moral relativism

[Belinda]

Moral relativism identifies something real: morality is shaped by culture, history, biology, psychology, it evolves with life.
But it often stops halfway.

If morality were purely relative, just "what people happen to think", then it would collapse into incoherence.
Every whim would be as valid as any horror.
Yet in practice, we intuitively know that some moral instincts are deeper and more durable than others, because they are rooted in the very structure of life itself.

The missing piece is an anchor.
Not "God" in the simplistic, authoritarian sense, nor "pure reason" floating in the void, but life itself as the grounding condition for value.
Without life, there is no perception, no meaning, no good, no bad.
Thus, at the most fundamental level: what is good is what enables life to persist, flourish, and deepen its own experience.

Cultures, experiences, and perspectives differ wildly, yes - but across them, the through-line is always: Does this enhance life or diminish it?
This doesn't eliminate moral complexity, it grounds it.
Negotiation, compromise, and evolving standards are necessary because life is dynamic, contested, and unfolding.
But they are not arbitrary: the vitality of life remains the hidden compass behind all genuine moral systems, even when people are unaware of it.

Moral relativism describes the surface turbulence.
A deeper philosophy of life shows the ocean floor.


You can find the formal paper HERE

Three distinct components, affective or emotional component, behavioural component and the cognitive component, therefore need to be present for an individual to fully develop their sense of morality (Atkinson et al, 1990). Whilst the actual morals and opinions of right and wrong may vary between cultures and societies, how individuals develop their sense of morality is the same. Berryman et al (2002:

Scientific studies of ages and stages in the moral development of children (E.g.
Kohlberg) fit with your Synthesis theory to provide an objective basis for morality.

components, affective or emotional component, behavioural component and the cognitive component, therefore need to be present for an individual to fully develop their sense of morality (Atkinson et al, 1990). Whilst the actual morals and opinions of right and wrong may vary between cultures and societies, how individuals develop their sense of morality is the same. Berryman et al (2002:

It remains for us to be sure that by 'morality' we mean morality as a whole, and not particular sets of morals,

[jamesconroyuk]

It remains for us to be sure that by 'morality' we mean morality as a whole, and not particular sets of morals,

Agreed.

[Pistolero]

Morality refers to how men encoded certain behaviors that facilitated cooperative reproductive and survival strategies.
Like the Golden Rule.

Men, subsequently, made amendments to these codes of conduct, to facilitate the emergence and stability of larger social unities....often racially and culturally heterogeneous.

If we divide morals and ethics, between naturally selected behaviors and human amendments, they correspond to genes/memes.

[Belinda]

Morality refers to how men encoded certain behaviors that facilitated cooperative reproductive and survival strategies.
Like the Golden Rule.

Men, subsequently, made amendments to these codes of conduct, to facilitate the emergence and stability of larger social unities....often racially and culturally heterogeneous.

If we divide morals and ethics, between naturally selected behaviors and human amendments, they correspond to genes/memes.

I agree. Is there any way the above can be expressed for beginners? It's concise for sure, and maybe it would benefit from some illustrations.

[Pistolero]

The divide is between actions and text.

If, what men consider moral behavior, can be witnessed in other species, then it is naturally selected, because it offers an advatage.....if a behavior is imposed and enforced, by a god, then it is manmade, and it often contradict man's innate impulses, yet, these restrictions are necessary for civilizations to develop.

[iambiguous]

Logic and Morality
Colin McGinn

They are not descriptions of what we actually do but prescriptions about what should be done. These prescriptions can take a number of forms: on the one hand, logical laws, rules of inference, and avoidance of logical fallacies; on the other hand, moral laws, rules of conduct, and avoidance of immoral actions. Thus we have the three classical laws of logic (identity, non-contradiction, and excluded middle) and the utilitarian principle, or a list of basic duties (corresponding to consequentialism and deontology). We also have rules for making inferences: modus ponens and the Kantian principle of universalizability, say—as well as warnings against fallacious inference (don’t affirm the consequent, don’t try to infer an “ought” from an “is”).

Yes, I know: I may well  be misunderstanding his point. 

So, if you think you do understand it, please note how, given a moral conflict of particular interest to you," logical laws, rules of inference, and avoidance of logical fallacies...moral laws, rules of conduct, and avoidance of immoral actions"  are applicable to you.
Same with this...

