Moral Relativism

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Unseen wrote:

They are also not built into the fabric of reality so that they were true, like 1+1=2, even before the Big Bang and after the last atom falls apart.

The thing is, they are somewhat built into the fabric of reality, given the requirements that humans have to live in the way they do (collaboratively).  The multiplicity of values never varies, but how we emphasise them and achieve them varies a lot in time and place.

[UnseenParticipant]

Simon Paynton wrote:

The thing is, they are somewhat built into the fabric of reality, given the requirements that humans have to live in the way they do (collaboratively).  The multiplicity of values never varies, but how we emphasise them and achieve them varies a lot in time and place.

You are obsessed with collaboration and cooperation, but they only apply in group settings, and more specifically in one’s own group.

You use “reality” wrongly as a placeholder for what you really mean: “society.” And what do you mean by “multiplicity of values”? The  collection of available values will vary from place to place and time to time. The values available for an ancient Spartan to choose from would be far different from those available to a Quaker pacifist.

People who consider relativism never really consider what denying it involves. Denying moral/ethical relativism is to embrace absolutism, which is a very extreme position. They are binary with no middle ground. Absolutes don’t admit of adulteration. Consider the nonsense of an expression like “somewhat perfect.”

 

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Unseen wrote:

The values available for an ancient Spartan to choose from would be far different from those available to a Quaker pacifist.

That’s true, not many people would countenance throwing a baby off a cliff.  However, according to Sarah Bleffer Hrdy in “Mothers and Others”, there are a surprising number of women living in the bush in Africa who will sadly abandon a new born if they think it will not survive.  They do it before bonding with the baby; but they don’t like to talk about it.

However, the goal of the Spartans is familiar: mutual benefit.  They were apparently extremely group-oriented, and thought that weeding out weaklings would benefit everyone in the group.

You are obsessed with collaboration and cooperation, but they only apply in group settings, and more specifically in one’s own group.

But we all live within groups, teams, and partnerships.  This is the birth place of morality.

Moral realists say that without realism, there is no bindingness: i.e., if morals aren’t “real” they’re not binding.  But something is only binding to the extent that we see it as legitimate.  So bindingness has nothing to do with realism necessarily.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

I think morality has the same factual status as do the correct ways to fix a bicycle.  The problems are recurrent, the bike is real, the actions are real.  What factual status do the correct fixing methods have?

[UnseenParticipant]

Simon Paynton wrote:

there are a surprising number of women living in the bush in Africa who will sadly abandon a new born if they think it will not survive.  They do it before bonding with the baby; but they don’t like to talk about it.

However, the goal of the Spartans is familiar: mutual benefit.

And what “mutual benefit” derives from abandoning one’s baby…that benefits the baby? If one (or a social entity) gets to choose who benefits from actions and who doesn’t, that sure looks relativistic to me.

But we all live within groups, teams, and partnerships.  This is the birth place of morality.

This is only relativistically true at best. One can move to the Yukon and live off the grid and by a personal morality. Likewise, I do live with people around me but can also live by a personal morality that differs from the moral beliefs of the conformists around me. I can be an outsider. Outsiders are not hard to find.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Unseen wrote:

And what “mutual benefit” derives from abandoning one’s baby…that benefits the baby? If one (or a social entity) gets to choose who benefits from actions and who doesn’t, that sure looks relativistic to me.

It doesn’t benefit the baby.  In the case of the African women, it is a form of abortion.  In the Spartans, they didn’t value a baby’s life if the baby was a weakling and therefore no use to the group.

The mutual benefit for the Spartans was each other: the militaristic group.

If that’s relativism, it’s relativism.  Relativism can be the position that “you think that, I think this”.

One can move to the Yukon and live off the grid and by a personal morality.

A personal morality, that doesn’t affect others, is presumably one that fosters the long term well being of the individual.

[UnseenParticipant]

Simon Paynton wrote:

It doesn’t benefit the baby.  In the case of the African women, it is a form of abortion.  In the Spartans, they didn’t value a baby’s life if the baby was a weakling and therefore no use to the group.

And here I thought you were an absolutist who believe right and wrong are real. Turns out you’re a total relativist and have been all along.

The mutual benefit for the Spartans was each other: the militaristic group.

Like I said, if anyone or group is deciding who in the group benefits and who gets the shaft, they’re relativists.

If that’s relativism, it’s relativism.  Relativism can be the position that “you think that, I think this”.

So, you’ve switched sides now. An absolutist would think that what we base our morality on is something ideal and immutable and admits no exceptions or adulterations.

Holding to absolutes his hard and anyone who does so consistently will seem to have a screw loose, which is why no matter what game we play in our moralistic rhetoric, we almost always become relativists in practice.

I like the sound of “It’s wrong to kill,” for example, but if someone attacks me, most people would say I have a right to defend myself including lethally under some circumstances.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Unseen wrote:

And here I thought you were an absolutist who believe right and wrong are real. Turns out you’re a total relativist and have been all along.

There is a multiplicity of values that have some kind of factual status.  The Spartans had their values; we have ours and I have mine.  They don’t always agree with each other.

[UnseenParticipant]

Simon Paynton wrote:

There is a multiplicity of values that have some kind of factual status.  The Spartans had their values; we have ours and I have mine.  They don’t always agree with each other.

You’re a relativist. Moral values are relative and not permanent over time. Not the prohibitions on murder or even incest.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Unseen wrote:

You’re a relativist. Moral values are relative and not permanent over time.

I guess.  But I don’t think “anything goes”, based on my own values, and I can see that’s not the case for other people too.

[Author]

Posts