moral relativism

[Belinda]

It's a good idea to base the question of moral relativism on the Theory of the Axial Age.

https://bigthink.com/thinking/axial-age ... ked-earth/

We today are the inheritors of the great minds referred to in the link.
We can and must make a sustainable and peaceful world based on the best of our moral inheritance.

[popeye1945]

The objective is subjective creation.

Sure, objectively so.

No, subjectively so! Only when our subjective experience is bestowed upon a meaningless physical world is it our objective reality. Objective reality is our biological readout of a world of energy, frequency, and vibrations; our senses, which are enabling and limiting, do not give us a full picture of the spectrum of energies and their factors.

[FlashDangerpants]

The objective is subjective creation.

Sure, objectively so.

No, subjectively so! Only when our subjective experience is bestowed upon a meaningless physical world is it our objective reality. Objective reality is our biological readout of a world of energy, frequency, and vibrations; our senses, which are enabling and limiting, do not give us a full picture of the spectrum of energies and their factors.

Good spotting, well done. What you've realised here is that your whole thing about a subjective uber-reality is unimportant.

We have the concepts of subjective and objective because they are useful, they describe real world differences between types of information. Subjective data in real life is that which you can only check by asking people, and objective data is the sort of thing you can check by loking at the world instead of just asking people what they think about something.

That is what it means to debate whether morality is subjective or objective. There is no usefulness to any objection such that you don't like the use of the concept of objectivity in any domain at all. It's petty, trivial and easily dismissed.

[popeye1945]

Sure, objectively so.

No, subjectively so! Only when our subjective experience is bestowed upon a meaningless physical world is it our objective reality. Objective reality is our biological readout of a world of energy, frequency, and vibrations; our senses, which are enabling and limiting, do not give us a full picture of the spectrum of energies and their factors.

Good spotting, well done. What you've realised here is that your whole thing about a subjective uber-reality is unimportant.

We have the concepts of subjective and objective because they are useful, they describe real world differences between types of information. Subjective data in real life is that which you can only check by asking people, and objective data is the sort of thing you can check by loking at the world instead of just asking people what they think about something.

That is what it means to debate whether morality is subjective or objective. There is no usefulness to any objection such that you don't like the use of the concept of objectivity in any domain at all. It's petty, trivial and easily dismissed.

All that you know is subject experience, nothing else.

[FlashDangerpants]

No, subjectively so! Only when our subjective experience is bestowed upon a meaningless physical world is it our objective reality. Objective reality is our biological readout of a world of energy, frequency, and vibrations; our senses, which are enabling and limiting, do not give us a full picture of the spectrum of energies and their factors.

Good spotting, well done. What you've realised here is that your whole thing about a subjective uber-reality is unimportant.

We have the concepts of subjective and objective because they are useful, they describe real world differences between types of information. Subjective data in real life is that which you can only check by asking people, and objective data is the sort of thing you can check by loking at the world instead of just asking people what they think about something.

That is what it means to debate whether morality is subjective or objective. There is no usefulness to any objection such that you don't like the use of the concept of objectivity in any domain at all. It's petty, trivial and easily dismissed.

All that you know is subject experience, nothing else.

That isn't important information. I can get bored to death by a discussion of the noumenal and the phenomenal in conversation with VA any time I feel like it, but I will never care.

Tomorrow, just like today, with no regard for your navel-gazing solipsistic whisperings, we will still have the concepts of subjective and objective because they will still serve a purpose. They describe real world differences between types of information. Subjective data in real life is that which you can only check by asking people, and objective data is the sort of thing you can check by loking at the world instead of just asking people what they think about something.

[iambiguous]

Moral Objectivism
by Michael Huemer

Another way of stating the thesis that morality is objective is to say that values are 'part of the fabric of reality;' that is, there is some actual state of the world that corresponds to a value judgement.

Sure, if thinking about it this way makes morality objective for you, then that's really all that is necessary to make it...true? At least until a new experience in your life challenges that conviction...perhaps even upending it altogether. Or reconfiguring it into another altogether different One True Path? Click, say.

And values are a part of the fabric of reality because the fabric of reality itself is such that given any human community, actual rules of behavior are standard operation procedure. Certain behaviors are rewarded, while other behaviors are punished. In other words, what if the fabric of reality is closer to the assumptions I make in regard to morality, than the assumptions you make?

