DUers thoughts on Moral Relatavism?

[chenGOD]

Although this a philosophy oft associated with leftists and socialsts, I for one cannot get behind the theory.

I would like to hear other DUers thoughts on this.

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. In the sense that the circumstances dictate the morality?

Yeah, I have vague recollections of talking about that in SOC class many moons ago. Debating the issue of "Is a very poor man justified in stealing medicine from the local pharmacy for his sick child?" To this day I still don't have a clear answer for myself on that.

[Union Thug]

2. As a former anthropology student...

That is a question that I struggled with and still struggle with. Basically, what do we do with moral codes that seem to fly in the face of those we've been taught were important? For example, is it right for westerners to force their views on other cultures that accept blood feuding as a normal part of life? Or do we label headhunting tribes as thuggish and force them to give it up? And why do we believe, as westerners, that we have the right to make these decisions and impose them upon others?

[Hosnon]

3. I would probably consider myself a

moral relativist. It seems that something is either good or bad in relation to the situation. Believing that "Good" and "Bad/Evil" exist independently of humanity and its actions seems too much like Platonic Forms.

Example: Do not lie. Assume that is a moral truth with consequences (what those are is another question). Now assume that a close family member comes running into your house and hides in your closet. A man with an ax runs up claiming he wants to kill the person that ran this way. He asks you if s/he is in the house.

In my opinion, you would have to be INSANE to hold onto some ethereal principle and tell him s/he is there.

Same goes for killing. If there was a person who was hell bent on destroying life on earth as we know it and the only way to stop him was to kill him it seems there would be good reason to kill him.

However, most of these situations can be clarified by perhaps adding a qualifier of maliciousness.

Do not maliciouslessly lie.
Do not maliciouslessly kill.

However, these are circular.

Do not lie when it is wrong to do so.
Do not kill when it is wrong to do so.

[Union Thug]

6. I completely agree with you.

Viewing the world through the filters of our particular culture does nothing to enhance our understanding of the world.

Also, why should we be so ready to accept that the morals we have been taught are 'moral'? In a question posed previously, I say, yes, the poor man is justified in stealing medicine for his child. If the society in which he is expected to work and support does not provide for his basic needs, I think the principle of expropriation kicks in by default.

[vi5]

4. I have no problem with it....

I believe that there are situations that dictate certain actions where in other situations they would be regarded as unethical.

But its far the exclusive territory of the left. Any rightie who brings this up ask him whether he thinks an Iraqi life is worth more or less than an american life.

[Xipe Totec]

5. Read Victor Hugo n/t

[Hosnon]

7. Which book?

Just finished Les Mis and am currently on Hunchback.

[Xipe Totec]

15. Les Miserables should do just fine

I'm puzzled, then. Why the confusion with moral relativism? Do you agree with Javert's position, or Valjean's?

[Hosnon]

16. ValJean

Javert is the perfect example to me of someone who follows a principle even when the consequences are not reasonable. He has the mindset of many conservatives in my opinion. However, Marius seems to do the same thing fighting for the Republic. He is willing to die.

I think that dying for the ideals of republicanism is not unreasonable. Most of what Javert does is unreasonable. I think Hugo agrees and that is why Javert kills himself.

I think many conservatives would jump into rivers as well if they were forced to face moral relativism.

[Xipe Totec]

20. ValJean. Yes, I Agree

A choice between perfect good and perfect evil is no choice at all; even a machine can be programmed to make the right decision in such cases. The real world is not so simple. We are daily confronted with a hierarchy of intersecting moral choices. That was ValJean's dilemma when he chose to steal a loaf of bread.

[Village Idiot]

8. HEEHEEHEEHEEHEE...

Moral relativism might be all right for Rousseau, but for me, it's all wrong!!!!



HEEHEEHEEHEEHEE!!!!

[MissMillie]

9. Isn't everything relative?

I mean, doesn't everything exist according to it's relation with something else?

[Hosnon]

10. Yes, I believe that is generally the truth. I often wonder

why conservatives cannot understand that principle.

[FunBobbyMucha]

12. Read your Bible!

lol

Sorry, just so used to hearing that response to every similar question.

Speaking of moral relativism, that crazy book and the kookiness it inspires is like watching a ping pong match on a 28-sided table.

[chenGOD]

11. I suppose I should clarify...

I think that yes in some cases a little relativism is necessary, but as general philosophy it does not work. But yes in cases where you have to choose between a person's right to life vs telling a lie, you have to look at the greater right.

I'm not a philosopher, nor have I studied it in any depth, so i would say that the relativism would be cultural.

So could someone use moral relatavism to justify Hitler?

And WillW makes an excellent point. How do we relate the moral we are raised with to other cultures morals/values?

Sorry I'm just a rambling fool tonight...

[Union Thug]

13. Here is my dilemma...

I believe that we can start by saying that we believe that we accept that all humans have a basic set of rights - dignity, health, etc. And we believe these rights to be inalienable. I personally think that are rights created by MAN and not some otherworldly being, but that's not necessarily part of this.

