Discordianism and Morality

[LMNO]

I have a fucked up irrational belief system.  You have a fucked up irrational belief system.

Shit, I copied and pasted that wrong.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is Moral Relativism.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Whole New Definition for IBS...  ITT!

[AFK]

Stay away from Scientologists with IBS. 

Explosive Dianetics FTL. 

[Cain]

Some notes:

the main problem with moral relativism is that it can often fall prey to the idea of normality being the highest ideal.  By locating the moral centre at accepted cultural norms, fairly disgusting practices, such as female genital mutilation, slavery and genocide can be acceptable.  For instance, can one argue against racism in 18th century America without reference to some sort of non-relativistic moral code?  After all, it was mostly accepted by white Americans, who made up the vasy majority of the society at the time.

The problems of universalistic moral codes relate more to epistemology.  How can we know if the moral codes that have been posited are correct?  What if we were to discover, for example, that homosexuality was objectively wrong?  Universalism tends to lead to crusading zealots and dogma.  Because these moral codes lack any form of legitimacy, being as they are based on a metaphysical fantasy, they must be enforced by strict 'education' and by force.

More in a bit.

[LMNO]

I do have to say that I do NOT agree with Moral Relativism_Malcoid, which Malcoid was also disagreeing with.

That is to say, the idea that "because your culture tells you to cut off a girl's clitoris, that's ok with me."

No, that is not ok with me.  And I will do all I can to change your morals.  But I can't say that my moral code is somehow cosmically "better".  I can, however, say my moral code is more humane and compassionate.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I do have to say that I do NOT agree with Moral Relativism_Malcoid, which Malcoid was also disagreeing with.

That is to say, the idea that "because your culture tells you to cut off a girl's clitoris, that's ok with me."

No, that is not ok with me.  And I will do all I can to change your morals.  But I can't say that my moral code is somehow cosmically "better".  I can, however, say my moral code is more humane and compassionate.

THIS!

Well said LMNO.

[Cain]

By what standards?  Your own definition confuses relativism with subjectivism.  Not to mention you are making up your own definition.  Now thats fine, if you want to do that, but you cannot complain when your own ideas get mistaken for another, well known theory.

Moral relativism does state that morality is dictated by the culture.  The individual, tabula rasa-like, then accepts that code.  Not only is this utterly repugnant, its descriptively false as well.  For example, Ruth Benedict, a well known American anthropologist:

The concept of the normal is a variant of the concept of the good. It is that which society has approved. A normal action is one which falls well within the limits of expected behavior for a particular society.

Furthermore:

In a society that values trance, as in India, they will have supernormal experience. In a society that institutionalizes homosexuality, they will be homosexual. In a society that sets the gathering of possessions as the chief human objective, they will amass property. The deviants, whatever the type of behavior the culture has institutionalized, will remain few in number.

People who do not agree with the majority are morally incorrect.  That is moral relativism, rule of the mob.  Now, I know that is not your theory, and you know that is not your theory, so why do you persist in referring to your idea as moral relativism?  Its like saying you have a great political concept and calling it Fascism.  Its not fascism, but you call it that because you like the name or whatever.

[LMNO]

Good point.

Perhaps I should call it "The Holy Transmission Of What Is Good From Our Lady What Done It All To LMNO, So Step To It, Spags."

Or THTOWIGFOLWDIATLMNOSSTIS for short.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I have a fucked up irritable bowel system. 

[Cain]

I'd like to add that in addition to Universalism and Relativism, there is a third option, that of skepticism.

Davey Hume?

Reason is the discovery of truth or falsehood. Truth or falsehood consists in an agreement or disagreement either to the real relationship of ideas, or to real existence and matter of fact.

Whatever, therefore, is not susceptible of this agreement or disagreement, is incapable of being true or false, and can never be an object of our reason. Now 'tis evident our passions, volitions, and actions, are not susceptible of any such agreement or disagreement. 'Tis impossible, therefore, they can be pronounced either true or false, and be either contrary or conformable to reason.

Thus on the whole 'tis impossible  that the distinction between moral good and evil can be made by reason; since that distinction has an influence upon our actions, of which reason alone is incapable. But reason and judgment may be the mediate cause of an action, by prompting or directing a passion.

