgments about the world and the actions of other people.

In that same respect, according to Cultural Relativism, the moral reformer within a culture is definitely in the wrong for being contrary to an accepted cultural norm. A Relativist cannot be a Feminist, cannot be an advocate for GLBT or other minority rights, etc, because they have accepted by and large that the cultural attitude is okay for all people living in that culture. By extension, they must agree that in Iran you shouldn't be GLBT of any stripe and even here in the United States, you cannot be Trans - both of these things are contrary to the standards presented by the mainstream in those places.

Also - consenting that moral reformers and people living outside what the culture has determined is okay are wrong, is another objective claim about the status of moral facts, defeating the premise of Moral Relativism again.  

[Collowrath]

A few things to keep in mind:

-Moral facts are not the same as physical facts. However, they can still be tested as evidence of their existence (cannot see the stone, but you can see the ripples it creates).

-There are some facts that are not empirical. Like logical facts, moral facts make sense but are not physically observable.

-Widespread argument among many different people is best explained by the existence of objective, perceivable moral facts. Despite disagreements, for the most part, people tend to agree (for instance, that rape and murder are wrong).  

[ShadowCatSoul]

This is actually something I myself have tried to explain and have discussions with my friends but they can't seem to understand it.  

[Bastemhet]

Thanks for posting this Col, I remember you and Tea telling me this before but it's nice to have a little "more."  

[Collowrath]

ShadowCatSoul

This is actually something I myself have tried to explain and have discussions with my friends but they can't seem to understand it.

It's a pretty popular viewpoint. I think that's largely because it allows people to weasel out of making a real decision, or from having to actually disagree or disapprove of something.

Bastemhet

Thanks for posting this Col, I remember you and Tea telling me this before but it's nice to have a little "more."

I'm glad it's helpful. I figured it would be good to have a deeper discussion on it, maybe some argument, in one concentrated place in the Guild so when someone asks "hey, what's wrong with that?" we can point them to it instead of having the discussion in multiple threads.  

[Fiddlers Green]

As most people know, I am a rabid anti-relativist in the sense of cultural relativism. So I support this position. However, I find I can rarely reduce this explanation down enough for most of the champions of opposing side that I deal with to digest it.
Ultimately, the argument hinges on the idea that there is an objective right and wrong... that may diverge from the consensus. This diverges vastly from the accepted party line in many (allegedly) civilized nations, where "right" and "wrong" are determined either by majority or majority of cross-section. Does clarity of vision, forget how that clarity comes about, entitle one to wield power over the ignorant? I am a fan of enlightened Despotism, however it can be so tricky determining what is actually enlightened sometimes.  

[Gho the Girl]

To an extent, we shouldn't let our moral compass overrule any other moral compass just because it disagrees.

"Their moral compass is wrong because they think drinking the blood of cattle is ok."

"Their moral compass is wrong because they're oathbinding their child's soul to a deity before the child can make up their own mind."

"Their moral compass is wrong because they settle down and own "property" and create permanent houses."

But I do agree that there's a limit. Everything in it's according moderation, including moderation.  

[TeaDidikai]

Gho the Girl

To an extent, we shouldn't let our moral compass overrule any other moral compass just because it disagrees.

"Their moral compass is wrong because they think drinking the blood of cattle is ok."

"Their moral compass is wrong because they're oathbinding their child's soul to a deity before the child can make up their own mind."

"Their moral compass is wrong because they settle down and own "property" and create permanent houses."

But I do agree that there's a limit. Everything in it's according moderation, including moderation.

I see these as people projecting subjective morality as objective.

Keep in mind that just because someone says something is an objective moral, that wouldn't make it so- they'd be subject to the same examination that the objective morals would be.

I mean- ********. Even the Noahide Laws don't prohibit what you have listed. wink  

[Aino Ailill]

I don't tend to discuss morality, philosophy, or any such subject often and so I beg patience should I come off poorly. sweatdrop

Collowrath

However - here's the clincher for Moral Relativism. While the Rroma, Slovaks, and Lakota who are on the receiving end of these genocides are definitely of the opinion that they are atrocities, the Hungarians, US Americans, and others who perpetrate them are of the opinion that not only is it a good thing, but often that it is a necessary act. The Moral Relativist is in this case, forced to say simply: "Well, they might not like it, but the perpetrators think it's okay, and since genocide isn't objectively wrong in any way, I'm going to have to say it's okay with me too." Conversely, they can say: "I agree with the (group having genocide committed on them), but since the perpetrators are okay with it, I can't do anything about it."

