moral relativism

[MikeNovack]

Response to MikeNovak. To clarify, I meant to say that I follow a certain moral system, but because I am a skeptic, I do not claim to know with certainty that it is true. Also, since I am skeptic, I do not claim that other moral systems are false. In other words, I can be wrong, and they can be right.

Ah, but I am not sure I would call that "moral relativism", so we would be disagreeing on what that term meant. You seem to be saying that you believe in the existence of a one, true, morality but are skeptical about the possibility of identifying it. And you are skeptical about the proponents of any other candidates for "the one true, correct, morality" doing any better. So in practical terms, you consider that relativist.

I am using the term a bit differently. I do not believe that there is one true, correct form of human culture, one way we can live together as humans, So I don't believe there is one true, correct morality.

[Belinda]

I am morally a relativist when I am doing philosophy but not when I have to act. When the latter happens I am a sort of ex-Christian who will take a lot of risks to fight for what I feel is right.

Moral relativism therefore is a good position for politicians but a bad position for individuals.

Fortunately , ever since the Axial Age around 500BC there has been a broad consensus about the core values of various Axial Age codes.

[MikeNovack]

I am morally a relativist when I am doing philosophy but not when I have to act. When the latter happens I am a sort of ex-Christian who will take a lot of risks to fight for what I feel is right.

However I would not say that made you not a moral relativist.

Of course, come the point of having to choose an action, you have no other option but to go with the moral system you think correct. But am I correct, you are NOT at that moment believing more than "I am right". You aren't also claiming "and I believe every rational human in this situation would be choosing the same action based on this moral system I believe to be the correct one.

[Belinda]

I am morally a relativist when I am doing philosophy but not when I have to act. When the latter happens I am a sort of ex-Christian who will take a lot of risks to fight for what I feel is right.

However I would not say that made you not a moral relativist.

Of course, come the point of having to choose an action, you have no other option but to go with the moral system you think correct. But am I correct, you are NOT at that moment believing more than "I am right". You aren't also claiming "and I believe every rational human in this situation would be choosing the same action based on this moral system I believe to be the correct one.

True.

[ThinkOfOne]

Since there are a number of posters who don't seem to have a very good grasp on the meaning of "moral relativism":

Moral relativism is the idea that there is no universal or absolute set of moral principles. It’s a version of morality that advocates “to each her own,” and those who follow it say, “Who am I to judge?”

Moral relativism can be understood in several ways.
Descriptive moral relativism, also known as cultural relativism, says that moral standards are culturally defined, which is generally true. Indeed, there may be a few values that seem nearly universal, such as honesty and respect, but many differences appear across cultures when people evaluate moral standards around the world.
Meta-ethical moral relativism states that there are no objective grounds for preferring the moral values of one culture over another. Societies make their moral choices based on their unique beliefs, customs, and practices. And, in fact, people tend to believe that the “right” moral values are the values that exist in their own culture.
Normative moral relativism is the idea that all societies should accept each other’s differing moral values, given that there are no universal moral principles. Most philosophers disagree however. For example, just because bribery is okay in some cultures doesn’t mean that other cultures cannot rightfully condemn it.

Moral relativism is on the opposite end of the continuum from moral absolutism, which says that there is always one right answer to any ethical question. Indeed, those who adhere to moral relativism would say, “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.”

From <https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glos ... relativism>

As for me, I believe that the idea of "moral relativism" is false.

[MikeNovack]

Since there are a number of posters who don't seem to have a very good grasp on the meaning of "moral relativism":
........ (definition)........
As for me, I believe that the idea of "moral relativism" is false.

How can a definition be false? Just because you consider moral absolutism correct and moral relativism incorrect doesn't make the idea of moral relativism false.

[ThinkOfOne]

Since there are a number of posters who don't seem to have a very good grasp on the meaning of "moral relativism":
........ (definition)........
As for me, I believe that the idea of "moral relativism" is false.

