Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Mon Jan 31, 2022 9:27 pm**

Is Moral Relativism Really a Problem?
Psychological research suggests it is not
By Thomas Pölzler at Scientific American

Suppose you believe abortion is permissible. Would that belief alone make it so? No? Then how about if most Americans believed it? Would that suffice? If you think the answer to either question is yes, then chances are you are a moral relativist. You may hold that generally, as Hamlet put it, “there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.”

This is morality that revolves by and large around what you believe in your head. Or around what the majority of citizens in any particular community believe in their heads. But here that can still be predicated on the assumption that what you and others do believe about permissible or impermissible behavior makes it moral. And how then is that different from someone like me who concludes that morality itself is beyond the reach of, among other things, philosophy.

Not only is morality relative historically, culturally and individually, but, in the absence of God, it can never be more than the existential embodiment of "moderation, negotiation and compromise" among and between mere mortals.

That's the quandary that continues to impale me. Even in professing to be a moral relativist, some are able to convince themselves that their own conclusions are still the optimal frame of mind...the "best of all possible worlds".

Moral relativism has as bad a reputation as any view about morality could. For example, in a 2011 interview for the conservative nonprofit American Enterprise Institute, then representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin said, “Moral relativism has done so much damage to the bottom end of this country, the bottom fifth has been damaged by the culture of moral relativism more than by anything else, I would argue. If you ask me what the biggest problem in America is, I’m not going to tell you debt, deficits, statistics, economics—I’ll tell you it’s moral relativism.”

On the other hand, moral relativism might be construed by some as downright constructive next to moral nihilism. The belief that morality itself is basically just a profoundly problematic [at times precarious] existential contraption rooted in the particular life that you lived and, given contingency, chance and change, always subject to reconfiguration given new experiences, new sets of circumstances.

Of course, those like Paul Ryan then insist that what must replace moral relativism is moral objectivism. And that necessarily would revolve around what he and his own moral and political ilk deem to be The Right Thing To Do.

And here, as they say, the rest is history.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=175121

Posted: **Tue Feb 08, 2022 1:18 pm**

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Jan 31, 2022 9:27 pm Is Moral Relativism Really a Problem?
Psychological research suggests it is not
By Thomas Pölzler at Scientific American

Suppose you believe abortion is permissible. Would that belief alone make it so? No? Then how about if most Americans believed it? Would that suffice? If you think the answer to either question is yes, then chances are you are a moral relativist. You may hold that generally, as Hamlet put it, “there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.”
This is morality that revolves by and large around what you believe in your head. Or around what the majority of citizens in any particular community believe in their heads. But here that can still be predicated on the assumption that what you and others do believe about permissible or impermissible behavior makes it moral. And how then is that different from someone like me who concludes that morality itself is beyond the reach of, among other things, philosophy.

Not only is morality relative historically, culturally and individually, but, in the absence of God, it can never be more than the existential embodiment of "moderation, negotiation and compromise" among and between mere mortals.

That's the quandary that continues to impale me. Even in professing to be a moral relativist, some are able to convince themselves that their own conclusions are still the optimal frame of mind...the "best of all possible worlds".

Moral relativism has as bad a reputation as any view about morality could. For example, in a 2011 interview for the conservative nonprofit American Enterprise Institute, then representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin said, “Moral relativism has done so much damage to the bottom end of this country, the bottom fifth has been damaged by the culture of moral relativism more than by anything else, I would argue. If you ask me what the biggest problem in America is, I’m not going to tell you debt, deficits, statistics, economics—I’ll tell you it’s moral relativism.”
On the other hand, moral relativism might be construed by some as downright constructive next to moral nihilism. The belief that morality itself is basically just a profoundly problematic [at times precarious] existential contraption rooted in the particular life that you lived and, given contingency, chance and change, always subject to reconfiguration given new experiences, new sets of circumstances.

Of course, those like Paul Ryan then insist that what must replace moral relativism is moral objectivism. And that necessarily would revolve around what he and his own moral and political ilk deem to be The Right Thing To Do.

And here, as they say, the rest is history.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=175121

Thanks. I agree with much of this. But I suggest that the choice is not between moral objectivism and moral relativism.

