Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

Moral relativism and the rise of the Multiculturalists.

Philosophy Forum
» Ethics
» Moral relativism and the rise of the Multiculturalists.

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

Moral Relativism - The truth or falsity of moral judgments, or their justification, is not absolute or universal, but is relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a group of persons.

Moral relativism is all the rage among the up and coming philosophers in today's universities. We're living in an age of unprecedented globalism and exposure to diverse cultures outside of our own. Naturally, this 'open-mindedness' is preached as being of high value by liberal arts universities who often stress the importance of being a 'global citizen,' etc. etc. Naturally, morality varies with culture. And in being confronted with such a vast array of global cultures, it seems only natural for the young philosopher to hold that 'all cultures (and their associated moralities) are created equal, no matter how extremely they differ from my own.'

But is moral relativism really just the infiltration of institutionalized 'political correctness' that is so prominent in today's intellectual community?

I just don't buy it. These hip moral relativists can talk all they want about the relative truth-value or justification of ethical propositions, but their position betrays one fundamental contradiction: it values "human liberty" above all else, and asserts the necessity of human liberty as an objective moral truth by virtue of its very definition. It implicitly takes human liberty as the starting point of its morality--that there can be no authoritative morality is an idea that rests its laurels on human liberty. Ultimately moral relativists seek to uphold the freedom of each individual or culture to determine the truth-value or justification of its moral propositions.

We see, then, that moral relativism is founded upon the concept of human liberty. Moral relativists necessarily value human liberty above survival. In this sense, the moral relativist cannot possibly hold that all cultures and their moralities are created equal. How could a moral relativist turn around and say that a Morality that undermines human liberty is equally as true or as good as one that values human liberty?

@rhinogrey,

The problem with moral relativism is that it is self-defeating. If we believe all views and concepts are relative, then we do not take seriously other cultures, we do not understand them and we do not engage with them intellectually. It is the very opposite of open-mindedness- the man who believes in the truth of his philosophy may be open to the possibility that he is wrong and another right, but the man believes there is no truth as his philosophy is closed to the possibility of anybody being right.

@avatar6v7,

I do believe that some values are relative, but moral relativism is wrong to say that no moral sentences are universal and impartial. The value of justice and human liberty is in itself universal and impartial. The argument that no moral standard can be considered to be universal, in terms of ultimately good outcomes for all similar valuers, is just wrong.

@rhinogrey,

Can you provide a universal and impartial moral sentence?

@hue-man,

hue-man wrote:

The value of justice and human liberty is in itself universal and impartial. The argument that no moral standard can be considered to be universal, in terms of ultimately good outcomes for all similar valuers, is just wrong.

Hahaha, hue-man, does it suit to a materialist to speak like that!:bigsmile: Is it not evident that that value of human liberty and justice is also result of conditioning, i. e. relative? For a someone who has no superstitions, who only consider his pleasure to be worth, will it be valuable?

@Eudaimon,

Eudaimon wrote:

Hahaha, hue-man, does it suit to a materialist to speak like that!:bigsmile: Is it not evident that that value of human liberty and justice is also result of conditioning, i. e. relative? For a someone who has no superstitions, who only consider his pleasure to be worth, will it be valuable?

You sure make a lot of assumptions about me based on my positing of materialism and physicalism. You don't seem to fully understand what moral relativism really is. Moral relativism is an error theory at best and nihilism at worst. The desire to be treated fairly is not merely a result of societal conditioning. It is a result of evolutionary pressures for our highly social species.

I find you to be a bit irking and juvenile, and so I politely ask for you to please ignore me from now on and I will do the same for you? Thanks in advance.

---------- Post added at 12:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:37 PM ----------

Dave Allen wrote:

Can you provide a universal and impartial moral sentence?

Sure, I'll give you three. People should treat each other with fairness and kindness. People should rebel against misfortune that is inflicted on them by other people. All people should have the right to life and liberty regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, or nationality.

@hue-man,

Thought materialism is inherantly nihilistic- if there is nothing but the physical there can be no meaning.

@avatar6v7,

avatar6v7 wrote:

Thought materialism is inherantly nihilistic- if there is nothing but the physical there can be no meaning.