How can a definition be false? Just because you consider moral absolutism correct and moral relativism incorrect doesn't make the idea of moral relativism false.

Neither said nor implied that the "definition" is false.

"Moral relativism is the idea that there is no universal or absolute set of moral principles."
From <https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glos ... relativism>

I believe that the above statement is false. No idea how you managed to misconstrue this.

[FlashDangerpants]

Moral relativism appears to lead to contradictory conclusions. For instance, if I say A should B, and you say A should not B, then moral relativism concludes that the statements A should B and A should not B are both true. I believe in moral absolutism which says that objective moral truths exist. However, I am also a moral skeptic in that I don't know what are the absolute moral truths. I simply have a moral code which seems highly reasonable, without knowing with certainty that they are true. I am open to change, but meanwhile, I assume they are true until proven false.

Every philosopher ever since antiquity knows about the law of the excluded middle, so obviously moral relativists already thought of that issue. The way they get round it is, as the name strongly implies, via relativism. A moral proposition under relativism is not exclusively true. This means that if a relativist says A should B, this does not imply that it is mistaken or erroneous to say A should not B unless the person so saying is himself, at the same time he is saying A should B. The truth claims under relativism are not exclusive, they are... relative.

Moral skepticism usually implies at the very least that there is no means by which to gather knowledge of moral truth. In stronger forms it says there is no moral truth at all. It is not moral skepticism to just not know what the moral truths are.

To just have a moral code of your own that "seems highly reasonable" is probably an expression of moral intuitionism, this tallies with the laziness of just assuming they are true until "proven false" without making any apparent effort to establish what would count as moral falsification.

Given the number of contradictory positions you have adopted in one paragraph, I don't think you are actually any of the things you say. You sir are a moral edgelord.

[popeye1945]

Moral relativism in the global village is chaos; if the foundation of morality is not based on a commonality of humanity, it remains divisive. Our ancestors were not gods, and what they established in their time reflected their knowledge of the world and humanity at that given time. We know today that biology is the measure and the meaning of all things. We create meaning; our ancestors, without understanding this, did so spontaneously. This bequeathing of knowledge, echoing through the halls of time to us, is at least three thousand years old, and it needs to be updated. We are more competent than our ancestors, orienting humanity to modernity, and how can these archaic mythologies/religions take us into a future that is reaching for the cosmos? These mythologies are too small, too limited in the freedom of thought, and dwell in the still waters of the past. All things change, but these old mythologies handicapped themselves when they concretized the word. This is stagnation of the mind, with the analogy of the still waters; the mind is deficient in oxygen. Science could be a much better vehicle for humanity's continued travels both in the present and into the future. Morality is all about the survival and well-being of humanity, what better disciplines than those of biology, psychology, and the humanities to guide us, even if those were embraced to create a new mythology, but one that is not concretized with closed-in horizons. That which cannot change must perish.

[Belinda]

Moral relativism in the global village is chaos; if the foundation of morality is not based on a commonality of humanity, it remains divisive. Our ancestors were not gods, and what they established in their time reflected their knowledge of the world and humanity at that given time. We know today that biology is the measure and the meaning of all things. We create meaning; our ancestors, without understanding this, did so spontaneously. This bequeathing of knowledge, echoing through the halls of time to us, is at least three thousand years old, and it needs to be updated. We are more competent than our ancestors, orienting humanity to modernity, and how can these archaic mythologies/religions take us into a future that is reaching for the cosmos? These mythologies are too small, too limited in the freedom of thought, and dwell in the still waters of the past. All things change, but these old mythologies handicapped themselves when they concretized the word. This is stagnation of the mind, with the analogy of the still waters; the mind is deficient in oxygen. Science could be a much better vehicle for humanity's continued travels both in the present and into the future. Morality is all about the survival and well-being of humanity, what better disciplines than those of biology, psychology, and the humanities to guide us, even if those were embraced to create a new mythology, but one that is not concretized with closed-in horizons. That which cannot change must perish.