I think it demonstrable that there are no moral facts, so that morality isn't and can't be objective. But if there are no moral facts, then there really are no moral facts. So moral rightness and wrongness are not relative to or dependent on individual or collective opinion.

For example, that everyone thinks an action is morally wrong doesn't make it a fact that the action is morally wrong. An opinion held by everyone is still an opinion.

The alternative to moral objectivism is not relativism, but rather subjectivism. But moral subjectivsm is nothing more than the rejection of moral objectivism. The only tenet of moral subjectivism is that there are no moral facts, but only moral opinions, which are subjective.

Posted: **Tue Feb 08, 2022 2:32 pm**

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Jan 31, 2022 9:27 pm Is Moral Relativism Really a Problem?
Psychological research suggests it is not
By Thomas Pölzler at Scientific American

Research into moral relativism? There are no moral relativists. They exist as a philosophical idea. We can intellectualise about moral relativism, we can play devil's advocate but moral relativists don't actually exist.

If they did exist the process of "moderation, negotiation and compromise" would never conclude. We would still be arguing and murdering each other over outlawing murder.

So who the hell were the subjects of the study?

Posted: **Tue Feb 08, 2022 5:46 pm**

Is Moral Relativism Really a Problem?
Psychological research suggests it is not
By Thomas Pölzler at Scientific American

Moral Relativism Is Popular

For moral relativism to be a potential problem, there must be people who believe in it. Many people. In recent years, an increasing number of psychologists have wondered just how relativist Americans really are. At first, their studies seemed to suggest that moral matters are dominantly regarded as objective—that is, as not relative to either the individual or the culture. Looking more carefully at these studies, however, some of my philosophical colleagues and I came to believe that the researchers may not have fully succeeded in measuring what they thought they were.

On the other hand, for moral relativism to be a potential solution, there must be people who believe in it. Many people.

In other words, if more and more people conclude that moral objectivism is the problem, then more and more people might be willing switch over from "right makes might" to "moderation, negotiation and compromise".

Still, it can also be argued that neither moral relativism nor moral objectivism is actually the most potent problem we face. Instead, it's the manner in which, through "pop culture" and "mindless consumerism", we have created a population of millions who go about the business of living their lives from day to day more or less oblivious to what those who own and operate both the economy and the government sustain in the way of "policies" concocted "behind the curtains". Let's call it the Deep State Syndrome.

In light of this problem, I recently decided to team up with Jennifer Wright, a psychologist at the College of Charleston. Together we developed a novel experimental design for measuring views about the foundations of morality. In an online survey, we employed this design with more than 100 U.S. students and so-called crowd workers employed via the Web site Amazon Mechanical Turk.

For example, we asked them how they would interpret situations in which two people disagree about a moral statement (such as that abortion is impermissible). Did they think that one of those people was right and the other was wrong, that both were right, that both were wrong, or that neither was right or wrong?

But here is where I come in. What I would seek to measure is the extent to which, whatever answers and "interpreted situations" are given, the answers and interpretations themselves are rooted subjectively in dasein. Rooted in the arguments I make regarding "I" at the existential juncture of identity, value judgments, conflicting goods and political economy. Out in a particular world, understood in a particular manner, given a particular set of circumstances. Same with respect to the answers/interpretations given regarding moral relativism.

It's not the answers/interpretations given that most intrigue me. It's how each of us as individuals come to acquire one frame of mind rather than another. And then the extent to which, using the tools of philosophy, the optimal -- deontological? -- truth can be established.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=175121

Posted: **Wed Feb 09, 2022 6:08 pm**

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 1:18 pm
Thanks. I agree with much of this. But I suggest that the choice is not between moral objectivism and moral relativism.

I think it demonstrable that there are no moral facts, so that morality isn't and can't be objective. But if there are no moral facts, then there really are no moral facts. So moral rightness and wrongness are not relative to or dependent on individual or collective opinion.

For example, that everyone thinks an action is morally wrong doesn't make it a fact that the action is morally wrong. An opinion held by everyone is still an opinion.

