Moral Relativity?

[Twilight_guy]

Mortal relativity is great if your studying people or cultures. It's not so good when it comes to law because law isn't a subjective thing like morals, law is an objective set of rules. No body cares wither or not you believe in the law, if you break it then certain actions will be taken against you. You can argue up one way and down the other about the morals of that but that's just the way the law works.

 

[JoJo]

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.

If you're going to bother to quote me, please actually refute my arguments rather than telling me to read stuff which I've already looked at and holds no answers to my questions.

I'll repeat it, for anyone on this thread to answer. If morals are truly subjective, why bother enforcing an arbitrary law system on anyone? Heck, we might as well just let all the murderers and rapists out of jail since their moral opinion is equal to the rest of ours.

 

[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.

If you're going to bother to quote me, please actually refute my arguments rather than telling me to read stuff which I've already looked at and holds no answers to my questions.

I'll repeat it, for anyone on this thread to answer. If morals are truly subjective, why bother enforcing an arbitrary law system on anyone? Heck, we might as well just let all the murderers and rapists out of jail since their moral opinion is equal to the rest of ours.

You've obviously not even given a cursory look at what subjective morality actually means, otherwise you wouldn't have constructed such a strawman.

Well, there are a couple of alternative explanations for why you've built and stuck to your strawman, but I won't go into them because it wouldn't be very nice.

 

[JoJo]

I'll repeat it, for anyone on this thread to answer. If morals are truly subjective, why bother enforcing an arbitrary law system on anyone? Heck, we might as well just let all the murderers and rapists out of jail since their moral opinion is equal to the rest of ours.

Because we don't like it that way would be an obvious enough reason. I don't need an objective morality to tell me what I prefer. It's silly to ignore the fact that a lack of objective morality doesn't equate to me being happy with whatever occurs.

But why are you unhappy for murderers to go free? If you don't believe that their actions are wrong then imprisoning them for punishment or rehab so they don't reoffend is pointless. If you don't like people being murdered, why not?

You've obviously not even given a cursory look at what subjective morality actually means, otherwise you wouldn't have constructed such a strawman.

Well, there are a couple of alternative explanations for why you've built and stuck to your strawman, but I won't go into them because it wouldn't be very nice.

Fine, it's pretty clear you don't have anything with which to actually answer my question, otherwise you wouldn't have resorted straight to using ad hominem twice. Please don't quote me again unless it actually relates to the argument, I suggest you look at Mortai's posts for examples of good pro-subjective responses.

 

[evilneko]

I wouldn't say that the way they change over time and differ is any sort of proof that they're subjective. At least not in anything but a descriptive sense, but it wouldn't make sense to be talking in a descriptive sense for this thread. All it shows is people have different opinions, what it takes for it to not be subjective is for one set of morals, known or unknown, to be true. That there are varying opinions don't make it so that one cannot be true. Really all there is to say that morality is subjective is that there is no reason to think that it is objective.

I think you're getting subjective and objective confused. You mixed up the definitions there. "Is Star Wars a good movie?" is subjective, because each person has a different definition of "Good movie" and will thus have a different opinion. "The light is on" is, on the other hand, objective, it can be proven to be so, or proven not to be so, and a person's opinion on it doesn't make it any less so.

I'll repeat it, for anyone on this thread to answer. If morals are truly subjective, why bother enforcing an arbitrary law system on anyone? Heck, we might as well just let all the murderers and rapists out of jail since their moral opinion is equal to the rest of ours.

Because we don't like it that way would be an obvious enough reason. I don't need an objective morality to tell me what I prefer. It's silly to ignore the fact that a lack of objective morality doesn't equate to me being happy with whatever occurs.

But why are you unhappy for murderers to go free? If you don't believe that their actions are wrong then imprisoning them for punishment or rehab so they don't reoffend is pointless. If you don't like people being murdered, why not?

You've obviously not even given a cursory look at what subjective morality actually means, otherwise you wouldn't have constructed such a strawman.