Thus we have the three classical laws of logic (identity, non-contradiction, and excluded middle) and the utilitarian principle, or a list of basic duties (corresponding to consequentialism and deontology).

Given a particular set of circumstances, what do you construe to be your own moral obligations?

Neither subject is concerned to establish “matters of fact” about the natural world; both are concerned to improve reasoning, make us better people, keep us on the right track.

The natural world? Well, if human beings are a part of nature, how could anything that we say and do not be natural? Instead the more appropriate word might be normal. Only -- click -- this too is rooted historically and culturally in dasein.

It is good to reason validly and to do what is morally right. Thus logic and morality are procedural and prohibitive, rule-governed and critical. We apply them to facts in order to produce desirable results—true beliefs, right actions—but they are not a form of fact gathering analogous to physics or history. They are practical not theoretical. They are active and engaged not laid-back and detached.

Practical. 

What else can I do here but to note how "being practical" can mean many different things to many different people. My own  contention here is that democracy and the rule of law is far more suitable to pragmatism.

Then the part where, in regard to any number of moral objectivists, true beliefs and true actions revolve around sustaining [psychologically,emotionally] their soothing comfort and consolation all the way to the grave. And then for others, beyond the grave.

[iambiguous]

Moral relativism identifies something real: morality is shaped by culture, history, biology, psychology, it evolves with life.

Or, in my view, it is embedded and embodied historically, culturally and experientially out in a world awash in contingency chance and change.

In other words, if a deontological morality does exist it has eluded philosophers and ethicists now for thousands of years. Unless, of course, you count those who grapple with morality theoretically up in the philosophical clouds.

If morality were purely relative, just "what people happen to think", then it would collapse into incoherence.
Every whim would be as valid as any horror.
Yet in practice, we intuitively know that some moral instincts are deeper and more durable than others, because they are rooted in the very structure of life itself.

Moral instincts? Pertaining to what particular set of circumstances? Situations in which moral and political conflagrations have rented the species for, well, thousands of years.

The missing piece is an anchor.
Not "God" in the simplistic, authoritarian sense, nor "pure reason" floating in the void, but life itself as the grounding condition for value.
Without life, there is no perception, no meaning, no good, no bad.
Thus, at the most fundamental level: what is good is what enables life to persist, flourish, and deepen its own experience.

On the other hand, run that by any number of 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_philosophies

...and you'll come up with hundreds of [at times] hopelessly conflicting assessments regarding what that most fundamental level is.

Cultures, experiences, and perspectives differ wildly, yes - but across them, the through-line is always: Does this enhance life or diminish it?
This doesn't eliminate moral complexity, it grounds it.

Which, in my view, is why any number or moral objectivists seem intent on reducing that complexity down to their own One True Path.

It's what I call the "psychology of objectivism". In other words, what one believes is not nearly as important as the fact that in believing it, it comforts and consoles you. And with any luck, all the way to the grave.

Negotiation, compromise, and evolving standards are necessary because life is dynamic, contested, and unfolding.
But they are not arbitrary: the vitality of life remains the hidden compass behind all genuine moral systems, even when people are unaware of it.

Moral relativism describes the surface turbulence.
A deeper philosophy of life shows the ocean floor.

Well, in regard to any of the moral and political conflagrations that crop up over and again "in the news", what constitutes the surface turbulence and what constitutes the ocean floor?

[jamesconroyuk]

Moral relativism identifies something real: morality is shaped by culture, history, biology, psychology, it evolves with life.

Or, in my view, it is embedded and embodied historically, culturally and experientially out in a world awash in contingency chance and change.

In other words, if a deontological morality does exist it has eluded philosophers and ethicists now for thousands of years. Unless, of course, you count those who grapple with morality theoretically up in the philosophical clouds.

If morality were purely relative, just "what people happen to think", then it would collapse into incoherence.
Every whim would be as valid as any horror.
Yet in practice, we intuitively know that some moral instincts are deeper and more durable than others, because they are rooted in the very structure of life itself.

Moral instincts? Pertaining to what particular set of circumstances? Situations in which moral and political conflagrations have rented the species for, well, thousands of years.

The missing piece is an anchor.
Not "God" in the simplistic, authoritarian sense, nor "pure reason" floating in the void, but life itself as the grounding condition for value.
Without life, there is no perception, no meaning, no good, no bad.
Thus, at the most fundamental level: what is good is what enables life to persist, flourish, and deepen its own experience.

