moral relativism

[iambiguous]

Question of the Month
What Grounds or Justifies Morality?
Rose Dale

Western philosophy offers three major justifications for morality, associated with three well-known philosophers. Followers of Plato would say the basis of morality is self-interest; those of Hume’s school of thought claim it is other-regarding interests, wants or intentions; and Kantians argue it is justified in terms of the requirements of practical reason. Of course, every moral theory claims that its method for determining right and wrong is correct.

On the other hand, do not Plato and Kant ultimately predicate their own moral philosophy on either God or “the Gods”?

Then this part: “Of course, every moral theory claims that its method for determining right and wrong is correct.”

Objectivists, I call them.

Kant argued that reason must be at the heart of any moral action, despite any natural desires to the contrary. His categorical imperative is a necessary and non-negotiable principle.

Just out of curiosity, how did Kant connect the dots between that and God?

Henry Quirk [from the PN forum] argued that the Deist God created us in order that we embody, “the dictates of Reason and Nature”. Particularly in regard to “life, liberty and property”. But then He skedaddled, leaving us to grapple with what that actually means “for all practical purposes” on our own. With Deism there are even doubts about immortality and salvation.

How about Plato and Kant? Did or did not their own “categorical imperatives” revolve “in the end” around one or another Judgment Day?

[iambiguous]

Question of the Month
What Grounds or Justifies Morality?
Rose Dale

Moral relativism further complicates the issue by denying any universal moral values; saying, rather, that different cultures and sub-cultures often have markedly differing values, and these can change depending on opinion, social context etc.

Cue the moral objectivists among us, of course. What complications, they ask. It’s all so simple. If only all of the other moral objectivists would recognize they are necessarily wrong, then everyone would come around to the One True Path. Their own.

On the other hand, some of them will insist this is only applicable to white Anglo-Saxon straight men. The rest? Final solutions?

Nietzsche challenged that there is no objective or transcendent justification for moral claims. A kind of moral relativism first arose in ancient Greece, but didn’t really take off until Montaigne’s writings in the sixteenth century.

Moral relativism, maybe, but with Nietzsche you still have the possibility of embodying the closest thing to God on Earth…the Übermensch. As for immortality and salvation? Nope. But the Übermensch will often actually take personal pride in being able to accept that. Each of them “dies like a man”.

If one is religious, then God/Allah/Jehovah lays down absolute moral truths to live by. Other moral absolutists argue from a non-religious standpoint that there are universal principles that ought never to be violated, regardless of context or consequences.

Oh, indeed, lots and lots and lots of folks [philosophers or otherwise] believe this. All I can then do is to ask them to note how they go about demonstrating [to themselves] that what they believe “in their head” does, in fact, reflect the essential truth for all mere mortals.

Or is it taking just one more leap of faith? Placing one more wager? Quoting one more chapter and verse from Scripture?

[iambiguous]

Question of the Month
What Grounds or Justifies Morality?
Rose Dale

I think we each have our own moral principles based on our individual upbringing and social context.

In other words, the part I root existentially in dasein…the part pertaining to human interactions that often result in both conflicting goods and conflicting renditions of behaviors either to be rewarded or punished.

Thus, if philosophers were able to transcend the contingency, chance and change emanating from the historical and cultural interactions of homo sapiens, we might actually have a moral philosophy that all rational men and women are obligated categorically and imperatively to embody.

However, I would argue that the majority of people in most cultures would agree on some basic morals, such as treating others how you wish to be treated, do not hurt or kill others, etc.

Okay, but why one culture at one historical juncture rather than another culture at another historical juncture? Why ours and not theirs? Why yours but not mine? After all, how many of us here would have wanted to be aborted in the womb? On the other hand, how many here would want to be forced to give birth against their will?

I would defy anyone to argue that murder, or child abuse, for example, is not universally wrong. (I allow that it’s not always clear cut : I’m firmly pro-women’s rights in the abortion debate, but it could be argued that termination of a foetus is murder, and thus wrong).

I would argue that in the absence of God, all things can be rationalized. By sociopaths, for example. Or by the particularly hardcore moral objectivists among us who rationalize a “by any means necessary”. Or an “or else” mentality.

Then back up into the general description philosophical assessment clouds…

My personal morality is not based on religious belief but on humanism – the principle that every individual has an equal right to live a full life and be free from harm. So in that sense I am somewhat of an absolutist, although I also feel that many aspects of moral relativism are valid. Moral principles of some kind are clearly needed for society not to descend into anarchy. But there are many shades of grey between right and wrong.

Let’s run that by some these folks:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy

[iambiguous]

Question of the Month
What Grounds or Justifies Morality?
Lawrence Powell

I start with the premise that organisms such as ourselves have been formed via a process of evolution by natural selection, and further, that any altruistic tendencies we possess have been formed due to the complex of behaviour including those tendencies having a net benefit to our ancestors.

