The Problems With Ethical Relativism (4 Viewers)

[Raz]

That's your best argument yet.

Then maybe i don't know how to communicate with you, since this was may stance from beginning.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[rounder]

Whatever rocks their boat. Who am i to come into their jungle and say stuff which i have no idea about?

While of course i can try to say that they are wrong, but it will be just according to me and my culture. So i can go in at take out all the babies with UN permission, but that wouldn't be universally right, it would just be right according to our standards.

Did god already appeared to you? No, try believing harder then, I'm sure the time will come.

So if you were faced with 2 hungry and tortured babies in the middle of the jungle that belonged to a tribe you are familiar with and this tribe will torture these babies.

Will you carry these babies to safety or will you leave them to the tribe because it is none of your business.

Did God appear to me? I never drew close to God, I am a sinner and I am unable to stop myself from many things that I'd rather not do.

Then maybe i don't know how to communicate with you, since this was may stance from beginning.

I think objective morality is obvious you think ethical relativism is obvious. I gave you an example of objective moral values, you decline it. Why? Because you are an atheist, not because you really believe ethical relativism exists.

 

[rounder]

What does "true" mean? True is the answer to some question. What is the question?

My point is this.

I am not saying that you think ethical relativism is right.

I am only asking this, how can ethical relativism itself be right when it suggests that nothing is really right?

In other words, why should I believe ethical relativism exists when it is self-contradictory by definition?

 

[Hist]

I posted this in one of the other TWO threads you made with the same title and first post.. you didnt see it.
I have so much to say about this, however I'll just try to give you another prospective.
Morals are usually set by the people. It as well as all cultural norms come from the agreement of people of what they should do or ought to do in certain situations. Why are certain norms adopted and others dropped out in a culture... what makes people agree that "when so and so happens you should do so and so"
I'll express this on an individual level and on a society's level.

Individual:
This is because these people think that if you do this action it will be best for you as an individual. You (the individual) evaluate what they told you to do and see if this advice is good or not and based on your evaluation you accept it or you don't. When you evaluate something you compare it to previously adopted ideas in your mind, experiences etc and here comes the difference in judgement. Your inner self (mind) is different from one person to another. Peer effect, parents as well as all cultural factors shape your inner self. see, you cannot exclude your past experience (your inner self) when you are judging because its part of you.
That is why we judge actions differently, you always look from your back ground from within your inner-self this is why its always subjective. You do what you think is best/mostuseful in each situation and it becomes your moral code by which your conscience judges you. It becomes your standard, the best thing to do in your books.

Society:
Society is shaped by the sum of its individuals. People living in the same place or nearby each other usually experience similar things. Imagine that every person in the entire society goes through the same process i mentioned above each person would have his own moral book, the more you are affected by the same cultural aspects the more your moral standards will be alike and sharing the same land makes this more plausible as the situations would be more alike and thus more agreement.

The question now is:

If one person living in Egypt encountered a certain situation, would his judgment be the same as that of a person facing the same situation in Canada?

The answer is NO because the inner-self of the Egyptian is drastically different than the inner-self of a Canadian so definitely their judgments may differ. The factors each take into account is drastically different, and the weights given to each factor. You will even see this amongst court judges as a conservative judge will be different from a secular one, a male judge is different from a female one in terms of taking factors into account and we all see how lawyers work on these things.

so as i said what the Egyptian would judge as the most useful and thus the most moral action may be different from what the Canadian would judge.
See it is not like mathematics where you have an equation which says which factors are to be taken and which are not, regardless of your inner self. Math will always give you the same result regardless of whether you like the number 2 more than 5 or any preference you have. Its fixed and objectively true regardless of where you are, where you come from or what you've been through.

Note that i do not necessitate that an Egyptian and a Canadian would disagree, i am only giving it a maybe as the factors are infinite.

Now this question arises:
Is there an objectively right way to act in each an every situation regardless of who you are and where you come from? (just like math does)

Maybe yes or maybe no... either way you cannot find out the answer as we cannot distinguish which results are true and which are false because objectively judging in morality's case is impossible unlike mathematics where you fix what factors affect the equation and what do not.

So the conclusion is:
1) In terms of Judging an action as moral or not: can we judge an action objectively?
NO
2) Can there exists an objective moral law (a best way to act in each situation)?
We cannot know as the factors taken into account are always infinite and relative to the judge.


read this a few times and ask me to clarify anything you do not get and right me if I am wrong here please.

 

[rounder]

So is violence.

Okay.. So how does that defend your attack on religion. Something can be flawed and dangerous and yet this does not prove anything.

 

[Martin]

My point is this.

I am not saying that you think ethical relativism is right.

I am only asking this, how can ethical relativism itself be right when it suggests that nothing is really right?

In other words, why should I believe ethical relativism exists when it is self-contradictory by definition?