The alternative to moral objectivism is not relativism, but rather subjectivism. But moral subjectivism is nothing more than the rejection of moral objectivism. The only tenet of moral subjectivism is that there are no moral facts, but only moral opinions, which are subjective.

Where discussions like this can get tricky though is when they revolve around pinning down [philosophically] a precise "technical" definition and meaning for words like "relativism" and "subjectivism" and "perspectivism".

Again, however, given the points I raise here...

a man amidst mankind...

That is the paradox, right? I am an individual....a man; yet, in turn, I am but one of 7.9 billion men and women that constitutes what is commonly called "mankind". So, in what sense can I, as an individual, grasp my identity as separate and distinct from mankind? How do I make intelligent distinctions between my personal, psychological "self" [the me "I" know intimately from day to day], my persona [the me "I" project -- often as a chameleon -- in conflicting interactions with others], and my historical and ethnological self as a white male who happened adventitiously to be born and raised to view reality from the perspective of a 20th century United States citizen?

How does all of this coalesce into who I think I am? And how does this description contrast with how others grasp who they think I am? Is there a way to derive an objective rendering of my true self? Can I know objectively who I am?

No, I don't think so.

Identity [in the is/ought world] is ever constructed, deconstructed and reconstructed over the years by hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of variables---some of which we had/have no choice/control regarding. We really are "thrown" into a fortuitous smorgasbord of demographic factors at birth and then molded and manipulated as children into whatever configuration of "reality" suits the cultural [and political] institutions of our time.

On the other hand:

In my view, one crucial difference between people is the extent to which they become more or less self-conscious of this. Why? Because, obviously, to the extent that they do, they can attempt to deconstruct the past and then reconstruct the future into one of their own more autonomous making.

But then what does this really mean? That is the question that has always fascinated me the most. Once I become cognizant of how profoundly problematic my "self" is, what can "I" do about it? And what are the philosophical implications of acknowledging that identity is, by and large, an existential contraption that is always subject to change without notice? What can we "anchor" our identity to so as to make this prefabricated...fabricated...refabricated world seem less vertiginous? And, thus, more certain.

Is it any wonder that so many invent foundationalist anchors like Gods and Reason and Truth? Scriptures from one vantage point or another. Anything to keep from acknowledging just how contingent, precarious, uncertain and ultimately meaningless our lives really are.

...I myself don't make considerable "for all practical purposes" distinctions between them.

And, again, my points here pertain mainly to "I" in the is/ought world of moral and political and spiritual value judgments.

From my frame of mind "here and now", moral objectivists are those who have thought themselves into believing that they are in sync with a Real Me -- or, for some, a "soul" or a "core self" -- in sync further with the Right Thing To Do.

This can be predicated on God, on Enlightenment, on ideology, on deontology, on assessments of Nature, etc.

Whatever the "transcending" font, this allows them to divide the world up between "one of us" [the good guys] and "one of them" [the bad guys].

Then they come into places like this and whatever the "conflicting good", they do battle to prove that their own assessment of The Good is either the optimal or the only reasonable manner in which all rational and virtuous men and women are expected to think and feel.

Thus, they all agree that there is an objective [even universal] morality. But it ever and always is their own.

On the other hand, I went all the way out on the "relativist/subjectivist/perspectivist" limb and thought myself into believing that "I" in the is/ought world is "fractured and fragmented". The embodiment of this:

"If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically."

A philosophical "hole" I call it.

Posted: **Wed Feb 09, 2022 6:39 pm**

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 2:32 pm
iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Jan 31, 2022 9:27 pm Is Moral Relativism Really a Problem?
Psychological research suggests it is not
By Thomas Pölzler at Scientific American
Research into moral relativism? There are no moral relativists. They exist as a philosophical idea. We can intellectualise about moral relativism, we can play devil's advocate but moral relativists don't actually exist.

If they did exist the process of "moderation, negotiation and compromise" would never conclude. We would still be arguing and murdering each other over outlawing murder.

So who the hell were the subjects of the study?

Again, we need to bring this "down to Earth".

Take, for example, capital punishment.

How does one differentiate moral relativism as a philosophical construct here from the fact that "in reality" actual flesh and blood human beings have considerably conflicting moral opinions about it?

