Moral relativism and why it doesn't hold water

[Shiro, Time Devourer]

I've posted here to talk about a common school of thought that, though it sounds good in theory, is awful, self-defeating, and illogical in practice.

When some people hear others making a moral judgment against stealing, drinking underage, pornography, etc; and they actually like those things, they tend to say something along the lines of 'Who are you to force your morality on someone else?', or 'You should stop telling people what moral decisions to make.'

Those questions, however, commit suicide because by telling someone the wrongness of judging something morally, they have judge the morality, or 'rightness' of doing so.

The truth is, there are some things that are morally wrong because of harm they do to a person, institution, or society as a whole. To say 'morality is relative' would not be always true even if it was.

Your response is welcome.

 

[train]

The truth is, there are some things that are morally wrong because of harm they do to a person, institution, or society as a whole. To say 'morality is relative' would not be always true even if it was.

The question actually comes from the harm, if indeed harm is done, and the degree to which harm is done.

Not all acts harm a person, according to their physical being or moral beliefs. There are however instances where the harm done is only apparent when someone not agreeing with those beliefs has an encounter with those acts...

 

[Nightstalkers]

When some people hear others making a moral judgment against stealing, drinking underage, pornography, etc; and they actually like those things, they tend to say something along the lines of 'Who are you to force your morality on someone else?', or 'You should stop telling people what moral decisions to make.'

We just run away with their purse or beat the crap outta them. unless their with the church; in that case we donate some money and write it off for the taxes.

 

[Zhaneel]

I've an example: the homosexuality case in Texas. There's an issue of forcing morals on someone.We need some moral relativism, or the state would control everything.

That wasn't terribly coherent. Sorry.

 

[EricBess]

The problem is that much of the harm done isn't immediately obvious. For example - underage drinking? Well, I suppose it increases potential for accidents. Drinking to excess does the same regardless of age. In general, drinking itself often creates a fine line of what is too much? So, do we bring back prohibition?

Stealing is obvious in most cases.

Pornography? One could easily argue that there are no victims here. No damage done.

Like I said, the damage is often subtle. All of the above acts promote selfishness, which in turn damages the individual and society.

Statistics show that most arguments in marrage stem from monitary issues. I'd be willing to bet that if more studies were done, it would be discovered that there are often other underlying issues and drinking and pornography are probably at the heart of it.

"No amount of success can compensate for failure in the home" - David O McKay.

 

[Mazzak]

Yes, it is silly and often hypocritical to judge someone wrong for judging things wrong. But as soon as someone claims that there is one set of morals that is the basic and ineffable set that must be followed, they are indeed wrong.

 

[train]

"No amount of success can compensate for failure in the home"

Who determines what failure is?...

 

[EricBess]

We live in a harsh society. Home is a necessary refuge. If that's not there (either for ourselves or our children), then I think that priorities may need to be examined.

But what constitues failure would be up to the individual. Personally, I think failure is when you stop caring and stop trying.

 

[train]

I agree...

As with everything, it all boils down to the individual...

 

[Svenmonkey]

I guess we should throw away moral relativism and take up moral absolutism, then? I would willingly poop on anyone who has a set, unchanging standard of "wrong" and "right." It's like fundamentalism, it just doesn't work.

 

[EricBess]

train, you took me out of context. I said that what constituted failure is up to the individual. I think that there are a few absolutes. Whether or not they are "moral absolutes" is another issue.

For example, drinking, porn, and stealing (among others, but those were the ones originally mentioned) tear at the fabric of the family. I don't believe that there would ever be a time when good would come of any of them. I believe them all to be absolutely incorrect. Zhaneel brings up homosexuality and I also believe this to be morally incorrect for similar reasons.

The thing is, however, there is one thing that I believe is far more morally incorrect than any of these and that is imposing your own will on someone else. Any attempt to take away free agency (which, incidentally, is not necessarily the same a freedom), is just plain incorrect.

That's one of the reasons I don't usually get in a tizzy about other people's views. To be honest, there are only a handful of people here that I see eye to eye with when it comes to questions of moral issues. I think that everyone would be better off if they knew what I knew and felt what I felt, but it is far worse to try to force such things on people.

I think Shiro probably knows what I'm talking about as much as anyone here.

 

[EricBess]

Originally posted by Svenmonkey
I would willingly poop on anyone who has a set, unchanging standard of "wrong" and "right." It's like fundamentalism, it just doesn't work.

