Moral Relativity?

[lionrwal]

I was having a discussion with my friend about his justifications for piracy, and he told me a story about "moral relativity." Basically it went that these two people murdered someone, and they claimed that it was because of moral relativity, and the judge gave them a very short sentence instead of life. If you don't know what it is, it's the belief that you can't impose your own morals on someone because there are no set morals for anyone. This was literally his only justification.

I do believe that people have different sets of morals, but I don't buy that someone could believe murder is good.

So what's your take on moral relativity?

 

[Baneat]

That's a weak response on his part to be honest. "Why? fuck it, I play the insta-win card!"

Anyway, I don't like moral relativity because if it's all relative then it may as well not exist, and I'm not keen on a world where morality is irrelevant. I'm appealing to the consequences, it's not really convincing but I have nothing to lose from assuming it does exist, in the end.

 

[JoJo]

Moral relativity is an interesting idea in theory that falls down when you try to apply it to reality. If all morals are relative, why do we bother to enforce the law? If moral relativity was true then we would have no reason to treat a murdering rapist any differently from your aged mother.

In truth, all "good" actions have a positive, whereas all "bad" actions have a negative effect. Where disagreements arise is where people can't agree on whether an action results in a positive or a negative, which is especially evident in moral dilemmas where you have to choose between the lesser of two bad actions.

 

[the spud]

I'm not sure society should follow a strict moral code, but rather I think we should all try to be empathetic to others. Morality will come as a result.

 

[evilneko]

Since there's no such thing as objective morality, all morals are subjective. That is, relative.

Moral relativity is an interesting idea in theory that falls down when you try to apply it to reality. If all morals are relative, why do we bother to enforce the law? If moral relativity was true then we would have no reason to treat a murdering rapist any differently from your aged mother.

In truth, all "good" actions have a positive, whereas all "bad" actions have a negative effect. Where disagreements arise is where people can't agree on whether an action results in a positive or a negative, which is especially evident in moral dilemmas where you have to choose between the lesser of two bad actions.

This is simply untrue. I suggest you actually read a few things about subjective morality, or watch a video on the subject of relative vs. objective morality or the evolution of morality from AronRa, Thunderf00t, or dprjones.

Moral relativism does not mean complete, utter anarchy at all. It means that what is and isn't moral is defined by society at large. Thus while a disturbed individual may have no moral qualms with skinning cats and raping dogs, society does and will punish him for those acts.

 

[Axolotl]

Since there's no such thing as objective morality, all morals are subjective. That is, relative.

Do you anything to back this up? Becuase on the face of it, it's a very wrong statement.

 

[lionrwal]

I was having a discussion with my friend about his justifications for piracy, and he told me a story about "moral relativity." Basically it went that these two people murdered someone, and they claimed that it was because of moral relativity, and the judge gave them a very short sentence instead of life. If you don't know what it is, it's the belief that you can't impose your own morals on someone because there are no set morals for anyone. This was literally his only justification.

I do believe that people have different sets of morals, but I don't buy that someone could believe murder is good.

So what's your take on moral relativity?

Moral relativism isn't just the belief that you cannot impose your morals on others. Just because morals aren't objective doesn't automatically lead to the conclusion that you cannot impose them on others. In fact such an idea is incompatible with true moral relativity as it tries to give one particular moral belief, that you cannot impose your morals on others, an objective status.

I'm just restating exactly what my friend told me. I never even heard of i before he told me.

 

[TheIronRuler]

I was having a discussion with my friend about his justifications for piracy, and he told me a story about "moral relativity." Basically it went that these two people murdered someone, and they claimed that it was because of moral relativity, and the judge gave them a very short sentence instead of life. If you don't know what it is, it's the belief that you can't impose your own morals on someone because there are no set morals for anyone. This was literally his only justification.

I do believe that people have different sets of morals, but I don't buy that someone could believe murder is good.

So what's your take on moral relativity?