If these conflicting assessments are not rooted relatively in history, in culture, in individual lives, what then are they rooted in?

Now, in any given community, capital punishment might revolve around "might makes right". Those who have the actual power will either demand executions or not. And they can either enforce their views or they can't. Or it might revolve around "right makes might". It is agreed by all of those in the community that execution is either moral or immoral. Here either through a religious font or a secular font.

Or it can revolve around "moderation, negotiation and compromise"...democracy and the rule of law. Here moral objectivists on both ends of the political spectrum can agree to leave it up to elections. Or those who conclude that there is no absolute right or wrong and that moderation, negotiation and compromise reflects but the "best of all possible worlds".

Or, given the complexity of the modern/postmodern world, an "existential" intertwining of them all.

That's my point aside from who the subjects are in any particular research study.

Posted: **Wed Feb 09, 2022 8:26 pm**

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 2:32 pm
iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Jan 31, 2022 9:27 pm Is Moral Relativism Really a Problem?
Psychological research suggests it is not
By Thomas Pölzler at Scientific American
Research into moral relativism? There are no moral relativists. They exist as a philosophical idea. We can intellectualise about moral relativism, we can play devil's advocate but moral relativists don't actually exist.

If they did exist the process of "moderation, negotiation and compromise" would never conclude. We would still be arguing and murdering each other over outlawing murder.

So who the hell were the subjects of the study?

We do in fact argue and murder each other until some power elite ,( military, commercial, or diplomatic)wins and establishes law and order between factions and nations.

To believe in moral relativism does not necessarily make you a pacifist. Belief that moral relativism is true means nothing more than that there is no higher authority than people.

Posted: **Thu Feb 10, 2022 11:35 am**

That's one of the big qualms with moral relativism. It - moral relativism - is not a problem, because despite being able to justify the most violent moral behavior possible, there is always an authority equipped and ready to stop it (the law). But now that is a problem. Here's why; people want and hope they can find a reason that transcends the law, for establishing 'right' and 'wrong'. They want moral relativism to stop not by virtue of some authority, but because it is, in and of itself, incorrect.

Instead of finding this, all they find are various forms of authority with the power to control it... or at least create consequences for it.

Now they've replaced one problem with another. Authority.

See what I mean? We'd all rather morality be simply objective and dispose of authority. Why? Because authority is nothing more than a power to impose, yet again, relative moral demands.

Ain't that a bitch?

Posted: **Thu Feb 10, 2022 12:30 pm**

promethean75 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 10, 2022 11:35 am That's one of the big qualms with moral relativism. It - moral relativism - is not a problem, because despite being able to justify the most violent moral behavior possible, there is always an authority equipped and ready to stop it (the law). But now that is a problem. Here's why; people want and hope they can find a reason that transcends the law, for establishing 'right' and 'wrong'. They want moral relativism to stop not by virtue of some authority, but because it is, in and of itself, incorrect.

Instead of finding this, all they find are various forms of authority with the power to control it... or at least create consequences for it.

Now they've replaced one problem with another. Authority.

See what I mean? We'd all rather morality be simply objective and dispose of authority. Why? Because authority is nothing more than a power to impose, yet again, relative moral demands.

Ain't that a bitch?

Well at least let's not deceive ourselves ; life is a struggle. Power to survive and conquer it is the natural motive for facing the future. Without the urge to power we would be relatively inanimate.

Posted: **Thu Feb 10, 2022 2:30 pm**

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Feb 09, 2022 6:39 pm Again, we need to bring this "down to Earth".

Take, for example, capital punishment.

How does one differentiate moral relativism as a philosophical construct here from the fact that "in reality" actual flesh and blood human beings have considerably conflicting moral opinions about it?

Humans had considerably conflicted moral opinions on murder also.

Whatever the conflicts, whatever the disagreements one perspective ultimately wins. Wether by persuasion, dialectic, decree, war or by death (natural, or forceful) of the opposing view. Consensus eventually emerges.

Obviously there are the rare exceptions where segregation occurs and the two conflicting cultures get their own land/countries and their own ways.
But any culture that undermines the well-being of its citizens is on a path to self-destrusction. Your people will just go to better places.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Feb 09, 2022 6:39 pm If these conflicting assessments are not rooted relatively in history, in culture, in individual lives, what then are they rooted in?

