Moral Relativism

I haven't used 'moral relativism.' I do use cultural relativism, which (to my understanding at least) means that a person feels there are no 'universal' rights. More that each culture decides among itself what rights are important, and that no outside culture should dictate/intervene to change anothers moral decisionmaking criteria. No culture is superior to another and hence they are relative.

Personally I think there are universals, or things we should make universal if they are not inherently so. These are things I believe we have an obligation to stop regardless of cultural opinions that favor the practices. For example: rape is always wrong or forced human sacrifice is always wrong, female genital mutilation (as practiced in many Muslim countries) is always wrong, genocide is always wrong.

 

It depends.

 

Geez, I could either give you a 5 page answer... or a very short one. I'll opt for the short one .

I believe in absolute Truth. However, I believe that such Truth is ontologically inaccessible to humans. I do believe that we can "interpret" certain (lower case) truths from the way the universe functions. If you've read Immanuel Kant's "Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Furture Morals," you know what I'm talking about.

In this world, I think most things are perspectival. However, that doesn't mean that all interpretations of the world are equal. To me, the only standard that you can apply any philosophy to is reason. If a perspective is internally consistent, then it's valid. The value of such a perspective consists in its ability to explain existing phenomena.

The best perspectives are those that explain the most variables with the fewest internal links. Ockham's Razor, I suppose.

That in short, is my opinion .

 

haven --

i don't think you're being abstract enough!! just kidding!!

but seriously...what does all that really mean???

I mean...what does reason have to do with the analysis of comparing the way different cultures do business, for example?? The differences, it seems to me, come just through the values of different cultures. I don't know that we necessarily reach our values through reason.

 

Hmmm... many people probably don't . And notice I didn't say that someone must construct ones values through reason (though it's possible, and advisable, imo). Simply that they must be capable of being examined rationally, and not found inconsistent. Even if reason can't prove values to be true, I think it can prove some to be false. Non-contradiction is essential.

Kant did think he "rationally" reached a system of ethics. That system, imo, translates to the golden rule. It's a tad more complicated... but that's the essence of it. Kantians might kill me for phrasing it so simply, though .

I think that most ethical systems emerge out of practicality. I'm sure we differ on that. The monogamous family unit functioned best in modern civilization... so we consider it moral. If we don't take care of our kids, we don't pass our genes on. It's just evolved behavior for practical reasons... but by socializing such actions, the species is better served, etc.

Some things don't have a truth value (logically speaking). You can't look at them and say: aha! That's T or F. Some would say that such things should be considered... practically false... I wouldn't go that far, though.

 

so using my example of business practices in other cultures..you'd say that, at least perhaps, those cultures use bribes, lies, etc (things you and I would find offensive in business relations in our culture) after rational examination?

I do agree that some people might abandon or endorse those ideas later in life after rational examination....but I'm not sure that a culture, as a whole, adopts those practices after rational thought. I knew a guy that owned a business in Mexico...he got so fed up with the corruption of the commercial system there (and the govt) that he just left it all behind and moved to the States. He certainly would fit your example of one who, through examination, adopted a certain ethos. But the culture is still there, with or without him.

Where I might disagree with you is that I would say there are some absolutes. I would say it's inherently wrong to look someone in the eye and lie to them...I would say that if a culture thought that was unimportant, then that culture had a problem. I realize of course that all of what I'm saying comes through my own cultural filters...nevertheless...

 

A close member of your family (parent, spouse, child, etc.) spends several weeks working on a piece of artwork as a gift to you. When you finally see it, you think to yourself "My God, I didn't think anything so hideous could exist on this earthly plane." Then the family member comes up to you and, looking you in the eye, asks "What do you think, Max?"

Nothing is an absolute. The hardest thing about morality is figuring out when it should apply.

 

Is rape ever the 'right' thing to do?

 

I can't think of any mundane examples where rape is justified. But say for instance you and a group of persons are being held prisoner. One of your captors has a sadistic streak, and gives you a choice of two options. Either have sex with another one of the prisoners against their will (which in my book is rape) or half the prisoners will be shot. What do you do?

This is a really unpleasant example, but it shows that not everything is black and white (sometimes its dark, dark grey and dark, dark, dark grey).

