Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

Moral Relativism

jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2011 9:04:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I have two things to say with this.

1.) Can any Moral Absolutists make a Strong Argument against Moral Relativism?

It seems like all morality is relative. All reality is really subjective... Morals included.

2.) Doesn't Moral Relativism imply a Stateless Society?

Conservatives are typically Moral Absolutists... So they do not need to answer this argument (although, they do need to explain why a state needs to enforce things that are already moral absolutes)

Progressives tend to be Moral Relativists... Yet, they claim that we have some "moral" obligation to help the poor through the state. This is inconsistent with Moral Relativism.. If morals are subjective, why would the state have a moral obligation to help a certain group?

And, Minarchists think the state needs to simply protect freedom... Again, why is freedom a superior moral system?

In my view, only a stateless society is consistent with Moral Relativism. As each person can live according to their own morals. Of course, communities and societies will still have moral codes, but they will not be enforced violently through the state.
President of DDO
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2011 9:09:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The ESSENCE of morality is getting as many people as possible to obey them by force. Moral relativism is, in and of itself, a form of moral absolutism. The very principle of having others keep to their own moral codes is a purported objective moral.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2011 9:15:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
1.) Can any Moral Absolutists make a Strong Argument against Moral Relativism?
It seems like all morality is relative. All reality is really subjective... Morals included.

From a descriptive standpoint I would agree with this. People hold different opinions about morality.

Meta-ethically I am a moral realist though. That's not to say there is only one right moral action for every situation, and I feel there's confusion surrounding this concept. It's very different to say "female genital mutilation is right because it's in the culture" and "whether lying is right or not is relative to the circumstance." I agree with the latter, disagree with the former.
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2011 11:18:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/4/2011 9:04:36 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
I have two things to say with this.

1.) Can any Moral Absolutists make a Strong Argument against Moral Relativism?

I'm a sort-of moral absolutist; I believe there are moral absolutes but I don't believe in right and wrong.
Rob
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 10:06:49 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/4/2011 9:04:36 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
I have two things to say with this.

1.) Can any Moral Absolutists make a Strong Argument against Moral Relativism?


It seems like all morality is relative. All reality is really subjective... Morals included.


2.) Doesn't Moral Relativism imply a Stateless Society?

Conservatives are typically Moral Absolutists... So they do not need to answer this argument (although, they do need to explain why a state needs to enforce things that are already moral absolutes)

Progressives tend to be Moral Relativists... Yet, they claim that we have some "moral" obligation to help the poor through the state. This is inconsistent with Moral Relativism.. If morals are subjective, why would the state have a moral obligation to help a certain group?

Just becuase one understands that morals are subjective and you can choose your own moral code, doesn't mean that one moral code is not superior to another.

Morals are also broken down into more than just objective and subjective. You have individually subjective (the morals that you personally hold) and the social subjective morals (the morals that society on average holds). For example, if you find that it is morally acceptable to kill people, that doesn't mean you get to in a society that doesn't share that moral.

Typically, when progressives are saying "you have a moral obligation to help the poor" (or whatever topic it is), what they mean is "you should have a moral obligation to help the poor." (but taking out "should" makes it more of a demand, than a suggestion, and they feel better demanding than suggesting).

Now, one could rightly say that using "should" is a moral statement about what morals one should have (meta-morals, much cooler than meta-ethics). But we choose the moral code that we believe is best. Since we naturally believe that ours is best, we also believe that others should believe our superior morals (unless that is against our morals) and so try to either convince them or force them.

In cases like "murder and rape wrong," I have no problem forcing those morals on others (or at least punishing those that choose to violate those morals).


And, Minarchists think the state needs to simply protect freedom... Again, why is freedom a superior moral system?


In my view, only a stateless society is consistent with Moral Relativism. As each person can live according to their own morals. Of course, communities and societies will still have moral codes, but they will not be enforced violently through the state.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 5:29:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/5/2011 10:06:49 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/4/2011 9:04:36 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
I have two things to say with this.

1.) Can any Moral Absolutists make a Strong Argument against Moral Relativism?


It seems like all morality is relative. All reality is really subjective... Morals included.


2.) Doesn't Moral Relativism imply a Stateless Society?

Conservatives are typically Moral Absolutists... So they do not need to answer this argument (although, they do need to explain why a state needs to enforce things that are already moral absolutes)

Progressives tend to be Moral Relativists... Yet, they claim that we have some "moral" obligation to help the poor through the state. This is inconsistent with Moral Relativism.. If morals are subjective, why would the state have a moral obligation to help a certain group?

