Moral Relativism

[Gho the Girl]

Here's the thing:

We know we don't need a deity to understand and objectively define morality.

Is it, in this modern society, still ok to accept the morality presented by a deity?  

[Fiddlers Green]

Gho the Girl

How does one objectively find and define morality?

Gnosis. Everything else is perceptually tainted conjecture.

Collowrath

"another person's right to life, happiness, etc"

Your liberty only extends as far as another person's.

Rightio, just making sure.  

[Aino Ailill]

Fiddlers Green

Gho the Girl

How does one objectively find and define morality?

Gnosis. Everything else is perceptually tainted conjecture.

Collowrath

"another person's right to life, happiness, etc"

Your liberty only extends as far as another person's.

Rightio, just making sure.

How is one to check this Gnosis so as to know that it is not personal preference?  

[Fiddlers Green]

Aino Ailill

How is one to check this Gnosis so as to know that it is not personal preference?

Now that is the rub.
I'm not sure how other people think. I'm not sure how, if even they might, know the difference. I do not have the tools to say for certain. For anyone else.

I strongly suggest a little known logic tool of Diax's (sp) Rake.
It is used to separate what is causally probable from what is considered probable only because it is desired. Now, this is not a good tool for this matter, as object Truth is not something that the logic of non-omniscients will be able to propperly work with.

I want to make the knee jerk that those who can't tell, those who have doubt about their Gnosis should assume that it is not Gnosis... however, just because I Know, does not mean others will receive this in the same way.

Altho I Know a few things, does not make me comfortable trying to extrapolate the process by which others Know. To wit, how others Know is not something I Know. More to the point, the only way I could give particularly useful insight into it would be if I Knew. As I have some small idea of how generalized human thought might work, that leaves the question one that is double-pluss valid and beyound my kenning to answer with Knowledge, much less authority.  

[FlySammyJ]

Here's my two cents about moral relativism. My moral code, and my culture's, and my nation's, and those of others, all developed for a reason out of a certain context. Because of what happened in the past, my moral tendencies developed along with the rest of myself. Moral and cultural development are hopelessly intertwined. So, once I understand that my own moral compass is not based on absolutes but rather my individual experiences and those of my culture, then it's pretty easy to extrapolate that onto other peoples.

Let's try an example. Homosexuality is considered pretty immoral in Uganda right now. Uganda didn't wake up one morning and decide to hate those gays. There's a complex system of values already in place that influences that morality, and we don't even fully understand it yet. The idea of one's duty to get married and raise a family, and therefore be a productive member of society, is in conflict with homosexual behavior. The influence of Christian evangelicals is very strong in some areas of Uganda, and unfortunately the Christian Right seems to be attracted to developing nations, which are already being turned upside down and inside out by the forces of globalization. I wish I knew more about their traditional religions, because we might find some clues there.

I don't know what the proper term for my iteration of relativism is, but I don't accept all forms of morality as ideal. I don't believe that my own morality is ideal. Morality is a process. That makes it hard to be a good person, because I don't have a pocket rubric of right and wrong. Relative morality can be dangerous, but I think Absolute morality can be even more so. The Western world has operated under that system for hundreds of years and ******** over nice chunks of the rest of the globe with it.  

[TeaDidikai]

demisara

So, once I understand that my own moral compass is not based on absolutes but rather my individual experiences and those of my culture, then it's pretty easy to extrapolate that onto other peoples.

The flaw in the premise is that it relies on the assumption that just because there may be additional personal and cultural values on top of the objective morals, that the objective ones don't exist.

Quote:

Let's try an example. Homosexuality is considered pretty immoral in Uganda right now. Uganda didn't wake up one morning and decide to hate those gays. There's a complex system of values already in place that influences that morality, and we don't even fully understand it yet.

Yeah... it's terribly complex to notice that individuals from specific sects of Christendom equated homosexuals with people who are so immoral that they engage in genocide.

Quote:

The idea of one's duty to get married and raise a family, and therefore be a productive member of society, is in conflict with homosexual behavior.

Wow... someone forgot to tell my friends who are married and raising four daughters that the fact they are lesbians means they can't raise a family and be married.  

[FlySammyJ]

TeaDidikai

demisara

So, once I understand that my own moral compass is not based on absolutes but rather my individual experiences and those of my culture, then it's pretty easy to extrapolate that onto other peoples.

The flaw in the premise is that it relies on the assumption that just because there may be additional personal and cultural values on top of the objective morals, that the objective ones don't exist.

In that case you could say that "conditional" or "subjective" morals operate in the same way around a basic set of objective morals. I feel that, considering all that I've seen in the world, Occam's razor leans toward the relative, but that's a personal belief.

Quote:

Quote:

Let's try an example. Homosexuality is considered pretty immoral in Uganda right now. Uganda didn't wake up one morning and decide to hate those gays. There's a complex system of values already in place that influences that morality, and we don't even fully understand it yet.

Yeah... it's terribly complex to notice that individuals from specific sects of Christendom equated homosexuals with people who are so immoral that they engage in genocide.

How could such a situation be simple? I find genocide almost impossible to understand under any circumstance. I haven't studied many, but in every case I've looked at you have to understand the few hundred years leading up to the event to start to comprehend what convinced a nation that a peaceful population needed to die.

Quote:

Quote:

The idea of one's duty to get married and raise a family, and therefore be a productive member of society, is in conflict with homosexual behavior.

Wow... someone forgot to tell my friends who are married and raising four daughters that the fact they are lesbians means they can't raise a family and be married.