Well, there are a couple of alternative explanations for why you've built and stuck to your strawman, but I won't go into them because it wouldn't be very nice.

Fine, it's pretty clear you don't have anything with which to actually answer my question, otherwise you wouldn't have resorted straight to using ad hominem twice. Please don't quote me again unless it actually relates to the argument, I suggest you look at Mortai's posts for examples of good pro-subjective responses.

I bite my thumb at you, sir. I have committed no such fallacy.

 

[Woodsey]

That's almost as good as (see: 'retarded') "well, I wouldn't bother to buy it anyway".

 

[Gloomsta]

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?

On some level, Murder is neither wrong or right and we create our own morals.

However i seriously believe that violence and murder only has outcomes such as breeding hate and misery, which is not a good outcome for anyone.

 

[JoJo]

I'll repeat it, for anyone on this thread to answer. If morals are truly subjective, why bother enforcing an arbitrary law system on anyone? Heck, we might as well just let all the murderers and rapists out of jail since their moral opinion is equal to the rest of ours.

Because we don't like it that way would be an obvious enough reason. I don't need an objective morality to tell me what I prefer. It's silly to ignore the fact that a lack of objective morality doesn't equate to me being happy with whatever occurs.

But why are you unhappy for murderers to go free? If you don't believe that their actions are wrong then imprisoning them for punishment or rehab so they don't reoffend is pointless. If you don't like people being murdered, why not?

I don't want people getting murdered, I don't want to get murdered myself. I simply don't like it.

Furthermore prove that it's pointless. It's petty of you to ask for proof and then make such declarations without any yourself.

Why does it matter why I don't like it? It simply makes me feel bad.

I wasn't asking for asking for proof, I'm asking for what you feel. You see, the problem I have with moral relativism is that it almost always seems to be a reskin of universal morality rather than being truly relativistic. You seem to believe in the same universal morality as I do, just rather than believing some actions are fundamentally wrong you simply don't like some actions. I don't see the difference.

 

[Phlakes]

That's what laws are for. That's actually exactly what laws are for, and your friend is kinda full of shit with that.

 

[HardkorSB]

I'll repeat it, for anyone on this thread to answer. If morals are truly subjective, why bother enforcing an arbitrary law system on anyone? Heck, we might as well just let all the murderers and rapists out of jail since their moral opinion is equal to the rest of ours.

You're serious?
OK, here's an explanation:

The moral code of a particular society is the result of a compromise between individuals.
Still don't get it? OK, here are some examples:
I don't want to be murdered, neither does the majority of people, therefore murder is wrong. I don't wan't my stuff stolen, neither does the majority of people, therefore theft is wrong. I don't want to be raped, neither does the majority of people, therefore rape is wrong.
That's how we create a moral code within a society. Our individual moral codes may differ but we come to an agreement so that there would be order within the society. The established moral code is then (most likely) written down as law. That's it. Society changes, so do the morals within it.

We don't let murderers and rapists out of jails because the majority of people doesn't want that. It's as simple as that.

 

[himemiya1650]

Well you can justify anything with anecdotal evidence. I roll with moral absolutism. However, whether you feel like being moral or not is a totally different story (I'm probably not moral). I'll leave it at that because past that point it becomes too boring to explain.

 

[JoJo]

I'll repeat it, for anyone on this thread to answer. If morals are truly subjective, why bother enforcing an arbitrary law system on anyone? Heck, we might as well just let all the murderers and rapists out of jail since their moral opinion is equal to the rest of ours.

You're serious?
OK, here's an explanation:

The moral code of a particular society is the result of a compromise between individuals.
Still don't get it? OK, here are some examples:
I don't want to be murdered, neither does the majority of people, therefore murder is wrong. I don't wan't my stuff stolen, neither does the majority of people, therefore theft is wrong. I don't want to be raped, neither does the majority of people, therefore rape is wrong.
That's how we create a moral code within a society. Our individual moral codes may differ but we come to an agreement so that there would be order within the society. The established moral code is then (most likely) written down as law. That's it. Society changes, so do the morals within it.