.
But... Rule of the Majority... In a Democracy, the Majority usually DOES impose their morals like they do in not letting Gays marry in most countries (And killing them in some).
But in a multi-party system, not a retarded one like the USA's, Minority groups will fight for the welfare of their own minority...
Pirates aren't a minority group whose rights need to be protected... They are criminals.

 

[evilneko]

Since there's no such thing as objective morality, all morals are subjective. That is, relative.

Do you anything to back this up? Becuase on the face of it, it's a very wrong statement.

The way morals change over time and differ--sometimes wildly--across cultures shows pretty conclusively that morality is subjective. Even for things that the vast majority of human beings consider immoral, you can find groups who disagree, or qualify it differently. (Hell, the very idea of applying qualifiers to moral questions shows its subjectivity) Morality is a man-made product, shaped by and subject to the beliefs and emotions of the society. It is not a quantifiable thing, you can't show me an equation that defines morality, so it is subjective.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

I was having a discussion with my friend about his justifications for piracy, and he told me a story about "moral relativity." Basically it went that these two people murdered someone, and they claimed that it was because of moral relativity, and the judge gave them a very short sentence instead of life. If you don't know what it is, it's the belief that you can't impose your own morals on someone because there are no set morals for anyone. This was literally his only justification.

I do believe that people have different sets of morals, but I don't buy that someone could believe murder is good.

So what's your take on moral relativity?

It makes me think of something Sir Charles Napier once said about the English ban on the practice of burning widows(called Sati)....

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."​

I bring that quote up because it touches on one culture(English/British) judging and punishing another culture(Indian/Desi).

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

Since there's no such thing as objective morality, all morals are subjective. That is, relative.

Moral relativity is an interesting idea in theory that falls down when you try to apply it to reality. If all morals are relative, why do we bother to enforce the law? If moral relativity was true then we would have no reason to treat a murdering rapist any differently from your aged mother.

In truth, all "good" actions have a positive, whereas all "bad" actions have a negative effect. Where disagreements arise is where people can't agree on whether an action results in a positive or a negative, which is especially evident in moral dilemmas where you have to choose between the lesser of two bad actions.

This is simply untrue. I suggest you actually read a few things about subjective morality, or watch a video on the subject of relative vs. objective morality or the evolution of morality from AronRa, Thunderf00t, or dprjones.

Moral relativism does not mean complete, utter anarchy at all. It means that what is and isn't moral is defined by society at large. Thus while a disturbed individual may have no moral qualms with skinning cats and raping dogs, society does and will punish him for those acts.

This. Everything is relative, as they say. You only believe a large number of things because of the culture you were raised in. We all think rape is bad, but a person in a war torn third world country where rape is used as a tool of war would have a different opinion. There are no objective rules or morality.

 

[Axolotl]

Since there's no such thing as objective morality, all morals are subjective. That is, relative.

Do you anything to back this up? Becuase on the face of it, it's a very wrong statement.

The way morals change over time and differ--sometimes wildly--across cultures shows pretty conclusively that morality is subjective.

Our claims about physics and the nature of the universe vary wildly as well (far more than morality even) would you claim that as evidence that the physical world is subjective?

Even for things that the vast majority of human beings consider immoral, you can find groups who disagree, or qualify it differently.

The majority of Humans claim that there is a God others disagree, or define the God differently, is God's existence subjective?

(Hell, the very idea of applying qualifiers to moral questions shows its subjectivity)

How?

Morality is a man-made product,

So is mathematics, doesn't make it subjective.

shaped by and subject to the beliefs and emotions of the society.

Once again, do you have anything to back this up? Why would morality be changable? You've siad that moral claims have changed but that doesn't in any way mean that morality itself has changed.

It is not a quantifiable thing, you can't show me an equation that defines morality, so it is subjective.

Really? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felicific_calculus]
Sure you can argue with that specific equation but it shows you can make equations for it and you can quantify it.