On the other side of this is my belief that Western culture has no right to change, exploit or otherwise interfere with other cultures. For example, tribal peoples, etc.

So, if a tribal culture violates what "I" believe to be an inalienable human right (maybe by forcing young boys to go through some ritual subincision, just for example), what do I do with that?

[Jokerman]

14. Relative to the act committed or to the person involved?

Consider the following statements:

The taking of a human life is immoral.

If you believe that it was right for the French underground to kill soldiers occupying their country but wrong for the Iraqis to do the same, then you must believe that morals are relative to the people who committed the act.

If you believe that it would be right for me to kill a man that has broken into my house but wrong for me to kill that same man on the street, you must believe that morals are relative to the situation in which the act was committed.

Edited for grammar.

[Hosnon]

17. No culture or section of the human population

has a "free pass". I wouldn't say that morals are relative to people only. It seems to me that morals are relative to the circumstances involved. The people who committed the act may be one of the circumstances which needs to be considered.

[BurtWorm]

18. Has there ever been an instance of anyone calling himself or herself

a moral relativist, as though moral relativism were a "philosophy" or ethical "stance?" I don't think so. I think moral relativism merely describes the fact that different cultures have different morals.

[Hosnon]

19. There are two different defintions really...the

one that I believe (and I call myself a moral relativist because of it) is that there are no absolute moral truths. "Right" and "wrong" are relative to the situation.

Another definition is that each culture has its own idea as to what moral truths are and that no other culture can assert it is wrong or right. It seems this definition doesnt deny absolute moral truths, just says cultures cannot judge one another.

[BurtWorm]

21. Point number one describes situational ethics, doesn't it?

I think the second point needs to be better stated. Different cultures CAN assert that their morals are right and others' are wrong. They do it all the time. But this does not make their morals right and others' wrong. It seems to me that a recognition of this difference between cultures' morals naturally makes us find other criteria to mediate any conflicts between them. Too many people seem to think moral relativism is an abdication. To me it's more of a call to refine thought and action.

[ProfessorGAC]

23. Yes, But Burt. . .

. . .the term moral relativism as used by those intending to denigrate the moral integrity of anyone to the left of Mussolini has nothing to do with cultural differences.

It has to do with those who believe that there are moral absolutes and that those of us who DON'T accept that notion are relativists. They're wrong, because there actually are no absolutes, and even they don't adhere to their morals absolutely. (How many of those slime support the Iraq war? A BUNCH!)

While i agree with you, i don't think the common parlance definition of the term in question is the own you posit. I think the connotative insult is the intended meaning.

One More Note: I also abhor the term Situational Ethics. Ethics have no purpose unless there is some decision to be made. There are no decisions without situations. Therefore, all ethics are rooted in situational decisions. The term situational ethics is another right wing canard meant to cloud the issue. The real issue is that these people are frightened by people who can process information quickly, in each SITUATION, and make a decision that suits their ethical considerations. It's the fear of the differences in people that make them come up with silly, redundant, and otherwise meaningless terms like moral relativism and situational ethics. Just a thought.
The Professor

[BurtWorm]

24. Right, Professor. The term is used as an insult.

In the same way that "socialist" and "liberal" are used as insults. The right wing guts these words of any meaning, in fact, other than insult, the bastids.

You're also right about how they use the term "situational ethics." "PC" is yet another example of one of these terms that wingers have stolen and turned into epithets.

[ProfessorGAC]

26. Good Catch

I'm not sure that Politically Correct is a reasonable term either. I hadn't thought of it before, but not insulting people is just common sense, and being impolitic has always been considered a fault in good company.

Thanks. Now that you brought it up, i think i've found a third pointless phrase to rail against.
The Professor

[ProfessorGAC]

22. There Is No Such Thing

This assumes that there is such a thing as absolute morality. However, even many of the people who believe in such absolutes would have little difficulty in killing to defend themselves or their family members.

Anti-abortionists blow up buildings because they believe that killing THOSE folks is the right thing to do. What's the difference between that and walking into a school and murdering the kids, for them? The situation! The relative difference in the circumstances.

It's this simple. Without the relative aspect of the situation, there is no way to measure morality.

So, moral relativism is a made-up term by people who can't think further than their own narrow view of things. They think they AREN'T moral relativists, because they think their beliefs are absolutes. But, their own actions and words prove otherwise.

So, my take is that there is no truth at all to the concept of moral relativism.
The Professor
The Professor

[HEIL PRESIDENT GOD]

25. Without some sense of cultural relativism...

All we have left is scientific racism. That's the best that the "Christian Soldiers" of early anthropology could come up with when comparing reports brought back from the field.

We don't need to practice an absurd degree of tolerance, but likewise we should butt out of other peoples' affairs. A good example is cockfighting--routinely condemned in this country, but what's worse about it than eating chicken? We are doomed to an endless, genocidal "War on Terror" (not to mention "Drugs") if we react to every custom that offends our moral sensibilities.