As a moral relativist , I don't agree "we are more competent than our ancestors". Truth is a process not a fixture. Our ancestors survived not because their truth was better or worse but because of their capability to adapt technology to need.

The "survival and well -being of humanity" here and now depends upon a discovery of a technology which will provide a source of energy and which is economically viable and does not pollute but mops up present pollution.

Prometheus stole fire; Shiva drank poison. Both taught us that power comes with risk, and mastery comes through adaptation.
Today, humanity faces a similar challenge: finding energy that heals rather than harms. This is not just a technical problem, but a moral and mythic one — a chance to return fire to the sun.
Myth is not superstition. It encodes human experience, showing how survival depends on trial, caution, and adaptation. Truth is not fixed; it is discovered through doing, learning, and adjusting — just as our ancestors survived by shaping fire to need, not by clinging to dogma.
To endure, we must do the same: harness energy responsibly, cleanse the damage of the past, and keep the world alight without burning it down.

[popeye1945]

Moral relativism in the global village is chaos; if the foundation of morality is not based on a commonality of humanity, it remains divisive. Our ancestors were not gods, and what they established in their time reflected their knowledge of the world and humanity at that given time. We know today that biology is the measure and the meaning of all things. We create meaning; our ancestors, without understanding this, did so spontaneously. This bequeathing of knowledge, echoing through the halls of time to us, is at least three thousand years old, and it needs to be updated. We are more competent than our ancestors, orienting humanity to modernity, and how can these archaic mythologies/religions take us into a future that is reaching for the cosmos? These mythologies are too small, too limited in the freedom of thought, and dwell in the still waters of the past. All things change, but these old mythologies handicapped themselves when they concretized the word. This is stagnation of the mind, with the analogy of the still waters; the mind is deficient in oxygen. Science could be a much better vehicle for humanity's continued travels both in the present and into the future. Morality is all about the survival and well-being of humanity, what better disciplines than those of biology, psychology, and the humanities to guide us, even if those were embraced to create a new mythology, but one that is not concretized with closed-in horizons. That which cannot change must perish.

As a moral relativist , I don't agree "we are more competent than our ancestors". Truth is a process not a fixture. Our ancestors survived not because their truth was better or worse but because of their capability to adapt technology to need.

The "survival and well-being of humanity" here and now depends upon the discovery of a technology which will provide a source of energy and which is economically viable and does not pollute but mops up present pollution.

Prometheus stole fire; Shiva drank poison. Both taught us that power comes with risk, and mastery comes through adaptation.
Today, humanity faces a similar challenge: finding energy that heals rather than harms. This is not just a technical problem, but a moral and mythic one — a chance to return fire to the sun.
Myth is not superstition. It encodes human experience, showing how survival depends on trial, caution, and adaptation. Truth is not fixed; it is discovered through doing, learning, and adjusting — just as our ancestors survived by shaping fire to need, not by clinging to dogma.
To endure, we must do the same: harness energy responsibly, cleanse the damage of the past, and keep the world alight without burning it down.

I agree, the myth has gotten a bad rap due to most people's interpretations, and indeed, biologically, we are pretty much the same creatures as our distant ancestors were. Most myths that are lessons in ethical behaviours still stand in good stead as guiding principles and do not need to be changed. The hero's journey in mythology has always been a dangerous passage. Sometimes, leading to the hero's inhalation or in bringing the bounty, the gold, back to society, it turns to sand in society's hands. I am not suggesting that we trash or reject our past, but we need to understand it in an enlightened, time-sensitive way. We need to make sure when we create a centring new mythology that we do not make the same mistake and concretize the word, letting it grow organically. You have given me food for thought. Presently, China is humanity's greatest hope in developing clean alternative energy sources. They are far more advanced than the rest of the world and will be a blessing to all humanity in their progressive research and sense of a common humanity. Added thought, all is process, and truth is experience, though fallible.