If the thought and understanding were alone capable of fixing the boundaries of right and wrong, the  character of virtuous and vicious either must lie in some relations of objects, or must be a matter of fact.  This consequence is evident. As the operations of human understanding divide themselves into two kinds, the comparing of ideas and the inferring of matters of fact, were virtue discovered by the understanding it must be an object of one of these relations.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

By what standards?  Your own definition confuses relativism with subjectivism.  Not to mention you are making up your own definition.  Now thats fine, if you want to do that, but you cannot complain when your own ideas get mistaken for another, well known theory.

Moral relativism does state that morality is dictated by the culture.  The individual, tabula rasa-like, then accepts that code.  Not only is this utterly repugnant, its descriptively false as well.  For example, Ruth Benedict, a well known American anthropologist:

The concept of the normal is a variant of the concept of the good. It is that which society has approved. A normal action is one which falls well within the limits of expected behavior for a particular society.

Furthermore:

In a society that values trance, as in India, they will have supernormal experience. In a society that institutionalizes homosexuality, they will be homosexual. In a society that sets the gathering of possessions as the chief human objective, they will amass property. The deviants, whatever the type of behavior the culture has institutionalized, will remain few in number.

People who do not agree with the majority are morally incorrect.  That is moral relativism, rule of the mob.  Now, I know that is not your theory, and you know that is not your theory, so why do you persist in referring to your idea as moral relativism?  Its like saying you have a great political concept and calling it Fascism.  Its not fascism, but you call it that because you like the name or whatever.

Maybe I'm wrong... but in my reading 'Moral Relativism' at its base, claims that there is no Universal standard of Morality... taken to an extreme position it can hold that any judegment of another society's moral position is not possible. So I'd say that the basic claim of moral relativism is correct, there exists no Universal Moral Truth.

However, perhaps you're arguing more for moral pluralism which argues that there may be many moral systems and that those systems may be in conflict. It, though, draws a line at basic human needs. So while it will say I can't comment on the practice of polygamy in culture X, it can comment on the treatment of women in that culture (things like female circumcision etc).

[Cain]

No, moral relativism states that society dictates the morality, and that you have no outside standards of judgement, not that there is no Universal standard.  There is a Universal standard in relativism, and that is society sets the rules.

[LMNO]

I'd like to add that in addition to Universalism and Relativism, there is a third option, that of skepticism.

Davey Hume?

Reason is the discovery of truth or falsehood. Truth or falsehood consists in an agreement or disagreement either to the real relationship of ideas, or to real existence and matter of fact.

Whatever, therefore, is not susceptible of this agreement or disagreement, is incapable of being true or false, and can never be an object of our reason. Now 'tis evident our passions, volitions, and actions, are not susceptible of any such agreement or disagreement. 'Tis impossible, therefore, they can be pronounced either true or false, and be either contrary or conformable to reason.

Thus on the whole 'tis impossible  that the distinction between moral good and evil can be made by reason; since that distinction has an influence upon our actions, of which reason alone is incapable. But reason and judgment may be the mediate cause of an action, by prompting or directing a passion.

If the thought and understanding were alone capable of fixing the boundaries of right and wrong, the  character of virtuous and vicious either must lie in some relations of objects, or must be a matter of fact.  This consequence is evident. As the operations of human understanding divide themselves into two kinds, the comparing of ideas and the inferring of matters of fact, were virtue discovered by the understanding it must be an object of one of these relations.

Ooh!  I forgot about RAW's "True, False, Game Rule, or Meaningless?" classifications in QP and PR.

Morals seem to be either Game Rules or Meaningless in this sense, yeah?

[LMNO]

No, moral relativism states that society dictates the morality, and that you have no outside standards of judgement, not that there is no Universal standard.  There is a Universal standard in relativism, and that is society sets the rules.

Is it ok if I agree with part of the premise, but find the rest of it completely ridiculous?

[Cain]

I suppose it would depend what part.  Society dictates rules, but rules in and of themselves are not moral.

Also, subjective but universal morals are entirely possible.  Kierkgaard and Sartre both excelled at explaining these distinctions.