In ways that philosophers have been examining now for centuries, "somehow" nature and nurture combines in each of us as individuals from the cradle to the grave. And in such a way that "somehow" some of us choose one moral assessment of human interactions, while others choose among hundreds and hundreds of what can "for all practical purposes" be very different and conflicting assessments. The part I root in dasein while recognizing that "I" am no less the embodiment of this particular set of assumptions myself.

Thus:

If you were born and raised in a Chinese village in 500 BC, or in a 10th century Viking community or in a 19th century Yanomami village or in a 20th century city in the Soviet Union or in a 21st century American city, how might your value judgments be different?

How about this...

For those philosophers here who do believe in an objective human morality, let them try to imagine for us how they would go about attempting to convince the folks above to abandon their own One True Path and embrace another instead.

Given a particular moral conflagration of note.

Back, perhaps, to Ayn Rand arguing that Karl Marx was an idiot for not recognizing that the capitalist means of production itself inherently and necessarily reflects the most rational assessment of political economy.

If one adds the further premise that morality has arisen due to an attempt to rationalise or formalise our sense of altruism, this leads to the conclusion that morality is grounded in our nature, formed through evolution by natural selection.

We all come into this world hard-wired by nature to experience emotional/psychological states such as altruism, selflessness, compassion, generosity, charity. But we also come into this world hard-wired by nature to experience egotism, selfishness, greed, opportunism and vanity.

Though clearly the part about memes reminds us that down through the ages, naturally selected genetic components that come to be embedded in one's sense of identity can readily be reconfigured into any number of conflicting moral and political philosophies.

Then the part about "selection" itself. Yes, in a God World we have something to come back to here: God! An actual entity able to select things that, while seemingly incomprehensible "here and Now" to many, are all part and parcel of an ultimately loving, just and merciful Supreme Being.

But in a No God world? Who or what does the selecting then? And who or what set it all into motion?

[iambiguous]

Question of the Month
What Grounds or Justifies Morality?
Lawrence Powell

Someone might argue that morality was arrived at purely rationally or, notwithstanding the origins of the moral sense, that there is a rational grounding and justification for morality, or perhaps morality is a diktat of some sort of supernatural agency. However, the acceptance of such reasons or diktats would itself still need to be grounded or justified.

No doubt about that, right? Lots and lots and lots of philosophers have insisted there is a rational grounding and a justification for morality.

They argue that there is over and again. It's just that any number of them insist over and again that we can't take our assessments down out of technical clouds until all are in agreement regarding what the words actually mean. And that can go on for page after page after page. And not once will there be a mention of anything that pertains to, say, the lives we actually live.

And if it is derived from one or another "supernatural agency"? Well, that can signal practically anything, right? Which one? What does he, she or it have in mind for us? Oblivion, perhaps? Or Paradise?

Then the part where hundreds and hundreds of religious communities all vie to persuade us that they really are the one true path.

Then the denominations insisting that unless you do come over to their own congregation, well, expect to to be...damned?

As for grounding or justifying it all...how hard can that be in a world already accomodating the countless denominations that already have?

Then: pick one:

The rational approach articulated by Kant, is the idea of a moral imperative that any rational intelligence would acknowledge. Or as per utilitarianism, might there be a moral imperative to consider the maximising of a measure such as general happiness or flourishing?

And then all of the other moral and political philosophies articulated over the centuries? On the other hand, if there are actual moral imperatives, where on Earth are they?

And, of course, they are everywhere. All you need do is merely believe in one of them.

Another attempt at asserting a rational justification for morality is Aristotle’s contention that being moral or virtuous will tend to lead to a better life. Thus, morality becomes rational on the premise that wishing for a better life is rational.

With those like Aristotle, however, the first thing you need to explore is the extent to which he factored God, the Gods and/or religion itself into all of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uCJFl-0HY0

Hope that cleared things up for you.

[promethean75]

"Aristotle’s contention that being moral or virtuous will tend to lead to a better life."

Lol tell Aristotle to come spend a day with me and my problems, and then aks him if being a good guy 'tends to lead to a better life'.

[iambiguous]

Question of the Month
What Grounds or Justifies Morality?
Roger S. Haines

Morality would have no meaning in a universe without conscious beings.

Whatever that means? Still, the further out on the metaphysical limb we go here [philosophically or otherwise] the spookier "reality" becomes. Mind over matter? Matter over mind?

Suppose there is no God, and human beings are the only intelligent lifeform in the universe. Next year, out of the blue, a huge asteroid smashes into Earth wiping out the human race. How then to wrap your mind around a universe that is now reduced down to the brute facticity of existence itself.

Whatever that means?

A thermostat might be faulty, but we do not literally claim that it lies. A forest fire may be all-consuming, but it is not actually greedy. Hence, morality is absent from a strictly objective account of the world.