It doesn't matter what they are rooted in. What matters is that the conflicts are not indefinite - consensus eventually emerges.
There is some process. Some social developments that take place over time which makes one view emerge dominant.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Feb 09, 2022 6:39 pm Now, in any given community, capital punishment might revolve around "might makes right".

Might is necessary, but it's not sufficient for right.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Feb 09, 2022 6:39 pm Those who have the actual power will either demand executions or not. And they can either enforce their views or they can't. Or it might revolve around "right makes might". It is agreed by all of those in the community that execution is either moral or immoral. Here either through a religious font or a secular font.

And over time would you say that capital punishment has become more prevalent, less prevalent or no change?

From where I am standing the pro-capital-punishment types are becoming less and less rare - they've run out of arguments.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Feb 09, 2022 6:39 pm Or it can revolve around "moderation, negotiation and compromise"...democracy and the rule of law. Here moral objectivists on both ends of the political spectrum can agree to leave it up to elections. Or those who conclude that there is no absolute right or wrong and that moderation, negotiation and compromise reflects but the "best of all possible worlds".

The best of all possible worlds is what we call "morality". Anything beyond that is idealism.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Feb 09, 2022 6:39 pm That's my point aside from who the subjects are in any particular research study.

No. The point is pertinent. Because if you reasonably agree with the moral objectivists, that morality is an undergoing process. And that this process has a clearly observable trend (to improve human lives; reduce poverty, reduce suffering, increase well-being, education etc.). If you agree that our values are being made fact of living.

If you believe in progress and iterative improvement (over instant perfection) then there are no moral relativists anywhere. Human life today is better than it has ever been at any point in human history.

In the last two years you literally witnessed the entire world respond to a global pandemic and produce life-saving medidcine within months. That has NEVER happened before. It's absolutely fucking amazing!

Posted: **Fri Feb 11, 2022 6:15 pm**

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Feb 09, 2022 6:39 pm Again, we need to bring this "down to Earth".

Take, for example, capital punishment.

How does one differentiate moral relativism as a philosophical construct here from the fact that "in reality" actual flesh and blood human beings have considerably conflicting moral opinions about it?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 10, 2022 2:30 pmHumans had considerably conflicted moral opinions on murder also.

Whatever the conflicts, whatever the disagreements one perspective ultimately wins. Wether by persuasion, dialectic, decree, war or by death (natural, or forceful) of the opposing view. Consensus eventually emerges.

Obviously there are the rare exceptions where segregation occurs and the two conflicting cultures get their own land/countries and their own ways.

But any culture that undermines the well-being of its citizens is on a path to self-destruction. Your people will just go to better places.

But this doesn't change the fact that even a moral/political consensus is no less rooted in historical and cultural contexts such that individuals "thrown" at birth into one rather than another will no doubt be indoctrinated to view capital punishment differently. Nor the fact that particular individuals might accumulate "personal experiences" that predispose them to embrace any number of conflicting moral and political prejudices.

Just by coincidence, I am rewatching the film The Last Hangman, which explores capital punishment in England in the 20th Century: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... d#p2443486

From one end of the political spectrum to the other.

My point then being that, using the tools of philosophy, there does not appear to be a way to differentiate "wisdom" from "folly" in reacting to capital punishment. Merely political prejudices derived largely from dasein...the individual lives that we live.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Feb 09, 2022 6:39 pm If these conflicting assessments are not rooted relatively in history, in culture, in individual lives, what then are they rooted in?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 10, 2022 2:30 pmIt doesn't matter what they are rooted in. What matters is that the conflicts are not indefinite - consensus eventually emerges.
There is some process. Some social developments that take place over time which makes one view emerge dominant.

It might matter considerably if you are on death row yourself. And if this "process" and "social development" changes over time and around the globe, the consensus formed in regard to your own fate doesn't change the fact that whatever the consensus might be it is still just an intersubjective frame of mind embedded out in a particular world understood by the majority in a particular way. A community consensus does not establish an objective or universal moral truth.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Feb 09, 2022 6:39 pm
Now, in any given community, capital punishment might revolve around "might makes right".