Just becuase one understands that morals are subjective and you can choose your own moral code, doesn't mean that one moral code is not superior to another.

Morals are also broken down into more than just objective and subjective. You have individually subjective (the morals that you personally hold) and the social subjective morals (the morals that society on average holds). For example, if you find that it is morally acceptable to kill people, that doesn't mean you get to in a society that doesn't share that moral.

Typically, when progressives are saying "you have a moral obligation to help the poor" (or whatever topic it is), what they mean is "you should have a moral obligation to help the poor." (but taking out "should" makes it more of a demand, than a suggestion, and they feel better demanding than suggesting).

Now, one could rightly say that using "should" is a moral statement about what morals one should have (meta-morals, much cooler than meta-ethics). But we choose the moral code that we believe is best. Since we naturally believe that ours is best, we also believe that others should believe our superior morals (unless that is against our morals) and so try to either convince them or force them.

In cases like "murder and rape wrong," I have no problem forcing those morals on others (or at least punishing those that choose to violate those morals).


This is my point, though. If there is a near social consensus that something is wrong... Society will not allow it to go unpunished with or without the State...

The state, particularly a state based on majoritarianism, violently imposes the morals of 51% of the population on the other 49% of the population
President of DDO
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 5:53:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I am a moral absolutist. Morality is a set of rules for maximizing the happiness of a particular species. Humans have a nature involving wired-in needs to protect and advance themselves, their families, and their tribe (society). If one admits it's possible to prefer one set of moral rules over another, then by a process that mathematicians call hill climbing, then there must be a maximum (or maybe one of several equal moralities).

While I believe in absolute morality, I'm not sure what it is. It's like being sue that one mountain on the moon is the highest, but being unsure which where it is. Some scientists are doing brain measurements in hopes of establishing metrics for establishing what works better objectively.

Even though we don't know how to resolve all moral conflicts, we can still be confident of some aspects of moral absolutes. The Declaration of Independence called those "self-evident." In other words, they are observed in human nature.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 6:02:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/5/2011 5:29:45 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/5/2011 10:06:49 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/4/2011 9:04:36 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
I have two things to say with this.

1.) Can any Moral Absolutists make a Strong Argument against Moral Relativism?


It seems like all morality is relative. All reality is really subjective... Morals included.


2.) Doesn't Moral Relativism imply a Stateless Society?

Conservatives are typically Moral Absolutists... So they do not need to answer this argument (although, they do need to explain why a state needs to enforce things that are already moral absolutes)

Progressives tend to be Moral Relativists... Yet, they claim that we have some "moral" obligation to help the poor through the state. This is inconsistent with Moral Relativism.. If morals are subjective, why would the state have a moral obligation to help a certain group?

Just becuase one understands that morals are subjective and you can choose your own moral code, doesn't mean that one moral code is not superior to another.

Morals are also broken down into more than just objective and subjective. You have individually subjective (the morals that you personally hold) and the social subjective morals (the morals that society on average holds). For example, if you find that it is morally acceptable to kill people, that doesn't mean you get to in a society that doesn't share that moral.

Typically, when progressives are saying "you have a moral obligation to help the poor" (or whatever topic it is), what they mean is "you should have a moral obligation to help the poor." (but taking out "should" makes it more of a demand, than a suggestion, and they feel better demanding than suggesting).

Now, one could rightly say that using "should" is a moral statement about what morals one should have (meta-morals, much cooler than meta-ethics). But we choose the moral code that we believe is best. Since we naturally believe that ours is best, we also believe that others should believe our superior morals (unless that is against our morals) and so try to either convince them or force them.

In cases like "murder and rape wrong," I have no problem forcing those morals on others (or at least punishing those that choose to violate those morals).



This is my point, though. If there is a near social consensus that something is wrong... Society will not allow it to go unpunished with or without the State...


The state, particularly a state based on majoritarianism, violently imposes the morals of 51% of the population on the other 49% of the population

I'd disagree. Like individuals will group together (strength in numbers), which can allow people to force their "morals" upon others and if the group is large enough, the others cannot defend themselves.

For example, all the white supremists decide to live in Idaho and allow morals that it is okay to kill mexicans and blacks. Obviously mexicans and blacks will move away (or be killed). But if their numbers are large enough, they can impose the violence of their morals on their surrounding neighbors. The only way to stand up to them is to be stronger than them, which requires a degree of unity. That unity does not exist in a stateless society.

