Moral Relativity VS. An Absolute Moral System

[Dimocritus]

This was being covered in an ethics class that I'm attending. My first reaction towards the concept of moral relativity was positive. That is, until a few counter points were discussed. Some of the counters seemed a bit contrived to me, and I was able to rebut to one of them, but in the end, the case for moral relativity seemed to be defeated. However, before I give up on it completely, I wanted to see how the PDers weighed in on the subject, without including moral systems along the lines of Utilitarianism and the like, just a simple Relative Vs. Absolute. 

[LMNO]

For what intended goal?  Personal Freedom, or Social Coherence?

[Cramulus]

I'm kind of morally relativist, myself.


No rules except the ones you make, etc

[Dimocritus]

For what intended goal?  Personal Freedom, or Social Coherence?

I suppose social coherence. I don't think people should try to build a moral system with the intention of being able to justify the things they do.

I'm kind of morally relativist, myself.

I'm both surprised, and not surprised by this, strangely enough. Now, do you find yourself leaning towards subjectivism or conventionalism? Subjectivism seemed a little off to me, but it answers a lot of the problems with conventionalism, but at the same time, introduces many problems of its own.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I see two possible arguments for an Absolute Moral System. First, God made one up. Since I don't really hold a belief in God, then thats a wash. The second is that the moral system is an absolute based on some sort of emergence... that is as social systems emerged and evolved, so too did an absolute moral system.

However, since we can't really point across disparate societies and say "See, here we have the same moral system on every continent, used by most social groups"... not even simple stuff like "Don't Kill" are absolute in every social group... each social group seems to have their own set of exceptions to that basic statement.

I think of it sort of like Model Agnosticism... any map may be useful, it may show us a relative model of the territory... but if your map says "Hyre thyre Be Dragyonnes" or "Its cool to kill your daughter if its an honor killing", it may not be a very good map and you'd probably benefit by getting a new one.

Just because all moral systems are relative, it doesn't mean they're equal.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Moral absolutism.

*MY* moral absolutism.

Does that answer your dilemma?

[LMNO]

Well, if you want a society that has a strong sense of group-identity, you need to create a set of Absolute game rules that everyone agrees to through coersion, or force; those that violate the game rules are punished.  That way, the people can feel like they belong to a group, and that their game rules are somehow ordained, granted to them by a higher Authority; this has a feedback effect of infantilizing the group (Big Sky Thunder Daddy makes the rules), making them more susceptible to follow the game rules, etc.

However, this is also fundamentally unfair, since the game rules are arbitrary.  Now, we get into a tricky place when the "extreme" situations arise: Rape, Murder, etc.  Almost everyone agrees that some definition of these acts are "immoral", yet the line is vague.  

In order for humans to exist in a group, there must be behavioral game rules the group can agree on.  However, these rules do not come from any source other than collective agreement.

[Cramulus]

I've never tried to classify my personal moral code under a preexisting label. Humans and their behaviors are very fuzzy- impossible to impose one grid on the whole thing and not end up with a lot of confusion and self-contradiction. I absolutely do not believe in "absolutes".

I support Cultural Relativism - the idea that you can't pass judgment on a culture without knowing what it's like inside of it. As westerners, we're horrified by female genital mutiliation, but we literally can't see how it looks to people within that culture. So it's hard to judge what's "right" from way over here.

extending that, I think that every human being is their own culture, and they have to make rules for themselves. Most people borrow their culture's mores without really evaluating them.


If that didn't answer your question, you'll have to elaborate on the subjectivism vs conventionalism part - I'm not familliar with the jargon.

[LMNO]

That much said, female genital mutilation is pretty fucked up.

[Cramulus]

That much said, female genital mutilation seems pretty fucked up to us.

I agree, but
fixed

[The Good Reverend Roger]

That much said, female genital mutilation is pretty fucked up.

Yeah, I condemn that out of hand.  I don't care how their culture feels about it, or what their reasoning is.  They should all have their junk chopped off, if they're worried about virtue and fidelity.  That would solve the problem.

But that's different, because, you know, they're men and women are cattle.

Fuck 'em.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

That much said, female genital mutilation seems pretty fucked up to us.

I agree, but
fixed

No.  Not seems.  IS.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

What do you think about morals vs. ethics?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

What do you think about morals vs. ethics?

Ethics = rules observed to preserve morals, yes?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I realize that we are verging on philosophy wanker territory here, and I might have to step outside and vomit at any time.