Moral Relativism

Unkotare

Diamond Member
Aug 16, 2011
126,614
23,553
2,180
Considering how many people in today's society have fallen prey to the siren song of moral relativism, I thought it might be edifying to examine some of the problems inherent in this logical fallacy.

I'll start by pointing out that moral relativism carries the implication of infallibility on the part of the culture or individual employing it.
 
Moral Relativism is mental quicksand. It essentially means that there is no such thing as an objective reality. It's quite difficult to engage in the world when there is no truth and no reality.
 
Someone who does not believe in "a higher power" can be ETHICAL, but they cannot claim to be MORAL.

Ethics are guidelines based on facts and logic: morals are guidelines based on Natural Law (which, admittedly, is not universally clear).

The problem with being "ethical" is that it can lead to evil behavior or positions, the most obvious of which are abortion and euthanasia.

Another danger of "ethical" principles is that they can lead to rationalization of evil, when it is convenient. 'I need his money more than the insurance company/government/bank does..."

"What she doesn't know won't hurt her..."

Moral Relativity is what happens when an atheist claims to be acting "morally." It is nonsense. While there are good faith differences in what constitutes "right" and "wrong," those concepts do not wander from place to place based on changing times. For example, if homosexual sodomy was morally unacceptable 50 years ago, the fact that homosexuals are "celebrated" now doesn't make their sexual behavior "moral." And any "religion" claiming otherwise is no better than the Church of Hugh Hefner.
 
While there are good faith differences in what constitutes "right" and "wrong," those concepts do not wander from place to place based on changing times. For example, if homosexual sodomy was morally unacceptable 50 years ago, the fact that homosexuals are "celebrated" now doesn't make their sexual behavior "moral."
Why not? Why was homosexuality immoral, and do those reasons still hold true? It's my contention that when life-spans were short and infant mortality was high it was right to discourage open homosexuality, and reinforce heterosexual relationships as much as possible in order to increase procreation (as homosexuals would be pressured into heterosexual relationships) and preserve the species. But that's not necessary now. There are no currently practical reasons to discourage homosexual behavior.
 
While the background thinking around some "moral" precepts is unclear (e.g., some Jewish dietary laws), the basis for the immorality of homosexual sodomy remains unchanged and obvious.

Even the most primitive of societies understands the normal function and purpose of the male and female reproductive organs. The male reproductive organs and seminal fluid are intended to fertilize the "eggs" that are produced in the ovaries of a woman.

The same is true of the human digestive system. To be crude but accurate, we eat with our mouth and defecate through the back end of the digestive system.

Societies long ago recognized that the male organs and the MEN who wear them are wont to stimulate those organs in any conceivable way they can, simulating sexual intercourse and bringing about their own orgasms/ejaculations. They also recognized that if such behavior were not constrained it would lead to a general deterioration of the society and culture. If you doubt me, youtube some videos of gay pride parades in San Francisco.

We have recently concluded as a society - contrary to hundreds of years of tradition - that if a behavior doesn't create demonstrable damage or harm to any "person" or property, then that behavior cannot be prohibited by law. Thus, gross pornography has been legalized, elective abortion has become a "constitutional right," marriage has become nothing more than a short list of legal rights and prerogatives, and sodomy has become nothing more than an expression of sexual "freedom."

But this is not a matter of "changing morals." The moral principles remain as they always were. It is a matter of abandoning morals and adopting a system of ethics that lacks any moral underpinning.

Homosexual sodomy was, is, and always will be immoral. The Government permits you to bugger away and even celebrate your immorality through a legal "wedding," but the morality of such activity remains the same as it was before these developments.

And people who believe in morality should keep that in mind.
 
Moral Relativity is what happens when an atheist claims to be acting "morally." It is nonsense. While there are good faith differences in what constitutes "right" and "wrong," those concepts do not wander from place to place based on changing times. For example, if homosexual sodomy was morally unacceptable 50 years ago, the fact that homosexuals are "celebrated" now doesn't make their sexual behavior "moral." And any "religion" claiming otherwise is no better than the Church of Hugh Hefner.
Homosexuality was accepted since before the Roman Empire and became unaccepted during the Calvinist (Puritan) era--14th century--because the Black Plaque wiped out so many people that they were afraid the population would not regain its numbers--that was the excuse they used because homosexuality made them feel uncomfortable (or maybe they were jealous that no one wanted them). The Puritans believed that anyone who did not follow their religion should be put to death--those people actually tried to instill their religion as the US state religion with that exact penalty, hence the 1st amendment. But, I digress.
Claiming to know what is morally accepted or unacceptable is arguable since no one actually knows. The Bible has been edited over 24 times throughout history by different men of different religions. The "books" are stories handed down through generations--there are no factual eye-witness accounts. The first Bible was composed of "books" of events that happened a thousand years before. There are factual mistakes in the Bible, which means the Bible is not the word of God but the word of man from a time before science.
Morality comes from our own personal comfort zone of what feels right to us, or from years of programming of how we are supposed to be, and fear of the unknown.
Labeling people who do not agree with your views as Atheists is a very Puritanical trait. That is moral relativity.
 
....I'll start by pointing out that moral relativism carries the implication of infallibility on the part of the culture or individual employing it.

That sentence contradicts itself. While it is just words the words clash.

Morality is a Culturally Conditioned Response Issue 82 Philosophy Now

7. What is the best moral system?

"Essentially, we'll never truly be able to distinguish between "right" and "wrong" actions. At any given time in history, however, philosophers, theologians, and politicians will claim to have discovered the best way to evaluate human actions and establish the most righteous code of conduct. But it's never that easy. Life is far too messy and complicated for there to be anything like a universal morality or an absolutist ethics. The Golden Rule is great (the idea that you should treat others as you would like them to treat you), but it disregards moral autonomy and leaves no room for the imposition of justice (such as jailing criminals), and can even be used to justify oppression (Immanuel Kant was among its most staunchest critics). Moreover, it's a highly simplified rule of thumb that doesn't provision for more complex scenarios. For example, should the few be spared to save the many? Who has more moral worth: a human baby or a full-grown great ape? And as neuroscientists have shown, morality is not only a culturally-ingrained thing, it's also a part of our psychologies (the Trolly Problem is the best demonstration of this). At best, we can only say that morality is normative, while acknowledging that our sense of right and wrong will change over time." from '8 Great Philosophical Questions That We'll Never Solve' George Dvorsky
 
Great topic...can't write much at the moment...but just to say for now moral relativism and/or situation ethics is a very dangerous concept, especially when a government is involved. Then I call it "situation legislation".
 
....I'll start by pointing out that moral relativism carries the implication of infallibility on the part of the culture or individual employing it.

That sentence contradicts itself.


It does not. It is one of the long-recognized flaws inherent in the concept of moral relativism. Perhaps you don't understand it yet.
 
Moral Relativism is mental quicksand. It essentially means that there is no such thing as an objective reality. It's quite difficult to engage in the world when there is no truth and no reality.

Anything statable as truth can be statable as false by changing the observer's frame of reference.

The sky is blue. = True

The sky is not blue, it's black. = Also true. Same place, but different time.

I'm not aware of anything universally true other than hydrogen is the most plentiful element in the universe. :)

Reality is entirely subjective. What we see is nothing close to reality. Our senses can only inform us about a tiny fraction of the respective spectrums. We don't see infrared or ultraviolet light for instance (unless you have a genetic thing where you can see a bit into UV.) Don't hear very high or low frequencies, can't smell or taste the whole range of smells and tastes, etc. Consequently, our impression of reality is only the smallest fraction of reality.
 
Moral Relativism is mental quicksand. It essentially means that there is no such thing as an objective reality. It's quite difficult to engage in the world when there is no truth and no reality.

Anything statable as truth can be statable as false by changing the observer's frame of reference.

The sky is blue. = True

The sky is not blue, it's black. = Also true. Same place, but different time.

I'm not aware of anything universally true other than hydrogen is the most plentiful element in the universe. :)

Reality is entirely subjective. What we see is nothing close to reality.


Good luck with that.

You think your money is yours.

I think it is mine - so give it to me.

See how that works?
 
Moral Relativism is mental quicksand. It essentially means that there is no such thing as an objective reality. It's quite difficult to engage in the world when there is no truth and no reality.

Anything statable as truth can be statable as false by changing the observer's frame of reference.

The sky is blue. = True

The sky is not blue, it's black. = Also true. Same place, but different time.

I'm not aware of anything universally true other than hydrogen is the most plentiful element in the universe. :)

Reality is entirely subjective. What we see is nothing close to reality.


Good luck with that.

You think your money is yours.

I think it is mine - so give it to me.

See how that works?

Wow, that was the stupidest thing I've ever read. Has nothing to do with moral relativism. But that you thought it did was at least amusing.
 
Moral Relativism is mental quicksand. It essentially means that there is no such thing as an objective reality. It's quite difficult to engage in the world when there is no truth and no reality.

Anything statable as truth can be statable as false by changing the observer's frame of reference.

The sky is blue. = True

The sky is not blue, it's black. = Also true. Same place, but different time.

I'm not aware of anything universally true other than hydrogen is the most plentiful element in the universe. :)

Reality is entirely subjective. What we see is nothing close to reality.


Good luck with that.

You think your money is yours.

I think it is mine - so give it to me.

See how that works?

Wow, that was the stupidest thing I've ever read. Has nothing to do with moral relativism. But that you thought it did was at least amusing.


If Reality is ENTIRELY SUBJECTIVE - as You Yourself Claimed, then my statements are completely consistent with that belief.

Such Subjectivity is also the basis of Collectivist/Totalitarian ideology, which I'm sure eludes you.
 
It does not. It is one of the long-recognized flaws inherent in the concept of moral relativism. Perhaps you don't understand it yet.

Something that is relative cannot by definition be infallible. My links pretty much explain why moral relativism is the best humans can do. I have more and may stop back.
 
Moral Relativism is mental quicksand. It essentially means that there is no such thing as an objective reality. It's quite difficult to engage in the world when there is no truth and no reality.

Anything statable as truth can be statable as false by changing the observer's frame of reference.

The sky is blue. = True

The sky is not blue, it's black. = Also true. Same place, but different time.

I'm not aware of anything universally true other than hydrogen is the most plentiful element in the universe. :)

Reality is entirely subjective. What we see is nothing close to reality.


Good luck with that.

You think your money is yours.

I think it is mine - so give it to me.

See how that works?

Wow, that was the stupidest thing I've ever read. Has nothing to do with moral relativism. But that you thought it did was at least amusing.


If Reality is ENTIRELY SUBJECTIVE - as You Yourself Claimed, then my statements are completely consistent with that belief.

Such Subjectivity is also the basis of Collectivist/Totalitarian ideology, which I'm sure eludes you.



Don't expect Herbert to understand anything beyond the usual filth he posts.
 
It does not. It is one of the long-recognized flaws inherent in the concept of moral relativism. Perhaps you don't understand it yet.

Something that is relative cannot by definition be infallible. My links pretty much explain why moral relativism is the best humans can do. I have more and may stop back.



You obviously don't understand the concept in question.
 
Everything is morally relativistic in a decrepit society that glorifies and celebrates violence at the same time it is devaluing lovemaking.

Regards from Rosie
 
When considering the "morality" of male-male sodomy, it is enlightening to consider the difference between homosexuality (an involuntary compulsion to engage in quasi-sexual activities with someone of the same gender) and sodomy by non-homosexuals.

There have always been strained, unusual, or restrictive circumstances where young men have had no access to female "companionship" for long periods of time, and some of them engage in homosexual sodomy as an alternative to perpetual masturbation or the occasional "wet dream." Prison life and the old British Navy are conspicuous examples. One might also mention the ancient Greeks, who practiced open pederasty to some extent.

But the people engaging in sodomy under these circumstances are not "homosexuals," and generally would be insulted if they were accused of being homosexuals.

Still, morally, there is no difference.

But it is not correct to cite examples of these behaviors by heterosexuals and use them as the basis to claim that "homosexuality was considered normal..."

Baloney.
 
Unkotare, You obviously don't understand the concept in question.

You obviously don't understand words: infallible relativist, relative infallibility, look up oxymoron. Explain in your words. maybe that will make sense given your world.

===========

I don't agree with this when it gets into the neurology of the brain, but it may provoke thought.

"A few philosophers claimed that we have a moral sense that perceives the moral rightness or wrongness of things directly and immediately. This theory might be worth taking seriously if morality were like mathematics. Mathematicians all agree that we know with certainty a large number of mathematical truths. Since experiment and observation could never be the source of such certainty, we (or at least mathematicians) must have some other way of knowing mathematical truths — a mathematical sense that directly perceives them. For this argument to work in ethics, there would have to be little or no ethical disagreement to begin with. Since many moral disagreements seem intractable even among experts, the hypothesis that we are equipped to know moral truths directly is very difficult to sustain." Alex Rosenberg

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/07/13/can-moral-disputes-be-resolved/

and this: Moral Skepticism and Moral Disagreement Developing an Argument from Nietzsche On the Human

source: Leiter Reports A Philosophy Blog
 

Forum List

Back
Top