We don't let murderers and rapists out of jails because the majority of people doesn't want that. It's as simple as that.

No offence but what you've described to me sounds exactly like universal morality. People don't want to be harmed against their will, so unless it's for a greater good it's wrong. That's what you've described and I agree with it entirely. I don't see what's subjective about that.

 

[theheroofaction]

"The most dubious thing about moral relativism is that it's never promoted by anyone you'd actually want to be around- it's always the guy eating a baby who claims that good and evil depend on your cultural baggage."
Somebody going by the alias of "pooka" once said that.

As for my opinion?
Well, yeah, there is an absolute.

I mean, to avoid flaming between any other moral objectionists as to where exactly the line is crossed I'll invoke godwin.
Now, we all hate the third reich,right?
They're a relatively small group who did what just about everyone would agree is wrong to what is a much larger group, that being everyone else.
Hence, they are objectively bad, pretty simple logic to that.

Moral relativism then, is really just trying to put a number on which gains outweigh which sufferings.
Now, because we all have the same set of emotions, there is always an objective amount of gain, and an objective amount of suffering, but the whole point of moral relativism is either to
A) try to get closer to the objective truth of good and bad without having all the information
or more cynically
B) being used as an excuse to do something one believes is wrong.


So yeah, I run a pretty absolutionist ship, with some pretty barebones morality. It pretty much boils down to " do unto others as you would have them do to you"

 

[JonnyHG]

I'll repeat it, for anyone on this thread to answer. If morals are truly subjective, why bother enforcing an arbitrary law system on anyone? Heck, we might as well just let all the murderers and rapists out of jail since their moral opinion is equal to the rest of ours.

A distinction needs to be made between what is legal and what is moral. If we choose to live in a certain society, then we must follow the laws of that society. This doesn't not mean that we need to agree or disagree with what is legal or illegal, only that we must follow the law. The legal system is far from arbitrary, and is supposed to be based on justice.

I honestly find it hard to believe that you posed that as a serious question.

 

[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.

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.

Where does a definition of morality come from, except from us? Since morality is an abstract concept that comes from us, it will naturally be subject to the beliefs and emotions of society. To use a super-easy example, slavery was considered, at the very least not immoral for thousands of years. In most of what we call the civilized world, attitudes gradually changed and eventually most societies considered it immoral to own another human being as property. If a modern man went back in time to 18th century Georgia, he could call slavery immoral all he wants, but the society of the time thought otherwise and would simply view him as a loon and may even respond with violence to the perceived "****** lover." Was their definition of morality invalid? By our relative standards, yes. By theirs? No way. If there's an objective morality, what is it? Where did it come from? Whose is it?

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.

Actually I think that last demonstrates the subjectivity rather elegantly. The values for pain/pleasure for the same act would be different across individuals.

 

[evilneko]

I think you're getting subjective and objective confused. You mixed up the definitions there. "Is Star Wars a good movie?" is subjective, because each person has a different definition of "Good movie" and will thus have a different opinion. "The light is on" is, on the other hand, objective, it can be proven to be so, or proven not to be so, and a person's opinion on it doesn't make it any less so.

It's not subjective JUST because they all have different ideas of what a good movie is. It's subjective because no one opinion is correct. Even if they all had the same idea of what a good movie is it wouldn't become objective. It would be a universal belief, but it would still be subjective. So whether a lot of differing opinions exist doesn't change whether it is objective or subjective. Even if we all had differing opinions of whether the light was on or not, that wouldn't change whether it was on or not. So pointing at the fact that many differing opinions on morality exists isn't itself proof that morality is subjective.[/quote]

I concede, you may have your nitpick. Morality is subjective because a) everyone has differing opinions on what is moral, AND b) none of said opinions can be proven to be the "right" one.

Alright, so it's a big nit. >.>

Eh, I think the quote tags got messed up somewhere...