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 10, 2022 2:30 pmMight is necessary, but it's not sufficient for right.

On the other hand, if your own fate on death row revolves entirely around those with the power to take your life, then, "for all practical purposes" it is certainly sufficient.

Thus...

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Feb 09, 2022 6:39 pm Those who have the actual power will either demand executions or not. And they can either enforce their views or they can't.

Or it might revolve around "right makes might". It is agreed by all of those in the community that execution is either moral or immoral. Here either through a religious font or a secular font.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 10, 2022 2:30 pm And over time would you say that capital punishment has become more prevalent, less prevalent or no change?

From where I am standing the pro-capital-punishment types are becoming less and less rare - they've run out of arguments.

That's not my point. The point is that though a consensus might change in any given community over time, a consensus in and of itself is still not the equivalent of establishing that our "right" ought to be reflected in the "might".

Just watch the film Dead Man Walking -- https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p ... s#p2359312 -- to understand how both sides can make powerful arguments pro and con.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Feb 09, 2022 6:39 pm Or it can revolve around "moderation, negotiation and compromise"...democracy and the rule of law. Here moral objectivists on both ends of the political spectrum can agree to leave it up to elections. Or those who conclude that there is no absolute right or wrong and that moderation, negotiation and compromise reflects but the "best of all possible worlds".

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 10, 2022 2:30 pm The best of all possible worlds is what we call "morality". Anything beyond that is idealism.

But what some call moral they then insist all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to call moral in turn. And that can be dangerous for some in any given set of circumstances. On the other hand, no doubt about it, moral nihilism can be equally dangerous for some.

Posted: **Sat Feb 12, 2022 7:53 am**

iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Feb 11, 2022 6:15 pm But this doesn't change the fact that even a moral/political consensus is no less rooted in historical and cultural contexts such that individuals "thrown" at birth into one rather than another will no doubt be indoctrinated to view capital punishment differently. Nor the fact that particular individuals might accumulate "personal experiences" that predispose them to embrace any number of conflicting moral and political prejudices.

And this fact

doesn't change the fact of how morality works over time.

It is an evolving process.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Feb 11, 2022 6:15 pm My point then being that, using the tools of philosophy, there does not appear to be a way to differentiate "wisdom" from "folly" in reacting to capital punishment. Merely political prejudices derived largely from dasein...the individual lives that we live.

There absolutely is a way. Time.

Take the trend of capital punishment between 1500 and 2022. Do you predict we'll have more; or less capital punishment in 500 years more?

iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Feb 11, 2022 6:15 pm It might matter considerably if you are on death row yourself.

Do you place equivilent significance to dying in the (,etaphorical) hands of the universe? You are far more likely to die of "natural" causes than in the hands of another human.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Feb 11, 2022 6:15 pm And if this "process" and "social development" changes over time and around the globe, the consensus formed in regard to your own fate doesn't change the fact that whatever the consensus might be it is still just an intersubjective frame of mind embedded out in a particular world understood by the majority in a particular way.

Why are you using the word "just"? If that's what it is, then that's what it is. "Just" seems to signal your expectation of it being more than what it is.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Feb 11, 2022 6:15 pm A community consensus does not establish an objective or universal moral truth.

Why not? The objectivity of morality is measured by its effects. Exactly like gravity.

Apples fall to grounds.
Humans live longer, experience less suffering, have access to better medicine, experience less poverty and hunger etc etc etc.

Our subjective desires are become objectively measurable facts.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Feb 11, 2022 6:15 pm On the other hand, if your own fate on death row revolves entirely around those with the power to take your life, then, "for all practical purposes" it is certainly sufficient.

And if your own fate on death revolves entirely on a virus's ability to kill you? You seem to be holding humans to a higher standard of accountability.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Feb 11, 2022 6:15 pm That's not my point. The point is that though a consensus might change in any given community over time, a consensus in and of itself is still not the equivalent of establishing that our "right" ought to be reflected in the "might".