I can't respond to your questions that have the words "right" and "true" because apparently I don't know what they mean.

In other words, why should I believe ethical relativism exists when it is self-contradictory by definition?

It's not self contradictory. Every person has a sense of what is right and wrong. And this we agree is true. There is nothing self contradictory in that.

 

[Martin]

Okay.. So how does that defend your attack on religion. Something can be flawed and dangerous and yet this does not prove anything.

How do we know violence exists? I have personally experienced it. And other people have too, in fact noone has ever claimed it doesn't exist.

 

[rounder]

I posted this in one of the other TWO threads you made with the same title and first post.. you didnt see it.
I have so much to say about this, however I'll just try to give you another prospective.
Morals are usually set by the people. It as well as all cultural norms come from the agreement of people of what they should do or ought to do in certain situations. Why are certain norms adopted and others dropped out in a culture... what makes people agree that "when so and so happens you should do so and so"
I'll express this on an individual level and on a society's level.

Individual:
This is because these people think that if you do this action it will be best for you as an individual. You (the individual) evaluate what they told you to do and see if this advice is good or not and based on your evaluation you accept it or you don't. When you evaluate something you compare it to previously adopted ideas in your mind, experiences etc and here comes the difference in judgement. Your inner self (mind) is different from one person to another. Peer effect, parents as well as all cultural factors shape your inner self. see, you cannot exclude your past experience (your inner self) when you are judging because its part of you.
That is why we judge actions differently, you always look from your back ground from within your inner-self this is why its always subjective. You do what you think is best/mostuseful in each situation and it becomes your moral code by which your conscience judges you. It becomes your standard, the best thing to do in your books.

Society:
Society is shaped by the sum of its individuals. People living in the same place or nearby each other usually experience similar things. Imagine that every person in the entire society goes through the same process i mentioned above each person would have his own moral book, the more you are affected by the same cultural aspects the more your moral standards will be alike and sharing the same land makes this more plausible as the situations would be more alike and thus more agreement.

The question now is:

If one person living in Egypt encountered a certain situation, would his judgment be the same as that of a person facing the same situation in Canada?

The answer is NO because the inner-self of the Egyptian is drastically different than the inner-self of a Canadian so definitely their judgments may differ. The factors each take into account is drastically different, and the weights given to each factor. You will even see this amongst court judges as a conservative judge will be different from a secular one, a male judge is different from a female one in terms of taking factors into account and we all see how lawyers work on these things.

so as i said what the Egyptian would judge as the most useful and thus the most moral action may be different from what the Canadian would judge.
See it is not like mathematics where you have an equation which says which factors are to be taken and which are not, regardless of your inner self. Math will always give you the same result regardless of whether you like the number 2 more than 5 or any preference you have. Its fixed and objectively true regardless of where you are, where you come from or what you've been through.

Note that i do not necessitate that an Egyptian and a Canadian would disagree, i am only giving it a maybe as the factors are infinite.

Now this question arises:
Is there an objectively right way to act in each an every situation regardless of who you are and where you come from? (just like math does)

Maybe yes or maybe no... either way you cannot find out the answer as we cannot distinguish which results are true and which are false because objectively judging in morality's case is impossible unlike mathematics where you fix what factors affect the equation and what do not.

So the conclusion is:
1) In terms of Judging an action as moral or not: can we judge an action objectively?
NO
2) Can there exists an objective moral law (a best way to act in each situation)?
We cannot know as the factors taken into account are always infinite and relative to the judge.


read this a few times and ask me to clarify anything you do not get and right me if I am wrong here please.

I agree with most of the things you are saying. I would only like to point out a few points which I believe you should agree with.

If some morals are relative to culture, this does not mean that all morals are relative to culture. Meaning that if dressing inappropriately in Saudi Arabia is considered immoral while in America it is perfectly fine, this does not mean that all questions of morality depend on culture.

Would you not agree that their are absolute moral principles that can be verified regardless of time, individual, culture? I cannot prove this is the case as no one can prove that ethical relativism is the right philosophy but basically things like raping a child are fundamentally immoral regardless of any of the factors I have mentioned above.

 

[Raz]

So if you were faced with 2 hungry and tortured babies in the middle of the jungle that belonged to a tribe you are familiar with and this tribe will torture these babies.

Will you carry these babies to safety or will you leave them to the tribe because it is none of your business.

Did God appear to me? I never drew close to God, I am a sinner and I am unable to stop myself from many things that I'd rather not do.



I think objective morality is obvious you think ethical relativism is obvious. I gave you an example of objective moral values, you decline it. Why? Because you are an atheist, not because you really believe ethical relativism exists.

That is why we call it a moral dilemma. If it were objective, we wouldn't have one of those and would always pick the "right" answer. Wouldn't that be cool, to have a textbook how to live.