Hmmm...I have a pretty set standard of "wrong" and "right". But I think I know what you mean. There are nearly always circumstances where something that normally would be considered wrong can be helpful. There are certain things, however, that I don't think I would ever make an exception on.

 

[train]

What I was saying is that when it comes down to the individual, what they do may not be wrong in any perspective to them... whether or not it is wrong to any other being, is also up to that being.

The only true measure of a person is in their own eyes... for all outside of their eyes, does not view them as they view themselves...

and most of the time, humans don't see themselves as being good enough...

 

[Shiro, Time Devourer]

Originally posted by Zhaneel
I've an example: the homosexuality case in Texas. There's an issue of forcing morals on someone.We need some moral relativism, or the state would control everything.

That wasn't terribly coherent. Sorry.

Guess not. Moral wrongs with no legal danger shouldn't be legislated against. However, things that are morally wrong should be controlled via disapproval and stating reasons for it.

To remove MR wouldn't give the state carte blanche by itself. However the state would try to use it as an excuse. The fault belongs to the state in that case.

In addition, taking your example to its broader implications, what's it to you if the state does that. In their own eyes they're doing what's right for them. Who are you to set their standards.

The above paragraph isn't my view, but a defense for controlling everything could come out of it using the MR logic, if they held it.

You see why I'm not a fan of the philosophy?

 

[Ferret]

Right and wrong are just too relative in today's society. They should be set down by the individual. Period. Most of the time, however, they are set down by gov'ts and religions (which are usually more corrupt than the individuals they wish to control).

I look at it this way: Will I be able to live w/ myself if I perform an action? Will anyone be hurt by said action? If the first answer is yes and the second is no, then I believe I'm okay...

-Ferret

"...all leading back to the Wiccan Rede..."

 

[EricBess]

What you are suggesting is anarchy. If government isn't allowed to set a standard for right and wrong, then there is no way to draw a line. I am perfectly justified in murder, rape, larceny, etc. as long as I claim that it doesn't violate any of my own moral codes?

And the only way to stop me is vigillantyism?

I don't disagree that the system has corruption, but government is necessary. The problem is that government is inherently flawed in that the people creating the laws can do so in a manner where it benefits them over others. The US constitution puts a lot of checks and balances into the mix to avoid this.

Too many politicians have little moral fiber. We need morality and a sense of right and wrong to avoid that, but those people who are in power don't always have this.

Just prior to leaving office, Clinton doubled the president's pension from $2 Million/year to $4 Million/year. Why? If there wasn't such a huge economic incentive for politics, perhaps those running for office would be doing it because they felt they had some good to offer. As it is, the incentives are so high, that there are too many people wanting it to be able to tell who wants to better the country and who simply wants to better themselves.

 

[Ferret]

The problem w/ politicians is that they're human. They have religious beliefs that guide them and human urges that stray them...and the worst part is that we would want it no other way.

In my opinion, the best kind of politician would be an atheist eunuch grown in a vat never allowed to see anyone from anything closely related to a special interest or corporation. S/He would be grown outside of the corruption of the common idiots that would try to push and pull her/him around.

-Ferret

"All power corrupts..."

 

[train]

It all boils down to this...

We have "free will"... as such, those who will break rules break them, and those whom believe in them most, uphold and defend them.

So it still lies within the individual, to determine what they will do, and if it were "wrong" to them, they wouldn't be doing it. Ferret's statement on living with self, and not harming others, is a perspective, only because someone out there will say, "I'm hurt by that..." It would be perfect if we were all sheep with the same programming, but we're not.

It's a never-ending cycle, fueled by "free will"...

 

[Ferret]

I guess we'll always have this problem as long as mankind is fueled by greed, lusts, avarice, wrath, and those other deadly sins I can't remember (sorry, haven't been Catholic in 20 years).

Until everyone can except everyone else as equals and work w/ each other instead of trying to get trying to get everyone to work FOR them.

-Ferret

"...I can't believe that I almost quoted a John Lennon song..."

 

[EricBess]

Exactly Ferret. The ideal form of government would be a socialist government, where nobody wants for anything because everyone helps to provide for everyone's needs.

Unfortunately, as long as there are people out there who feel that they deserve more than everyone else, that's simply not going to happen.

So, until that day, our (the US, that is) current system of checks and balances is the best thing we've seen in a very long time.