Yes. Consensus is not enough. Acting on consensus is enough. Upholding and maintaining rights.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Feb 11, 2022 6:15 pm But what some call moral they then insist all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to call moral in turn. And that can be dangerous for some in any given set of circumstances. On the other hand, no doubt about it, moral nihilism can be equally dangerous for some.

So what?

What you call green, I could call red. And that too could be consequential in driving on public roads.

The point is that disagreements canot be maintained eternally. You can insist any kind of moral philosophical position. But then you still have to eat, breathe, sleep - and take care of all your bodily needs. Whatever your moral philosophy you probably believe in personal well-being.

If you believe in well-being then you aren't a relativist; or a nihilist. Least you are trying to convince me that cancer is good for you.

Posted: **Sat Feb 12, 2022 12:16 pm**

Skepdick wrote:

You are far more likely to die of "natural" causes than in the hands of another human.

But humans prey upon weaker humans, and this is personal, international, and commercial. Humans kill each other by covert violence such as poor drainage, poor water, poor air quality, and economic sanctions against maintenance of healthy soils. Some ideologies such as ISIS kill by overt spread of violent predation and other killer ideologies hide behind political persuasion.

The best form of morality, relatively the best ideology, arises from the belief that men are mostly innocent until they are coarsened, brutalised, beaten down, or otherwise alienated from their natural inborn humanity. For ideologies, i.e. moral systems, to be relative does not imply equality, relativity implies relative to a culture and culture defines the human.

Posted: **Sat Feb 12, 2022 7:37 pm**

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Feb 12, 2022 12:16 pm But humans prey upon weaker humans, and this is personal, international, and commercial. Humans kill each other by covert violence such as poor drainage, poor water, poor air quality, and economic sanctions against maintenance of healthy soils. Some ideologies such as ISIS kill by overt spread of violent predation and other killer ideologies hide behind political persuasion.

The best form of morality, relatively the best ideology, arises from the belief that men are mostly innocent until they are coarsened, brutalised, beaten down, or otherwise alienated from their natural inborn humanity. For ideologies, i.e. moral systems, to be relative does not imply equality, relativity implies relative to a culture and culture defines the human.

Well ok... but if morality is relative to culture, and culture is relative to time then the direct implication of moral relativism (if it were indeed true) is that society and culture is constantly changing. Morality is constantly changing, but moral progress is an illusion.

Would you say 2022 AD culture is just different to 2022 BC culture? Or would you say that we've made moral progress in 4000 years?
Would you say that ISIS culture is just different to Western Liberally Democratic culture? Or would you say that ISIS culture is worse?

If you believe moral relativism is true, then you should be preaching acceptance of ISIS - they are just different, but their culture/morality is no worse or better than yours.

Down that line of argumentation the paradox of tolerance awaits.

Posted: **Sun Feb 13, 2022 1:25 am**

Moral relativism is due primarily to the diversity of opinion, and this is due to being exposed to different information. One's opinion is taken from the materials one has mentally digested and incorporated. Moralities in the various countries are subjected to established sensitivity and superstitions in the form of various religions. Its a mess, nonsense gathered from urban myth, antiquated myth, and knowledge taken from more ignorant times. What could one expect from such a hodge podge mess, well, moral relativism, and the absolute worse moral relativism, a sacred morality written in stone from an age of ignorance, the definition of todays religion.

In order to find unity in reason one needs to base morality on something stable, something real, something we all have access to, our common biology. When I say our common biology I mean to include the rest of life on the planet, we all share one carbon base biology, and the essence of life itself is what we share with them. The earth is threatened, we need a morality that can revere life and the processes of the planet, for we ourselves are one of those processes. It is time to realize our ancestors created these archaic religions as extensions of themselves/biological extensions of what they knew in their times, which wasn't much. We have in the past created all the nutsy systems of morality or our ancestors did, surely with the world in such jepordy we can do somewhat better.

Philosophy Now Forum

moral relativism

moral relativism

Re: moral relativism

Re: moral relativism

Re: moral relativism

Re: moral relativism

Re: moral relativism

Re: moral relativism

Re: moral relativism

Re: moral relativism

Re: moral relativism

Re: moral relativism

Re: moral relativism

Re: moral relativism

Re: moral relativism

Re: moral relativism