 

I don't see how this analogy fits??? By asking my opinion on the piece of art, they're inherently asking for an opinion. What I'm asserting is that there are certain truths which exist whether or not I choose to recognize them at all. If there is a God...does it matter that someone doesn't believe in Him??? No...He's still God, whatever your subjective interpretation of Him might be. He still exists, whether you claim He does or not. What I'm asserting is that there is a God there is truth that exists whether or not we choose to recognize it.

 

but it still doesn't make the rape right!!! ultimately, it's not your will that's being exerted in this situation...it's the will of the man who's forcing your hand (or other body parts --- gross!!!). the rape is still inherently wrong...it may be the lesser of two evils, but it's certainly still an evil.

 

That's exactly my point. If one evil is "lesser" than the other, then it cannot be an absolute evil. Now if you argue that both acts are equally evil and that the only way you could decide which to take would be flipping a coin (or some equivalent), then you might be able to argue that both actions are absolutely evil.

And the art analogy dealt only with the concept that lying to someone's face is inherently wrong. Do you think more good comes from looking the artist in the eye and saying "This is the most hideous thing I could ever imagine"? Or would it be better to look them in the eye and say "This is great"?

Of course, the best scenario would be to accept the artwork graciously and tell them "It's not my cup of tea but I appreciate the effort." But if you were really thinking "Damn this thing looks like a cow ate a box of crayons and took a dump on the canvas," you wouldn't be telling the truth.

 

couldn't disagree more...it is evil...it is absolutely evil...it may not be as evil as killing people...but it is intrinsically evil...thus it is evil, absolutely. "absolutely" isn't a question of degree.

i love your cow/crayon imagery!! that's hilarious!!! i see your point there...i suppose that's the concept behind "white lies."

 

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then. In my opinion, "absolute" is a matter of degree.

I'm glad you liked the cow imagery though. And I honestly D) hope that you (and anyone else for that matter) never have to deal with my hypothetical examples.

 

Once you remove ramifications or consequences of an action to determine its inherent evilness, how would you know it's evil?

If you can get away with it, does it make it right?

There's a difference in identifying the evil and quantifying just how evil it is. There's also a big difference in basing your morals on what is good/evil vs. how good/how evil the situation is.

 

Jeesh...I was just about to get all happy because I finally thought I found a true "vent" thread. But then I realized that the thread title wasn't "Moron Relatives". Gosh...no chance at Angleton bashing!

Oh well...I'm moral and I relatively hate the Utah Jazz. Go figure!

 

This is known, I believe, as the concentration camp dilemma or more popularly as Sophie's Choice.

"Noteworthy are the concentration camp or Sophie's Choice type dilemmas, which do not occur naturally but are intended to present unacceptable choices either way: They depend on the possibility of constructing such dilemmas. The natural possibility of such dilemmas means that they can be constructed with bad intentions. The Nazis were not trying to teach moral lessons. They were simply trying to get people to cooperate (to do wrong for fear of bad consequences), to break down their sense of right and wrong ("You are so high and noble, what is the right answer to the dilemma?"), and to distract people from the malevolence of the Nazis themselves. Nevertheless, I have had students indigantly assert (and even leave the class) that if the the Nazi guards killed more people because certain prisoners did not cooperate, then it was the fault of the prisoners. They might have considered that the guards who did the shooting, not the prisoners, would be the ones on trial at Nuremberg."

[http://www.friesian.com/dilemma.htm]

I would refuse to be drawn into this dilemma. Rape is wrong. Rape is evil. The guard who tried to force this on you is committing an evil act. To join into it is to become an extention of the guard himself.

In addition, I would add that this is not what we are talking about. We are talking about cultural norms. It would never be 'right' IMO for a culture to allow the 'rape' of another. As our culture HAS in the past, and as some other cultures do now.

 

Actually, you are drawn into the dilemma as soon as the captor gives you two choices (BTW I don't like the word 'choice' here, but I'm not in the mood to search for a more applicable word). By refusing to act, you are essentially making a choice. While you can argue 'fault' until the sun burns out, there are still consequences for your action/inaction.

And the moral relativism/cultural relativism distinction was your contribution to this thread. Ms. JB did not indicate any limit to the discusion.

 

Ah, but I don't disagree with you there. I do believe in absolute Truth. I just don't think it's accessible to humans.

My own (poor) analogy would be that absolute truth would be like the visual world to a blind man. He can feel his environment, touch it, gather data, perhaps even learn some things about it... imagine what sight would be like... but he can't ever really understand it, truly. That's a bad analogy, but the best I can come up with right now .