Tyranny of the majority is superior to tyranny of the minority.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 6:54:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/5/2011 6:02:50 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/5/2011 5:29:45 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/5/2011 10:06:49 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/4/2011 9:04:36 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
I have two things to say with this.

1.) Can any Moral Absolutists make a Strong Argument against Moral Relativism?


It seems like all morality is relative. All reality is really subjective... Morals included.


2.) Doesn't Moral Relativism imply a Stateless Society?

Conservatives are typically Moral Absolutists... So they do not need to answer this argument (although, they do need to explain why a state needs to enforce things that are already moral absolutes)

Progressives tend to be Moral Relativists... Yet, they claim that we have some "moral" obligation to help the poor through the state. This is inconsistent with Moral Relativism.. If morals are subjective, why would the state have a moral obligation to help a certain group?

Just becuase one understands that morals are subjective and you can choose your own moral code, doesn't mean that one moral code is not superior to another.

Morals are also broken down into more than just objective and subjective. You have individually subjective (the morals that you personally hold) and the social subjective morals (the morals that society on average holds). For example, if you find that it is morally acceptable to kill people, that doesn't mean you get to in a society that doesn't share that moral.

Typically, when progressives are saying "you have a moral obligation to help the poor" (or whatever topic it is), what they mean is "you should have a moral obligation to help the poor." (but taking out "should" makes it more of a demand, than a suggestion, and they feel better demanding than suggesting).

Now, one could rightly say that using "should" is a moral statement about what morals one should have (meta-morals, much cooler than meta-ethics). But we choose the moral code that we believe is best. Since we naturally believe that ours is best, we also believe that others should believe our superior morals (unless that is against our morals) and so try to either convince them or force them.

In cases like "murder and rape wrong," I have no problem forcing those morals on others (or at least punishing those that choose to violate those morals).



This is my point, though. If there is a near social consensus that something is wrong... Society will not allow it to go unpunished with or without the State...


The state, particularly a state based on majoritarianism, violently imposes the morals of 51% of the population on the other 49% of the population

I'd disagree. Like individuals will group together (strength in numbers), which can allow people to force their "morals" upon others and if the group is large enough, the others cannot defend themselves.

For example, all the white supremists decide to live in Idaho and allow morals that it is okay to kill mexicans and blacks. Obviously mexicans and blacks will move away (or be killed). But if their numbers are large enough, they can impose the violence of their morals on their surrounding neighbors. The only way to stand up to them is to be stronger than them, which requires a degree of unity. That unity does not exist in a stateless society.

Tyranny of the majority is superior to tyranny of the minority.

Why Would Unity Not Exist in a Stateless Society?

And, in this situation, you presume that these white nationalists would have unity, but mexicans and blacks would not. Why?

Democracy is Tyranny of the Majority... Monarchy, Oligarchy, etc. are Tyranny of the Minority... Statelessness is Individuals Making Transactions Wihout a State to Violently Impose a Certain Group's Will... Sure, some will still violently impose their will without a state... But, this will not be legitamized by society...
President of DDO
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 7:37:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/5/2011 6:54:33 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/5/2011 6:02:50 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/5/2011 5:29:45 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/5/2011 10:06:49 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/4/2011 9:04:36 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
I have two things to say with this.

1.) Can any Moral Absolutists make a Strong Argument against Moral Relativism?


It seems like all morality is relative. All reality is really subjective... Morals included.


2.) Doesn't Moral Relativism imply a Stateless Society?

Conservatives are typically Moral Absolutists... So they do not need to answer this argument (although, they do need to explain why a state needs to enforce things that are already moral absolutes)

Progressives tend to be Moral Relativists... Yet, they claim that we have some "moral" obligation to help the poor through the state. This is inconsistent with Moral Relativism.. If morals are subjective, why would the state have a moral obligation to help a certain group?

Just becuase one understands that morals are subjective and you can choose your own moral code, doesn't mean that one moral code is not superior to another.

Morals are also broken down into more than just objective and subjective. You have individually subjective (the morals that you personally hold) and the social subjective morals (the morals that society on average holds). For example, if you find that it is morally acceptable to kill people, that doesn't mean you get to in a society that doesn't share that moral.

Typically, when progressives are saying "you have a moral obligation to help the poor" (or whatever topic it is), what they mean is "you should have a moral obligation to help the poor." (but taking out "should" makes it more of a demand, than a suggestion, and they feel better demanding than suggesting).