We live in groups, societies, who dictate their own standards morals. Maybe one day in a future our whole planet will acculturation to one culture, and then we will agree on same morals, even then it will be subjective.

And till then its just a matter of what culture you were brought in, what background you have come from, all of these things develop our moral system, and when we do have it, we think it is the right one, the same as the people who were brought in different cultures/backgrounds. It's anything but objective.

Since you think all of my questions are spiteful, I'll say that this really isn't the case, and this question is from curiosity too, does god only appeared to those who are sinless? So that's suppesadly Mary, and Jesus, no one else were sinless right?

 

[rounder]

It's not self contradictory. Every person has a sense of what is right and wrong. And this we agree is true. There is nothing self contradictory in that.

Okay let me try to explain this in other words.

1. Morality is Objective.

2. Morality is Subjective.

Which of these statements is true?

If statement number 2 is true, this means that morality is subjective.
But subjective morality states that nothing is true, that everything is relative so statement number 2 cannot be true. This is the logical catch 22 here, I hope you see it.

How do we know violence exists? I have personally experienced it. And other people have too, in fact noone has ever claimed it doesn't exist.

Some people have personally experienced God, others have also personally experienced God, some delusional people may have claimed violence does not exist.

 

[Seven]

In the light of recent debates I have had about the nature of morality; I want to reinstate my point of view that morality is indeed objective. I would like to highlight the fundamental flaws of ethical relativism and why exactly I cannot accept it.

Let me first define ethical relativism. It is is the theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms of one's culture. That is, whether an action is right or wrong depends on the moral norms of the society in which it is practiced. The same action may be morally right in one society but be morally wrong in another. For the ethical relativist, there are no universal moral standards, standards that can be universally applied to all peoples at all times. The only moral standards against which a society's practices can be judged are its own. If ethical relativism is correct, there can be no common framework for resolving moral disputes or for reaching agreement on ethical matters among members of different societies.


1)
While the moral practices of societies may differ, the fundamental moral principles underlying these practices do not. For example, in some societies, killing one's parents after they reached a certain age was common practice, stemming from the belief that people were better off in the afterlife if they entered it while still physically active and vigorous. While such a practice would be condemned in our society, we would agree with these societies on the underlying moral principle, the duty to care for parents. Societies, then, may differ in their application of fundamental moral principles but agree on the principles.

2)
It may be the case that some moral beliefs are culturally relative whereas others are not. Certain practices, such as customs regarding dress and decency, may depend on local custom whereas other practices, such as slavery, torture, or political repression, may be governed by universal moral standards and judged wrong despite the many other differences that exist among cultures. Simply because some practices are relative does not mean that all practices are relative.


3)
If the rightness or wrongness of an action depends on a society's norms, then it follows that one must obey the norms of one's society and to diverge from those norms is to act immorally. This means that if I am a member of a society that believes that racial or sexist practices are morally permissible, then I must accept those practices as morally right. But such a view promotes social conformity and leaves no room for moral reform or improvement in a society. Furthermore, members of the same society may hold different views on practices. In the United States, for example, a variety of moral opinions exists on matters ranging from animal experimentation to abortion. What constitutes right action when social consensus is lacking?

4)
Universal moral standards can exist even if some moral practices and beliefs vary among cultures. In other words, we can acknowledge cultural differences in moral practices and beliefs and still hold that some of these practices and beliefs are morally wrong. The practice of slavery in pre-Civil war U.S. society is wrong despite the beliefs of the society itself. The treatment of the Jews in Nazi society is morally reprehensible regardless of the moral beliefs of Nazi society. . Since whatever I believe is moral is ultimately relative to my own moral standard, how can we ever decide on what is objectively moral?'

First point: there is, it's called democracy. It works. We do it all the time.

1) Did everyone everywhere care for their parents? I beg to differ. But it's one of those values that come close, yes. You might want to read some work of anthropologists. They don't agree on the issue, but it sure is interesting. Evidence would be nice.

2) That's no argument.

3) No, the values are coming from you personally, not society. Society might influence them though.

4) Says who?

 

[Raz]

Okay let me try to explain this in other words.

1. Morality is Objective.

2. Morality is Subjective.

Which of these statements is true?

If statement number 2 is true, this means that morality is subjective.
But subjective morality states that nothing is true, that everything is relative so statement number 2 cannot be true. This is the logical catch 22 here, I hope you see it.


Some people have personally experienced God, others have also personally experienced God, some delusional people may have claimed violence does not exist.

Who claimed violence didn't exist? Just curious.

But the Moral subjectivity states that only about morals. Does choosing between those two is a moral decision?

 

[Martin]

Okay let me try to explain this in other words.

1. Morality is Objective.

2. Morality is Subjective.

Which of these statements is true?