No avatar . . . materialism in not inherently nihilistic. Materialism is a philosophical position that deals with mind-independent, objective reality. Values deal with subjective, mind-dependent statements that have emotional and prescriptive underpinnings. Materialism (or physicalism) says nothing directly about what we should decide to be right or wrong, or whether we should believe in right and wrong in the first place. That all comes from a person's perspective on materialism's impact on philosophical values. The only impact it has for me is that it helps me to understand the true nature and meaning of moral sentences and all statements of value (that they are mind-dependent, i.e. subjective).

@hue-man,

But since our perceptions are experianced in our minds, then surely the physical is subjective? So everything is seen as subjective- an inttelectual void.

@avatar6v7,

avatar6v7 wrote:

But since our perceptions are experianced in our minds, then surely the physical is subjective? So everything is seen as subjective- an inttelectual void.

But that does not mean that the things that we perceive are dependent on the mind for their existence and actuality. This mistake is commonly made when trying to distinguish philosophical objectivity from philosophical subjectivity.

@rhinogrey,

Justice cannot be an instinct -- Homo sapiens is too young for that. Naturally, if some one is afraid of others, he will try to compose so to say non-aggression pact. This is better for a coward (as humans generally are) to let others have their share, then to risk his own. And naturally, those who had just got lion's share (pharaohs, kings) are also interested in it -- this will save their wealth. Then this order becomes hallowed (I dare suppose that this is because of constant transgression of it by those who can escape punishments or are not afraid of them, so they needed certain cosmic, divine, eternal punishments). But now, if I am not afraid of your punishment, what prevents me to cut one's throat and take what I want?

@hue-man,

hue-man wrote:

People should treat each other with fairness and kindness.

Should I treat someone who is attempting to murder me with kindness? I think such a method would quickly lead to my death. Virtues such as fairness and kindness are ones I view with admiration, for personal preferences rather than moral universals. I don't think it is immoral to set fairness and kindness aside from time to time - an individual has to do so to be at all competitive.

Quote:

People should rebel against misfortune that is inflicted on them by other people.

So all martyrs are immoral? "Turn the other cheek" is immoral? I accept that it is justified to defend yourself - but surely if someone decides to let an affront or insult slide it doesn't make them immoral?

And what if someone rebels disproportionately. The 9/11 highjackers probably felt they were rebelling against injustice, where they moral?

Quote:

All people should have the right to life and liberty regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, or nationality.

So no matter how sociopathic an individual they should be free? You regard the imprisonment of criminals as immoral?

These are all pretty easy to refute as impartial and universal moral laws.

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen wrote:

Should I treat someone who is attempting to murder me with kindness? I think such a method would quickly lead to my death. Virtues such as fairness and kindness are ones I view with admiration, for personal preferences rather than moral universals. I don't think it is immoral to set fairness and kindness aside from time to time - an individual has to do so to be at all competitive

.

You are not actually refuting what I said in my sentences. I didn't say that you should treat someone who's attempting to murder you with kindness. I never even said that you should always treat people with kindness. Treatment of other people should be based on the best available evidence of their intentions. I am not saying that kindness should be absolute.

Dave Allen wrote:

So all martyrs are immoral? "Turn the other cheek" is immoral? I accept that it is justified to defend yourself - but surely if someone decides to let an affront or insult slide it doesn't make them immoral?

And what if someone rebels disproportionately. The 9/11 highjackers probably felt they were rebelling against injustice, where they moral?

When did I say or imply that all martyrs are immoral? When did I say that turning the other cheek is immoral? There are times to turn the other cheek and times to push back. You have to use wisdom and weigh the capacity or tendency that an action has for good or bad outcomes.

Just because the 9/11 hijackers may have felt like they were rebelling against injustice doesn't mean that they actually were rebelling against injustice.

Dave Allen wrote:

So no matter how sociopathic an individual they should be free? You regard the imprisonment of criminals as immoral?

I said regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, and nationality. I did not say regardless of criminality. Now you're talking about law. Everyone should be treated as equal under the law. The law administers justice, and fairness and impartiality are prerequisites for justice and equality.

Dave Allen wrote:

These are all pretty easy to refute as impartial and universal moral laws.

Obviously not, because you didn't actually reduce my terms. Instead you included terms that I didn't use in order to try and refute my sentences. You also seem to be confusing some of my statements as being absolute. You asked me to state universal and impartial moral sentences and I did. The sentences are not partial or biased. If you can show me why my actual sentences are biased and not universal then you will have refuted the sentences successfully.

@rhinogrey,

Quote:

You also seem to be confusing some of my statements as being absolute.

Yes, because the stated challenge was to produce a universal and impartial moral statement - so in order to qualify they would need to be absolute, relevent to any given situation, and arguably from any possible individual's experience and viewpoint.

It's easy to think of exceptions to your statements - ergo they can not be universal moral statements. They are general moral standards which I would tend to agree with, yes, but not universal as it is easy to posit alternatives and situational exceptions.

Because I think such exceptions do count - I think moral relativity is a justified position. Very few people do not change their morals under duress.

@rhinogrey,

The moral relativist can say that moral authoritarianism is nonsensical and not subject to truth claims, therefore all claims to moral authority are necessarily based in conceptual mistakes and do not need to be considered whatsoever.

Moral relativism is not moral prescription but moral criteria.

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen wrote:

Yes, because the stated challenge was to produce a universal and impartial moral statement - so in order to qualify they would need to be absolute, relevent to any given situation, and arguably from any possible individual's experience and viewpoint.

It's easy to think of exceptions to your statements - ergo they can not be universal moral statements. They are general moral standards which I would tend to agree with, yes, but not universal as it is easy to posit alternatives and situational exceptions.

Because I think such exceptions do count - I think moral relativity is a justified position. Very few people do not change their morals under duress.

Moral universalism and moral absolutism are not the same thing. Moral universalism is a midway between absolutism and relativism. When I say that these morals are universal and impartial I mean that they can apply to all relevantly similar valuers, and they do not favor a particular thing over relevantly similar things.

If I were to say that these morals are absolute, I am saying that the action is absolutely right or wrong regardless of the consequences or the situation. For example, lying is always wrong, even when it can save someone's life. That's moral absolutism and I don't endorse it.

Moral relativism does not merely mean that the rightness or wrongness of an action can vary with the situation. Relativism means that there are no moral rights or wrongs that can apply to all people regardless of personal preference, culture, etc. In that sense, morals only apply within personal, cultural and social boundaries.

From what I've read, moral relativism has been easily discredited in the academic community. One reason is because it does not state an actual metaethical theory. Many critics have said that it is an error theory at best and nihilism at worst. Another criticism of moral relativism is that it fails to recognize the fact that the good or bad consequences of an action can be universally applied to all relevantly similar valuers.

@rhinogrey,

Ah right, my misunderstanding.

@Eudaimon,

Dave Allen wrote:

Should I treat someone who is attempting to murder me with kindness? I think such a method would quickly lead to my death. Virtues such as fairness and kindness are ones I view with admiration, for personal preferences rather than moral universals. I don't think it is immoral to set fairness and kindness aside from time to time - an individual has to do so to be at all competitive.
So all martyrs are immoral? "Turn the other cheek" is immoral? I accept that it is justified to defend yourself - but surely if someone decides to let an affront or insult slide it doesn't make them immoral?

When we try to use that rule "Turn the other cheek" only in order to defend our lives, does it not mean that we ascribe value to our life? And again it becomes new kind of moral absolutism. I tend to agree with the statement: "Life is not good itself, good is only good, happy life". So if something (e.g. anger) may spoil it, is it not better to die than to suffer?

Eudaimon wrote:

If I am not afraid of your punishment, what prevents me to cut one's throat and take what I want?

My question is still without an answer.

@rhinogrey,

The punishment you'll give yourself.
Killing is not enjoyable, not when you destroy something like yourself.
That's essentially how we protect ourselves. Sure, if you're not afraid of the penalty you can go ahead and murder, but the penalty is made to stop you from killing again, not necessarily to punish you. The murderous types are rare enough.

@YumClock,

YumClock wrote:

The punishment you'll give yourself.
Killing is not enjoyable, not when you destroy something like yourself.
That's essentially how we protect ourselves. Sure, if you're not afraid of the penalty you can go ahead and murder, but the penalty is made to stop you from killing again, not necessarily to punish you. The murderous types are rare enough.

Imprisonment is not everlasting and I may get out again. This is not essential, however. Does it mean, then, that those who are brave enough, those can do that rather freely, that killing is normal act if one is not afraid?

Philosophy Forum
» Ethics
» Moral relativism and the rise of the Multiculturalists.

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

Moral relativism and the rise of the Multiculturalists.

Quick Links

My Account

able2know