On the other hand, run that by any number of 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_philosophies

...and you'll come up with hundreds of [at times] hopelessly conflicting assessments regarding what that most fundamental level is.

Cultures, experiences, and perspectives differ wildly, yes - but across them, the through-line is always: Does this enhance life or diminish it?
This doesn't eliminate moral complexity, it grounds it.

Which, in my view, is why any number or moral objectivists seem intent on reducing that complexity down to their own One True Path.

It's what I call the "psychology of objectivism". In other words, what one believes is not nearly as important as the fact that in believing it, it comforts and consoles you. And with any luck, all the way to the grave.

Negotiation, compromise, and evolving standards are necessary because life is dynamic, contested, and unfolding.
But they are not arbitrary: the vitality of life remains the hidden compass behind all genuine moral systems, even when people are unaware of it.

Moral relativism describes the surface turbulence.
A deeper philosophy of life shows the ocean floor.

Well, in regard to any of the moral and political conflagrations that crop up over and again "in the news", what constitutes the surface turbulence and what constitutes the ocean floor?

This whole comment acts as an illustration of my point.

"what constitutes the surface turbulence and what constitutes the ocean floor?"

Every point you made is surface turbulence, and shows the need to have an anchor ( i.e. the ocean floor )

There is one:

Without Life, there is no value.

No valuer, no good, no bad, no happy, no sad, no cultures, no complexities.

This is an axiomatic fact.

I have a paper currently in peer review that states: We have an anchor - and that denying it is ridiculous as it is a performative contradiction. Here it is:

Life is Good.

That can be articulated more formally using what I refer to as the Trifecta:

Axiom 1: Life is, therefore value exists.
Formal Statement:
Without life, there is no subject to generate or interpret value.
Explanation:
Value is not a free-floating property. It is always attributed by a living subject. Rocks do not assign value. Dead universes do not weigh worth. The existence of life is the necessary condition for anything to be regarded as good, bad, true, false, beautiful, or ugly.
Implication:
All systems of ethics, reason, or judgment are parasitic on life. Value is not discovered; it is enacted by life.

Axiom 2: Life builds, therefore growth is what is valued.
Formal Statement:
Life persists by resisting entropy through structure, order, and adaptation.
Explanation:
From the molecular to the civilisational, life constructs patterns that propagate itself. This is not moral, it’s mechanical. Growth, complexity, cooperation, and innovation are selected for because they enable continuation.
Implication:
What sustains and enhances life tends to persist. “Good” can be structurally defined as that which reinforces this persistence.

Axiom 3: Life must affirm itself, or it perishes.
Formal Statement:
For life to continue, it must operate as if life is good.
Explanation:
A system that ceases to prefer life will self-destruct or fail to reproduce. Therefore, belief in life’s worth isn’t merely cultural or emotional, it’s biologically and structurally enforced. This is not idealism; it’s existential natural selection.
Implication:
To endure, life must be biased toward itself. “Life is Good” is not a descriptive claim about all events; it’s an ontological posture life must adopt to remain.

https://philpapers.org/rec/CONSLR

https://www.academia.edu/128894269/Synt ... _All_Value

Vita Sentit, Vita Aedificat, Vita Affirmat.

[jamesconroyuk]

I often face accusations of either being in some way "Randian" ( i.e. Morally Objectivist ), or another popular one is that it's a "Naturalistic Fallacy" ( i.e. Hume's Guillotine )

Neither are true and miss the point.

My paper describes a framework that is 100% DESCRIPTIVE and 100% DEDUCTIVE.

No "Is-Ought" - just is.

Nor morally prescriptive in any way.

Good = positive value.

Bad = negative value.

No on has ever defined it any differently - they just get caught up in what their perception of positive value is.

Well, refer to the trifecta - thats a great ocean floor to start from - and it's undeniable. This isn't my opinion - it's a fact.

[Belinda]

Moral relativism identifies something real: morality is shaped by culture, history, biology, psychology, it evolves with life.

Or, in my view, it is embedded and embodied historically, culturally and experientially out in a world awash in contingency chance and change.

In other words, if a deontological morality does exist it has eluded philosophers and ethicists now for thousands of years. Unless, of course, you count those who grapple with morality theoretically up in the philosophical clouds.