Though, lucky for us, subjective accounts abound. All we need do then is to...to pin down the least subjective accounts? On the other hand, how many already insist that, in regard to almost everything, they've already come to embody objective morality.

Rather, morality is something that arises from conscious experience.

Think about that. Down through the centuries, individuals become conscious of many very, very different things. Why? Because of an accumulation of many, many very, very different experiences. Then the part where down through the centuries, any number of philosophers have propounded any number of moral philosophies. On the other hand, what hasn't changed is the part that revolves around human lives awash in contingency, chance and change.

In this sense, morality is necessarily ‘subjective’. However, that does not for a moment mean that moral right and wrong are a matter of personal opinion or taste. If it did, there could be no moral debate, or indeed any possibility of revising one’s moral judgement, since according to the subjective view, whatever one judged to be right initially is therefore right by definition.

Actually, for most of us, morality is intersubjective. Meaning that depending on when and where we were born and raised and who we did in fact interact with from day to day can make all the difference in the world regarding what is deemed to be good and evil.

A similar objection applies to the more widespread view that morality is nothing more than the current collective preference of a community. The way we debate moral questions implies necessarily that there are grounds outside our current communal judgements to which we need to refer. So where in our experience can such grounds be found?

Yes, the way we discuss and debate morality often involves the assumption that there is -- must be? -- something beyond ourselves...a transcending truth to fall back on. Which most call God.

[Iwannaplato]

Question of the Month
What Grounds or Justifies Morality?
Roger S. Haines

]Morality would have no meaning in a universe without conscious beings.

Whatever that means?

Imagine there were no conscious beings in the universe. Nothing is aware. Nothing is an experiencer. So, it would follow from that that no one is making choices or having values. There is no consciousness in the universe. Nothing to prefer or consider something good or bad.

Can you imagine a way morality would have a meaning in such a universe?

A thermostat might be faulty, but we do not literally claim that it lies. A forest fire may be all-consuming, but it is not actually greedy. Hence, morality is absent from a strictly objective account of the world.

Though, lucky for us, subjective accounts abound. All we need do then is to...to pin down the least subjective accounts? On the other hand, how many already insist that, in regard to almost everything, they've already come to embody objective morality.

What do you think of his argument? He's not saying people don't have moralities.

[iambiguous]

Question of the Month
What Grounds or Justifies Morality?
Carl Strasen

Like it or not, religion is morality’s anchor. It grounds morality, and tells us what we ought to do.

That's my own assumption, as well. There may be an objective morality in a No God world. And some day philosophers may actually be able to differentiate good from bad behavior deontologically. But even if that day were to come, there's still the part about immortality and salvation. Not to mention the fact that philosophers are neither omniscient nor omnipotent.

There is, in my view, no comparison whatsoever between the two. Unless, of course, someone here can provide me with one.

Ancient Pyrrhonian skeptics such as Sextus Empiricus argued for moral skepticism by introducing the concept of isostheneia or ‘equipollence’ – the idea that every moral argument point has an equally rational counterpoint. This concept was never disproven.

My own rendition of this revolves around the assumption that over and again in regard to any number moral conflicts, both sides are able to make reasonable points that the other sides are never really able to fully refute.

Start here: https://www.procon.org/

As for "disproven concepts" does this reflect just another philosophical assessment...dueling deductions...or is the concept itself taken down to Earth and examined given the actual lives we live.

. But moral skepticism, like an ultra powerful solvent, dissolves categorical imperatives and utilitarianism calculations alike. Once applied, the skeptical critique cannot be unlearned, leaving no moral absolutes, and morality merely becomes taste.

Be honest: do you reject this because you do in fact believe -- beyond a leap of faith or a wager -- that your own moral presumptions reflect the best of all possible worlds deontologically? Or do you reject it because if if were in fact true that objective morality is a social construct revolving around dasein historically and culturally, what of the "comfort and consolation" you sustain by having convinced yourself that you are on the One true Path?

[iambiguous]

Question of the Month
What Grounds or Justifies Morality?
Roger S. Haines

Morality would have no meaning in a universe without conscious beings.

Whatever that means?

Imagine there were no conscious beings in the universe. Nothing is aware. Nothing is an experiencer. So, it would follow from that that no one is making choices or having values. There is no consciousness in the universe. Nothing to prefer or consider something good or bad.

Can you imagine a way morality would have a meaning in such a universe?

Nope. Unless, perhaps, "the Gods" are still out there squabbling over this and that. But if that were the case, there's still the part regarding where this fits into a definitive understanding of the existence of existence iteself.

On the other hand, a universe that embodies consciousness? Or, some argue, purpose and meaning?