Again, that sounds trivial; how could any statement fail to correspond to some state of the world? There are the same three ways in which this could happen: if the statement is false; if it is true, but it corresponds to some state of the subject who observes it and not to the (external) world; or if it is neither true nor false.

Of course, there are countless statements made regarding countless human interactions in the either/or world. Words and worlds here are wholly in sync because the laws of matter themselves seem clearly to be applicable to all of us. Someone may be ignorant of the actual facts here, but that doesn't make them go away.

Then back to the distinction I make between being able or unable to demonstrate any of what you believe here to others...given particular situations. In other words, if what statement is false; if what statement is true, if what statement corresponds to some state of the subject who observes it and not to the (external) world; or if what statement is neither true nor false?

[popeye1945]

No, subjectively so! Only when our subjective experience is bestowed upon a meaningless physical world is it our objective reality. Objective reality is our biological readout of a world of energy, frequency, and vibrations; our senses, which are enabling and limiting, do not give us a full picture of the spectrum of energies and their factors.

Good spotting, well done. What you've realised here is that your whole thing about a subjective uber-reality is unimportant.

We have the concepts of subjective and objective because they are useful, they describe real world differences between types of information. Subjective data in real life is that which you can only check by asking people, and objective data is the sort of thing you can check by loking at the world instead of just asking people what they think about something.

That is what it means to debate whether morality is subjective or objective. There is no usefulness to any objection such that you don't like the use of the concept of objectivity in any domain at all. It's petty, trivial and easily dismissed.

All that you know is subject experience, nothing else.

That, my friend, is all anyone knows. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things, and all meanings are relative to biology only. Your reality is a biological readout, an emergent quality of the union of subject and object, the knowledge of which belongs to the subject alone, and never to the object. If biology is the measure and the meaning of all things, where might you think morality comes from? You dismiss it because you cannot grasp the concept; that is on you.

[Pistolero]

If morality is relative, then what is it relative to?
Why do all ethical systems have some of the same rules?

Does this commonality not point to the source of ethics?

[iambiguous]

Moral Objectivism
by Michael Huemer

Several relativist theories
Here are a few different things one could believe in order to be a moral relativist:

1. Moral judgements are simply universally in error, i.e., contrary to appearances, nothing is good, right, evil, just, etc. These are concepts without any application.

Contrary to appearances? Tell that to the objectivists. From their frame of mind, what appears to be true to them in regard to value judgments is true for all of us. So, you either become "one of us" or you are necessarily wrong. Of course, some here will flat out exclude those of color or homosexuals or feminists or Jews or liberals. They can never be "one of us". And then those who are rather blunt regarding the "or else" part.

2. Moral 'judgements' are not genuine assertions. They don't actually claim anything about the world. Instead, they are mere expressions of emotion, as "Hurray" is an expression of emotion.

Uh, theoretically? Because for all practical purposes the only assertions that are not genuine for the objectivists are those from men and women who are not "one of us".

3. "X is good" means "I like X."

And, of course, we live in a world bursting at the seams with those who insist instead that they do not like X because it's bad.

4. "x is good" means "x is ordained by my society."

"Ordained" given might makes right, right makes might, or democracy and the rule of law? And that can make all the difference in the world.

5. What people do when they make a moral judgement is to project their subjective mental state out into the world. They confuse their emotions with some object in the world and mistakenly take the feeling in them to be some property of the object. This is the most psychologically sophisticated version of relativism.

Of course, that's where deontology might be broached. In other words, using the tools of philosophy -- of science? -- rational men and women can pin down our actual moral obligations. Though, again, after thousands of years where's that gotten us?

6. Morals (in the objective sense) are established by convention; i.e., in the same sense in which a society may establish a convention such that certain kinds of pieces of paper are money, or establish conventions such that certain activities constitute marriage, and so on, just so, a society may establish conventions such that certain things are good. Things become good or bad in virtue of conventions.

Same thing. Our conventions or theirs?

With money, however, the pieces of paper themselves are not in dispute. On the other hand, capitalists and socialists have been going at it now for decades regarding, among other things, money and political economy.

[popeye1945]

If morality is relative, then what is it relative to?
Why do all ethical systems have some of the same rules?

Does this commonality not point to the source of ethics?

Morality is relative, but it is relative to human biology, even in the cases of religions, which many take to be the source of morality. This is not the case. Religion is a biological creation, a biological extension of the conscious subjects of a given era, and is maintained as if it were the source. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things. There is only meaning to biological life. In the absence of a conscious subject, the physical world is utterly meaningless. When one says that man is the centre of his universe, this is more than a poetic metaphor, for apparent reality/everyday reality is a biological readout of the energy, frequencies, and vibrations surrounding us through the reactions of our bodies, giving us a world of objects. It is as if, these energies, frequencies, and vibrations of the cosmos play human biology like an instrument, and what it plays on this instrument is the subject's apparent reality. The commonality that morality or ethics is built upon is our common biology, if people attribute this to religion, then it is once removed from its actual source, biology, or biological consciousness. If humanity is ever to acquire self-control, it must embrace the fact that it is the source of all meanings, values, and judgments. THERE IS NO OTHER SOURCE PERIOD.

[Pistolero]

Yes...the source of morality is biology.
Particularly survival strategies that necessitate cooperation and tolerance.

Morality is a set of codes men wrote, reflecting behaviors they deemed to be necessary.
Moral behaviors evolved, and then were written down.
They were given divine origins to ensure men's acquiescence.

All social species exhibit the same 'moral behaviors.'

Men, add to these moral rules their own amendments to make complex systems possible, such as the ethical rules against adultery.

[Pistolero]

Morality is relative to an objective, which is usually survival.
We can differentiate between moral behaviors that are naturally selected and those which are human additions, making complex systems possible.
In both cases group welfare is the objective, even at the cost of individual freedoms.

Morals are a collective limits on individual behaviors.

[Age]

Yes...the source of morality is biology.

But, 'the source' of 'morality' is 'thought', and 'thought' is NOT 'biological',

However, what 'morality' is 'in relation to' is 'biology', in part.

Particularly survival strategies that necessitate cooperation and tolerance.

'Morality' does not have much at all to do with 'survival strategies'.

Morality is a set of codes men wrote, reflecting behaviors they deemed to be necessary.

Are you ABSOLUTELY SURE?

Moral behaviors evolved, and then were written down.

'Human being made up laws' do NOT necessarily HAVE TO DO WITH 'morality', itself, AT ALL.

They were given divine origins to ensure men's acquiescence.

REALLY?

If yes, then what are those 'given divine origins', EXACTLY?

All social species exhibit the same 'moral behaviors.'

REALLY?

If yes, then ducks exhibit the SAME 'moral behaviors' AS you human beings DO.

Are you even CAPABLE of WRITING DOWN what ARE 'moral behaviors', EXACTLY, and FULLY?

Men, add to these moral rules their own amendments to make complex systems possible, such as the ethical rules against adultery.

ONCE AGAIN, ATTEMPTING TO COMPLICATE what IS, ESSENTIALLY and REALLY, NOT.

[Age]

Morality is relative to an objective, which is usually survival.

BUT, 'morality' can 'GO COMPLETELY OUT THE WINDOW', as some would say, in relation TO 'survival', itself.

I suggest you DEFINE the 'morality' word, here, BEFORE you GO ON, here.

We can differentiate between moral behaviors that are naturally selected and those which are human additions, making complex systems possible.

PLEASE DO.

Also, 'moral behaviors' are INSTINCTIVELY KNOWN, or what you might call NATURALLY SELECTED, whilst your human beings so-called 'additions' CERTAINLY do NOT have to do WITH ACTUAL 'morality', or what IS Right, and Wrong, IN Life, AT ALL.

In both cases group welfare is the objective, even at the cost of individual freedoms.

Morals are a collective limits on individual behaviors.

But, the EXACT OPPOSITE can BE SAID, and ARGUED.

[popeye1945]

Yes...the source of morality is biology.
Particularly survival strategies that necessitate cooperation and tolerance.

Morality is a set of codes men wrote, reflecting behaviors they deemed to be necessary.
Moral behaviors evolved, and then were written down.
They were given divine origins to ensure men's acquiescence.

All social species exhibit the same 'moral behaviors.'

Men, add to these moral rules their own amendments to make complex systems possible, such as the ethical rules against adultery.

Biology is the measure and meaning of all things, and the only rational basis for the foundation of human morality. If humanity is to acquire self-control, it is necessary that it be common knowledge that humanity creates its own meanings, its own morality, and, in this sense, is a creator.