Now, one could rightly say that using "should" is a moral statement about what morals one should have (meta-morals, much cooler than meta-ethics). But we choose the moral code that we believe is best. Since we naturally believe that ours is best, we also believe that others should believe our superior morals (unless that is against our morals) and so try to either convince them or force them.

In cases like "murder and rape wrong," I have no problem forcing those morals on others (or at least punishing those that choose to violate those morals).



This is my point, though. If there is a near social consensus that something is wrong... Society will not allow it to go unpunished with or without the State...


The state, particularly a state based on majoritarianism, violently imposes the morals of 51% of the population on the other 49% of the population

I'd disagree. Like individuals will group together (strength in numbers), which can allow people to force their "morals" upon others and if the group is large enough, the others cannot defend themselves.

For example, all the white supremists decide to live in Idaho and allow morals that it is okay to kill mexicans and blacks. Obviously mexicans and blacks will move away (or be killed). But if their numbers are large enough, they can impose the violence of their morals on their surrounding neighbors. The only way to stand up to them is to be stronger than them, which requires a degree of unity. That unity does not exist in a stateless society.

Tyranny of the majority is superior to tyranny of the minority.

Why Would Unity Not Exist in a Stateless Society?

Because unity causes the creation of states. Will go into in the next section.


And, in this situation, you presume that these white nationalists would have unity, but mexicans and blacks would not. Why?

Because in Idaho the WS out number blacks and mexicans. Then they take baby steps (never bite off more than you can chew, do one town at a time). Take only a small town that is too small to fight back.

The reason that WS will unify is because they have a desire to cause harm, and the most effective way to do that is to unify. That is why they will unify (and likely form a militant government to fund their killings).

Now, many blacks and mexicans will try to unify to resist, but if their numbers and powers are less, then they will fail in their resistance.

Now lets say that the Blacks in the SE and the Mexicans in the SW (who out number the White Supremists in the NW) decide, "hey, we're not going to let them do that to out brothers, just because they are thousands of miles away doesn't mean they can do that." In order for them to defend those in Idaho that are being killed, they have to form a large number of people to fight (*cough* army *cough*) and send them over there. And these people need to be paid, since they are not going to be at home working and making money. Obviously a small town that is being oppressed is not going to be able to afford the costs of a massive military to protect it, so how is the army paid, not just wages, but transportation to get that far to help? Charity? And how long do you think charity would support any kind of military opperation? It would last maybe a month or so until people (the charity givers) would say "screw this, I'm not giving my hard earned money to this group so that they can send my neighbor to go die on a battlefield 1,400 miles away. Those other people can take care of themselves."

This is more so true when people are willingly giving their money, since they are more conciously aware of how much they are losing. When their taxes are nothing but an after thought, they don't mind spending quite as much. They can go longer before they say "hey, wait a minute, is this really the best thing to do?"

Which means, either a government will form, or the unity will break down and not happen on any kind of large level.


Democracy is Tyranny of the Majority... Monarchy, Oligarchy, etc. are Tyranny of the Minority... Statelessness is Individuals Making Transactions Wihout a State to Violently Impose a Certain Group's Will... Sure, some will still violently impose their will without a state... But, this will not be legitamized by society...

Statelessness is Tyranny of... anyone that wants to do it.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 8:04:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/4/2011 9:04:36 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
I have two things to say with this.

1.) Can any Moral Absolutists make a Strong Argument against Moral Relativism?


It seems like all morality is relative. All reality is really subjective... Morals included.


2.) Doesn't Moral Relativism imply a Stateless Society?

Conservatives are typically Moral Absolutists... So they do not need to answer this argument (although, they do need to explain why a state needs to enforce things that are already moral absolutes)

Progressives tend to be Moral Relativists... Yet, they claim that we have some "moral" obligation to help the poor through the state. This is inconsistent with Moral Relativism.. If morals are subjective, why would the state have a moral obligation to help a certain group?

And, Minarchists think the state needs to simply protect freedom... Again, why is freedom a superior moral system?


In my view, only a stateless society is consistent with Moral Relativism. As each person can live according to their own morals. Of course, communities and societies will still have moral codes, but they will not be enforced violently through the state.

Moral Absolutism is defined as, "A philosophy based on the notion that the ends never justify the means, or that morality should be the absolute guide of human actions, particularly in regard to international law."
http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com...

1.) This is false, because there is no end; every action has a reaction.

Moral Relativism is defined as, "A philosophy that human actions must be placed in context as a means to inform international law."
http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com...

2.) No this has nothing to do with anarchy.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle