I've heard some people talk about the idea that morality doesn't actually exist, usually according to Nietzsche (i think). This is a concept I've never fully understood but am terribly interested in learning about. Anyone care to explain the idea behind it, and if morality doesn't exist, where did the idea of it come from, etc etc?

I'm terribly curious.

I understand what you are both saying, but if absolute morality doesn't necessarily exist, and all moral judgements are relative and subjective, then doesn't it make sense for one to claim that it doesn't actually exist? Morality is the judgement of if something is right or wrong, but if there are exceptions to every situation and if there are so many factors that there is no universal way to make a moral decision, then wouldn't it make the concept of morality rather weak?

Do I make sense?

I've heard some people talk about the idea that morality doesn't actually exist, usually according to Nietzsche (i think).

Morality doesn't exist independently of what we think about it. In contrast, it doesn't matter what we think about the Earth. It will continue to exist regardless of us.

Saying something is morally wrong is like saying that the Dallas Cowboys are a good football team. You might have criterion for what counts as a good football team but it's still just your opinion. I'm free to adopt different criterion and claim a different team is equally good. Who is to say which is the real criterion for a good football team? Who is to say what the criterion are for morally good behavior?

Saying something is morally wrong is like saying that the Dallas Cowboys are a good football team. You might have criterion for what counts as a good football team but it's still just your opinion. I'm free to adopt different criterion and claim a different team is equally good. Who is to say which is the real criterion for a good football team? Who is to say what the criterion are for morally good behavior?

An action may be right is one society, but wrong in a different society, but it is still objectively right in the first society, and objectively wrong in the second society.

I don't think that if the Cowboys win the Superbowl (say) six times in a row, my judgment that it was a good football team should be described as "just my opinion" do you. If someone said that to me, I would just laugh. What do you mean, you are free to claim a different team is equally good. You are free to claim that a team that consistently winds up at the bottom of the NFL is equally good with a team that consistently wins the Superbowl? I guess so, if that means no one will imprison you for doing it. But, that's about all it could mean. We have criteria for good moral behavior just as we do for a good football team.

Actually, the fact that a football team is ranked dead last doesn't mean they aren't the best in my opinion. I just don't go based on scores. I go based on the amount of dedication and teamwork put into the game. Even though they were ranked last in points they were ranked first in dedication and therefore they are truly the best football team.

Of course, if you just want to say that my team didn't score any points, that's not a matter of opinion. But points aren't how I define the best team.

This is what I'm getting at, if one society considers one thing wrong, and another society considers that same thing right, then how can anything be labeled as moral or immoral when it can have the opposite label in another place? Morality becomes as variable as what team you support. Since morality is supposed to be what's right and what's wrong, then having it be that variable makes it weak, right? Not necessarily non-existent, just weak.

=)

Well, that may be true. You may have a peculiar notion of "best team". And I may have a peculiar notion of "good watch".

I guess the answer to your question is that if morality is relative, then I can label something moral in one society, which is not moral in a different society. Your question is like the question, "if peoples' tastes differ, how can any food taste good"? The answer is that the taste of food is relative, and that some foods taste good to some people, and other foods taste good to other people. You can understand that, can't you? I am not saying that morality is relative, mind you. I am just saying that is what it would mean to say that morality is relative.

Yeah, I understand that completely. Just because food can be considered delicious by someone and disgusting by another doesn't mean that good food doesn't exist. So, just because something is moral in one society and immoral in another society doesn't make morality a non-existent idea. I was just trying to argue the opposing side to try to totally understand the argument, but it seems to me that the opposing view is weak and easy to counter. Thanks for putting it so clearly!

Why are these views peculiar? Because they are unpopular? Well then at one point it was also peculiar to believe the Earth moves around the Sun.

Why should liking some kinds of food not be blame worthy but certain kinds of deeds be?

Do you think that the view that a watch is good if it makes a good door stop, but it doesn't matter whether it keeps time is peculiar, or is it only unpopular? Sure, the way a team plays may count in whether it is a good team, but someone who said a team that ended up at the bottom consistently was a better team than a team that ended up at the top consistently, because of the way it played, would have a lot of "'splainin' to do". Don't you think?

You're asking why opinions on food aren't condemned but certain acts are condemned?

I'm not sure, actually... I feel like they can't be connected that way because your opinion about whether or not a cookie is good doesn't negatively effect the life(lives) of other people the way killing someone might... but again, I'm not totally sure... but I'd love to hear your answer.

No. I wasn't asking that. I was just saying that if you understand what it means to say that tastes in food are relative, you should, I think, understand what it mean to say that morality is relative. Food tastes differ from culture to culture, and so does morality. Again, I am not equating the two, so you are right in saying that their practical effect are different. I am just saying that if you understand the one, you should the other.

i think morality is really existed not made, you can't imagine that an evil society is good or chaos is good but all you can think that good is good, evil is evil, morality is fixed and unchangeable.

i think morality is really existed not made, you can't imagine that an evil society is good or chaos is good but all you can think that good is good, evil is evil, morality is fixed and unchangeable.