I don't see this as true. A moral relativist is forced to look at the situation and say that the perpetrators are acting in a moral manner according to their system of morality. That does nothing to prevent the moral relativist from opposing them.

Quote:

Another clincher for Moral Relativism is its lack of explanatory power. It can tell you to follow your culture or personal moral whims, but it cannot tell you why without defeating its own premise. In that way, it is intellectually empty.

It might not be able to tell you to do it, but it can say that it is necessary in a conditional statement. If you want to be Good person, then you must strive to adhere to your personal morals and if you want to be able to function smoothly within society, then you must strive to adhere to the society's morals.  

[Aino Ailill]

Collowrath

Here is the basic premise of Moral Relativism and why it is so easily defeated:

"There are no objective moral facts."

---> "I disagree; in reality, there are moral facts."

"You're wrong."

The Moral Relativist, in claiming a subjective morality, has made an exclusionary, objective moral statement about the nature of ethics and morality, which is something they have already agreed is incorrect. The Relativist's position is indefensible because it ties their hands behind their backs and prevents them from making meaningful judgments about the world and the actions of other people.

I have not understood this to be the argument of moral relativists. Rather, the argument is that there are no objective morals, although there is an objective nature to morality; namely, that there are no objective morals.

Quote:

In that same respect, according to Cultural Relativism, the moral reformer within a culture is definitely in the wrong for being contrary to an accepted cultural norm. A Relativist cannot be a Feminist, cannot be an advocate for GLBT or other minority rights, etc, because they have accepted by and large that the cultural attitude is okay for all people living in that culture. By extension, they must agree that in Iran you shouldn't be GLBT of any stripe and even here in the United States, you cannot be Trans - both of these things are contrary to the standards presented by the mainstream in those places.

They are definitely in the wrong, as per that culture's morality. They are not objectively in the wrong, though.  

[Aino Ailill]

Collowrath

A few things to keep in mind:

-Moral facts are not the same as physical facts. However, they can still be tested as evidence of their existence (cannot see the stone, but you can see the ripples it creates).

-There are some facts that are not empirical. Like logical facts, moral facts make sense but are not physically observable.

-Widespread argument among many different people is best explained by the existence of objective, perceivable moral facts. Despite disagreements, for the most part, people tend to agree (for instance, that rape and murder are wrong).

So most people agreeing on a moral makes it objective Truth?  

[TeaDidikai]

Aino Ailill

I don't see this as true. A moral relativist is forced to look at the situation and say that the perpetrators are acting in a moral manner according to their system of morality. That does nothing to prevent the moral relativist from opposing them.

If a Moral Relativist opposes others moral systems, they then defeat the assertion of Moral Relativism and thus demonstrate it is an internally flawed system with contradictions that go against the foundation's nature.

Let's pause for a moment and talk about the different kinds of Moral Relativism.

Descriptive Relativism states there are disagreements about what is right. That's it. In so much that it's true that people disagree, it exists. It's also fundamentally useless in discussing morals, since it is a position that comments on human attitudes, not morality itself.

Meta-ethical Relativism states that there is no objective moral standard, since morals are generated through personal or social conditioning and attitudes while Normative Relativism takes it a step further and argues that it is important to tolerate other moral doctrines since there is no objective standard.

You have philosophers like Spinoza and Westermarck talking about how there is no overarching understanding of good and evil etc.

The foundational works for Meta-ethical Relativism and Normative Relativism, their claims and their common applications is what is refuted with logic.

Quote:

It might not be able to tell you to do it, but it can say that it is necessary in a conditional statement. If you want to be Good person, then you must strive to adhere to your personal morals and if you want to be able to function smoothly within society, then you must strive to adhere to the society's morals.

The problem is that without having a standard of good- then you cannot even meet the basic conditions of the statement for being a good person, and socially it argues that what is popular is right, which isn't always the case.

Aino Ailill

I have not understood this to be the argument of moral relativists. Rather, the argument is that there are no objective morals, although there is an objective nature to morality; namely, that there are no objective morals.

Which is a self defeating stance.

We're examining the truth of the statement.

"There are no objective morals". How can someone come to this conclusion?

You'd have to demonstrate the logic of any claim therein.
You end up arguing perception, the nature of truth and reality, the validity of logical discourse and other such claims.

If you want to explore each, I'm happy to do so.

Aino Ailill

So most people agreeing on a moral makes it objective Truth?

Nope.