If morality were purely relative, just "what people happen to think", then it would collapse into incoherence.
Every whim would be as valid as any horror.
Yet in practice, we intuitively know that some moral instincts are deeper and more durable than others, because they are rooted in the very structure of life itself.

Moral instincts? Pertaining to what particular set of circumstances? Situations in which moral and political conflagrations have rented the species for, well, thousands of years.

The missing piece is an anchor.
Not "God" in the simplistic, authoritarian sense, nor "pure reason" floating in the void, but life itself as the grounding condition for value.
Without life, there is no perception, no meaning, no good, no bad.
Thus, at the most fundamental level: what is good is what enables life to persist, flourish, and deepen its own experience.

On the other hand, run that by any number of 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_philosophies

...and you'll come up with hundreds of [at times] hopelessly conflicting assessments regarding what that most fundamental level is.

Cultures, experiences, and perspectives differ wildly, yes - but across them, the through-line is always: Does this enhance life or diminish it?
This doesn't eliminate moral complexity, it grounds it.

Which, in my view, is why any number or moral objectivists seem intent on reducing that complexity down to their own One True Path.

It's what I call the "psychology of objectivism". In other words, what one believes is not nearly as important as the fact that in believing it, it comforts and consoles you. And with any luck, all the way to the grave.

Negotiation, compromise, and evolving standards are necessary because life is dynamic, contested, and unfolding.
But they are not arbitrary: the vitality of life remains the hidden compass behind all genuine moral systems, even when people are unaware of it.

Moral relativism describes the surface turbulence.
A deeper philosophy of life shows the ocean floor.

Well, in regard to any of the moral and political conflagrations that crop up over and again "in the news", what constitutes the surface turbulence and what constitutes the ocean floor?

Am I right to presume that by 'life' you don't refer to biological life as opposed to e.g. non-living systems like subatomic particles :or chemical elements and compounds: or laws of nature/science ; but to life as individuals' psychological experiences?

[jamesconroyuk]

Am I right to presume that by 'life' you don't refer to biological life as opposed to e.g. non-living systems like subatomic particles :or chemical elements and compounds: or laws of nature/science ; but to life as individuals' psychological experiences?

No, that's not right. By life, I mean it in the most general way possible:

Life is the capacity for ordered persistence against entropy through dynamic interaction with the environment, maintaining internal conditions that favour continued existence.

[jamesconroyuk]

by 'life' you

If you meant me

[Belinda]

Am I right to presume that by 'life' you don't refer to biological life as opposed to e.g. non-living systems like subatomic particles :or chemical elements and compounds: or laws of nature/science ; but to life as individuals' psychological experiences?

No, that's not right. By life, I mean it in the most general way possible:

Life is the capacity for ordered persistence against entropy through dynamic interaction with the environment, maintaining internal conditions that favour continued existence.

Biological life is not "the most general way possible". Not one person experiences or ever did experience their life as "ordered persistence against entropy through dynamic interaction with the environment, maintaining internal conditions that favour continued existence."
The way of experiencing life that is as you describe is a specialised scientific world view. Not even the most devoted scientist experiences life so objectively all the time.
Quite few people pray to be allowed or helped to die, to embrace personal entropy.

Be assured that I can envisage entropy, and how biological life forms struggle against entropy. However fully conscious beings such as adult humans are more concerned with what we stay alive for , than how we stay alive , (entropy notwithstanding).

When I recommended to you Kohler's explanation of developmental stages and ages of children's moral development, I had thought you were interested in why we elect to live. The adult human purposes a lot more than biological survival.

[jamesconroyuk]

When I recommended to you Kohler's explanation of developmental stages and ages of children's moral development, I had thought you were interested in why we elect to live. The adult human purposes a lot more than biological survival.

I'm not suggesting that human existence can be reduced to mere biological survival.

Rather, I'm proposing that the capacity for Life, in all its forms and complexities, serves as a foundational anchor for value.

The fact that humans purpose and strive for more than just survival is, in fact, a testament to the inherent value of Life itself. By acknowledging and understanding this fundamental aspect of existence, we can better appreciate the richness and diversity of human experience.

[jamesconroyuk]

Kohler's explanation of developmental stages

I'm familiar with Kohlberg's work on moral development, and I appreciate the insight it provides into the ways children develop their moral understanding. However, my interest in the fundamental nature of value and why we elect to live is more focused on the underlying drivers of human existence, rather than the developmental stages per se.