If statement number 2 is true, this means that morality is subjective.
But subjective morality states that nothing is true, that everything is relative so statement number 2 cannot be true. This is the logical catch 22 here, I hope you see it.

Once again, what does "true" mean?

Some people have personally experienced God, others have also personally experienced God, some delusional people may have claimed violence does not exist.

May have, but they haven't. Everyone in the world agrees that violence exists. Which is a claim I can't prove and you can't disprove, because noone has ever claimed it doesn't exist.

And that is not the case with absolute morality or god or the things you talk about.

 

[rounder]

That is why we call it a moral dilemma. If it were objective, we wouldn't have one of those and would always pick the "right" answer. Wouldn't that be cool, to have a textbook how to live.

We live in groups, societies, who dictate their own standards morals. Maybe one day in a future our whole planet will acculturation to one culture, and then we will agree on same morals, even then it will be subjective.

And till then its just a matter of what culture you were brought in, what background you have come from, all of these things develop our moral system, and when we do have it, we think it is the right one, the same as the people who were brought in different cultures/backgrounds. It's anything but objective.

Since you think all of my questions are spiteful, I'll say that this really isn't the case, and this question is from curiosity too, does god only appeared to those who are sinless? So that's suppesadly Mary, and Jesus, no one else were sinless right?

I am not saying we should have textbook to tell us how to live our lives. I am telling you that we do know deep down inside that torturing a newborn is wrong and when it comes right down to it, no decent man with a conscience will ever allow himself to leave these babies to get tortured because it is none of their business. We know it is morally wrong, and even those who are uneducated, and uncultured know it is morally wrong. It is a universal truth.

And here's the thing, even if people did believe that torturing newborns for pleasure was perfectly normal. It still isn't. I will never accept that some sadistic, sick, asshole torturing a new born baby for pleasure should be given some kind of sympathy because well, he is just acting according to his moral standards.




God appears to those who really want God to appear to them in their hearts and not out of some kind of material desire in which they may demand success in some form or the other.

The Bible promises that once you accept Jesus, you will experience God. Many people have done so and many have experienced God, if you believe you possess eternal, divine knowledge and will openly dismiss all of these claims then be my guest.

 

[rounder]

Once again, what does "true" mean?

.

Are you joking?

1. 1 + 5 = 6

2. 1 + 5 = 7

Which statement is true?
Same concept, man.

May have, but they haven't. Everyone in the world agrees that violence exists. Which is a claim I can't prove and you can't disprove, because noone has ever claimed it doesn't exist.

And that is not the case with absolute morality or god or the things you talk about.

Are you insinuating that if there were any side that refuted a particular idea, that would make it untrue? Wouldn't that mean that evolution, the theory of relativity, the string theory are automatically deemed as incorrect because there are many people who do not accept them?

 

[Martin]

God appears to those who really want God to appear to them in their hearts and not out of some kind of material desire in which they may demand success in some form or the other.

The Bible promises that once you accept Jesus, you will experience God. Many people have done so and many have experienced God, if you believe you possess eternal, divine knowledge and will openly dismiss all of these claims then be my guest.

This is what I have said before. If you really want to believe something you can convince yourself of anything. Psychologically there is nothing surprising in this.

 

[Martin]

Are you insinuating that if there were any side that refuted a particular idea, that would make it untrue? Wouldn't that mean that evolution, the theory of relativity, the string theory are automatically deemed as incorrect because there are many people who do not accept them?

No, but at least it would be grounds to investigate it.

So long as noone even suggests that violence is fictional, there's no reason to examine such a claim, wouldn't you say?

 

[rounder]

This is what I have said before. If you really want to believe something you can convince yourself of anything. Psychologically there is nothing surprising in this.

There is a big difference between believing something and actually seeing/experiencing it.

 

[Martin]

Are you joking?

1. 1 + 5 = 6

2. 1 + 5 = 7

Which statement is true?
Same concept, man.

You are using the same word in different contexts.

If statement number 2 is true, this means that morality is subjective.

So far so good.

But subjective morality states that nothing is true

What does this mean? What truth are you talking about? It is not the truth of the statement anymore.

that everything is relative so statement number 2 cannot be true

Now you are back to talking about the truth of the statement.

 

[rounder]

No, but at least it would be grounds to investigate it.

So long as noone even suggests that violence is fictional, there's no reason to examine such a claim, wouldn't you say?

Absolutely, I have nothing against investigating religion, in fact, I'm all for it.

Ethical relativism is something that is not agreed upon by most ethicists. Thus I believe there is very good reason to examine this subject, a lot more than objective morality. You, or someone needs to conclusively prove that ethical relativism is 'true' in the sense that it most accurately defines the nature of morality.

Untill now, it remains entirely unconvincing and stating that there are no moral truths just makes ethical relativism even more unbelievable.