Maybe. But then [for me] back to theodicy. Back to the part where this Divine Universal Consciousness is squared with "an endless procession of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions and tornadoes and hurricanes and great floods and great droughts and great fires and deadly viral and bacterial plagues and miscarriages and hundreds and hundreds of medical and mental afflictions and extinction events...making life on Earth a living hell for countless millions of men, women and children down through the ages."

And is there a rendition of Judgment Day here? The part where in this divine universe we are graded as worthy or unworthy of...what exactly?

A thermostat might be faulty, but we do not literally claim that it lies. A forest fire may be all-consuming, but it is not actually greedy. Hence, morality is absent from a strictly objective account of the world.

Though, lucky for us, subjective accounts abound. All we need do then is to...to pin down the least subjective accounts? On the other hand, how many already insist that, in regard to almost everything, they've already come to embody objective morality.

What do you think of his argument? He's not saying people don't have moralities.

Of course they do. And that is because down through the centuries each human community sustains "rules of behavior". Then the part where that revolves around one or another combination of "might makes right", "right makes might" and "democracy and the rule of law."

[Iwannaplato]

Question of the Month
What Grounds or Justifies Morality?
Roger S. Haines

Morality would have no meaning in a universe without conscious beings.

Whatever that means?

Imagine there were no conscious beings in the universe. Nothing is aware. Nothing is an experiencer. So, it would follow from that that no one is making choices or having values. There is no consciousness in the universe. Nothing to prefer or consider something good or bad.

Can you imagine a way morality would have a meaning in such a universe?

Nope. Unless, perhaps, "the Gods" are still out there squabbling over this and that.

Presumably they'd be conscious.

But if that were the case, there's still the part regarding where this fits into a definitive understanding of the existence of existence iteself.

I don't see where he is presenting an opinion on the origins of the universe.

On the other hand, a universe that embodies consciousness? Or, some argue, purpose and meaning?

Maybe. But then [for me] back to theodicy.

I was explaining what he meant that you seemed not to understand.

Back to the part where this Divine Universal Consciousness is squared with "an endless procession of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions and tornadoes and hurricanes and great floods and great droughts and great fires and deadly viral and bacterial plagues and miscarriages and hundreds and hundreds of medical and mental afflictions and extinction events...making life on Earth a living hell for countless millions of men, women and children down through the ages."

And is there a rendition of Judgment Day here? The part where in this divine universe we are graded as worthy or unworthy of...what exactly?

I mised where he was arguing that there is no problem of evil.

A thermostat might be faulty, but we do not literally claim that it lies. A forest fire may be all-consuming, but it is not actually greedy. Hence, morality is absent from a strictly objective account of the world.

Though, lucky for us, subjective accounts abound. All we need do then is to...to pin down the least subjective accounts? On the other hand, how many already insist that, in regard to almost everything, they've already come to embody objective morality.

What do you think of his argument? He's not saying people don't have moralities.

Of course they do. And that is because down through the centuries each human community sustains "rules of behavior". Then the part where that revolves around one or another combination of "might makes right", "right makes might" and "democracy and the rule of law."

OK, if that's what you think of his argument, I'll consider my question answered.

[Skepdick]

Question of the Month
What Grounds or Justifies Morality?
Rose Dale

The question contains a misconception.

Morality is the grounds from which we justify and appraise justifications with.

[Belinda]

Question of the Month
What Grounds or Justifies Morality?
Rose Dale

The question contains a misconception.

Morality is the grounds from which we justify and appraise justifications with.

I think 'morality' covers both what you say and also separate moral codes.
I agree that Dasein is true however I also think that the theory of the axial age offers a practical heuristic for establishing moral codes.

[Skepdick]

I think 'morality' covers both what you say and also separate moral codes.
I agree that Dasein is true however I also think that the theory of the axial age offers a practical heuristic for establishing moral codes.

I think all moral codifications are misguided. Sure - they are practical tools at given periods in time/history aimed at tackling immediate issues but they don't survive the test of time.

The mystics were right - the less said. The better.
If not for any other practical reason, but to spare ourselves the time arguing about it.

Waste no time arguing over what a moral person is. Be one...

[Belinda]

I think 'morality' covers both what you say and also separate moral codes.
I agree that Dasein is true however I also think that the theory of the axial age offers a practical heuristic for establishing moral codes.

I think all moral codifications are misguided. Sure - they are practical tools at given periods in time/history aimed at tackling immediate issues but they don't survive the test of time.

The mystics were right - the less said. The better.
If not for any other practical reason, but to spare ourselves the time arguing about it.

Waste no time arguing over what a moral person is. Be one...

But your advice would permit all sorts of present day bad activity , from torture to extreme nationalism. The central and key messages of the Axial Age are present world wide and have indeed survived a significant test of time , about 2,500 years.
Moreover both atheists and theists can endorse the central morality of the Axial Age.
Psychologically, is it possible to be a moral man if one lacks any moral principle? I'd have thought I need to be moral about something.