Well s**t, we only figured it out within the past couple of generations ourselves. Most of us anyway. Except for my state, where unmarried couples cannot adopt and marriage is pretty damn traditional.
Also, in some cultures biologically shoving a baby out of your vajayjay (or making someone else do it for you) is what continues your ancestral line. Adoption is nice, but it won't please your ancestors, who will turn their backs on you. Which will make your life suck.  

[TeaDidikai]

demisara

In that case you could say that "conditional" or "subjective" morals operate in the same way around a basic set of objective morals.

You could, but you'd be misapplying the terms.
Value =/= Moral.

Quote:

I feel that, considering all that I've seen in the world, Occam's razor leans toward the relative, but that's a personal belief.

This would be an argument from ignorance since Occam's Razor is used to select between two models based empirical evidence that demonstrates both models function equally.

Why is this a problem? Well, your moral system can be demonstrated to not function equally with an objective morality since Relativism is internally inconstant.

Quote:

How could such a situation be simple? I find genocide almost impossible to understand under any circumstance. I haven't studied many, but in every case I've looked at you have to understand the few hundred years leading up to the event to start to comprehend what convinced a nation that a peaceful population needed to die.

Alternatively, the causative agent hinges on the perpetuation of specific ideas amongst the population that generates fear.

Pretty simple formula to me.

Quote:

Well s**t, we only figured it out within the past couple of generations ourselves. Most of us anyway. Except for my state, where unmarried couples cannot adopt and marriage is pretty damn traditional.
Also, in some cultures biologically shoving a baby out of your vajayjay (or making someone else do it for you) is what continues your ancestral line. Adoption is nice, but it won't please your ancestors, who will turn their backs on you. Which will make your life suck.

Because of course personal attitudes (especially when they rest on an appeal to popularity) towards practices trump their objective existence and are thus justified in perpetuating privilege based attitudes.  

[Ashley the Bee]

demisara

How could such a situation be simple? I find genocide almost impossible to understand under any circumstance. I haven't studied many, but in every case I've looked at you have to understand the few hundred years leading up to the event to start to comprehend what convinced a nation that a peaceful population needed to die.

I don't follow, I don't think. Are you saying that, if one looks deeply enough, or far enough back, there is legitimate justification for genocide?

I mean, I apologize for going here, but is there some justification, that you can explain or identify, the Holocaust?

Perhaps I simply don't understand what you mean to say.  

[TeaDidikai]

Ashley the Bee

I don't follow, I don't think. Are you saying that, if one looks deeply enough, or far enough back, there is legitimate justification for genocide?

I mean, I apologize for going here, but is there some justification, that you can explain or identify, the Holocaust?

Perhaps I simply don't understand what you mean to say.

I doubt that is what she is suggesting.

It has more to do with being able to look at the factors that would provide social acceptance of evil.  

[Ashley the Bee]

TeaDidikai

Ashley the Bee

I don't follow, I don't think. Are you saying that, if one looks deeply enough, or far enough back, there is legitimate justification for genocide?

I mean, I apologize for going here, but is there some justification, that you can explain or identify, the Holocaust?

Perhaps I simply don't understand what you mean to say.

I doubt that is what she is suggesting.

It has more to do with being able to look at the factors that would provide social acceptance of evil.

I'm sorry, it's difficult to frame the question properly... I don't think I can present it in such a way to explain what I'm interested in so I think I'll just withdraw it.  

[FlySammyJ]

TeaDidikai

demisara

In that case you could say that "conditional" or "subjective" morals operate in the same way around a basic set of objective morals.

You could, but you'd be misapplying the terms.
Value =/= Moral.

You're right, I didn't express myself clearly. I don't see the two as separate. Morals, in my view, are codified mores and norms that we no longer question. Values are mores that we allow to vary from individual to individual. In the event of objective morals, these would be mores that have become universal. I don't know of any.

Quote:

Quote:

I feel that, considering all that I've seen in the world, Occam's razor leans toward the relative, but that's a personal belief.

This would be an argument from ignorance since Occam's Razor is used to select between two models based empirical evidence that demonstrates both models function equally.

Why is this a problem? Well, your moral system can be demonstrated to not function equally with an objective morality since Relativism is internally inconstant.

If it were so easy to prove that all people had an objective moral system, then we wouldn't be having this debate. People are internally inconsistent. They operate differently in different settings and around different people. It's hard to tell whether they can do so to extremes or whether there's some deep moral bedrock that limits their changeability. Acts of genocide, in particular, lead me to believe that morality is ultimately a variable, not a constant.

Quote:

Quote:

How could such a situation be simple? I find genocide almost impossible to understand under any circumstance. I haven't studied many, but in every case I've looked at you have to understand the few hundred years leading up to the event to start to comprehend what convinced a nation that a peaceful population needed to die.

Alternatively, the causative agent hinges on the perpetuation of specific ideas amongst the population that generates fear.

Pretty simple formula to me.

That's a nice thought.

Quote:

Because of course personal attitudes (especially when they rest on an appeal to popularity) towards practices trump their objective existence and are thus justified in perpetuating privilege based attitudes.

I never said they were justified. I said that their personal attitudes and that of their society altered their morals.  

[Collowrath]

Gho the Girl

Here's the thing:

We know we don't need a deity to understand and objectively define morality.

Is it, in this modern society, still ok to accept the morality presented by a deity?

Sorry it's taken me so long to get to this. It definitely deserves to be commented on.

I can think of quite a few people who would disagree with "knowing we don't need (a) deity to understand morality." Divine Command Theory is pretty popular in Christian thought.

So, whether it's okay for someone to accept a morality presented by deity, I'd say that at least American society has said yes.